Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

NachtcGleiskette · Post by **NachtcGleiskette** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:17 am

Guys...a CANADIAN just served you your constitution....

I'm sorry if I find that disappointing....

StarChild · Post by **StarChild** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 7:53 am

Originally posted by Zazou
Originally posted by StarChild
ah, maybe I should sit out of this one!
I agree.

You're new...welcome. Read the social thread, and get to know all my likes and dislikes...

StarChild · Post by **StarChild** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:42 am

To respond to Bamfette: Jefferson was in error in his quote to that one particular magistrate...Christians were around since 33AD, after the crucifixion of Christ....they may not have played a role in England's system of jurisprudence until the 700's. but they sure the heckfire were around. Nacht, that is NOT my Constitution...those are the feelings and observations of the man who wrote it, but before it was signed it had to be agreed upon by thirteen colonies who had fled England because of religious persecution by the ORGANIZED STATE APPROVED CHURCH OF ENGLAND that persecuted them because of their practices as Quakers, shakers, and other Protestant sects! They did not want the government to impose itself on religion because they wanted to practice their faith the way they were led to. I don't think that they could have conceived of people from countries other than Europe coming to the States, and those that did, like their slaves, were converted to Christianity from their tribal beliefs...and, yes, it was wrong! I.E.-slavery!

McCarthyism? White heterosexual?...thank God the Church has blacks, Asians, and Native Americans in it! McCarthy did not influence Cecil B. Demille or John Ford, whose "Searchers" with John Wayne, carries references to Christianity. The reference was to Hollywood's confession of faith! Not to the political misadventures of an era! White men and black men marched with Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.!

I come from a time when we did not deny our Judeo-Christian heritage! That IS JUDEO-Christian....white supremacism, Arianism, Neonazism...it is ALL UNEQUIVOCABLY WRONG!

Northstar...I AM SORRY IF I INSULTED YOU, ESPECIALLY YOU! Forgive me! In what I said I horribly generalized in that it made it sound like Christians ALONE were getting singled out, but when I saw some of the things that were being said...the boy scouts, duty to God, etc., well...sometimes I feel when I go on certain sites I have to hide myself or else I will get reactions like zazou's, or be thought of as a white heterosexual Bible up your nose type until you scream "Uncle!" I don't want to change you...but when I see things I cherish get attacked...

Organized religion made the original colonists flee to the new world looking for religious freedom. Organized religion and its rules hurt me and made me flee the church. God ia a spirit and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. Love is truth, and love conquers all.

I just want to write my story, indulge in Nightcrawler and laugh with ALL of you in chat, OK?

Forgive me, Hooded? You especially...the rest of you,too.

Post by **HoodedMan** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 1:42 pm

Originally posted by StarChild
I don't think that they could have conceived of people from countries other than Europe coming to the States, and those that did, like their slaves, were converted to Christianity from their tribal beliefs...and, yes, it was wrong! I.E.-slavery!

They couldn't have CONCEIVED that other people would immigrate to their country? You attach an almost bizarre naïveté to our Founding Fathers, especially when you're so knowledgable about their motives!

So everyone that came to the States was Protestant? Hardly! Others came for gold and glory. Then immigration brought those who were just looking for a better life.

Originally posted by StarChild
I come from a time when we did not deny our Judeo-Christian heritage! That IS JUDEO-Christian....white supremacism, Arianism, Neonazism...it is ALL UNEQUIVOCABLY WRONG!

But guess what? Not everyone has a Judeo-Christian heritage! Not everyone who came to this country was a Christian! Why can't you understand that? You really need to review your history and use some common sense. And don't even ask me where the rants about Arianism and Neonazism came from. Just because I had Judeo-Christian heritage doesn't mean I myself have to be a Christian!

Originally posted by StarChild
Organized religion made the original colonists flee to the new world looking for religious freedom. Organized religion and its rules hurt me and made me flee the church. God ia a spirit and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. Love is truth, and love conquers all.

