In the end god wins and the evil angels get killed so why do they hate the movie so much?

I'm sure you care for what they have to say.

quote:Originally posted by noskillz:

In the end god wins and the evil angels get killed so why do they hate the movie so much?

Why do you have such poor grammar?

Because it lifts up their proverbial skirt, and puts a flood light on their hoohah.

It's not a comfy feeling, for ANYONE...but especially the Catholic Church.

It shows God as falible. Shows God as a woman. It pokes fun at the basis of their authority. Basicly all the reasons I like it.

I'm Catholic.

I love the movie Dogma.

If you can't laugh at your faith you're taking it too seriously.

-Val

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Because it lifts up their proverbial skirt, and puts a flood light on their hoohah.

It's not a comfy feeling, for ANYONE...but especially the Catholic Church.

I really think you're the biggest hypocrite on totse.

Why, because she isn't Catholic? She at least comes out and defends her doctrines. The Catholics just sit back and rest on infallibility...

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

Why, because she isn't Catholic? She at least comes out and defends her doctrines. The Catholics just sit back and rest on infallibility...

Catholics hardly "rest on infallibility".

I call her a hypocrite because she is probably the most defensive person on this board, then attacks Catholics for being too defensive.

Also, what would me calling her a hypocrite have to do with whether or not she is a Catholic. That makes zero sense.

If she is defensive on this board, it is only because she is constantly under attack on this board. What's more she still manages to be respectful towards other people in spite of the shit she deals with from you guys. She's one of maybe three or four evangelical Xtians who actually visit this place and she endures constant ridicule simply because of the political tone of this forum towards Xtians of her stripe. She feels she's called to explain her doctrine to people here and she does it with a smile in spite of the tendency on the part of forum members to treat her as subhuman because of it. The hypocrisy you're imagining exists stems from your belief that her beliefs are equally silly and unfounded as those of Catholics are. That's fine, I'm not Xtian either, but the excesses of Catholic doctrine above and beyond the text which all Xtians hold as an ultimate authority far outweigh the simplistic textual reliance exhibited by evangelicals and make her position more defencible. Second she also acknowledged in her post that having a light shown on the holes in one's doctrine is not comfortable "for anybody." That is hardly a superiorialist statement.

quote:Originally posted by noskillz:

In the end god wins and the evil angels get killed so why do they hate the movie so much?

Because it claims the Virgin Mary didn't stay a virgin. Because it ridicules the church establishment. Because the characters constantly bitch and moan about how the church have "got it all wrong" because Kevin Smith obviously has it all right.

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

If she is defensive on this board, it is only because she is constantly under attack on this board. What's more she still manages to be respectful towards other people in spite of the shit she deals with from you guys. She's one of maybe three or four evangelical Xtians who actually visit this place and she endures constant ridicule simply because of the political tone of this forum towards Xtians of her stripe. She feels she's called to explain her doctrine to people here and she does it with a smile in spite of the tendency on the part of forum members to treat her as subhuman because of it. The hypocrisy you're imagining exists stems from your belief that her beliefs are equally silly and unfounded as those of Catholics are. That's fine, I'm not Xtian either, but the excesses of Catholic doctrine above and beyond the text which all Xtians hold as an ultimate authority far outweigh the simplistic textual reliance exhibited by evangelicals and make her position more defencible. Second she also acknowledged in her post that having a light shown on the holes in one's doctrine is not comfortable "for anybody." That is hardly a superiorialist statement.

I think you missed the point entirely.....

quote:Originally posted by Valmont:

I'm Catholic.

I love the movie Dogma.

If you can't laugh at your faith you're taking it too seriously.

-Val

If you were really Catholic you would believe that your religion is your salvation, and you would take it pretty damned seriously.

Sephiroth, I don't appreciate your comments on the Catholic Church--because they hold some doctrines that "your run-of-the-mill Christian" doesn't hold, abusing their church is automatically more justified? I would like to see a real warrant for that, because right now it's only anti-Catholic bias.

It is a 'superiorialist' (serious side note: is that a word?) statement because of the word "ESPECIALLY."

And furthermore Digital has disrespected me several times in spite of the fact that I only engage in civilized conversation with her--granted, it can get pretty intense, but I never resort to name-calling or cursing.

