newbie
-
Posts
1,566 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by newbie
-
-
I can use alliteration all I want betsy. Sorry if my poetic license is so troubling for you.
-
I think Betsy has been pretty dignified in her arguments. Newbie, it is quite apparent that "defrocked" was not a play on words. Where is the play?
Seems like alliteration is lost on you. That's okay. I keep forgetting you Christian types have to have everything in black and white.
-
Mercer is hilarious and I'm glad he aired those little segments. They have absolutely nothing to do with any feelings of jealousy or inferiority to the U.S. They just show, from the street, how little educated the yanks are in regards to their northern neighbour.
-
Please B., explain to me how doing all but defrocking these bishops because of their sexual orientation is not bigoted. It was known full well that they were gay when they were put in their position and now the church is openly condemning them for their sexuality.
Maybe the Catholics will take 'em.
-
I was warned not to feed the trolls. Should have listened.
-
Hmm, you're obviously not a Catholic betsy. The only ignorance and anger I"ve seen in this thread seem to be pouring out of your keyboard. But that's okay. I suggest getting it all out, and I"ll continue to cite hyprocricy wherever I see it.
-
Betsy, Dunno if you read my edited post but I still have a problem with a pedophile priest preaching the "correct" word of God while abusing children, and being protected by a Bishop and other Priests. Can't help but judge a bit there.
-
The standard is judged not by me....but by somebody Else. The judgement we're talking about isn't his preaching. It's his behaviour. I can decide whether the head of the United Church of Canada is preaching the Word of God when he denies the divinity of Christ. I can make the decision to either stay or leave if I'd had the misfortune of being part of that community, I'd have to deal with his heresy. But it's not my place to judge his behaviour (unless you mean by "judge", deciding whether I agree with him or not) or the consequences of his behaviour.
So in your world preaching the word is good enough. I take it then you would accept whole-heartedly a gay minister, or a divorced one, perhaps an ex-con? Hey, what about a Muslim convert?
-
Besty, betsy, now who's angry? Are you saying the Pope isn't held to any higher standards than a walk-in Christian? If so, why preach then? These faulty leaders are major hypocrites and fall back on "they'll forgive me" when they falter. As for judgement (you seem to have more than enough to go around), I'll judge hyprcrisy anytime I see it. I do not know Dick Dewert, but his "sin" is to be judged. My play on words was just that - to mean a preacher out of the pulpit. Man, you do take things a little too literal.
First of all, no one is angry here. A little frustrated, maybe.
Never mind to be judged. By whom?
And no, the Pope is not held to a higher standard by anyone who counts in this issue.
I thought I made it very clear that it's not your opinion that matters here. Don't imagine I'm wrong about that....I'm not.
You're just another one of us. In the eyes of God.
Nay-saying does not an argument make. You're wrong and I'm right. It's just that simple. No argument.
Your argument has no merit, either logically or philosophically. Let alone, religiously.
You gotta be kidding. "You're wrong and I'm right."? Methinks you've been on the playground too long. So if the Pope isn't held to a higher standard, then why bother listening or showing up at church. Don't you Christian types like to have a minister/preacher you can feel is at least following the word of God? But in your books, I guess it obviously doesn't matter.
edited: And another thing, thoughts like yours fostered the kind of behaviour that caused irreversible shame, guilt and pain on thousands of abused boys and girls who thought their Priest was next to God.
-
Besty, betsy, now who's angry? Are you saying the Pope isn't held to any higher standards than a walk-in Christian? If so, why preach then? These faulty leaders are major hypocrites and fall back on "they'll forgive me" when they falter. As for judgement (you seem to have more than enough to go around), I'll judge hyprcrisy anytime I see it. I do not know Dick Dewert, but his "sin" is to be judged. My play on words was just that - to mean a preacher out of the pulpit. Man, you do take things a little too literal.
-
The first few lines of the article reveal a lot of positive things....adhering to Christian belief.
He admitted to adultery.
He resigned, doing the right thing for the ministry and for himself.
It was a play on words Betsy. And as far as the "human" thing, most Christians use the "he's only human" line when one of their leaders exhibits a moral transgression. These heads of the church are held to a higher standard, particularly when they preach against the very impropriety they engage in.
-
Agnosticism is another way of being non-offensive or non-confrontational because you think you need to respect religious freedom. "Well I don't know if there is or isn't a God." Please. "Maybe there is or maybe there isn't" is atheism. Agnostics don't live their life as though there's a God. They don't worship God, they don't BELIEVE in God, they don't have FAITH in God. They're atheists that are doing nothing more than respecting religious freedom....
I would challenge that a bit. I consider myself agnostic and hold out that there might be a God. I probably lean a bit more towards there being this enitity, but find all theories as to his/her existence inconclusive. I think your premise is a bit too black and white IMHO.
-
Dick Dewert resigned his post as one of Canada's leading evangelists, to follow in the footsteps of Bakker, Swaggart, and Haggard. Let the "he's only human" spin begin.
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news...25-a969d05b4d38
-
Believe it or not, modern Chritianity doesn't demand unquestioned obediance.
