Tolerance, the Catholic Way - PbNation
Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

 
Archived Thread - Cannot Edit  
Old 07-01-2007, 08:39 AM #1
Crippled Dogma
 
 
Crippled Dogma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Jax, FL
Tolerance, the Catholic Way

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...491260,00.html

Another example of Catholic tolerance? Does this jive with Jesus' teachings in the NT? Is this an example of the KJV and Catholic versions and their differences?

It is interesting that on one side of the road, the Pope is trying to calm your driving. On the other, hopefuly out of most people's view, one of his minions is barring entry to people he doesn't like?

What if Manson might have been converted at this very visit? What a win that would hve been for Catholicism! Hopefully the Vatican will correct this issue and invite Manson back for a special visit.

The beauty alone might do the trick. That is why they build such large and extravagant edifices. Purely to be awe inspiring. Why use the money for good, when we can build and maintain huge cathedrals! They might also bring in the Pope for a visit and they can compare Hitler fantasies. What a pair that would be.

So, is this intolerance or a message some of us are missing?
__________________
Oh, king eh? Very nice. And how'd you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.

Raider Ball! Raider Ball! Raider Ball!
Crippled Dogma is offline  
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 07-01-2007, 09:11 AM #2
NicoleW
 
 
NicoleW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Buffalo, New York
First of all, the article does not even say who the person was that didn't let Manson in. You call it, "one of the pope's minions" but it could have just been a lowly employee or worker there. Could be affiliated with the Catholic Church or maybe not. We don't know because it dosen't say, so stop jumping to conclusions. When visiting cathedrals in London that were big tourists attractions, I found many workers there that weren't even Catholic. And even if the person was Catholic, does one person's actions speak for the whole church?

Furthermore, I wouldn't take anything more from it than what Manson himself did when he said, "Unfortunately they didn't let me in, probably because I was wearing lipstick." There is usually a dress code in affect at churches/cathedrals that is even more vigourously enforced when it is such a tourist attraction. It's still a church and people, famous or not, probably have to dress appropriately when entering.

Lastly, it appears that you have a bone to pick with the Catholic Church. This is obvious by the cracks you make towards the end of your post. Of course you will get something evil and sinister from this very mundane occurrence because that is exactly what you want to find. If you don't like the Catholic Church, stop reading articles about them.
NicoleW is offline  
Old 07-01-2007, 08:16 PM #3
Cruiseman
 
 
Cruiseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Quote:
Originally Posted by NicoleW View Post
First of all, the article does not even say who the person was that didn't let Manson in. You call it, "one of the pope's minions" but it could have just been a lowly employee or worker there. Could be affiliated with the Catholic Church or maybe not. We don't know because it dosen't say, so stop jumping to conclusions. When visiting cathedrals in London that were big tourists attractions, I found many workers there that weren't even Catholic. And even if the person was Catholic, does one person's actions speak for the whole church?

Furthermore, I wouldn't take anything more from it than what Manson himself did when he said, "Unfortunately they didn't let me in, probably because I was wearing lipstick." There is usually a dress code in affect at churches/cathedrals that is even more vigourously enforced when it is such a tourist attraction. It's still a church and people, famous or not, probably have to dress appropriately when entering.

Lastly, it appears that you have a bone to pick with the Catholic Church. This is obvious by the cracks you make towards the end of your post. Of course you will get something evil and sinister from this very mundane occurrence because that is exactly what you want to find. If you don't like the Catholic Church, stop reading articles about them.
My hero

but really QFT they are very strict on clothing too just adding an emphesis to it like you must have your shoulder covered and they will not be let in if they are dressed improperly.
Cruiseman is offline  
Old 07-02-2007, 02:51 AM #4
bayareablaze15
Thats Whats Up
 
bayareablaze15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Foster City
..
__________________
"im like a sore dick ....... you cant beat me"

DM7 - CP 68/45

Black Mini Aussie Toy
bayareablaze15 is offline  
Old 07-02-2007, 08:39 AM #5
Tuftymah
S.T. Roker
 
Tuftymah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by NicoleW View Post
First of all, the article does not even say who the person was that didn't let Manson in. You call it, "one of the pope's minions" but it could have just been a lowly employee or worker there. Could be affiliated with the Catholic Church or maybe not. We don't know because it dosen't say, so stop jumping to conclusions. When visiting cathedrals in London that were big tourists attractions, I found many workers there that weren't even Catholic. And even if the person was Catholic, does one person's actions speak for the whole church?

Furthermore, I wouldn't take anything more from it than what Manson himself did when he said, "Unfortunately they didn't let me in, probably because I was wearing lipstick." There is usually a dress code in affect at churches/cathedrals that is even more vigourously enforced when it is such a tourist attraction. It's still a church and people, famous or not, probably have to dress appropriately when entering.

Lastly, it appears that you have a bone to pick with the Catholic Church. This is obvious by the cracks you make towards the end of your post. Of course you will get something evil and sinister from this very mundane occurrence because that is exactly what you want to find. If you don't like the Catholic Church, stop reading articles about them.
Whether or not the worker in question is a Catholic or not is not the issue, the fact remains that they are working for/on behalf of the Catholic Church and putting their policies into practice. Catholic or not, workers don't just make up rules that already imposed by their superiors.

