Question for the Catholics

[gbear]

So it would appear that the Church is about to ban homosexual priests. I'm curious as to why. Have they not vowed to be chaste and celebate? I'm confused by what the Catholic church thinks is appropriate behavior for a man attracted to another man. I note they are not banning a priest who hasn't been chaste which would make sense to me.

Is it the church's position that we all get to chose who we are attracted to and they should just chose to not be attracted to them?

Maybe it's just the liberal in me, but I have a much easier time holding people responsible for what they chose to do compared with holding them responsible for thoughts or wishes. To be honest, I hope when I die I am judged by what I did, not what I wished, thought about, or considered (and all of those are more involved than what I would be attracted to).

On a more abstract level, which says more about one's character: the guy who sees a good and bad choice but makes the good choice or the guy who sees only one choice and makes it (the one choice being good)? I would think the actively made decision would say more about the character. However, it may just be that to be truely good is to be unaware. That seems kind of a sad thought for a race whose difference from the surrounding world has been summed up in being sentient and self aware.

[endzone_dave]

One of the seven Sacraments of the church is marriage which means the union of a man and a woman is very important. If you've been to a Catholic wedding, you've heard a VERY long sermon on how much the Church believes in the importance of the love between a husband and his wife. I think allowing (condoning) homosexuality in the Church basically lessens the importance of one of the Sacraments, something the Church would not want to do.

It would almost be like a Priest not believing that baptism cleanses sin or that the Eucharist is the body of Christ.

[rictus58]

So it would appear that the Church is about to ban homosexual priests. I'm curious as to why. Have they not vowed to be chaste and celebate? I'm confused by what the Catholic church thinks is appropriate behavior for a man attracted to another man. I note they are not banning a priest who hasn't been chaste which would make sense to me.

Is it the church's position that we all get to chose who we are attracted to and they should just chose to not be attracted to them?

Maybe it's just the liberal in me, but I have a much easier time holding people responsible for what they chose to do compared with holding them responsible for thoughts or wishes. To be honest, I hope when I die I am judged by what I did, not what I wished, thought about, or considered (and all of those are more involved than what I would be attracted to).

On a more abstract level, which says more about one's character: the guy who sees a good and bad choice but makes the good choice or the guy who sees only one choice and makes it (the one choice being good)? I would think the actively made decision would say more about the character. However, it may just be that to be truely good is to be unaware. That seems kind of a sad thought for a race whose difference from the surrounding world has been summed up in being sentient and self aware.

I can't answer their reasoning behind it. Other than the fact the Church believes Homosexuality is a sin, Perhaps its to prevent putting altar boys at risk? I don't know.

The catholic church is facing a shortage of priests that is reaching critical levels. There are many who are calling for the church to allow priests to marry. They believe this will increase the number of priests who would normally stay away because of rules against marriage. This unto itself is confusing because the Church considers marriage a sacrament (along with having a chid) but the Church won't allow priests to be a part of those 2 sacraments. The only reasoning I've heard on that is that the priests are to be devoting their life to God, not family.

[gbear]

OKay, so devoting oneself to God rather than another man is bad?

What I haven't figured out is how having urges and not acting on them because one dedicates oneself to God is harming marriage? Are we saying the priest isn't giving up anything because he isn't giving up women? If he doesn't have a family to chose God over, then he's not worthy of priesthood?


Dave, I don't see how a gay priest is condoning homosexuality. He hasn't done anything. In fact, he would be doing exactly what the church teaches in that he would not be acting on "sinful" impulses.

[twa]

Gbear, a priest having urges and NOT acting on them would mean there would be no problem.

Unless he is advocating to promote a lifestyle the church condemns.

In which case he should not be a priest.

[ntotoro]

OKay, so devoting oneself to God rather than another man is bad?

The Church views homosexuality as a sin. That's goes for lay people as well as those serving, such as Nuns or Priests.

As far as heterosexual contact, it's just not permitted. Regardless the reasons, it's not allowed for those who have taken oaths of service. The reasons may not have bearing in the 21st century, but that's the way it is until it changes. You are allowed to either accept the Sacrement of Matrimony or Holy Orders, but not both.

[chomerics]

I'll pop in on this but, I will stay out of the discussion since my views of the RCC cloud my judgement, and they tend to get me in trouble.

The RCC is run by a bunch of hypocritical, meglomaniacal indigents. I grew up in the RCC and I know the inner workings of the church, and they put on a good show, but there is something much more sinister involved.

For the past 50 years, RCC priests were raping little boys, and the church knew about it. Instead of confronting the problem, and defrocking the priest, they decided to ship these pedophiles to other parrishes in order to keep everything quiet. This was not an isolated insodent, and the numbers may have been as high as 5-10% of priests were pedophiles.

So now, how can the church come out and ban gay priests? Because they are in a relationship with another man and they think it is worng? Yet they allowed gay pedophiles to continue not only to teach the bible, but to USE the bible to rape children, they pimped around gay priests for 50 years, and they did nothing to stop it, instead they encouraged it. Yes, encouraged, what else would you say moving a priests from one church where they were caught raping a child, to another church where they had an entire new group of children to rape?

Now, to top it off, the RCC gave the person responsible for allowing this atrocity to occur a raise, and a position in the Vatican. They gave Bernard Law a new postition in the vatican, a raise, and he was allowed to vote in the election of the last pope. They gave him this position so he wouldn't be arrested and charged in the state, and they are allowing a know pimp of priests to escape facing the law.

This is why they are facing dwindling numbers, and this is why a lot of my state has turnes to agnostic. They watched the church they grew up in reveal dark secrets that would make Charles Manson cringe, and exposed the RCC for the frauds they were.

[gbear]

ntorro, is homosexuality a sin or acting on it?

TWA, I understand not preaching homosexuality and tht part makes sense. Why not just say a priest can't condone homosexual behaviors? I would think they could say that. I was just surprised to see them ban priests who are attracted to men rather than women. Is it the church's position that a priest should have no sexual thoughts and if they do they shouldn't be priests? That could make sense, but I doubt there would be many priests (like it's not an exclusive enough club now).

[ntotoro]

ntorro, is homosexuality a sin or acting on it?

