Pope Benedict XVI Resigning as Pope!!

[agalisgv]

Well, fact is child sexual predators are indeed attracted to the ministry (as are some other disturbing populations). One of the reasons psychological counseling is so extensive in order to enter the ministry is to try and screen for inappropriate personality types. But IMHO, I think churches in general don't do enough to screen for sexual predators. I think that's been a real lack in the screening process when it's a known issue. So there's a lot of accountability on the part of churches as a whole on that issue that's been lacking (both with improper screening as well as not taking sexual abuse seriously when it later arises).

Bek--the one thing I would say is while I understand all the points you are making (and now from a seminary POV the basis for them all), I think in real life most folk just aren't very concerned with the distinctions between doctrine and dogma. Yes, hard-core theologians care about doctrines re: creatio ex nihilo and the like, but most parishioners don't. So when people talk about the Church changing, they are invariably talking about dogma. Yes, that properly understood wouldn't be termed changing orthodoxy, but colloquially people equate orthodoxy with particular church *practices*. And the forcefulness and rigidity with which certain Church practices are defended and promoted are frequently interpreted as examples of Church orthodoxy.

I think in this discussion, it's probably best to stick to issues of dogma and particular Church practices as I think that's the really the topic of debate. YMMV of course.

WRT Church celibacy, I think one aspect that has only been alluded to so far (by allezfred) is that Catholic clergy is overwhelmingly gay compared to society as a whole. I think the more reliable surveys done have shown 30-50 of Catholic clergy are gay, but people I've spoken to in charge of seminaries say that's an underestimate, and they've put the numbers as high as 80%. I tend to think it's perhaps more around the 60% mark, but in any case it's a very high percentage considering gay men constitute only 1-2% of the population at large.

For those interested, Andrew Sullivan did a series on how Catholic policies on priestly celibacy have selected for gay clergy over the years, and how homophobia within the Church has lead dysfunctional sexual practices by those clergy members. Fact is, gay priests have carried on relationships with other men fairly openly for time immemorial. And when young boys confessed to having same-sex attractions, they were expressly funneled into the ministry as that was the socially acceptable way for gay men to function in society.

So having married priests might open the door to more heterosexuals entering the ministry. And considering the high percentage of heterosexuals in society at large, that might address some clergy-shortage issues.

[cruisin]

WRT Church celibacy, I think one aspect that has only been alluded to so far (by allezfred) is that Catholic clergy is overwhelmingly gay compared to society as a whole. I think the more reliable surveys done have shown 30-50 of Catholic clergy are gay, but people I've spoken to in charge of seminaries say that's an underestimate, and they've put the numbers as high as 80%. I tend to think it's perhaps more around the 60% mark, but in any case it's a very high percentage considering gay men constitute only 1-2% of the population at large.

Of course, the irony is that the Catholic church denies ordaining Gay Priests.

[Sparks]

Of course, the irony is that the Catholic church denies ordaining Gay Priests.

Openly Gay priests.

[skatesindreams]

The Episcopal service is probably closer to the older Roman Catholic service than the "current, new" Catholic service. Especially in high Episcopal churches.

Very true!
My Catholic friends are often surprised that I feel so "at home" when I attend their churches/services.

[bek]

Bek--the one thing I would say is while I understand all the points you are making (and now from a seminary POV the basis for them all), I think in real life most folk just aren't very concerned with the distinctions between doctrine and dogma. Yes, hard-core theologians care about doctrines re: creatio ex nihilo and the like, but most parishioners don't. So when people talk about the Church changing, they are invariably talking about dogma. Yes, that properly understood wouldn't be termed changing orthodoxy, but colloquially people equate orthodoxy with particular church *practices*. And the forcefulness and rigidity with which certain Church practices are defended and promoted are frequently interpreted as examples of Church orthodoxy.

I think in this discussion, it's probably best to stick to issues of dogma and particular Church practices as I think that's the really the topic of debate. YMMV of course..

