Theology III

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That doesn't mean every religion deserves the same privilege. The Aztec faith, for instance, required human sacrifices of tens of thousands of people.

And the christian faith was sometimes also big on burning heretics. Faiths change over time, if they can stick around long enough.

God gives people the ability to cover their ears if we want to, to shut him out and ignore him if that is our choice. He won't force himself into people's hearts, for no one can make anyone else feel love. We cut ourselves off from God's voice.

How terribly nice of him. Still, a good number of people are actively listening to their god, and still the message isn't the same for everyone.

I don't understand how this responds to what I said. Could you explain it?

I was talking about different religions, not individual morality which is far more variable and less bound to rules.

Could you explain this point more? I don't understand what you're saying.

You consider those deaths as a result of freedom of religion. I don't. A number of 1 or 2 billion dead is enough for anything, but it doesn't make it an argument againt freedom of religion.

If you had no religion and were starting an orphanage, your actions show that you feel human life has intrinsic value. Which is a religious perspective, even if you don't think about this connection. No one can quantify or calculate value through material methods.

This is where we difer in opinion. I do not think my compassion or consideration of human life comes from a religious origin. In fact, it can very easily be a totally selfish one that doesn't involve any deity, or blessing or damnation it can bestow on my actions.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

And the christian faith was sometimes also big on burning heretics. Faiths change over time, if they can stick around long enough.

Bypassing for the moment the issue of whether or not faiths change over time, I'd like to mention that this doesn't respond to my point that not all religions deserve equality.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

How terribly nice of him. Still, a good number of people are actively listening to their god, and still the message isn't the same for everyone.

Well, of course! Many of them are worshipping man-made gods, so when they're listening to themselves (or demons) the messages aren't going to be the same!

However, I will mention, and this is an important point, that there are many very big similarities between the religions worldwide. They have numerous parallel doctrines, such as a Trinity-like Godhead structure, a resurrection of the dead, the existence of heaven and hell, demons and angels, a great flood story, a savior story, a devil, things of this sort. They often have a lot of parallels with Christianity. People could make various arguments about why this might be. My view is that these people have been hearing God in part and filling in a lot of the rest for themselves. They just never received the full picture. There also is undoubtedly a demonic influence. But those religious parallels, which are many and worldwide, to me indicate a commonality of hearing the same Person. Other conclusions are also possible, of course .

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I was talking about different religions, not individual morality which is far more variable and less bound to rules.

No single moral view or religious view is shared by everyone. For instance, there are still racists in the US. Does that mean we should adjust laws against racism for them, because not everyone feels the same way?

We should have good laws, regardless of whether or not the majority wants them. But in this country, interpretations of law are not always going to be good because we have loads of different ideas about what good is. Remember the Dred Scott case.

It's therefore an unstable system, which can be either good or bad depending on what the people are like. That is dangerous, for "the people" easily go for the bad, as they did in Imperialism, Colonialism and Slavery days.

A system that holds to eternal good is much more likely to be a healthy one, though. Whether or not people want the good doesn't matter. If the majority don't want good laws, if they'd rather live with slavery in the South and segregation in the North, tough chicken. A law based on the religious principles of a true religion could provide a system of real justice.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

You consider those deaths as a result of freedom of religion. I don't. A number of 1 or 2 billion dead is enough for anything, but it doesn't make it an argument againt freedom of religion.

You haven't responded to my argument. You've stated your disagreement, but I don't know why you disagree.

I pointed out that abortion (which has killed somewhere around a billion people in the West since legalized), sexual immorality (which has killed millions through STDs), colonialism and imperialism and racist slavery, each of which in turn has killed millions or hundreds of millions, and Democratic, Fascist and Communist rebellions (which also killed millions worldwide, sometimes through genocide), all proliferated when the Catholic Church lost its political power and all spread in spite of the Catholic Church's rigorous condemnation of them. All were extremely limited or non-existent when the Catholic Church had enormous power during the Medieval Ages. All resulted from the new power of nations to breach the religious dictates of Rome. Therefore Religious Freedom was their cause.

You've said you disagree with all that, but you haven't made any argument or explanation as to why I'm wrong. I'll point out that several people in these forums have even argued "religious freedom" when we're talking about the legality of abortion or sexual immorality.

Colonialism, Imperialism, Racist Slavery and Enlightenment or Reformation era rebellions were all earlier forms of the expression of this freedom from the Catholic Church, which is a freedom of religion.

I'd like to know where my logic fails, why you reject the argument.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

This is where we difer in opinion. I do not think my compassion or consideration of human life comes from a religious origin. In fact, it can very easily be a totally selfish one that doesn't involve any deity,

My point is that it implicitly recognizes a religious concept. Such compassion doesn't make sense if humans are just piles of meat and bone. You have to believe there's something more to them, something valuable. Else you wouldn't bother.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

or blessing or damnation it can bestow on my actions.

