Rewriting History
I think the pope has been doing a little bit of wishful thinking here, no?
Benedict said Latin American Indians had been “silently longing” to become Christians when Spanish and Portuguese conquerors took over their native lands centuries ago, though many Indians were enslaved and killed.
“In effect, the proclamation of Jesus and of his Gospel did not at any point involve an alienation of the pre-Columbus cultures, nor was it the imposition of a foreign culture,” he said.
I guess that’s why he gets to wear the tall, pointed hat.
Maybe we should have the Jesuits bring Christian democracy to Iraq. They have a better record.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2007 at 0835 hrs
I think the Pope is most likely referring to the basic Christian doctrine that the moral laws of God and the Gospel are written on man’s heart and known to us even before we ever pick up a Bible or hear a sermon.
For the record, I am not a papist; I am a Lutheran so I have no allegiance to the Bishop of Rome.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2007 at 1107 hrs
Joe, bs is still bs. to say there was no “imposition of a foreign culture” is the height of absurdity. And your “basic Christian doctrine” is nothing more than a Christian self-justification for domination of other religions and cultures.
BTW, isn’t it fascinating how Protestants like to use the term “Bishop of Rome” just to piss off the Catholics?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2007 at 1222 hrs
Okay, several points here.
1. I am not saying the Pope is correct that a foriegn cultere was pushed on these folks. My comments were and are limited to he statement that they were “silently loning” to become Christians. There are plenty of examples of conversion without conquest. I am not saying the Spanish had free reign to do what they did.
2. It is not MY basic Christian Doctrine. It is simply basic Christian Doctrine and it was preached long before Christians were in any sort of a position to conquere anyone. So it is not (in its proper context) self-justification for conquest unless you want to suggest that 1st century Christians, in between being hung, stoned and crucified, came up with the doctrine becuase the new they would be running things hundreds of years later.
Lastly, “Bishop of Rome” is not an insult. It is one of the many offical titles the Pope has: Bishop of Rome, Patriach of the West, Vicar of Christ, Vicar of the Holy See, Supreme Pontif just to name a few. There is nothing insulting about it.
If want to question Church doctrine, which is fine to do, may be you ought to understand what the doctrine is.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2007 at 1240 hrs
As a Catholic, I take no umbrage at the term “Bishop of Rome” (although I generally think the term “papist” is used as a term of condescension). Perhaps Joe did not mean it that way, but most Catholics take it that way, and at least one dictionary precedes its definition of the word “papist” with the term “Offensive”.
Otherwise, well said Joe.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2007 at 1342 hrs
The Vatican bank laundered money for the mafia.
Cesare Borgia officially ended any claim that the Catholic church had to righteousness.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2007 at 1454 hrs
The Vatican bank laundered money for the mafia.
Cesare Borgia officially ended any claim that the Catholic church had to righteousness.OK, that’s just an absurd argument. Based on that logic I can say;
“The Democrats presided during the Billy Sol Estes scandal in the early 60s.
Lyndon B. Johnson officially ended any claim that the Democrats had to honest government.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2007 at 1523 hrs
No offense to the Catholics was intended. I often use the term Papist - I will not use it any longer now that I know that it is, at least to some, offensive. I have used it to try to identify those who submit to the authority of the Pontiff Maximus. I generally don’t use the term catholic because depending on the conversation, the media and the recipient of the message you can end up very confused. Catholic (as in a practicing Catholic) vs. catholic (as in universal, invisible church of all believers).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2007 at 1641 hrs
Dirk,
You could say that if you believed that the president is God’s ordained representative and that the presidency is the highest seat of moral leadership on the temporal plane.
Polictics is not the realm of morality and spiritual truth, religion is supposed to be. therefore your examples are disanalogous
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2007 at 1848 hrs
I happen to be one of them there Papists, and happy to be called one. It’s a matter of inflection, you know…
Perhaps the Spanish should have just purchased tickets to the Aztec/Mayan “heart-rendering” festivals instead of, ah, enforcing a different order in Central/South America?
And yes, B-16 was referring to the Natural Law which IS written on every heart.
‘cept that the Democrats, by and large, have erased all the stuff about stealing and murder of preborn babies.
