Disturbing/discouraging video about Islam.

[Catholic_Lady]

That line is not written anywhere in Catholic Doctrine, AFTT.

Really? It's John 15:6. The Bible isn't Catholic doctrine?

No. Unlike most other Christian  religions, Catholicism is not sola scriptura.    

Official Catholic Doctrine/Dogma are infallible (per our beliefs) teachings on faith and morals written in the Magistarium and the Catechism. The bible can be interpreted many different ways and certain things can be unclear. If someone wants to know what the Church teaches about something or what their position is on something, that person needs to look at the Catechism or the Magisterium. Not the bible. 

Also, I think I misunderstood your earlier post asking if Church Doctrine was "in effect" at the time that killing heretics was practiced. Unfortunately the Church's doctrinal teaching on the death penalty is relatively new. It did not exist back then, but has since been added in.

[Catholic_Lady]

So does that mean that Catholics consider church doctrine more important than what is actually in the Bible?

Actually, yes. That is exactly correct.

The Church existed before the bible did. We believe the Church is the main pillar of truth. Not the bible.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's even worse than some of these guys thought, huh, lol? That's right...gentlefolks....catholics don't claim that the bible is infallible, or that god is infallible...it's a geriatric in a fancy hat....he's infallible.

Now kiss the ring.

[Mudhammam]

Well yeah, exactly. But dogmatic religion isn't like that. If a religion is dogmatic, it is right or it is wrong. There is no room for change. If you are open to change, you must admit the foundation of your religion is not infallible. If that's the case, why the dogma? Why not embrace something more flexible like Secular Humanism which acknowledges the changing, advancing state of knowledge and enlightenment?

That is very true about dogmatic teachings not changing. 

"Death Penalty = moral" was never a dogmatic Catholic teaching, but a practice of the time... though an awful and embarrassing one. But you are correct. Church dogmas don't change, and neither will they ever. A couple examples of these are the belief that Jesus is God, and the belief that Mary got pregnant with Jesus through the Holy Spirit. We believe them to be absolute truths, and truths don't change.

Indeed. It certainly would be awkward for an institution to officially adopt a practice through which its founders were made victims, or as Tertullian put it (before he left the Catholic church), "the blood of martyrs is the seed of the church."

[Mystic]

Hey CatholicLady.

I don't believe in stoning and I'm a Shia Muslim. 

The hadiths we have collected are not 100% reliable, and if they contradict Quran, they should be thrown away.

The Quran has a harsh punishment for adultery but it's not stoning. It's rather lashing but only if caught by four witnesses doing the act. If you don't have four witnesses and you personally catch someone doing the action, you aren't allowed to testify against them.

Anyways, the Quran has 7 verses that the rest of the Quran elaborates on.  They are:


1.By the Name of God, the (universally) Compassionate/Merciful, the (Intensely) Compassionate/Merciful.
2. All praise is to God, Lord of the Worlds.
3. The (universally) Compassionate/Merciful, The (intensely) Compassionate/Merciful.
4. The Master of the day of judgement
5. You we worship and you we seek help from
6. Guide us the straight path
7. The path of those who you favored, other then those who your wrath is upon and neither the astray.

If you find none of these verses controversial, then you should think about the elaboration. It can be said that these 7 verses were specifically chosen to apply to all people who have a spiritual sense. It doesn't go into details of what the straight path is, it could of said the path of the Prophets or the path of Mohammad or the path of the family of Mohammad, but it didn't. It could of said a lot of things. It rather says things are very intuitively true for people who believe in their very soul.  These 7 verses are called the 7 counter parts of the Quran (although they are part of the Quran, they been singled out with a special status).

They are those verses meant by And verily we given you the 7 counter parts (double parts) and the great Quran.

I would suggest to think about the bed rock logic and reasoning of Quran, the heart of the issue, rather then get into details of the Shariah.

I think if you follow the "clear signs" of the book rather then what is unclear to you from it, everything becomes easy to understand.

[Mudhammam]

Islam is divided between two main sects :
1-Sunna
2-Shiia

The speakers/audience are Sunna.  For example, you'll see Muslims who are neither shia nor sunna, who don't support these views.Like me.
Though both sects (Sunna/shia) agree on stoning.

For starters, stoning is not present in the Quran. Sunna / shia used something called "Hadith" to fetch that sentence; i.e it's not a part of the original faith. I never agreed on stoning. 
Sunna Muslims do the disaster, then say "all Muslims do it". They should speak about themselves only.

According to Pew, 10-13% of Muslims in the world are Shia, while Sunni make up 87-90%. In other words, those whom you describe as finding agreement on stoning comprise basically 100% of Muslims, or a number close enough that those such yourself are not even large enough to be represented. This is a problem, yes?

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/10/07/mappi...opulation/

[Mudhammam]

The Quran has a harsh punishment for adultery but it's not stoning. It's rather lashing but only if caught by four witnesses doing the act. If you don't have four witnesses and you personally catch someone doing the action, you aren't allowed to testify against them.

So what should happen to me if I were to post a video online of myself having sex and it was seen not by four, but by thousands of witnesses, according to the Qur'an?

[Mystic]

The Quran has a harsh punishment for adultery but it's not stoning. It's rather lashing but only if caught by four witnesses doing the act. If you don't have four witnesses and you personally catch someone doing the action, you aren't allowed to testify against them.

So what should happen to me if I were to post a video online of myself having sex and it received not four, but thousands of witnesses, according to the Qur'an?

I don't know.  I'm not sure how it should be interpreted in that situation.

[Catholic_Lady]

Thank you for the response MK. I'm going to bed right now but will read what you wrote more thoroughly and probably come back with a question or 2. Thanks again.

[Homeless Nutter]

No, it was not. 

Oh, sure. Lying's always a good way to get yourself out of an inconvenient position. Well played.

But here - in case you're simply ignorant - read up.
http://www.shc.edu/theolibrary/resources/Timeline.htm

The Church's teaching on sexual morality is definitely written in official Church doctrine and will not change.

That's what your ancestors were saying about antisemitism. Official church doctrine can always be changed - and it often was in the past. I'm sure future christians will be as ashamed of your views, as you are of catholic anti-semitic, or anti-women-suffrage positions - to the point where they will be denying the fact it ever happened. If you're lucky - you won't be around to see it. Good for you...