On Religion

Plato says on Oct 28, 2007, 11:27:

I will now quote one of my personal heroes who describes the value of religion in human experience. I will not tell you who the author is now so you will not prejudge his beautiful insight:

“KNOW YOURSELF"

In both East and West, we may trace a journey which has led humanity down the centuries to meet and engage truth more and more deeply. It is a journey which has unfolded—as it must—within the horizon of personal self-consciousness: the more human beings know reality and the world, the more they know themselves in their uniqueness, with the question of the meaning of things and of their very existence becoming ever more pressing. This is why all that is the object of our knowledge becomes a part of our life. The admonition Know yourself [Socrates] was carved on the temple portal at Delphi, as testimony to a basic truth to be adopted as a minimal norm by those who seek to set themselves apart from the rest of creation as “human beings", that is as those who “know themselves".

Moreover, a cursory glance at ancient history shows clearly how in different parts of the world, with their different cultures, there arise at the same time the fundamental questions which pervade human life: Who am I? Where have I come from and where am I going? Why is there evil? What is there after this life? These are the questions which we find in the sacred writings of Israel, as also in the Veda and the Avesta; we find them in the writings of Confucius and Lao-Tze, and in the preaching of Tirthankara and Buddha; they appear in the poetry of Homer and in the tragedies of Euripides and Sophocles, as they do in the philosophical writings of Plato and Aristotle. They are questions which have their common source in the quest for meaning which has always compelled the human heart. In fact, the answer given to these questions decides the direction which people seek to give to their lives. [END]

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Oct 28, 2007, 11:41:

I now list a smattering of - but mainline - religions involved in the above-mentioned pursuit of “know thyself":

Revealed-Monotheistic Religions:

Christianity
Judaism
Islam

From the Sacred East:

Hinduism
Buddhism
Confucianism
Daoism
Shintoism

Naturalistic- Pagan Religions:

Druidism
Primal Religions

The above religions all provide wisdom traditions where we derive our sense of moral values and ideas of right conduct. All of this we inherited from the Ancients! However, people became more rationalistic after the Enlightenment in Europe during 18th and 19th centuries and began dismissing religion as a fountain of knowledge.

With respect to the Judeo-Christian tradition, the Enlightenment period did impact the study of religion by providing scientific tools to better discern the writings of ancient authors. Hence religious studies requires the study ancient biblical languages, archaeology, history, and literary forms.

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Oct 28, 2007, 12:02:

I will define the term religion:

A medieval definition: Religion comes from "re" and "ligare", hence to reestablish a tie with one's maker.

Here's contemporary two-part definition:

"Religion taken in its widest sense, is a way of life woven around a people's ultimate concern".

" . . .In a narrower sense, [religion] is a concern to align humanity with the transcendental ground for its existence."

Now, whether you're an atheist, or agnostic, or irreligious, I guarantee all people have thought about ultimate concerns of life. It’s just part of human nature. If a person decides there is no God, or ultimate power, but still wonders what happens after death – like the ancient philosophers – these are religious sentiments and ideas. Religions - not science - offer to explain, although not always in a perfect manner, these most natural yearnings to know an existence, a reality, beyond oneself. Thus religion has been around since man began to walk the earth.

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kat1 (Moderator) says on Oct 28, 2007, 12:04:

I agree Plato, that is why i don't debate in the religion post, i hate when people try to imposed their belief in others or insulting someones religion , i think they are being more ignorant for not respecting others people belief

I am Catholic I believe in God, virgin Mary , saints and all, i don't agree with some thing of the Catholic church I don't go to Church but I do believe and wish people respect that.My husband hasn't go any religion but he does respect mine and he never debate with me my belief.


I don't read much those sort of post I just ignored them, I follow my mother's advice "in Religion and politics debates better to keep away"..

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Oct 28, 2007, 12:08:

Kat, your husband is a gentleman - un señor.

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Oct 28, 2007, 12:17:

On faith . . .

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
(Hebrews 11:1)

Because we converse about our travels, we learn and believe each other's experiences based on a natural faith. In other words, I don't have to go to England or Sweden to know how it is to live there. I just ask you guys and decide to believe some one I don't know through the internet because they sound (or read ) reasonable. I make an educated guess that the information I am receiving is most probably true. I don't have to, nor do I have the resources, to travel all over the world, to every city, city street, and restaurant to know how it is in certain places. I have a natural faith in many of the posters here because I know they will communicate their experiences and be truthful. In fact, no one has the resources to know all things through their own personal discovery. Eventually, you will have to believe someone to gain crucial knowledge. When you read a book, you're doing exactly just that.

Now, if one is contemplating ultimate concerns, and many people have expressed similar ideas and knowledge about those ultimate concerns, wouldn't you think there was something to it? Of course you would. In the case of the unseen, the immaterial, or the spiritual, we extend this natural faith we have in each other to a supernatural faith. This means that you make that leap of faith, not in a blind way since there has to be some evidence such as many people saying or writing the same things throughout centuries, as you would believe a stranger here on PBH.

I believe even the athiest has a small degree of supernatural faith - although they don't recognized it as such. If they're hanging off a cliff about to fall to their death, they're either verbalizing or thinking "Oh God, please help me!!!"

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Oct 28, 2007, 12:46:

If you are college educated, please know that the Catholic Church was responsible for the rise of the universities in the high middle ages. A famous university, and one of the firsts, was the University of Paris around the 13th century. All learning previous to the rise of universities were done in small schools and monasteries. Thus the university provided access to higher education for a much larger student population than previously.

If you ever went to a hospital, Catholic monasteries were the first hospitals.

Religious Muslims and Jewish scholars were important channels for the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle; they transmitted ancient Greek philosophy to Medieval Christian Europe. This later laid the groundwork for the European Renaissance.

In the seventh century, Medieval Islam was at the forefront of scientific technology and culture at that time. Thanks to Muslims, we owe a lot of our technology and mathematics from their ideas such as the telescope and child birthing (and much more technological advancements!). I'm sure many of you have seen Islam's cultural beauty in Southern Spain. I believe the Spaniards inherited the guitar from the Muslims. (The Colombians, meanwhile, perfected guitar playing in the paisa regions. The costeños perfected playing the accordion through their vallenatos! jajajaja!)

There was a time when Muslim, Jew, and Christian coexisted peacefully and learned from each other. Hence, we enjoy the world today because of contributions from religious people.

So much for disparaging and hypocritical comments like:

“Religion is for the ignorant."

“Religion: Stupid is as Stupid does...."


Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Cerealkiller says on Oct 28, 2007, 13:48:

Kat1, I have a question for you. Have you brought up your children as catholics? Was it ever an issue?