I've covered this. Not everyone who came to America was Christian. I'm sorry to disagree.

And DAMN it, StarChild, WHY did you delete your post? Can you not own up to your own words and take responsibility for them? It makes it impossible for me to reference your argument when you remove all record of it! That's the only pet peeve I have here, and it's such a small one. But it's COWARDLY.

I know I said I was going to take a break from this thread. But I felt I had to respond to this, and now it's time for me to take a break from the boards. I am very, very sick and very, very stressed and this is definitely not helping. It's not just this thread and it's not just one member's fault. It's a collection of things.

I'll still be in the Staff Forums and Tech Support if anyone needs me.

-The Hooded Man

NachtcGleiskette · Post by **NachtcGleiskette** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 1:45 pm

Can we all step down from the cross for a second? Please?

no one is attacking anyones beliefs or faith....in fact, Starchild, I find your incredibly defensive tactic to be quite offensive to us. We are trying to keep an open discussion about religion and what we all believe open and friendly. just because we don't believe what you believe doesn't mean we don't like you, or will not like you. However, if you take every instance of us standing up for what we believe as an attack on you, perhaps you should rethink your participation in this thread...

I'm not saying this because we don't want you here...

That being said....

I come from a time when we did not deny our Judeo-Christian heritage! That IS JUDEO-Christian....white supremacism, Arianism, Neonazism...it is ALL UNEQUIVOCABLY WRONG!

What the hell does that mean? Are you comparing Judeo-Christian philosophy with White Supremacism and neonazism?? I'm very confused...

And come on. Times change, and so do people. And when that happens, new rules have to go into effect. What's wrong with just saying "I accept that you believe something different than me and I would like to see your beliefs respected as mine are." Do unto others, people....

Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:36 pm

'Scrawlers-

This thread is being closed while it has a 36 hour "vacation".

This is not a punishment for any wrong doing. The thread is tired and wants to sit on a island, get some sun, and maybe have one or two of those umbrella drinks. When it returns from vacation it will be happy to once again be an open and fair forum for discussion of religion and how it affects our lives. There will, however, be a single change.

In the past, members used their ability to edit posts to strengthen their arguments and "trick" others in a different version this very thread. This was bad. So in order to promote the atmosphere of openness and honesty that we are so proud of at Nightscrawlers, the "edit marker" will be turned on so that any edits or deletions you make to your posts will be marked with the name and date of the editor. It does not say what you edited, only that an edit was made. It will be up to you to note what kind of changes you made to a post from fixing a typo, to correcting yourself, to removing the text entirely, if you want to put anything at all.

Thanks for your cooperation and as always thank you for being such a great community. You can welcome back the Religion Thread on Sunday.

The Nightscrawlers Truimvirate
-Crawler
-Bamfette
-Saint Kurt

Sun Jan 22, 2006 1:06 pm

So the religion thread took a quick trip down to Mexico, sat on the beach a lot, had some umbrella drinks, a few good meals, and ate some magic mushrooms (for religious purposes of course).

It's much more relaxed and ready once again to serve as a home for your open discourse on topics of God, atheism, and everything in between.

Enjoy. But don't forget to play nice

-e

idsunki · Post by **idsunki** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:07 pm

So, how about that crazy religion stuff, am I right guys?

chicory · Post by **chicory** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:22 pm

I'm not Catholic myself (though I have relatives who are) but even I was really disturbed by the Vatican's decision to declare that Limbo is no longer a place where unbaptised infants or the unborn reside.

Not that I want to deny the near presence of the Lord to anybody (if that's what they believe) but it has to be a real blow to anyone's faith when the rules are just arbitrarilily changed like that. (Especially with all the speculation that it's due to an agenda.)

I started out going to Sunday School at age 4 or 5 until I was 12, but every since first grade (when I discovered dinosaurs!) whatever faith I had has been slowing eroding.