The concept itself of homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of the Church. Hate the sin, not the sinner. I was actually baptised Syrian Orthodox, but Roman Catholocism is a long lost (and hated by many) cousin... ;)

Our Priests are allowed to marry so long as they do so before completing Seminary.

[RYANJOHNXI]

I am Cahtolic, so I suppose I am hated too then.

Thanks

[gbear]

Wow, didn't know a concept was a sin. That's new new. Thanks (seriously).

With 7 years of religon classes, I always thought most sins were of the active type with only a few exceptions like coveting a neighbors wife. Even that one, I always thought was odd. If you do no actions to covet and always act as if you did not...? No harm no foul? Heck I think many of us want others to think our partners are attractive. We just don't want them to act on it!

I'm not sure I believe in thought sins, but atleast now I see where they are coming from. Personally, I hope I'm judged and remembered for the choices I've made. For the thoughts...well, God made me that way. What I do, I control. The rest... The whole thoughts being sins reminds me of predeterminism (God has already picked if we're destined for heaven or hell before we make any decisions in our life).

[ntotoro]

I am Cahtolic, so I suppose I am hated too then.

Thanks

Whatever. Put down your cross already.

I didn't say I hated anyone. There are those in the Eastern Orthodox Church, especially the higher you go (higher than an Archmandrite) who do not exactly have any love lost for the Catholic Church. It might have a little something to do with those slaughtered by the Holy See's Army when the Eastern Church separated. When John Paul II was the first Pope ever to visit Greece, he wasn't exactly greeted with cheers, considering 96% of the country is Greek Orthodox.

I didn't say I held the same opinion, but many do. My Father is Catholic. By your logic, I hate him, too.

[ntotoro]

Wow, didn't know a concept was a sin. That's new new. Thanks (seriously).

Maybe I worded that wrong.

While the concept of homosexuality may be a sinful act, consider homosexual thoughts to be akin to hateful thoughts, wishing someone dead, etcetera. Even heterosexual fantasy, I suppose, is a sin outside your marriage. I don't make the rules, though, so I'm not sure. While they might not be mortal sins, they are sins. I don't know if the act of homosexuality is regarded with more weight. Not sure. I've just never thought to ask.

[Destino]

If the Catholic church bans homosexual priests, not for acts but for the fact they feel attraction to same sex, then they will be doing a horrible thing. God gives all of us a burden, and instructs us on what is right and wrong. Some of us wrestle with greed others with dishonesty everyone with someething, or more like somethings. The sin is found in the action not the urge. Wanting to do something wrong is our very nature, we are flawed by design, it is by an act of will resisting the wrong and embracing the right that we honor our creator. By doing this the Catholic church is in effect damning people for having a certain burden having placed on them. Labeling them unworthy of service should they choose it for themselves.

[Burger35]

The thought of homosexuality is the sin as is the act. It goes along with the feeling of hate towards a person. That is a sin although it is not an act. By doing this the RCC is taking a step towards fixing the problem of pedophilia(I think that's how you spell it).
Though I wonder how many of these Priests considered themselves homosexual before they committed these acts with little boys. I also wonder how long this tradition has been going on.
We know in the acient Roman and Greek times that homosexuality was accepted. Socrates would have sexual relations with his students as would Alexander the Great with his soilders.
I guess what I am saying is, I don't think that many of these Priests are homosexual. I think that they know that they can't enter into the holy sacrament with another woman. So in order to release this sexual tention they turn to alter boys. Which is only a sexual act not a feeling of love.

[iheartskins]

The RCC is run by a bunch of hypocritical, meglomaniacal indigents.

They may be a lot of things, but they are far from being indigent Chom.

[Art Monk Fan]

The Church already has a policy against allowing homosexuals to become priests, but has not enforced it to any degree for a long, long time. This would acutally signal a return of sorts.

Until recently only boys were allowed to become altar servers. Only men are allowed to become priests. The preisthood became something of a haven for homosexual Catholics -- a structured environment to help them to avoid sin.

The problem is, it's something akin to sending an alcoholic to live in a bar. The go to seminary where they are surrounded by only men, including other gay Catholics, and then spend much of their time in their ministries with boys and young men serving along side them. The temptation proved too much for an alarmingly large number of these men, with disastrous results for the children of the Catholic Church.

Maybe it amounts to throwing out the baby with the bath water, but it looks like the Pope is simply going to enforce the old rule to get rid of the problem as fast as possible. For the last few decades the Church has been treating this an illness rather than a crime and tried to rehabilitate the priests in question, again with disastrous results for the children. Pope Benedict seems headed for a much firmer stance.

As for your questions regarding homosexuality itself as a sin, rather than homosexual acts, in fact it is the act that is the sin and not the state of being. In the current instance the Church just feels it can't take the chance anymore of having gays as priests.

The Church's stance on homosexuality is not a popular one in our culture. They feel that it is a deviant sexual desire similar to pedofilia. Sexual intercourse exists for the sole purpose of creating children. Deviant sexual acts are any which cannot result in pregnancy. The Church's condemnation of all deviant acts is not the same, some are clearly worse than others, but all should be avoided. This is also why the Church is against contraceptives -- sex should only be between a married man and woman and should not articifially constrain the possibility of creating a new life (another unpopular view, I know).

Homosexuals feel attracted to others of the same sex. It is not their fault, it is simply how they feel. Pedofiles feel attracted to children, again, not their fault, it is how they're wired. The Church views both as sins; society says one is o.k. because it involves two consenting adults and the other isn't because it involves a minor. It's the difference between a sin and a crime really.

I hope that clears it up for you. Feel free to ask me questions, provided you can keep it civil -- none of Chom's charming epithets, please: "The RCC is run by a bunch of hypocritical, meglomaniacal indigents." Lovely fellow that Chom.

[ntotoro]

The Church already has a policy against allowing homosexuals to become priests, but has not enforced it to any degree for a long, long time. This would acutally signal a return of sorts.

So it would kind of be like the Church's own "five yard contact" rule... ;)

[Art Monk Fan]

Wow, didn't know a concept was a sin. That's new new. Thanks (seriously).

With 7 years of religon classes, I always thought most sins were of the active type with only a few exceptions like coveting a neighbors wife. Even that one, I always thought was odd. If you do no actions to covet and always act as if you did not...? No harm no foul? Heck I think many of us want others to think our partners are attractive. We just don't want them to act on it!