Whether or not he was barred entry because he was wearing lipstick (as it was his guess as to the reason) is interesting, yes it's true that Catherdrals and Minsters have dress codes in place however they usually involve the removal of hats etc, not whether a visitor can wear makeup or not. If indeed he wasn't allowed in because he was wearing lipstick there are two possible implications, none of which reflect well on the Church. a) If the issue was that anyone was wearing lipstick in the Cathedral then it begs the question as to whether we've been transported to a fundamentalist Muslim society where women must dress modestly in the presence of men, unfortuately we're in a Western culture where people may dress how they see fit not in the Middle Ages. b) if the issue was that it was a MAN wearing lipstick this certainly would fall in line with the Catholic policy on homosexuality yet is it morally acceptable to discriminate against someone because of their percieved sexuality? Of course not.

The issue may have been that it was Marylin Manson who wanted to get into the Catherdral, as said above, these places of worship were deliberately created with aesthetic beauty at the very core of the concept, most likely to try and overawe vistors with a view to showing the Church's prosperity and converting them. It's a shame that he has been denied the chance to be converted, perhaps it's because he's a reasonably intelligent human being, not the usual criteria for the targets of Catholic conversion.
__________________
-={YORKSHIRE PRIDE}=-
Tuftymah is offline  
Old 07-02-2007, 03:15 PM #6
Crippled Dogma
 
 
Crippled Dogma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Jax, FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by NicoleW View Post
First of all, the article does not even say who the person was that didn't let Manson in. You call it, "one of the pope's minions" but it could have just been a lowly employee or worker there. Could be affiliated with the Catholic Church or maybe not. We don't know because it dosen't say, so stop jumping to conclusions. When visiting cathedrals in London that were big tourists attractions, I found many workers there that weren't even Catholic. And even if the person was Catholic, does one person's actions speak for the whole church?

Furthermore, I wouldn't take anything more from it than what Manson himself did when he said, "Unfortunately they didn't let me in, probably because I was wearing lipstick." There is usually a dress code in affect at churches/cathedrals that is even more vigourously enforced when it is such a tourist attraction. It's still a church and people, famous or not, probably have to dress appropriately when entering.

Lastly, it appears that you have a bone to pick with the Catholic Church. This is obvious by the cracks you make towards the end of your post. Of course you will get something evil and sinister from this very mundane occurrence because that is exactly what you want to find. If you don't like the Catholic Church, stop reading articles about them.
Yes, that employee speaks for the church. As already pointed out by Tuftymah. Who pays the check in the end? You did! Can you name any actors fired recently for saying inappropriate comments? Yes and the list goes on and on. The point being anyone, even the janitor or mail clerk can speak for a company.

The right thing would be if the church apologized or at least tried to clarify the situation. Obviously not a hot topic in the media, so they will decide to ignore the event.

And people like you Nicole will condone those very same actions done by YOUR church. So you think, on the basis of information contained, the church was justified? That is my point. I like to demonstrate how people can be a member of an organization and not make a statement. This goes way beyond the silliness of Manson touring a cathedral.

Why do people choose to not make negative comments about an organization they belong to? Many in the church do it all of the time. As I have already written, by not disputing that, you condone their actions. Therefore you agree. As Tuftymah mentions, sad the church can choose the views they do as if we are still in the middle ages or maybe just the fancy of some yahoo at any level in the church.

Why not try and convert him? That shows character, compassion and most of all TOLERANCE. I really do believe your church, and almost all "Christian" churches would vote Jesus out of your congregation. And before you write that people don't get voted out, research that. It has happened in more ways than one. Wasn't a catholic church, it doesn't matter. Did you make a statement about that topic? Did you agree? Just illustrating the point. Your church has very little tolerance for anything but conformists.

And lastly, I will read about the church. All churches. They prey on people of weak mind and will and are hell bent (pun intended) on ruling the world. Especially the Catholic church. They are just pissy they don't run the place anymore. But at least their decadent remains are still visible. Have you seen St. Peter's? It is awe inspiring! The whole Vatican is. It is beautiful to go see, however that is tempered by the fact that it wasn't done to just be pretty, it was done to show power. POWER and nothing else. Do you live in America? Stuff happens all the time, it is even evident on these very pages.

But thanks for your concern. I am sure you were totally benevolent in your comments. Try growing your church into something respectable, I'll help by showing you the places I catch them being intolerant, greedy, or evil. Yes, evil, they condoned pedophilia and that by any stretch should be grounds for stoning! Why are you still a part of it? To change that? Or just because your club has the prettiest churches and more money?


Tuftymah, very well written response!
__________________
Oh, king eh? Very nice. And how'd you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.

Raider Ball! Raider Ball! Raider Ball!
Crippled Dogma is offline  
Old 07-02-2007, 04:06 PM #7
NicoleW
 
 
NicoleW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Buffalo, New York
Don't worry but I have quite alot to say about both your posts. I will get to it later tonight when the babies are asleep. Just letting you know that iam not ignoring the points you bring up.
NicoleW is offline  
Old 07-02-2007, 09:08 PM #8
NicoleW
 
 
NicoleW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Buffalo, New York
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuftymah View Post
Whether or not the worker in question is a Catholic or not is not the issue, the fact remains that they are working for/on behalf of the Catholic Church and putting their policies into practice. Catholic or not, workers don't just make up rules that already imposed by their superiors.

I have worked at many places where I had to make judgement calls myself...where there were only guidelines but no explicit directions to follow in certain circumstances. Maybe this is what the worker did, make a judgement call. Whatever the case, the point still stands that one person does not speak for the entire Catholic Church!