That is not why most religious people do charity. We do it as an expression of love for humanity and for God.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Bypassing for the moment the issue of whether or not faiths change over time, I'd like to mention that this doesn't respond to my point that not all religions deserve equality.

Since the religion you used to demonstrate your point is no longer practised to that extent, I found commenting on its deserving of equality rather pointless.

Still, it depends on what you consider a religion next to merely a sect for example. In the USA the Scientology is I believe considered a religion, whereas here it is considered a sect and is currently under investigation for a number of offenses. I've been told that 'Jedi' has become a recognized religion in Australia, by popular vote, although I have not checked the veracity of it. In that aspect, I agree, not all 'religions' should be treated equal.

Well, of course! Many of them are worshipping man-made gods, so when they're listening to themselves (or demons) the messages aren't going to be the same!

Again, more proof to me that the divine message wasn't as clear as you say it is to begin with.

However, I will mention, and this is an important point, that there are many very big similarities between the religions worldwide. They have numerous parallel doctrines, such as a Trinity-like Godhead structure, a resurrection of the dead, the existence of heaven and hell, demons and angels, a great flood story, a savior story, a devil, things of this sort. They often have a lot of parallels with Christianity. People could make various arguments about why this might be. My view is that these people have been hearing God in part and filling in a lot of the rest for themselves. They just never received the full picture. There also is undoubtedly a demonic influence. But those religious parallels, which are many and worldwide, to me indicate a commonality of hearing the same Person. Other conclusions are also possible, of course .

Hearing a part of god's message and filling in the rest. Interesting theory, but personally I prefer the one that is called human nature: borrowing and copying from other people if they've got something cool. The Sumerians have this great flood story, oooh, let's have it too! The Greek have some useful gods like Hermes, Niké and Aphrodité, so let us borrow them, only we'll give them better-suited names like Mercurius, Victoria and Venus. The Olmecs have a feathered serpent in the pantheon, sounds useful, we'll call him Quetzalquatl.

You get the idea. Finding the origins of myths, to discover where they were borrowed, or possibly risen independantly has always been a fascinating field in anthropology.

I pointed out that abortion (which has killed somewhere around a billion people in the West since legalized), sexual immorality (which has killed millions through STDs), colonialism and imperialism and racist slavery, each of which in turn has killed millions or hundreds of millions, and Democratic, Fascist and Communist rebellions (which also killed millions worldwide, sometimes through genocide), all proliferated when the Catholic Church lost its political power and all spread in spite of the Catholic Church's rigorous condemnation of them. All were extremely limited or non-existent when the Catholic Church had enormous power during the Medieval Ages. All resulted from the new power of nations to breach the religious dictates of Rome. Therefore Religious Freedom was their cause.

Well, since you say I avoided the issue, let's break it up. Abortion: I don't consider fetusses the same way as I would persons. The debate is still ongoing. So no, I don't see the deaths you see caused by abortion, as murder. So I do not agree that that large number you quoted are deaths to be attributed to freedom of religion. Never mind that STD are also transmitted by bad blood transfusions, unhygienic needle-use, rape (which is these days far too often used as a weapon in war) and suppresion. Nor does freedom of religion immediately lead to sexual immorality! Religious folk fall victim to unsafe sex just as easily as the rest! Especially if their religion leads to them not getting good sex-education or a ban on anti-conception methods because "every sperm is sacred". So again, I do not see deaths caused by STD as caused by freedom or religion.

Colonialism, rebellions, imperialism and slavery, what on earth has that to do with freedom of religion?! If you think the church put a stop to that if they were still in control, then you're dreaming. Religion, the catholic church included, has done it's fair share of such matters. At some points, sure, they condemned slavery and such out of principle, or out of convenience, at some points they wanted their share of the spoils!

My point is that it implicitly recognizes a religious concept. Such compassion doesn't make sense if humans are just piles of meat and bone. You have to believe there's something more to them, something valuable. Else you wouldn't bother.

The fact that I consider humans more than meat and bone is not a religious concept. It's biology as far as I'm concerned.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Since the religion you used to demonstrate your point is no longer practised to that extent, I found commenting on its deserving of equality rather pointless.

A person's view about religious freedom is important to his understanding of the nature of justice and good government, but one can certainly be ignorant of the concept and still be saved.

If you want to talk about Christianity changing, you'd be on far stronger ground to point to issues such as denominationalism. Denominationalism really has made a major dent on traditional interpretations of Christian doctrine. Not in the authoritative teachings of the Vatican, however.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Still, it depends on what you consider a religion next to merely a sect for example. In the USA the Scientology is I believe considered a religion, whereas here it is considered a sect and is currently under investigation for a number of offenses. I've been told that 'Jedi' has become a recognized religion in Australia, by popular vote, although I have not checked the veracity of it. In that aspect, I agree, not all 'religions' should be treated equal.

Sure, that's one way in which they aren't equal. They give different teachings about morality, and this is critical. Some, like these Mormon fundamentalists who were tried recently for polygamy, pedophelia and forced marriage, break the country's laws. The members of that Mormon group believed that those practices were moral. Not all religions can be legal or equal, because some have "moral" teachings that are really immoral.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Again, more proof to me that the divine message wasn't as clear as you say it is to begin with.

