 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: GUEST,Musket Date: 09 Mar 16 - 03:58 AM To take them seriously implies believing in invisible friends and medieval superstition. Most people are too worldly wise, intelligent and rational for that, so churches should perhaps accept the income and accept their role is no different to Morris dancing in terms of what it actually means? We have 24/7 TV and Internet so we don't need the distraction of church. We have fertilisers and cow shit so we don't need fertility dancing. Yet both are part of the tapestry of our country and its heritage. Neither are relevant to society in real terms but some people live for their hobbies. Good luck to them but please don't assume I will be attaching bells to my legs any time soon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 09 Mar 16 - 12:59 AM "In the immortal words of Beethoven, oh man, help yourself." Was he listening to a harmonica player??.....maybe an accordion??... GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link Date: 08 Mar 16 - 01:43 PM Seems that the defence of musket as regards parents mouthing promises they have no intention of keeping , is that most parents have no intention of meaning it. Therefore it is not hypocritical !. I suppose in fairness there are vicars that know that some parents have no intention ,and so share the blame. But there seems little doubt that the promises made by parents are supposed to be taken seriously. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Mar 16 - 07:45 AM In the immortal words of Beethoven, oh man, help yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Mar 16 - 05:14 AM Musket, I didn't have my children baptised into the church. " At the baptism of children, the president then says to the parents and godparents Parents and godparents, the Church receives these children with joy." "In baptism these children begin their journey in faith. You speak for them today. Will you care for them, and help them to take their place within the life and worship of Christ's Church? With the help of God, we will." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Mar 16 - 08:45 PM I'll swear it was the devil, the world and the flesh when I were a little lad. Rule that lot out and there's not much left. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: akenaton Date: 07 Mar 16 - 01:19 PM "Worldly" as opposed to "spiritual" I presume. As an Atheist, I think there is too much "worldliness" and too little "spirituality" in modern society. Instant personal gratification abounds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Stu Date: 07 Mar 16 - 11:58 AM "against sin, the world and the devil," The world? What does this mean? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: GUEST,Musket Date: 07 Mar 16 - 10:36 AM Yeah, and when you throw salt over your shoulder it brings you good luck. What's your point Keith? Are you seriously saying people actually listen to and take the words seriously? It isn't just the few hundred thousand who go to church who get their kids christened you know. Granted, these days few do. My granddaughter isn't whilst my brother in law, who believes in all that (for professional reasons as well) has the insight to not have us as god parents for his kids as he does take it seriously, so wants real god parents as per the script. I like the bit in your post saying "do not be ashamed to confess the faith etc". Seems a bit guarded and presumptuous eh? Anyway, thanks for giving the detail to the mumbo jumbo I referred to. It describes it beautifully. Do you "fight valiantly against the world"? Is it something to do with lining up toy soldiers? No wonder you can't accept the Christian commandment "thou shalt not kill." I bet real Christians don't mealy mouthed claim it doesn't say that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Mar 16 - 10:24 AM CofE Christening The candidates may be presented to the congregation. Where appropriate, they may be presented by their godparents or sponsors. The president asks those candidates for baptism who are able to answer for themselves Do you wish to be baptized? I do. Testimony by the candidate(s) may follow. The president addresses the whole congregation Faith is the gift of God to his people. In baptism the Lord is adding to our number those whom he is calling. People of God, will you welcome these children/candidates and uphold them in their new life in Christ? All With the help of God, we will. At the baptism of children, the president then says to the parents and godparents Parents and godparents, the Church receives these children with joy. Today we are trusting God for their growth in faith. Will you pray for them, draw them by your example into the community of faith and walk with them in the way of Christ? With the help of God, we will. In baptism these children begin their journey in faith. You speak for them today. Will you care for them, and help them to take their place within the life and worship of Christ's Church? With the help of God, we will. The Decision A large candle may be lit. The president