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives -John Stuart Mill

0 funny, 0 helpful.

msaucey says on Oct 28, 2007, 14:26:

Plato thank you for putting a lot of these items into one thread.... Religion is a controversial topic all over the world... People are people and everyone has a right to their own beliefs... Some are forced into their beliefs and kept in darkness of other beliefs.... But, to be brutaly honest, I am not a theologist and do not have a strong enough concept of all religions... I know that there are a lot of religions that instill peace and embed the concept of harmony, primarily those of the far east... But, I also know that there's religions that pretty much have a stance, that if you do not follow our rules then you are to be damned...

My main issue with some religions is that in one you are always a sinner until you move on to the next life, that's when you will be rewarded and granted access to heaven.... In others, you have to always be good now, or you will not be allowed to enter heaven...

I remember going to Catholic School, and always questioning my teacher for inconsistencies I was picking up on the lecture... But, I was wrong for pointing these types of things out... I came to a point in life, that I know in my heart, that if I have a god, he loves me for who I am and for what I do... I've done some bad stuff and I've done plenty of good in my life.... I have learned from my own experiences to judge and forgive myself.... I don't need to go to a church or anywhere else to find peace, I have found it within myself...

I am irreligious and content with myself... If there is one god, or many gods, I am okay with that... I don't condemn those that follow a faith, because that is what makes them feel whole.. I want my children to learn enough about religion and later in life if they want to follow a faith or be irreligious, that's their choice... I don't want to force religion upon them, because I know I didn't learn anything except on how to sin and be forgiven later...

The trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed. - CS Lewis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kat1 (Moderator) says on Oct 28, 2007, 14:26:

I tried but because i never went to church it was a bit difficult, talked to them about it when they were younger, they are teenagers now and they say they haven't got any religion, but they do respect mine, They were baptized in the catholic church, but they don't want to take the "primera comunion and confirmacion" I don't push them either, I always tell them is it is good to believe in something, it will give you strength in their most difficult times, but i think deep down they have a bit of faith in my religion and I think they do believe in God.
It never was an issue because although my husband hasn't got any religion he also thinks it is good to have faith in something he thinks religion it gives hopes, Optimism, and morals and he was happy with the kids to be catholics, he didn't have any objection in marrying in the catholic church and promising the priest we would bring the kids catholics.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kat1 (Moderator) says on Oct 28, 2007, 14:32:

I think because of my belief and faith, when my brother died 14 years ago, i did look for strength, pace and comfort in my religion, i am happy to think he is in a better place and when i die he will be waiting for me.

I want my kids to have that kind of comfort.


although I agree that sometimes Religion need to be modernized, i think the Catholic Church is losing some of its younger followers, because in this modern age they are still stuck with some old fashion belief i think they should be more open minded in certain issues like their thoughts about contraception and abortion

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Oct 28, 2007, 14:45:

MSaucey,

Thank you for your response and I respect your opinion. By now you probably surmise that I'm a teacher of some kind and you're right. I'm a philosopher-theologian in the Roman Catholic Tradition.

One of the problems with transmitting religious doctrine are the people doing the transmitting. Many people remember austere nuns, pedophile priests, etc. and what not. This impacts your perception of religion - especially organized-bureacratic religion like the CC.. This is not your fault - it's the CC's fault. Recall that the CC is composed both divine and regular people like you and me; however, these people recieved a special grace to do the Church's work. Some do marvelous jobs, but quite a few shouldn't have been ordained or taken special vows to begin with. Nevertheless, you're a member of a rich tradition and I suspect that if those teachers would have answered your questions, it's possible you may have felt differently about the CC.

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Oct 28, 2007, 14:53:

Kat, God, faith, and church are important to have in life as you know. These are not wishy-washy, pie -in-the-sky things. They're real and worthwhile.

Human experience, as I wrote above, confirms God's activity in our world - no matter how people perceive and interpret it. As Catholics, however, we have a distinct position, but the purpose of this thread is not to argue in favor of one religious doctrine or tradition over another, but for religion per se. In this thread - people who subscribe to religion, at least marginally, are united.

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Man Tequila says on Oct 28, 2007, 15:34:

This is an interesting thread. However, I should point out the original thread was posted by kalder and not myself. I did respond to his query.

Aunque no me creas/ si me lo propongo/ lograre olvidarte/ porque a fin de cuentas/ no soy tan cobarde./ Y termino todo una de estas tardes/ no sera dificil buscar algún sitio donde refugiarme/ donde nunca mas vuelvas a encontrarme. (Polo Montañez)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Oct 28, 2007, 15:35:

Ooops! Sorry! Kudos to Kalder. Thanks again MT.

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Oct 28, 2007, 16:09:

I'll add my thanks for your thread, Plato. You're obviously a gentleman, surrounded by us heathens - religious or not. ;)

I was raised a Baptist. Church EVERY Sunday, until I became old enough to say, in the immortal words of Roberto Duran "no MAS!". So it's not that I have no religious training or background to support my views.

My personal aversion stems from the inconsistencies in organized religion. ALL the great religious texts are so nebulous as to be almost meaningless to me. The Chrisitian Bible encourages everything from snake-handling to death by stoning for wearing two different types of cloth in your clothing at once. If this text wasn't so open to interpretation, there wouldn't be so many Christian religions - so who's right?

Herein lies the problem for me. ALL Christians believe that Christ is the One True Path to salvation. How arrogant is THAT? Christians comprise what? - maybe 15-20% of the world? So everyone else burns in hell? Sorry, I just don't buy it.

I'm agnostic at my core, but I hedge my bets. ;) I have three VERY simple rules I try to live by -

1. Be happy whenever you can.
2. Never intentionally hurt anyone.
3. When the opportunity arises, be of help to others.

Frankly, any god that this isn't good enough for doesn't really matter much to me. Three fundamental rules oughta be enough, in my view.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Oct 28, 2007, 16:32:

With respect to Christianity, I think you might be exaggerating the "one true path" claim. Catholics make it, the Pope periodically reaffirms it and that sets backs back interfaith dialogs. The Mormons are also pretty hard core, esp. in their beliefs about people who leave the Church. I'm not aware, though, that the mainstream Protestant groups make such claims.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Oct 28, 2007, 17:32:

I was referring more to the concept that Christ is the only path to redemption, not so much specific divisions of Christianity. I know of no Christians who do not believe this. Do you?

"I am the way, and the lght", etc

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I edited to reflect this. Thanks for pointing it out, Tinto.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Oct 28, 2007, 17:40:

Slguy,

Excellents points all. My students bring these concerns up all the time. We Christians have to focus on what interpretations we have in common and continue to work on unity. Even within the Catholic Church, we have a many expessions of faith but one doctrine. For example: Dominicans argue with Franciscans; all gang up on the Jesuits and so forth, etc. We have big time ruckuses in the Church all the time and why should it be different in the rest of Christiandom?

