Here's a sidebar that was printed in the Sunday paper today (not online so I can't link to it).

A New Stance on Communion

"Archbishop Harry Flynn has told all parishes in the Archdiocese that anywone wearing a rainbow-colored sash should be denied communion. The move, prompted by a directive from the Vatican, is a reversal of past policy. It is aimed at supporters of the Rainbow Sash Alliance USA, a group of Catholics active in the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered community. They have worn the sashes to Pentecost services at the Cathedral to mark the anniversary of the group's founding."

Even if I hadn't already gotten away from going to the services, this exclusionary tactic might have prompted me to do so. No, I'm not a member of that group as if it makes any difference. But to single out a group for exclusion is reprehensible.

I hope you don't mind that I moved this to its own board under a more appropriate topic. I also titled the board with the formal name of the "directive from the Vatican" that Archbishop Flynn* was reluctant to use.

The decree of excommunication was one of the last actions of Cardinal Ratzinberger as head of the Inqusition (or to use the 21st century titles, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith) before the conclave that elevated him to Pope Benedict XVI.

*Googling, I found that in the past there have been individual churches and dioceses that have barred sash wearers from recieving Communion, but Archbishop Flynn specifically assured them that it would not happen in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis. Unfortunately he was overruled.

I am against preventing someone from receiving communion as that is between you and God. However, I also recognize that a church, at some level, has to say, "Hold on here--your splinter faction holds decidedly different beliefs than us. Shouldn't you go off and form a different church or something?"

TomM,

... of Cardinal Ratzinberger ...

his (old) name is Ratzinger. (Pick, pick, pick.)

MikeC,

I don't know enough about what exactly this group represents, but the articles explains ... a group of Catholics active in the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered community.... That doesn't mean they're actively practising it.

(Which would be the reason to tell them to open their own church. But even then, the problem is that they usually don't want to leave the church which is their spiritual home. They want a bit of acceptance [and isn't God about love first? "Man wasn't made for the laws, but the laws for Man", and that kind of stuff?] and maybe a reform of what they think is a wrong/too narrow interpretation of the bible.) (Sidenote: Martin Luther and Calvin and other reformers didn't want to open their own shop. They wanted to reform the catholic church where it had left christian values and practices in the behaviour of the clergy and the dogmas justifiying it behind. Only when the Pope and Rome refused to listen, did they say "It's better to start new and clean, than go down with the ammoral practices.")

Even if the christians with the sashes group are practicing gays, a big important point in the gospels is that Jesus has no problems of associating with "sinners" and outcasts - samaritans, quislings (Tax collectors for the romans like matthew were regarded as collaboreuts by the other jews), prostitutes, and sick people (which were sick because they or their parents had sinned, according to popular belief at that time.)
At one point, the pharisees confront him about that, and he answers: "Not the healthy need a physician, but the sick ones."

So the communion shouldn't be the point to seperate people from God.

No, I don't think the point of communion is to separate people from God. I'm just saying that the Catholic Church's policy is that homosexuality is a sin. At a certain point, I think the faction in the church that opposes this might realize that both they and the Catholic Church might better be served by a schism. But I understand their reluctance to do so.

I don't think anyone is "better served" by a schism. A schism is proof that on one side or the other, and probably on both sides, in different aspects, someone placed an unthinking and flawed dogma ahead of the communion of the church.

Constanze-- I've been reading too many humor sites that compare the new Pope (formerly Joseph Ratzinger) to Cliff Clavin (played by John Ratzenberger). I did catch the mistake before I hit the "Post" button, and thought I corrected it. Feh!

But at what point do we draw the line. Let's say, I'm a member of the Catholic Church who thinks that homosexuality should not be declared a sin. Okay. Let's say I think that Mary wasn't a virgin. Okay. How far do we keep going before a schism is the only alternative? Can I be a Catholic and deny Jesus as God? Deny that Jesus is the only way to God? Deny that Jesus even died on the cross?

I didn't say that it never becomes necessary. I just feel that admitting that it has become necessary is admitting that somewhere something has been lost. And that is not "better."

But to single out a group for exclusion is reprehensible.

Oh please... The Catholic stance on homosexuality is it is wrong. If you disagree, then don't be Catholic! The Catholic Church is what it is, and shouldn't have to start saying things like homosexuality are okay just because it's become socially acceptable.