Whether or not he was barred entry because he was wearing lipstick (as it was his guess as to the reason) is interesting, yes it's true that Catherdrals and Minsters have dress codes in place however they usually involve the removal of hats etc, not whether a visitor can wear makeup or not.

Well, who knows what else he was or was not wearing. We just don't know that many details about the event so all of this is just conjecture anyways.

If indeed he wasn't allowed in because he was wearing lipstick there are two possible implications, none of which reflect well on the Church. a) If the issue was that anyone was wearing lipstick in the Cathedral then it begs the question as to whether we've been transported to a fundamentalist Muslim society where women must dress modestly in the presence of men, unfortuately we're in a Western culture where people may dress how they see fit not in the Middle Ages.

Ok, obviously the church has nothing wrong with women wearing makeup so why even bring up this point?

b) if the issue was that it was a MAN wearing lipstick this certainly would fall in line with the Catholic policy on homosexuality yet is it morally acceptable to discriminate against someone because of their percieved sexuality? Of course not.

Manson does not just wear lipstick...he puts white makeup on, wears different color contacts...the whole 9 yards. Maybe they thought his attire, including his makeup, was done out of disrespect or as a practical joke. Who knows. But we all have seen Manson and all know that his style is quite extreme, especially for a church setting.

The issue may have been that it was Marylin Manson who wanted to get into the Catherdral, as said above, these places of worship were deliberately created with aesthetic beauty at the very core of the concept, most likely to try and overawe vistors with a view to showing the Church's prosperity and converting them.

First of all, your assumption of why Catholic Churches are decorated so ornately is incorrect. They do this to lift one's mind to heaven. To give us an idea, a glimpse of the beauty and majesty that awaits us in heaven. God also commanded much care and concern to be taken when constructing his Holy Temples/churches and one can even see this within the Old Testament. If honor and glory are to be given to God, shouldn't this be done even more so in the House of God?

It's a shame that he has been denied the chance to be converted, perhaps it's because he's a reasonably intelligent human being, not the usual criteria for the targets of Catholic conversion.
Who ever said they were trying to convert Manson and I highly doubt that was the reason for him going to the cathedral. Like Manson was going to be converted by just walking into a church anyways, come on! And that last comment was just a low blow. I would think that a person of your knowledge would not have to sink to such levels to get their point across.

Last edited by NicoleW : 07-02-2007 at 09:45 PM.
NicoleW is offline  
Old 07-02-2007, 09:43 PM #9
NicoleW
 
 
NicoleW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Buffalo, New York
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crippled Dogma View Post
Yes, that employee speaks for the church.

Um really, Grey's Anatomy and the Catholic Church are really quite different. So you base a whole religion that is over 2000 years old on the action of one person. That is pretty bad. Do we think all Muslims are terroists because a small minority of them are or that all African Americans are criminals because some are. One person does not speak for an entire organization, religion or group of people. I think that would be obvious.

The right thing would be if the church apologized or at least tried to clarify the situation. Obviously not a hot topic in the media, so they will decide to ignore the event.

Who knows what happened. Maybe the Vatican and/or pope has not even heard about what happened. I sure didn't until I saw it on a pb forum, who would have guessed. It's not that big of deal. I wouldn't mind knowing a little more about the situation, but its not going to make or break my view on the Catholic Church. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

And people like you Nicole will condone those very same actions done by YOUR church.

And people like you will take any small thing they see as negative or wrong and completely blow it out of proportion!

So you think, on the basis of information contained, the church was justified?

I couldn't say either way. I don't have enough information to make that judgement call and frankly, neither do you. Who knows what Manson was wearing or how he was acting and who knows the reason why his admittance was barred or the motives behind that. It is all just speculation at this point. You woould have to be there or speak to the people involved to know what to think.

Why do people choose to not make negative comments about an organization they belong to? Many in the church do it all of the time. As I have already written, by not disputing that, you condone their actions. Therefore you agree.

You don't know me and don't know what I think. I have no problem pointing out inadequacies or wrongdoings on the part of certain members of the church. They aren't perfect just because they are Catholic. But I am Catholic and I would like to give the Church the benefit of the doubt. The thing is, you seem to have such a dislike for Catholicism that you will go to the other extreme and take something morally neutral or even possibly good and turn it on its head. Many non-believers do it all the time. You see the worst in everything. When the church does something good, you are blind to that but when there is a misstep, you are all over it. Seeing only what you want to.

Why not try and convert him?

So the church should just force their beliefs down his throat just because he stepped into a church to admire the art? Did Manson ever show an interestb in Catholicism? Maybe how he was acting or what he was wearing would cause scandal or be an occassion to sin for other people. Who knows?

That shows character, compassion and most of all TOLERANCE. I really do believe your church, and almost all "Christian" churches would vote Jesus out of your congregation.

I do agree that unless something he was wearing or doing was extremely out of line or disrespectful, I would never turn away a person who shows interest in the Church. But again, I was not there and don't know what happened or the reasoning behind the actions taken and neither do you.

And before you write that people don't get voted out, research that. It has happened in more ways than one. Wasn't a catholic church, it doesn't matter.

What are you talking about here? And of course it matters. The only thing I know about voting someone out is with the Jehovah's Witnesses, and they aren't even christian.

Did you make a statement about that topic? Did you agree? Just illustrating the point.

You lost me here again. What are you talking about?

Your church has very little tolerance for anything but conformists.