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

If you were really Catholic you would believe that your religion is your salvation, and you would take it pretty damned seriously.



I see no reason why humour and salvation can't be combined.

We all know God has a sense of humour *just look at the platypus* so why can't we laugh at our own beliefs.

I am Catholic, but I know there are holes in my religion--

If someone makes a joke about you and you can't laugh at it, the last thing you need to be worrying about is eternal salvation, I think you have some personal issues to address.

-Val

not only does God have a sense of humor...she invented humor...just look at this thread

quote:Originally posted by Valmont:

I see no reason why humour and salvation can't be combined.

We all know God has a sense of humour *just look at the platypus* so why can't we laugh at our own beliefs.

I am Catholic, but I know there are holes in my religion--

If someone makes a joke about you and you can't laugh at it, the last thing you need to be worrying about is eternal salvation, I think you have some personal issues to address.

-Val

Im not cath o lick and i hate that movie.

'Buddy Christ', Bart and Loki, two angels tryin to get back into heaven, Rufus the 13th apostle...



...the shit demon!



...funny but crap

quote:Originally posted by noskillz:

In the end god wins and the evil angels get killed so why do they hate the movie so much?

The angels are nt evil. They are servants of god and are being punished for disobeying him. They are not evil...

...the three skater kids

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

If you were really Catholic you would believe that your religion is your salvation, and you would take it pretty damned seriously.

Sephiroth, I don't appreciate your comments on the Catholic Church--because they hold some doctrines that "your run-of-the-mill Christian" doesn't hold, abusing their church is automatically more justified? I would like to see a real warrant for that, because right now it's only anti-Catholic bias.

It is a 'superiorialist' (serious side note: is that a word?) statement because of the word "ESPECIALLY."

And furthermore Digital has disrespected me several times in spite of the fact that I only engage in civilized conversation with her--granted, it can get pretty intense, but I never resort to name-calling or cursing.

Catholicism > Protestantism because it has an infinitely better mythology.

In terms of not pulling doctrine out of their asses, it's the other way around.

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

'superiorialist' (serious side note: is that a word?)Completely Unabridged Oxford English Dictionary: given to or characterised by a prejudiced ideology of superiority over others; variant: superiorist; syn.: chauvinist

Admittedly, I didn't know if it was a word or not, but you can find just about anything in an OED. Superiorist experiences more use, I'm sure, mainly because it doesn't have as many syllables. It just seemed like it would work, and wouldn't you know? It did.

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

Sephiroth, I don't appreciate your comments on the Catholic Church--because they hold some doctrines that "your run-of-the-mill Christian" doesn't hold, abusing their church is automatically more justified? I would like to see a real warrant for that, because right now it's only anti-Catholic bias.Obviously the elephant in the room here is the protestant reformation. Everyone knows that the pre-reformation church was given to excesses of all kinds. The Borgia, anyone? Most historians agree it was the single most oppressive and evil organisation in pre-20th century western history. What is more infuriating is that even while the Church was under John Paul II (whose difficult position balancing the demanded perception of his own infallibility and atoning for the faults of the past I do not envy), there were very few acknowledgements that the church had ever been at fault in anything, and when they were issued, it was always in the context of collective guilt for all christians and not for personal faults of the Church. The Church still will not release documents and artifacts that were collected during the holocaust from the Jewish People. They will not release the names and locations of survivor-children who were spirited away by the Church to be raised Catholic in adoptive homes, even when the children's real family made it out alive and was looking for them. These are all emanations of one excess in doctrine: infallibility. Since we can never be wrong, we can do what we want.

Another excess in doctrine is celibacy for the church itself, which has caused various problems throughout the church's history, arguably also the problem of sexual abuse from the clergy.

The church used to put people to death for disagreeing with the doctrine of transubstantiation: another excess in doctrine.

