Just read the thread below in respect to the value of pets and it seems obvious to me that the arguement is about how rich one is. If you can afford to pay for your dogs cats surgery one will irrespective of the cost. If you are wealthy and still put your animal to sleep then you should nt of had a pet. Its called responsibility of care. I d rather keep my dog alive at the cost of $3000 than blow it on a holiday or buy a new 50 inch flat screen TV. Its about priorities surely?
On Aug 28, 2013Mark Choi wrote:
First of all, she doesn't just "think" she's a priest. I attended her ordination, it was written up in a number of papers, as she was the first woman ordained in the local diocese, and she worked for over three decades in four different parishes. Your condescending asininity aside, not only does her priesthood put her well above you in her training, but so does her Doctorate in Divinity from the University of London.
As to your next bit of dogmatic nonsense you need to seriously review your doctrine of original sin. There is a reason that term is used. It is not just random words. It is not original inclination toward misdeeds, or original fall from grace, It is original sin, as first described by Irenaeus, Bishop ofLyons, in discussions with the Gnostics, in which he made clear that after Adam's fall, all human beings PARTICIPATE and thus share in his sin and guilt. This gave rise to Augustine's concept of metaphysical concupiscence, inherited from Adam by all future generations, and that Jesus, the only man conceived outside of this concupiscence, was the only man free of this original sin. Beyond that, you might do well to reread the entire Book of Job, as, just as with the doctrine of original sin, you appear to have missed the entire point of the story. (see below)
As for the name of Jesus, no, the word is the English transliteration of the Greek. The English spelling of his name is Yoshu.
As to your last bit of doctrinal nonsense, you appear to have missed the ENTIRE point of the crucifixion. Immediately preceding his death, he was said to have taken upon him the sins of all man, which was released in the uttered cry, "Elohi, Elohi, lama sabachthani". Again, if you do not understand the sinful nature of this utterance, you need to revisit Job, and you need to rethink the entire role of the scape goat. What on earth do you think the point of that part of the story was?!?
I have no bone to pick with your Church, or even your egoistic practice of perpetual capitalization. That fact that you see such when none is present says much about the motivation for you argument here. While I DO think you are all pablum-feeding sheep of week intellect believing in nonsensical fairy tales with no more instantiation that the tiki idols of an island native, I could care less what you believe. In fact, I rather enjoy watching your particular sect squirm as globally it fights to retain membership, and membership in developed countries falls through the floor.
But while we are on the subject of Jesus, how about we go straight to the source for a refutation of your nonsensical, unsupportable claim re: intrinsic sin. You claim that the position of the Church is that sin is the result of actions. However, you then have a distinct problem with Matthew 5:28:
"But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
No action here, not even real intent, necessary, just the thought. And this "adultery of the mind" is declared sinful by YOUR god. And this itself derives directly from the same aforementioned original sin, that is sinful, not as a result of ANY action, but rather as a result of the intrinsic nature of man, inherited from Adam.