Are RC's Christians?

Old Timer wrote:
But we all have the right to worship or not worship as we please and if anyone doesn't like it then that is just to bad. Freedom of religion, whatever, however and when ever is one of our most cherished rights. There will always be a diference of opinion between the different religions. Isn't is best to live and let live on that subject. After all it is no one's business how you worship any more than it is any of your business how anyone else decides to worship is it.

The Pope is working on uniting all religions for a common cause. Be wary when the day comes that he succeeds. Looking at it from a historical and logical perspective, one could easily dismiss that as an impossibility. However, I will point you to the accomplishments of Pope John Paul II and things can transpire pretty quickly.

And because the Roman Catholic church has a dogma of politics first, religion second, they do pose a very real and significant threat to the freedom and liberties we enjoy today. Once any religion attains political power it will never release it and they will resort to force and threat of death to retain it.

Americanadian wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:
All religions are 'cults'.

What's the difference, Andre?

I suppose they could be considered a cult in a sense.

They are merely successful cults.

The Abrahamic faiths happened to evolve at a time when man was less scientifically minded.

If Scientology was around then, we would likely have tens of millions of them now, rather than Christians.

The early Christians were fortunate, timing wise.

Americanadian wrote:The Pope is working on uniting all religions.

Says who?

Btw, if anything the Catholic church are losing influence, not gaining it.

Even in nations that are traditionally RC.

Cartoon Head wrote:

Americanadian wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:
All religions are 'cults'.

What's the difference, Andre?

I suppose they could be considered a cult in a sense.

They are merely successful cults.

The Abrahamic faiths happened to evolve at a time when man was less scientifically minded.

If Scientology was around then, we would likely have tens of millions of them now, rather than Christians.

The early Christians were fortunate, timing wise.

Indeed, many things have been explained due to intellectual advances in technology and science. The alarming thing is how many people choose to remain in darkness with a closed mind. Fear of the unknown still propels many into the arms of religion.

Cartoon Head wrote:

Americanadian wrote:The Pope is working on uniting all religions.

Says who?

Btw, if anything the Catholic church are losing influence, not gaining it.

Even in nations that are traditionally RC.

American Protestant religions are picking up the slack where the Pope fails.

I can only hope for continual failure. But, do you know the subterfuge hiding the Pope's work? Peace. If he succeeds in bringing peace to the Middle East, for example, he will only gain more credibility for sure. There has been speculation that he will be the only one to initiate peace there, just as the former Pope worked with America to bring about the fall of the Berlin wall.

Never underestimate the Vatican, despite what lies on the surface for our observation. They hold special membership and privileges at the UN. They do hold influential clout amidst the nations. If the Jesuit order is busy causing strife and uncertainty by order of Black Ops throughout the globe, and the Pope is working the other side of things by promoting peace, anything is possible. It's all a ploy to regain the power lost to the Protestant Reformation. Now that they have the Protestant world eating out of their hands, they have less resistance. The Muslim world is their resistance presently.

I believe the only difference to be FITNESS. I attended mass one day with a friend of mine because she asked me to come along. Sit, Stand, Kneel, Sit, Stand, Kneel, Sit, Stand, Kneel. It was like Congregation Aerobics. I'm surprised I didn't need my attack inhaler when we were done. Kidding.

But in all seriousness, I do believe them to be in the same category.

Keute wrote:I believe the only difference to be FITNESS. I attended mass one day with a friend of mine because she asked me to come along. Sit, Stand, Kneel, Sit, Stand, Kneel, Sit, Stand, Kneel. It was like Congregation Aerobics. I'm surprised I didn't need my attack inhaler when we were done. Kidding.

But in all seriousness, I do believe them to be in the same category.

Best and funniest post ever!

Americanadian wrote:. But, do you know the subterfuge hiding the Pope's work? Peace. If he succeeds in bringing peace to the Middle East, for example, he will only gain more credibility for sure.