I'm not sure I believe in thought sins, but atleast now I see where they are coming from. Personally, I hope I'm judged and remembered for the choices I've made. For the thoughts...well, God made me that way. What I do, I control. The rest... The whole thoughts being sins reminds me of predeterminism (God has already picked if we're destined for heaven or hell before we make any decisions in our life).
It's a teaching from Augustine, I believe, that the decision to commit the crime is a sin, even if you back out and do not commit the sin. It is a sin of a smaller order, but a sin nonetheless.

Predeterminism is constraining only when you continue to view time in a linear fashion. As eternal, God isn't constrained by linear time as we are -- an omniscient God and free choice can and do co-exist.

[Epistopheles]

It's a teaching from Augustine, I believe, that the decision to commit the crime is a sin, even if you back out and do not commit the sin. It is a sin of a smaller order, but a sin nonetheless.


And it is here that we will see the discussion shift to whether homosexuality is a conscious choice vs. something you are born with ("the gay gene" so to speak). Otherwise the above comment is out of context.

Good luck with this one, fellas.

[gbear]

By predeterminism, I mean that I'm being judged on something which was decided regardless of my choices. In the case of the thoughts being a sin, I think of certain things because God gave me the capacity to do so. Thus, I sin because God designed me to sin thus God must have used something else to determine if I go to Heaven. If it's not based on my actions or decisions, it must be predetermined that his chosen get to come to him after death (Isn't that Calvinism?).

Now quick question: is there a difference between passing thoughts and dwelling? Is it a sin to not know or imediately come up with the correct way to act? I supposed I can stop myself from dwelling on certain things. I can kind of see how deciding to keep fantasizing about things could be considered a sin, and maybe God looks at things that way. If so, that still seems a pretty strict ideal to try and follow. For those who do, my hats off to you. I just try to control what I do, and I'm happy when I succeed at that.

[prophet]

Proverbs 21:2 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.

It really doesn't matter what people say or think... if it doesn't line up with what God has said... its wrong - If you claim to be of the Christian Faith.

You can not pick and choose what you like out of the bible to suit your conscience... if you "again" claim to be of the Christian faith

On the Issue stated. They basic question is can you be celibate gay and a Christian. Simply put - No. Just like you can't be a porn watching man/woman and be a christian... why? The bible states clearly in the following. It is a heart issue.


Proverbs 23:7
For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he


Matthew 5
21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause[b] shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire. 23

27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old,[c] ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[d] 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.

The simple version of above is:
if you hate according to the bible you are a murder.
If you look at a person with lust ... its the same thing as hooking up with them in God's eye's.

If a priest is "gay" yet does not act on it... he is still claiming to be gay. That means he is commiting the act in his heart in some fashion. Since homosexuality is clearly stated as sin in the bible. The bible clearly states that if you come to God you have to do a 180 from you're old lifestyle.

that is what the bible says.. nothing left to argue here

peace

[chomerics]

They may be a lot of things, but they are far from being indigent Chom.

I was reffering to their lack of charactor, not monetary values. Sorry I was not more clear.

[chomerics]

The Church already has a policy against allowing homosexuals to become priests, but has not enforced it to any degree for a long, long time. This would acutally signal a return of sorts.

Until recently only boys were allowed to become altar servers. Only men are allowed to become priests. The preisthood became something of a haven for homosexual Catholics -- a structured environment to help them to avoid sin.

The problem is, it's something akin to sending an alcoholic to live in a bar. The go to seminary where they are surrounded by only men, including other gay Catholics, and then spend much of their time in their ministries with boys and young men serving along side them. The temptation proved too much for an alarmingly large number of these men, with disastrous results for the children of the Catholic Church.

Maybe it amounts to throwing out the baby with the bath water, but it looks like the Pope is simply going to enforce the old rule to get rid of the problem as fast as possible. For the last few decades the Church has been treating this an illness rather than a crime and tried to rehabilitate the priests in question, again with disastrous results for the children. Pope Benedict seems headed for a much firmer stance.


The first part of your post was good, and maybe the pope can start to rectify the problem by extriditing Bernie "The Pimp" Law back to Mass. so he can stand trial. Maybe after he spends a few years in jail, he will understand the torment and torture he caused thousands of young children. Hey, I grew up in the RCC and I watched the pedophiles ruin a bunch of children's lives, do you expect me to feel different?

[Art Monk Fan]

And it is here that we will see the discussion shift to whether homosexuality is a conscious choice vs. something you are born with ("the gay gene" so to speak). Otherwise the above comment is out of context.

Good luck with this one, fellas.
Good luck is right, even scientists doing a straightforward investigation of that topic are often vilified.

Historically, gay rights activists originallly lobbied hard for others to view it as a life-style choice. They did this of course, because it was considered an illness and folks were busy trying to find the "cure" for homosexuality -- shock threapy anyone? Now that much rides on viewing gay rights as a civil rights issue, they need it to have a natural cause.

[gbear]

Prophet,
So there are no lustful Christians? Really?

Do you find this doable,realistic? How does anyone make it through their teenage years without being damned?

No in all seriousness, I have a hard time believing anything is that absolute. If it is, I'll probably end up back where I started in highschool when I first gave serious consideration to such things: "I don't want to spend eternity with the God of the old testiment who judges only in absolutes without context." (sad) I hope that's not how reality actualy ends up.

All that being said, thanks. I wanted a better appreciation for where the Church is coming from on this. I in no way mean to say it's wrong (just sad for meto view life through such different glasses than the men I admire in my highschool).

[Art Monk Fan]

The first part of your post was good, and maybe the pope can start to rectify the problem by extriditing Bernie "The Pimp" Law back to Mass. so he can stand trial. Maybe after he spends a few years in jail, he will understand the torment and torture he caused thousands of young children. Hey, I grew up in the RCC and I watched the pedophiles ruin a bunch of children's lives, do you expect me to feel different?
Like you, I'm a cradle Catholic, as are my mother and my children; my father and wife are both converts. I was an altar boy in churches both in VA and PA and never had any bad experiences with a priest. I don't know enough about Cardinal Law to condemn him. I don't agree with the Church's previous policy of attempting to rehabilitate pedophile priests, but I can understand the reasoning that led them to it. I disagree with the reasoning and I have to wonder to what measure the decision was effected by other gay priests in higher positions passing judgement on the offenders. The children should have come first and there's absolutely no way around that.