What makes them think they can just change the rules like that? It makes it so difficult to believe in anything if even the most committed don't believe enough to preserve the traditions. It's kind of a betrayal in a way :

LadyErin · Post by **LadyErin** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 9:23 pm

Originally posted by Executive Administrator
There will, however, be a single change.

In the past, members used their ability to edit posts to strengthen their arguments and "trick" others in a different version this very thread. This was bad. So in order to promote the atmosphere of openness and honesty that we are so proud of at Nightscrawlers, the "edit marker" will be turned on so that any edits or deletions you make to your posts will be marked with the name and date of the editor. It does not say what you edited, only that an edit was made. It will be up to you to note what kind of changes you made to a post from fixing a typo, to correcting yourself, to removing the text entirely, if you want to put anything at all.

You mean I'm actually going to have to own up to my spelling and grammer mistakes? *mutters underbreath* Ok, I understand.

Back on topic....
That tennets of faith (is that the right term?) can be changed both does and doesn't bother me. I bothers me because it can cause a lot of problems for the believers. But...faith that doesn't change (a little) as people and soociety do...soon gets left in the dust.

Angelique · Post by **Angelique** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:11 pm

Originally posted by chicory
I'm not Catholic myself (though I have relatives who are) but even I was really disturbed by the Vatican's decision to declare that Limbo is no longer a place where unbaptised infants or the unborn reside.
What makes them think they can just change the rules like that? It makes it so difficult to believe in anything if even the most committed don't believe enough to preserve the traditions. It's kind of a betrayal in a way :

Only if Limbo was ever an official part of Catholic Church dogma. Which it never was.

Post by **Saint Kurt** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 2:35 am

Originally posted by chicory
What makes them think they can just change the rules like that? It makes it so difficult to believe in anything if even the most committed don't believe enough to preserve the traditions. It's kind of a betrayal in a way :

Well, Angelique is right, Limbo was never an official part of the Catholic Dogma (ie it was never part of the Catechism). It was never a "rule", but it was an idea presented during pre-vatican II Catholicism as a possible place where the unborn and/or unbaptised went rather than heaven. It is an interesting bit of history, but certainly not something one should lose faith over.

I had to answer this question for someone at my (Catholic) church the other week and I did some research so I'll share my answer here.

The idea of limbo is a scriptural one rather dogmatic, that is it is meant to lend support weighing the need for the sacrament of Baptism against the idea of God's eternal mercy. (ie - Why bother having your baby Baptised if the merciful God is going to let us all into heaven anyway?) If you'll forgive me quoting the bible, this is from John 3:5 - "Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit." Here, Jesus is setting the precedent for the requirement of baptism for entry into heaven.

Catholics know where baptized babies go: they go to heaven. What they don't know is where unbaptized babies go so many years ago they made a theological guess, a hypothesis: they couldn't go to hell because they were innocents, nor could they go to purgatory for the same reason, but they couldn't go to heaven either because they didn't fulfill the words of Jesus in John 3:5. Thus it was speculated that there was the possibility of "another place" where these un-baptized innocents might go. But it wasn't a rule - it was more of the second half of the warning to good Catholic mothers: "Baptize your babies or they'll end up separated from God in Limbo!", which I guess sounded more authoritative than "Baptize your babies or we have no idea where they'll end up."

And then it took on a bit of a life of its own. Catholicism has only ever had three places where the souls of the dead may repose: Heaven, Purgatory, and Hell. Limbo isn't one of them, it never was. But for a time, it certainly sounded like a fourth afterlife destination.

The concept of limbo hasn't been taught since the 1950s. Many of those educated in the post vatican-II church have never even heard of the concept because the post vatican II Catechism chooses to entrust unbaptised infants to the mercy of God (emphasis mine):

from the Catechism of the Catholic Church Paragraph 1261
As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

That phrase: "allow us to hope..." takes the place of limbo and has since 1962.