Tell that to a Mormon or J.W. Mormons can be excommunicated and J.W.'s are disfellowshipped for disobedience. Catholics can be thrown out as well for serious and flagrant violations.
1) Mormons aren't Christians
2) Anyone can be excommunicated for serious violations, so what?
Kinda hard to respond since you're defining who a Christian is. Better throw the Catholics in to. Someone once told me they weren't Christians either. Sheese.
-
Believe it or not, modern Chritianity doesn't demand unquestioned obediance.
Tell that to a Mormon or J.W. Mormons can be excommunicated and J.W.'s are disfellowshipped for disobedience. Catholics can be thrown out as well for serious and flagrant violations.
-
Certainly, the Bible, which I define to include only the Old Testament, does not.That is far from true on so many different levels. First off, the bible doesn't say anywhere that Catholics are saved but anglicans are not. Secondly, Rome doesn't say that Catholics are saved but Anglicans are not.I think the point is missed. The bible defines the faith hence the beliefs. For example, I think it's fair to say that Jevhovah's, Mormons, Jews, Seventh Day Adventists, Fundamentalist Christians et al all believe that they are the "chosen ones" and that their brand of religions is the right and true one. But if everyone used the King James there would be less open to interpretation than there is today.
-
But the Bible is the problem geoffrey, ala Catholic Bible, New World Translations (J.W.'s), Book of Mormon (so-called additive to the King James) and on and on. And these religions or Christian variants believe essentially what cybercoma has described hence the incompatibility.
That is far from true on so many different levels. First off, the bible doesn't say anywhere that Catholics are saved but anglicans are not. Secondly, Rome doesn't say that Catholics are saved but Anglicans are not.
Well, I'll grant you the Catholic church doesn't necessarily feel that way anymore, but their bibles are different and smack of exclusivity. The Mormons and J.W.'s undoubtedly exercise religious isolationism and believe that they are "right" and others are not.
-
I was raised in a Catholic family, so I understand the Bible from a Catholic view. As I got older and began questioning my faith, I studied other religions to see how they differ. I feel that religions are entirely incompatible with one another because they all believe they're 'saved' and everyone in the out-group will perish or suffer.
I think that's a terribly irrational view unsubstaniated by anything in the Bible. If that was my feeling on religion, I'd be turned off too.
But the Bible is the problem geoffrey, ala Catholic Bible, New World Translations (J.W.'s), Book of Mormon (so-called additive to the King James) and on and on. And these religions or Christian variants believe essentially what cybercoma has described hence the incompatibility.
-
Carter didn't perform well as president. Had he freed the hostages in Iran he might have had a slim chance of beating Reagan. He didn't and got crushed...
The hostages were freed on the same day that Reagan was inaugurated. Surely Reagan doesn't get the credit for freeing them?
Carter brokered the deal. Another attempt was made prior but the mission failed.
-
I've tried to figure out why Jimmy keeps doing stuff like this, as if he's relevant anymore. Do you suppose it's just an attempt to atone for his term and then his drastic failure with Korea?
I think too many forget his accomplishments. But having said that I think Carter wasn't a good president because he was too good for that office.
-
Gee August, how would you guess? Yeah, a few more sources might be appropriate.
-
Sorry, it's just man against man who caused such carnage. I wish people would quit using the "devil" as the excuse and justification for man's atrocities.
Wow, that sounds definitive.
Newbie, where do you stand right now? Do you believe in God at all? Are you just against religion? Or are you just attempting humour like the "second chance" humor you gave back there?
I may be wrong, but you seem to be angry. That anger is what's fueling your views.
That's the trouble with the written word - subtlety is difficult to detect. I am certainly not angry. I just don't feel it's productive to always bring the Devil into the equation as justifcation for man's destructive behaviour. Man is responsible for his actions, period. To drag in a mythical entity as cause is ridiculous. And as far as God is concerned, I am an agnostic.
-
Do you think ANY province would leave Canada and become its own?? I don't. Just look at what they would give up by doing so and what the effects to Canada and the US if Quebec did. For one thing Quebec did, they would own alot of the St. Lawrence seaway and would probably charge big bucks to enter it!! The people would lose their Canada pensions etc. and I don't think they would want that. A lot of our military is based in Quebec, so who would get them??? Our nations capital is too close to Quebec would we move it???? What about all the corporations in Quebec and then leave. I think this idea would cost both Canada and Quebec and I just can't see it happening. Perhaps the separatist should move to the island of IIe d'Anticosti in the St. Lawrence seaway and became subject under France.
Not to mention the Native treaty claims that would come flooding in.
-
God is not big on second chances I guess.
Second chances? God gives us 80 years to figure things out, screwing up many times along the way. Or how about 70 x 7 screw ups every day being the number of times Jesus said to forgive someone?
Obviously my humour was not recognized. I promise to place a smiley face next time.
Dick Dewert Defrocked
in Moral & Ethical Issues
Posted
No, I think you are insecure in your own faith if you feel you need to make ridiculous claims (Me a bigot? I think not). Or maybe you can't accept the fact that "one of your own" has fallen. Aaah, the joys of being agnostic. Cheerio.