Welcome to Gaia! ::

I agree with you completely, I was just using him as an example of an opinionated splitter. I'm a Catholic, so I'm a bit bitter about Jack Chick, but he's just as bad with Mormons. And Muslims. He was like that with Jews at one point, but he changed. He twists things around, it's disgusting really.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0061/0061_01.asp

Wonderfully tolerant man, that Jack Chick. We're all going to hell. But it's okay! We can be saved if we only buy his things!

So we are clear on the vote, I voted Buddhist.

I'm Christian (going to the charismatic church, if you know what that is), but not a Christian fanatic in the negative way. I'm not that kind of person who thinks this and that is obsessed by the devil and I am not allowed to listen to that music, watch that movie and so on...
But I'm really conservative, but maybe in a more positive way. That's because I was educated in that way.
Another thing: I don't like the word religion. I call it faith. It's something I can feel. I don't feel religion. If you understand.

Literalist Christian. I refuse to use the term fundamentalist because the media has twisted the hell out of it, making it look like the term for radicals and legalists. Even literalist has taken that kind of connotation, but I'll have to let my posts speak for themselves. I draw a hard line I think, but I don't believe God is some giant spiritual hammer wanting to smash people in the head all the time, nor do i believe that Christians are his weapons of judgment on the world, and that it's our job to punish people for their crimes.

That's the news today though. Never show the normal or the real, just the extreme and the disturbing.

In reply to Shanra:
(Wow, this ends up a lot more ranty than I expected. Sorry. I'm annoyed. But I went over it twice, and I don't think I'm being too harsh at any point, nor do I say anything that I haven't researched. I actually read three chapters of Leviticus just for this.)

I -have- left the Church recently, but not directly over issues of policy or dogma. Really, the reason I left the Church is that I was following my beliefs without any reason or cause, just because they were what my parents thought.

However.

Even before I left the Church, I disagreed on certain non-dogmatic matters. For instance, the idea of artificial contraception being wrong. Honestly, if artificial contraception is wrong, then natural contraception is too, because the whole point of natural contraception is exactly the same as artificial contraception; I don't want children right now. In fact, if you are supposed to be going by what God wants, you should be having sex constantly, at least once a day, so that you ensure that you aren't keeping God from giving you children. Obviously, this is bull. Besides which, God is all-powerful. If He decided that it was time for you to have kids, it wouldn't matter if you were even having sex. A little thing like artificial contraception isn't going to stop Him.

I also disagree with Church policy on gay marriage, and gay love. God is Love. So no sort of love can be a sin. End. One could argue that gay sex has no possibility for children, but I'm going to get to that later after I argue about masturbation and alternative sexual acts.

I disagree with the Church's position on married Priests. I do feel that celibacy should be encouraged among the Priesthood, as they should be focusing most of their attention on their flocks, but, again, God is love, so love can't be a sin. And since I do believe in true love, I don't believe that anyone should be restricted from marriage like that for the entire rest of their life.

I disagree with the Church's position on masturbation and alternative sexual acts. The reasons given have always been absolute bull. Because it's for pleasure and not for creating life? Please. Old people are allowed to marry, even when they are past the menopause. Any sex they are going to have is going to be solely recreational, with no intent or fear of creating children. This is why I also disregard the argument that gay sex is bad because it's recreational.

In an extension of that, the actual reason for the Church teachings on masturbation and "pulling out," as well as those on gay sex, come from a book in the Old Testament. One verse says that a man shall not lie with another man as he lies with a woman. This one I could argue around, but I'm not because I don't need to. Another verse says that a man shall not spill his seed upon the dirt. The Church developed it's current reasonings around these two verses. However, in the same book of the Bible, Leviticus, there are many laws which we as Christians do not have to follow. Many laws.

For instance, it says not to eat anything with blood. So if you're eating your steaks nice and rare, you're in trouble.
You're not to eat pork. Many of us know of this Jewish law, but it seems like people expect the Church can ignore it.
You can't marry someone who isn't a virgin. So no second marriages. Anyone who converts into the faith after having sex out of the faith? You're screwed. Not literally though, of course. That'd be a sin.
You are not supposed to cut your hair or shave.