Well yes.. You are right one of the problems Catholicism has right now is many think the Church did "change with Vatican II" so why can't the Church change more. Reality is Catholicism distinguishes between practices and dogma. When theologians were discussing things it was of course the Church can decide to have the mass in the venacular after all it wasn't always in Latin. Of course the Church can change how friday fast was done (Catholics are still suppose to either refrain from meat, do an act of charity ,or act of piety on Fridays)... Catholic dogma didn't change in Vatican II.. Because well its dogma... But a lot of Catholics didn't understand this. And I think the Church is still struggling trying to make this one clear.

The position on the Eucharist is dogma. Its been challenged and the Church has spoken on this. Nobody not even the Pope has the authority to change on this topic. And I do think the Catholic Church has tried very hard to instill this teaching in Catholics. Many Catholics "do understand" that the Church feels very differently on the subject than Protestants do.

Your right though I am coming from a seminary perspective/basis. I will say again I'd have never become Catholic if it weren't for seminary. And I'd have never become Catholic too if it weren't for my ecunemical experience in College where I learned people can love Scripture very much and take it as the sole authority but come to very different conclusions. Eventually though wanting to be a minister, I had to come with answers for these topics. I had to have a teaching on communion, I had to be able to answer on baptism. And how I was going to answer these subjects/and on what basis was a decision I made.

This is why mom who was Catholic and is now Protestant and I can be so different. I understand where she's coming from. She felt a personal relationship wasn't stressed enough and for her its all about that relationship with God. For me the issue is as a Catholic I can absolutely have a personal relationship with God. But I know far too much about theology for me to say-it doesn't matter. I needed to know the basis of why certain groups believed what they did. And I decided as a basic Catholicism (or Orthodoxy) was it for me...

When I talk about watered down Christianity, I'm not saying an individual Protestant has a watered down faith. I'm saying rather that if a Church doesn't take stands on issues-if it just says whatever says goes. That is a watered down faith.

There are a lot of Catholics who become Protestant a lot of them because yes they don't really understand the details and the whys and the Church hasn't always done the best job of explaining the importance of a Personal relationship with God. Plus Catholicism is hard. However quietly there are a number of theologians who are becoming Catholic or Orthodox. And the reasoning is what I'm kind of stating. Suddenly when you've studied all of the multitude of positions on subjects and all of the divisions. The Catholic/Orthodox position on Scripture/Tradition, the need for Church Councils. Suddenly these things start making a lot of sense.

[Quote]

Very true!
My Catholic friends are often surprised that I feel so "at home" when I attend their churches/services.

Why yes. The High Church Episcopalian is adopted from the Old English Mass... I.e the mass that existed before the Council of Trent. There are some Episcopalian Churches that are now in the Catholic Church and they have been allowed to adapt this rite in the Catholic church. I actually attended an High Anglican Use service for Christmas Eve Mass. Beautiful! I love the service beginning with the Shema.. The only thing is that it was hard to really get into because I didn't know the "movement" of the liturgy so much....

[Angelskates]

Jesus didn't take a stand, and certainly not a black and white stand, on every issue. He didn't give His messages in black and white for a reason, bek.

[cruisin]

Very true!
My Catholic friends are often surprised that I feel so "at home" when I attend their churches/services.

The only thing that feels strange in a Catholic service is the end of The Lord's Prayer. This is not part of the Catholic prayer: "For Thine is the Kingdom, the Power, and the Gory. Forever and ever." I always finish it.

Why yes. The High Church Episcopalian is adopted from the Old English Mass... I.e the mass that existed before the Council of Trent. There are some Episcopalian Churches that are now in the Catholic Church and they have been allowed to adapt this rite in the Catholic church. I actually attended an High Anglican Use service for Christmas Eve Mass. Beautiful! I love the service beginning with the Shema.. The only thing is that it was hard to really get into because I didn't know the "movement" of the liturgy so much....

There is something very comforting in saying familiar prayers and singing familiar hymns. Christmas Eve midnight mass at our church is breathtaking. Saint Peter's in Morristown is as close to a European Cathedral as a small US city is going to get. The choir is thrilling and the parish joins in enthusiastically. Easter mass is equally beautiful.