Posted by dad29 on May 14, 2007 at 2105 hrs
And the Republicans have pretty much forgotten about “the least of these” and “love your neighbor as yourself” and rich men entering into the kingdom of heaven and ... well, I could go on and on and on and on and on.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2007 at 2110 hrs
Not at all. It’s just that most Republicans who subscribe to Christianity give from their own wealth instead of forcing others to surrender their wealth for others.
Posted by Owen on May 14, 2007 at 2116 hrs
Oh really? So your church provides medical care for the “least among us?”
They provide food and shelter for people who don’t attend your congregation?
You really think that your anti entitlement stance squares with Jesus’ teaching that whatever you do to the ‘least of these you do also to me’?
Do you really think that if the government really adopted your ideal position on entitlements tomorrow that private charitable contributions would pick up the slack?
I don’t claim to be a perfect Christian or even an especially “good” Christian, but I do think that Jesus made it pretty clear that we are supposed to make sure that “the least of them” are taken care of, whether by our individual efforts or through whatever influence we have with the government.
sorry to go off topic
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2007 at 2134 hrs
So… Jesus taught that one should force one’s neighbor to give to charity? That’s an interesting interpretation. Last I saw, Jesus only ever advocated personal and willing charity.
BTW, what if my neighbor is of a different religion? Should I use the coercive power of government to force my neighbor to support my Savior’s teachings?
Posted by Owen on May 14, 2007 at 2140 hrs
Arthur C. Brooks did quite a bit of research on this topic and found that the average religiously-minded conservative family unit gave 30% more to charity than the average secular-minded liberal family unit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2007 at 2143 hrs
You could say that if you believed that the president is God’s ordained representative and that the presidency is the highest seat of moral leadership on the temporal plane.
I’m not comparing the Catholic church with the US government. I’m pointing out that you made an irresponsible and disengenous judgement on an entire organization based on a particular event.
Polictics is not the realm of morality and spiritual truth, religion is supposed to be. therefore your examples are disanalogous .
Again, I’m not comparing politics and religion. But you sure seem to want to.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2007 at 2150 hrs
“the least among us”
You mean like the totally helpless unborn baby?
Hmmmmm????
and yes, my congregation helps out many that do not join in our membership - inner city kids at Christmas, foster kids aging out of the system, we have a manna program for food, clothing, furniture and other household item donations
Anything else you would like to know?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2007 at 2151 hrs
… Jesus taught that one should force one’s neighbor to give to charity? No, but he did say give Caesar’s things to Caesar. He also said “One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven”
the average religiously-minded conservative family unit gave 30% more to charity than the average secular-minded liberal family unit. Yes, I’ve read that comparison of apples to oranges. very interesting and meaningless. Perhaps next time he could compare religiously-minded conservatives to religiously-minded liberals. Then he could compare secular republicans to secular liberals. then, perhaps you could use the results to make some kind of determination about the nature of reality.
I’m not comparing politics and religion Um, that is an interesting comment. You took my comments about RELIGION and made an “analogy” using POLITICS. I didn’t say anything about politics until YOU BROUGHT UP DEMOCRATS IN THE ‘60’S AND LBJ
“the least among us”
You mean like the totally helpless unborn baby?
Personally, I like to focus more on what Jesus said than what he didn’t say. He specifically spoke about “the least of these” as being the hungry, the thirsty and the sick.Jesus didn’t say anything about abortion. However, in the Bible, there are several passages that show that a fetus does not carry the same weight as a person. also, throughout the Bible, life is intertwined with breathing. In fact, the word breath, nephesh, is also the same word used for life. So the weight of evidence shows that Biblically, a person becomes a “living soul” with their first breath.
Also, there is the instance where, to prove a point, Jesus told Simon (I think) to go catch a fish and there would be a 4 Drachma (i think) coin in its mouth that Simon was supposed to use to go pay taxes. This was a lesson that we are supposed to pay our taxes, as reinforced by the “Caesars onto Caesar” lesson referenced above.
