It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Priests Urge Nancy Pelosi to Condemn Abortion or Leave the Catholic Church

page: 10
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plugin
Are there any words about abortion in the bible? They didn't invented it yet back then.

There are 10 rules and basicly 1 golden rule which covers all rules ''treat others the way you want to be treated''.

I can't remember; ''you shall not abort a pregnancy''.




edit on 24-6-2013 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



Apparently your mother went by ; ''you shall not abort a pregnancy''.




posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Good to know that you mock all religions and personal spiritual experience equally.





Surely there is a radical difference between "I believe in reincarnation" and "I am an authority because of my past lives." One is a philosophical stance and the other is delusional.


I never claimed authority. I only claim to remember some of my past lives, as thousands of others do.
edit on 26-6-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)


No, it is not mocking religion or religious experiences. I've many a friend who believes in reincarnation. That's cool. Where the mockery comes in is where someone tries to correct me with "I know what happened at the Battle of Troy because I was there in a past life and I know what it was like to be a soldier in the Greek army and I know for a fact that..." or "I miss how things were when I was alive in 1210 and a Duke...things were so much nicer then." THAT is when the mockery is warranted.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by colbe
 


Colbe,

I have never been baptized Catholic, attended a Catholic Mass or catechism. I have not ever, in this life, claimed a Catholic affiliation.

I was Catholic in several of my past lives.
I shared 2 of them with you. Take it or leave it.


I'll take it, my mistake, I am sorry but "past lives" is not true. We die once, then comes our particular judgment.

Explain, why do you spend your time attacking the faith? The miraculous in history and recent famous science tested miracles all point to the faith ~ Roman Catholicism.

Your question for Charles, Roman Catholicism, a discipline can change but her teachings have not changed since the Apostles heard them from Christ. The RCC cannot error on faith and morals, a gift from God.


love,

colbe



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by colbe

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by colbe
 


Colbe,

I have never been baptized Catholic, attended a Catholic Mass or catechism. I have not ever, in this life, claimed a Catholic affiliation.

I was Catholic in several of my past lives.
I shared 2 of them with you. Take it or leave it.


I'll take it, my mistake, I am sorry but "past lives" is not true. We die once, then comes our particular judgment.

Explain, why do you spend your time attacking the faith? The miraculous in history and recent famous science tested miracles all point to the faith ~ Roman Catholicism.

Your question for Charles, Roman Catholicism, a discipline can change but her teachings have not changed since the Apostles heard them from Christ. The RCC cannot error on faith and morals, a gift from God.


love,

colbe



It's obvious, he's still pissed at the pope for not being grateful that time he rescued him.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
Easing the suffering of the world was not his mission.

Have you even read the Bible?

Why do you feel the need to distort a religion that you apparently know almost nothing about, in order to sustain beliefs that you have which are contrary to the teachings of that religion?



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
In my opinion the church is to be old and sacred and If truly dedicated I would have to say condemn it. Abortion is
Mankind ripping Gods hard work and wasting it . People CHOOSE to mate and mating is for ... Well exactly what its for which is to mate and reproduce , any other view is simply alluded , I am not saying its completely immoral I just think that church and religion are a choice as well but a truly religious one must have the power of self control without doubt . Now if you choose not to be religious or dedicated to a religion then do as you please . I mean would you feel comfortable knowing a Nun who's had abortions ? It's kind of ironic to say.

But this is my opinion.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

Dear windword,

Certainly. I agree with you that the Church can change it's positions on some issues, and probably will. But, remember, there are different categories of issues. The Church will always say the Resurrection is true, but how Catholics should observe Lent is up for discussion and has changed in the past.

But I think I'm missing your point. Say that, no matter how impossible it seems, someday the Church will change it's teaching on abortion. How does that affect Pelosi going against Church teaching today?

Some day, the speed limit through my town will go from 30 to 45. Ok, fine, but if I try it today, I'll get a ticket. Why shouldn't Pelosi?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 





I'll take it, my mistake, I am sorry but "past lives" is not true. We die once, then comes our particular judgment.


Well, Colbe, what if God judges that a soul should return to earth, either to continue with spreading the good word, to finish unfinished business or as a punishment of sorts?

If I had been St. Peter, for example, I might want to come back and keep up the work that Jesus appointed me to do, and God may grant that. Perhaps Hitler would be required by God to come back as a hopeless child in a war torn region, again and again, in order to appreciate the damage he caused to humanity, and experience human charity and repent.


edit on 26-6-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 





But I think I'm missing your point. Say that, no matter how impossible it seems, someday the Church will change it's teaching on abortion. How does that affect Pelosi going against Church teaching today? Some day, the speed limit through my town will go from 30 to 45. Ok, fine, but if I try it today, I'll get a ticket. Why shouldn't Pelosi?


The Church has the right to censor her and to speak out against her agenda, as loudly and ferociously as they like. But, in my opinion, it is the height of hubris and hypocrisy to ex-communicate her from the church that they claim to be God's only church and only salvation for the whole planet.




posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by colbe
 





I'll take it, my mistake, I am sorry but "past lives" is not true. We die once, then comes our particular judgment.


Well, Colbe, what if God judges that a soul should return to earth, either to continue with spreading the good word, to finish unfinished business or as a punishment of sorts?