Simply the fact that humans can shut it out and do their own thing? That's all that the idols prove.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Hearing a part of god's message and filling in the rest. Interesting theory, but personally I prefer the one that is called human nature: borrowing and copying from other people if they've got something cool.

No no no no. That can't cut it, because these are worldwide, across continents, the same stories told with different names on the main characters and slightly varying details across civilizations that never should have had any contact with one another.

Of course, your borrowing and copying idea makes some sense to me on a personal religious level, because I think the flood stories all came from a common source: Noah. But it can't explain it from your perspective as you don't believe in Noah, because you can find the same stories all over the place on different continent and around the world.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Well, since you say I avoided the issue, let's break it up. Abortion: I don't consider fetusses the same way as I would persons. The debate is still ongoing. So no, I don't see the deaths you see caused by abortion, as murder. So I do not agree that that large number you quoted are deaths to be attributed to freedom of religion.

Your statement about abortion would require too long a response to go into here. But my gosh, rethink it. Human fetuses are human beings. You're talking about human beings. What if you're wrong??? What will you have done by supporting this movement if you are wrong?

It's a terrifying prospect.

Please read this:
http://www.abortiontv.com/Words/AbortionistQuotes.htm

Here's one of the quotes from an abortionist on that site:

"Nobody wants to perform abortions after ten weeks because by then you see the features of the baby, hands, feet. It's really barbaric. Abortions are very draining, exhausting, and heartrending. There are a lot of tears. Sometimes patients turn on you. They say, "Let's get out of here," after the abortion, as if you're some dirty person. It's vicious. Then you get these teenyboppers in the office who laugh their way through it. It doesn't mean a thing to them. That bothers me...I do them because I take the attitude that women are going to terminate babies and deserve the same kind of treatment as women who carry babies...I've done a couple thousand, and it turned into a significant financial boon, but I also feel I've provided an important service. The only way I can do an abortion is to consider only the woman as my patient and block out the baby..."

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Never mind that STD are also transmitted by bad blood transfusions, unhygienic needle-use, rape (which is these days far too often used as a weapon in war) and suppresion.

I'm not saying don't mind that. Where this occurs in Western countries, it, too, is often another consequence of sexual liberation. A man has sex with a girlfriend without ever telling his wife, then she gets it from him and maybe dies. A man has sex with his girlfriend and then gives blood, and he didn't know his girlfriend had just slept with someone who had an STD, so he passes it on to someone unawares. Those kinds of things are a result of modern immorality.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Nor does freedom of religion immediately lead to sexual immorality! Religious folk fall victim to unsafe sex just as easily as the rest!

Freedom of religion has created issues of pornography and sexually provocative images all over society, which religious people as well as non-religious people will be tempted by. As for your numbers (citation?), I don't know about that. I know that divorce rates are about the same for religious and non-religious persons, but that could easily be explained by the fact that many non-religious people don't even bother to get married anymore. Many do, but a lot also don't, and they're more likely to feel free in that regard than religious people are.

But anyway, that whole discussion is irrelevant. Look at Oman and some of the highly conservative Muslim countries like that. Oman has almost zero problem with STDs because it enforces laws against sexual immorality. It's part of their culture, too, that sexual immorality is frowned upon and seen as very wrong. Because of those forces, their problem is very limited. They aren't overrun by porn or images of scantily clad men and women on posterboards all over the place. Their temptations are reduced, the social consequences are higher, it's culturally unacceptable so there's a higher probability you're brought up believing it's wrong, and there's a penalty under law for participating in it. So their STD death toll is much smaller. Because they don't practice freedom of religion.

People who migrate from conservative Muslim countries to the West tend to be much more opposed to sexual license than people who have grown up here.

Religious freedom definitely created the possibility of a sexual revolution in ways that were previously unknown.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Especially if their religion leads to them not getting good sex-education or a ban on anti-conception methods because "every sperm is sacred". So again, I do not see deaths caused by STD as caused by freedom or religion.

Again, if laws banned the behavior and the culture was conservative Catholic, frowning on sexual immorality, then both culture and law would be set against it and the rates would be much lower. That's why most STDs weren't even known before the 20th century. Siphilis and Gonorreah (forgive my flawed spellings of the two) were known much longer, coming on the scene around the time the Medieval Ages ended. Those two emerged around the time that the laws against sexual immorality laws began to fall apart. But the cultures of the nations still were predominantly Christian. Minus the laws against it, sexual immorality increased, but nowhere near modern standards because the culture was still set against it.

By the mid-20th century, though, there was a clash between two cultures in the US, a more conservative culture among the parents and a rebellious, hippie culture among the youth. The removal of laws against other religious perspectives and moral viewpoints ended up allowing them to prosper. That's only natural.

