Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

No one said priests were not men. That would probably happen, however, it is not what the church advocates. Personally, I would tear a board off the damn confessional and drive it through the guy's chest. However, no man can surpass god. You probably won't find a priest that forgiving. However, tat is because God gave us free will and we have concupiscense.

First of all, I'd like to be the first to point out that by saying the word Catholic, one is actually referring to the entire Christian church, not just Roman Catholicism.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

catholic:

adj 1: of or relating to or supporting Catholicism; "the Catholic Church" [syn: Catholic] 2: free from provincial prejudices or attachments; "catholic in one's tastes" n : a member of a Catholic church [syn: Catholic]

Somewhere along the lines the word Catholic was accepted into vernacular as Roman Catholic, probably instigated by narrow-minded Roman Catholics. One must realize that Lutherans are really Lutheran Catholic, and Congregationalists are Congregationalist Catholic; likewise, one could call Roman Catholics Romans.

Assuming that the main topic was directed towards Roman Catholics, I'd like to point out that indulgences still exist and were justified by the clergy by the Apostolic Constitution Indulgentiarum Doctrina of 1967. In fact, the clergy began a large drive selling indulgences in 1999 for Y2K. Also, I'd like to mention the child raping incidents that occured recently throughout our country that have affected many.

How can I see positives of Roman Catholicism when the Roman Catholic clergy condemns me to hell because I don't convert to their propoganda-filled cult; Protestant churches are very welcoming of other sects and do not condemn Roman Catholics to hell. Let's also remember that the papacy historically did not want the common people to interpret the bible by themselves (this was not brought about until Luther made a translation in German).

Good luck fixing papal problems; nothing will be accomplished under a crippled old man that can only speak a few words a day in Latin with the coherency of Ozzy Ozborne.

At 10/21/03 10:35 PM, alejandro1 wrote: First of all, I'd like to be the first to point out that by saying the word Catholic, one is actually referring to the entire Christian church, not just Roman Catholicism.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Sorry, but i personally don't give a fuck about political corectness.

catholic:

adj 1: of or relating to or supporting Catholicism; "the Catholic Church" [syn: Catholic] 2: free from provincial prejudices or attachments; "catholic in one's tastes" n : a member of a Catholic church [syn: Catholic]

Somewhere along the lines the word Catholic was accepted into vernacular as Roman Catholic, probably instigated by narrow-minded Roman Catholics. One must realize that Lutherans are really Lutheran Catholic, and Congregationalists are Congregationalist Catholic; likewise, one could call Roman Catholics Romans.

Assuming that the main topic was directed towards Roman Catholics, I'd like to point out that indulgences still exist and were justified by the clergy by the Apostolic Constitution Indulgentiarum Doctrina of 1967. In fact, the clergy began a large drive selling indulgences in 1999 for Y2K.

I'd like to know where you read this, what order was doing this, and who in the church hierarchy was supporting it, or is this some random fact from a catholic-hate site.

:Also, I'd like to mention the child raping incidents that occured recently throughout our country that have affected many.

I notice you didn't. I also answered to taht in one of my initial essays.

How can I see positives of Roman Catholicism when the Roman Catholic clergy condemns me to hell because I don't convert to their propoganda-filled cult;

This is untrue, read Vatican II, of course, you're too busy making stuff up because you don't really know anything about the catholic church as a religion, but only as an institution.

:Protestant churches are very welcoming of other sects and do not condemn Roman Catholics to hell. Let's also remember that the papacy historically did not want the common people to interpret the bible by themselves (this was not brought about until Luther made a translation in German).

We do not live in a historical society. Also, as i recall, quite a few of the "common men" interpret what the bible says as a justification of genocide, murder, or racism. The churches split off for legitimate reasons during the reformation because of the corruption in the cathjoic church's hierarchy. However, taht was over 500 years ago.

Good luck fixing papal problems; nothing will be accomplished under a crippled old man that can only speak a few words a day in Latin with the coherency of Ozzy Ozborne.

