funinspace

Which Catholics are you talking about anywho? There are a few... I think I would have to somewhat agree with Metarock somewhat here. Liberal Xians see no need to force a unified understanding. Also some of the division at this point in history is more stylistic than substance. As far as most liberal Xians not reading, I would say that goes for all the sects; like it's pretty much the normal human condition.

Hey, Metarock...I'm a former liberal Xian; with a fundy stage before deconversion. :wave:

Calzaer

When eternal paradise/torment is on the line, I'd think a unified understanding would be rather important....

funinspace

Show an example of a mainstream liberal Xian sect saying another mainstream liberal Xian sect is damned for their interpretation of some theological point? They agree that the key point is the acceptance of Jesus as savior, for the keys to a blissful eternity. I have never heard one bitch about another's way of say baptizing, the use of sacraments, or alcohol, et.al as far as being saved goes. They may think one way is better, but not that it is critical in the end. When is an Episcopalian highly critical of a UMC stance, or vice versa? Hell, many of them don't even believe that there is eternal torments, just a sleepy death for us heathens. And even before we had canons, Origen believed in Universalism, which is before the RCC had any power. So why is their views so much more wrong than the fundies?

Metacrock

It appears you are mouting some kind of anti-proestant Catholic based argument. I dont' care about that. There are liberal Catholoics by the way. But I don't care to pursue an argument along those lines. I have no problem with RCC. I like them fine and I think they are very valuable. I'm still a protestant and I don't care to discuss it.

Metacrock

Good point. The RCC doesnt' say Protestants are wrong because they sprinkle wrong or because they dunck. The issues with P's and C's are not that trivial. they have to do with the institutions themselves, not the minutia and the practices of daily piety and literugical doings.

hinduwoman

Metacrock, try to read the law legalistically.
Well according to Lev 19:20 (KJV) no attention is taken of the fact that the slave girl could have been raped. The man is to make atonement because he had interfered with another man’s property. The woman however is to be scourged. No provision is made for the fact that the woman was forced. So if I was a judge I would get away by punishing the victim by applying the letter of the law.

Deut 22:23 once again makes no provision for the fact that even in the city the girl could have been threatened with death or gagged to prevent her from crying out.
As for the countryside verse it is applicable only if the girl was a virgin. what if she already had a sexual relationship before but was raped in this partuclar case?

Sensei Meela

Says who/what? No, really; is there any reason to think this is true, outside of common sense?

Diogenes the Cynic

I think it has to follow since a.) the Jewish Messiah is a human being and b.) human beings only get one lifetime.