Off of what track? Yours? The Bible's? You're just not getting the fact that not everyone views the same wway when it comes to right and wron,  Also, that doesn't mean that your way is THE way. Go ahead and try telling that to some Bahktiari or Jut'hoansi or Kawelka. It just isn't so. It's an ethnocentric and religio-centric view

That may be so, but that is their choice to act like that, and the people near them can simply get away from it. For example, my older sister Kelly. I love her to death, but she does LSD, Methanphetamine, and Ecstasy. I've removed myself from any close proximity, literally or relationship wise, until (if she does) she stops doing them. It's her choice, and I respect her choice and her right to live as she wants to, but I have chosen to live the life i have.

Really...You respect her choice of doing that? If she chose to steal (also an illegal act) would you respect that choice?

As for me, I don't respect any one who takes illicit and illegal drugs that cause great harm.

We've, that is, the secular world,  has gone off God's track. The worldlings have a great discomfort an aversion to the things of Almighty God.

I get it. I know that we are living under a dictatorship of moral relativism.

I respect her right to choosse and live her life the way she wants to, yes. I also, however, expect that when she gets in trouble (say, she gets caught) that she will do the time. She does what she does, and with it comes the consequences. I don't necessarily approve of it, but it is her life.

On the contrary lula, it's moral absolutism defined by narrow minds and ancient hearsay that would be considered, by many, to be despotism/a dictatorship. People have that expectancy to be able to make their lives what they want of them, and fail if they fail. You know, free will.

"Yes, the CC is the Mystical Body of Christ. As to your last question, we don't condemn the whole family if one of its children went wrong. Believe me when I say that when any of the religious (priests, nuns, or deacons) go wrong, all Catholics are hurt...for we are one body see Eph. 4:4-6."

Yes, one body, and when part of the body is diseased the entire body suffers, however when the head of that body is diseased the entire body is also.  As angry as I'm sure this is going to make you I must say this.  The head of the CC is diseased, for he hid that which was wrong instead of doing something about it.  In his then position within the CC if he had indeed been righteous he'd have not hidden this abomination.  He is himself that which he tried to hide.

Who is the "head" you are talking about? The Eternal Head (High Priest) is Christ Himself and the earthly head is Christ's vicar on earth, the Pope.

AldericJ posts:

I was merely pointing out your use of the word "repsect". How can you respect someone's choice to do something destructive and not approve it at the same time? It doesn't make sense.

It all boils down to there being only one truth. Moral relativists follow what they think to be right or the truth, but how do they know? Is there no possibility of a mistake? Of course there is. For every idea out there that wise men have uttered as right, equally wise men have denied..yet both are accepted by moral relativists depending on which side of morality they fall on. What they are really doing is following themselves based upon their own ideas of right and wrong. This only brings cracks into the strain of life.

God isn't foolish and He gave us His commands for our own good. These are the boundaries He has placed for us. He cannot be escaped. What God has said is absolute. Truth is easy to understand. The grace of God and the truth of God make it so.

I certainly wasn't speaking of Jesus.  I don't believe that Jesus has existed within the CC for a very, very long time.  Perhaps at the beginning but as with all things that man creates (the church), it is not all that long before it becomes as corrupt as the men who make the body of it.   (Good example the jewish sandhedrin during Jesus's time)  He isn't even quoted by most catholics, they prefer instead to quote St. Paul.  Why..............I have absolutely no real idea, but I suspect that it's because his (Jesus's) words and ways are far too hard and far too demanding for most to accept and follow.  He asks a great deal this Jesus, and yet he promises more than most can imagine.  It's not just about "loving one's fellow man" for it's easy to love ones self, it's far harder and far more demanding than that in my opinion.

Then you don't believe Jesus own words.

Just before Jesus ascended into Heavan He gave His Infant Church built upon St.Peter His authority saying, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the end of the world." St.Matt. 28:19-20.

At the Last Supper when Jesus instituted the Holy Eucharist, He told His Apostles to, "This is My Body, this is My Blood, ..take and eat, .....do this in commemmoration of Me. Only the Catholic Chruch does what Jesus commands in fulfillment of Malachais 1:11.

Jesus' Real Presence in every Catholic Church Tabernacle who has the perpetual sanctuary lamp burning.

How do you know Lula? How do you know you're not making am mistake? You say all of this, but yet you seem to fail to acknowledge that the things you mention can easily be applied to your own thinking and morals. Just as your morals could be "the" way, or whatever...mine could be, or a Buddhist's, etc.

Personally, I don't think it is WHAT or WHO you follow, so much as HOW you live and WHAT. If you're a good person, and you live your life the way you see fit, and that way does no harm - then I'm good. (Granted, this is my own personal and biased view...)

An interesting thing is...just because you follow the ten commandments, whether loosely or rigidly, that doesn't mean you're a good person.

Honestly, I find the whole idea that some all mighty, beyond our own conception being gave us some rules, silly. (If it is an actual being and not just our desire to placate our fears of the unknown with a myth. We can, logically and without God, come to similar if not the same conclusions as the ten commandments; No God necessary, no Bible necessary. I've done it before.

Because I respect her free will and the fact that she has made her own choice, not another's. What I think of doing drugs is entirely a nother matter. I don't approve of it, but i don't look down on it. I've just learned from my past.

