Topic awaiting preservation: catholics and other christians (Page 2 of 4)

Jade, so who here on this forum are you talking about then? I have met the type of people you describe but I am not aware of one of those types here and certainly not one that has posted in these threads about Roman Catholicism. Please tell us.

jade, you said you wanted to discuss things, so on numerous occasions I and others have brought up points, few to none of which have been addressed by you. you don't seem to understand that not agreeing with your opinion does not constitute disrespect. if you feel every disagreement with the catholic church is an attack then oh well, you're going to constantly be offended here because people ask tough questions. if "biased" means that we have an opinon then yes, we're biased. but almost without exception the questions asked have been presented factually, fairly, and with references to scripture that would seem to disagree with the catholic church's stance. you seem to be the one "reading into" the statements that have been made. if you disagree then great, tell me how and why. i'm by no means claiming to be infallible, i'm human and make mistakes like anyone else but i'm offering my interpretations.

i thought we'd get some good discussion in this thread, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

chris

quote:

---

Please don't plead ignorance. You insult my intelligence

---

uh...what the hell are you even talking about?

All you seem to be able to talk about is people insulting you, not liking you, confrontation, adversity, and so on.

For cryin' out loud...this is a discussion forum. Not a "yes we all agree" forum.

oh my god, you're all targeting, tormenting jade now?

It's all part of the membership...don't you worry.

What???

lordy lordy lordy...

I'm just fooling around DL.

Hehe...Yannah duped DL!!!

Now that is funny!!!

Whooohoooo!

duped? confused, sure. But she's done that all along...

Jade, let me get this straight.

Are you just going to pack up and leave because everyone here doesn't agree with everything you have to say about the Roman Catholic church?

How do you expect to ever relate to anyone outside the church with that kind of attitude? How do you expect to ever get more people to see the benefits of the church by calling them names when they don't agree with you? I am so very disappointed that you cannot handle some honest discussion. Perhaps you will reconsider some of this and come back and have a *conversation* with us. You just might learn something from some of us "non-followers" as you put it.

I will have to admit that some of
these last post have merit. I am
guilty of what was posted.

Forgive my catholic pridefulness.
I got too personal.
There was no excuse for
counter & attack that day.
Up to that last post it didn't seem
like discussion, it seemed like
counter and prove her wrong.
I am going to confession for my
pridefulness. If you are all not
mad at me I would want to hear why
you feel the church is fallible.

Morbul. I am so sorry. You seem
open and seem to have keen intellect.
I would appreciate your view.
That Mental M-word did make me think.

We're not mad at you, sister. You think 3000+ members strolling through here hasn't produced a little pride now and then? =)
Everybody does something stupid sometime (I seem to do something stupid at least once an hour...)
If you're up to the task, stick around. You'll be challenged for sure, but most honest people find those challenges make them better, stronger, more thoughful -- regardless the topic. Heed Bugs' advice and you'll make a great addition to this place and a stronger evangelist for your faith.
Welcome back.

Speaking of doing something stupid from time to time, that is pretty much my basis for church fallibility. To put it basically, churches (regardless the faith) are made of people. People, all people, fail, err or sin from time to time (some more often or more costly than others.) Furthermore, people put into power positions often find it difficult to resist the temptations of that power. Nobody on earth -- not even the pope, the preacher in the local church, the rabbi down the street or the Dalai Lama -- is beyond that so-evident human ability to fail.

I suppose one could say that the holy spirit, the chicken gods, or whatever else some religion might call upon, infuses the leader with infallible wisdom at the instant of 'important decisions', leaving the church doctrine perfect, while the rest of the leader's life is still open to failure. From what Bugs said earlier, that may be close to the Roman Catholic position, yes? I'm unfamiliar with the nuances, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

There are too many times in our history where the religious leaders of all sorts have failed, even at the moment of deciding doctrine, for me to believe that. It is not fair to blame all failures on human error and all rights on an omnipotent, all-knowing, infallible spirit.