addresses the candidates directly, or through their parents, godparents and sponsors In baptism, God calls us out of darkness into his marvellous light. To follow Christ means dying to sin and rising to new life with him. Therefore I ask: Do you reject the devil and all rebellion against God? I reject them. Do you renounce the deceit and corruption of evil? I renounce them. Do you repent of the sins that separate us from God and neighbour? I repent of them. Do you turn to Christ as Saviour? I turn to Christ. Do you submit to Christ as Lord? I submit to Christ. Do you come to Christ, the way, the truth and the life? I come to Christ. Where there are strong pastoral reasons, the alternative form of the Decision may be used. Signing with the Cross The president or another minister makes the sign of the cross on the forehead of each candidate, saying Christ claims you for his own. Receive the sign of his cross. The president may invite parents, godparents and sponsors to sign the candidates with the cross. When all the candidates have been signed, the president says Do not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified. All Fight valiantly as a disciple of Christ against sin, the world and the devil, and remain faithful to Christ to the end of your life. May almighty God deliver you from the powers of darkness, restore in you the image of his glory, and lead you in the light and obedience of Christ. All Amen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: GUEST,Musket Date: 07 Mar 16 - 09:42 AM Most people I have met who have been committed tend to be committed under a certain act of Parliament in 1983. No, you said that anyone who supports the concept of chaplaincy in hospitals cannot be "anti theist." What did I miss when I answered such a stupid notion? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 07 Mar 16 - 04:33 AM You seem to have missed the point of my comment , musket , but as you seem to a wind up merchant , I won't bother trying to explain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Mar 16 - 10:40 AM An anti theist would not marry and seek to remarry in church, and have all his children baptised into the church, would he? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Stu Date: 06 Mar 16 - 08:22 AM "but for Christians we believe in a God of justice as well as being a God of love" He's a card, that's for sure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 06 Mar 16 - 07:51 AM Don't be so touchy musket. I don't know if you are so much as an anti theist as a complete wind up . I suspect more the latter , since a committed anti theist would not be likely to see the value of hospital chaplains. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: DMcG Date: 06 Mar 16 - 06:13 AM I'll set an alarm clock reminder! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: GUEST,Musket Date: 06 Mar 16 - 06:00 AM Yeah, reading between and beyond the headlines. The Vatican finances being at the level of prosecuting whistleblowers, they probably need the collateral. Tell you what DMcG, here's my fiver that says they take control of it before the end of the year. Joe. Yes, it is pretty to look at. But rather than stare at it, think what they could do for the less fortunate if they stopped hoarding and started using the value of it for the good of people. A bit like the Jesus character tells you to. Ireland and Malta. Two places I have noticed how ragged arsed the children are in villages with magnificent gilded madonnas and collecting plates. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: DMcG Date: 06 Mar 16 - 03:57 AM I know it is off thread, but I've been looking at the Naples treasures reports. They all seem minor rehashes of the same report. It is interesting that, for example, the heading of the Guardian versions says the Catholic church IS trying to take them and then the subheading immediately backtracks and says the story really is locals fear it MIGHT try. And it is all triggered by the actions of 'a decree' by the (secular) minister of the interior, but is what is this decree? I can't find it. Is it about who has rights to challenge ownership of artworks in general and about neither the Catholic Church nor this treasure specifically? I can't find out. And the strongest evidence that the church is involved at all? They have tried to take possession a few times in the last couple of centuries. It is always worth reading past headlines. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Joe Offer Date: 06 Mar 16 - 03:06 AM It doesn't have anything to do with Zikas and mosquitoes, but Musket piqued my curiosity with this: Oh and Joe, tell your lot to stop trying to steal treasures from the people of Naples. You have enough gilded effigies in The Vatican as it is. Didn't hear the story about Naples, Musket. Do tell. A link would be helpful, too. But gee, we kinda thought we were doing the world a service by preserving and displaying that art for all to see, instead of selling it off to private collectors who would hide it away. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: DMcG Date: 06 Mar 16 - 02:17 AM (The thread subject eh? Yep. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: GUEST,Musket Date: 06 Mar 16 - 02:01 AM Err.. Why are you defensively using the term "anti theists" to describe those of us who are merely asking questions and putting forward a given fact that the bible in my local church will say, if I were to check, thou shalt not kill. To question is not to oppose. I oppose being preached at by hypocrites if it helps. But with pete now picking and choosing rather than supporting scripture, I have run out of real Christians to debate with. Conclusion? Seems I'm right, which is disturbing in a funny way. It's self serving bollocks, so stop using it as a tool for suppressing others. (The thread subject eh?) Oh and Joe, tell your lot to stop trying to steal treasures from the people of Naples. You have enough gilded effigies in The Vatican as it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 05 Mar 16 - 03:44 PM You might well have a problem with God commanding the thrusting out or destruction of the Canaanites , but keith was clearly using that as an example that the commandment in the Decalogue did not include legitimate warfare deaths. Btw that was for a time and purpose , which would be known to any serious bible student, and is not a permission for the current stae of Israel to commit any (alleged) atrocities against Palestinians. The bible teaches that the Canaanites were so depraved and that God gave them time , that eventually destruction of them was vital , just as cutting off a cancerous growth might be. It is still an ugly business , but for Christians we believe in a God of justice as well as being a God of love. Not nice, but neither is sin and depravity , but I don't expect anti theists to entertain that concept. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Greg F. Date: 05 Mar 16 - 01:16 PM God ENDORSED killing in the name of a nation??? Absolutely! Have you forgotten that God GAVE them the land, full stop? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Mar 16 - 11:30 AM I correct my last statement. CofE "At the end the reader may say This is the word of the Lord." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Mar 16 - 11:18 AM or the older one that reckons you can kill with gay abandon, It does not. That would be murder. It forbids any murder. Although your funniest bit is in saying nearly all Christians know the bible is wrong. That mistranslation is well known and recognised. I stand by the statement. Real Christians look up from the KJV and say "this is the word of the Lord." They say that whichever version is used. (Only after a Gospel reading actually) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: GUEST,Musket Date: 05 Mar 16 - 10:57 AM Oh, and God ENDORSED killing in the name of a nation??? Are you sure you want to spend tomorrow morning praying to the evil bastard? Or is your source talking bollocks? He doesn't break his own commandments either? So who knows this? Did they take cameras when they interviewed him? If you are going to give form to a fantasy to interpret a moral code, you seem to be rather desperate to my mind. Although your funniest bit is in saying nearly all Christians know the bible is wrong. Kind of defeats the object doesn't it? Real Christians look up from the KJV and say "this is the word of the Lord." Starting your own religion Keith? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: GUEST,Musket Date: 05 Mar 16 - 10:50 AM Err... So Israel's bloodletting is OK is it? This gets better So which do you prefer then Keith? The bible that shaped our culture for a few hundred years that frowns upon killing or the older one that reckons you can kill with gay abandon, especially in the name of Israel? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Stu Date: 05 Mar 16 - 06:56 AM Joe, I don't agree that an outsider challenging has little impact. If all questioning of dogma was left to those with a vested interest there is always a danger of bias. By challenging from without attention can be focussed on subjects that might otherwise be ignored. I don't disagree with people wanting to belong to a community (it's why we're all here to a degree), but when we're born we free of prejudices and opinions, a blank canvas which family, society and culture all have a chance to colour and mark. We are constructs in this sense, and how we react to being formed by these factors is what makes each of us who we are. Also, the decisions of many religious people affect the lives of all of us in secular society too, and that means everyone should have a say, and be listened to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Mar 16 - 05:53 AM "There are two different Hebrew words (ratsakh, mut) and two Greek words (phoneuo, apokteino) for "murder" and "killing." One means "to put to death," and the other means "to murder." The latter one is the one prohibited by the Ten Commandments, not the former. In fact, ratsakh has a broader definition than the English word "murder." Ratsakh also covers deaths due to carelessness or