For the Jews during Jesus’ time, taxes were especially hated. Taxation represented the Jew’s subjugation by Rome which was basically a punishment from God and a symbol of his abandonment of them as a people. Tax collectors were especially hated and had the same social status as prostitutes.
For Jesus to advocate paying one’s taxes held special meaning because many of his early followers viewed him as a temporal (rather than spiritual) Messiah that would overthrow Rome and re-establish Israel as God’s earthly kingdom. So Jesus’ message that the Jews should pay taxes, and in a larger sense, submit themselves to the authority of the Romans should be given special weight.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2007 at 2315 hrs
Dirk said “Lyndon B. Johnson officially ended any claim that the Democrats had to honest government.”
A more appropos analogy would be:
Ronald Reagan, and later George W. Bush officially ended any claim that the Republicans had to fiscal responsibility.
See, spirituality, morality and the teachings of Christ are supposed to be the realm of the Church, just as fiscal responsibility is supposed to be the realm of the Republicans (honest government and Democrats, not so much).
Borgia, with the consent and assistance of the Church, violated those principles to such a degree that in order to be internally consistent and not hypocritical, the Church would have to abandon any claim to be the sole representative of the teachings of Christ.
Along the same lines, Reagan and Bush II, with the consent and assistance of the Republican party, violated the principles of fiscal conservatism to such a degree ... blah blah blah, you get the point.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2007 at 2324 hrs
OK, this whole thing got off subject, but it is an interesting thread. Could we add sex somehow? Then we could combine the three taboo subjects.
I would note, as long as we are going to morph into a discussion of the compassion of the welfare state, that liberals have a facinating position. Private charity does not work, so we need to have compulsorty charity. On the other hand, the world has gotten so much worse over the past decades. But, there is no correlation between government’s responsibility for charity and the increase in crime, homelessness, purported poverty and single parent families. Instead, what we need is more spending by the state. Essentilly, government charity has accomplished nothing, so we need more of it. Makes sense, doesn’t it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2007 at 2327 hrs
I would note that government welfare has decreased since the 70’s-80’s.
However, I don’t think that necessarily implies causality.
I think a more likely candidate for the cause of all evils in the world would be the vast, massive growth in income disparity. That has increased more directly along with the societal ills that you mentioned. Also, if you look at countries with more welfare and less income disparity, you generally will see less of the problems you mentioned
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2007 at 2333 hrs
Wow, explain that to me. First, tell me which category of social spending, in real dollars has decreased?
And second, and more importantly, how does income disparity relate to anything besides envy? If standards of living went down on one end of the spectrum while they went up on the other, that might explain how income disparity makes a difference. But if standards of living have gone up on all levels, as they have in this country, who cares how much disparity exists? Do changes in mores and personal responsibility account for anything?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2007 at 2345 hrs
First, tell me which category of social spending, in real dollars has decreased? Per capita spending and the number of people on the rolls plunged after the welfare reforms of the mid 90’s put in place by Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress.
how does income disparity relate to anything besides envy? One word sums it up - Inflation. In freshman sociology, one learns that reduced social cohesion is one of the biggest ill effects of increasing income disparity. This leads to alienation, which I believe is one of the main root causes of the problems we see today.
Additionally, there is the fact that income disparity leads to inequality in political power, especially with a political system that is as fundamentally fueled by money as ours.
Wealth is not something that can be measured objectively. It is always relative to others.
if standards of living have gone up on all levels, as they have in this country That is actually a lie. The purchasing power of the minimum wage was at a 51 year low.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2007 at 0013 hrs
Hi recovered. Good example. But what about a government that’s really pro-life and not only pro-birth. That government wouldn’t cut pre-natal care for expectant mothers, would it? Or educational benefits for the bottom rung in our society? :^) I remember that JC paid a lot of attention to helping the poor, lepers, whores, tax-collectors, and gave pretty good advice to the rich, all the while rendering unto Ceasar. How’ve you been?
Owen, you can always find some pretty scary commie stuff in the distribution of wealth suggested by Acts. ;^)
John—veterans benefits have decreased in real dollars. Education too.