The bottom line is, the church has throughout history, through one theological innovation after another, created positions that have no basis in the bible or any early christian philosophy and then rested on their own infallibility (another such position) to make every change permanent. When the Church was granting Indulgences (BUY NOW SIN LATER!) Luther saw this, and fallible as he was (unlike the God-on-Earth Pope), he still managed to raise 95 complaints about the church's behaviour. Sure, indulgences are gone, but most of Luther's other complaints are still there, still as completely unrelated to the Bible as ever.

quote:And furthermore Digital has disrespected me several times in spite of the fact that I only engage in civilized conversation with her--granted, it can get pretty intense, but I never resort to name-calling or cursing. I have never seen any examples of this from her and I think the burden of pointing them out lies with you, otherwise it just seems like anti-evangelical bias. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

Catholicism > Protestantism because it has an infinitely better mythology.

In terms of not pulling doctrine out of their asses, it's the other way around.

If you're going to talk about the Church, atleast talk about the modern Church. Talking about what happened 500 years ago is pointless.

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

What is more infuriating is that even while the Church was under John Paul II (whose difficult position balancing the demanded perception of his own infallibility and atoning for the faults of the past I do not envy), there were very few acknowledgements that the church had ever been at fault in anything, and when they were issued, it was always in the context of collective guilt for all christians and not for personal faults of the Church.

http://tinyurl.com/abvbd

Yes, by making over 100 apologies, he definitely showed that the Church hides behind their infallibility......

quote:The Church still will not release documents and artifacts that were collected during the holocaust from the Jewish People. They will not release the names and locations of survivor-children who were spirited away by the Church to be raised Catholic in adoptive homes, even when the children's real family made it out alive and was looking for them. These are all emanations of one excess in doctrine: infallibility. Since we can never be wrong, we can do what we want.

This is a very disputed issue, so I don't know how you can make any determination about who is right, though I will provide this article: http://tinyurl.com/b5sxx



quote:Another excess in doctrine is celibacy for the church itself, which has caused various problems throughout the church's history, arguably also the problem of sexual abuse from the clergy.

It's an internal problem of small magnitude where all circumstances aren't even known, so I think a rush to judgement is foolish here. There is still a lot of information that needs to be revealed before any conclusion can be drawn. However, I will note that those who have done anything have been punished.

Sephiroth, I don't want to catch you on a technicality, but since you played the burden card on me, this is fair play.

You didn't validate your argument at all; in fact, you reinforced what I said--for reference, I accused you of citing the Catholic Church's extra-Biblical doctrine as an excuse for persecuting them additionally. In your post, you have not justified your pariahing of the Church; instead, you cite that you (and several crusty historians) feel that the Church is an oppressive organization--nice, but empirics don't prove anything in this case. In the end, all you're doing is telling us what you personally feel about the Church, which is fine, but please don't make it a declaration of fact when it's really a personal opinion

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

Sephiroth, I don't want to catch you on a technicality, but since you played the burden card on me, this is fair play.

You didn't validate your argument at all; in fact, you reinforced what I said--for reference, I accused you of citing the Catholic Church's extra-Biblical doctrine as an excuse for persecuting them additionally.Which I never did, you just ignored what I said in my first post so you could shift the argument to one where I would be forced to describe faults of the Catholic church so you could play the victim. My original argument was that you were oppressing her, constantly harassing her simply because she's the most devout christian on the forum and you're biased against evangelicals, even calling her a hypocrite for merely commenting that the movie Dogma points out holes in Catholic doctrine, which she said would be embarassing for anybody, but especially Catholics. That was the comment you took offense to: the "especially Catholics" comment. You couldn't stand the implication (which ANY protestant would make) that Catholicism has more holes in its doctrine than does protestant Christianity, so instead of providing me with proof that D_S was so deserving of your insults and abuse (i.e. my original objection and the point of my post), you called me to defend that assumption, thus lending you the ability to portray my defense of that point as an unwarranted attack on your faith. However, simply reviewing the chronology of comments here reveals the two of you to be the instigators of this with your attacks. I'm not an ecumenist, and nobody on this forum should be expected to be one. You asked me what my problems with catholicism were, and I answered. Don't try to construe that as anything short of honesty. You can claim moral highground over me and my crusty historians (i.e. consensus of the academic community) all you like, but as long as you don't try to refute them point by point, it won't do anything to detract from my point that it is not hypocritical to believe there are more holes in Catholic doctrine than Protestant doctrine.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

If you're going to talk about the Church, atleast talk about the modern Church. Talking about what happened 500 years ago is pointless.