[prophet]

edit


.........................

[prophet]

Prophet,
So there are no lustful Christians? Really?

Do you find this doable,realistic? How does anyone make it through their teenage years without being damned?

No in all seriousness, I have a hard time believing anything is that absolute. If it is, I'll probably end up back where I started in highschool when I first gave serious consideration to such things: "I don't want to spend eternity with the God of the old testiment who judges only in absolutes without context." (sad) I hope that's not how reality actualy ends up.

All that being said, thanks. I wanted a better appreciation for where the Church is coming from on this. I in no way mean to say it's wrong (just sad for me).

people mess up... this is a fact. I am in no way saying people will not screw up.

but to live continually in "sin" is wrong. That is why we have grace... it is the power to live as "clean" as possible in this life as we can.

And yes it is possible.

[Art Monk Fan]

Prophet,
So there are no lustful Christians? Really?

Do you find this doable,realistic? How does anyone make it through their teenage years without being damned?

No in all seriousness, I have a hard time believing anything is that absolute. If it is, I'll probably end up back where I started in highschool when I first gave serious consideration to such things: "I don't want to spend eternity with the God of the old testiment who judges only in absolutes without context." (sad) I hope that's not how reality actualy ends up.

All that being said, thanks. I wanted a better appreciation for where the Church is coming from on this. I in no way mean to say it's wrong (just sad for me).
There certainly are lustful Christains and they are not necessarily damned, at least as Catholics view it. To err is human, as the saying goes. God created us with flaws so that we could prove our worthiness by overcoming them and turning towards Him.

Tempation (a passing thought) is not a sin, deciding to act is. Now if you back out before committing the act, you have saved yourself from an even deeper sin, but you have sinned. Being a Christian, though means that, no matter how late you repent, if you truly repent, you are still saved.

The Gospel reading from Mass a week or so ago was on this topic. It was about the workers, some hired in the monring, and then more throughout the day, including some hired so late they only worked for an hour in the fields. At the end of the day, the farm owner paid them all a full days wage. The early workers protested because they had worked longer, but the farmer admonished them, because he had paid them exactly what he'd agreed to pay, why should they be angry because of his generosity to the others.

Some come early to God, others come late, as long as you truly repent in your heart, God takes us all.

[webnarc]

Good luck with this one, fellas.

:laugh: Your use of the word "fellas" is perfect!


The reason there are gay priests is because too many gay men mistake their lack of attraction to women as a calling to the cloth.

It's completely unnatural and unrealiztic to expect a human being to not have sex for their entire life. Sex is fun and it feels really, really good.

[Destino]

Prophet you are making what I consider to be a common mistake. The laws of god are written in a way that none of us can reach heaven without the sacrifice of Jesus because no one on this planet can be perfect. That is the point of the lines you quoted. We are all sinners.

For example you listed the sins more commonly talked about today. But there is more too it...



38
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'
39
But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.
40
If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well.
41
Should anyone press you into service for one mile, 26 go with him for two miles.
42
Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow.
43
27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
44
But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,
45
that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.

Can you point me to the christians that give all and more then that which they are asked at all times? There is nothing uncertain about what is said here, if you are asked for something always give me. If you are asked for money give it immediately and if you are asked for a loan do so at once. If you are attacked do not react in violence, but prepare to be hit again and pray for your attacker.

These are above our ability to meet. We can meet some of them strive to be better, but you or I can never be as pefect as god. We are called to try and honor him in our struggle, but if not for the sacrifice of Jesus none of us would find our way to the gates of heaven.

[chomerics]

Like you, I'm a cradle Catholic, as are my mother and my children; my father and wife are both converts. I was an altar boy in churches both in VA and PA and never had any bad experiences with a priest. I don't know enough about Cardinal Law to condemn him. I don't agree with the Church's previous policy of attempting to rehabilitate pedophile priests, but I can understand the reasoning that led them to it. I disagree with the reasoning and I have to wonder to what measure the decision was effected by other gay priests in higher positions passing judgement on the offenders. The children should have come first and there's absolutely no way around that.

I was an altar boy myself until we away moved from Boston when I was 9 years old, but I only did it for a year in Boston. Two kids that I knew growing up were molested by a priest, but this was after I left the area. I only found out about it a few years ago when this was being exposed in the public. The priest who molested them went on to molest over 250+ more children after one who was molested went to the Archdiosis. Bernard Law kept on passing the priests, who were accused of molestation, to other parrishes and thepattern would repeat. This happened for over 20 years.

Hell, I know that's where my hatred comes from towards the RCC, as I often wonder if my father did not re-enlist in the military if I would have been one of the boys as well. Not only does it detest me, but it also angers and infurriates me as well as a bunch of other emotions. It just pisses me off to no end that the person responsible for allowing these henious crimes to be committed has been given a free ride by the RCC and the pope.

Because of this, my children will not grow up with religion. I will teach them that there are a number of different religions out there, and they can join if they want to, but I am not going to have any part of it.

[iheartskins]

I was reffering to their lack of charactor, not monetary values. Sorry I was not more clear.

Gotcha Chom; I'd just never seen or used "indigent" in any context other than as a reference to monetary poverty. And thus, given my handle on the word, I thought it a little strange to call one of the richest institutions in the world poor. They are the largest landowner in New York City--that holding alone is a princely sum! Anyway, I see what you mean, and I like your take on the word. Maybe I'll try to integrate that usage going forward.

Sorry for the tangent folks.

[prophet]

Prophet you are making what I consider to be a common mistake. The laws of god are written in a way that none of us can reach heaven without the sacrifice of Jesus because no one on this planet can be perfect. That is the point of the lines you quoted. We are all sinners.

For example you listed the sins more commonly talked about today. But there is more too it...



Can you point me to the christians that give all and more then that which they are asked at all times? Can you show me the people that when struck, do not lash out in defense but instead prepare to receive a second blow rather then react in anger?

No one on this planet is able to meet all the standards. If they were Jesus would never have had to be sent and die horribly for our sins.

