Original Sin?

Quote: FrGamble

By the way I think the reason you seem to think I am 100% right all the time

I was being sarcastic, as I noted. You
believe you're right 100% of the time,
I know you're wrong 90%. Jesus is
dead, he's not god, there is no god,
most of the NT is urban myth and never
happened, you're really worshiping Paul
and don't even know it. As far as history
goes, you know what the Church wants
you to know, which usually has little to do
with what really happened. I absolutely
believe you are a majorly deluded brainwashed
individual, who is a nice guy for all the
wrong reasons. But you seem harmless enough,
unlike you're brethren in the Middle Ages.

Quote: Evenbob

It was the Reformation that really screwed the
Church, Luther was totally behind a real
separation of the state from the Church. This
was the beginning of the end of the power
of the Church.

Oh brother. First of all the separation of Church and State was a welcome change in the Church. Much of the things you often claim are examples of the Church torturing or committing other crimes against humanity would not have happened if we stayed with and followed the example and model of Jesus Christ Himself. While it was great to convert the Roman Empire it led to huge problems with the synonymous nature of the Church and the State. For example, heresy was considered treason and dealt with in a similar way according to the laws of the State. It also meant that Church positions were political positions with wealth and power and lands attached to them, this led to corruption and simony among other things.

You need to source your thought that Luther was for separation of Church and State because the history of the reformation does not bear this out. Countries went from being Catholic and persecuting protestants to becoming Lutheran or Protestant and persecution Catholics.

The Church does not want nor should it have power in the sense that you are speaking of it.

Quote: Evenbob

I was being sarcastic, as I noted. You
believe you're right 100% of the time,
I know you're wrong 90%. Jesus is
dead, he's not god, there is no god,
most of the NT is urban myth and never
happened, you're really worshiping Paul
and don't even know it. As far as history
goes, you know what the Church wants
you to know, which usually has little to do
with what really happened. I absolutely
believe you are a majorly deluded brainwashed
individual, who is a nice guy for all the
wrong reasons. But you seem harmless enough,
unlike you're brethren in the Middle Ages.

You toe the line 100% of the atheist ideas I have heard from so many places. According to Catholicism you are of course 100% wrong. I don't want to tell you what atheists or you in particular believe, but please know that according to Catholicism you are 100% wrong. Your problem is you often try to say what Catholics believe or what the Church's motivations are and while you parrot the atheist ideology perfectly like a brainwashed person you can't say those things are truly Catholic when it is painfully obvious you are wrong. You have corrected me many times as to what atheists or what you believe and I mostly get it and learn from it. Why don't you at least acknowledge that your opinion is not Gospel truth according to the official teaching of the Church or its factual history?

Quote: FrGamble

Oh brother. First of all the separation of Church and State was a welcome change in the Church.

Yeah. Right.

Quote:

Much of the things you often claim are examples of the Church torturing or committing other crimes against humanity would not have happened if we stayed with and followed the example and model of Jesus Christ Himself.

You did. That was the problem. If the "church" had wanted no part of the state, why did it take the reins of power so enthusiastically? Why did it fight tooth and nail to keep power?

Quote: Nareed

You did.

Jesus very much was not part of the political scene and rejected the expected role of the Messiah as political liberator. He was only interested in winning over the hearts of people and was not concerned about being king. In fact many times in His ministry he explicitly avoided crowds fearful that they would want to make Him king or some kind of ruler.

Quote:

If the "church" had wanted no part of the state, why did it take the reins of power so enthusiastically? Why did it fight tooth and nail to keep power?

Again you are looking in the wrong place for the history of the Church. Look at the saints who enthusiastically rejected this worldly power. They were the true reformers and guardians of the way of Christ. But to answer your question the reason why the Church enthusiastically took the reins of power and fought to keep it is because it is made up of fallible and weak human beings.

Quote: FrGamble

separation of Church and State was a welcome change in the Church. .

Translation: It happened and the Church realized
they would never get their old power back, so
they eventually went along as if it's something
they wanted all along. The Church fought tooth
and nail against the separation, right up to Vatican
II. And even then the Church would not admit that
separation of Church and state was ideal.

Quote: FrGamble

you parrot the atheist ideology

What is that, exactly. Every time you
make statements like this I ask you
to clarify and you never do. What
is atheist ideology, exactly, or atheist
'dogma' as you one time called it.

Quote: FrGamble

He was only interested in winning over the hearts of people and was not concerned about being king.

OMG!! Think off all the many, many, many people who are going to Hell because they blaspheme the zombie Jesus every Xmas when they sing "Noel"!

Someone should really warn them of this.

Quote:

Again you are looking in the wrong place for the history of the Church. Look at the saints who enthusiastically rejected this worldly power. They were the true reformers and guardians of the way of Christ. But to answer your question the reason why the Church enthusiastically took the reins of power and fought to keep it is because it is made up of fallible and weak human beings.

Seeing how few people are "saints" even by the twisted definition of your church (and, truly, so few of them are admirable), then what makes you think the "fallible and weak" are qualified to hold the reins of spiritual power?

Quote: Evenbob

Translation: It happened and the Church realized
they would never get their old power back, so
they eventually went along as if it's something
they wanted all along.

Translation: You have no idea what you are talking about and presuming to speak about the motivations of a Church you don't understand and have been brainwashed to hate.

Quote:

The Church fought tooth
and nail against the separation, right up to Vatican
II. And even then the Church would not admit that
separation of Church and state was ideal.

Again, here is an example where you are just factual completely wrong. What is maddening is you will never admit it. Do you have any understanding of the Vatican II documents? Do you want me to go into what they say concerning the roles of Church and State. Maybe you could read the Catechism, it is not nearly as long and difficult to understand.

Quote: Evenbob

What is that, exactly. Every time you
make statements like this I ask you
to clarify and you never do. What
is atheist ideology, exactly, or atheist
'dogma' as you one time called it.

As you have taught me there is no official dogma of atheists. Therefore, when I speak of the atheist ideology it is the same stuff I see and hear on atheist websites and the places you and others link to. It really is mostly a lot of warmed up heresies, modern myths, and poor or exaggerated history.