Slguy, with all due respect, you don't strike me as REALLY agnostic. You're turned off by organized religion, live by very Christian principles. By organized, we mean people, and with people there will be mistakes made by some knuckleheads. There are plenty of them out there. I'm one of them. It doesn't mean, however, that their hearts are not in the right place.

By the way, I'm a heathen too. Never claimed to be holy - just an imperfect man with some knowledge on the subject.

Regards,

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Oct 28, 2007, 17:49:

Tinto,

Interfaith dialogues are going pretty well, especially with the mainline Protestant denominations. The CC has a good relationship with the Jews; personally, I'm learning Islam myself and have had many interesting conversations with many Muslims.

The Jews regard Jesus as a rabbi or prophet and they are still waiting for the Messiah. Islam has the highest respect for Jesus and his Mother, the Virgin Mary. Christians believe that the way is through Jesus as he said himself in sacred scripture. Some how, some way, I think it will all work out in the end.

Recall that we're all related in faith through Abraham, the Father of Faith. As for other religions and sects, many, if not most, don't deny many of the main principles shared by these three great religions. In fact most share universal principles of morality and correct conduct.

Please note that no religious leader ever apologized for the shortcomings of their people in their Church as did Pope John Paul II. Yes, the CC had a lot of shortcomings to apologize for throughout the centuries. How about the Jews? Islam? Mormans? etc. These religions don't have shortcomings to apologize for?

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Oct 28, 2007, 18:27:

Hmmm. Maybe.

You're 100% correct in one regard- I have no use for organized religion, on a personal level.

Agnostic? I don't know. ;)

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Oct 28, 2007, 18:32:

Pope John Paul II deserves credit for defending important freedoms during the Cold War, but he was also the head of an institution for almost three decades and during that time he chose to continue enabling a culture of pedophiles. His institution lied to and cheated (via bankruptcy maneuvers) many of its victims and further tried to avoid responsibility for its sins by shipping problem priests to other parishes, including parishes in third world countries. In my opinion, he will always have a big black mark by his name.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Oct 28, 2007, 20:24:

A black mark? It depends what shortcomings and successes one chooses to focus on concerning JPII. I’d say JPII has had a lot more successes in the public eye than a few people are willing to admit. One notable example is that JPII was one of the forces that helped bring down communism in addition to the efforts of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. He also did more than any other Pope to improve relations between other religions.

The handling of pedophile priests, while despicable, was done on a countrywide basis, most of the problem occurring in the United States. The orders to move these pedophiles from one church to another did not come from the Vatican. The operation and organization of the CC is a group of churches within churches down to the parish level with decision-makers (i.e. bishops) at each of those levels.


Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Oct 28, 2007, 20:46:

sorry, but I'm gonna have to call BS on that one, Plato.

If JPII had been forceful in saying "I want these despicable priests outed and punished, and I want it done NOW!"- it would have happened, don't you think?

And this "it depends on what you choose to focus on" is a little thin. Hitler made the trains run on time- should we focus only on this? (obviously an exagerated example, but still apropos of misplaced "focus")

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Oct 28, 2007, 22:56:

Yes, a black mark, and as Slyguy said, "BS" to the comment about not having the ability to put an immediate end to the pedophiles and the institutional denials and cover ups. He entered the job knowing of the rot in the institution and was its supreme and unquestioned leader for 27 years. So, yes, he is very much responsible.

Great men usually have great failures, too.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

gringolondinense says on Oct 29, 2007, 01:08:

Hey SLGUY I was a Baptist too!!! I even attended Bible study classes for many years!! But you know even at the age of 6 or 7 I was aware of their indoctrination attempts. "Boy! I didnt see you in church last sunday! You will burn in hell!!".

0 funny, 0 helpful.

gringolondinense says on Oct 29, 2007, 02:43:

"when one disparages religion, this has the same effect as one imposing his/her beliefs, whether religious or not, on someone else. Both actions are disrespectful, unnecessary, and smacks of hypocrisy"

How can you say that Plato when children are basically indoctrinated into religion by their parents? I know some countries even have "religion" on the birth certificate. If that isnt imposing ones beliefs I dont know what is.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Oct 29, 2007, 05:07:

Gentlemen,

Can’t write much now because the workweek began, but here’s my response:

I have children and as much as I love HOLY priests, I would get medieval with a pedophile priest who violated any of my children. Heck! I have to control myself when I hear cases about other children. Thus, I can’t defend pedophiles at all in good conscience.

Now, here’s my last ditch effort to provide balance on the issue: magnitude. I’d have to research actual confirmed cases of pedophile Catholic priests in the United States versus bullshit claims where quite a few Holy priests were unjustly laicized because many saw a way to make a quick buck.

My point about magnitude is that the CC Church of the United States could indeed make decisions independent of the Vatican on how to deal with these pedophiles. If pedophilia were widespread around the world, if almost every priest were one in every parish, then I can see the Pope making a statement about this. Your argument ignores the management in between the victims and the Pope. For example, I can see you criticizing Cardinal Egan in New York.

Slguy, I didn’t find the Hitler example a convincing comparison to JPII’s role in helping bring down communism.


Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Oct 29, 2007, 07:57:

I wasn't speaking to JP's role in bringing down communism. I was speaking to his obvious LACK of a role in combating the church's participation in harboring pedophiles- and putting these same pedophiles in new towns or new parishes where they were entrusted with children again.

You can try to redirect blame all you wish. JPII allowed this criminal behavior on the part of the Church. No one with a brain believes for even one moment that he was helpless to stop it- or that the problem was not/is not significant enough to warrant the Holy Father's attention. It is EXACTLY this centuries-old attitude that "The Church is more important than the those who comprise it" that leads many of us to view even it's good works as suspect, at best.

While I admire many things about your reasoning, Plato- you seem to be coming from a somewhat naive place. Your constant "let's focus on the good stuff" may play well to folks who only feel their faith faltering- but to those of us who see the Church (the institution, mind you, not it's adherents) as an institution in serious need of enlightenment, it does little.