What we have today is a country of culture conflict, between a massive liberal movement and a conservative movement struggling to hold to its values in the face of erosion from popular viewpoints. Also, you have tons of people calling themselves "Christian" or "Catholic" who aren't interested in holding to the teachings of either the Bible or the Vatican, but simply use the term to say they go to church on Sunday, and then they do what they want with the rest of their lives (which can include whatever sexual or political views they want).

The culture of now could only come about because of religious freedom, and this freedom made the sexual revolution and all its corresponding STDs possible.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Colonialism, rebellions, imperialism and slavery, what on earth has that to do with freedom of religion?! If you think the church put a stop to that if they were still in control, then you're dreaming. Religion, the catholic church included, has done it's fair share of such matters. At some points, sure, they condemned slavery and such out of principle, or out of convenience, at some points they wanted their share of the spoils!

I can only find two popes who supported imperialism, Nicholas V and Alexander VI.

Alexander VI was one of the worst popes in history, both ruthless in assassinating political opponents and sexually promiscuous. The future Pope Leo X criticized his appointment to the papacy when he first gained power, saying of Alexander, "Now we are in the power of a wolf, the most rapacious perhaps that this world has ever seen. And if we do not flee, he will inevitably devour us all." Alexander's monstrosities are one of the key reasons that the Reformation occurred. So his having greedily indulged in imperialism isn't too surprising.

However, he and Nicholas were the only popes I can find who supported this. The other popes, both before them and after them, made repeated statements denouncing racist slavery. Alexander VI was the last pope I know of who supported imperialism and slavery. Leo X, the pope who immediately followed him, declared that, "Not the Christian religion only, but nature herself, cries out against the state of slavery." Alexander's views were decidedly not the normal Vatican position throughout history. To characterize the papacy by his example is ridiculous. Since all the other popes who addressed the matter between the 15th century and the modern age, with the exception of Nicholas VI, expressly rejected racist slavery (which is the foundation of colonialism and imperialism), we can see what the normal Vatican position on these issues was.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

The fact that I consider humans more than meat and bone is not a religious concept. It's biology as far as I'm concerned.

Please explain how this is. Do you consider us to be valuable because we have extremely complicated brains? If so, you'd appreciate every human being equally (except, perhaps, for the mentally retarded, who wouldn't be as valuable as other people if this was true).

[Arien the Maia]

Lief, this is bit OT but are you Catholic? and if so when did you become one? I'm out of the loop ....blame the kids

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Arien the Maia

Lief, this is bit OT but are you Catholic? and if so when did you become one? I'm out of the loop ....blame the kids

Yes!!! I became one six Eucharists ago! Best decision of my life.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Yes!!! I became one six Eucharists ago! Best decision of my life.

yea! I'm so happy for you! Converts to Catholicism are usually more enthusiastic about the faith, so good for you! (although I'm a cradle Catholic and I try my best to live by the Church teachings)

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Of course, your borrowing and copying idea makes some sense to me on a personal religious level, because I think the flood stories all came from a common source: Noah. But it can't explain it from your perspective as you don't believe in Noah, because you can find the same stories all over the place on different continent and around the world.

Except the flood stories other places pre-date the Noah story.

Your statement about abortion would require too long a response to go into here. But my gosh, rethink it. Human fetuses are human beings. You're talking about human beings. What if you're wrong??? What will you have done by supporting this movement if you are wrong?

Not people. I agree with Earniel.

Please read this:
http://www.abortiontv.com/Words/AbortionistQuotes.htm

Here's one of the quotes from an abortionist on that site:

I've known dozens of doctors who perform abortions. However, I've never met an "abortionist". That's just not what they're called, except by whacked out fundies.

I want to complain very strongly, moderators, about this side shoot in the Theology thread. If Lief wants to debate abortion, he should go to that thread.

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I agree that the Bible doesn't tell people how to develop their economy. However, I do think that when nations are following God faithfully, because he works through the people in them, he can and does develop good economies or political arrangements through his human servants on Earth.

True. I agree entirely, the point I was making was that the Bible is the Word of God, but it isnt a lesson in monetary spending, bullish/bearish, etc., etc.

And the methods by which our modern economies were developed were heinous at best. That these greedy and ruthless techniques came at the end of the Christian era is not surprising.

The overpowering hand of he Church had a hand in much of the good that came about before-hand, but also some of the bad. Unfortunately, no institutions in which humans are heavily involved can remain pure to their goals for long. Human nature sets a bad precedent, as well as a good one. Why people are surprised that the Church (or any church for that matter) is not exempt is beyond me. Humans are fallible, and everyone is vulnerable to the deceits of Satan, and he tries especially hard to reach those in a religious installment.

I describe them in more depth in my post above . . . my longest yet in this thread, in all probability .

It was...intimidating.

Just finished pouncing! It was fun. Perhaps a little too time-consuming, though . . . Answering such massive questions thoroughly is a very long process.

And it is very much appreciated.

*Gets thoughtful.* Maybe I should do it less thoroughly.

