T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,962
You can be a member of the RC Church but you are not a RC Christian. The two are not the same thing.
True. You just go to hell or purgatory instead.
a more mature approach to sex and sexuality than stigmatising and insisting nobody outside of "official" wedlock can have a fumble and a frolic.
Which people try to do, like the website mentioned. Not always successfully, but openly and maturely. Then they're shot down for promoting filthy disgusting behaviour, just for having an open conversation.
.
Consensual sex between and involving minors is illegal. As are certain other practices.
.
Ditto.
Yes that puts it nicely. The website is so that young people can have a mature approach and an open conversation about most sexual behaviour with information designed for them and speaking directly to them on matters that concern them and which some/many of us parents fail to/ are incapable of/unwilling to teach our own children.
Sorry, I don't have a clue what you mean.
Me? Thanks, but I was referring to 'you' in the general third person (as your post was) rather than you personally.
Yes that puts it nicely. The website is so that young people can have a mature approach and an open conversation about most sexual behaviour with information designed for them and speaking directly to them on matters that concern them and which some/many of us parents fail to/ are incapable of/unwilling to teach our own children.
Going to mass and saying you are a Christian is one thing.
Believing in, understand, and living by the teachings of the Church is what makes you a Christian.
Yes, I gathered that, but I didn't understand your point.
This is the original text in the original article. It does list the pro's and con's of threesomes, I personally don't think it's unwise or scandalous to do so. And by the way T McGibney it is not reducing relationships to this, this is only 1 article on the website which includes much more relevant and helpful material to teenagers.
I don't want to speak for Purple, but my take on his point is that being RC specifically means belief in the RC faith and all its teachings and the interpretations of those teachings by the current Pope.
By opting out of some, for whatever reason, does that not mean you are saying the Pope/God is wrong on certain issues, ergo in the strictest sense, you can't fully describe yourself as RC?
My point was, and back to Purple's point, is that while you may not be excommunicated or ejected for not agreeing to or abiding by all the dictated beliefs of the RC faith, isn't the point that if you don't, unless the Pope/God offers a new clarification, you go to hell/purgatory for not following those points?
For example, if I were homosexual and engaged in a homosexual relationship, if I followed every other RC belief apart from that one, wouldn't I go to hell?
By opting out of some, for whatever reason, does that not mean you are saying the Pope/God is wrong on certain issues, ergo in the strictest sense, you can't fully describe yourself as RC?
People can be Roman Catholics whilst at the same time not agreeing with all teachings of the Church.
Sorry, i think you must still be reading from the pre-Vatican II Catechism. In the past 30 years, the only churchman I have heard talk about hell has been Ian Paisley.
.
Sorry, i think you must still be reading from the pre-Vatican II Catechism. In the past 30 years, the only churchman I have heard talk about hell has been Ian Paisley.
No it doesn't.
to suggest you can be a Roman Catholic but not agree with their teachings is absurd.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?