I might just add to djheru’s comments here the number that keeps a lot of this in perspective for me: *household* income has increased by about 36% since the early 70’s. That sounds like a lot, until you factor in the fact that nearly twice as many people are working to earn that income. We’ve sacrificed our family structure so that 2 people working three jobs can earn more than one person working one job did 30 years ago.
I note in passing that it was not a lefty conspiracy to squeeze MORE work out of Americans for lower wages and, to put this back on track, neither was it the theological constructs of the same Jesus who threw the money lenders out of the temple. These days Jesus seems to be catering lunch for them at places like Liberty University and the Heritage Foundation.
hiho
MpPosted by Mpeterson on May 15, 2007 at 0219 hrs
You took my comments about RELIGION and made an “analogy” using POLITICS. I didn’t say anything about politics until YOU BROUGHT UP DEMOCRATS IN THE ‘60’S AND LBJ
Why are you trying to shout me down? This was just getting interesting. Sorry if I offended you.You conveniently ignore my point. Would it make you feel better and be able to address the point if I just said. “You are being disingenuous by broadly painting all of Catholicism based on an incident 8 decades ago. An incident, I might add, that they have acknowledged, apologized for (whatever that’s worth) and attempted to make reparations for.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2007 at 0729 hrs
Oops, forgot to put quotes around that. Sorry DJ
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2007 at 0730 hrs
the average religiously-minded conservative family unit gave 30% more to charity than the average secular-minded liberal family unit.
I plead ignorance, having not read the research. But, 1) does the research hold as a constant the relative wealth of the individuals, or is that not considered? 2) Does it use as a measurement the percentage of disposable income given to charity, or all income? 3) Does the research include gifts to one’s church, which would seem to provide an extra source of counting charity for religious conservatives?
I will not claim to be an expert on Jesus’s teachings…far from it. But even evidence that regligious conservatives contribute more to charity—no matter how valid it is or how it is calculated—doesn’t seem to me to be an indication that today’s conservatives are living their lives as Jesus dictated. Jesus didn’t say, ‘give money to charity or you won’t go to heaven.’ He said (I’m paraphrasing…can’t recall the exact language) that it would be ‘easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.’ So if a rich, religious conservative with a net worth of $500 million gives away $10 million to charity and an average-joe religious conservative with only his house, his job, and $500 in savings tithes 10% to his church every month, isn’t it the average joe who’s going to heaven even though his contributions are slight compared to the rich man? If the man with $500 million dies and his will gives 10% to charity and 90% to his already-wealthy kids, is he going to heaven? I will concede that the question can only be rhetorical to believers since it would be God’s interpretation that prevails, and not your own.
To me, discussion of government support for the less fortunate is irrelevent to this matter since Jesus, as I understand him, never viewed care and compassion for one’s fellow man as a political matter…but rather as a matter of faith and devotion. If we doubled income taxes and put it all toward welfare-type programs, would not Jesus, if walking around today, still help the less fortunate (which is not necessarily synonomous with “poor”) to help them?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2007 at 0850 hrs
Hey, djheru, I was really taken aback by the “the Bible is pro-abortion” claim last time around, so I did a little digging, and this is what I came up with (from a still-incomplete essay I’ve been working on in my spare time):
If you claim to believe in the Old Testament or Torah’s veracity as the Word of God and absolute Truth, then the answer is simple. God told Jeremiah: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.” Before we have a physical form we have a soul, an identity which God can and does know.
The Bible has many such references to children within the womb as human and spiritual, and the Catholic Church has recognized this for the majority of its history.
However, abortion is sometimes defended from a theological standpoint, invoking precedents such as:
Exodus 21: “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.” Violence against a pregnant woman causing premature birth is punished monetarily rather than with death; therefore, we are told, killing pre-birth is less grievous than killing post-birth. But what abortion defenders leave out is that the phrase “and yet no mischief follow” means, quite simply, “if the baby survives the attack.” The lines immediately following the passage make this clear: “And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye…” In this regard, the fetus’s death is no different than an adult’s.