It is important to note that the Vatican commission that made this decree was not meeting about limbo, but rather "the fate of babies who have died without baptism." So they had a much more important and grave purpose. The casting aside of the limbo hypothesis was, in the words of Pope Benedict XVI: " never a defined truth of faith. Personally -- and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as prefect of the congregation -- I would abandon it, since it was only a theological hypothesis. It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for faith, namely, the importance of baptism," he said.

Thus a new emphasis is placed on the work of his predecessor, Pope John Paul II's encyclical "The Gospel of Life" from 2000 in which he too casts aside the concept of limbo in favor of the idea that God is powerful enough to draw to himself all those unable to recieve the sacrament.

The Vatican continues to stress that all Catholics have there children Baptized into the faith as soon as they are able.

================================

And that's it. No big revelations or rule changing. It's more like the Vatican is trying remove an idea that wasn't necessarily a lie, but wasn't necessarily true either, and certainly isn't doing anyone any good.

I hope that helped shed some light on both limbo, and the Catholic teachings on the afterlife which are suprisingly complex.

-e

Sources:
Catholic News Service: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/storie ... 506867.htm
Seattle Catholic Times: http://www.seattlecatholic.com/a051207.html
The Catholic Source Book
The Catechism of the Catholic Church
The New American Catholic Bible

LadyErin · Post by **LadyErin** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:40 am

*blink* *rubs eyes* *blink*
Em...I had to read that twice to understand it, but thank you for explaining it! And I thought my idea of death and the afterlife was confusing....

But, so, they are saying that all unbaptised go to Heaven...and the unborn too, right?

But...and I never understood this...why do Catholics have babies baptised after they have died? If the baby is stillborn or dies before it can be baptised, some (all?) still have a priest perform one. Isn't it too late after he/she dies?

Angelique · Post by **Angelique** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:48 am

It's called a conditional baptism- done "just in case" it's not too late. Frankly, I never heard of that until well after my second miscarriage. You'd think if it was common Catholic practice, I'd have known about it a lot sooner.

LadyErin · Post by **LadyErin** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:11 am

It's not common? I live in a kinda small, very Catholic town, so maybe that's why I thought it was...but even people who aren't Catholic here know about it.

And, my sympathies Angelique. I simply can't imagine.

______________
Edited for spelling mistakes.

[Edited on 23-1-2006 by LadyErin]

Bamfette · Post by **Bamfette** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:46 am

The IDers are getting sneaky.... in Mississippi:

HB 953 would add the following provision to the law:

(ww) To authorize the teaching of "creationism" or "intelligent design" in the public schools. If the school's curriculum requires the teaching of evolution, then the teaching of "creationism" or "intelligent design" shall be required.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2 ... 3_2006.asp

SN 2427 would create a new law:

AN ACT TO PROVIDE THAT NO LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD, SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT OR SCHOOL PRINCIPAL SHALL PROHIBIT A TEACHER FROM DISCUSSING AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS ON THE ISSUE OF FLAWS OR PROBLEMS WHICH MAY EXIST IN DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION AND THE EXISTENCE OF OTHER THEORIES OF EVOLUTION, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN EXPLANATION OF THE ORIGIN OF LIFE; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI:

SECTION 1. No local school board, school superintendent or school principal shall prohibit a public school classroom teacher from discussing and answering questions from individual students on the issue of flaws or problems which may exist in Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution and the existence of other theories of evolution, including, but not limited to, the Intelligent Design explanation of the origin of life.

SECTION 2. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2 ... 3_2006.asp

NachtcGleiskette · Post by **NachtcGleiskette** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:58 am

Isn't Mississippi the state that stopped teaching fractions?

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised to see this crap pass....

chicory · Post by **chicory** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:27 am

I guess the topics moved on since I last checked in...

Originally posted by Saint Kurt

And that's it. No big revelations or rule changing. It's more like the Vatican is trying remove an idea that wasn't necessarily a lie, but wasn't necessarily true either, and certainly isn't doing anyone any good.

I hope that helped shed some light on both limbo, and the Catholic teachings on the afterlife which are suprisingly complex.