You want a bet. There are so many dissenters within the church that even act in outright rebellion and hatred towards the church and it is tolerated and nothing seems to be done about it. The majority of Catholics don't even 'conform' to the most basic rules the church has but are allowed to run amuck. And it isn't about conformity, it is about orthodoxy and faithfulness. If you don't like what the church believes, then why even affiliate yourself with that church?

And lastly, I will read about the church. All churches. They prey on people of weak mind and will and are hell bent (pun intended) on ruling the world. Especially the Catholic church. They are just pissy they don't run the place anymore.

Ummmm, ok. Whatever you say. So now because I am Catholic and don't conform to YOU and YOUR beliefs, I am of weak mind and will. THANKS!!! Nice insult. I appreciate it. Aren't sterotypes fun

But at least their decadent remains are still visible. Have you seen St. Peter's? It is awe inspiring! The whole Vatican is. It is beautiful to go see, however that is tempered by the fact that it wasn't done to just be pretty, it was done to show power. POWER and nothing else.

Have you ever read the Bible? Well if not, there is a story in the New Testament where a woman annoints Jesus' head with very expensive and fragrant oils. His apostles yell at her for 'wasting' the oil and for not selling it instead for it was worth a year's wages. Jesus instead rebukes the apostles and said she had done a good thing. That the poor will always be with them but that he wouldn't. Same concept applies. Yes, there are a million and one things that the Chuerch can spend money on, and she spends a great deal of it in helping those in need. But it is not wrong to honor and glorify God and make his House beautiful and even awe-inspiring yes...but not to point back to the church as you claim, but to point to our eternal destiny in heaven, to point to the power, beauty and majesty of our Lord.

But thanks for your concern. I am sure you were totally benevolent in your comments. Try growing your church into something respectable,

Again, you are just going off. Now I am so horrible because I don't agree with you. And for the second time, or was it the third, forth, I don't know I lost count, you assume to know me and what I do. I realize the vhurch can use some improvement and I do my part by being faithful, teaching, and acting as an example to others. You have no idea what I do to help the church!

...by showing you the places I catch them being intolerant, greedy, or evil.

Well learn to pick your battles and worry about the really important stuff. You want to talk about the Crusades, the sex scandal, etc. fine with me but come on. Stop being so nit picky and seeing evil in very mundane occurences.

Yes, evil, they condoned pedophilia and that by any stretch should be grounds for stoning!

I totally agree that it was absolutely horrible and those involved should be punished to the full extent of the law. But maybe read up a little bit on that...

Q&A: Understanding the Priest Scandal; Description: There has been much misunderstanding and obfuscation regarding the priestly sex abuse disaster that unraveled this year. Here's a clear look at the issues.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0211fea2.asp

The "Gay" Priest Solution; Description: A modest proposal to solve the "gay" priest problem.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0405fr.asp

A Crisis of Saints; Description: Scandals are rocking Catholics in this country. Anti-Catholic rhetoric is at a fever pitch – indeed, maybe your own faith has been shaken. How should we respond to the horrific headlines? There's only one authentic Catholic response.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0205fea1.asp


Why are you still a part of it? To change that? Or just because your club has the prettiest churches and more money?

What do I care about pretty churches and $? Does that benefit me in any way? I am Catholic because I believe in their teachings and find truth and meaninng in them. I would like to change the things that need changing but it certainly does not have to do with their teachings and doctrines. People need to learn more about those so they can start living authentic Catholic lives. Lives that are in imitation of Christ.

Tuftymah, very well written response!
Of course you would think so. He just backs you up on what you already think.

Last edited by NicoleW : 07-02-2007 at 09:48 PM.
NicoleW is offline  
Old 07-06-2007, 08:14 AM #10
Crippled Dogma
 
 
Crippled Dogma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Jax, FL
Um really, Grey's Anatomy and the Catholic Church are really quite different.

No, the point is the same as with many other examples I could use. Including the Company I work for firing someone for speaking out of place. You are ignoring the point. If you do not say you disagree, then you condone the words.

So you base a whole religion that is over 2000 years old on the action of one person. That is pretty bad. Do we think all Muslims are terroists because a small minority of them are or that all African Americans are criminals because some are. One person does not speak for an entire organization, religion or group of people. I think that would be obvious.

No, I base my opinion on 2,000 years of horrible examples they have set. Besides, and once again, if I perform an action that is against the beliefs of an organization and they do not refute it, they are condoning it. How much effort did the church spend trying to distance themselves from priests who commited abuse? They had to, because if they ignored the issue they would have been hammered even worse.


Who knows what happened. Maybe the Vatican and/or pope has not even heard about what happened. I sure didn't until I saw it on a pb forum, who would have guessed. It's not that big of deal. I wouldn't mind knowing a little more about the situation, but its not going to make or break my view on the Catholic Church. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

And people like you Nicole will condone those very same actions done by YOUR church.

Thank you for making my above statement true. Your right, as I said in my other response the issue is really not that important. Just symptomatic of the underlying, bigger problem.

And people like you will take any small thing they see as negative or wrong and completely blow it out of proportion!

Wrong, as I am now writing a third time, no blowing it up, just bringing it to light. Evidence of the bigger problem.

I couldn't say either way. I don't have enough information to make that judgement call and frankly, neither do you. Who knows what Manson was wearing or how he was acting and who knows the reason why his admittance was barred or the motives behind that. It is all just speculation at this point. You woould have to be there or speak to the people involved to know what to think.