[bek]

Jesus didn't take a stand, and certainly not a black and white stand, on every issue. He didn't give His messages in black and white for a reason, bek.

Catholicism doesn't take black and white stands on every issue Angelskates. There are variety of different opinions in Catholicism. And different spirtualities as well. For example there are those who believe in Latin Mass. And are very traditional in the way they approach the faith. They wear head coverings etc. Then there are the Charismatics who well speak in tongues, and all sorts of things. Trust me with in the Church there's some big differences between the two. However, everyone is Catholic and at the end of the day the we have Church leaders who can hammer out the differences if something that goes wrong.

In Catholicism in terms of Election/Predestination There are a variety of different opinions. Thomism, Molinism, Augustinianism. The Church has ruled that everyone must believe in free will (That after all was the big issue between us and Luther.) And that we can't believe God predestines anyone to Hell. But other than that Catholics are free-to hold a variety of differences of opinions. Because in the end the whole thing really is a mystery.

And the thing is Jesus did take stand on issues. There are a lot of things I think people are fighting about and they are the things of God that we are never going to fully understand. But Jesus took a stands on a lot of issues. And I'm telling you on something things He does have an opinion either way.

When Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper. He absolutely had a meaning behind it. He either meant "this is my body" or He didn't mean "this is my body".. I knew my professor was right when he said Christians choose which one they want to believe because I had heard Catholics and Protestants use the same Scripture passages to their own ends.

Here's what I'm going to say on this subject. The Real Presence of Jesus Christ on the Eucharist is something believed by Christians long before the Protestant Church came into being. The Eastern Orthodox who split with us Catholics believe in this teaching. They split around 500 years before Luther. The Oriential Orthodox who split in the 5th century. All of these groups also agree with Catholics on the whole 7 sacraments as well... So this isn't a matter of the Catholics taking a position different from everyone else.

This is frankly a matter of a group of Protestants coming in 1500 years later and saying you know what we think your interpreting Scripture wrong on this subject. And on this subject, and on that subject... But the problem is once you start going there.. Well than what happened was you had groups splitting amongs groups. The Calvinist decide the Lutherans were wrong on this. Then there's the Anabaptists deciding both Calvinists and Lutherans were wrong. The Anglicans decided the Catholics were wrong, but then the Methodists decided the Anglicans were wrong. The Pentecostals decided the Methodists were wrong. And groups within Pentecostals deciding each other is well wrong. And this thing goes on and on. Soon everything goes open for debate. And yes eventually it can be decided folks were wrong on Scripture, the nature of Jesus too.

But the fact of the matter is you have a large majority of us. Who say what a second we don't think the Church was wrong. Yes there were some corruption/issues that needed to be corrected. But we think on the main things the Church was right. We don't think the Lord would allow the Church to be corrupted. And so because of this you have the difference.

And the major issue that was between Luther and Catholics was over the bondage of the Will. I.e the idea of free will itself. It wasn't indulgences, it wasn't the pope. It was free will. The Catholic Church did respond with quite a lot of Scripture to back up their position. Of Salvation by faith, hope, and love and not faith alone. Quiet a lot. But Luther and others didn't want to accept it. For us the fact that Church had long interpreted and reconciled Paul, James, and Jesus this way mattered. From what I understand the Eastern Orthodox responded in a very similar way with very similar Scriptural arguments. No, we are saved by faith, hope, and love. This was the very crux of the argument. In the end it comes down to whose interperation of Scripture do you want to go by. And since Luther/Reformers became convinced that the Church lost the gospel. Than everything else became open to debate. And now there are plenty of Protestants who believe in free will

In fact Catholicism means of the whole "universal" It means what has believed by the whole Church throughout time. And yes we would like unity with the Protestants but we aren't going to agree with the basic concept that the Church errored on major issues. Nor are we going to agree that everything about Christianity should be up for debate in every generation. Rather Christianity is a received faith. Not to mention while there is 500 million Protestants. There's also about 500 million Orthodox and Oriental Catholics. And we won't ever have unity with THEM. If we give up Sacred Tradition. I.e give up the teaching on Real Presence. Give up Seven Sacraments. And yes give up or teaching on Free Will.