IF the Church, for example, changed it's doctrine on birth control, allowing millions of families in poor or developing countries to feel it's OK not to have 8 kids in 9 years- this would be a good start. Not to mention helping in a significant way to discourage the spread of STD's and AIDS. It's difficult for me not to see this doctrine as the Church's way of encouraging it's own future. More Catholics having more babies = more Catholics in the future. Again- the Institution is more important than it's adherents.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

gringolondinense says on Oct 29, 2007, 08:05:

The communists were anticatholic, no wonder JP was so keen on its downfall

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Oct 29, 2007, 14:08:

Slguy,

I freely affirm that pedophilia cases were handled poorly in the United States and that JPII could have played a role on solving the problem. It also is my personal opinion, however, that U.S. bishops were incompetent in handling the situation. Neither you nor Tinto addressed my point on how the CC’s organization impacts decision-making among its hierarchy. In fact, you call it BS. I assure you this is a serious consideration.

I mentioned above that the CC is comprised of group of churches within churches and that bishops are authorities within their respective dioceses. Administrative/management power in the CC was devoluted from the Pope to bishops in the Second Vatican Council. The proper authorities, then, are the bishops of the dioceses where pedophile cases occur. This is a serious point which cannot be easily dismissed. According to the Dogmatic Constitution on the (Catholic) Church (1964):

. . .individual bishops represent each his own church, but all of them together and with the Pope represent the entire Church in the bond of peace, love and unity.

The individual bishops, who are placed in charge of particular churches, exercise their pastoral government over the portion of the People of God committed to their care, and not over other churches nor over the universal Church.

. . . by governing well their own church as a portion of the universal Church, they themselves are effectively contributing to the welfare of the whole Mystical Body, which is also the body of the churches. (END; all statements from Paragraph 23).

Thus, the CC’s organization and accountability protocol is not any different than local and state governments handling their own affairs.

There is also the question of the magnitude of the pedophile cases which you did not address. Did the magnitude of pedophile cases warrant going to the Holy Father? Tell me, at what point does a state call in the National Guard? For example, the President of United States bears responsibility on what happens in USA, but the USA is composed of various different state and local governments with their own executives accountable to both constituents and executives from higher levels of government.

With respect to how the CC is organized and, by comparison, the many wonderful things JPII did during his pontificate, you place a disproportionate emphasis on JPII’s role in the matter. Could JPII have done something? Yes! But what of his bishops? Do you absolve them? Don’t they receive any blame for this? Absolutely.
____________
About my naïve reasoning and focus on the good stuff:

I’m naïve in many ways, this is true. But I assure you that there is a reason why I focus on the good stuff: it’s a Catholic position on the doctrine of justification, which is distinctly different from the Protestant position. Here’s why:

The Protestant position:

The Protestant doctrine of justification can be summarized by Martin Luther’s description of human nature: people are depraved individuals. In fact they are like dung (shit) – rotten to the core! Only through Christ’s mercy can an individual be justified in His eyes. In other words, Christ’s justification is like a blanket of white snow on top of a heap of dung. But recall that although Christ’s justifies you, you’re still crap, and even more so if you do not preach Christ Jesus or you’re away from the church community. Does this sound familiar to you?


The Catholic Position:

“The children of Adam were corrupted by original sin, [because] they could not of themselves arise from their fall nor shake off the bonds of sin, death, and Satan. . . But if the grace of Redemption merited by Christ is to be appropriated by the individual, he must be "regenerated by God", that is he must be justified. What then is meant by justification? Justification denotes that change or transformation in the soul by which man is transferred from the state of original sin, in which as a child of Adam he was born, to that of grace and Divine sonship through Jesus Christ, the second Adam, our Redeemer."

Thus, Slguy, Catholics view people as damaged goods, not as pieces of crap. This is the reason why I focus in the good stuff. This doesn’t mean, however, that I’m unaware of the bad stuff – believe me I am. Perhaps this is what you mean by me being naïve. I rather focus, however, on what’s positive and then figure out how to improve things. We’re all imperfect and therefore need a lot of work.


Moral doctrines;

Who is to toil with the problems of Aids and STDs? Don’t people have a stake in this? Shouldn't they take part in the venture as well? What exactly is the Church to do here and how? Why?

The CC will not budge on issues pertaining on faith and morals. Doctrine on abortion and contraception are grounded in sacred scripture and tradition. Additionally, the CC doesn’t feel it has to win a popularity contest by changing doctrine just to suit people’s sexual appetites. We cannot solve these problems by discussing them here on PBH.

Please note the CC - runs and sponsors, funded by our donations, some of the largest charities in the world to help with social and health problems in developing nations.

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Oct 29, 2007, 15:17:

If you think "our donations fund some of the largest charities in the world," I've got a few indulgences for sale, along with a bridge and some nice swampland.

;-)

Financial statements for Catholic Relief Services, the international relief organization of the U.S. Conference of Bishops, show up to two thirds of the $550 million in contributions, i.e. annual revenue, coming from the United States government, about 3% coming from the special "Operation Rice Bowl" and "Catholic Relief Services" church collections, and the remainder coming from other foundations, corporations and private individuals.

Note: I'm not picking on the generosity of members of the Catholic Church; it wouldn't surprise me if other large, church-affiliated international aid organizations are primarily program managers/administrators rather than funders. If they can do it more efficiently than governments and other foundations - great! - that's more money for programs rather than overhead.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Oct 29, 2007, 16:08:

ok. Then set aside the pope. There are cardinals and bishops that are directly accountable- and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of whatever municipality has jurisdiction. I still dn;t buy that widespread child abuse and pedophilia are beneath the Holy Father's concerns and intervention- but I'll cede this point.
When the Church's heirarchy is aware of pedophilia within the ranks of it's priests, and obstructs legal avenues by moving the guilty parties to other parishes, or even to other countries, in order for the Church to have plausible deniability - or worse, to protect the guilty from prosecution - this constitutes obstruction of justice in my book. It's not what every good Catholic, nor even people in general, should have to tolerate from their sacred institutions. Or you would disagree?
Scripture also proscribes eating of pork. This proscription is in the main, ignored today. Why? I imagine because health standards and food safety have dramatically improved. But overpopulation, and diseases which, when untreated, are lethal- this "grounding" in scripture against contraception and abortion should be honored, no matter the price? I guess as long as the overpopulation is with good Catholics, who give the Church money when they can, outweighs all social and public health concerns?
I appreciate your fervor with regards to seeking the good, but until men of faith demand accountability of their institutions, and stop being apologists- nothing changes.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Oct 29, 2007, 18:49:

What did I do to deserve the wrath of Tinto and Slguy? LOL! Just kidding. You guys are great (and tough!).

I'll be back!


Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Oct 29, 2007, 21:41:

No wrath involved,claro - I just dig debate. ;)

BTW, this has become more of a Catholic debate, but not intentionally, on my part. I have issues with other institutional religion as well. Surprised? LOL Primarily, I dislike ANY group, religious or otherwise, claiming to be the only answer- to anything. The world is shades of gray, in my view, rarely black/white.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

scotty says on Oct 30, 2007, 02:07:

Religion and politics give me a headache. However, i do believe there is a God. Is God what we think it is or is it something completely different? Are we all correct, are we all wrong, or are we somewhere in the middle...I dont know?