No! Keep it up, it's very insightful and fun to read, both them and the responses.

I personally don't. There were only a handful of popes who were really corrupt, and none of them changed the Church's doctrines. They simply didn't adhere to them in their private lives- there are failed Christians all over the world. Also, the existence of a pope and authority structure at the top of the Church preserved doctrinal order and unity. That's why Catholicism was the almost the only Church up to the Reformation. There were the Orthodox and Coptic splits, but these churches retained an authority structure and maintained almost exactly the same doctrines as Catholicism, so they aren't considered heretical. The Orthodox are called by Catholics the "sister church" of Catholicism, because they are united in faith at nearly every point. The existence of these hierarchies, including the Catholic Pope, helps to preserve that unity.

It was one Church, one belief, teaching the same doctrines that (if you read the writings of the Early Church Fathers) Christians believed from the very beginnings of our faith. The pope's office and authority on matters of doctrine helps to ensure that this unity around the original teachings remains intact.

When the Protestant Reformation began, there were only a handful of denominations. Now, Protestantism includes tens of thousands of denominations because the split is fragmenting more and more and more. Without any authority at the top, people often interpret the Bible the way they want and Christianity's message becomes less and less coherent and more and more contradictory. So I think that this office is a very important and valuable one.

I still believe much of what is preached in the Catholic faith, just not all. For example: I dont beleive that I have to confess my sins to an earthly "father", I know I have God's attention, otherwise I wouldnt be able to discern His actions in my life.

I can see why the doctrinal preservation is very helpful, but anything can be taken to far.

True.

Indeed.

I like your points .

Thanks.

[Curufin]

Of course, your borrowing and copying idea makes some sense to me on a personal religious level, because I think the flood stories all came from a common source: Noah. But it can't explain it from your perspective as you don't believe in Noah, because you can find the same stories all over the place on different continent and around the world.

The flood stories did all come from a common source - there was a flood. Likely after the glaciers melted after the last ice age. Nearly every culture has a flood story - and like sis said, many of them pre-date Noah.

Your statement about abortion would require too long a response to go into here. But my gosh, rethink it. Human fetuses are human beings. You're talking about human beings. What if you're wrong??? What will you have done by supporting this movement if you are wrong?

I'm with Sis and Eärniel here. They're not people. The potential for life exists, yes, but a human fetus is not human yet. If we're wrong? We're wrong. What if you're wrong? It is possible, you know.

I want to complain very strongly, moderators, about this side shoot in the Theology thread. If Lief wants to debate abortion, he should go to that thread.

Agreed.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Curufin

I'm with Sis and Eärniel here. They're not people. The potential for life exists, yes, but a human fetus is not human yet. If we're wrong? We're wrong. What if you're wrong? It is possible, you know.

Originally Posted by Sis

Not people. I agree with Earniel.


I've known dozens of doctors who perform abortions. However, I've never met an "abortionist". That's just not what they're called, except by whacked out fundies.

I find it ironic that you both debated against my abortion comments through these statements above, while in the same posts accusing me to the mods of debating abortion:

Originally Posted by Curufin

Quote from Sis:
I want to complain very strongly, moderators, about this side shoot in the Theology thread. If Lief wants to debate abortion, he should go to that thread.

Agreed.

Anyway, I'm sorry you were both bothered by those comments.

My words about abortion were not intended to throw the thread off course. I responded to Eärniel's claim about abortion with one quote and one link, a brief request that she rethink her view because of the risk that she might be supporting genocide, and the sentence, "Your statement about abortion would require too long a response to go into here." I did not present a string of arguments on the subject, and I explicitly stated that I did not intend to.

Just one other thing. It has normally been considered decent, at least in my experience on Entmoot in all debates I've been in before, to mention to someone who appears to be going off-topic that this seems to be what they're doing, rather than going straight to the moderators first with a strong complaint. It's a courtesy that's normally offered, at least so far as I've seen. I assure you that I'll offer it to you, if either of you ever seems to be going off-topic.

Neither of you needs to worry that I'll throw this thread onto an abortion tangent, and neither of you needed to go to the moderators. I never intended to have an abortion debate here, and I won't make one. In the interests of holding to that, I won't be replying to any of this:

Originally Posted by Curufin

I'm with Sis and Eärniel here. They're not people. The potential for life exists, yes, but a human fetus is not human yet. If we're wrong? We're wrong. What if you're wrong? It is possible, you know.

Originally Posted by Sis

Not people. I agree with Earniel.


I've known dozens of doctors who perform abortions. However, I've never met an "abortionist". That's just not what they're called, except by whacked out fundies.

So let's talk about something else.

[Curufin]

I didn't 'go to the moderators.' The only thing I did is what you see.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Arien the Maia

yea! I'm so happy for you! Converts to Catholicism are usually more enthusiastic about the faith, so good for you!

Ohhh, thank-you!

Originally Posted by Arien the Maia

(although I'm a cradle Catholic and I try my best to live by the Church teachings)

From what I've seen of you on Entmoot, you appear to me to be very devout. It's been a great privilege to know you.