I am quite sure that the Pope will play no part in the various conflicts across that area. None other than the odd lip service comment. I think you perhaps credit them with more muscle than they have these days. Besides, if he did bring about peace there, blimey, would he not warrant the credit?

You would, if it were you, right?

I know I would.

Americanadian wrote:American Protestant religions are picking up the slack where the Pope fails.

I can only hope for continual failure. But, do you know the subterfuge hiding the Pope's work? Peace. If he succeeds in bringing peace to the Middle East, for example, he will only gain more credibility for sure. There has been speculation that he will be the only one to initiate peace there, just as the former Pope worked with America to bring about the fall of the Berlin wall.

Never underestimate the Vatican, despite what lies on the surface for our observation. They hold special membership and privileges at the UN. They do hold influential clout amidst the nations. If the Jesuit order is busy causing strife and uncertainty by order of Black Ops throughout the globe, and the Pope is working the other side of things by promoting peace, anything is possible. It's all a ploy to regain the power lost to the Protestant Reformation. Now that they have the Protestant world eating out of their hands, they have less resistance. The Muslim world is their resistance presently.

So...he's just gonna step in and be like, "Hi, I'm gonna stop this gajillionth year of war and chaos, with the snap of my finger, and a flick of my wrist. BIPPITY BOPPITY BOO." Why yes that should bring him credibility, for sure!

Isn't the Pope also denying the extent of the holocaust at the moment? Wasn't there a big dealy about that?

Americanadian wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:

Americanadian wrote:The Pope is working on uniting all religions.

Says who?

Btw, if anything the Catholic church are losing influence, not gaining it.

Even in nations that are traditionally RC.

American Protestant religions are picking up the slack where the Pope fails. .

And this is better because...

Keute wrote:

Americanadian wrote:American Protestant religions are picking up the slack where the Pope fails.

I can only hope for continual failure. But, do you know the subterfuge hiding the Pope's work? Peace. If he succeeds in bringing peace to the Middle East, for example, he will only gain more credibility for sure. There has been speculation that he will be the only one to initiate peace there, just as the former Pope worked with America to bring about the fall of the Berlin wall.

Never underestimate the Vatican, despite what lies on the surface for our observation. They hold special membership and privileges at the UN. They do hold influential clout amidst the nations. If the Jesuit order is busy causing strife and uncertainty by order of Black Ops throughout the globe, and the Pope is working the other side of things by promoting peace, anything is possible. It's all a ploy to regain the power lost to the Protestant Reformation. Now that they have the Protestant world eating out of their hands, they have less resistance. The Muslim world is their resistance presently.

So...he's just gonna step in and be like, "Hi, I'm gonna stop this gajillionth year of war and chaos, with the snap of my finger, and a flick of my wrist. BIPPITY BOPPITY BOO." Why yes that should bring him credibility, for sure!

Isn't the Pope also denying the extent of the holocaust at the moment? Wasn't there a big dealy about that?

No.

He wasn't culpable of that one.

He was in Hitler Youth as a teen, though.

But it wasn't scouts. It wasn't really optional, at that time.

Cartoon Head wrote:

Americanadian wrote:. But, do you know the subterfuge hiding the Pope's work? Peace. If he succeeds in bringing peace to the Middle East, for example, he will only gain more credibility for sure.

I am quite sure that the Pope will play no part in the various conflicts across that area. None other than the odd lip service comment. I think you perhaps credit them with more muscle than they have these days. Besides, if he did bring about peace there, blimey, would he not warrant the credit?

You would, if it were you, right?

I know I would.

The Israeli government already sold the rights to the Jerusalem Holy sites to the Vatican in '92 I believe. So the Pope does have a vested interest in that region. The Vatican has always had a plan for Jerusalem. What that entails entirely is beyond my current realm of knowledge. I have a general idea, but it's not worth discussing until more knowledge is attained.