God's standards are higher then we are able, the struggle that is ours is to try to be more like him and pray the Jesus' sacrifice along with our faith is enough.
Here is the problem with your question... you are coming from a non-christian reasoning... therefore no matter what I say... you will not believe. I will simply quote what the bible says. If it says I can walk to the moon... I don't know how, but some way, some how it can be done. Christianity is based on "faith".

I anwsered the question already.

[Destino]

Here is the problem with your question... you are coming from a non-christian reasoning... therefore no matter what I say... you will not believe. I will simply quote what the bible says. If it says I can walk to the moon... I don't know how, but some way, some how it can be done. Christianity is based on "faith".

I anwsered the question already.

Unless you don't consider Catholics to be Christian, then you are wrong about where I'm coming from. My problem is that I see too many Christians these days ranting on and on about sins that are popular these days, those relating to sex, reproduction, and homosexuality. The problem with this is that these sins are seen as avoidable and people start to think they are not sinners like those other people. The truth is there are more sins then just those few and that we are all guilty of sin, no exceptions. The only perfect man to walk this planet was nailed to a cross and killed for it. He accepted his fate and died for us so that we might be forgiven and allowed to enter the kingdom of heaven.

If we are not all sinners then why was there a great need for this sacrifice?

[wskin44]

I also was born and raised a Catholic, but removed myself from the reach of the Church in my early twenties. The Church sets itself up as the sole conduit to God although the Church is nothing but men. I have no problem with anyone finding their way through the Church, but Mankind should not be putting all of its spiritual eggs in a basket run by men. I only trust my own relationship with God which is extremely private. There is too much broken logic in the Church, which is typical of all man made institutions, to trust my soul to its inconsistencies.

[iheartskins]

I also was born and raised a Catholic, but removed myself from the reach of the Church in my early twenties. The Church sets itself up as the sole conduit to God although the Church is nothing but men. I have no problem with anyone finding their way through the Church, but Mankind should not be putting all of its spiritual eggs in a basket run by men. I only trust my own relationship with God which is extremely private. There is too much broken logic in the Church, which is typical of all man made institutions, to trust my soul to its inconsistencies.

wskin, I recommend a book called I & Thou by Martin Buber. I think you'd enjoy it. It's a Jewish take on what you're saying, but it's still deals with many of the issues that you raise in the above post.

[webnarc]

Here is the problem with your question... you are coming from a non-christian reasoning... therefore no matter what I say... you will not believe. I will simply quote what the bible says. If it says I can walk to the moon... I don't know how, but some way, some how it can be done. Christianity is based on "faith".


Thank you for posting this. It clears up so many things on so many different levels.

Even if I think your faith is misguided, it is your faith and it is correct to you. That applies to every value that someone holds. If mine is different, they are likely going to view me as wrong.

Personal relativity at its finest.

[prophet]

Unless you don't consider Catholics to be Christian, then you are wrong about where I'm coming from. My problem is that I see too many Christians these days ranting on and on about sins that are popular these days, those relating to sex, reproduction, and homosexuality. The problem with this is that these sins are seen as avoidable and people start to think they are not sinners like those other people. The truth is there are more sins then just those few and that we are all guilty of sin, no exceptions. The only perfect man to walk this planet was nailed to a cross and killed for it. He accepted his fate and died for us so that we might be forgiven and allowed to enter the kingdom of heaven.

If we are not all sinners then why was there a great need for this sacrifice?

So you are saying that Jesus's has enough power that He gave His life as a sacrifice to save your soul from hell... yet he can not save you from acting out on a little porno problem? Then he must not be all that powerful... Wow I just don't know how to respond to that....

[wskin44]

wskin, I recommend a book called I & Thou by Martin Buber. I think you'd enjoy it. It's a Jewish take on what you're saying, but it's still deals with many of the issues that you raise in the above post.

Thanks heart. I will check it out. I've found a lot of practical wisdom in the Jewish faith.

[iheartskins]

So you are saying that Jesus's has enough power that gave his life as a sacrifice to save your soul from hell... yet he can not save you from a little porno problem? Then he must not be all that powerful... Wow I just don't know how to respond to that....

I could be wrong, but my take on what Des is saying is that the manner in which the greater Christian Clergy & Establishment has segregated some sins as "avoidable" has created a division such that people who do not engage in those sins feel superior or feel entitled to judge those who do commit the enumerated "avoidable" sins. His next point, I think, is that this creates a false division because arguably all sins are avoidable and this separation is incongruous with some of the fundamental precepts of Christianity.

[iheartskins]

Thanks heart. I will check it out. I've found a lot of practical wisdom in the Jewish faith.

Not to hijack the thread, but Buber's writings are really interesting. Not only those about his relationship with G-d, but also his take on various portions of the (Old) Testament. I'd also recommend Mendehlsonn (the grandfather of the Christian composer), Herman Cohen, and Franz Rosenzweig. All very interesting Jewish philosophers.

[Art Monk Fan]

So you are saying that Jesus's has enough power that He gave His life as a sacrifice to save your soul from hell... yet he can not save you from acting out on a little porno problem? Then he must not be all that powerful... Wow I just don't know how to respond to that....
Maybe his porn problem isn't so little? j/k

[twa]

Unless you don't consider Catholics to be Christian, then you are wrong about where I'm coming from. My problem is that I see too many Christians these days ranting on and on about sins that are popular these days, those relating to sex, reproduction, and homosexuality. The problem with this is that these sins are seen as avoidable and people start to think they are not sinners like those other people. The truth is there are more sins then just those few and that we are all guilty of sin, no exceptions. The only perfect man to walk this planet was nailed to a cross and killed for it. He accepted his fate and died for us so that we might be forgiven and allowed to enter the kingdom of heaven.

If we are not all sinners then why was there a great need for this sacrifice?

I think you are confusing salvation with living in God's will under the chuches blessing,of course in the Catholic faith unforgiven sin is tied to salvation.

In my faith salvation is not tied to the Church,rather the church is simply a recruiter.

In my faith a homosexual can be saved BUT cannot live that lifestyle and remain in fellowship with the local congregation.

ANY continuing action that is against the teachings of Christ is grounds for expulsion from fellowship...Thoughts left unexpressed are between you and GOD.

