[dcolton]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115451,00.html

Bah! Your typical liberal hyppocrite who will do everything against the Bible to get votes then use the bible to attack our President.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by dcolton:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115451,00.html

Bah! Your typical liberal hyppocrite who will do everything against the Bible to get votes then use the bible to attack our President.

(not having read the article yet, but just responding to your comment) ahhh...now you know how I feel when Bush tries to use God as justification for deceiving people in order to wage wars.
Kinda sticks in your craw, don't it?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
(not having read the article yet, but just responding to your comment) ahhh...now you know how I feel when Bush tries to use God as justification for deceiving people in order to wage wars.
Kinda sticks in your craw, don't it?

When did Bush do this?

How do I remove you from my ignore list?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by dcolton:
How do I remove you from my ignore list?

Up above, click on "User Center".

Then on "Edit Ignore List" (the headers at the top of the page).

Then just delete the name from the text-entry field and click on "Update List".

-s*

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by dcolton:
When did Bush do this?

How do I remove you from my ignore list?

second question first: go into user center, and then there is a choice called "edit ignore list", click on that, and you can manually delete users you've chosen previously to ignore.

first question: I hope you're being rhetorical.

[nam_pog]

Originally posted by dcolton:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115451,00.html

Bah! Your typical liberal hyppocrite who will do everything against the Bible to get votes then use the bible to attack our President.

Did you see him give that speech? I did, and it was incredibly and obviously a disgusting use of religion for political reasons.

[Millennium]

So, not finding enough "compassion" for his taste, Kerry intends to try and force it out of people.

Wonderful.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
(not having read the article yet, but just responding to your comment) ahhh...now you know how I feel when Bush tries to use God as justification for deceiving people in order to wage wars.
Kinda sticks in your craw, don't it?

Ooooh I would stay out of that glass house Lerk.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Millennium:
So, not finding enough "compassion" for his taste, Kerry intends to try and force it out of people.

Wonderful.

Yes Kerry is a Christian now. Don't you know?

[nonhuman]

What's the problem with criticizing someone who claims to be a Christian using the Bible? Whether or not Kerry is a Christian, and whether or not we like Bush using "Christian values" to make his decisions, so long as Bush makes the claim that he is motivated by "Christian values" it's perfectly valid for anyone to criticize him on the basis that he's not following the Bible. To say otherwise is like saying that only a doctor can criticize another doctor for not following their Hipocratic Oath.

[nam_pog]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
What's the problem with criticizing someone who claims to be a Christian using the Bible? Whether or not Kerry is a Christian, and whether or not we like Bush using "Christian values" to make his decisions, so long as Bush makes the claim that he is motivated by "Christian values" it's perfectly valid for anyone to criticize him on the basis that he's not following the Bible. To say otherwise is like saying that only a doctor can criticize another doctor for not following their Hipocratic Oath.

You bring up important points and I agree with you to the point where you think it analogous to a doctor being the only one to criticize another doctor. The fact is, only a doctor can judge another doctor in many cases. He/she then would be called an expert whitness, and a non-doctor has no right being an expert whitness. Just like Kerry has no business being an expert on Christiandom to make his case against a Christian. He isn't even a Christian. By your comparison, I could have read from a book of medicine like Grays Anatomy and say a doctor was wrong in stating a certain part of the body is injured based on my "reading". I think I would respect another Christian speaking out against Bush using his Christian beliefs than someone who is clearly not, and has nothing in common with Christianity using it to his own benefit.

A nice try on your part, and it is appreciated I am certain, but it fails to serve it's purpose, which is to deconstruct the argument provided.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by nam_pog:
You bring up important points and I agree with you to the point where you think it analogous to a doctor being the only one to criticize another doctor. The fact is, only a doctor can judge another doctor in many cases. He/she then would be called an expert whitness, and a non-doctor has no right being an expert whitness. Just like Kerry has no business being an expert on Christiandom to make his case against a Christian. He isn't even a Christian. By your comparison, I could have read from a book of medicine like Grays Anatomy and say a doctor was wrong in stating a certain part of the body is injured based on my "reading". I think I would respect another Christian speaking out against Bush using his Christian beliefs than someone who is clearly not, and has nothing in common with Christianity using it to his own benefit.