All of the laws quoted before this are from Leviticus 19-21. This one I've got to quote directly, because it's just perfect:
Leviticus 21:17-18:
"Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever [he be] of thy seed in their generations that hath [any] blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
For whatsoever man [he be] that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous"
So if you have any flaws, even superfluous ones, -you are not to come before the Lord or make an offering to the Lord.- If your nose is flat, or if you are blind, or you've got a bad knee, you are not worthy of being in the presence of the Lord.
There's more, but I'm not going through the whole book of Leviticus tonight.
Do you expect me to follow any of that?

No, in fact, Jesus abolished those laws. Well, most of them, according to Christians. He apparently selectively chose to keep the ones that Christians feel like following and persecuting others for not following. Hypocracy was something that Jesus spoke severely against, ya'll.

You'll notice that none of these are on the real matters of dogma, as revealed in the Creed;
"I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Who created Heaven and Earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord.

I believe that He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary
I believe that He suffered under Pontias Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
I believe that He descended to the dead.
I believe that He rose again on the third day, in fulfillment of the Scriptures.
I believe that He ascended into Heaven, where He is seated at the right hand of the Father.
I believe in the Holy Spirit.
I believe in the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
I believe in the Communion of Saints.
I believe in the forgiveness of sins.
I believe in the resurrection of the body
I believe in life everlasting."

I was raised by a good God fearing woman, who not only sent me to Sunday school, but homeschooled me for most of my life specifically so I could get a good religious education. Because of this, I know more about the Catholic Church than most Catholics do. I'm not being vain or immodest here; I went to a Catholic school taught by nuns for 7th and 8th grade. Religion class was unbelievably boring because I already knew -everything- the teacher taught me, and brought up things that the books hadn't that I felt were important. I got the top grades in that class both years. So don't try and call Church teachings on me.

Anything that is not actual proper Dogma can be changed, and has been changed in the past. For instance, the Priesthood was not always celibate. This means that celibacy is not an actual God-given requirement, because, if it was, it would have been a celibate order from formation.

I left the Church because I believe in a God, absolutely, and I will not allow myself to follow the wrong God. Since I know the human mind to be weak I will not allow myself to follow a God based solely on blind belief. It is my opinion that the true God would appreciate this effort to find out who He is, and strengthen my faith, and He certainly couldn't fault me for trying to make sure that I was actually following Him.

If I were ever to return to the Christian faith, which seems more and more likely right now, it would be to the Catholic church because it is and always has been my opinion that any other denomination is just a watering down of the True Church.

For anyone who wants to look through Leviticus for themselves, the "Blue Letter Bible" is a fantastic online resource for the entire Bible that even includes links to commentary by preachers.

I... Don't see your logic.

To the first points, I don't see why he would be seen as a terrorist, anti-family, or communist. Hippie? Maybe. But how the hell did you come up with the rest of that?

He wasn't against opulence and wealth, in fact. He speaks against letting your wealth rule you, and he speaks against worshiping your cash in the same way that he speaks against worshiping anything but the one true God. And wealth is mentioned as a particularly tempting idol, and one that should be avoided. But there was, in fact, a verse in the Bible where he reprimands Judas for suggesting that his allowing a woman to put fine perfumes on his hair and feet is overdoing it, and that the money could be better spent on the poor.

He didn't have a problem with wealth in the church either, exactly. He had a problem with people turning churches into market-places, places where people are thinking constantly about money and making money instead of thinking about God. Also, I don't really see how modern Churches are rich. o.O The Catholic church doesn't even require a tithe, that the parishioners donate a tenth of their money. It's suggested. But not required. And the money goes towards the church building itself, usually, for use in upkeep and building new buildings and such, or are given to charities; Priests almost always have a vow of poverty.

As for graven images, again, that's about worshiping false idols. Jesus isn't a false idol. If people were worshiping the statue, that's different. I also don't believe I have -ever- seen a golden statue of Jesus or anyone else in the Catholic church. That would be a little too far. Personally, I think that Churches do go a little far with the decorating sometimes, but their intentions are good; To show respect, worship, and love for God. Statues are representations of people, nothing more, and are there out of respect, not worship, except in the cases where they represent God or Jesus, in which case they facilitate the worship of God. We're not talking about golden calves here.

Have you ever even been into a Catholic Church, or are you going based on assumptions and things you've heard?