Americanadian wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:

Americanadian wrote:. But, do you know the subterfuge hiding the Pope's work? Peace. If he succeeds in bringing peace to the Middle East, for example, he will only gain more credibility for sure.

I am quite sure that the Pope will play no part in the various conflicts across that area. None other than the odd lip service comment. I think you perhaps credit them with more muscle than they have these days. Besides, if he did bring about peace there, blimey, would he not warrant the credit?

You would, if it were you, right?

I know I would.

The Israeli government already sold the rights to the Jerusalem Holy sites to the Vatican in '92 I believe. So the Pope does have a vested interest in that region. The Vatican has always had a plan for Jerusalem. What that entails entirely is beyond my current realm of knowledge. I have a general idea, but it's not worth discussing until more knowledge is attained.

Okay.

But you were the one with the tabloid style claims!

Americanadian wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:

Americanadian wrote:The Pope is working on uniting all religions.

Says who?

Btw, if anything the Catholic church are losing influence, not gaining it.

Even in nations that are traditionally RC.

American Protestant religions are picking up the slack where the Pope fails.

I can only hope for continual failure. But, do you know the subterfuge hiding the Pope's work? Peace. If he succeeds in bringing peace to the Middle East, for example, he will only gain more credibility for sure. There has been speculation that he will be the only one to initiate peace there, just as the former Pope worked with America to bring about the fall of the Berlin wall.

Never underestimate the Vatican, despite what lies on the surface for our observation. They hold special membership and privileges at the UN. They do hold influential clout amidst the nations. If the Jesuit order is busy causing strife and uncertainty by order of Black Ops throughout the globe, and the Pope is working the other side of things by promoting peace, anything is possible. It's all a ploy to regain the power lost to the Protestant Reformation. Now that they have the Protestant world eating out of their hands, they have less resistance. The Muslim world is their resistance presently.

I think you think too much.

The Catholic Church is not the bogey man. They do more good for the poor, the needy, the hurting, than any other Christian sect. But you and others keep on thinking the worst; they are used to it; they are tolerant of the hate that is tossed their way; and all the ill feelings you all have won't effect the good that they do and will continue to do. They have come along way in recent years; they have admitted their faults, they have humbled themselves and asked for forgiveness of those they have hurt, they are trying to unify Christianity and still, they get pissed on. Frankly, it makes me sick.

Keute wrote:

Americanadian wrote:American Protestant religions are picking up the slack where the Pope fails.

I can only hope for continual failure. But, do you know the subterfuge hiding the Pope's work? Peace. If he succeeds in bringing peace to the Middle East, for example, he will only gain more credibility for sure. There has been speculation that he will be the only one to initiate peace there, just as the former Pope worked with America to bring about the fall of the Berlin wall.

Never underestimate the Vatican, despite what lies on the surface for our observation. They hold special membership and privileges at the UN. They do hold influential clout amidst the nations. If the Jesuit order is busy causing strife and uncertainty by order of Black Ops throughout the globe, and the Pope is working the other side of things by promoting peace, anything is possible. It's all a ploy to regain the power lost to the Protestant Reformation. Now that they have the Protestant world eating out of their hands, they have less resistance. The Muslim world is their resistance presently.

So...he's just gonna step in and be like, "Hi, I'm gonna stop this gajillionth year of war and chaos, with the snap of my finger, and a flick of my wrist. BIPPITY BOPPITY BOO." Why yes that should bring him credibility, for sure!

Isn't the Pope also denying the extent of the holocaust at the moment? Wasn't there a big dealy about that?

No he is not.

Cartoon Head wrote:

Americanadian wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:

Americanadian wrote:The Pope is working on uniting all religions.

Says who?

Btw, if anything the Catholic church are losing influence, not gaining it.

Even in nations that are traditionally RC.

American Protestant religions are picking up the slack where the Pope fails. .

And this is better because...

Worse because religious people are wanting to join politics for the purpose of influencing laws to their liking. They're already cognizant of the secular push to be free from religious imposition. Now, they want to restore America to the "Christian nation" it was originally founded as.