A nice try on your part, and it is appreciated I am certain, but it fails to serve it's purpose, which is to deconstruct the argument provided.

Nice post

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by nam_pog:
You bring up important points and I agree with you to the point where you think it analogous to a doctor being the only one to criticize another doctor. The fact is, only a doctor can judge another doctor in many cases. He/she then would be called an expert whitness, and a non-doctor has no right being an expert whitness. Just like Kerry has no business being an expert on Christiandom to make his case against a Christian. He isn't even a Christian. By your comparison, I could have read from a book of medicine like Grays Anatomy and say a doctor was wrong in stating a certain part of the body is injured based on my "reading". I think I would respect another Christian speaking out against Bush using his Christian beliefs than someone who is clearly not, and has nothing in common with Christianity using it to his own benefit.

A nice try on your part, and it is appreciated I am certain, but it fails to serve it's purpose, which is to deconstruct the argument provided.

Not only a Christian can be an expert on Christianity. What about a religion professor who specializes in Christianity without being a Christian themselves? They certainly have no spiritual authority, but in that they are at least a learned in the subject matter as most ministers/priests probably are, they are definitely an academic authority on the matter. While I wouldn't call myself an expert, I'm fairly knowledgeable about Christianity myself despite being non-Christian. Not everyone is going to agree with my views on the Bible, but certainly most of the Christians I know respect my opinions on it regardless because they're well thought out and based on evidence. It doesn't take a whole hell of a lot of effort to read the Bible, and Christians definitely do not have a monopoly on Biblical study.

Oh, and on the doctor thing: of course only someone else with the appropriate training can validly criticize a doctors diagnosis or treatment, but anyone who knows what the Hipocratic Oath says can validly criticize a doctors actions that they deem to violate that oath. The same applies to any other oaths/legal requirements. Otherwise it would be impossible to sue doctors for malpractice and such because the plaintiff, the lawyers, and the judges aren't doctors.

[SimeyTheLimey]

I don't so much care about Kerry injecting religion into his speeches. It seems to me that a politician is an American Citizen, and is therefore perfectly entitled to refer to religion in any way he chooses.

No, what bothers me is that a political speech was delivered from the pulpit of a Baptist Church. It seems to me that this violates the separation of Church and state. The Church ought not to be receiving federal tax free status if it is going to allowing a candidate to use its tax-free facilities to deliver a stump speech.

[zigzag]

Kerry is a practicing Catholic, a former altar boy. Or is it that only Republicans qualify as true Christians?

Personally, I'm not religious so I'd just as soon it weren't mixed up with politics. But it has been a staple of the Bush presidency. If Bush is going to claim piousness and cater to his conservative Christian constituency, why shouldn't Kerry be allowed to do likewise?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't so much care about Kerry injecting religion into his speeches. It seems to me that a politician is an American Citizen, and is therefore perfectly entitled to refer to religion in any way he chooses.

No, what bothers me is that a political speech was delivered from the pulpit of a Baptist Church. It seems to me that this violates the separation of Church and state. The Church ought not to be receiving federal tax free status if it is going to allowing a candidate to use its tax-free facilities to deliver a stump speech.

Not really sure that is a separation of Church and state issue, though I agree with your objection to it.

I'm not sure any candidate speaking in a church breaches that line...for example, it happens all the time in memorial services or prayer breakfasts, that sort of thing, which are arguably campaigning for whichever incumbent is doing it.

However, I think its grey area and one that is inherently unbalanced....a challenger is viewed as politicizing religion to discuss it but an incumbent is viewed as showing that religion is part of how he approaches his goals. Why we would be comforted by the latter but incensed by the former is an interesting social more.

[nam_pog]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Not only a Christian can be an expert on Christianity. What about a religion professor who specializes in Christianity without being a Christian themselves? They certainly have no spiritual authority, but in that they are at least a learned in the subject matter as most ministers/priests probably are, they are definitely an academic authority on the matter. While I wouldn't call myself an expert, I'm fairly knowledgeable about Christianity myself despite being non-Christian. Not everyone is going to agree with my views on the Bible, but certainly most of the Christians I know respect my opinions on it regardless because they're well thought out and based on evidence. It doesn't take a whole hell of a lot of effort to read the Bible, and Christians definitely do not have a monopoly on Biblical study.