That is not what Judaism or Christianity (or Islam, for that matter,) teaches, so it is a pointless question. We teach one life, one death, one judgement and one resurrection, period. There's no "coming back", there's no karma, and you get one chance to get it right.

Again, why do you insist on our religion teaching something that it does not, simply because that's what you believe? Leave Christ to the Christians and go off and do your own thing -- no one can fault you for that.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 




Leave Christ to the Christians and go off and do your own thing


You Catholics don't own the teachings of Jesus, they belong to world. Or did you guys really just make it all up?

Anyone can be a follower of Jesus. The Bible is interpreted by the spirit of the beholder. Not all Christians agree, after all, aren't there something like 80,000 sects of Christianity. Anyone who follows the teachings of Jesus is a Christian. Following the Epistles and Catholic doctrine doesn't have anything to do with the teachings of Jesus. That's just optional discussion.

But, I understand your anger. If we are to consider reincarnation to be a spiritual reality, that might mean that the resurrection was a metaphor for reincarnation and not such a big deal after all!

I have faith that God doesn't send a shiny, expectant, enthusiastic, innocent brand new soul to some random crack addict mom, to be aborted or abused. Maybe I have more faith in my God than Catholic Christians have in theirs.

I will speak out for my convictions and defend a woman's right to choice. I will defend Nancy Pelosi, a proponent for my cause, from those who would try to shame, blackmail or threaten her, or, bully anyone else into shutting up about their convictions, Catholic or not.






edit on 26-6-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen
 




Leave Christ to the Christians and go off and do your own thing


You Catholics don't own the teachings of Jesus, they belong to world.

The problem is that you don't follow the teachings of Jesus, you follow what you think that the teachings of Jesus should have been, so you might as well follow someone who actually did teach what you want to believe.

Christians have been defending against the hijacking of Christ, due to his popularity, by religions which he has no business being incorporated into since the Second Century and, in that sense, yes, Christians "own" the teachings of Jesus. That's why we defend them.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 






Leave Christ to the Christians and go off and do your own thing


You Catholics don't own the teachings of Jesus, they belong to world.


The problem is that you don't follow the teachings of Jesus,


Yes I do.


you follow what you think that the teachings of Jesus should have been,


So do you.


so you might as well follow someone who actually did teach what you want to believe.


Like you follow Paul, who wanted to be all things to all people?


yes, Christians "own" the teachings of Jesus.


No they don't.


edit on 26-6-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword

you follow what you think that the teachings of Jesus should have been,


So do you.

Prove it.

Show where I have intentionally distorted the words of Christ, taken scripture out of context, and used eisegesis to selectively make a claim that scripture says something that it does not.

What I follow are the teachings of Christ, who is represented in the New Testament. He did not teach reincarnation, abortion rights, or the privilege of putting words in his mouth to create your own custom religion.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   
double post

edit on 26-6-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



What I follow are the teachings of Christ, who is represented in the New Testament. He did not teach reincarnation, abortion rights, or the privilege of putting words in his mouth to create your own custom religion.



No, No. I use Exegesis. You are the one using eisegesis.

You take your interpretation of the scripture, that I have quoted, word for word, and say, "That's not what it really means!" And then you go on to tell me your version of what the scripture really meant to say. Other citations you patently ignore, because you have no argument.

You attack, you insult and bully. But you have no argument. You only have your "I'm right and you're wrong" version.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen
 



What I follow are the teachings of Christ, who is represented in the New Testament. He did not teach reincarnation, abortion rights, or the privilege of putting words in his mouth to create your own custom religion.



No, No. I use Exegesis. You are the one using eisegesis.

You take your interpretation of the scripture, that I have quoted, word for word, and say, "That's not what it really means!" And then you go on to tell me your version of what the scripture really meant to say. Other citations you patently ignore, because you have no argument.

You attack, you insult and bully. But you have no argument. You only have your "I'm right and you're wrong" version.

_ _ _ _ _ _

windword, adjensen was kind and correct. "Private Judgment" of Scripture is Protestant heresy. The above are the teachings of Chirst. A message from Heaven I posted this afternoon, Jesus spoke of the decision today.

It is very clear, not wordy, especially read the last words. I'll have to post it the correct forum.


colbe


colbe



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


No, that isn't the case. Exegesis is the method of using scripture, as a whole, to determine what it says.

If 99% of scripture, for example, is in support of the rejection of reincarnation, and 1% can be read to support it, exegesis is the perspective that reincarnation is not taught by that scripture, while eisegesis is the perspective that the 99% should be rejected in favour of the 1% that supports reincarnation.

That, effectively, is your position -- you want to reject an entire theology and hang your support on the creative interpretation of a couple of lines of a 1,000+ page document, simply in an attempt to claim that Christianity really supports something that it deliberately rejects.

If you want to embrace Eastern theologies, why do you not simply embrace Eastern theologies and leave Christianity alone? The two are not compatible.


edit on 26-6-2013 by adjensen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by windword
 


If 99% of scripture, for example, is in support of the rejection of reincarnation, and 1% can be read to support it,


Prove it.





edit on 26-6-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I finally got around to reading your reply and thanks



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join