Church Issue

[Dave]

I've finally returned after a long absence.

Sorry, perhaps doctrine in that case was not the right word! What I meant to say was that Francis opposed the Church's attitude toward life! He felt that many officials were being caught up in the material worldy possessions instead of living accordingly to Jesus! Francis chose poverty against the popular belief that people could find salvation while still enjoying the worldly possessions and pleasures!

Opposing the bad attitudes of members of the clergy is vastly different from opposing Church doctrine.

And I am still confused on excommunication! If that occurs to a person, do they ever have a chance of being brought back into the Church if they truly wish to change their lives for the better! I will post no more because it is nearly 1 am here in Ohio and I am tired!

Of course they can come back if they sincerely repent and confess their sins. Excommunication is to help get a person back on the right path.

 

[Dave]

There is no absolute truth, in my opinion. Things change too much, and nothing remains constant.

As for the rest, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Could you rephrase it?

Why can someone with a good conscious not be able to determine right from wrong? How is introspection and looking within for your own answers and truth unreliable?

People are allowed to have differing opinions. As long as they acknowledge this and don't shove their views down each other's throat or harm anyone else in their view-pursuing, then nothing's wrong.

Sorry I'm just now getting to this.

But anyway, your viewpoint in the matter sounds a lot like that of Susan Atkins. You may or may not know who she is.

She was one of the Charles Manson Mass murderers. She killed Sharon Tate and her unborn baby and drank Tate's blood. She was called "Vampira" during the trial.


In the penalty phase of the trial her lawyers tried to get her to express remorse in hopes of lessoning her sentence.

She was asked, "Susan, don't you feel any remorse or guilt for what you did."

She replied, "Why should I feel guilty for doing what was right for me?"

Are we to be open to that belief and not condemn her for it?

What about Hitler? He had a belief about the Jews. Are we to be open to his belief and not condemn him for it?

Maybe you would not go as far as Hitler or Susan Atkins, but why wouldn't you? What is preventing you? Your worldview, whether you like it or not is "open to the beliefs" of Atkins and Hilter.

There is nothing within your worldview to stop you from going that far except your own personal opinion -- doing what is right for you according to your opinion about what is right for you.

Since I presume that murder is not right for you, you don't do it. But for Susan, murder was right for her in her opinion. Murdering 6 million Jews and perhaps 6 million others was right for Hitler in his opinion. The WORLDVIEW allows for those opinions and only personal opinion can stop a person from being a murderer.

In the Christian worldview what Hitler did and Susan did are OBJECTIVELY wrong. It doesn't matter what anyone's opinion is; murder if wrong. Period. We are to condemn murder because murder is OBJECTIVELY wrong. We don't have to rely upon personal opinions which can be quite deluded. The Christian worldview does not allow for murder. If one follows the Christian worldview they will not murder period. They can never find justification for murder. Even the extremes of the faith cannot justify murder, because murder is wrong no matter what anyone thinks. It is objective sin. So is abortion, adultery, fornication, homosexual activity, etc.

Did the church teach anything in the way of books, history, etc besides the Bible? I honestly have no clue how churches worked bad then. Heck, I still barely have a clue as to how they work now! ')

Actually, it's never been the Church's intent to teach history.