The description of Adam’s creation in Genesis says “God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” This supposedly indicates that life does not begin until the first breath is taken. But there are two problems with this view. 1.) As the first humans, Adam & Eve could not have resulted from a pregnancy, so the process by which God created them would likely be different. It seems plausible to assume that He created their bodies and souls separately, then put them together, and once they were in place, our God-given system of sexual reproduction took care of the physical self and God created the spiritual self earlier in development for all of His subsequent children. Subsequent references to humans in the womb suggest this, especially verses 13-16 of Psalm 139. 2.) Like all bodily functions, breathing starts prior to birth. Pro-choicers who define life in this way have themselves inadvertently rendered many abortions unacceptable—near the end of the second trimester, the baby is, in fact, breathing.
Genesis 38 recounts the tale of Judah and his widowed daughter-in-law, Tamar. Upon discovering her out-of-wedlock pregnancy, Judah orders Tamar to be burnt to death—a punishment he cancels upon discovering that he is the father (he slept with her, mistaking her for a prostitute when she was disguised). Pro-choicers note that the sentence would also have killed Tamar’s unborn twins; therefore, the unborn must have less moral worth than a person. But this theory fails immediately: considering that Judah has “married outside the faith, raised [at least] two wicked sons, wrongfully accused his daughter-in-law of his sons’ deaths, lied to his daughter-in-law, refused to keep the law of levirate marriage and, of course, had sex with a prostitute;” he can hardly be considered a moral compass! “But nobody other than Tamar prevented him from carrying it out, did they?” True, but that only means people deferred to his judgment & authority; it doesn’t say those people were right to do so. Since the primary message of the story concerns Judah’s wickedness and redemption, not babies, it can hardly be seen as a conclusive guide to treatment of the unborn—especially when the rest of the Biblical evidence points firmly in the direction of life.
http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-bibleandabortion.html
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm
http://www.jewsforlife.org/Judaism-pro-life-message.cfm
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm 139;&version=31;
http://pregnancy.baby-gaga.com/calendar/week24
Posted by Calvin on May 15, 2007 at 1003 hrs
“You are being disingenuous by broadly painting all of Catholicism based on an incident 8 decades ago” Perhaps.
First I would like to differentiate between the Catholic church and the individuals who make up the church.
But in my humble opinion, the Catholic church has had far too many of these “incidents” throughout its history.
When you look at the Catholic church’s claim of infalliability in light of the many instances of it’s adoption of pagan rituals and other perversions of Christ’s teachings…
From the selling of indulgences to pedophilia, from the Inquisition to their persecution of scientists, the Catholic church has often been a force of darkness in the world.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2007 at 1007 hrs
Calvin,
Thank you for your well reasoned comments. Regarding your insights into Exodus 21, I respectfully differ.
“If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him;
In the most straightforward reading of this scripture, “so that her fruit depart from her” means a miscarriage. “no mischief follow” means that the mother survives.
This is borne out by other translations: “If men, while fighting, do damage to a woman with child, causing the loss of the child, but no other evil comes to her, the man will have to make payment up to the amount fixed by her husband, in agreement with the decision of the judges. But if damage comes to her, let life be given in payment for life”
There is a great danger in using biblical commandments to guide our morality however. For example, in chapter 22 it says “He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.” Or this “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.” Or this verse from 2 Kings 22 - “...as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, ‘Go up, you baldhead; go up you baldhead!’ When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number.”
And finally, here is another scripture that I think bears a special relevance to the situation we find ourselves in today:
“Then I looked again at all the acts of oppression which were being done under the sun. And behold I saw the tears of the oppressed and that they had no one to comfort them; and on the side of their oppressors was power, but they had no one to comfort them. So I congratulated the dead who are already dead more than the living who are still living. But better off than both of them is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun.”
Ecclesiastes 4:1-3Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2007 at 1028 hrs
First I would like to differentiate between the Catholic church and the individuals who make up the church.
Fair enough. Which is which?But in my humble opinion, the Catholic church has had far too many of these “incidents” throughout its history.
This is very true. So is the opposite, The Catholic Church has had many, many positive influences and incidents throughout history.When you look at the Catholic church’s claim of infallibility… in light of the many instances of it’s adoption of pagan rituals and other perversions of Christ’s teachings…
I think you are using the term “infallibility” wrong. For an accurate definition of what it means in Catholicism see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility…in light of the many instances of it’s adoption of pagan rituals and other perversions of Christ’s teachings… Infallibility has only been used once.