Americanadian wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:

Americanadian wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:

Americanadian wrote:The Pope is working on uniting all religions.

Says who?

Btw, if anything the Catholic church are losing influence, not gaining it.

Even in nations that are traditionally RC.

American Protestant religions are picking up the slack where the Pope fails. .

And this is better because...

Worse because religious people are wanting to join politics for the purpose of influencing laws to their liking. They're already cognizant of the secular push to be free from religious imposition. Now, they want to restore America to the "Christian nation" it was originally founded as.

Worse if Protestantism takes over?

Or Catholicism?

I'm lost, help me out here!

But if you are arguing that there is a collective push by the Christian right to influence politics, I agree,

HotParadox wrote:

Americanadian wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:

Americanadian wrote:The Pope is working on uniting all religions.

Says who?

Btw, if anything the Catholic church are losing influence, not gaining it.

Even in nations that are traditionally RC.

American Protestant religions are picking up the slack where the Pope fails.

I can only hope for continual failure. But, do you know the subterfuge hiding the Pope's work? Peace. If he succeeds in bringing peace to the Middle East, for example, he will only gain more credibility for sure. There has been speculation that he will be the only one to initiate peace there, just as the former Pope worked with America to bring about the fall of the Berlin wall.

Never underestimate the Vatican, despite what lies on the surface for our observation. They hold special membership and privileges at the UN. They do hold influential clout amidst the nations. If the Jesuit order is busy causing strife and uncertainty by order of Black Ops throughout the globe, and the Pope is working the other side of things by promoting peace, anything is possible. It's all a ploy to regain the power lost to the Protestant Reformation. Now that they have the Protestant world eating out of their hands, they have less resistance. The Muslim world is their resistance presently.

I think you think too much.

The Catholic Church is not the bogey man. They do more good for the poor, the needy, the hurting, than any other Christian sect. But you and others keep on thinking the worst; they are used to it; they are tolerant of the hate that is tossed their way; and all the ill feelings you all have won't effect the good that they do and will continue to do. They have come along way in recent years; they have admitted their faults, they have humbled themselves and asked for forgiveness of those they have hurt, they are trying to unify Christianity and still, they get pissed on. Frankly, it makes me sick.

Here's what I want to know. The catholics, baptist, methodist... what ever; does all this work to feed and help people, and all the other good things they try to promote. Why does it bug people so much that they do it in the name of God? Even those that don't believe in God. What do they care who's name they do it in? The main point is they are trying to do something to make things better for people and all they get is pissed on. So what if it's the pope that brings peace to the middle east? Are we going to have to say a hail marry every time we eat because of it or something? Or maybe we could actually eat without the thought of somebody stepping into wally world and blowing the hell out of our kids because one of them is late getting home. (exaggeration but you know what I mean)

Well, good question, but what about when you have missonaries who 'do good', ONLY on the priviso of accepting Christianity?

That's kinda blackmail right?

Mother Theresa wasn't all she was made out to be.

CarolinaHound wrote:

HotParadox wrote:

Americanadian wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:

Americanadian wrote:The Pope is working on uniting all religions.

Says who?

Btw, if anything the Catholic church are losing influence, not gaining it.

Even in nations that are traditionally RC.

American Protestant religions are picking up the slack where the Pope fails.

I can only hope for continual failure. But, do you know the subterfuge hiding the Pope's work? Peace. If he succeeds in bringing peace to the Middle East, for example, he will only gain more credibility for sure. There has been speculation that he will be the only one to initiate peace there, just as the former Pope worked with America to bring about the fall of the Berlin wall.

Never underestimate the Vatican, despite what lies on the surface for our observation. They hold special membership and privileges at the UN. They do hold influential clout amidst the nations. If the Jesuit order is busy causing strife and uncertainty by order of Black Ops throughout the globe, and the Pope is working the other side of things by promoting peace, anything is possible. It's all a ploy to regain the power lost to the Protestant Reformation. Now that they have the Protestant world eating out of their hands, they have less resistance. The Muslim world is their resistance presently.