I do know a few things, there seems to be good and evil people in every religion, culture, country, race, goverment, etc

I have noticed that almost everytime there is a discussion here or anywhere else concerning religion it seems to be based around the Christain religion. The anti christains are always harping on this and that contridicting the bible and christains. I rarely hear these same people mention Islamic religion and the havoc they have brought upon us all. I wonder how the islamist do all these terrible things and people are still bashing the christains, kind of amazes me.

I tend to judge a church/religion by their actions not by their words and in todays world we can all see for ourselves whats going on with the Islamic radicals. I dont think at this time in history the world has to worry alot about Christains, Jews, Mormons, Hindu, but i'd keep an eye on the Islamic radicals if i were you.

Get Rhythm, when you got the blues. Johnny Cash

0 funny, 0 helpful.

gringolondinense says on Oct 30, 2007, 02:32:

yep youre right scotty

I have a problem with all the religions I know of. The problem is that they indoctrinate children into believing, before they have had a chance to THINK about it and make up their own minds. When people say "Im bringing up my children as christian, muslim blah blah" etc, they really mean they are indoctrinating their kids at an age when they are too young to read, write or even speak. And when you are young, you believe everything your parents tell you, without question.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

scotty says on Oct 30, 2007, 03:14:

however, there are a few differences. the christains are telling their kids to love and abey Gods laws, etc, meanwhile the islamic are training their kids to hate and kill the infidels and some of those kids they strap bombs on.

Get Rhythm, when you got the blues. Johnny Cash

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Oct 30, 2007, 05:14:

Slguy,

I'm honored to be your friend and will answer your most recent post.

====
Gringolondinense - I'll address your indoctrination point too. Thanks for bringing it up.
====
Scotty - excellent points. I caution, however, that not all Muslims adhere to radical Islam. Islam is worth learning just to be informed. I'm learning about Islam myself right now. Just last night I was having a discussion with a Muslim friend of mine who believes in polygamy.
====
Tinto - I'm checking those numbers. I like to add that Catholics have been missioneries for centuries and even risked their lives for the sake of the Gospel.
====
To all:

This purpose of this thread was to encourage and healthy debate and discussion on the value of religion in human experience. This includes discussions on all religions, not just Christianity and especially Catholicism. However, I'm open to discussing anything on Catholicism and Christianity - even Judaism and Islam. I've also had discussions with witches too ( (i.e. Wiccans).

If anyone wants to take shots at the CC, fine. But I expect a debate - not nonsense and then people leave the discussion. This hasn't happened here (so far) I'm happy to say. I wanted this thread to be fruitful.

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Oct 30, 2007, 05:25:

By the way,

My Muslim friend told me he doesn't drink because it's against the Quran. In the tradition of Catholic monks - I get wasted on Friday nights drinking beer or scotch. LOL! Mea culpa! Mea Culpa ! LOL! Good heavens, I need a lot of help!

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

dwmte7 says on Oct 30, 2007, 05:53:

religion, as i see it, is the central core of each and every human beings beliefs. be they, buddist, christian, mohammedan, confucian, jew, pagen, athiest, agnostic...it is all that they believe in and, basically, hold dear and defend. so all of us are deeply possessed of our religion. and even if you closely examine two persons who perport to hold the same religious beliefs, you will certainly discover upon close examination, countless differences, numerous points of contention and possibly some of concord.

we will not agree, any of us, on a universal posture as to 'truth', 'GOD', or what ever else.
the fact that large communities work in harmony, i.e the church (whatever) are basically miracles. getting folks to cooperate and work together towards commen ends even when they don't agree on so many points of the things they claim to believe in.

i am and have been a catholic for the life. however, does that blind me to the esoteric teachings of qaballah, sufism, hinduism, et al? hardly, as a catholic, i was the devoted student of an indian teacher (guru/master) from 1964 until today. another known catholic who followed his inner search by dying in a zen monestary, was thomas merton.

our search for GOD, which, knowingly or unknowingly, we are all busy with, goes through many stages....the finality of which is the great discovery.,effected by what mystics call, 'the great work'.... that is, realizing that all along, we were not our bodies whith which we are so closely identified, but rather the animating soul. it is with this final discovery that we are actively involved. fighting about our way of going about it serves nothing. nobody will agree with you/me. because we are all on different trajectories. coming from different places, but going to the same non place. bon voyage.

dwmte

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Oct 30, 2007, 05:54:

Tinto,

From Wikipedia:

Catholic Charities is a worldwide network of charities whose aim is to "reduce poverty, support families, and empower communities."[1] Catholic Charities traces its origin to an orphanage founded in 1727 in New Orleans, Louisiana by the French Ursulines Sisters.

Catholic Charities, USA (CCUSA), with headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, is recognized as one of the nation's largest voluntary social service networks. It was founded in 1910 as the National Conference of Catholic Charities. More than 1,400 agencies, institutions and organizations make up the Catholic Charities network - including individual organizations of the dioceses, such as the Archdiocese of Chicago. Nearly 90 cents of every dollar donated to Catholic Charities agencies goes directly to programs and services.[2].

Together, with the local, diocesan Catholic Charities affiliates, Catholic Charities is the second largest social service provider in the United States and it is only surpassed by the US Federal Government. Often, this means that the CCUSA network is able to provide assistance which other agencies are simply unable to provide or in circumstances where the other assistance is insufficient to provide the necessary aid.

Please learn about the Campaign to Reduce Poverty in America here http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/poverty/
=====

I'm not done yet.

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Oct 30, 2007, 06:25:

Gringolondinense,

First off, do you mean indoctrination as in teaching or brainwashing? If teaching, then children defer to the intellect and will of their parents until they reach the age of reason (and for many kids, age of reason could be all over the place and well after their teenage years). The parents teach children language, culture, and so forth and part of culture is religion.

Second argument based on tradition: in early Christianity, being a Christian was a hazardous occupation, meaning that you risked becoming lion meat. Families then wanted to make sure their babies were baptized just a few days after being born.

Third argument based on sacred scripture: Christianity is rooted on Judaism. Jesus was presented in the temple shortly after being born and therefore was acknowledge and recieved into not only Judasim but also as the Savior of the world according to Simeon. Catholics celebrate this holiday as the Epiphany.

So it is not uncommon for children to be presented, recognized, and received into a religion while young, especially newborn.

Now, do you mean brainwashed? That's an entriely different matter altogether. What would a child, especially a new born, be brainwashed from?