From the selling of indulgences to pedophilia….
This is still a huge problem. They have acknowledged it and are taking steps in the right direction…from the Inquisition to their persecution of scientists, the Catholic church has often been a force of darkness in the world.
Can’t argue with that. It’s very sad that throughout history these things happened and forever (in your eyes) tarnished the name of the Catholic Church. So tell me, what would it take, in your opinion, to clean that name up? Or is forever irredeemable?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2007 at 1049 hrs
Just looked up a couple other translations, and they simply say things like “causing premature birth” and “fruit depart from her.” It seems like a stretch to say that death is always implied.
However, my bigger point would be that we have to look at 1.) the entirety of the picture the Bible paints (what God told Jeremiah & Psalm 139 seem rather definitive) , 2.) what science can add to our understanding, and 3.) where morality & caution demand we go to account for any ambiguity.
Posted by Calvin on May 15, 2007 at 1052 hrs
Dirk- My understanding of the infallibility of the Catholic church is as described below:
“That the Church is infallible in her definitions on faith and morals is itself a Catholic dogma, which, although it was formulated ecumenically for the first time in the Vatican Council, had been explicitly taught long before and had been assumed from the very beginning without question down to the time of the Protestant Reformation.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htmSo tell me, what would it take, in your opinion, to clean that name up? I’m not the judge. But a great first step would be to stop claiming that the Christmas holiday is a celebration of Christ’s birth.
Calvin,
I also looked up some additional translation and the scripture is not as cut and dried as I initially thought. However, if your interpretation is correct, the scripture only deals with 2 of the 3 possible outcomes - in other words, if the “fruit depart[ing]” refers to premature birth, then the scripture is strangely silent on what happens if the child is stillborn. If the mother dies it’s “an eye for an eye”. If the “fruit departs” meaning premature birth, there’s a fine. What about if the mother survives and the child is stillborn? It seems like that would have been covered separately if the “fruit depart[ing]” really did refer to a premature (live) birth.
I agree that what the entire Bible says should be taken most carefully into account. Based on a full reading of the Bible, I think that Ecclesiastes 4:1-3 speaks most directly to the issue of abortion.
There is much more of my train of thought regarding abortion here:
http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/mexico_city_legalizes_infanticide/Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2007 at 1114 hrs
I’m not seeing the connection between Ecclesiastes and abortion. The closest it seems to come is:
“But better than both is he who has not yet been, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun.”
All this seems to say is that the unborn haven’t been privy to the darkness in the world and have a sort of blissful ignorance. And there are all sorts of conditions besides pre-birth that would render somebody similarily blissfully ignorant: living in isolation, mental disorders, no access to modern communication, etc.
Posted by Calvin on May 15, 2007 at 1231 hrs
Perhaps another translation (and context) of the Pope’s remarks will be helpful to Wendy:
“...what did the acceptance of the Christian faith mean for the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean? For them, it meant knowing and welcoming Christ, the unknown God whom their ancestors were seeking, without realizing it, in their rich religious traditions. Christ is the Saviour for whom they were silently longing. It also meant that they received, in the waters of Baptism, the divine life that made them children of God by adoption; moreover, they received the Holy Spirit who came to make their cultures fruitful, purifying them and developing the numerous seeds that the incarnate Word had planted in them, thereby guiding them along the paths of the Gospel. In effect, the proclamation of Jesus and of his Gospel did not at any point involve an alienation of the pre-Columbian cultures, nor was it the imposition of a foreign culture. Authentic cultures are not closed in upon themselves, nor are they set in stone at a particular point in history, but they are open, or better still, they are seeking an encounter with other cultures, hoping to reach universality through encounter and dialogue with other ways of life and with elements that can lead to a new synthesis, in which the diversity of expressions is always respected as well as the diversity of their particular cultural embodiment.”
Reading (and believing) the AP/Reuters version of the Pope’s comments is like reading & believing the AP/Reuters version of the US’ policy in Iraq.
Dangerous.