Thanks! I didn't know all that about Limbo. I'd heard of it before, but I didn't realize that practicing Catholics are no longer taught about it.

What prompted my earlier post was a news report whose spin kind of implied (at least to me) that some fundamental policy was being changed, and it caught my attention and bothered me. (But, I feel better about it after reading what you wrote) They were also questioning the timeliness of the change, because it strengthened the church's position on other (...extremely controversial that don't need to be discussed here) issues.

All I knew about Limbo was what I learned from wikipedia.

So, back on topic...They don't believe in fractions in Mississippi?

Something some more conservative christians do believe in:

Remember, they're not 'dinosaurs,' they're 'missionary lizards'

Humans and dinosaurs lived together, at the same time

Edited to fix links and codes
[Edited on 25/1/06 by chicory]

[Edited on 25/1/06 by chicory]

[Edited on 25/1/06 by chicory]

idsunki · Post by **idsunki** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:35 am

For this and other infractions against the common good too numerous to count, I hereby call out Mississippi to a spelling bee.

To make it fair, no words will be above a fourth grade reading level. Anyone who can spell their word can stay a citizen, anyone who can't has to relocate to "South Mississippi," an island we will create using our already over-filled landfills just off the coast.

Though to be fair, I don't necessarily mind the one that allows teachers to discuss it, it if is taken at face value. I suspect that it is merely a 'first step' to these people, however.

In other news, I was at Half Price Books with my girlfriend earlier today, and I asked if I should get the Zen-A-Day daily calendar or the Devil's Dictionary one, and without missing a beat she handed me the Devil's Dictionary one, claiming that it was "more you." She knows me far too well.

[edit]
Chicory - I started reading that first link you put up, and I couldn't get very far. These people are just ... wow. So, they argue that our fallible (flawed) findings of dinosaur bones show they had cancer and other diseases, and since sin/death/disease/etc didn't exist before Eve (that vile, traitorous woman!) took a bite of the apple, humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Because the Bible is 'real history'.

Wow.
[/edit]

[Edited on 25-1-2006 by idsunki]

Post by **Saint Kurt** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 5:20 pm

Originally posted by chicory

Thanks! I didn't know all that about Limbo. I'd heard of it before, but I didn't realize that practicing Catholics are no longer taught about it.

What prompted my earlier post was a news report whose spin kind of implied (at least to me) that some fundamental policy was being changed, and it caught my attention and bothered me. (But, I feel better about it after reading what you wrote) They were also questioning the timeliness of the change, because it strengthened the church's position on other (...extremely controversial that don't need to be discussed here) issues.

Yeah, the media would have spun it that the Vatican eliminated the nice happy place for aborted fetuses to go just in time for the pro-life march last weekend. That's typical.

There is a famous quote by the archbishop Fulton Sheen: "There are not 100 people who hate the Catholic Church; But there are millions who hate what they believe the Catholic Church to be."

Why the Vatican continues to be painted as a bunch of maniacal power hungry despots out to destroy humanity is beyond me. A few centuries ago when the church had real political power, this was true, but now in the modern era of declining faith and a shortage of priestly vocations it's mostly just a bunch of really serious theologians looking out for their flock. (Not that there doesn't continue to be corruption, but even the corruption is on a much lower level than is reported. Opus Dei really exists and it really is a rather suspicious organization, but not quite to the level that Dan Brown describes in The Davinci Code.) I guess for the media, everyone's a target if it makes a cool headline.

Something some more conservative christians do believe in:
Remember, they're not 'dinosaurs,' they're 'missionary lizards'

Humans and dinosaurs lived together, at the same time

Creationism! Somebody set my head on fire!

There that's better. It's like the minute I see the Answers in Genesis url I start spacing out.

I don't usually talk about this, but I will for just a second here. I pray the "Liturgy of the Hours". It's sometimes called "the prayer of the Church" or simply "the Office". It's basically the Psalms from the bible plus readings from the gospels and other books broken up into little pieces to be prayed through out the day at various times. It's a complex prayer and I couldn't find a link of explanation that wasn't several pages long so I'm not even going to bother. Suffice it to say, I pray the Office 3 times a day - the morning, around 5pm, and right before bed. It all adds up to about 30 min of praying a day.