Nice try. Did it ever cross your mind to see if the church may have been wrong in this situation? Did you assume they would have done the right thing and Manson was obviously wrong? I bet you did, especially based on your response. Post that you questioned the Churches actions, tried to find out more, and would hammer them if they were wrong. That is the point of my exercise, to see who blindly assumes their organization acts correctly all of the time.

You don't know me and don't know what I think. I have no problem pointing out inadequacies or wrongdoings on the part of certain members of the church. They aren't perfect just because they are Catholic. But I am Catholic and I would like to give the Church the benefit of the doubt. The thing is, you seem to have such a dislike for Catholicism that you will go to the other extreme and take something morally neutral or even possibly good and turn it on its head. Many non-believers do it all the time. You see the worst in everything. When the church does something good, you are blind to that but when there is a misstep, you are all over it. Seeing only what you want to.

No kidding I don't know you. That's why we share information. It is how I would learn what you think. The thing is, your initial response does nothing to back up you would question the church. That is the point as I iterated above. Even more so with the statement of giving the church the benefit of the doubt. If they are dear to you, why not question them even more? Hold them to the HIGHEST standards? "Benefit of the doubt" also seems to mean "assumed they would do the right thing".

It is ironic you point out my knowledge of you at the beginning of this part and then assume a huge bit about me at the end. Funny! I love when people do good things. I could care less if they are purple, Hindu, Martian, or Atheists. My issue starts when groups of people can't walk the walk, but will talk the talk while trying to push their morals on me. And this is not a morally neutral issue. When an organization such as them are involved every bit of morality is involved. Their track record sucks.


So the church should just force their beliefs down his throat just because he stepped into a church to admire the art? Did Manson ever show an interestb in Catholicism? Maybe how he was acting or what he was wearing would cause scandal or be an occassion to sin for other people. Who knows?

Who said anything about cramming anything down anyone's throat? I surely didn't! It could be assumed I would obviously jump on that issue! Do Catholics believe in sharing the word? Do they have missionaries? Have they spent billions on spreading the word? I thought it was all about love for your fellow man that you would try to save his soul. Not cram it, just try to save him from eternal damnation. Interest has to be shown before you will try to save someone?

Ummmm, ok. Whatever you say. So now because I am Catholic and don't conform to YOU and YOUR beliefs, I am of weak mind and will. THANKS!!! Nice insult. I appreciate it. Aren't sterotypes fun

You missed the entire point. You posted about me not reading about the church and ignore them. I disagreed and mentioned why I will always pay attention to what ANY cult is doing. You might not be fooled by any tricks the church could perform. Many will be. Those are the ones who are of weak mind. If YOU choose to put YOURSELF in that group, fine. Don't get irritated with me, I did NOT put you in that group.

Have you ever read the Bible? Well if not, there is a story in the New Testament where a woman annoints Jesus' head with very expensive and fragrant oils. His apostles yell at her for 'wasting' the oil and for not selling it instead for it was worth a year's wages. Jesus instead rebukes the apostles and said she had done a good thing. That the poor will always be with them but that he wouldn't. Same concept applies. Yes, there are a million and one things that the Chuerch can spend money on, and she spends a great deal of it in helping those in need. But it is not wrong to honor and glorify God and make his House beautiful and even awe-inspiring yes...but not to point back to the church as you claim, but to point to our eternal destiny in heaven, to point to the power, beauty and majesty of our Lord.

So cathedrals of days gone by are done so decadently as to glorify God? Are you serious? Do people really draw the conclusion that God is great if his church is great? So if your church was impoverished and bland your slamming on God? The amount you honor and glorify him is based on how much freaking gold is in the house? WOW!

Again, you are just going off. Now I am so horrible because I don't agree with you. And for the second time, or was it the third, forth, I don't know I lost count, you assume to know me and what I do. I realize the vhurch can use some improvement and I do my part by being faithful, teaching, and acting as an example to others. You have no idea what I do to help the church!

Oh the irony! Once again you help to prove my point. By just being faithful you are improving the church? If your church decided to start raising its basic IQ by sterilizing the retarded, your faithfulness is helping? Or maybe you could admit it might be doing something wrong. As in mentioning that it was intolerant of them to not allow Manson a visit. Even if he had stupid lipstick on.

...by showing you the places I catch them being intolerant, greedy, or evil.

Well learn to pick your battles and worry about the really important stuff. You want to talk about the Crusades, the sex scandal, etc. fine with me but come on. Stop being so nit picky and seeing evil in very mundane occurences.

Yes, evil, they condoned pedophilia and that by any stretch should be grounds for stoning!

I totally agree that it was absolutely horrible and those involved should be punished to the full extent of the law. But maybe read up a little bit on that...

What is your point about these links? What are you trying to teach me? I bet I know more about what went on with that than you do. Did you read any of those links you posted? We could dissect the last one alone at length. It tries to push blame away from the church in a way that is way off base.

What do I care about pretty churches and $? Does that benefit me in any way? I am Catholic because I believe in their teachings and find truth and meaninng in them. I would like to change the things that need changing but it certainly does not have to do with their teachings and doctrines. People need to learn more about those so they can start living authentic Catholic lives. Lives that are in imitation of Christ.

None of this was personal to you. Unless you want to identify yourself as weak minded and intolerant. So you would not change any teachings or doctrines. I find it interesting you agree 100%. As you mentioed before many do not agree at all. I guess topics for another day...
__________________
Oh, king eh? Very nice. And how'd you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.