neglect but is never used when describing killing during wartime. That is why most modern translations render the sixth commandment "You shall not murder" rather than "You shall not kill." However, a very large issue can arise depending on which translation one studies. The ever-popular King James Version renders the verse as "Thou shalt not kill," therefore opening the door to misinterpreting the verse altogether. If the intended meaning of "Thou shalt not kill" was just that—no killing—it would render all of the God-endorsed bloodletting done by the nation of Israel a violation of God's own commandment (Deuteronomy 20). But God does not break His own commandments, so, clearly, the verse does not call for a complete moratorium on the taking of another human life." http://www.gotquestions.org/you-shall-not-murder.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: GUEST,Musket Date: 05 Mar 16 - 05:42 AM Wot Joe said. Or at least, the bit blowing out of the water any suggestion that the Ten Commandments say you can kill. Hard luck Keith. Nobody seems to agree with your "all Christians" nonsense. Seems that playing with toy soldiers pisses off St Peter after all. On other matters, Joe may think it's his birthright to criticise but rational people are also allowed to criticise when it affects more than just those who conciously believe in it of their own free will. ie. The bloody supermarkets closing early on the one day many people can get out and shop. (He says, glossing over influencing governments to sustain bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, abuse etc) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Mar 16 - 05:40 AM It is evil to kill, unless only that it is to prevent a greater evil. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Mar 16 - 05:15 AM Stu, if you're an outsider, challenging and questioning have little impact. If you're born into a group, challenging and questioning can be very effective. In addition, your view that creeds are imposed on children is but one perspective. It's valid if religion is solely an ideology - and I suppose that's the case for some people and some religions. But that perspective doesn't tell the whole story. I would submit that for most religious groups, what people believe is secondary to the concept of belonging to a community. I do not believe that an ideological perspective is primary for people other than Internet wonks. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Mar 16 - 05:05 AM The Ten Commandments are stated in Exodus 20, and again in Deuteronomy 5. The Revised Standard Version (RSV) has "You shall not kill," and the New Revised Standard Version has "You shall not murder," with "kill" as an alternate text. When I was studying biblical Greek, I found that the RSV was usually very close to the original Greek text, and I would suspect it would also be close to the Hebrew. I think most people don't make a big distinction between "murder" and "kill"; and to argue whether the translation should be one word or another, is splitting hairs. Nowadays, churches are tending toward taking "thou shalt not kill" literally. The Catholic Church has mostly abandoned the "just war" theory, and is moving closer and closer toward total pacifism. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Stu Date: 05 Mar 16 - 04:53 AM "it was my birthright" It's everybody's birthright to question and challenge anything they want to. None of us get special privileges for being born into any creed; in fact we're not born into them, they are imposed upon us as children. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Mar 16 - 04:25 AM assertion that nearly every Christian in the world knows that the King James Version got the commandments wrong is possibly the funniest thing I've read since the last edition of Viz. Also rather telling that he picks on the commandment that criticises his fascination with toy soldiers.. Most Christians are fully aware that killing can be justifiable and that the commandment only refers to murder. I did not "pick" the commandment. That is the one that is mistranslated in KJ. Sorry but it is, and that is an indisputable fact Musket. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Mar 16 - 04:08 AM Steve Shaw sez: I actually find something slightly pathetic in the attitude "I was born into a thing, there are many other things I could have been born into, but this thing's the best for me." Something slightly unquestioning and incurious there. Most people of any religion are of that religion because they were born into it. Accident of birth is a wonderful thing. I assume, Steve, that you were referring to my remark that I was born into the Catholic Church. Except that you misquoted my conclusion. I said that since I was born into the Catholic Church, it was my birthright to challenge and question the church when I thought it was wrong. Indeed, I feel it is my obligation to challenge and question the Catholic Church, and I do so often. So, your distortion of what I said attempted to twist my words to the absolute opposite of what I actually said. I find that pathetic. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: DMcG Date: 05 Mar 16 - 03:23 AM Many congratulations to Jack Campin, by the way, for a valiant but clearly doomed attempt to get people posting about Zika. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: DMcG Date: 05 Mar 16 - 02:21 AM Thanks for the full response, Steve. I didn't expect it, though, because it was an answer to the direct question, and misses the point of the *smile*. So I will explain what was going through my mind when I did that. If someone says ""I was born into a thing, there are many other things I could have been born into, but this thing's the best for me." you can have literally no idea whether they have never thought about it at all or whether they have been thinking about it hard their whole lives. A person who has never emigrated (like me) may never have seriously thought about it, or, again like me, they may have got as far as accepting a job in another a country and handed in their notice, only to be 'bribed' to stay by a promotion and big pay rise. You simply cannot know. Equally, you cannot know whether a person has never thought about leaving Catholicism (or any other religion) or has had seriously thought about it a long time but finds the alternatives worse. Such as my father in law, which is why he turned up in that post. And that's why I find hearing "I actually find something slightly pathetic in the attitude..." tells me much more about the speaker than those they are speaking about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Greg F. Date: 04 Mar 16 - 06:23 PM Get this: since one obnoxious person is a candidate for political office... Not quite, Joe - you're forgetting the millions of obnoxious and worse people that enthusiastically SUPPORT Trump and his bullshit. Were it only Trump, there would not be a problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: GUEST,Musket Date: 04 Mar 16 - 03:27 PM I say that Catholicism is fucked up and Joe goes for my throat. Joe says it is fucked up and I want to pour him a glass of zin. Funny old world. I still see overtones and, with all due respect to Feargal Sharkey, undertones of criticising superstition is a sign of an alternative superstition. As I said, I'm positive in my mind that dumbing down rational thought to the level of sky pixies is a sign of intellectual embarrassment. Then you get the likes of Keith who reckons that engaging in tradition is hypocrisy if you don't think there are fairies at the bottom of the garden. Mind you, considering it takes lack of thinking to believe such tosh, his assertion that nearly every Christian in the world knows that the King James Version got the commandments wrong is possibly the funniest thing I've read since the last edition of Viz. Also rather telling that he picks on the commandment that criticises his fascination with toy soldiers.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Mar 16 - 02:52 PM Well I'd have had to wait 'til I was grown up to emigrate. In the meantime, life can't be put in hold. I have to mix with other kids, go to school and be looked after by my family. I have no alternative for at least the first sixteen or eighteen years to be dependent on people who make the decisions for me. If they emigrate, so do I. If they don't, neither do I. My ancestors were mostly immigrants. Many members of my family have emigrated, including my only brother. I wasn't one of them. There's an inertia about the place you live in that has something of a neutrality about it. I didn't stay here for ideological reasons. I stayed here because I gradually got tied up here in relationships, with children at school and in order to be close to my elderly parents. That's the unavoidability of the vicissitudes of life. On the other hand, you are not born a "Catholic child". There is no such thing as a Catholic child, a Hindu child or a Muslim child. Those are disgusting concepts. Rational, fair-minded parents would not bring up children in a "faith" that the child can't understand. That is child abuse. The right thing to do would be, in the fullness of time, to explain religions and atheism to children and tell them that they have a free choice. I'd suggest the late teens at the earliest. That can't be the case if the child is baptised into a religion scarcely after the cord is cut. There are penalties for apostasy in some religions. You'll survive them if you're a demurring Catholic, but there's still that hellfire and those family pressures. It could be a lot worse for other religions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Jack Campin Date: 04 Mar 16 - 02:02 PM Zika observed in the process of destroying developing brain cells: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35725744 Joe sez: Catholic teaching is very clear that life begins at conception Greg_F sez: Only very recently - historically, that was not Catholic teaching at all. I suppose that may be true, Greg, but I'd like to see your documentation. Aquinas thought the soul entered the foetus at 40 days gestation for boys and 80 days