You may ask why its so important to believe in this real presence. And I'll say why because Jesus very much wants to become one with us. He wants to come in and dwell in us and He wants to transform us into His likeness. The Eucharist is one of the main ways He does this. The Orthodox call this process theosis. In a sense you are what you eat. You partake of Jesus' likeness you become more like him. The more you partake the more you become transformed. Its a beautiful teaching.

Yes Jesus can reach Christians other ways. He's always there for those who call him. But by losing this teaching by not allowing Jesus to enter into this way...Protestants miss out.

Can you see that maybe Jesus does want to enter into you this way. And can you also see the problem too when people come into the picture 1500 years later and start stating that cherished beliefs. Are somehow wrong?

[numbers123]

The position on the Eucharist is dogma. Its been challenged and the Church has spoken on this. Nobody not even the Pope has the authority to change on this topic. And I do think the Catholic Church has tried very hard to instill this teaching in Catholics.

I understand that you believe it to be as you have described it. From someone who is not Catholic, it is hard to know the rules of the Catholic church. I would attend Mass with my college roommate. I knew that there were rules about who could and could not take communion, but thought from my point of view that it was offered to me freely. So I participated - now it seems that I was not ready or totally trained/engulfed in what it means?

But I am still confused as to why the position on the Eucharist cannot be changed. Didn't the original interpretation come from the council of men known as the Bishops, Cardinals and Pope? Why then could it not be changed?

I remember from my Confirmation classes that we can be baptized at birth (or any age for that matter), but we re-confirm our baptism when we officially join the church at the completion of confirmation classes. That someone on our behalf has given us the beginning of baptism for our own decision to be confirm that we are indeed Christians. There was also a great deal of discussion about the holy catholic church being different than the Catholic church. The former being the Christianity as a whole while the latter was a denomination of the whole church. Because the Apostle Creed statement of "I believe in the holy catholic church, the communion of saints....", it was important, I guess for us to discern the difference.

Baptism in my friend's church was totally different. There is a baptism pool (not sure what they call it) that when the teen or adult is ready to commit their live to God they are immersed in the water. Other than attending Bible school at their church and seeing the Baptism pool, I never saw what the experience was or how they prepared for it.

There is something very comforting in saying familiar prayers and singing familiar hymns. Christmas Eve midnight mass at our church is breathtaking. Saint Peter's in Morristown is as close to a European Cathedral as a small US city is going to get. The choir is thrilling and the parish joins in enthusiastically. Easter mass is equally beautiful.

I started attending our Praise Service in the last month or so. We have four services, one that is extremely traditional, one that is the Praise Service, one that is a traditional one and a Hispanic service. The Praise service takes me out of my comfort zone a bit because there are not the traditional hymns. The Lord's Prayer is a part of it of course, but the music is very different than organ music, the hymns of praise are very different and the manifesto hymn Lord's Prayer was absolutely beautiful this morning. Last Sunday we had a News Orleans style music service, it was awesome. It takes me back to my youth group days where we had tried a coffee house style service but the traditionalists and pastors just didn't support it. This service is embraced by our pastors, all of them - senior pastor, associate pastor and the Hispanic pastor. The retired pastors are the ones who have a problem with it - but they are a dying breed (no pun intended - but every week as a lay member to annual conference I get emails telling of a death of a retired minister or a spouse).

One of the most moving Lenten services that I have ever attended is a drama musical written by our associate pastor. Every time I attend I end up knowing that I have indeed been blessed by Jesus' sacrifice. There are three crosses where literally three of our church members are lifted onto them and we end with the "were you there when they crucified my Lord".

Why we believe something is greatly influenced by where we were born, what our family of origin's traditions are, what we have been exposed to and our experiences. If I have seemed argumentative about things within the Catholic tradition, it is because it doesn't make sense to me. I even argue with the whole Christian experience - that if we are to worship God and only God, the holy trinity is a difficult concept for me. I've had many an hour of discussion with pastors and others over this illogical part of the religion, but I had had to come to some level of understanding of that.