Raider Ball! Raider Ball! Raider Ball!
Crippled Dogma is offline  
Old 07-06-2007, 08:45 AM #11
Overbear
#2 Anti Stim Club Member!
 
Overbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: San Leandro, CA
Overbear is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by NicoleW View Post
Lastly, it appears that you have a bone to pick with the Catholic Church. This is obvious by the cracks you make towards the end of your post. Of course you will get something evil and sinister from this very mundane occurrence because that is exactly what you want to find. If you don't like the Catholic Church, stop reading articles about them.
The point, is to find the hipcroacy in the church, ALL churches not just catholic, so that we, the educated, can point them out. It is in this hope that perhaps one day we can finally end the ignorance and in turn end the need for humans to cling to antiquated beliefs in a ghost in the clouds, and finally get moving forward as a species into the future. We as a species will be far better off once we eradicate organized religion from our presence.


At least thats what I got out of the thread starters post.
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man - Thomas Jefferson

A democracy is, two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.
A republic is, two sheep and a wolf voting on dinner.
A constitutional republic is, voting on dinner is expressly forbidden and the sheep are armed.

Armed gays don't get bashed - www.pinkpistols.org

ssgaR: 'faith is the path of least resistance'."

Rapier7: Don't be a douche
Overbear is offline  
Old 07-06-2007, 09:13 AM #12
Furious_J
bockbock velcrowrapper
 
Furious_J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Nor:Car
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overbear View Post
The point, is to find the hipcroacy in the church, ALL churches not just catholic, so that we, the educated, can point them out.
Hum I tend to find hypocrisy in all walks of life not just the church I guess I have a higher education than some.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Overbear View Post
It is in this hope that perhaps one day we can finally end the ignorance and in turn end the need for humans to cling to antiquated beliefs in a ghost in the clouds, and finally get moving forward as a species into the future.We as a species will be far better off once we eradicate organized religion from our presence.
Yes Tolerance for all people FTW

Quote:
Originally Posted by Overbear View Post
At least thats what I got out of the thread starters post.
__________________
velcrowrappers ftw
"Originally Posted by EY3 velociraptors dont eat burritos." Originally Posted by warbeak2099 "Velcrowrappers do."
"Originally posted by sixty nine: all this religion stuff makes me hungry, ima get some tacos" "Originally posted by Derr: I do my best thinking on the toilet."
CK I kneel for Jesus
RL#594

Please support the March of Dimes!
http://www.marchforbabies.org/s_team_page.asp?seid=620728

Last edited by Furious_J : 07-06-2007 at 02:03 PM.
Furious_J is offline  
Old 07-06-2007, 09:56 AM #13
girl from the gym
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious_J View Post

Yes people Tolerance for all FTW
He said religion, not the people of the religion.
__________________
**I move away from the mic to breathe in.

"Originally posted by 512: and you are japanese I'm guessing?

go watch some animated tentacle porn."
girl from the gym is offline  
Old 07-06-2007, 10:48 AM #14
Overbear
#2 Anti Stim Club Member!
 
Overbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: San Leandro, CA
Overbear is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by girl from the gym View Post
He said religion, not the people of the religion.
Thank you for knowing the difference. Its my stance that the religion itself is the problem not the people in it, they, in my opinion are just misguided by the lies pushed on them in the guise of "faith"
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man - Thomas Jefferson

A democracy is, two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.
A republic is, two sheep and a wolf voting on dinner.
A constitutional republic is, voting on dinner is expressly forbidden and the sheep are armed.

Armed gays don't get bashed - www.pinkpistols.org

ssgaR: 'faith is the path of least resistance'."

Rapier7: Don't be a douche
Overbear is offline  
Old 07-06-2007, 11:17 AM #15
NicoleW
 
 
NicoleW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Buffalo, New York
Man, this is going to be a little bit confusing to respond to with all the red print. But I'll do my best. Why don't you just use the bold instead?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crippled Dogma View Post
No, the point is the same as with many other examples I could use. Including the Company I work for firing someone for speaking out of place. You are ignoring the point. If you do not say you disagree, then you condone the words.

I can neither agree nor disagree because I don't know the reasons why it was done or what exactly was said. I am open to either possbilities, either the worker was the one in error or Manson. I don't know because I haven't the details. Again, neither do you and frankly, neither does Manson. He dosen't really know why he was barred entrance either. So we don't know if the worker was "speaking out of place" or if his actions were justfied. But just like you seem to take the side of Manson and I the Church, maybe we are both wrong in doing either since we don't know the whole story.

No, I base my opinion on 2,000 years of horrible examples they have set. Besides, and once again, if I perform an action that is against the beliefs of an organization and they do not refute it, they are condoning it. How much effort did the church spend trying to distance themselves from priests who commited abuse? They had to, because if they ignored the issue they would have been hammered even worse.

And in those 2000 years, nothing good has come from the Catholic Church and its members. Only horrible things, right. Again, its a matter of you seeing the glass half empty and I seeing the glass half full. While I acknowledge past wrongdoings, I also see there is also great good coming from the church and for me at least, the good far outweighs the bad. Look at the amazing saints of the church. Look at more recent examples like Mother Theresa and Saint Padre Pio. Are those some of the horrible examples you mention? Even with the atrocities of the sex scandal, the good priests who were not involved far outweigh the bad priests who were.