But, let's take for a moment that this is so. Let us say, for this moment, that all errors, even in church doctrine, are human faults, while all correct things are the responsibility of a holy spirit. Still, even then, that leaves to human beings the opportunity to fail in deciding which of those supposed doctrines are correct and which is the failure of human judgement.

Since we have no way whatsoever of deciding which are the words and actions of a holy spirit and which are the words and actions of a fallible human, we must devise a different plan for deciding policy. A democratic rule, based upon knowledge gained from the useful application of the scientific method seems to me to be the best sort of way to run a society of any sort, religious or otherwise.

One might counter, then, that if humans can fail, most certainly they can fail in deducing what knowledge comes from this scientific method -- and they'd be absolutely correct. The key thing with the scientific method, though, is that it has built in security features for this sort of thing. Built into the method is the opportunity for peer reviews, multiple trials of an experiment, and theory. Evolution, electomagnetic fields, even gravity -- well known and studied for hundreds of years -- are all still theories that can be changed should better evidence be found. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is considered 'sacred', to the point of irrefutability. The plan, then, is to act in the best way we know how today, while leaving open the opportunity that tomorrow we might find a better way.

The downfall of this method is it immediately destroys any sort of notion that we may be acting perfectly already...that's kinda tough on the ego.

I don't think this disagrees with a spirituality at all. It may disagree with the Bible, the Koran, or any other man-written religious text one could think of, but it does not disagree with the notion that there is a higher power of some sort or another. God (or whatever one wants to call this higher power), it is said, created people. Most every religion, most every culture has a creation theory of some sort, yes? So, that creater gave humans a brain with logic; a brain that is capible of deduction and extrapolation; a brain that is capable of thinking beyond the immediate survival needs of air, food, water.
Furthermore, that god gave us senses with which we may experience, test, and learn from the world around us.

I ask then, why would that capability for logic, and those senses exist if not for us to use?

I hope that my rather long-winded post expained a bit of the perspective from which I am coming. Any more questions, just ask.

That was impressive, Mobrul. Excellent post.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

Mobrul,

Thanks for your sweet forgiveness.

In reading your post I was thinking that it sounds like new age or maybe your into some scientlogy. Are u? I myself do believe that all creation out there, meaning the universe, stars, gravity, etc all work with us as humans in a harmony. I just don't know exactly how, but since it is all created for us, it has too.

I know all of us, even Pope John Paul fall short of the glory of God.
We are sinners and we will constantaly sin, since there is no perfection in us yet. And looking out thru history, especially in exodus, in the chosen people of God in wandering thru the desert for forty years tell us alot about us today as a people.
It prefigures in that they too fell in to sin, and they went thru all kinds of wars, battles to get to the promise land. And they had leadership and an intercessor, Moses. Thur Moses God spoke to his people and reprimanded them. Why did he need Moses since he could speak individually to them in mind and spirit?

Then again you might not agree in this history in your way of believing, since you beleive in a higher conscienceness theory.

But throughout all of Christian history and history in general, even in a democracy, it has a head or leadership. England's house of Commons has Tony Blair. The United States governing body has George W. Bush. Look when Bill C*****n was in office and the scandal he was in. In the office that he held, he was with fault as a human person. But in the honorable seat as Supreme head of the US, it still held the highest honor and when BC was acting in the positon as Commander in Chief, I respected him in that sense, not in the sense as a human person with dignity. Just in the office that he held because it had dignity. Every person that fills that postion in the future will have that same honor. In the spirit of pride in our patriotism and the constitution that American stands, why can't we accept the same from the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ if thats the way he choses to send it to us. Through a governing body of a lead bishop along with archbishops, and cardinals. Being that they themselves are human but their offices being guided by the holy spirit.

Plus who would start your concept and how would one go about determining & goverinng it.

