[kdbrich]

1. I'd love to talk some more with this bishop you mention. I'm guessing he's a liberal...and that really is what is making the church irrelevant in today's world--the lack of a real stance on anything.

2. Christ would not just look the other way in regards to homoesexuality--he might write names in the sand, as you say--but he'd also tell the homosexual to "go and sin no more". That seems to be a major failing of today's liberal church--the inability to actually recognize sin and take a stance against it.

3. Personal attacks, I agree, need not take place.

[ehenningsen]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

1. I'd love to talk some more with this bishop you mention. I'm guessing he's a liberal...and that really is what is making the church irrelevant in today's world--the lack of a real stance on anything.

2. Christ would not just look the other way in regards to homoesexuality--he might write names in the sand, as you say--but he'd also tell the homosexual to "go and sin no more". That seems to be a major failing of today's liberal church--the inability to actually recognize sin and take a stance against it.

3. Personal attacks, I agree, need not take place.

Again, this is an opinion.. And it doesn't make your opinion more valid.. In the US we are suppose to be able to live according to our belief systems.. And while my belief system comprises of peace, love, backing our neighbors, and do not harm.. Your idea is to limit ALL people according to your beliefs alone.. And that is not the intention of 'freedom'..

For many milennia people have coined the term 'freedom' to restrict rights of a small group of people for a majority, and this is something that america was designed to avoid.. And for some reason, mankind in the USA wants to get back to that socialistic concept of 'freedom'

[mattpoulsen]

Kdrich,

This is exactly the problem. You minimize the entire issue into simply concluding that the bishop "must be a liberal." And then you conclude if he is then he's wrong. You act as though liberal is a bad word. Well, you might want to consider that Jesus, by any definition was a liberal. And the republicans who freed the slaves and imparted them with civil rights were liberals. Liberalism and conservatism are NOT by default correct or incorrect.

Actually, the guy is about 75 years old. Plus, I have spoke with several run-of-the-mill Priests who have the same stance.

In fact, I would argue that the Catholic church is possibly the most modernized major religion out there. At the higher levels, they take a very nuanced view of the world.

How can this be reconciled? How can a religion that Western claims is infallible be evolving? Further, how is it that my wife is not a true Catholic...even though she holds more tightly to the views of the actual leaders of the church then does Western??

Western's view of the Catholic church is roughly equivalent to what is taught in 2nd grade catechism. My point is the Catholic church has a much more nuanced view of the universe and is far less dogmatic and insular as he would prefer.

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

Kdrich,

This is exactly the problem. You minimize the entire issue into simply concluding that the bishop "must be a liberal." And then you conclude if he is then he's wrong. You act as though liberal is a bad word. Well, you might want to consider that Jesus, by any definition was a liberal. And the republicans who freed the slaves and imparted them with civil rights were liberals. Liberalism and conservatism are NOT by default correct or incorrect.

In my experience, liberal churches, and liberal clergy tend to have a low view of scripture. I think that's a bad thing. That was my point.

Actually, the guy is about 75 years old. Plus, I have spoke with several run-of-the-mill Priests who have the same stance.

Further illustration of the fact that this sort of thinking is spreading throughout the catholic church.

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

I'm done with this childish bs.

I might have believed you if this sentence wasn't followed by another page of Dr. Poulsen's childish bs.

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

My wife is much more of a christian than you every will be.

Perhaps so.

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

So, do you think its okay to touch the skin of a dead pig??

Yes. Had sausage and bacon for breakfast this morning. God has declared all foods clean (Acts 11:6-10).

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

Do you think its okay for the "infallible church" to only forgive Galileo in the 1990s for having the audacity to suggest the Earth wasn't the center of the universe??

1. If you understood the first thing about Catholicism you would know that the Catholic Church has never, ever claimed to be "infallible" in its discipline and governance. St. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake by a local council of the Church - the same Church which later infallibly canonized her.

2. The Church lifted the ban on Galileo's works in 1718, 72 years after his death. In 1741 Pope Benedict XIV authorized the publication of a new edition of Galileo's complete scientific works. Galileo was not censured because of his position: other Catholic scientists and astronomers had entertained heliocentrism without any ecclesiastical difficulties. He was censured because he insisted on a confrontation with the Church before his theory had been proven.