I think you think too much.

The Catholic Church is not the bogey man. They do more good for the poor, the needy, the hurting, than any other Christian sect. But you and others keep on thinking the worst; they are used to it; they are tolerant of the hate that is tossed their way; and all the ill feelings you all have won't effect the good that they do and will continue to do. They have come along way in recent years; they have admitted their faults, they have humbled themselves and asked for forgiveness of those they have hurt, they are trying to unify Christianity and still, they get pissed on. Frankly, it makes me sick.

Here's what I want to know. The catholics, baptist, methodist... what ever; does all this work to feed and help people, and all the other good things they try to promote. Why does it bug people so much that they do it in the name of God? Even those that don't believe in God. What do they care who's name they do it in? The main point is they are trying to do something to make things better for people and all they get is pissed on. So what if it's the pope that brings peace to the middle east? Are we going to have to say a hail marry every time we eat because of it or something? Or maybe we could actually eat without the thought of somebody stepping into wally world and blowing the hell out of our kids because one of them is late getting home. (exaggeration but you know what I mean)

Spoken as a tolerant and loving humanitarian instead of as an angry human being. You are taking it at face value instead of digging deep and not satisfied until you find a pile of crap. Bravo.

Cartoon Head wrote:Well, good question, but what about when you have missonaries who 'do good', ONLY on the priviso of accepting Christianity?

That's kinda blackmail right?

Mother Theresa wasn't all she was made out to be.

Maybe decades ago, but I don't think anybody is forcing anyone into a church or to a bible study anymore. But if I come walking along with my guitar on my back and find you starving along the road and I buy you a meal, would it not be the polite thing for you to listen to me play a song? Maybe that's what happens, somebody has fed this people and ask them to hear what they have to say, and the hungry folks liked what they heard. No religion is being forced on them. In the same situation I'd want to know more about the people that are helping me too.

CarolinaHound wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:Well, good question, but what about when you have missonaries who 'do good', ONLY on the priviso of accepting Christianity?

That's kinda blackmail right?

Mother Theresa wasn't all she was made out to be.

Maybe decades ago, but I don't think anybody is forcing anyone into a church or to a bible study anymore. .

Really?

Are you sure?

Not anyplace?

Cartoon Head wrote:Well, good question, but what about when you have missonaries who 'do good', ONLY on the priviso of accepting Christianity?

That's kinda blackmail right?

Mother Theresa wasn't all she was made out to be.

Are you saying the good works done by a person are not valid if they do something bad, or if they are dependent upon certain things? Sure, there are different circumstances. But I've had the LDS missionaries help me with my groceries - and they are well aware that neither my husband or I are interested in their religion. I've watched people many times help others without precondition. Those same people turn around and do something unkind or cruel to someone else. Does the second action discount the first?

Cartoon Head wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:Well, good question, but what about when you have missonaries who 'do good', ONLY on the priviso of accepting Christianity?

That's kinda blackmail right?

Mother Theresa wasn't all she was made out to be.

Maybe decades ago, but I don't think anybody is forcing anyone into a church or to a bible study anymore. .

Really?

Are you sure?

Not anyplace?

I was forced to go to church until I was 18 years old, and graduate from seminary as well. I was pretty bitter for awhile. But my parents pulled the "my house my rules" thing. Just because I was under 18 doesn't mean I shouldn't have had the ability to make my own choices regarding religion.

Cartoon Head wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:Well, good question, but what about when you have missonaries who 'do good', ONLY on the priviso of accepting Christianity?

That's kinda blackmail right?

Mother Theresa wasn't all she was made out to be.

Maybe decades ago, but I don't think anybody is forcing anyone into a church or to a bible study anymore. .

Really?

Are you sure?

Not anyplace?