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

NataliaV says on Oct 30, 2007, 14:34:

Great debate!! If I may stir the pot as they say, let me begin by saying that I do not agree with pedophile priest or any pedophile period and personally believe that they should be punished according to the Old Testament by being stoned to death. But just for sake of debate, what about the seven deadly sins? I am referring to one in particular, Wrath/anger. As Christians shouldn't we forgive? Turn the other cheek? What are your thoughts on that? Also, if the CC or the Pope forgave them, aren't we supposed to too? One of the worsts sins is that of judging . Isn't judging left for God to do? It's like saying you are capable of doing Gods work. Well this should definitely get some interesting comments and I look forward to them!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Oct 30, 2007, 18:44:

If I believed in your premises....deadly sins, if I was a Chritian, and lastly Pope/Catholic...I would agree with you, Natalia. But you struck out with me on all counts.

Turn the other cheek to pedophiles disguised as men of God? They deserve more wrath than others, because they are in positions of trust. I long since stopped needing men in Rome, or anywhere else, to explain right and wrong to me. Who's next? Set Charlie Manson free- after he begins wearing the cloth?

BTW - I have heard more than once, religious people claiming to do "God's work"- just before blowing up abortion clinics and killing doctors who perform them.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Oct 30, 2007, 19:07:

"First off, do you mean indoctrination as in teaching or brainwashing? If teaching, then children defer to the intellect and will of their parents until they reach the age of reason (and for many kids, age of reason could be all over the place and well after their teenage years)..."

I'm gonna have to disagree again, Plato. Age of reason? Pretty archaic terminology, dontcha think? I've taught my sons. or tried to teach them, to make good, reasoned decisions from when they were old enough to decide which cereal to eat in the morning. I want independent thinkers, not clones. And yes, this included exposure to many faiths, without prejudice, I hope.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Oct 30, 2007, 20:41:

Age of reason is archaic? No, I don't think so. Maybe you just don't like the term. How about " when a child is old enough to reason for his/herself on what is right and wrong"? Slguy, honestly, I don't understand your last post.

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

christobeldawg says on Oct 30, 2007, 21:09:

was always told during the first couple of dates, stay away from discussions of religion, politics, and sex. I could normally handle the first two.

admittedly, arriving can feel great too

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Oct 30, 2007, 21:49:

I guess I very inarticulately tried to say that yes, of course, at some point our children become free-thinking adults. They begin deciding which university to attend, who to marry, what profession to take up. I "get" the concept.

BUT- there can be little doubt that by the time this age arrives, for many youths it is too late to make a truly informed, logical choice about the religious convictions, because by their midteens, they have spent their entire lives being lectured every Sunday, at least, on why the church of their parents is the only "good" one. This is true of many organized religions- but in my experience, the CC does it best. So how can one arrive at an "age of reason" about religion, when there was never any real choices offered, absent boatloads of guilt for turning away from "The Church"? So I think that your "age of reason" argument for indoctrination until who-knows-when is a little less than, ummm, objective.

I'd be fascinated to know how many Catholics here ever had significant exposure to ANY other faiths, when they were young. Going to a friend's non-Catholic church a couple Sundays, over parents' objections, doesn't really count. ;)

Object if you wish, but "Catholic guilt" is very real - too many of my Catholic friends have had severe cases. LOL

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

christobeldawg says on Oct 30, 2007, 21:54:

I was brought up southern Baptist, and I remember, as a child, thinking any other religion was likely wrong. didn't take too much additional education to cause me to realize that I may have been taught not exactly accurate, though I do wonder how much damage may have been caused by those early indoctrinations. intellectually, we overcome, but do we truly overcome?

admittedly, arriving can feel great too

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Oct 30, 2007, 21:57:

well.. You jus got back from "The Promised Land", so tell us.....any thing come over ya???

Where do we go from here?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

christobeldawg says on Oct 30, 2007, 22:03:

I have been HEALED by this land of promise. Please join us now in singing from your hymnals, or in some cases, your hernals.

admittedly, arriving can feel great too

0 funny, 0 helpful.

gringolondinense says on Oct 31, 2007, 02:10:

I used to be a Free Baptist (whatever the "Free" bit means I dont know, maybe Free of Rational Thinking!!). Anyway we were taught that anyone who isnt a baptist is going to hell.

I first got into it coz they ran a football club on wednesday evenings...it was just football..but one day the guy that ran it told me if i didnt start attending baptist church, I would be banned from the football club. He wasnt too friendly thats for sure.

Gradually they started to introduce their religious stuff into the mix after the football game. Again they gave us biscuits and stuff hahah! They also has shite watered down orange juice that would strip the enamel from your teeth. They used to make us recite bits of the bible in return for sweets. Luckily they didnt try and ass rape us.

I even went to their "bible classes" every day for 2 months during each summer.

One christmas day, a friend of mine appeared at the back of the church with his parents and little sister. "I HAVENT SEEN YOU HERE BEFORE!" the guy at the front boomed "YOURE GOING TO HELLLL!!". My friends little sister couldnt stop crying and ruined the entire service.

You could call it the "carrot and stick" approach.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Oct 31, 2007, 05:17:

Slguy,

You wrote:

"So how can one arrive at an "age of reason" about religion, when there was never any real choices offered, absent boatloads of guilt for turning away from "The Church"? So I think that your "age of reason" argument for indoctrination until who-knows-when is a little less than, ummm, objective."

We disagree on this point. One of my hobbies is to study other religions. I see a lot of good principles and practices in other religions; my Catholic intellectual patrimony, however, fulfills me most.

Another poster in the Catholicism in Colombia thread said it best: when a child is older, then they're open to change they're mind. People often play up the Catholic guilt too much. If that's the case, then why is it that we continue to talk about pedophile priests? Is there Catholic guilt there?


Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Oct 31, 2007, 05:21:

Gringolondinense,

You wrote:

"One christmas day, a friend of mine appeared at the back of the church with his parents and little sister. "I HAVENT SEEN YOU HERE BEFORE!" the guy at the front boomed "YOURE GOING TO HELLLL!!". My friends little sister couldnt stop crying and ruined the entire service."

That's terrible. Now, Slyguy mentioned Catholic guilt. What do you call this? To me, this is a violation of one's human dignity. Terrible. No wonder people get turned off on religion. The fire and brimstone approach - LOL!

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Oct 31, 2007, 05:30:

NataliaV,

You wrote:

"But just for sake of debate, what about the seven deadly sins? I am referring to one in particular, Wrath/anger. As Christians shouldn't we forgive? Turn the other cheek? What are your thoughts on that? Also, if the CC or the Pope forgave them, aren't we supposed to too? One of the worsts sins is that of judging . Isn't judging left for God to do? It's like saying you are capable of doing Gods work. Well this should definitely get some interesting comments and I look forward to them!"