for girls. He got the idea from Aristotle. It's somewhere in the Summa Theologiæ but not in the volumes I have. That period is not relevant to the present issue, but it does show that Catholic doctrine on abortion can change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: DMcG Date: 04 Mar 16 - 01:29 PM I actually find something slightly pathetic in the attitude "I was born into a thing, there are many other things I could have been born into, but this thing's the best for me." Lots of people emigrate, Steve. I'd be interested in how seriously you considered doing so, or whether you had a slightly pathetic attitude *smile* My father-in-law was born into "Chapel", became a Methodist, then an atheist for around a decade before finally becoming a Catholic. I assume you will applaud that. Or do you only applaud it if we exclude the last step? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Mar 16 - 05:47 AM I was born into the Catholic Church too, and I've never officially left. I'm a Catholic atheist. I'm counted in that billion of yours. There are probably more of us than there are true-blue, bums-on-pews Catholics. I actually find something slightly pathetic in the attitude "I was born into a thing, there are many other things I could have been born into, but this thing's the best for me." Something slightly unquestioning and incurious there. Most people of any religion are of that religion because they were born into it. Accident of birth is a wonderful thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Mar 16 - 05:33 AM So a particular action can be an objective evil (whatever that weird phrase means), but you can do it if it's not as bad as another evil - you decide - and you can follow your conscience. Well I remember all that classroom talk of conscience too, Joe Offer, and as I recall there are several types of conscience, and unless you have the correct type it isn't OK to circumvent your "objective evils." And making sure you have the correct conscience type is no piece of cake, I seem to remember. A priest might help you... So the ordinary Catholic has all that to tussle with. On top of that, the ordinary Catholic pregnant woman has to face a large number of physical obstacles (no clinics nearby, expense, time delays, two doctors, compulsory scans or "counselling" - pick 'n' mix) as well as emotional obstacles (blinkered family members, priests, bigots outside clinics, not least her own dilemma). But your Church decides what she is contemplating to be an objective evil. That's as far as it goes. And you're pretending that it's a simple, rational choice with the Church allowing her to be the final arbiter. Well after all that emotional wrangling, let's hope she doesn't google the bit that I did that says you are excommunicated for having an abortion. An honest Church that officially opposes abortion but which allows the woman to be the final arbiter would work its socks off to oppose and remove those obstacles. But it doesn't. It connives in them. And you've just made a saint of a woman who told women having abortions that they were murderers and the greatest threat to world peace. If that's your idea of answering Steve, my idea is that you have a long way to go. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Mar 16 - 03:55 AM OK, so I've answered Greg and Steve and I hope we find a cure for the Zika virus. Now I want to talk about what I've been thinking about the last couple of days, stemming from this discussion. A while back, SPB-Cooperator started a thread titled Trump, and this was the main part of the first post:
Get this: since one obnoxious person is a candidate for political office, the entire nation should be disqualified from participation on the world stage. I think I'm in a similar predicament in this and so many others of the religion threads: I get shamed for being a Catholic, because other Catholics have done things that I agree are wrong. I'll be the first to admit that Catholicism is a fucked-up religion. I've been saying that since the 1960s. A nun I know told a class of prospective converts that she didn't know why anybody would want to become a Catholic, because the Catholic Church is such a mess. And so it is. It may be a mess, but it's my mess. I was born into it, and most of my family was Catholic going back for centuries. My dad and I are the only Catholics left in the family, but so be it. A lot of people shop around until they find a religion or whatnot that fits their expectations, and then they join it. If that works for them, that's fine. My wife was raised Catholic, but she doesn't find room for women in a male-dominated church - and I can't disagree with her on that. So, she participates in women's spirituality groups that practice a mixture of Native American, Celtic, and earth-based spiritualities. It works for her, so I respect her for that - and I find that her spirituality and mine are very compatible. But for me, the Catholic Church is where I'm from. It's my home, where I feel most able to be who I am. To me, it's authentic (partially because it's such a mess), and