I know we are growing as a people, spiritually and intellectually.
But we don't even have the full use of the capacity of our brain scientifically speaking. We only use a small percentage of it. (Correct me if I am wrong). We only have a limited amout of intelligence and logic and I wonder why this is? Why did the Creator not give us full use of our brain? I know some humans are endowed with high IQ and other brains can perform inexplicable actions with power of the mind. But why not all of us?

I admit I have not yet read Mobrul's long post nor Jade's reply, just wanted to hit this real quick -

quote:

---

I would want to hear why
you feel the church is fallible.

---

How could it possibly be anything *but* fallible? Regardless what scripture or other ideas there may be to support your belief that the church should be in the form of the catholic church, it is still created by people. People are inherently fallible, and so is anything they create - with or without 'divine influence'.

People are prideful, self serving, arrogant, greedy, and many other things even though the bible may tell them not to be. It's the way things work.

And of course, for me, it seems plain as day that an institution developed around humanitarian and charitable acts yet having their vast - and vastly expensive to build - churches filled with gold, stained glass, marble, and other pointlessly expensive objects and icons (St. Francis must be rolling in his grave) must be particularly fallible.

Wonder what in your life you consider infallible, since there can be no truth in humanity humanly speaking according to your view.
And would that be also in regard to the humanity of Christ in his lifespan on the planet earth.

I don't see that *anything* is infallible.

It just doesn't make sense for anything to be infallible. There are *no* gaurantees!

And yes, since I don't believe there is a god, that would mean that Jesus could not possibly have been the son of god. And of course, like anyone else, Jesus was himself open to human temptation, failure, and all of our other possibilities.

Even were there actually a god, there is nothing whatsoever to say that he/it would be infallible. Except perhaps his own words, if you follow christian doctrine. Which, I'm sorry, isn't good enough for me.

=)


!#REF


{edit - ooh, I just noticed the particular wording - truth in humanity... I'm not sure I follow that?

And I would most definately be interested in your thoughts in the last statement in my previous post...}





[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 03-22-2003).]

just fyi - the reason it took 40 years was, according to theologians, so that only those born in freedom, not slavery, would reach the promised land. according to your proposition that we are all sinners, they were therefore normal in their sinning during the 40 years... the golden cow etc.

DL

Your right to say that there is lots of falliblities in the the mother church & throughout all of history it has been in humanity. There was some popes who had affairs, fathered children, and some had concubines. The were some mistakes made in the growing of the church as a family. There were lots of schisms against us and wars fought and deaths in the thousands all in the name of Christianity. Was it Charles the Great who killed thousands of barbarians who would not be baptized in the Catholic faith? I would not say this was right to do. It was wrong. Even Paul the evangelizer killed Christians in the thousands b-4 his conversion. There are still schisms, adverisity, scandals in the church today. But as a body of believers in faith we look beyond human error, we look up to the sky. We look for the spirit that still guide us. And the faith remains strong, sometimes alittle shaken, but stronger.

In ref to the riches of the church. I will only say in regard to Rome who has the
worlds most priceless artwork, that it is all legacy of Christians. All Christians.
Its a holding for the people. It belongs to us. Its just in safekeekping. The church would never sell it. Its part of Christian history. Could we ever sell the Pieta, the shourd of Turin, the tomb of Peter. Could we ever sell the cross that jesus died on, the nails he was crucified with, the "Jesus, King of the Jews" sign that was on top of the cross, the lance that pierce his side, and some of the thorns that pierced his head. I read somewhere that we also have the veil that Veronica wiped Jesus face with on the way to calvery, and his last robe also.

I know in the early days of the Papacy it was filled with riches and oppulance and because of St. Francis humility it humbled the existing Pope in his time and the view in the way of the grandure of the papacy changed.

Check out Brother Sun, Sister Moon about St. Francis. Good video. I know your not into God but its about the papacy too and that could interest you.

You know not all people are how you describe. I know you have best friends.
Don't you trust in your friendship with them. Is their truth in friendship, that you know you can count on this person(s) until you die?



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 03-23-2003).]

Well, I know one can get a negative view from what I've said about humanity, but I really don't view things a negative way.