Good points Natalia. Many priests were dismissed but most were shifted to other parishes, sent to spirtual counseling, pyschological counseling, etc. The reason for not dismissing all of them was exactly what you stated above - they made mistakes and as Christians they also deserve a chance to be forgiven.

Judgment for our actions comes at death, not during life, although God provided us with the capacity to make prudential decisions. We can argue whether these decisions were in fact prudential and people - especially parents - have a right to be angry and ask that a priest be removed from ministry. I have to tell you, I feel that way, but then again - even though it's extremely hard for me, people have an opportunity to repent until their dying moment in Christianity. The problem is, Natalia, that most people love playing God over other people's lives ( hence the sin of Adam all over again). There are enough examples of this in Christianity (just read Grindolondinense's post above). People want to be forgiven, but they don't want to forgive others.

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Oct 31, 2007, 05:43:

Slguy,

You wrote:

"Scripture also proscribes eating of pork. This proscription is in the main, ignored today. Why? I imagine because health standards and food safety have dramatically improved. But overpopulation, and diseases which, when untreated, are lethal- this "grounding" in scripture against contraception and abortion should be honored, no matter the price? I guess as long as the overpopulation is with good Catholics, who give the Church money when they can, outweighs all social and public health concerns?

I appreciate your fervor with regards to seeking the good, but until men of faith demand accountability of their institutions, and stop being apologists- nothing changes."

And what of people themselves? Don't they have any personal stake in this? This is the second time this point goes unaddressed.

This is what my children tell me everyday: " Daddy, it's your fault I didn't wake up on time! Mommy, it's your fault I forgot to take my medicine! It's your fault I got a poor grade on my exam. It's your fault, your fault . . . .just your fault!" I guess you know what I mean. Meanwhile my kids are teenagers and are able to do many things themselves with little assistance, but the institution(s) (parents, teachers, community, society, and yes, the Church ) always get the blame. How convenient.

Slguy, the heart of the matter here is that people just what to do whatever the hell they want. That's fine. We have free will. But if you run a working red light in the road and something happens, are you going to blame the traffic department for putting it there?
______
One last point. Nothing changes because people resist change. They rather stay in their comfort zones and feel that everyone else should change. Just take a drive in Manhattan and tell me if there is hope for yellow cabbies changing their driving habits. They're all for change, but as long as they themselves don't have to do it. Everyone else does.

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Oct 31, 2007, 06:35:

O.k. I think the thread got focused on Catholicism and I didn't intend that. That's what Kalder's thread, Catholicsm in Colombia, was for. I intended this thread for a wider discussion on various religions in human experience. I guess we can't accomplish that but I appreciate your contributions anyway. It seems only a Catholic - me - is interested in talking about other religions in addition to my own.

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Oct 31, 2007, 08:03:

Plato, I said the same thing earlier - I never intended only to address Catholic issues. It just seemed to devolve that way..

I'll answer your personal responsibility question. You're absolutely correct. Much of Ayn Rand's philosophy makes perfect sense to me. Ever since I first read "Atlas Shrugged" it's much MUCH easier for me to say "Yep, I screwed up - sorry!" ;) My sons know very well that telling me "But Eddie made me do it!" holds no water with me.

I assume that when you refer to this, your implication is that abstinence is your solution to the AIDS epidemic, and to third world overpopulation? That all those millions of illiterate and poverty-stricken folks around the world who live in a world where AIDS is so prevalent should "just say no"? That African men who think sex with a virgin will cure them of AIDS should simply have refrained from sex in the first place? Please. Should we also bring back stoning death for adulters, pork eaters, farmers who plant two different crops in the same row, people who dare to wear two different fabrics at the same time? These also are Biblical edicts, as grounded in Scripture as any prohibition on contraception- that is, of course, unless one chooses to conveniently ignore that the Old Testament that's also supposed to be the word of God, last I heard.

My point is - why is it that ANY religion has the capacity to be so selective about interpretation of supposedly "holy" texts? Bin Laden reads the same Quoran all other Muslims read- and look where that got us! The snake-handling sects in Appalachia read the King James versions that all other Protestants read. So- where's the harm in interpreting the "grounded in Scripture" portions of one's philosophy in a more enlightened manner, that could conceivably have some impact on mounting world overpopulation and public health problems? I can only conclude what I have always suspected - more Catholics producing more babies equals more future Catholics - as oppsed to the snake handlers and Bin Laden fundamentalists, whose practices produce fewer of each. ;)

Frankly, to teach functionally illiterate folks to ignore condoms in favor of abstinence smacks of being part of the problem, not part of the solution. To proclaim that personal responsiblity is the answer is wonderful, in a perfect world. Now if we could just FIND that perfect world....

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Oct 31, 2007, 10:08:

Slguy,

My responses are in between your quoted paragraphs:

“I assume that when you refer to this, your implication is that abstinence is your solution to the AIDS epidemic, and to third world overpopulation? That all those millions of illiterate and poverty-stricken folks around the world who live in a world where AIDS is so prevalent should "just say no"? That African men who think sex with a virgin will cure them of AIDS should simply have refrained from sex in the first place? Please."

I didn’t imply abstinence. You did. You anticipated I would give the “Catholic –party" line on abstinence. However, since YOU brought it up, abstinence is ONE solution.

I can’t abstain from sex. Forgeddaboudit! (Thank God I have my wife.) So, why should I expect others to do so? Is it a virtue (i.e. excellence of conduct) – absolutely. Can one avoid tons of problems if it’s kept in the pants? I think it’s reasonable to say yes. What do you think? Yet, what do most people thrive on? Unbridled lust and sex! (I do!) Just read some of the threads here on PBH. If I were to attribute a characteristic to this website, I’d say one of them is definitely CHUCHA! Wouldn’t you agree? I’m mean . . .come on Slguy. Both men and women here flirting, talking bullshit and all. So, this is a traveling site? Let’s cut to the chase, Slguy, there’s a lot to be said for abstinence, but I don’t think it’s the only solution. Given the problems you mentioned in Africa and elsewhere – education would more effective. And, we can summarize the kind of education in this way: “AIDS KILLS AND YOU CAN CONTRACT IT FROM HAVING UNPROTECTED SEX WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE IT." So, the next question is . . .why is there still a problem?