Originally Posted by Nautipus

True. I agree entirely, the point I was making was that the Bible is the Word of God, but it isnt a lesson in monetary spending, bullish/bearish, etc., etc.

Mm-hmm. I certainly agree, it's not about economy. It does have a lot of good lessons about how to manage one's own personal finances with integrity, but it never prescribes an economic system.

Originally Posted by Nautipus

Quote:
And the methods by which our modern economies were developed were heinous at best. That these greedy and ruthless techniques came at the end of the Christian era is not surprising.


The overpowering hand of he Church had a hand in much of the good that came about before-hand, but also some of the bad.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Nautipus

Unfortunately, no institutions in which humans are heavily involved can remain pure to their goals for long. Human nature sets a bad precedent, as well as a good one. Why people are surprised that the Church (or any church for that matter) is not exempt is beyond me. Humans are fallible, and everyone is vulnerable to the deceits of Satan, and he tries especially hard to reach those in a religious installment.

I definitely agree that Satan seeks to reach those in power, and particularly Christian religious leaders.

I don't share the common modern condemnation of organizations, institutions and hierarchies. It's true that humans in them can become corrupt. But humans as individuals can too. And just as power in the hands of authorities can corrupt, so can "rights" or power in the hands of the common people corrupt them through that same fixation on what is due them, rather than a spirit of generosity.

I think that if one looks at the history of the Catholic Church, it is apparent that they did continue to preach the same principles throughout their existence. Individuals in the Church, sometimes even including popes and bishops, didn't always practice what they preached. But the Vatican hasn't ever changed a doctrine. It has refined what has always been believed, giving more precise definitions, but it hasn't ever changed anything. To my knowledge, anyway.

Their key doctrines of the present-day Catholic Church can all be found in the writings of the Early Church Fathers, which is one of the great things about Catholicism, to me! It shows such blessed continuity, right from the earliest days of Christianity that we have records for, up to now.

Originally Posted by Nautipus

It was...intimidating.

"Was"? You mean you actually read it? Cool!!!

Originally Posted by Nautipus

Quote:
Just finished pouncing! It was fun. Perhaps a little too time-consuming, though . . . Answering such massive questions thoroughly is a very long process.


And it is very much appreciated.

That is so nice to hear . I've been spending so many hours . . .

By the way, I see from your profile that you live under the sea, but do you happen to be gurgling around the coasts of Southern California? It would be neat to meet this summer, if you live anywhere near.

Originally Posted by Nautipus

I still believe much of what is preached in the Catholic faith, just not all. For example: I dont beleive that I have to confess my sins to an earthly "father", I know I have God's attention, otherwise I wouldnt be able to discern His actions in my life.

Thanks for the example . I agree with you completely that you have God's attention all the time in your life, and can confess to him any time you want.

Have you ever been to a church (or some other place) where you can just sense the peace and love, the experience of God's Spirit there in a special way? Kind of like when Moses approached the burning bush and God said, "Take off your sandals. The earth you are walking on is holy ground"?

God could hear Moses anywhere, and since God is omnipresent, he was right next to Moses all his life. Yet he chose one particular place on the Earth to reveal his presence in a unique way, imparting a specific and powerful blessing. That place became particularly holy, in God's eyes, because of that manifestation.

I think of Confession in that way. God can forgive anywhere, but he imparts forgiveness in a particularly sacred, blessed way during Confession. It can be a more complete way of receiving forgiveness, I think, because it involves hearing words of forgiveness with physical ears as well as receiving with spiritual ears. When you just pray in your head, "Lord, please forgive me," and you feel that he has forgiven you, you receive it with your spirit but you never physically hear it.

When Christ came to Earth and forgave people, they heard his voice physically as well as spiritually, and Christ told his disciples to do the same, "whatever man's sins you retain shall be retained, and whatever man's sins you forgive shall be forgiven." Several other scriptures also show how he passed it on, and the Early Church practiced it. When Christ forgave with his physical voice as well as a spiritual voice to the soul, those he spoke to received in soul, spirit and body, the whole person all together receiving. That's the special blessing of it . And I assure you that my first Confession was the most emotional experience I've ever had after asking for God's forgiveness. Its power just hit me like a mallet.

It's an Incarnational experience, part of our unity with Christ in his Incarnation. He came in flesh as well as spirit and soul, and when he gave forgiveness in the past, and when he gives forgiveness through his representative priests, we receive with physical ears as well as with our spiritual ears, so it comes to our flesh as well as to our spirits. We receive with all we are rather than only part, so it is a gift to the wholeness of our identity, not only part of it. And thus it takes a supernatural form beyond what we'd normally receive through praying in our spirits alone and receiving in our spirits alone. It's flesh to flesh, spirit to spirit and soul to soul all at once, and so it unites us with God's Incarnation.