I've had discussions with others of different religions - Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. The Buddhist monk that I have heard and asked questions of, is also a very interesting person. He was raised Catholic, yet said he *knew* from an early age that he was a Buddhist monk (I know that I am not saying it how he did, but he is fascinating). One of the most fascinating things about him is how he tries to reconcile the do not kill with the fact that he is an infectious disease doctor who administers/prescribes antibiotics to kill bacteria. Plus his travels to Tibet at great risk.

[bek]

I understand that you believe it to be as you have described it. From someone who is not Catholic, it is hard to know the rules of the Catholic church. I would attend Mass with my college roommate. I knew that there were rules about who could and could not take communion, but thought from my point of view that it was offered to me freely. So I participated - now it seems that I was not ready or totally trained/engulfed in what it means?

But I am still confused as to why the position on the Eucharist cannot be changed. Didn't the original interpretation come from the council of men known as the Bishops, Cardinals and Pope? Why then could it not be changed?

Catholics believe that the Church always taught the Real Presence. However the Church made it "dogma" at Council of Trent when the Protestants questioned it. It may have been defined in other Church councils too. However to point out why we say its always been taught. My mentioning that the Eastern Orthodox believe in it. And the Oriental Orthodox also believe in the real presence of the Eucharist. There are early Christian writers who also talk about it. Early Christian worship centered around the Eucharist. So essentially a bunch of Protestants (although Luther did belief in a form of Real Presence) decided to present a challenge to what the Church was teaching on the subject. So the Church made it dogma.

This isn't the first time this happened. Arius for example got up and challenged (using Scripture) the idea that Jesus Christ was God. So the Church went ahead and in the Council of Nicea formulated the Doctrine of the Trinity? Does this mean the Church didn't believe Jesus was God before. . No. It just had to define the Trinity in a much more defined way after it got attacked.....

Now yes we can get into arguments about Scripture/Church fathers. But I think the fact at the very least other Ancient churches hold to this teaching too, suggest it wasn't just the folks of Trent coming up with something at all. At the end of the day there's just a real level of uncomfortableness on the Church is wrong about the matter of salvation, wrong on the matter of baptism, wrong on Communion etc. Because then the question for me becomes. Then is the Church is wrong on the matter of Scripture? Or who Jesus is.

Rather I like the concept that CS Lewis described of reading Scripture through the lens of the Church. So then it becomes how has the Church seen baptism, how has the Church seen Communion... Because after all the Holy Spirit has been sent to Christians throughout the time. Not just one generation...

[Skittl1321]

The only thing that feels strange in a Catholic service is the end of The Lord's Prayer. This is not part of the Catholic prayer: "For Thine is the Kingdom, the Power, and the Gory. Forever and ever." I always finish it.

.

That is part of the prayer. The difference is before it is said the priest says a few extra words.
I hate how many parishes now raise their hands on each word. Too showy, even holding hands is enough for me.

[made_in_canada]

Baptism in my friend's church was totally different. There is a baptism pool (not sure what they call it) that when the teen or adult is ready to commit their live to God they are immersed in the water. Other than attending Bible school at their church and seeing the Baptism pool, I never saw what the experience was or how they prepared for it.

This is how baptism is in the church I grew up in. Anyone who felt they wanted to baptized as a public declaration of their faith attended classes centered on baptism and once completed they could be baptized. Our church had the people getting baptized share their testimony.

I'm finding this thread really interesting reading.

[Angelskates]

Catholicism doesn't take black and white stands on every issue Angelskates.

But it is more black and white than Jesus gave us. God gave the 10 commandments, and the command to love God and one another, the Catholic (and many other Christian churches) give many, many more rules than that.