Not taht I am saying this is the best pope ever, but one would say the same for a starving little meek indian man about 40+ years ago.
Also, what the Papal (pope) problems are are that he is old and feeble, i really don't know how one would go about fixing that.

At 10/21/03 10:47 PM, General_Patton wrote: Sorry, but i personally don't give a fuck about political corectness.

You should, you could offend someone if you don't.

I'd like to know where you read this, what order was doing this, and who in the church hierarchy was supporting it, or is this some random fact from a catholic-hate site.

http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Aug2003/Wiseman.asp#F4

http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Aug1999/Editorial.asp

Take a look at these; they were indeed written by Roman Catholics and are posted on a Roman Catholic website.

I notice you didn't. I also answered to taht in one of my initial essays.

Which is why I didn't want to carry it out; you've already shotten yourself in the foot with that one.

This is untrue, read Vatican II, of course, you're too busy making stuff up because you don't really know anything about the catholic church as a religion, but only as an institution.

No, I do understand that Roman Catholicism is a religion. The point I'm trying to get across is that Roman Catholic priests are disdainful towards Protestants; maybe you don't realize this because your parents do not have a Roman Catholic/Protestant intermarriage. It's difficult to accept the fact that part of my family (the Roman Catholics) truly believe that my family and I are damned to hell, but they truly do.

We do not live in a historical society. Also, as i recall, quite a few of the "common men" interpret what the bible says as a justification of genocide, murder, or racism. The churches split off for legitimate reasons during the reformation because of the corruption in the cathjoic church's hierarchy. However, taht was over 500 years ago.

Where did you get the fact that common men interpreted the Bible as a justification of genocide? I've studied the reformation in depth in my college European History class and have never come across that.

Also, what the Papal (pope) problems are are that he is old and feeble, i really don't know how one would go about fixing that.

Get a new pope, one that is not ultra-conservative and is willing to make changes to help the church.

Ok, look, whoever these cathoolics are and are being rude to protestants, they are just assholes. Their presumption taht the family is going to hell, incorrect. The catholic church as a whole cannot be responsible for some of its members being assholes and misundertanding church belief and doctrine. Also, i believe I can explain the purgatory thing. Purgatory is a nebulous concept. Some believe in it, some don't. It really depends under which banner you stand. Its not really a major issue because it won't stop you from getting into heaven anyway, if you believe in it, even if absolutely no one prays for you, which is unlikely, unless you were a total jackass.

I'm not too fond of being labelled the son of Satan because I don't believe in Jesus.

Ok I am.

One wonders why God would choose a Bible to reveal himself thousands of years before the invention of the printing press and at a time when few people could read.
C. W. Dalton, "The Right Brain and Religion"

Indeed, one wonders.

At 10/23/03 08:58 PM, punk_disease wrote: I'm not too fond of being labelled the son of Satan because I don't believe in Jesus.

Ok I am.

And rightly so. Kick them in the teeth.

One wonders why God would choose a Bible to reveal himself thousands of years before the invention of the printing press and at a time when few people could read.
C. W. Dalton, "The Right Brain and Religion"

Indeed, one wonders.

And comes up with a solution. FIrst of all, the Bible began as a oral tradition. It was passed down as memorized stories from father to son. Also, god is god, one will ALWAYS wonder why he does the things he does. He knows everything, and we don't.

At 10/23/03 09:09 PM, General_Patton wrote: And rightly so. Kick them in the teeth.

Uhm....no. :)
I may hate religion but I respect religious people. They believe, I don't believe, it's all good.

And comes up with a solution. FIrst of all, the Bible began as a oral tradition. It was passed down as memorized stories from father to son.

Ok but if Jesus didn't want people to add their own prejudices and beliefs to his teachings why didn't he write a book himself to foulproof his teachings?

Also, god is god, one will ALWAYS wonder why he does the things he does. He knows everything, and we don't.

...or you can try and rationalize it instead of saying "He knows everything, and we don't." when something illogical pops out in your faith.

I'm with punk disease. If this little black book with a latinized word meaning 'book' on the cover was oral tradition, it's pretty fux0red. Remember the telephone game in grade school? Thats what it's like. A bunch of secrets and lies.