Fallibility does not mean that people aren't good. It just means that they're not perfect and there is absolutely nothing that is gauranteed - nothing is infallible.

Yes, I have people that I have great trust in...that's not really the issue here. There's a *huge* dffernce between having trust in individuals with whom you have a personal relationship with and having trust and faith in a hierarchal organization who claims to speak for god.

.

Regarding the Roman artifacts - well certainly, relics pertaining to the history of the religion are things to be kept. But they are also not things on which kingly fortunes have been spent commissioning and purchasing and building. Those are the things I refer to - statues of marble, gigantic doors of gold, huge elaborate vaulted buildings, gold statues of St Francis (oh the irony hurts on that one...), and so on.

Now, I may be wrong here, as I haven't read much from the bible in quite some time now, but isn't the kind of grandiose and materialistic building and furnishing of churches something that jesus himself spoke against?

Isn't the worshipping if icons somehting that is spoken against in many parts of the bible? Doesn't the over use of the crucifix fall into that category?

DL's point is a good one, not that people can't be good but they also can't be infallible. i have some very close friends who i'd trust with my life, but that doesn't mean they haven't dissapointed me or screwed up in some way before.

jade, i'll agree that God could if he so chose create an infallible person, he did so in jesus. i don't see any evidence that he did so in peter or any of the other popes.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

New age? Like crystals and candles? No. The smell of patchoulli (sp?) insence makes me angry, and I much prefer my steel-toed boots to any wussy hemp sandles.
Scientology? Don't really know what it's all about except there's a scientology temple here in town that's always sending out swarms of their followers to give me coupons for free psychology testing. If I share anything in common with them it is only coincidence.

I have no idea why the story of Moses exists. I suppose it could have happened just like it is written. It is also so that it could be total allegory, written by someone in 400AD to spread Christianity. I'm more inclined to believe that there is some truth to it (like most legends) but over the thousands of years it has become mostly fable, a story meant to show a moral or ethical lesson. As it stands today, I don't know what that lesson is.

The truth is, I'm relatively sure there's a higher power of some sort, but I'm not too terribly interested. I am doing the best I can do in this life (it may be my only one, who knows?) I'll face the next life whenever it comes, if at all.

At the same time, I don't get all worked up over who or how other people worship. If you want to put all your faith in the pope and the catholic church, you're not hurting me. Do it. I'd love to learn more about the things in which you believe, but at the end of the day the rituals that make you comfortable affect me neither positively nor negatively.

And, as for your question about who is going to start this sort of society of which I speak -- it was started hundreds of years ago. The society I described, a democratic society based upon the scientific method, is known as Liberalism (that would be Liberal -- big L -- like Hobbes, Locke, Jefferson, Rousseau, Proudhon, J.S. Mill, Bakunin, Godwin, Kropotkin, Green; not liberal -- little l -- like Kennedy, C*****n (sic), or FDR). There are lots of 'flavors' of Liberalism, but they all operate under the general principle that each person has inalienable rights and that those people enter into various social agreements based on knowledge and rational thought.

Age of Reason, eh?

It's a goal, come on. We gotta aim at something...

I love patchouli. It takes me back to my hippie days in the 70s. I use to wear it & still buy patchouli soap.

Icons & Statues. I don't know if you guys ever really understood why the church believers venerate these articles. But I will clear up a misconception if you have as best as I can.

We do not worship statues. Worship is for the creator alone.
In the veneration of them, some we emulate and others are reminders. In the case of the crucifix. I know you see crosses everywhere, around necks, above steeples, cemeteries and in church, etc. Inside the cathoic church you see a image of the body of christ hanging with the nails, crown of thorns, blood and his face in agony. We are reminded of the sacrifice in a more realistic way. In that the death he suffered & died for was real for us to see and know. We also are called to imitate Christ in a self sacrificing way. Die to self too. Die for others. In that when you die to self you humble yourself as he did & begin to live for him. So it is a reminder and an emulating. Its not in the same concept as a golden calf.