I am not saying that your way is wrong (though I do think that saying there is only ONE way, and it is the Catholic way, is wrong), I am saying that I think there can be more than one right way.

numbers, when I was baptised as an adult in 2005, I was dunked in a swimming pool! We got in the pool (clothed) and then the pastor said all the words etc, and we agreed and they put our heads under. In Beijing, we have to improvise I had to go to several classes before I was allowed (and there were several who, at the end of each class, decided they weren't ready). I was already baptised and gone through the whole process in Catholicism, but just like God told bek to leave Protestantism, he told me to leave Catholicism and explore. I explored a lot, had an overwhelming experience when I was 18 and became run-of-the-mill Christian. I have been to lots of different services, I love Midnight Mass (Anglican) at Christmas, love concert-like services when I feel like worshipping with a big group, adore Easter services, and get a lot out of Good Friday services, too. I don't go to church every week (in fact, hardly at all now), but I do have interfaith group once a week, and a Bible study with fellow Christians, as well as a brunch on Sunday. I feel I give and get a lot more for and from God from these activities than I ever got out of attending a church service.

[bek]

But it is more black and white than Jesus gave us. God gave the 10 commandments, and the command to love God and one another, the Catholic (and many other Christian churches) give many, many more rules than that.

I am not saying that your way is wrong (though I do think that saying there is only ONE way, and it is the Catholic way, is wrong), I am saying that I think there can be more than one right way.

numbers, when I was baptised as an adult in 2005, I was dunked in a swimming pool! We got in the pool (clothed) and then the pastor said all the words etc, and we agreed and they put our heads under. In Beijing, we have to improvise I had to go to several classes before I was allowed (and there were several who, at the end of each class, decided they weren't ready). I was already baptised and gone through the whole process in Catholicism, but just like God told bek to leave Protestantism, he told me to leave Catholicism and explore. I explored a lot, had an overwhelming experience when I was 18 and became run-of-the-mill Christian. I have been to lots of different services, I love Midnight Mass (Anglican) at Christmas, love concert-like services when I feel like worshipping with a big group, adore Easter services, and get a lot out of Good Friday services, too. I don't go to church every week (in fact, hardly at all now), but I do have interfaith group once a week, and a Bible study with fellow Christians, as well as a brunch on Sunday. I feel I give and get a lot more for and from God from these activities than I ever got out of attending a church service.

Its not for me to judge between you and your relationship with God.....I experienced God as a Protestant too. I just studied all of the different theologies and made a decision. I do truly believe there is one faith.

I will agree with you that it can be hard very hard in Catholicism to develop a sort of fellowship. When I converted back in Chicago my Church literally had nobody my age. It was terrible and I found myself falling away... believed but the struggle of the faith by myself....But I believed Catholicism was true. So I couldn't go away. However here in Texas I realized I needed to find other believers. And when I put my work into it. I found a group of Catholics my age. Some are very faithful, some not as much, some in between. But its really good to have this community... I need it.

For me though there is something about Christian Worship and service. What I love about the mass is the centrality of the Person of Christ...The center is not about somebody's sermon or homily. But rather the person and the Sacrifice of Christ. Every time at mass we are going back to the Cross. This means so much to me and I really sense His Presence when I'm there. Its funny because as a Pentecostal years ago, I didn't get liturgy at all. Now I do.

I guess what i do want to stress to you is Catholicism very much does teach a personal relationship with Christ...

[overedge]

There are some Episcopalian Churches that are now in the Catholic Church and they have been allowed to adapt this rite in the Catholic church.

If they're in the Catholic church, then they're not Episcopalian.

[bek]

If they're in the Catholic church, then they're not Episcopalian.

Well they were former Episcopalian Churches.. That are now in the Catholic Church but use an Anglican Use rite...

For an article on Transubstantiation.. This is while wikipedia still a source.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

I will say this...I won't say the Catholic Church doesn't have a lot to learn from other Christians... Or we are perfect far from it! But I do think I want to make it clear the issue isn't so much a matter of can you have a relationship with God. In Protestantism or Catholicism. In the end we all choose some kind of tradition or make up or own.

[Ziggy]

Meanwhile the rumors swirl--cardinals want to kick Benedict out of the Vatican, infighting and other drama. This being the Daily Mail, of course but they do cite other sources. Now there's

If he leaves Vatican, he will become a target for subpoenas (not being head of state any more) and will surely get many flying his way.

He'll be complaining that not enough skaters use Ave Maria before you know it. They grow up SO fast.