Jesus never said a word about the catholic church Lulapilgrim.  You seem to be making huge leaps of assumption there.   There is no proof either that there was an infant church during his time either.  It would be just a bit hard to give something to someone that does not yet exist.  Jesus did tell Peter that he was the "rock" upon which his church would be built, but that does not in any way mean that he meant for Peter to start a new religion, it could very well be a prophecy on Jesus's part that a church would be founded in Peters name and nothing more.  It would seem to me that if Jesus had wished to start a new "church" (a word by the way that did not even exist then) he'd have founded one himself during his own lifetime. 

As to the CC being the only one that observes these instructions, apparently you are not very well versed in the observations of other religions.  The Episcopal church does the same things.

The Last Supper: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4oKXagF3IE

Genesis 17

2. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.

7. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

 9. And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.

10. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 

11. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

14. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

Seems the only way to be cut off was to not be cut off.

I didn't say the 10 Commandments. There are a lot of other rules and laws in the OT.

That is correct. There are 613 commandments, for Israelites. It's Jewish law. It has nothing to do with gentiles.

In fact the Torah specifically lists a set of seven laws, the Noahide laws, for all humanity (or at least for those tribes whose patriarchs descended from Noah). Why would the Torah list two sets of laws, one general and one specific, if the specific set is meant for all humanity anyway?

Well, bought with "silver" ("kesef)", not "money" (also "kesef"). Coins were not invented until a few hundred years after Exodus.

It's a symbol of the covenant, hence the word "bris" (meaning "pact").

Did I ever tell you I liked my mohel so much... I left him a tip.

No papyrus in the mountains of Sinai?

Seems like a strange thing for God to ask. Why that? Why is it so important?

Hm...

It makes cleaning easier, it is a good protection against STDs (because everything dries faster), and, in spite of what many claim, it can be done without loss of functionality in any way.

I don't think it's strange. Quite the opposite, it's positively brilliant. Sell the people a useful operation as a symbol for a pact with G-d. It's brilliant.

Well, I don't equate "strange" with "stupid." I guess he asked it because it's permanent.

Couldn't that be considered mutilation? Doesn't it contradict the "thy body is a temple" thing?

Weren't women included in the covenant?

Ok.

I wouldn't say so. Not more so than removing the appendix is mutilation (and less so, actually).

Isn't that in Corinthians?

They were. But when the Israelites committed idolatry with the golden calf, women did not participate in the idolatry. According to Jewish understanding, as I understand it, women are less likely to violate the pact and hence do not need a reminder or a symbol. (Also consider that they actually have the reminder and the symbol since a woman's man comes with it and they form a unit.)

On a more practical level there is nothing comparable you can cut away on a woman's body. Neither is there an equivalent advantage of doing anything like it.

The so-called "female circumcision" really is mutilation, torture, and completely unecessary. It has never been practices by Israelites although it was and is common among Egyptians. It has also not been practices among Arabs. It's one of those backwards African "customs" that thank G-d imperialism has stopped in many countries but not in all.

It remains very common in very backwards countries like Egypt, Sudan, and Somalia including Somaliland. But it has nothing to do with G-d, with a covenant with G-d, with Judaism, with Islam, or with Christianity.

I know you didn't imply that it did or that it had anything to do with the subject, but I wanted to make the above abundantly clear to avoid confusion.

It's not so strange, actually. It's a custom that was also followed by Yishmaelites (i.e. the tribes descended from Yitzaq's brother, Abraham's older son). I understand Yishmael was 13 when Abraham learned of the pact and its symbol and was thus circumcised at 13. Even today many Muslim traditions who see Islam as a continuation of Yishmael's religion circumcise their sons at 13.

However, this might not be a brilliant idea. At 8 days, a baby's map of the body is not complete yet but the organism already works. Hence circumcising at 8 days causes less pain than at 13 years. The specific age given by the Bible is 8 days.

Sometimes following traditions can be positively contrary to the traditions' actual meaning.

Either way, circumcision was (probably) practices by Israelites, Moabites, and Yishmaelites and possibly  anumber of other nations and tribes.

Where's KFC when you need her? We are getting into Biblical family trees and KFC is the authority on that on JU. I might get relations and ages wrong.

Yes, I know female circumcision is cultural, not religious.

No, I'm not making any assumptions as to the beginning of the CC. Scripture describes a Church (not churches) built upon St.Peter as its first earthly head and history bears this out. There has been a documented, continuous chain of St.Peter's successors...Pope Benedict XVI being the 265th.  St.Peter didn't start Christianity, Christ did in the New and Eternal Covenant of His Blood. The Church was born on the First Penecost Day in 33AD when the Holy Spirit came down upon those in the Upper Room..Acts records this most important event.

lula posts:

I realize that the Episcopal Chruch and other churches as well may observe these commands. However, they do not have Christ's authority for that was given only to the Apostles and from them to their lawful successors by the Sacrament of "the laying on of hands" (now called Holy Orders) as found in the Book of Acts. Only lawfully ordained priests can consecrate the Holy Eucharist and they are found only in the CC.

There is only one Chruch that is described in the New Testament and that Church is the Catholic Church first established by Christ upon St.Peter in 33AD. All the other churches were established by some one after 1517 and the Protestant revolution.