Oh, and on the doctor thing: of course only someone else with the appropriate training can validly criticize a doctors diagnosis or treatment, but anyone who knows what the Hipocratic Oath says can validly criticize a doctors actions that they deem to violate that oath. The same applies to any other oaths/legal requirements. Otherwise it would be impossible to sue doctors for malpractice and such because the plaintiff, the lawyers, and the judges aren't doctors.

Kerry is neither a doctor or a "Professor" on religion. We call them theologists, and I would agree with a theologist giving his point of view on the President. Would you? I'm not so certain of that. The fact you admit to is you are not an "expert" on Christianity, and you are also not running for president. There is more to this than the religious aspect. If Kerry were both Running for President AND a theological expert, then he can be taken seriously and respected for this action. He is not both and therefore is using religion for his own political goals. He isn't even a Christian. Also, you make a weak argument when you say it doesn't take much to read the Bible. I agree, but it doesn't take much effort to see through is twisting the words of the Bible to further his own political goals, which makes him worse than the person he is attacking with these words.

Only a person who has been deemed an expert on the Hypocratic Oath can determine if a doctor has broken the trust those words express and declare. It would be impossible to win a malpractice law suite without a Doctor as an expert whitness as well. The expert presents the facts and can be expected and is honored with the purpose of unbiasly presenting arguments and explanations to a lay person such as a lawyer, judge, and especially the jury. A judge and or lawyer cannot testify as an expert whitness just by having studied medicine. Many lawyers have been in medical school but couldn't take the pressure so they opt out and go to law school. Would you rather have a Doctor who passed the boards? or would you rather have a lawyer who didn't? Would you rather have a lawyer who didn't pass the bar represent you or one that did?

The fact remains, and your unwillingness to face it, does not change it.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't so much care about Kerry injecting religion into his speeches. It seems to me that a politician is an American Citizen, and is therefore perfectly entitled to refer to religion in any way he chooses.

No, what bothers me is that a political speech was delivered from the pulpit of a Baptist Church. It seems to me that this violates the separation of Church and state. The Church ought not to be receiving federal tax free status if it is going to allowing a candidate to use its tax-free facilities to deliver a stump speech.

http://www.witherspoonsociety.org/po..._in_church.htm

[zigzag]

Originally posted by nam_pog:
He is not both and therefore is using religion for his own political goals. He isn't even a Christian.

Again, your entire premise is faulty. Kerry is a practicing Catholic. Why should Bush be allowed to wear his religion on his sleeve and make judgments about the morality of others, but Kerry should not be allowed to cite well-known scripture? Maybe there's a valid reason but I haven't heard it yet.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, what bothers me is that a political speech was delivered from the pulpit of a Baptist Church. It seems to me that this violates the separation of Church and state. The Church ought not to be receiving federal tax free status if it is going to allowing a candidate to use its tax-free facilities to deliver a stump speech.

Personally, I don't think it violates the separation doctrine, but if it were up to me there would be no tax-free status in the first place.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Not really sure that is a separation of Church and state issue, though I agree with your objection to it.

I'm not sure any candidate speaking in a church breaches that line...for example, it happens all the time in memorial services or prayer breakfasts, that sort of thing, which are arguably campaigning for whichever incumbent is doing it.

However, I think its grey area and one that is inherently unbalanced....a challenger is viewed as politicizing religion to discuss it but an incumbent is viewed as showing that religion is part of how he approaches his goals. Why we would be comforted by the latter but incensed by the former is an interesting social more.

It's not a problem, in my opinion, for a politician to stand behind an alter. I don't see any problem with memorial services because the content delivered is usually apolitical. Where I think this crosses a line that the IRS ought to take a look at is that this church apparently allowed a candidate to deliver a stump speech in the guise of a homily. The problem isn't the candidate, it's the abuse by the church of the privilege of being tax-free at least in sprit, if perhaps not in law.

This isn't an area of tax law I know much about. But I do know that the IRS gives guidance of what a church and and can't do. I also know that churches have lost their tax free status over this kind of thing. If a church wants to get involved in political campaigns, then there are ways to do it through separate, taxable, entities. But it seems to me that this is probably misuse of tax free status.