Posted by dad29 on May 15, 2007 at 1347 hrs
Hi MP
I’ve been good - a bit busy at the evil multinational so haven’t been able to comment here as much as I would like. But to answer your comments…
I agree that we should not cut pre-natal care, but in the US today, nobody is denied access to medical care. It may not be as convenient as it is for those of us with partially-employer-provided insurance, but it is there. If we think it is underfunded, how about taking the money the feds provide to destroying the unborn to taking care of them?
As far as education goes, I don’t buy into the “we need more money” plea anymore. If you look at MPS, more money is spent per pupil than anywhere else, but it is quite difficult to education the kids if neither they, or their parents, find it important to actually attend classes and pay attention.
I grew up very poor, dad made a grand total of $7.15 per hour at his primary employment to take care of the home, mom, and 6 kids, worked a few part-time jobs on the side. We didn’t have fancy cars, clothes, or shoes, all of the kids took part time jobs from paper routes to babysitting starting at the age of 10 to help purchase our own school clothes. None of us has ever been arrested or in trouble with the law, we are all married with children and gainfully employed. While not wealthy (unless you ask a liberal - they think we are loaded), none of us is poor… How did that happen? From handouts from the welfare/nanny state? Nope, dad would have rather died than accept handouts - not even the free lunches we were entitled to from the schools. No we didn’t starve, mom and dad did forego luxeries so we did tho’. Dad believed that you took care of your own and he taught us the value and importance of education and hard work. THAT is what breaks the cycle of poverty, not government handouts.
That being said, I am all for charity to give the hand up (not hand out) for those in need or those unable to stand completely on their own due to disabilty. But what the Great Society did, was create an entire sub-class that believe that education and work and struggle and sacrifice are no longer important when you can just hold out your hand and be served. The thug culture is kicking that up to the next level by adding the threat of violence if the object of desire is not handed over.
My conservatism stems from my upbringing and the observation of the “give me more” crowd. I believe that I should have the option of giving my charity to those that want to help themselves. Call me heartless….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2007 at 1354 hrs
I have little respect for the pope, so it pretty much doesn’t matter to me what he meant, dad29. He also says that good works get people into heaven and that praying to saints is acceptable. I’ll pick on that stuff next time.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2007 at 1357 hrs
Gee, Wendy, I always thought that accepting Jesus as one’s saviour was the only way to get into heaven.
I also read somewhere that Christ was the ONLY intermediary between man and God.
But if the Pope says it, it must be true…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2007 at 1455 hrs
Um…. when did he say any of that?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2007 at 1544 hrs
Dirk:
“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. “
Because by grace you have salvation through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is given by God: Not by works, so that no man may take glory to himself
For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2007 at 1644 hrs
Dirk - were talking about basic Catholic doctrine hear.
The Catholic Churches doctrine re: the individual’s participation in salvation was pretty much the major driving force behind the reformation - indulgences were a handy visible error, but the doctrine of justification by grace alone was as Luther put it the, “the doctrine on which the Church stands or falls.”
The Catholic form of works/salvation requires an understanding of the interplay between Penance and Satisfaction. When a Catholic confesses his sins to the priest he is returned to a state of grace and can once again participate in the Eucharist (Lord’s Supper or Communion whatever you prefer). He is not however, fully justified until he perfects temporal satisfaction for his sins - i.e. says 12 Hail Mary’s, 15 Lord’s Prayers, performs the stations of the cross etc. If not fulfilled by the time of death the Catholic Church teaches that the soul is sent not to hell because his is, after all, in a state of grace but not to heaven either because he is still deficient in his obedience too Divine Law. He goes to Purgatory instead. Where he can fulfill his debt and then get to heaven. (Or, at one time in history. a still living person could by an indulgence to free their soul) Thus, the personal works of the Catholic ultimately determine whether or not he gets into heaven.
The Lutheran Reformers, taught that Christ’s death and resurrection paid our debt in full and the all that is required for salvation is “faith in Christ’s gift of salvation by grace.” Thus, the Lutheran motto: “Grace Alone, Faith Alone, Word Alone.” Lutherans do practice corporate and private confession - but the individual is not sentenced to any temporal punishment. He is fully justified as long as his confession is motivated by true repentance and faith in Christ Jesus.