No, I think it's quite relevent, since for a good millenium there the office that held "the Keys to the Gates of Heaven" was occupied by a series of the most famously evil and manipulative figures in history. That doesn't reflect well on the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and has broad rammifications if one follows the theological assumptions of Catholicism to their logical (or otherwise) ends.

[This message has been edited by Sephiroth (edited 07-06-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

No, I think it's quite relevent, since for a good millenium there the office that held "the Keys to the Gates of Heaven" was occupied by a series of the most famously evil and manipulative figures in history. That doesn't reflect well on the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and has broad rammifications if one follows the theological assumptions of Catholicism to their logical (or otherwise) ends.



I don't think any of it's relevant because none of it has anything to do with the modern Church.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Yes, by making over 100 apologies, he definitely showed that the Church hides behind their infallibility......

quote:ReligiousTolerance.org (http://tinyurl.com/bqach)

Language of the apologies:

The language used in both Pope John Paul II's apology and the "Memory and Reconciliation" seems to downplay the seriousness of the sins and errors committed:

In an apparent reference to the instructions of church leaders and councils which resulted in burning hundreds of thousands of Jews alive, in exiling them from entire countries, in forcing them into ghettos, the document said that "The hostility and wariness of numerous Christians toward Jews over the course of time is a painful historic fact." In the pope's homily, he referred to "attitudes of mistrust and hostility assumed towards followers of other religions." Some might think that the church's actions went well beyond simple "hostility," " wariness" and " mistrust" to include mass murder and perhaps even genocide.



In an apparent reference to: the jailing, torture, and burning alive of individuals such as outspoken scientists, people perceived to be heretics, natural healers, midwives and others, and to the wars of extermination committed by the Church against the Cathars, Knights Templars and other break-away Christian groups, the pope referred to "the use of violence that some have committed in the service of truth.." The report refers "to intolerance and even the use of force in the service of truth." It also discusses the past "lack of discernment by many Christians in situations where basic human rights were violated."

Some might think that the church's: Use of torture on prisoners, and the subsequent burning them alive, and Genocide against entire religious groups, went well beyond simple violence and lack of appreciation of human rights.

Some apologies. Always very general, never admitting it had anything to do with the Church itself, it was always just "Christians" as if some random evil twins of the Cardinals and Popes of the past were doing these things while the "real" church looked on in horror. Until the Church issues some real apologies, "the Immaculate Bride of Christ" will have blood all over her wedding gown. But we know that will never happen, since the "Spirit of the Church is as infallible as ever." (Your new Pope). But let's bring out more quotes, just for fun.

Pope Gregory VII (1073-85) :

"The pope cannot make a mistake."

Paschal II: (1099-1118)

"Whoever does not agree with the Apostolic See

is without doubt a heretic."

Pope Innocent IV (1243-54):

described himself as

"the bodily presence of Christ."

(TRANSUBSTANTIATION STRIKES AGAIN!!!)

Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303) :

"Every human being must do

as the pope tells him."

Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903):

"We hold upon this earth

the place of God Almighty."

quote:This is a very disputed issue, so I don't know how you can make any determination about who is right, though I will provide this article......thus indicating that you've already formed your opinion on the matter, you just don't want me "rushing to judgement." http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) Oh well, one good article deserves ten others:

http://tinyurl.com/crjzw http://tinyurl.com/ass64 http://tinyurl.com/ct67m http://tinyurl.com/7au4p http://tinyurl.com/7pgj9 http://tinyurl.com/bl56y http://tinyurl.com/dbmp5 http://tinyurl.com/8js9c http://tinyurl.com/drlb4 http://tinyurl.com/8te7z

quote:It's an internal problem of small magnitude where all circumstances aren't even known, so I think a rush to judgement is foolish here. There is still a lot of information that needs to be revealed before any conclusion can be drawn. However, I will note that those who have done anything have been punished.I did say "arguably." No rush to judgement there. Although I would never trust children around any group of men that sex starved for long.

Bottom line: I honestly don't care whether you agree or not, just realise she's as entitled to her criticisms of Catholicism as anyone else and it's not like there's no possible justification for anybody to disagree with your Church's doctrine.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I don't think any of it's relevant because none of it has anything to do with the modern Church.