That's how I understand its blessing, anyway . It doesn't negate asking forgiveness wherever you are, but it provides a supernatural avenue through which Christ's forgiveness can pour in a more complete way. Besides, Christ recommended that we practice it, so it's got to be worthwhile .

Originally Posted by Nautipus

I can see why the doctrinal preservation is very helpful, but anything can be taken to far.

True. But without institutions, there would be anarchy. We need governments, corrupting though power can be, because otherwise, everyone would do their own thing and anarchy would reign. Similarly, without Christianity organized around an institution, everyone would come up with its meaning for themselves and it would come to pieces. In Protestantism, one can see this a lot . . . because everyone figures out what they believe for themselves, the message to the world about what Christianity means is becoming more and more obscure.

[Lief Erikson]

Accidental double-post. Please ignore this thingemybopper.

[Earniel]

Just a few short ones, because I have to start spending my time a few other matters and I think we've reached the point where we're going in circles anyway. This will my last entry here for now.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But it can't explain it from your perspective as you don't believe in Noah, because you can find the same stories all over the place on different continent and around the world.

So? Both birds and bats can fly without having the same origin for flight.

A mutual cause is in many things likely, but not automatical. There are a number of possible hypotheses for the dispersal of flood-myths and the simularities and differences between them, but none of them must absolutely require a supernatural cause.

Your statement about abortion would require too long a response to go into here. But my gosh, rethink it. Human fetuses are human beings. You're talking about human beings. What if you're wrong??? What will you have done by supporting this movement if you are wrong?

I rethink my opinions constantly, although that doesn't mean they actually change. What if I'm wrong, well what of it? If you're right, then I'll face the consequences one day. If you're wrong, then I'm not likely to know ever whether I was right or wrong. What if? What if anything? I can only go on to the best of my knowledge.

Because they don't practice freedom of religion.

Considering the population of Oman consists out of a vast majority (97% or something) muslim, I can see how freedom of religion is not an issue there. But it will in other countries where more differences in belief are.

Please explain how this is. Do you consider us to be valuable because we have extremely complicated brains?

Advanced brains, advanced social structures and self-awareness. Oh, and they're my species, selfishly antropocentric, but there it is.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I want to complain very strongly, moderators, about this side shoot in the Theology thread. If Lief wants to debate abortion, he should go to that thread.

It came up as merely a detail in the discussion, so I don't think that debate is going to take centerstage here. If it does, it should and will be moved to its own thread, but that will be without me since I have no desire right now to go deeper into it.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Mm-hmm. I certainly agree, it's not about economy. It does have a lot of good lessons about how to manage one's own personal finances with integrity, but it never prescribes an economic system.

Well, that depends on whether you see Paul as canonical and value 'the traditions of the Early Church'.

There's no reasonable way around a "prescribed economic system" with Acts 4 32-37. "They had all things common". It was one of the marks of Grace, and it's one extremely clear way to demonstrate that many folks who consider themselves "Christian" in modern times (including the Catholic Church0 are not as interested in following Biblical instructions as in picking which instructions suit them.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

So? Both birds and bats can fly without having the same origin for flight.

A mutual cause is in many things likely, but not automatical. There are a number of possible hypotheses for the dispersal of flood-myths and the simularities and differences between them, but none of them must absolutely require a supernatural cause.

I don't mean to try to prove that they do. I'm just explaining that from a Christian perspective, God does indeed reach out to everyone, and these commonalities would be a sign of it. So you don't need to worry about unclarity of message, even if you might seek alternative explanations for why the message is pretty clear . The parallels show that they're often thinking of or around the same thing. The parallels don't have to be exact, but their number and consistency on so many issues can be seen as the result of hearing the same God. Even if it doesn't have to be.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Considering the population of Oman consists out of a vast majority (97% or something) muslim, I can see how freedom of religion is not an issue there. But it will in other countries where more differences in belief are.

That's not the point. I was just showing how countries without freedom of religion can defend themselves from the destruction people in the West have embraced.

I'll respond to your abortion comments in the Abortion Thread. Not that my response there is going to be at all long, but I don't want to bother anyone here.

You don't need to respond to that response to your post if you don't want to, but I'd like it if you read them, anyway .

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Ohhh, thank-you!

From what I've seen of you on Entmoot, you appear to me to be very devout. It's been a great privilege to know you.

*blushes*. thank you I'm finding this thread very interesting....although I'm just a lurker right now b/c of time constraints...again...blame the kids

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Mm-hmm. I certainly agree, it's not about economy. It does have a lot of good lessons about how to manage one's own personal finances with integrity, but it never prescribes an economic system.

Agreed.

Glad we share some common ground.

I definitely agree that Satan seeks to reach those in power, and particularly Christian religious leaders.

As, I suspect, any Christian would.

I don't share the common modern condemnation of organizations, institutions and hierarchies. It's true that humans in them can become corrupt. But humans as individuals can too. And just as power in the hands of authorities can corrupt, so can "rights" or power in the hands of the common people corrupt them through that same fixation on what is due them, rather than a spirit of generosity.