[gbear]

porno problem? Ah we're back to the lust for any other human being. Got it.

I think that's where I and evidently many others have strayed from the strict Catholic faith. We're all hoping to be judged on our actions not our fantasies. God gave me a sexual appetite. I just make sure I hurt no one and it benefits my family (by having kids eventualy). If my wife had a problem with it, it wouldn't happen.

Just curious: where does sexual roleplaying between husband and wife fit in on the cheating scale? Many view it as healthy. I'm guessing it's a sin on your scale. Fair enough. I would never have thought to appologize to God for it. I think that's why I prefer to think of sins as only actions (or at least mostly just actions).

[prophet]

porno problem? Ah we're back to the lust for any other human being. Got it.

I think that's where I and evidently many others have strayed from the strict Catholic faith. We're all hoping to be judged on our actions not our fantasies. God gave me a sexual appetite. I just make sure I hurt no one and it benefits my family (by having kids eventualy). If my wife had a problem with it, it wouldn't happen.

Just curious: where does sexual roleplaying between husband and wife fit in on the cheating scale? Many view it as healthy. I'm guessing it's a sin on your scale. Fair enough. I would never have thought to appologize to God for it. I think that's why I prefer to think of sins as only actions (or at least mostly just actions).

well, first let me state that if you are a Christian... "sin" is "sin" there is no "Big" sin "little" sin. Its all the same in God's eye's according to what the bible says.

Keep in mind as a Christian you live by God's word, and it is contrary to most of our human feelings. Thats why it talks about "laying down our life, and taking up the cross" The time we call our self a christian... yet do not live by what the bible says... we are no longer a Christian, but a rebel. You can not pick and choose what you like about the bible.

Speaking of marriage and sex:
I'd say most stuff is ok, but I guess the question I would have is... why do you need your wife to be someone else? or vice versa?

[rictus58]

well, first let me state that if you are a Christian... "sin" is "sin" there is no "Big" sin "little" sin. Its all the same in God's eye's according to what the bible says.


Not true. They catagorize sins as "Mortal" and "Venial"

[prophet]

Not true. They catagorize sins as "Mortal" and "Venial"

who was talking about they?

[gbear]

Funny, I thought it was belief in Christ and that he died for my sins that made me a Christian. I never knew Christianity was defined by believing the litteral word of the bible. Are you sure about this because I have my doubts that you are correct?

[twa]

Funny, I thought it was belief in Christ and that he died for my sins that made me a Christian. I never knew Christianity was defined by believing the litteral word of the bible. Are you sure about this because I have my doubts that you are correct?

Belief will save you ,but living a christian life is a seperate matter. imo

People were first called Christians because others saw Christ's teachings in thier lives...It is not what you call yourself but how you live for others to see Christ in YOU.

[wskin44]

Well, bear here's the deal: Jesus said that if you believe in Him you will be saved. Others have expanded the list. I for one will focus on what He teaches me directly. I just wish that I was a better student so that He could set down the sledgehammer that is often required to teach me anything. :-)

[prophet]

If you look up the greek word used for believe... it literally means... believe and obey.

read the book of James

James 2:18-20
18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless

-----------------
2 Corinthians 6
17 Therefore "Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you."*

----------------

[Art Monk Fan]

I just wish that I was a better student so that He could set down the sledgehammer that is often required to teach me anything. :-)
:hammer: You too, huh?

[Ball Coach]

well, first let me state that if you are a Christian... "sin" is "sin" there is no "Big" sin "little" sin. Its all the same in God's eye's according to what the bible says.



The Catholic Church categorizes sins as Mortal and Venial.

[Xameil]

The Church views homosexuality as a sin. That's goes for lay people as well as those serving, such as Nuns or Priests.

As far as heterosexual contact, it's just not permitted. Regardless the reasons, it's not allowed for those who have taken oaths of service. The reasons may not have bearing in the 21st century, but that's the way it is until it changes. You are allowed to either accept the Sacrement of Matrimony or Holy Orders, but not both.


Catholic priests used to be allowed to marry. They changed it to what it is now.

[gbear]

Oh I ignored the why anyone would want to role play.

Answer: because it's fun, because it is sometimes funny, because it's her, because it tell me more about my wife to know what she fanatacises about, because I love the parts of her that shine through when she pretends to be someone else, because it's not cheating, because it lets me be closer to her, because it lets me (or her) be more daring safely, because either of us can be anybody we always wished we were in the comfort of our own bodies, because one can throw off self doubt...

It's worth trying.

[PokerPacker]

as the bible says, "a man shall not lie with another man, as with a women... their blood is upon them"

and second of all, somebody think of the children. just yesterday, my dad was going through his high school yearbook (catholic school) and was pointing out his teachers who have admittedly touched boys. two of them didn't surprize him very much, as they had a relationship with eachother, until the one moved to florida. the other one was a complete surprize when he heard about it. (the statute of limitations prevents them from being tried.)

[Cou-!@#$DALLAS-gh]

I dont believe in any religion that puts other groups of people down for their beliefs... esp for people that say that gay people are automatically going to He!! thats just rediculous... i do believe in a god but that god makes us to be who we are and its ignorant to belittle other groups of people... i guess i can look forward the fact that most people my age and the up and coming generation fell like I do and all the haters out there will be dying off sooner...

there will never be peace on earth without toleration...

and toleration movement is slowly becoming the majority


(P.S. as far as my view on catholicism goes, i would rather live a full life to love and tolerance than spend it in constant fear of going to Hel.l... cause what kind of life is that?)

p.s.:dallasuck

[MaddogCT]

A discussion about new Catholic law by an Agnostic, a Catholic, a Baptist, a Born Again, and a few ex Catholics makes for a real intersting read. :)

:logo:

[JimboDaMan]

The Catholic Church categorizes sins as Mortal and Venial.
Yes. But there is a segment of Christianity that has attempted to hijack what the word "Christian" means.

[richard saunders]

What about simply admiring the same sex, not lusting...

Like in a Tommy Lee sense?

[wskin44]

Well Jimbo you would have to expand on that to know what you mean.

As far as I'm concerned men have attempted to hijack Jesus since the day he was born. It's not more evident anywhere than it is in the Bible. Luckily, enough of the simple truth of what Jesus said is still there in spite of the embellishments and in spite of the Old Testament rants that many Christians try to justify.