Yes it does, because it's the same organisation, with the same theological positions and sees itself in the same light. In order for the Pope to consider himself the official successor of the office of Peter, he must associate himself with every last one of his predecessors. Your theology demands that continuity or else the world experienced the better part of two thousand years devoid of the "true" church's salvation.

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

Yes it does, because it's the same organisation, with the same theological positions and sees itself in the same light. In order for the Pope to consider himself the official successor of the office of Peter, he must associate himself with every last one of his predecessors. Your theology demands that continuity or else the world experienced the better part of two thousand years devoid of the "true" church's salvation.

The Church has changed since then, so it isn't the same, therefore it isn't relevant.

What's the matter, can't argue with the Church over the last century?

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

If she is defensive on this board, it is only because she is constantly under attack on this board. What's more she still manages to be respectful towards other people in spite of the shit she deals with from you guys. She's one of maybe three or four evangelical Xtians who actually visit this place and she endures constant ridicule simply because of the political tone of this forum towards Xtians of her stripe. She feels she's called to explain her doctrine to people here and she does it with a smile in spite of the tendency on the part of forum members to treat her as subhuman because of it. The hypocrisy you're imagining exists stems from your belief that her beliefs are equally silly and unfounded as those of Catholics are. That's fine, I'm not Xtian either, but the excesses of Catholic doctrine above and beyond the text which all Xtians hold as an ultimate authority far outweigh the simplistic textual reliance exhibited by evangelicals and make her position more defencible. Second she also acknowledged in her post that having a light shown on the holes in one's doctrine is not comfortable "for anybody." That is hardly a superiorialist statement.

Bravo man...wanna have my ass babies?

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

The Church has changed since then, so it isn't the same, therefore it isn't relevant.

What's the matter, can't argue with the Church over the last century?

Holy fuck! Just look at WWII and you should have all you need to see just how fucking evil the Church had gotten...and if you think the corruption is gone a mere 60 years later, you're nuts.

You know I can. http://tinyurl.com/crjzw http://tinyurl.com/ass64 http://tinyurl.com/ct67m http://tinyurl.com/7au4p http://tinyurl.com/7pgj9 http://tinyurl.com/bl56y http://tinyurl.com/dbmp5 http://tinyurl.com/8js9c http://tinyurl.com/drlb4 http://tinyurl.com/8te7z http://tinyurl.com/antkq

^all modern complaints, you just ignored them. You're obviously as good at dancing as your Pope was.

By the way, the Catholics were the first ones to come up with displacement theology (i.e. God cast down the Jews from his favour to honour the church) and collective guilt theology (the Jews killed Jesus, so God punished them by blinding them and judging them as unworthy to the redemption offered by Christ)...the first excesses in doctrine which are the source of the largest part of all Christian anti-semitism that exists today.

What bugs me most of all about Catholic theology (aside from the idolatry of it; Marry is a Goddess, the Community of Saints is a Pantheon, statues have healing powers, bones have ritual significance, the communion materials literally become the body and blood of the living God) is that you have the audacity to claim that Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and then pretend the Church isn't the same Church it was before. That challenges the very basic assumption of your theology. Some Mashiach Jesus was if he didn't start saving anybody till the 20th century. Delayed reaction Messiah? No, the unavoidable conclusion of Catholic theology is that the Church, no matter whose hands controlled it, was always the divine light on earth, was always the only path to salvation. So yes, when the Borgia was having sex with his sister, that was the Vicar of Christ on Earth right there, and to believe otherwise from your standpoint is to deny salvation to entire centuries. That's why the Catholic past is significant, because you either deny salvation to most of history or you accept the actions of the Papal predecessors as divinely inspired and in keeping with the vicarage of Christ on earth. There's a third choice (i.e. give up Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus), but the Papacy is not prepared to do that.

There's also your doctrine of salvation by faith+works instead of faith alone. You know there's a memo going around, it's called the book of Romans, did you read it? I don't see how any Christian who accepts the divinity of their bible could come to a different conclusion after reading Romans than iustification sola fide.