Prayers to the saints were also a big focus of the reformation. The Catholic Church advocates praying to a saint for them to intercede on their behalf. The Reformers rediscovered 1 Tim. 2:5 (“there is one intermediary between man and god…”) and taught that praying to the saints was a form of idolatry. Many Catholics would argue that the prayer to the saint is for the saint to get Jesus to intercede on their behalf - kind of an episcope in the sky similar to the episcope
of the Catholic Church (and other churches) on earth.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2007 at 1700 hrs
It is hard for me to hear that you have no respect for the Pope. Catholic or not, you have to know his ‘job’ is tough. Just as our Political Leaders may not always act according to our own agendas, does not mean we have no respect for the hard job they have. Can you imagine, Wendy, having the faith of millions of people resting on your shoulders. Especially when preists are molesting kids and you are freshly appointed to ‘clean up’ that mess. Same with our political leaders, can you imagine, Wendy, having the weight of our Barely free country resting on your shoulders. What was the last difficult decision you made….What to wear this morning?Hardly compares, ya think.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2007 at 1705 hrs
Well, Wendy, you heretics can say what you will…and us Papists will take it with the appropriate amount of salt.
Send 50 lbs, will ya?
Sincerely,
Posted by dad29 on May 15, 2007 at 1939 hrs
Joe,
Excellent post. You have it almost perfect to a tee.My comment however was in response to Wendy’s post:
He also says that good works get people into heaven and that praying to saints is acceptable.
And DJ’s sarcastic response:
But if the Pope says it, it must be true…Just seems to me there is a whole lot of anger and sarcasm directed at a man who IMO doesn’t deserve it.
I guess I’m about done with this. DJ has a hatred (I’d say “apathy” but based on previous comments he obviously does have emotion for it) of Catholicism that reaches way beyond the origins of Christmas. Yes, of course Christmas started as a pagan ritual that celebrated the Winter Solstice. Almost every religion and culture celebrates that time of the year for one reason or another. No we don’t actually know what day Jesus was born. The Catholic Church decided in the 4th century to celebrate it on Dec 25th and it’s been there ever since.
Yes (As I’m sure you guessed) I am a Catholic. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t think for myself or that I don’t (or can’t) have major differences of opinion on what scripture says vs. what Catholic Tradition (Capital “T”) and dogma is taught. I struggle with that constantly. I express those opinions and ask questions of my Priest and fellow parishioners, and I write letters to the Archdiocese. I have yet to be excommunicated.
For the most part questions are answered openly and honestly. If my opinion differs then that’s OK too.
As far as I know, No one has been burned as a Heretic in the name of the Catholic Church in hundreds of years. Yes they have some odd teachings. Much is misunderstood by the public at large and some which is misunderstood by Catholics themselves. (myself included) And some which just make no sense at all.
But….
I look at it this way. If you are in a boat that is sinking you can either stay on board and try and fix things so it stays afloat or you can jump overboard swim away and then point and laugh at the people who stayed on board. I choose to stay on board and try and fix it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2007 at 2008 hrs
You could just climb aboard a better boat…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2007 at 2112 hrs
Who defines what better is? You?
Seems to me that is the same thing as the swimming away option. And then what does one do if/when that boat springs a leak? Jump ship again? and again? and again?No thanks.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2007 at 2301 hrs
I have little respect for the pope, so it pretty much doesn’t matter to me what he meant
Wendy, now that’s a problem. It is fine to disagree or have philospohical or theological differences. But a lack of respect?
There are many well-meaning people with whom I disagree philosphically, theologically and/or politically. They may be wrong, but I would be ashamed to “have little respect” for any of them simply because of those differences.
Thank you Dirk for carrying our flag on this post.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 16, 2007 at 1350 hrs
There are plenty of people I disagree with and still respect. The pope is just not one of them. Nothing personal with catholics, I just can’t respect the pope.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 16, 2007 at 1416 hrs
Sounds pretty personal to me….
Whups, sorry. Wrong thread
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 30, 2007 at 1042 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134051
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 10:25 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 135
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 10:50 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).