To my tiny mind He had a pretty simple message: Have Faith in Him. Have Hope in the future. Love your neighbor as you Love yourself.

Since men are imperfect and weak we tend to want to make a bunch of rules and hierachy rather than just stay focused on the simple teachings. It's easy to lose sight of the forest when you are stuck down in the trees. So like underground miners of old I find it best to keep a canary with me. When I hear folks suggesting that this person or that group should be shunned, judged, disdained, avoided or excluded, in the name of Jesus of course and supported by all sorts of drivel sucked out of the Bible, then I know that the air has been poisoned and that men have led themselves astray again and fallen off of the simple path provided. So I try to get myself to fresh air, lest I fall down the same poisoned hole.

[cowboylifer]

in my opinion the bible has been re written by many to prove and to push their agendas and ideas in which causes hatred towards the many other christians as far as denominations go. noting the fact thght over religious beliefs. i do not believe that religion is meant to be that hard. if you believe in the ten commandments and obey them i believe you to be a true christian, even then we will not be perfect and will fall short. anything more or less of these commandments i feel is mostly false and is written by denominations to separate themselves from others. 11th. commandment. love them cowboys.

[wskin44]

The Big Ten are okay but remember that Moses passed them down for his folks and although they still apply, Jesus brought a new set of commandments that supercede the Ten. I mentioned them above. The third was: Love cowboy fans as you love yourself, even if they are UGLY.

[DeanCollins]

This discussion while quite phylisophical and interesting is missing one point.
The RCC had to ban gay men from the priesthood for several reasons. They are paying perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars to victims of these sexual
abuse cases. So they need to show they are doing something about, not to mention reducing the risk of paying out more damages. It's a business decision. Should have happened 2000 years ago.

The RCC does believe that the thought of sinning is a sin in and of itself.
There is a distinction here between a passing thought (can't stop those) about the neighbors wife and a fantasy that's embelished, revisited etc...
Being Gay is a belief, a way of thinking, not just a passing thought wether acted upon or not.

[big z]

So it would appear that the Church is about to ban homosexual priests. I'm curious as to why. Have they not vowed to be chaste and celebate? I'm confused by what the Catholic church thinks is appropriate behavior for a man attracted to another man. I note they are not banning a priest who hasn't been chaste which would make sense to me.

Is it the church's position that we all get to chose who we are attracted to and they should just chose to not be attracted to them?

Maybe it's just the liberal in me, but I have a much easier time holding people responsible for what they chose to do compared with holding them responsible for thoughts or wishes. To be honest, I hope when I die I am judged by what I did, not what I wished, thought about, or considered (and all of those are more involved than what I would be attracted to).

On a more abstract level, which says more about one's character: the guy who sees a good and bad choice but makes the good choice or the guy who sees only one choice and makes it (the one choice being good)? I would think the actively made decision would say more about the character. However, it may just be that to be truely good is to be unaware. That seems kind of a sad thought for a race whose difference from the surrounding world has been summed up in being sentient and self aware.


perhaps the Church thinks the likelihood of Father Rainbow molesting little Timmy is higher than average. Thus they are taking proactive action.

the haters of the Catholic church are throwing rocks from both sides...quite humorous...step out of the 'bias box' and you'll be suprised at how clear the answers become... :cheers:

[visionary]

One of the seven Sacraments of the church is marriage which means the union of a man and a woman is very important. If you've been to a Catholic wedding, you've heard a VERY long sermon on how much the Church believes in the importance of the love between a husband and his wife. I think allowing (condoning) homosexuality in the Church basically lessens the importance of one of the Sacraments, something the Church would not want to do.

It would almost be like a Priest not believing that baptism cleanses sin or that the Eucharist is the body of Christ.

I don't see a problem with having people who are homosexuals as priests in the Catholic Church, as long as they are not having sex or influencing parishoners to do so. But that is more of an individual matter. That said, I think that homosexuals are also not allowed to attend Catholic mass, or at least that has been the policy for a while now. I don't know if they differentiate between those who are out and having sex or not, but since they don't do that with people who are straight that seems kind of hypocritical too.

These kind of decisions, like with gay marriage are kind of morally dangerous, in my view, since it seems like they are turning away from utalizing these folks and working with them when they are probably not bad people and may be very good priests. And in the case of gay marriage, I've always thought it was a good thing to promote monogamy and good relationships and morals.

(my main problems with gay marriage are more involving its legality and creating a slippery slope)

(I wish the Church would stick more to issues like Abortion and civil rights and helping the poor, which they are on much better grounds morally in my opinion, not that they are not doing that stuff, but they seem a little too focused on homosexuality lately. Not that sex (and sexual addiction and stuff like that) isn't a big deal for a lot of people of course.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok after reading through the thread, I'm reminded of the idea that marriage and sex in the Catholic view is meant for procreation, so I suppose that it would seem kind of silly to allow gay marriage under that idea... I still don't see a difference between gay priests who don't have sex or promote it or straight priests who are the same.

Though I guess that maybe they are around other men and boys much more than other women and that may make it a lot harder for people with homosexual desires than the others. (then again if there are a lot of them and they are forced to kick them out just for having those desires...that seems to me to be a big problem, more in what it is saying morally and what it does to the already depleted priesthood)

[wskin44]

The Priesthood needs good spiritual people. As long as the RCC looks at the surface (male/female, straight/gay) rather than looking into the heart and soul of the prospective priest, they will always have shortages and issues. Excluding another group isn't going to solve the much bigger problem.

[Ball Coach]

I don't see a problem with having people who are homosexuals as priests in the Catholic Church, as long as they are not having sex or influencing parishoners to do so. But that is more of an individual matter. That said, I think that homosexuals are also not allowed to attend Catholic mass, or at least that has been the policy for a while now. I don't know if they differentiate between those who are out and having sex or not, but since they don't do that with people who are straight that seems kind of hypocritical too.



There is no policy regarding homosexuals attending mass.

[wskin44]

As I understand it there is a policy against homosexuals receiving Communion.

[Ball Coach]

Anyone who has not been absolved of sin should not receive communion

[endzone_dave]

As I understand it there is a policy against homosexuals receiving Communion.