Again, you're evading my point and just trying to lure me into harsh criticisms of your faith just so I can look like the bad guy, which is exactly what you do with D_S. There is plenty there to criticise. If there wasn't, the Reformation wouldn't have lasted past the Baroque period. It lasted, because Catholic doctrine didn't change significantly enough and your theological inheritance is a black one.

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

You know I can. http://tinyurl.com/crjzw http://tinyurl.com/ass64 http://tinyurl.com/ct67m http://tinyurl.com/7au4p http://tinyurl.com/7pgj9 http://tinyurl.com/bl56y http://tinyurl.com/dbmp5 http://tinyurl.com/8js9c http://tinyurl.com/drlb4 http://tinyurl.com/8te7z http://tinyurl.com/antkq

^all modern complaints, you just ignored them. You're obviously as good at dancing as your Pope was.

I addressed them at the top with that article. I never said it didn't happen, but it certainly isn't of the magnitude that you describe.

http://tinyurl.com/4nosw http://tinyurl.com/a3vgg http://tinyurl.com/3gby9

quote:By the way, the Catholics were the first ones to come up with displacement theology (i.e. God cast down the Jews from his favour to honour the church) and collective guilt theology (the Jews killed Jesus, so God punished them by blinding them and judging them as unworthy to the redemption offered by Christ)...the first excesses in doctrine which are the source of the largest part of all Christian anti-semitism that exists today.

That is over and done with. Apologies have been made and no one in the catholic chirch even holds those views anymore. Pope John Paul II apologised(which you didn't think he did) for the accusations against the Jews and officially declared that the Jews played no part in the death of Jesus.

quote:What bugs me most of all about Catholic theology (aside from the idolatry of it; Marry is a Goddess, the Community of Saints is a Pantheon, statues have healing powers, bones have ritual significance, the communion materials literally become the body and blood of the living God) is that you have the audacity to claim that Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and then pretend the Church isn't the same Church it was before. That challenges the very basic assumption of your theology. Some Mashiach Jesus was if he didn't start saving anybody till the 20th century. Delayed reaction Messiah? No, the unavoidable conclusion of Catholic theology is that the Church, no matter whose hands controlled it, was always the divine light on earth, was always the only path to salvation. So yes, when the Borgia was having sex with his sister, that was the Vicar of Christ on Earth right there, and to believe otherwise from your standpoint is to deny salvation to entire centuries. That's why the Catholic past is significant, because you either deny salvation to most of history or you accept the actions of the Papal predecessors as divinely inspired and in keeping with the vicarage of Christ on earth. There's a third choice (i.e. give up Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus), but the Papacy is not prepared to do that.

Stop using "your religion". I'm not Catholic. It's starting to annoy me.

Anyways, the actions of past popes does NOTHING to change "the path to salvation". It does not make it false in the eyes of Catholic. They were men. They were fallable. They made mistakes and they sinned. It's part of being human. It still does not make it significant today. The crusades don't matter at all. They're inconsequential to today. That is my point. They have no bearing on the modern church as an entity. In the whole scope of things what happened in the past does not affect one's relationship with God according to the Church. Tell me how the Crusades would make a Catholic less likely to go to heaven? How would the Crusades affect a Catholic's faith? I'd love to know. Does the Sanheidran(sp?) affect your faith. Do ancient Jewish actions or the words and actions of Rabbis from centuries past affect your faith? It really is inconsequential.

quote:There's also your doctrine of salvation by faith+works instead of faith alone. You know there's a memo going around, it's called the book of Romans, did you read it? I don't see how any Christian who accepts the divinity of their bible could come to a different conclusion after reading Romans than iustification sola fide.

Galatians 5:6

quote:Again, you're evading my point and just trying to lure me into harsh criticisms of your faith just so I can look like the bad guy, which is exactly what you do with D_S. There is plenty there to criticise. If there wasn't, the Reformation wouldn't have lasted past the Baroque period. It lasted, because Catholic doctrine didn't change significantly enough and your theological inheritance is a black one.

What religion isn't this true for? As long as religion is a device of man there will be problems with it. It's a fact. There are just as many problems with Islam, Judaism, Protestant Christianity, etc.... It's part of being human. The important thing that you seem to neglect is that the Church is actively trying to change itself for the better.

[This message has been edited by napoleon_complex (edited 07-06-2005).]