How come we go to see large statues of men of honor like the Lincoln, Mt. Rushmore, etc.? Why are large statues erected for a hero, a painting, a bust. People travel mils to see these. We are erecting them to show pride and honor for a good that they have done. Look at the Statue of Liberty. Do Americans worship it? Or does it represent freedom. What about living icons like Michael Jordan, Bill Gates, etc. Would we want to have what they have? Be a great athlete and a genius. I would think lots of people would. I am sure there is a lot of Tiger Wood wanabes out there. So in society today there is lots of emulating and also misguided worshiping of living icons and for that matter dead ones like "Elvis" for instance.

Do you guys have pictures of your wives and children in your office or wallet? Why? Isn't it reminders of the people you love that they are close to you. What about your home?
I am sure you have pictures of people you know or love.

In the spritual faithful way the church believers also look at past heros of the faith in regard to saints in the same way.
St. Peter, St Theresa, St. John the Apostle, St. Joseph and of course the Mother of Christ but in a different way. We believe they all direct us to Christ in that they were faithful Chistians and did his will.

Fig,

I see your from Houston. Not that I am going to look for you, but what part of Houston do you live at. I am in southeast near I-45. There is this big non-denomiational church called Sagemont. Huge place. Or have you went to Lakewood Oasis b-4. Huge place too.

In response to Moburls Liberalism idea. Are you for real on this? I know Liberal extermists exist today, but I don't understand how it could be considered an adopted form of democracy as a whole ever. It veers on the edge of Godlessness to me. Forgive my ignornace of how science plays into this idea. Are you talking about social & behavorial sciences??? Gravity?? Can you give me a specific. I am not educated on the Big L.

Lets say, you want to have sexual relations with your best friends spouse. Morally speaking according to spiritual law its wrong. Liberally speaking your at liberty to do so. If its lustful desire, or real love your making your own judgement call. So in this concept you never commit sin since you answer to no one when you choose to do the deed. (I know religious people sin in this way also and they would feel remorse maybe or go to confession or see their minister.) How do you rationalize if its wrong or right scientifically speaking?

Well, I can give an answer (butts in)...

Because one can expect consequences of ones actions. Pure and simple. And in cases like you mentioned, where strong emotion is involved, the consequences can be unpredictable, and dangerous. Also, one is part of a society, and society has rules, both written and unwritten. When these rules are broken, there are consequences, as well. Also, if one is living by a case of personal rules, then one needs to be true to oneself. One thing to consider, in the case that you outlined...it takes two to tango. If both are willing, and are ready to accept the consequences, both on a personal and societal level, well, that's life. That is one of the reasons there is divorce.

Well, I think the more simple answer is this - you don't need a minister or a pope or a church, or even a book, to tell you what is right or wrong.

And on the same note, just because that minister/pope/chruch/book *says* it's right or wrong, doesn't make it so.

(and also on that same note, just because you feel remorse, go to confession, or talk to your minister after the fact doesn't make it 'ok', especially since your aforementioned religious apparatus tells you before hand that it is wrong)





[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 03-27-2003).]

Jade, you are confusing the big-L Liberal with the little-L liberal.

Big-L Liberalism is a grand (and by that I mean big, long studied and examined) political theory that has been written about by political philosophers for hundreds of years. These theories were the basis for our founding fathers' political thoughts. Some of the words in the Declaration of Independence were taken directly (or very slightly modified) from some of the authors I mentioned above...especially Locke and Hobbes. That political theory (as I said above, there are many different theories of Liberalism, and some of them differ in some very significant ways, but, they do have some base things in common) holds in high esteem a few things:
1) trust in the scientific method for knowledge
2) the rights of the individual
3) the responsibility of the individual to act in a rational manner
4) as small a government as possible that will still protect the whole
5) tolerance of the differences that this personal liberty and responsibility allow
Though elements of Big-L Liberalism have been around since ancient Greece, a full theory didn't evolve until around 1600 with the writings of Thomas Hobbes.
Big-L Liberalism has little to do today with the modern notion of little-l liberal.