And the church cannot respond to every little thing that takes place. She couldn't possibly keep up with all of her members and the issues that surround them. It is too much. So she tends to focus on the more important things, and yes, that does include the priestly sex scandal. That was very important indeed. And at least for now, no that does not involve Marilyn Manson. Just because they cannot comment on every little thing that gets someone going does not mean they condone or condemn it. It means exactly, that, they had no comment. Do not take more from it than you are suppose to.

Thank you for making my above statement true. Your right, as I said in my other response the issue is really not that important. Just symptomatic of the underlying, bigger problem.

For you, what do see the bigger, underlying problem being? Just curious.

Wrong, as I am now writing a third time, no blowing it up, just bringing it to light. Evidence of the bigger problem.

Again, and what is this bigger problem that you speak of?

Nice try. Did it ever cross your mind to see if the church may have been wrong in this situation? Did you assume they would have done the right thing and Manson was obviously wrong? I bet you did, especially based on your response. Post that you questioned the Churches actions, tried to find out more, and would hammer them if they were wrong. That is the point of my exercise, to see who blindly assumes their organization acts correctly all of the time.

How would I go about seeing who was wrong in this situation? This is not breaking news. If more has been written on the incident or more information gathered, please post it. I did not assume the Church or Manson was right or wrong in this instance. I frankly didn't care. It's not that big a deal to me either way. If the worker was wrong, so be it and if Manson was wrong, so be it. Like I said before, it is not going to make or break my view of the church either way. Until the Church issues a statement saying they hate Manson and that he is evil and weird and different and that is why he was barred entry and they condone that course of action, it really dosen't provide a problem for me. If they issued a statement saying he was barred entry because he was dressed inappropriately or that there wasn't enough security measures in place to accomodate a celebrity, etc., etc. thats fine too. Or if they said the worker was in error and issued an apology to Manson, I'm cool with that too.

My main issue was with you assuming the worst. So since you took the side of Manson, I took the side of the church and gave a counter possibility. Post that you questioned Manson, tried to find out more and would hammer him if he were wrong. That is the point of my response to you, to see who blindly assumes an organization acts incorrectly all of the time or if they can open their minds up to the possibility that maybe someone else might be at fault.

No kidding I don't know you. That's why we share information. It is how I would learn what you think. The thing is, your initial response does nothing to back up you would question the church. That is the point as I iterated above. Even more so with the statement of giving the church the benefit of the doubt. If they are dear to you, why not question them even more? Hold them to the HIGHEST standards? "Benefit of the doubt" also seems to mean "assumed they would do the right thing".

It is ironic you point out my knowledge of you at the beginning of this part and then assume a huge bit about me at the end. Funny! I love when people do good things. I could care less if they are purple, Hindu, Martian, or Atheists. My issue starts when groups of people can't walk the walk, but will talk the talk while trying to push their morals on me. And this is not a morally neutral issue. When an organization such as them are involved every bit of morality is involved. Their track record sucks.
I have done alot of questioning before I even embraced Catholicism. I feel that they have proven themselves of prudent judgement and right action thus far so why would I start doubting them now. I know very little about Manson and the few things I do know about him are not favorable thus why I would seem to question him more. Look at it this way. If your mom told you one thing and a stranger told you another, who would you be more apt to question? Your mother who you have known your whole life, who loves and cares about you and has only wanted what was best for you...or, the absolute stranger that you know nothing about? Furthermore, I do hold the church to the highest standards when we are speaking of the church as a whole. But I also know that the church individually is made up of sinful human beings and I don't expect them to be perfect just because they are Catholic. Neither should you.

And who is the group that you speak of? This was an isolated incident involving ONE person who may or may not have been a memeber of the church. If the church issued a statement on this, that would be different, but they haven't. Who isn't walking the walking while talking the talk? Again, I will express my same sentiments that the church cannot answer to every, single, solitary little thing that happens. Its just not possible and would take their time and resources away from that which really matters. Stop assuming that no comment means they condone or condemn anything. That is a faulty assumption on your part. If you are so heated about this, write the Vatican or your local bishop a letter then.

I am going to continue responding in another post because these are getting a little long and may be hard for one to read. Please wait to respond until I have finished my response to your initial post.

Last edited by NicoleW : 07-06-2007 at 09:08 PM.
NicoleW is offline  
Old 07-06-2007, 02:14 PM #16
Furious_J
bockbock velcrowrapper
 
Furious_J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Nor:Car
Quote:
Originally Posted by girl from the gym View Post
He said religion, not the people of the religion.
Yes he did but if you follow said religion, you are a part of it. Just as the guy that turned Manson away was a representative of the church. For what its worth I wasn't always the biggest fan of and still sometimes despise organized religion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Overbear View Post
Thank you for knowing the difference. Its my stance that the religion itself is the problem not the people in it, they, in my opinion are just misguided by the lies pushed on them in the guise of "faith"
Religion wouldn't be if there were no followers, correct.