So in the scheme of things, or at least for the purposes of this website, I guess this makes me "religious". I'm also a vet student which makes me a scientist, at least in a practical sense - that's what a doctor is, a "practical scientist".

Now even I know better than to look in the bible for my science. I keep my veterinary textbooks and my religious texts completely separate. What kind of God tricks people by "planting" dinosaur bones to test their faith? Or lies to his choosen people by giving them a book that says one thing when all other evidence suggests another?

Many denominations of Christianity (including Catholicism by the way) are quite happy to let Darwin's theory of evolution coexist with the book of Genesis understanding that God works in mysterious ways and that time for Him and time for us clearly aren't the same.

When I go to school, I leave my Bible at home. When I go to church, I don't take my textbooks. Why is that so hard to understand?

-e

Bamfette · Post by **Bamfette** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:15 am

When I go to school, I leave my Bible at home. When I go to church, I don't take my textbooks. Why is that so hard to understand?

I don't know.... I really don't. It's always baffled me since the first time I had a friend inform me that dinosaur bones were planted by Satan.... what the creationists are doing ammounts to little more than plugging their ears and going 'lalalalala! I can't hear you!' because the weight of the evidence for evolution is so great, it is either that or ignorance. Because, as you mentioned, most religions are perfectly ok with evolution officially.

And even if their religion isn't ok with evolution, it still does not change the fact that it is NOT an appropriate subject for a SCIENCE class! If a teacher was approached by a student, one on one, with questions about the debate between evolution and creationism, I think that would be ok, to a point.... but I would rather see high schools introduce a philosophy class. It would introduce the students to the idea of ID/creationism, (and many other things) but also help teach critical thinking, and expose students to many outlooks on the world.

edited to add: http://www.advicenators.com/qview.php?q=408626

.... um.... yeah....

[Edited on 26/1/06 by Bamfette]

idsunki · Post by **idsunki** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 5:17 am

Originally posted by turtle479

I belive before the flood it had never rained, and we had not begun to pollute the earth. there was a veil over the arth which made it highly rich in oxygen.

Wait... what?

(note: that was found following Bamfette's link)

...and people wonder why it's hard for me to take creationist arguments seriously.

[Edited on 26-1-2006 by idsunki]

LadyErin · Post by **LadyErin** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 7:08 am

Actually I remember being told in the church I was raised in that it had never rained before the flood, that the water of the Earth came from dew, evaporated as the sun rose and reformed at night, hince the people not knowing the danger of heavy rain.

Now, when Ii asked where the rain came from, I was met with a glare and told to not question such things.

One of the reasons, of many, that I stopped going there. Also one of the reasons I no longer follow that religion.

Post by **Saint Kurt** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:41 pm

Sorry. I just can't talk about creationists and flat earthers. It's like shooting fish in a barrel or hunting for animals that are already wounded. Not only is it not any fun, but I actually feel a little unfair doing it.

So, for something completely different... Pope Benedict released his first papal encyclical yesterday and it totally surprised everyone. For one thing it was about love and not just any love, erotic love. And then, instead of warning everyone against it like everyone would have expected such a conservative right wing pope to do, he praises it. And finally, people were really impressed with the writing, praising the quality of the prose.

So I thought I would suggest a different (and far more interesting

) topic: Eros or Erotic Love.

Here is the text of the encyclical: Deus Caritas Est (means "God is Love")

It's pretty long and if you've never read an encyclical before (and really, who has?) it's not the easiest reading, but it's probably one of the most accessible papal documents I've seen. In the first half Pope Benedict asks the question "Did Christianity destroy eros?" By instituting rules about marriage and contraception and sex etc are Christians so bound by the laws of the church that they can no longer have any fun?