In Big-L Liberalism, the concept of morality doesn't really come into play. The concept of law is much much bigger. Law is an agreement between people -- I won't kill you, you don't kill me. Now, we can both focus on getting work done without constantly looking over our shoulder. It is rational that we'd agree to that.

In your instance of the sexual affair with your friend's spouse, it is (in most places) not against the law to do that. But law is just one factor. A Big-L Liberal person also must be rational. Is this affair in my best interest, not only in the short-term (the 30 minute pleasure) but in the long term too (losing my friend and perhaps having my good name gone when he finds out)? More than likely, the answer to that question is going to be no. The point is, though, that it relies on knowledgable people acting rationally, and natural consequences for bad behavior. If I sleep with my friend's wife, it will destroy a handful of relationships about which I care deeply, my reputation will be gone, and I might get a disease. Natural consequences.

Big-L Liberalism isn't against a god, or religion, but it does say the government doesn't belong anywhere near that discussion. It also says that people should respect those differences in other people...you have the right to swing your fist, right until the point it hits my nose. If your religion doesn't involve burning my cat or throwing rocks at my house, I am to totally respect it, and you mine.

That's what Big-L Liberalism is all about. Please realize I'm trying to stuff some 400 years of political theory into 4 or 5 paragraphs. I probably missed some details, but the base is there. If you really want to know more, your best bet is to read some of the authors I've mentioned in the post above. Start with Thomas Jefferson and then move to Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau.

(and now to bring us back on topic...)
I believe strongly in Big-L Liberalism as a way to organize societies. I see the top heavy hierarchy of the Catholic Church to be oppressive of knowledge (with few exeptions). I see the insistance on literal interpretations of the bible to be silly and naive. I find the notion that you must communicate with god through a priest appalling. I find the pope insisting his word is infallible arrogant.
That being said, it hurts me absolutely none for you to worship as you wish, take communion how you wish, confess to a priest, or any of the other Roman Catholic rituals in which you have found comfort. Therefore I absolutely support and would even fight for your right to worship as part of the Roman Catholic church. For, if someone could force you to worship against your will, then someone could do it to me too.

MB

Your blowing me out of the water. It would never work.
And if it were too, you and I would be long ago dead.

Knowledgable people would be guilty of irrationalizing too. Science cannot dictate humanism. The heart & soul of a person does.

This system would have a lot of holes in it. For one thing when rationalizing about having an affair for instance, human nature rules. Unless you have a will of steel like superman. Should I or shouldn't I. In my experiences of life usually persons who are not affilliated with any kind of spiritual faith would be likely to live a more permiscous life or lets say go against the grain and are usually the most unhappy.

What about the unknowledgable persons who cannot rationlize and do stupid things? Who would rationalize for them? The rational person with the backing of scientific theory proven? It still all goes back to authoritiy in that someone is going to impose their will on someone else.

Wouldn't work? Are you serious?
The entire Constitution, most (if not all) the writings of the founding fathers of our country, the very basis of the government in which we live is this Liberalism.
I'm not saying we apply it always in the best ways, but this is what this democracy is all about.

This is what Thomas Jefferson was writing about when he wrote in the Declaration of Independance:

quote:

---

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed -- that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

---

I'm not going to write the whole damn thing, go read it.

But I do want to draw your attention to some key phrases:

"All men are created equal, that they are endowed...with certain unalianable rights"
That would be all men, not just the strong, or the smart or the rich or the king or the godly.

"to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Why do governments exist? "...to secure these rights", the unalienable ones mentioned above. Not to make someone money, or because the king said so, or for god, or for any other reason.

With what authority do these governments exist? they derive their "just powers from the consent of the governed." Governments do not get their power from the 'barrel of a gun' or from their lineage, or from god. The get their power from the consent of the governed. We, the citizens, openly agree to give up some of our liberty (the liberty to go kill our neighbor and take his stuff) in exchange for a safer place (our neighbor won't kill us and take our stuff.) We don't agree to this because it is moral, or ethical; we agree to this because it is in our best interest...a rational decision, based on logic.