As for the topic at hand Manson wasn't allowed in maybe perhaps because of a dress code. Ive been in clubs that you couldn't go on the dance floor unless you were in cowboy boots was I upset no it was thier policy. No clear reason was given why he wasn't allowed in if he was asked to remove "lipstick, or an article of clothing" before entering and said naw, no thanks I'll just go elsewhere then thats on him. If it were Disney world there may be a point but this was a church. There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance.
__________________
velcrowrappers ftw
"Originally Posted by EY3 velociraptors dont eat burritos." Originally Posted by warbeak2099 "Velcrowrappers do."
"Originally posted by sixty nine: all this religion stuff makes me hungry, ima get some tacos" "Originally posted by Derr: I do my best thinking on the toilet."
CK I kneel for Jesus
RL#594

Please support the March of Dimes!
http://www.marchforbabies.org/s_team_page.asp?seid=620728

Last edited by Furious_J : 07-06-2007 at 02:17 PM. Reason: more words
Furious_J is offline  
Old 07-06-2007, 09:31 PM #17
NicoleW
 
 
NicoleW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Buffalo, New York
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crippled Dogma
Who said anything about cramming anything down anyone's throat? I surely didn't! It could be assumed I would obviously jump on that issue! Do Catholics believe in sharing the word? Do they have missionaries? Have they spent billions on spreading the word? I thought it was all about love for your fellow man that you would try to save his soul. Not cram it, just try to save him from eternal damnation. Interest has to be shown before you will try to save someone?

No, but you cannot help someone that dosen't want to be helped. The conversion of a soul is ultimately up to God and that person and no one else. But if we want to go into converting, we would still have to ascertain who the man was that barred his entrance. Was he even Catholic? Again, this is just deducing something from the story that simply isn't there. We are just pulling conclusions out left and right with no solid info to go on.

You missed the entire point. You posted about me not reading about the church and ignore them. I disagreed and mentioned why I will always pay attention to what ANY cult is doing. You might not be fooled by any tricks the church could perform. Many will be. Those are the ones who are of weak mind. If YOU choose to put YOURSELF in that group, fine. Don't get irritated with me, I did NOT put you in that group.

What tricks is the church performing in order to fool mindless simpletons like myself? Maybe I am just too stupid to see them?

So cathedrals of days gone by are done so decadently as to glorify God? Are you serious? Do people really draw the conclusion that God is great if his church is great? So if your church was impoverished and bland your slamming on God? The amount you honor and glorify him is based on how much freaking gold is in the house? WOW!

That isn't the conclusion that is to be drawn. One is suppose to acknowledge that worship and glory are due to God alone and the church is to remind one of this reality and to point their hearts and minds towards heaven. I am much more able to become engrossed in prayer when I am surrounded by such majesty and beauty than just a plain empty room. It helps me get in that mind set and to focus my attention on God and my main goal in life...to get to heaven. I have heard similar sentiments from many others as well. And there is nothing wrong with adorning our churches with beautiful stain-glassed windows, reverent statues and beautiful artwork. Does God not command similar care and concern to be undertaken in the building of his Holy Temple in the Old Testament?

Oh the irony! Once again you help to prove my point. By just being faithful you are improving the church?

Yes, I am. We need more faithful followers that live in imitation of Christ and his church. This is something the church is lacking right now. If some of our priests were faithful to the church, the sex scandal would have never happened.

If your church decided to start raising its basic IQ by sterilizing the retarded, your faithfulness is helping? Or maybe you could admit it might be doing something wrong. As in mentioning that it was intolerant of them to not allow Manson a visit. Even if he had stupid lipstick on.

The church would never and has never condoned sterilization or any form of contraception for that matter. I know the church's teachings well enough to know that something like that being taught is an impossibility. Now if the man did indeed discriminate against Manson for wearing lipstick, I would say that was wrong. But until the church officially teaches in a binding manner that such behaver is to be approved of and elevated to doctrine, I still would have no bone to pick with the church. my problem would be with that man alone.

What is your point about these links? What are you trying to teach me? I bet I know more about what went on with that than you do. Did you read any of those links you posted? We could dissect the last one alone at length. It tries to push blame away from the church in a way that is way off base.

Whatever made you think that I am in a position to teach you anything? I am not your superior nor do I wish to be. You are not some little boy that needs to be schooled in the ways of the church, so don't even think I would treat you like one. I am just providing some extra material for the sex scandal, something the church did not just allow or condone. Could it have been handled better, I would vote yes. Does the church think this behavior is acceptable. Absolutely not. If you like, we can go through and dissect that last article if you wish.

None of this was personal to you. Unless you want to identify yourself as weak minded and intolerant. So you would not change any teachings or doctrines. I find it interesting you agree 100%. As you mentioed before many do not agree at all. I guess topics for another day...
__________________

I would not change any teachings or doctrines of the church. I would change the way certain things are handled or the way certain members of the church act, but this is not the same thing. Many do not agree because they were not properly catechised on the church's teachings and are either ignorant of them or have misunderstandings regarding them, for the most part. This, for example, is something I would change. The church's way of preaching and teaching. It seems to be done less and less and when it is done, it is poor and ineffective. There is great treasures within the teachings of the Catholic Church, but the way they transmit those truths is in need of some major improvement. Indeed this is a topic for another day, or another thread...maybe.

Last edited by NicoleW : 07-06-2007 at 09:34 PM.
NicoleW is offline  
Old 07-06-2007, 09:49 PM #18
Overbear
#2 Anti Stim Club Member!
 
Overbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: San Leandro, CA
Overbear is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious_J View Post
Religion wouldn't be if there were no followers, correct.
As I said, sheep that are fooled into believing eather because they are told to, are tricked, lied to, or a combination of that.
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man - Thomas Jefferson

A democracy is, two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.
A republic is, two sheep and a wolf voting on dinner.
A constitutional republic is, voting on dinner is expressly forbidden and the sheep are armed.

Armed gays don't get bashed - www.pinkpistols.org

ssgaR: 'faith is the path of least resistance'."

Rapier7: Don't be a douche
Overbear is offline  
 




Posting Rules
Forum Jump