As for prayer breakfasts, again, I don't know exactly where the line is. My guess (and this is not a legal opinion) that if the facility is not a church and a pastor or priest merely speaks, it's probably OK from a tax point of view. Religious leaders can speak about politics. What they probably have to be careful about doing, though, is allowing tax-free facilities to be used improperly. So I'd say a partisan prayer breakfast held in a church is maybe a problem for the church's tax free status.

The problem, of course, is if the IRS were to prosecute, everyone would cry foul and claim it was just partisan politics. So I guess the taxpayers will continue to subsidize this fraud.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Again, your entire premise is faulty. Kerry is a practicing Catholic. Why should Bush be allowed to wear his religion on his sleeve and make judgments about the morality of others, but Kerry should not be allowed to cite well-known scripture? Maybe there's a valid reason but I haven't heard it yet.

Abortion would be one reason. He favors killing babies. Not very catholic

[zigzag]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Abortion would be one reason. He favors killing babies. Not very catholic

So the truth comes out: only conservative Christian Republicans have the right to use the Bible for political purposes. Got it.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Personally, I don't think it violates the separation doctrine, but if it were up to me there would be no tax-free status in the first place.

I just did a quick google and came up with IRS Pub. 1828, which gives guidance for tax-exempt religious organizations.

It discuss at length the rules for inviting a candidate to speak. Basically, the other candidate has to be invited as well, and must be given equal time. The examples that are OK are things like educational forums with panels of candidates. The example the IRS gives that the IRS says could jeopardize tax-exempt status is example 6 on page 12. It looks very much like what happened with Kerry. Sorry I can't paste it, it's in pdf format. link

Based on this alone, I'd say the church should put its tax attorney on danger money.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I just did a quick google and came up with IRS Pub. 1828, which gives guidance for tax-exempt religious organizations.

It discuss at length the rules for inviting a candidate to speak. Basically, the other candidate has to be invited as well, and must be given equal time. The examples that are OK are educational forums, the example that isn't OK, is example 6 on page 12. It looks very much like what happened with Kerry. Sorry I can't paste it, it's in pdf format. link

Based on this alone, I'd say the church should put its tax attorney on danger money.

I'm sure you've got the law right, I just disagree with it. Be that as it may, I'd rather see the tax exempt status removed and churches be left to do as they please, whether it's political or religious in nature.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nam_pog:
You bring up important points and I agree with you to the point where you think it analogous to a doctor being the only one to criticize another doctor. The fact is, only a doctor can judge another doctor in many cases. He/she then would be called an expert whitness, and a non-doctor has no right being an expert whitness. Just like Kerry has no business being an expert on Christiandom to make his case against a Christian. He isn't even a Christian. By your comparison, I could have read from a book of medicine like Grays Anatomy and say a doctor was wrong in stating a certain part of the body is injured based on my "reading". I think I would respect another Christian speaking out against Bush using his Christian beliefs than someone who is clearly not, and has nothing in common with Christianity using it to his own benefit.

A nice try on your part, and it is appreciated I am certain, but it fails to serve it's purpose, which is to deconstruct the argument provided.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I just did a quick google and came up with IRS Pub. 1828, which gives guidance for tax-exempt religious organizations.

It discuss at length the rules for inviting a candidate to speak. Basically, the other candidate has to be invited as well, and must be given equal time. The examples that are OK are things like educational forums with panels of candidates. The example the IRS gives that the IRS says could jeopardize tax-exempt status is example 6 on page 12. It looks very much like what happened with Kerry. Sorry I can't paste it, it's in pdf format. link

Based on this alone, I'd say the church should put its tax attorney on danger money.

Interesting. (not directed at Simey): I wonder how conservative christians get away with it?
I think the uproar from conservative christians on this issue is they think they bought exclusive rights to appropriate God for their candidate and they fell Kerry is guilty of copyright infringement.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by nam_pog:
Kerry is neither a doctor or a "Professor" on religion. We call them theologists, and I would agree with a theologist giving his point of view on the President. Would you? I'm not so certain of that. The fact you admit to is you are not an "expert" on Christianity, and you are also not running for president. There is more to this than the religious aspect. If Kerry were both Running for President AND a theological expert, then he can be taken seriously and respected for this action. He is not both and therefore is using religion for his own political goals. He isn't even a Christian. Also, you make a weak argument when you say it doesn't take much to read the Bible. I agree, but it doesn't take much effort to see through is twisting the words of the Bible to further his own political goals, which makes him worse than the person he is attacking with these words.