Next stop, the constitution, the basis for our government. Why was our governement created? It was created for very specific and clearly outligned reasons:

quote:

---

...in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...

---

More of the same -- our government was founded only for the benefit of the governed. We all agree that it makes sense (rationally, logically) that we can't provide for our common defense seperately and still grow our crops, raise our pigs or program our computers. We make a decision, a pact among us, that some of us will be soldiers while the others of us grow food. The soldiers will protect us the food growers (or whatever we do) and in return we will feed the soldiers (with our taxes.)
In contrast, the army (according to the Constitution) should not be used to further the aims of the king, it should not be used to convert people for a god. It exists for the individual citizens' protections and that is all.

What am I trying to say? The entire basis of the system of democracy in which we live is this Liberalism. It is a government set up with maximum freedom for the individual, and solely for the benefit of each individual (and nothing more), as a rational pact among individuals (law) for each of us to live more productive lives. It's not instituted perfectly, and these days it seems less and less so, but this 'impossible' Liberalism is the 'great experiment' of our nation!

Really, truly, I encourage you to go read Thomas Jefferson. Read Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau. Those are the writings upon which our country's entire political system is based. It amazes me that people can get a high school education in this country and have never heard of Locke or Hobbes; can get a high school education and still have no idea what it's all about.

Most of their writings can be found on line. Please, please, please go read them. People who have no idea the foundation on which our political philosophy is built can not possibly participate adequately. Knowledge is key.

jade, i'm prob closer to you than you think, as weird as that is. i know of sagemont and i've been to lakewood, but i go to grace community (the new building being built at 45 and beltway there is ours).

chris


KAIROSinteractive

As usual, I am in complete agreement with Mobrul.

Jade - you say these concepts that Mobrul speaks of "wouldn't work" and yet, as he makes clear in his last post, they are the concepts of how our american society is run. Obviously, things are corrupt in our governmental systems, but the same can be said for any group of people anywhere.

As a counter point, however, I think it becomes eveident when catholic priests are molesting and raping children and teenagers, that the catholic heirarchy does not work.

You can say all you want about it being the 'exception' and no the rule, but the fact is that it has happened over a long period of time in a relatively widespread pattern and was covered and hidden and ignored by the church heirarchy rather than being dealt with in the quick, decisive, harsh terms that it should have been.

Amen, DL. And Morbul, nice post.

Fig.

I pass by that building all the time. Its been under construction for a long while. Its going to be a huge church. Isn't that the same sect where those two astronauts that died belonged to? I live directly on the other side of I-45 nearer to Pearland. You must live around Clear Lake or out that way.

DL-44
Why do you want to dog me about that priest sex abuse thing again? I thought I already explained it. It happened. It was horrible. It should of never been covered. Not all catholic heirarchy is guilty, just a few. It doesn't represent what the church is as a whole. The CC is a world wide family of believers.

Did it happen in Austrialia or S. America or Germany or Rome for that matter? Are you judging a people in the billions on the sins of a select few? Plus all denominations at some time or another have persons who are guilty of horrible acts too. This came to light in the media and it was a good thing, but it also was overblown in coveage in the prime time news stations for ratings. For what the CC is in the world today more is expected of it. It was a crisis in the CC but we eliminated an evil and learned from it. Most Catholics understand & think this way.

In general what about incest in the family, or sexual abuse of the common person who is not a religious. I would agree this sin of the priest is greater for what he represents. But he is a human person first like you and me. He has all the feelings and senses and thoughts probably of sex like any other ordinary person. He doesn't have any magic powder that makes him more holier than us. He is accountable too. He himself goes to confession. I would venture to say that some hide in the priesthood or use it for their personal gain or aim. And they are not sincere in their call. Hard to believe that you on the outside looking in that there are truly thousands of good priest out there.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 03-27-2003).]

quote:

---

it also was overblown in coveage in the prime time news stations for ratings

---

This latest bout perhaps.