We'll do pbp together and it'll be full of complaints of undignified costumes, revealing far too much flesh.

We'll start a pressure group lobbying for making burqinis required clothing for all skaters.

Although-don't they allow the use of condoms now to combat AIDS?

They don't. Which is criminal.

but in any case it's a very high percentage considering gay men constitute only 1-2% of the population at large.

How did you arrive at that figure? From what I know, it's 4-12% depending on the surveys and we can never have a close estimate anyway because of all the obvious reasons (people being closeted, not wanting to reveal it even confidentially, people being unsure, sexuality being fluid and so on and so forth).

[Vagabond]

If he leaves Vatican, he will become a target for subpoenas (not being head of state any more) and will surely get many flying his way.

He could still receive a diplomatic appointment that would afford him immunity or live on the grounds at Castel Gandolfo, which is where he will go immediately after his abdication takes effect. The papal property in Castel Gandolfo is in Italian territory but is treated as extraterritorial property of the Vatican, with immunities similar to that of a foreign embassy.

Or the new pope could feed him to the wolves.

[CanuckSk8r]

I do truly believe there is one faith.
...

As many believe the "one" faith is simply having faith. To many, one must not be inaccordance with "my" views of faith or else that one does not have faith. For many people their faith in God is directly correlated with their love for God and telling someone how to have faith and believe is not any more acceptable than telling someone how to love. Just because some don't agree with it does not make it wrong or to be more specific, just because some don't agree with how people worship, have faith and/or recognize their Deity does not make those faiths, feelings, rituals and beliefs wrong, just different. Faith is personal, people are passionate about things things that are personal to them and this is why there are SO many arguments based around religion. The thing is no one group is more right than the other.

I believe in people being educated in of the nuances of different faiths and they to chose what is best for THEM and THEIR relationship with God.
I also believe in humbleness. If one persons wants to be heard, they also need to open their ears and listen.

[bek]

As many believe the "one" faith is simply having faith. To many, one must not be inaccordance with "my" views of faith or else that one does not have faith. For many people their faith in God is directly correlated with their love for God and telling someone how to have faith and believe is not any more acceptable than telling someone how to love. Just because some don't agree with it does not make it wrong or to be more specific, just because some don't agree with how people worship, have faith and/or recognize their Deity does not make those faiths, feelings, rituals and beliefs wrong, just different. Faith is personal, people are passionate about things things that are personal to them and this is why there are SO many arguments based around religion. The thing is no one group is more right than the other.

I believe in people being educated in of the nuances of different faiths and they to chose what is best for THEM and THEIR relationship with God.
I also believe in humbleness. If one persons wants to be heard, they also need to open their ears and listen.

The way I see it is that Jesus is God or He's not God. In that sense both Judaiasm, Christianity and Islam can't be right.. Because all three religions make certain claims. I believe that my religion is RIGHT. I believe Jesus is God. I believe Catholicism is right although I could see the claims of the Oriental/Eastern Orthodox mainly because I can't believe Christ wanted 50,000 denominations...

HOWEVER in the end my religion being right really has nothing to do with me. It doesn't make me a better person than anyone else, it doesn't make me more holy than Someone else etc. I do believe that those who follow other religions can experience God in their lives. And they may very well live a far holier life than me. In the end I do think God is love, and we may not have a full correct understanding of God (I certainly don't) but those who know God understand this.

However I reject this idea that everything is right. Because I don't that's logically true. What I also reject is the concept that God is going to judge us on right theology as well.

I'm frankly not offended at all if the Muslim thinks Islam is right and I'm wrong... It doesn't bother me.....I think people should believe their religion is right......If you don't why are you that religion...I don't consider it arogant if a Muslim is convinced his faith is true....After all he didn't create that faith .

I will say this just because someone knows theology right doesn't mean they really know God... There are those who maybe are wrong in the paticulars but walk so closely with God that they know him far better than those who can repeat the right things..

I'm not at all saying I'm some super religious person.. Not in anway shape or form. I'm defending why I believe what I do but not saying I'm better than others. And I apologize if that's how I'm coming across.