Only a person who has been deemed an expert on the Hypocratic Oath can determine if a doctor has broken the trust those words express and declare. It would be impossible to win a malpractice law suite without a Doctor as an expert whitness as well. The expert presents the facts and can be expected and is honored with the purpose of unbiasly presenting arguments and explanations to a lay person such as a lawyer, judge, and especially the jury. A judge and or lawyer cannot testify as an expert whitness just by having studied medicine. Many lawyers have been in medical school but couldn't take the pressure so they opt out and go to law school. Would you rather have a Doctor who passed the boards? or would you rather have a lawyer who didn't? Would you rather have a lawyer who didn't pass the bar represent you or one that did?

The fact remains, and your unwillingness to face it, does not change it.

Why do you insist that only experts can have valid opinions? If that's the case, then how can you have an opinion on whether or not it's appropriate for Kerry to quote scripture to prove a point about Bush when he's not a Christian (despite the fact that he actually is, as several people have pointed out)? Are you an expert on the issue of who's allowed to quote scripture for their own purposes? Where did you get your degree? I may not have a degree in theology, but I'm highly educated in other fields and have had quite a bit of training in literary analysis, political science, philosophy, and theology. Just because I chose to get my degree in one field doesn't mean I'm not competent to talk about others.

[nam_pog]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Why do you insist that only experts can have valid opinions? If that's the case, then how can you have an opinion on whether or not it's appropriate for Kerry to quote scripture to prove a point about Bush when he's not a Christian (despite the fact that he actually is, as several people have pointed out)? Are you an expert on the issue of who's allowed to quote scripture for their own purposes? Where did you get your degree? I may not have a degree in theology, but I'm highly educated in other fields and have had quite a bit of training in literary analysis, political science, philosophy, and theology. Just because I chose to get my degree in one field doesn't mean I'm not competent to talk about others.

You really like to beat a dead horse, I'll give you that, and a bit of tanacity. I'm not a theologist, I'm only seeking my Phd at the moment and it is very part-time, but that is neither here nor there. I have extensive knowledge in a variety of fields, but would never speak as an expert in any of them, nor would I expect to be treated as competent enough to represent those of greater knowledge. I think it is shallow and disingenuous to use the pulpit for gain politically motivated desires. Show me where and when John Kerry has spoken at any church before his run for presidency, and I might consider that he has some right to use it. Maybe we both have different values, and standards.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Interesting. (not directed at Simey): I wonder how conservative christians get away with it?
I think the uproar from conservative christians on this issue is they think they bought exclusive rights to appropriate God for their candidate and they fell Kerry is guilty of copyright infringement.

Who was the person who said Jesus was a liberal? Anyone remember? Do you Lerk?

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

I've always said that I think Jesus was the ultimate liberal. In fact, I often don't understand how the religious right reconcile their political beliefs with their decision to be christ-like.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by nam_pog:
You really like to beat a dead horse, I'll give you that, and a bit of tanacity. I'm not a theologist, I'm only seeking my Phd at the moment and it is very part-time, but that is neither here nor there. I have extensive knowledge in a variety of fields, but would never speak as an expert in any of them, nor would I expect to be treated as competent enough to represent those of greater knowledge. I think it is shallow and disingenuous to use the pulpit for gain politically motivated desires. Show me where and when John Kerry has spoken at any church before his run for presidency, and I might consider that he has some right to use it. Maybe we both have different values, and standards.

I'm not trying to speak as an expert. My whole point is that laymen have something to offer as well. Just look at astronomy if you want to see proof of this.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the rest of this post. I thought we were talking about 'Kerry using bible verse to attack President Bush'.

[nam_pog]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
I'm not trying to speak as an expert. My whole point is that laymen have something to offer as well. Just look at astronomy if you want to see proof of this.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the rest of this post. I thought we were talking about 'Kerry using bible verse to attack President Bush'.