Are you sure there are? Have you been there and seen what is actually going on? Or have you read aboutit or heard it somewhere?

lisan23 wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:Well, good question, but what about when you have missonaries who 'do good', ONLY on the priviso of accepting Christianity?

That's kinda blackmail right?

Mother Theresa wasn't all she was made out to be.

Are you saying the good works done by a person are not valid if they do something bad, or if they are dependent upon certain things? Sure, there are different circumstances. But I've had the LDS missionaries help me with my groceries - and they are well aware that neither my husband or I are interested in their religion. I've watched people many times help others without precondition. Those same people turn around and do something unkind or cruel to someone else. Does the second action discount the first?

I am saying that if someone goes to a nation to help out, for example, then they should do it as act of benevolence, and not on the condition that the person getting the help subscribes to that religion.

lisan23 wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:Well, good question, but what about when you have missonaries who 'do good', ONLY on the priviso of accepting Christianity?

That's kinda blackmail right?

Mother Theresa wasn't all she was made out to be.

Maybe decades ago, but I don't think anybody is forcing anyone into a church or to a bible study anymore. .

Really?

Are you sure?

Not anyplace?

I was forced to go to church until I was 18 years old, and graduate from seminary as well. I was pretty bitter for awhile. But my parents pulled the "my house my rules" thing. Just because I was under 18 doesn't mean I shouldn't have had the ability to make my own choices regarding religion.

That was your parents though, not a whole religion. My parents made me go to school and I hated it, should I hold a grudge about that?

CarolinaHound wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:Well, good question, but what about when you have missonaries who 'do good', ONLY on the priviso of accepting Christianity?

That's kinda blackmail right?

Mother Theresa wasn't all she was made out to be.

Maybe decades ago, but I don't think anybody is forcing anyone into a church or to a bible study anymore. .

Really?

Are you sure?

Not anyplace?

Are you sure there are? Have you been there and seen what is actually going on? Or have you read aboutit or heard it somewhere?

It's all around.

Worse in some places than others, that I shall grant you, but all around, nevertheless.

Just look!

Cartoon Head wrote:

lisan23 wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:Well, good question, but what about when you have missonaries who 'do good', ONLY on the priviso of accepting Christianity?

That's kinda blackmail right?

Mother Theresa wasn't all she was made out to be.

Are you saying the good works done by a person are not valid if they do something bad, or if they are dependent upon certain things? Sure, there are different circumstances. But I've had the LDS missionaries help me with my groceries - and they are well aware that neither my husband or I are interested in their religion. I've watched people many times help others without precondition. Those same people turn around and do something unkind or cruel to someone else. Does the second action discount the first?

I am saying that if someone goes to a nation to help out, for example, then they should do it as act of benevolence, and not on the condition that the person getting the help subscribes to that religion.

I honestly have no idea if that's something that RC's do. I know that Mormons do a lot to help out people in need in other countries, but I have never heard of people being required to subscribe to the religion in order to get help.

Cartoon Head wrote:

lisan23 wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:Well, good question, but what about when you have missonaries who 'do good', ONLY on the priviso of accepting Christianity?

That's kinda blackmail right?

Mother Theresa wasn't all she was made out to be.

Are you saying the good works done by a person are not valid if they do something bad, or if they are dependent upon certain things? Sure, there are different circumstances. But I've had the LDS missionaries help me with my groceries - and they are well aware that neither my husband or I are interested in their religion. I've watched people many times help others without precondition. Those same people turn around and do something unkind or cruel to someone else. Does the second action discount the first?

I am saying that if someone goes to a nation to help out, for example, then they should do it as act of benevolence, and not on the condition that the person getting the help subscribes to that religion.

So if someone fed you when you were starving, you wouldn't ask why? And when they told you because God said help my neighbor, and you'd never heard of this God, you wouldn't want to learn more?

lisan23 wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:

lisan23 wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:Well, good question, but what about when you have missonaries who 'do good', ONLY on the priviso of accepting Christianity?