In the second half he talks about the social doctrine of the church and essentially asks the question: Are the 10 commandments just crowd control or are they there for a greater purpose? And most interesting is the discussion of the abuse of love; when violence is carried out in God's name, abuses of the separation of church and state, or when proselytising is taken too far.

Here's an article from the UK times summarizing the encyclical.

LadyErin brings up and important point:

Originally posted by LadyErin
Now, when Ii asked where the rain came from, I was met with a glare and told to not question such things.

One of the reasons, of many, that I stopped going there. Also one of the reasons I no longer follow that religion.

Religions that don't allow questions do not allow people's faith to "mature". Someone with an adult's view of God questions everything and often isn't satisfied with the answers. The "Deus Caritas Est" encyclical does exactly this and challenges the reader to do the same. Religion should never be about making life easier or closing one's mind to new ideas, it should be the opposite.

Hopefully this will be a meatier topic. I mean, who doesn't like talking about sex?

-e

chicory · Post by **chicory** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:53 pm

I guess dicussion has moved beyond this by now...

Originally posted by Saint Kurt
Why the Vatican continues to be painted as a bunch of maniacal power hungry despots out to destroy humanity is beyond me. A few centuries ago when the church had real political power, this was true, but now in the modern era of declining faith and a shortage of priestly vocations it's mostly just a bunch of really serious theologians looking out for their flock. (Not that there doesn't continue to be corruption, but even the corruption is on a much lower level than is reported. Opus Dei really exists and it really is a rather suspicious organization, but not quite to the level that Dan Brown describes in The Davinci Code.) I guess for the media, everyone's a target if it makes a cool headline.

I read Dan Brown's book - but I knew it was fiction and I wasn't one of the people who thought it was accurate. I wasn't trying to say that I thought the Catholic church was evil, I just thought it was hurtful that they were inconsistant. That they're supposed to be an authority on an ultimate truth, and yet the faithful are supposed to just accept it when they change their mind on some point.

The Church does have a history of corruption. And that hasn't all gone away. But, I don't think it's true that it's an institution of benign thinkers because they still affect world policy and not always in positive ways.

Originally posted by Bamfette
And even if their religion isn't ok with evolution, it still does not change the fact that it is NOT an appropriate subject for a SCIENCE class! If a teacher was approached by a student, one on one, with questions about the debate between evolution and creationism, I think that would be ok, to a point.... but I would rather see high schools introduce a philosophy class. It would introduce the students to the idea of ID/creationism, (and many other things) but also help teach critical thinking, and expose students to many outlooks on the world.

School's are more likely to cut classes these days than add them. But, absolutely ID should be taught in a philosophy class. It has nothing to do with science.

When I flip through the radio station on my way to school in the morning, I often get 91.5 The Light. And they trick me into thinking they're NPR (91.9) because they're reading the news. Then they'll go into their Creation Moment and explain how evolution can't possibly exist for whatever reason and how fossils came about because of the flood and fossilation is an expected outcome whenever there's a flood??? It's usually difficult to follow and bewildering that anyone can take their arguments seriously.

Originally posted by Saint Kurt
So, for something completely different... Pope Benedict released his first papal encyclical yesterday and it totally surprised everyone. For one thing it was about love and not just any love, erotic love. And then, instead of warning everyone against it like everyone would have expected such a conservative right wing pope to do, he praises it. And finally, people were really impressed with the writing, praising the quality of the prose.

I love the song of songs they mentioned in the UK article - but isn't there also a tendency to take a love song or a poem and interpret it as symbolic love? Like never between a woman and a man but instead between a man and his country or god or the church?

There are some songs on the new religious stations in my area that I like. And I think they're love songs, a song being sung by a guy directed at his love interest. But, instead, when the dj/announcer man talks about it he talks about how great a song it is about the love between the singer and Christ. Which just jets a

from me.

It's nice that the Church is starting to reclaim sexuality, but that has to be a recent change. Because forty years ago I don't think it was something considered appropriate to mention.