But these things have been going on - as I said - for a very long time. This isn't a recent ermegence.

I recall hearing about it in the 70's, though it didn't garner much attention at that time. It's something that I have been aware most of my life, which is why I have such a hard time understading how it was so unknown and was so easily swept under the rug.

But that aside, it was simply an example. You stated that the concept of democracy wouldn't work, as there is no moral leadership to keepthings on the right track.

I'm simply pointing out one example of how the presence of a so called morality doesn't realistically function that way.

I really don't mean to dominate this thread (though it seems I'm doing a good job...)

In the instance of the child abuse (not meaning to harp here, there have been several other instances of power abuse in the catholic church and in a democratic society) the general society, the people, have come to an agreement that sexual abuse is not in the best interests of society. Because of that, we build a criminal system whereby abusers suffer discomfort (prison), to persuade them to not abuse and a system of science (medicine and psychology) to learn how to keep them from abusing again.

The matter is not whether or not bad things, sins, whatever you want to call them, happen. I stated WAY up there ^^^ that people, all people, fail, err, sin in some way or another. The matter is 'what is the society going to do about that failure?' Until very recently, I think DL is correct that the hierarchy of the church as a whole made a decision that goes against the voice of the people. The Roman Catholic church is not alone in its sins (nor is this particular sin rampant through the whole church), but when that sin, that failure, occured, the church (represented by it's bishops and priests) valued its pride and reputation over the well-being of the child.

This phenomonon is not special to the Catholic church, it is featured in all those societies where power remains unchecked, where power is not in the hands of the people -- large corporations, certain aspects of our own government, tyranical governments, etc.

You are correct that recently the church seems to have addressed this issue, how effectively we will not know for a while. This is, in fact, another argument for the power of Liberalism. It wasn't the hierarchy of the church or the voice of god, but the rising protest of informed citizens that finally forced the church's hand.
The people spoke.

You know mobrul, it seems like your so passionate about your political philosophy. It seems you have made Liberalism your religion.

You know for most people politics doesn't rule. No matter how educated we are or how many degees we have or even if some of us didn't finish high school or have the opportunity to go to school most of us understand the concept of American liberty. But I don't feel when we are dying will we be concerend with American rights when we are on our death bed. We will be thinking if we were a good person in that we loved and were loved. To me life is all about love, not rights.

From all that I have read from your postings I gather that you only believe in only what you can see & prove, not on what you can't see.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 03-27-2003).]

Mobrul - Really nice posts, there. I just finished this entire thread and really enjoyed reading your posts.

DL - Love watching you stir the pot. Not that you intend to cause an argument, just that you rarely let people get away with anything.

Jade - You complain about people continuing to bring up the sex abuse problems the CC has had/is having/will have(?), but you have to understand that, to an outsider, every practitioner of a religion is a representative of that religion. They show others what sort of people attend that church. You are an example, but then so are the priests and higher-ups who treated the Church like some perverse child-swapping club. I hold religious officials to a higher standard than the average person, as they're the ones pushing all the rules we're supposed to follow. When they disregard them (while still insisting upon them for the rest of us), it casts such a dark shadow across their entire organization that it takes a heck of a lot of ordinary, good members to make up for it.

I, for one, have nothing against religious-types (and that includes followers of the Catholic Church), but I refuse to let the hypocrisy of their officials fall by the wayside when discussing them.



Evil in theory, not so much in practice...

Wangenstine

Your generalizing & your also guilty of judging the behavior of billions on a select few. Thats like saying if a father is sexually abusing his own child so are all his brothers abusing their own children as well.

I'm still waiting to see an answer to the questions about the angels:

quote:

---

WebShaman: I have a question, concerning the creation of Angels, and the war of the heavens (before the creation of Mankind). What exactly happened, and where is it explained? Do Angels have free will? And exactly what are Angels?

---