I don't believe that is the case. If you wore some kind of symbol to Mass to protest the Church's position on homosexuality or publicly spoke out against their position, then you wouldn't be able to receive communion.

[wskin44]

Actually Osama bin Laden could theoretically receive Communion since no one is checking I.D.'s at the altar. But correct me if I'm wrong, homosexuality is considered to be a sin and if a gay person has not gone to confession and been absolved then the Church maintains that Communion is not valid for that person even if he/she is served.

[endzone_dave]

I don't believe that is the case. If you wore some kind of symbol to Mass to protest the Church's position on homosexuality or publicly spoke out against their position, then you wouldn't be able to receive communion.

I just looked it up and it looks like homosexuality is a mortal sin. I looks like gays can't take communion. Boo on me for not being a knowledgable Catholic.

http://www.saintaquinas.com/mortal_sin.html

Not letting someone who is gay take communion seems a little harsh to me.

[wskin44]

Homosexuality is a mortal sin, right up there with murder, rape and incest? Those gay people must be pretty evil.

[Art Monk Fan]

Homosexuality is a mortal sin, right up there with murder, rape and incest? Those gay people must be pretty evil.
Check out endzone_dave's link, extreme hatred and extortion make the list. Picking three of the most awful crimes make for fine hyperbole, but misrepresents the facts.

[wskin44]

You are correct Art. For the non-Catholics reading this, Mortal Sins are those that can keep you out of Heaven permanently if you die without confessing them. Venial Sins are those for which you spend time in Purgatory before going to Heaven if they go unconfessed. The list of Mortal Sins is very broad. I was misrepresenting for effect. Sorry.

[Ball Coach]

It's also not so simple as a list of Mortal sins and a list of Venial sins. It has a great deal to do with the thought process behind the action.

[Art Monk Fan]

You are correct Art. For the non-Catholics reading this, Mortal Sins are those that can keep you out of Heaven permanently if you die without confessing them. Venial Sins are those for which you spend time in Purgatory before going to Heaven if they go unconfessed. The list of Mortal Sins is very broad. I was misrepresenting for effect. Sorry.
Thanks, wskin, your honest and cordial response caught me off guard -- I guess I've been in too many "discussions" with Chomerics lately.

In the Old Testament homosexual acts were considered an offense for which no sacrifice could absolve you -- the crime remained permanently on your blood.

[wskin44]

The thought process and emotions that only the individual and God really know. We end up judging ourselves before God. I find most organized churches betray a need to insert themselves into the judgement process.

[zoony]

so what does all this mean for richard simmons?


.

[wskin44]

Art, the Old Testament is only interesting history to me, and provides little guidance for my faith since I try to be a Christian and have no desire to practice the Jewish faith. My understanding of the ban on homosexuality in the Bible was a very practical desire by the leaders of the Jewish tribes to increase their numbers. They made all sorts of proclamations like very specific rules for handling of food which were designed to protect the people from disease etc. Since the tribes were ruled by a Theocracy all rules to protect and propogate the tribe were handed down as the word of God. It's just the way it was and you have to admire their leadership because the Jewish faith and culture is one of the oldest if not the oldest on the planet. Truly a wonder of the world. But those laws don't necessarily translate to Christianity.

[Art Monk Fan]

Art, the Old Testament is only interesting history to me, and provides little guidance for my faith since I try to be a Christian and have no desire to practice the Jewish faith. My understanding of the ban on homosexuality in the Bible was a very practical desire by the leaders of the Jewish tribes to increase their numbers. They made all sorts of proclamations like very specific rules for handling of food which were designed to protect the people from disease etc. Since the tribes were ruled by a Theocracy all rules to protect and propogate the tribe were handed down as the word of God. It's just the way it was and you have to admire their leadership because the Jewish faith and culture is one of the oldest if not the oldest on the planet. Truly a wonder of the world. But those laws don't necessarily translate to Christianity.
I understand your sentiment, but you want to be careful about that theological point. Christ was a devout Jew seeking to reform his faith and bring the Jewish people, and the rest of the world, closer to His Father. But, becoming a man, and one without sin, included adherance to the Law as it stood. Christ had to fulfill the Old Law before he could create the New. Christinaity is the next step, the fulfillment, of the Old Law on earth. In order to save us, Christ became one of us and was bound by the same laws as us while He was a man.

While many Jewish dietary laws had/have practical purposes, that doesn't cancel out their religious significance. Homosexuality was a blood crime to the ancient Jews for largely the same reasons it remains a mortal sin for Catholics.

[wskin44]

The Apostle Paul brought the Christian faith to the non-Jewish folks outside of Palestine. He convinced the other Apostles that non-Jews could be Christians and that the non-Jews didn't have to follow the Jewish laws to be a part of the Church. I consider myself a non-Jewish Christian.

[Art Monk Fan]

The Apostle Paul brought the Christian faith to the non-Jewish folks outside of Palestine. He convinced the other Apostles that non-Jews could be Christians and that the non-Jews didn't have to follow the Jewish laws to be a part of the Church. I consider myself a non-Jewish Christian.
Point taken, but this was made possible by Christ's fulfillment of Jewish Law; our God is the Jewish God.

Anyway, I'm not sure how interested the rest of the boards are in our parsing, so I'll let it drop.

[zoony]

Anyway, I'm not sure how interested the rest of the boards are in our parsing, so I'll let it drop.

kidding aside, I thought it was a good discussion.

[wskin44]

Point taken, but this was made possible by Christ's fulfillment of Jewish Law; our God is the Jewish God.

The Jewish God and the Christian God probably are the same but many of the things that the Jewish leaders chose to atribute to God are unreliable and unlikely. According to Moses, shortly before he died upon the return of the Jews to Israel God told him to have the Jewish tribes go down and kill anyone who stood in the way of the tribes taking over the lands of their ancestors who had left voluntarily long before. I don't believe for a minute that God actually had anything to do with the slaughter that took place for the next few decades. That includes the destruction of the Walls of Jericho and the murder of every man, woman and child within.

I believe that God's love for all of us is way beyond anything that we can imagine and that man's attempts at defining Him do more to clarify our own weaknesses and predjudices than to shed any light on Him.