authenticity is important to me. I suppose if somebody were coming into the Catholic Church new from the outside, they would be unlikely to question Catholic rules and teachings. If they didn't like the rules and teachings, why did they become Catholic? I admit I get annoyed at evangelicals who join the Catholic Church because they like our sacraments, but then keep acting and talking like evangelicals otherwise. But as for me, I've been asking questions and breaking the rules since I was a teenager - I was born into the Catholic Church, so it's my birthright. Members of a family should ask challenging questions about what goes on in the family - but it's generally impolite for outsiders to be asking those questions. For the most part, they should be questioning their own families. Condemning others rarely accomplishes anything good - it just causes animosity and gives the blamer a false sense of superiority. So, I guess I'll just keep on belonging to my "cult," if that's what you think it is. And I'll keep asking questions and disobeying the rules, because that's my birthright. And while I agree that the Catholic Church is seriously fucked up, I won't apologize. It's my home, my family, and I like it there. It may not work for other people, but it works for me. Musket may call my style of being Catholic, "boutique Catholicism," but I disagree. I think the boutique people are the ones who shop around for something that suits them. I'd rather take what I have and try to fix it. But to each his own. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 04 Mar 16 - 03:54 AM I am sorry that the commandment does not say what some of you think it says, but the original Hebrew is quite unequivocal. The King James Bible mistranslated it, but few who are interested in their religion would be unaware of that fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Mar 16 - 02:57 AM Joe sez: Catholic teaching is very clear that life begins at conception Greg_F sez: Only very recently - historically, that was not Catholic teaching at all. I suppose that may be true, Greg, but I'd like to see your documentation. Humans haven't understood the biological process of conception for very long, so it follows that the "life begins at conception" principle may not have been around all that long, either. My opinion is, that life begins whenever people think it begins. It's an arbitrary thing. Certainly, there is the "stuff of life" in sperm cells and ova, but is that life? Is a zygote life - depends on one's perspective. Same thing for a fetus. There's little disagreement that a breathing, crying baby is life, but is it the beginning of life? But is "when does life begin" the central question in determining the morality of abortion? Whether a zygote is life or a potential life, it is still something I consider to be of infinite value. But if there is no chance of this child having a humane life situation, is it moral to bring the child into the world? I think it's a difficult question and that there are no easy answers - and I believe that is how it should be. The anti-abortionists and the pro-abortionists take an approach that is far too simplistic. I think people need to think long and hard about their decision to bring a child into the world - or not to. Responsible family planning is essential. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Mar 16 - 02:35 AM Steve, you continue to insist moral principles must be dumbed down and stated in absolutes. I have a suspicion that you want them that way so you can refute them. The "objective evil" definition is a fairly clear and simple way of stating the Catholic opposition to abortion, whether or not you like that way of stating the principle. The "lesser of two evils" process is also quite simple and clear, as is the principle of primacy of conscience. When I was in school, we understood these things quite well in third grade, at the age of nine. It doesn't take a seminary education to understand. It's just basic decision making. The rule is more-or-less absolute, but the application depends on a wide variety of variables. That's how it is in real life. And not that final principle - the individual's conscience is the final decider. So, if a woman firmly believes that abortion is the best thing she can do considering the circumstances, that getting an abortion is a morally correct decision for her. But to make a correct moral decision, a person must be brutally honest in self-examination. You can't rationalize or play legalistic games. You may not like this systematic method of making a moral decision, but nobody's forcing it on you. You can take it or leave it. It works for me - it's a simple, rational process that forces me to examine my reasons for doing things. And the final arbiter is not the Church, not the law, but the individual who is making the decision. And it has been official Catholic teaching for a long, long time. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: GUEST,Musket Date: 04 Mar 16 - 02:27 AM Makes you wonder how people contemplated the navel before we invented Jesus... |