Agreed, remember my statement: "Humans are fallible..." I didnt mean just in hierarchies, etc. I meant as a whole, humans are vulnerable. And I do believe in haveing a brotherhood of faith to surround yourself in, I just dont share many of the beliefs that Catholocism holds to, and the hierarchy of the Church is, to me, not entirely necessary, but maybe that's preference. It may be better for me to start replying before work rather than after, too tired.

I think that if one looks at the history of the Catholic Church, it is apparent that they did continue to preach the same principles throughout their existence. Individuals in the Church, sometimes even including popes and bishops, didn't always practice what they preached. But the Vatican hasn't ever changed a doctrine. It has refined what has always been believed, giving more precise definitions, but it hasn't ever changed anything. To my knowledge, anyway.

That's fine, Christianity as a whole hasnt either, usually just small fringe groups, like deluded people for instance. Change can be good, but I agree that preservation can be just as good if not better, depending on the circumstances.

Their key doctrines of the present-day Catholic Church can all be found in the writings of the Early Church Fathers, which is one of the great things about Catholicism, to me! It shows such blessed continuity, right from the earliest days of Christianity that we have records for, up to now.

Which is good to hold onto.

"Was"? You mean you actually read it? Cool!!!

That is so nice to hear . I've been spending so many hours . . .

By the way, I see from your profile that you live under the sea, but do you happen to be gurgling around the coasts of Southern California? It would be neat to meet this summer, if you live anywhere near.

Yeppers, tackled that monster.

Unfortunately, no.Think Eastern US, but I'm landlocked, which has me rather miserable at the moment. It would be neat to meet, though. I've a list of 'Mooters I'd like to meet, and you're definately on it.

Thanks for the example. I agree with you completely that you have God's attention all the time in your life, and can confess to him any time you want.

Have you ever been to a church (or some other place) where you can just sense the peace and love, the experience of God's Spirit there in a special way? Kind of like when Moses approached the burning bush and God said, "Take off your sandals. The earth you are walking on is holy ground"?

God could hear Moses anywhere, and since God is omnipresent, he was right next to Moses all his life. Yet he chose one particular place on the Earth to reveal his presence in a unique way, imparting a specific and powerful blessing. That place became particularly holy, in God's eyes, because of that manifestation.

I think of Confession in that way. God can forgive anywhere, but he imparts forgiveness in a particularly sacred, blessed way during Confession. It can be a more complete way of receiving forgiveness, I think, because it involves hearing words of forgiveness with physical ears as well as receiving with spiritual ears. When you just pray in your head, "Lord, please forgive me," and you feel that he has forgiven you, you receive it with your spirit but you never physically hear it.

When Christ came to Earth and forgave people, they heard his voice physically as well as spiritually, and Christ told his disciples to do the same, "whatever man's sins you retain shall be retained, and whatever man's sins you forgive shall be forgiven." Several other scriptures also show how he passed it on, and the Early Church practiced it. When Christ forgave with his physical voice as well as a spiritual voice to the soul, those he spoke to received in soul, spirit and body, the whole person all together receiving. That's the special blessing of it . And I assure you that my first Confession was the most emotional experience I've ever had after asking for God's forgiveness. Its power just hit me like a mallet.

It's an Incarnational experience, part of our unity with Christ in his Incarnation. He came in flesh as well as spirit and soul, and when he gave forgiveness in the past, and when he gives forgiveness through his representative priests, we receive with physical ears as well as with our spiritual ears, so it comes to our flesh as well as to our spirits. We receive with all we are rather than only part, so it is a gift to the wholeness of our identity, not only part of it. And thus it takes a supernatural form beyond what we'd normally receive through praying in our spirits alone and receiving in our spirits alone. It's flesh to flesh, spirit to spirit and soul to soul all at once, and so it unites us with God's Incarnation.

That's how I understand its blessing, anyway . It doesn't negate asking forgiveness wherever you are, but it provides a supernatural avenue through which Christ's forgiveness can pour in a more complete way. Besides, Christ recommended that we practice it, so it's got to be worthwhile .

I knew you would use that example, saw ya loadin up for that one, lol.

I'll have to respond in full when I'm not so exhausted, maybe I'll be coherent then. Saturday maybe.

True. But without institutions, there would be anarchy. We need governments, corrupting though power can be, because otherwise, everyone would do their own thing and anarchy would reign. Similarly, without Christianity organized around an institution, everyone would come up with its meaning for themselves and it would come to pieces. In Protestantism, one can see this a lot . . . because everyone figures out what they believe for themselves, the message to the world about what Christianity means is becoming more and more obscure.

Even Protestants are arranged into an institution, just loosely. I dont belong to a denomination, and I despise the fractureing that comes from it. It can make for a very awkward (unnecessarily so) situation that accomplishes little.



(I had to delete ALOT of smilies to make this pstable, btw)

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Even Protestants are arranged into an institution, just loosely.

No, they're not. And there are a whole lot of Christians that are neither Protestant nor Catholic.