The problem:

Regardless, people don’t care. They think they can get over. They’ll use their cultural social morés as an excuse to continue spreading the disease. Women in some of these countries can’t stand up for themselves otherwise they will be beaten and worse. They have no civil liberties whatsoever. What would you say the solution ought to be here, Slguy? Blame the CC for preaching age old wisdom – abstinence? I conceded above that the solutions to the problem you mentioned require more than that.

Education, Slguy, education is what I believe would be most effective given the situation you mentioned. I’m sure it’s been done but why do you think the CC should relax its position on abstinence? Do you think it will help?

Here’s an excerpt of an article concerning this issue. The author is a Catholic moral theologian, Father Thomas D. Williams, May 17, 2006:

“I have spoken to a number of Africans who find the Western supposition that “they’re going to do it anyway" to be insulting and, frankly, racist. Prejudice against Africans as primitive peoples with no self-discipline or control over the sex drive simmers just beneath the surface of much anti-abstinence propaganda. Behind the cries for “realism" stands the unspoken assumption that Africans are naturally and incorrigibly promiscuous.

This supposition, however, besides its thinly veiled racism, flies in the face of statistics. If we truly want to be “realistic" and objective, we should look to Uganda, the only African nation that has substantially curbed the rate of AIDS infection. Through an intense abstinence-based campaign, Uganda managed to reduce the infection rate from 29 percent to 4 percent in just ten years. As South African Cardinal Wilfred Napier put it, the unified message in Uganda, beginning with the president, was “Change your behaviour ... change your behaviour."

Compare Uganda’s success with the dismal failure of the two most condom-flooded African nations, Botswana and South Africa. South Africa has been inundated with condoms and its rate of AIDS infection continues to soar at 22 percent of the entire population. Botswana’s situation is even worse, with 37 percent of the adult population infected by AIDS. Professor Norman Hearst, of the University of California at San Francisco, notes that in Botswana condom sales rose from one million in 1993 to 3 million in 2001, while HIV infection among urban pregnant women rose from 27 percent to 45 percent. In Cameroon, as well, condom sales rose from 6 million to 15 million, while HIV prevalence rose from 3 percent to 9 percent.

Moreover, despite critics’ accusations that Catholic moral teaching is the cause of Africa’s woes, the facts demonstrate the contrary. The World Health Organization puts the figure for HIV infection in Swaziland at 42.6 percent of the population, where only 5 percent of the population is Catholic. Similarly, in Botswana, where 37 percent of the adult population is HIV infected, only 4 percent of the population is Catholic. Compare this to Uganda, where 43 percent of the population is Catholic, and the number of HIV-infected adults has dropped to only 4 percent."

Retrieved from: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTI5ZGZlN2YxNTgzNWNhOTdiMzY1ODc3Z...

______
“Should we also bring back stoning death for adulters, pork eaters, farmers who plant two different crops in the same row, people who dare to wear two different fabrics at the same time? These also are Biblical edicts, as grounded in Scripture as any prohibition on contraception- that is, of course, unless one chooses to conveniently ignore that the Old Testament that's also supposed to be the word of God, last I heard."

I don’t subscribe to physical punishment of individuals who have sex out of wedlock. What’s your point here?

________
“My point is - why is it that ANY religion has the capacity to be so selective about interpretation of supposedly "holy" texts? Bin Laden reads the same Quoran all other Muslims read- and look where that got us! The snake-handling sects in Appalachia read the King James versions that all other Protestants read. So- where's the harm in interpreting the "grounded in Scripture" portions of one's philosophy in a more enlightened manner, that could conceivably have some impact on mounting world overpopulation and public health problems? I can only conclude what I have always suspected - more Catholics producing more babies equals more future Catholics - as oppsed to the snake handlers and Bin Laden fundamentalists, whose practices produce fewer of each. ;)"

Aha! So, we should change the intentions and original meanings of the authors, once again, to accommodate our relativistic sense of morality? To me, Bin Laden is a reductionist, some one who chooses whatever texts he wants and says that is what the Q'uran is about. No different than the KKK, a Christian group I hear.

Slguy, believe it or not, mainline Protestant denominations, Catholics, Muslims, and Jews hold very similar views on morality. I extend this argument to other religions outside of these great ones as well. Instead of heading to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and the Pope, the Talmud, or Muslim scholars, for example, some Christians, Muslims, etc., prefer to heed the views of their pastors or religious leaders not in contact with the aforementioned. Go figure. And you wonder why there are such different interpretations of key moral principles in sacred scripture?

______
“Frankly, to teach functionally illiterate folks to ignore condoms in favor of abstinence smacks of being part of the problem, not part of the solution. To proclaim that personal responsiblity is the answer is wonderful, in a perfect world. Now if we could just FIND that perfect world...."

I just mentioned above about the CC’s position about the use of condoms and it’s effectiveness – or lack of - in stopping the increase of aids in African countries.


Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

dwmte7 says on Oct 31, 2007, 10:42:

...don't drink from that glass...it's for socrates...

dwmte

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Oct 31, 2007, 11:30:

"I didn’t imply abstinence. You did. You anticipated I would give the “Catholic –party" line on abstinence. However, since YOU brought it up, abstinence is ONE solution."

Frankly, there was no other place for you to go, with that "personal responsibility" thing. It was pretty obvious that abstinence was going to be your solution, and unless I missed something, it's exactly what you advocate. I just opened the door for you. ;)

"I don’t subscribe to physical punishment of individuals who have sex out of wedlock. What’s your point here?"

My point is - if you adhere to grounding of your philosophy in Scripture, why not apply it with a broad brush? Why not also adhere to Scripture that demands stoning for the offenses I cited? It's the selectivity in adhering to Scripture that really offputs me about ALL the faiths. Each faith claims that their text (Bible, Quoran, etc) is the unadulterated word of God - then immediately chooses which parts of their respective holy scriptures to follow, while ignoring the rest. Most Christians I've asked about these proscriptions against pork, different colthing materials, etc give me "but that is Old Testament". So? The Bible is the word of God, or not? It's this selective belief system that makes me nuts.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Oct 31, 2007, 12:14:

Slguy,

"Frankly, there was no other place for you to go, with that "personal responsibility" thing. It was pretty obvious that abstinence was going to be your solution, and unless I missed something, it's exactly what you advocate. I just opened the door for you. ;) "

Slguy, you can believe that if you want, but no, once again, that's not where I was going . What about my point on education? What about Father Thomas D. Williams' article? Should we check unbiased sources for statistics on Uganda in comparison to the rest of Africa? Meaning that abstinence may be a better remedy that condoms? ???

On interpretation of Sacred Scripture: this will be a whole other essay and I don't know if it's worth putting the effort. (You tell me?)

However, I'll leave you with a robust method of interpretation we learned from the Protestants and improved upon it: the historical-critical method. Lot's here.

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.