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

Do you have a problem with the Church's evolving view of science and religion??

I don't know what you mean by this. The Church's view of science and religion has not "evolved" so far as defined doctrine is concerned. Catholic theologians engage the claims of science (often recklessly and imprudently in my opinion), and the Church promotes a dialogue of faith and reason, but none of this changes the Faith.

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

Its funny. I was having a conversation with Bishop of the Catholic church he he repeatedly said that fundamentalists were destroying the catholic church. And he several times mention that those higher up the church heirarchy became less and less fundamentalist. But they were forced to adhere to much of the fundamentalist doctrine because of the ignorant masses who simply couldn't wrap their head around the idea that things like evolution and the big bang were not be definition at odds with anything the church said.

He also went on and on about how another big problem was that so many of the fundamentalists for some reason adhered to old testament teachings when christs teachings clearly were at odds with those teachings.

This is astounding. In the first place, I don't trust you to represent a Catholic bishop accurately, or your wife accurately, or anyone or anything else accurately. I think you hear what you want to hear and twist it to suit your own private agenda. Bishop Bruskewitz of Lincoln is a solidly orthodox bishop and would certainly never say such things. Bishop Curtiss of Omaha? I don't know much about him, but I know an excellent priest in his diocese who would be utterly scandalized by such remarks (if true).

And yet, it's believable. There are some bishops in this country who think the Catholic Faith is their own personal theololgical smorgasborg. It's sad that a bishop even left enough room for you to plausibly interpret his remarks this way.

You seem to have a preoccupation with the creation/evolution issue, which I have never mentioned here. Catholics are free to believe in some kind of human evolution, and to believe the earth is billions of years old - within certain theological parameters. However, what the Church teaches definitively about Genesis and creation (http://www.kolbecenter.org/church_teaches.htm - broken link) makes human evolution highly improbable.

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

Finally, I'm not a "20 something" who just read "Voltaire." I'm a well established, well published, "30 something" who has so much more education and practical experience with the actual minds of the world than you its laughable. You need to turn of Rush and Michael Savage and quit with the hate.

Oh, cut it out with the nasuea-inducing bluster before someone calls your miserable little bluff again. If you are even remotely typical of the doctorate holders produced by our universities these days, I weep for our country.

[mattpoulsen]

I responded to Kldrich's post because I tend to respect his opinion, even though we disagree with each other a lot, and wanted to point out my issue with the "liberalism/conservatism" problem.

That is why I responded.

Again, I am done responding your personal attacks.

The likes of you are tearing the country apart. So, enjoy your bigoted, hateful, and condescending existence.

[smithy77]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

1. I'd love to talk some more with this bishop you mention. I'm guessing he's a liberal...and that really is what is making the church irrelevant in today's world--the lack of a real stance on anything.

2. Christ would not just look the other way in regards to homoesexuality--he might write names in the sand, as you say--but he'd also tell the homosexual to "go and sin no more". That seems to be a major failing of today's liberal church--the inability to actually recognize sin and take a stance against it.

3. Personal attacks, I agree, need not take place.

Christ didn't address homosexuality. The Old Testament and St. Paul (in his letters) did, but then again, the Old Testament laws would have you put to death for mowing the lawn on Saturdays, and St. Paul was A-OK with slavery.

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by smithy77

Christ didn't address homosexuality. The Old Testament and St. Paul (in his letters) did, but then again, the Old Testament laws would have you put to death for mowing the lawn on Saturdays, and St. Paul was A-OK with slavery.

Arguing from silence is really a weak argument.

He upheld the OT, which explicitly condemned it. You've also misinterpreted the Sabbath work and slavery as well...but that would be expected.

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

Again, I am done responding your personal attacks.

You can dish it out, Poulsen, but you sure can't take it. Anyway, I'm glad you are renouncing personal attacks.

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

So, enjoy your bigoted, hateful, and condescending existence.

Hypocrisy? Nah.

[omahajosh618]

It's time to give it up. Arguing on the internet is pointless. Has anyone here accomplished anything?