That's kinda blackmail right?

Mother Theresa wasn't all she was made out to be.

Are you saying the good works done by a person are not valid if they do something bad, or if they are dependent upon certain things? Sure, there are different circumstances. But I've had the LDS missionaries help me with my groceries - and they are well aware that neither my husband or I are interested in their religion. I've watched people many times help others without precondition. Those same people turn around and do something unkind or cruel to someone else. Does the second action discount the first?

I am saying that if someone goes to a nation to help out, for example, then they should do it as act of benevolence, and not on the condition that the person getting the help subscribes to that religion.

I honestly have no idea if that's something that RC's do. I know that Mormons do a lot to help out people in need in other countries, but I have never heard of people being required to subscribe to the religion in order to get help.

Exactly my point.

Now I'm not saying there hasn't been instances of places like Jamestown and the Wacco deal. But in all honesty, you're going to have extreme examples like that of anything. People have to use a little common sense.

RCs, Baptists, LDS, or what have you, do a tremendous amount of good for the unfortunate and I have never, never heard of them requiring that the receiver must join their churches. They do it with the sole purpose of helping people. Why is that so hard to understand? This is how stupid stuff starts.

HotParadox wrote:I think you think too much.

The Catholic Church is not the bogey man. They do more good for the poor, the needy, the hurting, than any other Christian sect. But you and others keep on thinking the worst; they are used to it; they are tolerant of the hate that is tossed their way; and all the ill feelings you all have won't effect the good that they do and will continue to do. They have come along way in recent years; they have admitted their faults, they have humbled themselves and asked for forgiveness of those they have hurt, they are trying to unify Christianity and still, they get pissed on. Frankly, it makes me sick.

Outward deeds do not reveal the true nature of the heart, correct?

Sure they have asked for forgiveness and admitted their faults. They will do whatever it takes to achieve their goal. No matter what happens.

Until their belief of the Pope's power is acquiesced they haven't really changed much. As I stated to Steve, it would be a welcome change to see a universal peace established on the planet. I also stated that the common RC is not to be blamed for the aberrant doctrine that hasn't changed for centuries.

There is one other thing to consider in all of this. The Vatican established the Counter Reformation after the Reformation took root and the Pope couldn't contain the spread of Protestantism. That Counter move was the Jesuit Order. Two Popes and almost a third lost their lives trying to dissolve the Jesuit Order, to no avail. If they are still active, then the Counter Reformation hasn't ceased and desisted, correct?

CarolinaHound wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:

lisan23 wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:Well, good question, but what about when you have missonaries who 'do good', ONLY on the priviso of accepting Christianity?

That's kinda blackmail right?

Mother Theresa wasn't all she was made out to be.

Are you saying the good works done by a person are not valid if they do something bad, or if they are dependent upon certain things? Sure, there are different circumstances. But I've had the LDS missionaries help me with my groceries - and they are well aware that neither my husband or I are interested in their religion. I've watched people many times help others without precondition. Those same people turn around and do something unkind or cruel to someone else. Does the second action discount the first?

I am saying that if someone goes to a nation to help out, for example, then they should do it as act of benevolence, and not on the condition that the person getting the help subscribes to that religion.

So if someone fed you when you were starving, you wouldn't ask why? And when they told you because God said help my neighbor, and you'd never heard of this God, you wouldn't want to learn more?

Um, I am sure the Catholic church or any other religion would love to have a brand new audience, all ready to bribe or bully into joining their religion. Indeed, I seem to recall that being done, right throughout history, either the bribe or the stick, that is how a religion was perpetuated.

Popularity is at it's peak when that religion is esp violent.

The Catholic church was at it's strongest when it was most brutal, and today, we see that an increase in popularity for Islam (one in five are Muslim!), has coincided with it going through an esp violent phase.

These people that you speak of.

To not have heard of the concept of 'god' would likely make them a v small tribe, cut off from the outside world.

I would imagine they have their own culture.