I'm just writing words for you to read. If you didn't get my message in the first post, then I am more than happy to write more and more words for you to read, you know like I am doing right this instant.

Keep pulling nonsensical comparisons in order to prove a point that has no foundation or meaning related to the argument in question.

Astronomy? My goodness, you are going to the farthest reaches of the known galaxy and beyond to get this point across. It isn't working, I'm sorry, but you are not correct here, no matter what lengths you stretch or what field you bring up. Stay on the topic at hand.

Show me where he has spoken in a church prior to running for any office, and I will concede he has the right to use his pulpit to further his political agenda. Can you do that?

Now, don't come back with that old friend of most who wish to just reverse the argument without responsibility. I'll present you with Bush on the pulpit preaching prior to his running for presidency. You first. If you can do it, then I will find Bush, or someone will for you.

Deal?

[nonhuman]

All I'm saying is that people who aren't experts in a field can still have worthwhile things to say about that field. Simple as that. There are plenty of times where this has been made quite evident in all sorts of fields. Astronomy is one, chemistry is another, mathematics is another. If you don't want to admit that, fine. I don't really care anymore.

[nam_pog]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
All I'm saying is that people who aren't experts in a field can still have worthwhile things to say about that field. Simple as that. There are plenty of times where this has been made quite evident in all sorts of fields. Astronomy is one, chemistry is another, mathematics is another. If you don't want to admit that, fine. I don't really care anymore.

Is that all? To what end?
If I read a few books about astronomy years ago, let's say 15 (Actually it was 17) but 15 is ok for this example and I have kept up with technology etc. What if I were to give some advice about Astonomy to someone, is that ok? Good. I agree. What if I were to read a book on Astronomy oh, about 3 months ago, just before I was running for President of the local Astronomy Club, and someone said, when did you study, contributed, etc.? I would say, well never, I just started...

Do you get the drift?
Where is the history of him doing this for reasons OTHER than political gain? Where is his history? He has none. He is a fraud, a fake, a liar. You want to vote for that? Go ahead.

Answer my questions, or someone please:

"Show me where he has spoken in a church prior to running for any office, and I will concede he has the right to use his pulpit to further his political agenda. Can you do that? "

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by nam_pog:
"Show me where he has spoken in a church prior to running for any office, and I will concede he has the right to use his pulpit to further his political agenda. Can you do that? "

So it's impossible for someone to have a valid opinion and political ambition at the same time?

[voodoo]

AFAIK John Kerry is a Catholic and you don't become much more Christian than that. His religion answers directly to the Pope who in turn is the highest authority of Christianity on Earth.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Abortion would be one reason. He favors killing babies. Not very catholic

Experts on human biology disagree with you. So in your own logic you don't have a say on the matter because you're not an expert. Tsk tsk.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by voodoo:
AFAIK John Kerry is a Catholic and you don't become much more Christian than that. His religion answers directly to the Pope who in turn is the highest authority of Christianity on Earth.

Well, some in forum will argue that Catholics aren't Christian so beware when you make a statement like that.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by voodoo:
AFAIK John Kerry is a Catholic and you don't become much more Christian than that. His religion answers directly to the Pope who in turn is the highest authority of Christianity on Earth.

No.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by TheMosco:
Well, some in forum will argue that Catholics aren't Christian so beware when you make a statement like that.

or what?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No.

Yes.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Yes.

Catholicism is just a FORM of Christianity. It is not the final say on it.

The Pope means nothing to me.

I don't need another man to talk to God for me. I have a direct connection myself.

I myself have many problems with Catholicism. Besides if you belief what the Bible says, the church will corrupt within as time goes by.

I think Kerry is a prime example of this.

So in other words...

No.

[Saul Goode]

I was raised catholic, it's not a religion, it's a cult.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

I don't need another man to talk to God for me. I have a direct connection myself.

That's no different from us Catholics. Don't you heretics know anything?!

V

[Dakar]

Wow, way to resurrect something ancient to say something pointless.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by voodoo

That's no different from us Catholics. Don't you heretics know anything?!

V

But you really should just have put the link to this in the relevant thread though.