I am suggesting that the person that gives assistance, on the proviso that the recipitent converts to that religion, is nothing more than cynical exploitation.

Cartoon Head wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:

lisan23 wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:Well, good question, but what about when you have missonaries who 'do good', ONLY on the priviso of accepting Christianity?

That's kinda blackmail right?

Mother Theresa wasn't all she was made out to be.

Are you saying the good works done by a person are not valid if they do something bad, or if they are dependent upon certain things? Sure, there are different circumstances. But I've had the LDS missionaries help me with my groceries - and they are well aware that neither my husband or I are interested in their religion. I've watched people many times help others without precondition. Those same people turn around and do something unkind or cruel to someone else. Does the second action discount the first?

I am saying that if someone goes to a nation to help out, for example, then they should do it as act of benevolence, and not on the condition that the person getting the help subscribes to that religion.

So if someone fed you when you were starving, you wouldn't ask why? And when they told you because God said help my neighbor, and you'd never heard of this God, you wouldn't want to learn more?

Um, I am sure the Catholic church or any other religion would love to have a brand new audience, all ready to bribe or bully into joining their religion. Indeed, I seem to recall that being done, right throughout history, either the bribe or the stick, that is how a religion was perpetuated.

Popularity is at it's peak when that religion is esp violent.

The Catholic church was at it's strongest when it was most brutal, and today, we see that an increase in popularity for Islam (one in five are Muslim!), has coincided with it going through an esp violent phase.

These people that you speak of.

To not have heard of the concept of 'god' would likely make them a v small tribe, cut off from the outside world.

I would imagine they have their own culture.

I am suggesting that the person that gives assistance, on the proviso that the recipitent converts to that religion, is nothing more than cynical exploitation.

Yea it would be, but they don't do it anymore.

Are you stating that there is no organised brainwashing of the vulnerable?

Furthermore, when the place where I volunteer feeds and totally cares for pregnant women and all their existing children and then totally takes care of the entire family until the new baby turns one year old, do you really think that we say to these unfortunate souls, "SORRY, you're not a Christian." Or "You must become a Christian or else we've got nothing for you." No, we don't care what they are or if they are non-believers. And just by the way, we are a bunch of Catholics and Protestants who respect each other and each others' faiths because we are doing what we do for one reason only:TO SERVE CHRIST AND NOT JUDGE EACH OTHER.

And who do you think orchestrates this worldwide charity? A bunch of men and women like me? No. It is ALL heads of Christian sects, started by the Catholic Church just by the way, who donate everything they can, in concert with each other, to help the less fortunate as Christ did. Together: Protestants including Evangelicals, and Catholics; Christians, in concert as one.

Some of you guys are unreal.

HotParadox wrote:Furthermore, when the place where I volunteer feeds and totally cares for pregnant women and all their existing children and then totally takes care of the entire family until the new baby turns one year old, do you really think that we say to these unfortunate souls, "SORRY, you're not a Christian." Or "You must become a Christian or else we've got nothing for you." No, we don't care what they are or if they are non-believers. And just by the way, we are a bunch of Catholics and Protestants who respect each other and each others' faiths because we are doing what we do for one reason only:TO SERVE CHRIST AND NOT JUDGE EACH OTHER.

And who do you think orchestrates this worldwide charity? A bunch of men and women like me? No. It is ALL heads of Christian sects, started by the Catholic Church just by the way, who donate everything they can, in concert with each other, to help the less fortunate as Christ did. Together: Protestants including Evangelicals, and Catholics; Christians, in concert as one.

Some of you guys are unreal.

Yes.

But your one example is not a catch all example.

Nor is it historically reflective.

Cartoon Head wrote:Are you stating that there is no organised brainwashing of the vulnerable?

I'll repeat...

Now I'm not saying there hasn't been instances of places like Jamestown and the Wacco deal. But in all honesty, you're going to have extreme examples like that of anything. People have to use a little common sense.