I am not Catholic, I will never be Catholic, but there is nothing reprehensible about the Catholic Church disallowing participation by people who don't follow the doctrines of Catholic Church.

I agree, regardless of your feelings on the issue of homosexuality. This is a catholic stance, for a catholic organization. They do have the right to do what they want to do...

The reason it is worrisome is not that the Vatican is cracking down on those who are in direct opposition to some of their policies, but even on those who are only questioning the whys of some of those policies. People who may be quite content to follow the policies as long as they are explained. The religion that gave us Sts. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Ignatius Loyola and the Society of Jesus (aka the Jesuits) should recognize that a questioning and reasoning mind is not necessarily the same thing as a rebellious one.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/05/10/editors_ouster_worries_catholic_publications/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News

But it is also the same religion that excomminicated Galileo for questioning the dogma that the Universe revolves around the Earth. (and therefore Rome and the Pope).

But to single out a group for exclusion is reprehensible.

Oh please... The Catholic stance on homosexuality is it is wrong. If you disagree, then don't be Catholic! The Catholic Church is what it is, and shouldn't have to start saying things like homosexuality are okay just because it's become socially acceptable.

I am not Catholic, I will never be Catholic, but there is nothing reprehensible about the Catholic Church disallowing participation by people who don't follow the doctrines of Catholic Church.

But I think that the point that these people are making is that the catholic church lets all kinds of people who do things that they condemn. They have many members who use birth control (which the church says is a sin) they have divorced members (even though the church says that divorce is a sin and any remarriage is adultery). They have members who are pro-choice (the catholic church says that abortion is a sin) They have members who are pro-depth penalty; they even have members who are elected officials who have voted to support the death penalty.

So you would just like the church to be more consistent?

Well since I came into this late (I took the last two days off) a lot of good conversation has taken place but it seems like one thign hasn't been discussed.

That is that relgion is about controlling a person. Telling them how to think, how to feel, how to act, what to believe and how to behave.

Anything that questions or threatens that control is considered a sin and evil and something to be thrown away or destroyed. It doesnt matter which faith or religion you belong to in this regard. Or don't belong to for that matter as many of they adherents of the various religions behave like if you don't measure up to their standards then you are a heathen or unworthy of their attention.

The point I am trying to get across is that it doesnt matter what faith or denomination you are talking about they are all set up to try and control their members lives. And interfere in anyone else who will not stand up to them and fight for freedom.

And yes I am grumpy today thank you very much.

I believe that religion is controlling, yes, by its very nature. If you do not want to be controlled by God, then I would advise leaving most organized religions.

I did leave religion unfortunately that still does not mean that religion has left me alone. As a matter of fact if people find i that i am not a religious person they (for the most part) begin to try and tell me way that is wrong and why i should believe the way they do and why i am not a good person without religion. (see my entry earlier about loosing my religion).

Which the reason why I'm grumpy has to do with all of this. I ran into my ex-girlfriend today at lunch. (The one that found relgion and now treats me like i am the scum of the earth because i wouldnt bow down and ko0wtow to her and her husband's religion and repent and beg forgiveness and all that jazz, again see my earlier entry for more details)

I have no idea why she was at the wendys but i was there and saw her and tried to be polite and walked over to a table near her and said hi. She immediately jumped up and ran out of the restraunt like i had tried to assault her or something leaving her half eaten lunch on the table. In front of a typical lunch crowd. Rather unpleasant. At least she didnt try to mace me or something.

A little while later i got a call from her husband my exbest friend telling me to stop stalking her an not even trying to listen to me explain it was a coincidence. He said that a person like me didnt know the truth, among other things.

So when i got back online and saw this conversation i was not exactly calm and centered. Fortunately I have had enough time to get home be in the loving embrace of my family and meditate a bit to focus again.

But as i have said they (any religion you want to choose) are not content with merely controllling their own people. They will control anyone and everyone's lives if they get a chance adn that is wrong. You (the generic universal you), the government or your church (not specific) do not have the right to tell me (again the universal nonspecific me)how to live my life. As long as what i do only involves consenting adults who are doing so of their free will and we are not actively harming or interefereing in someone else's life.

I mean take homosexuality as an example. No-one has the right to tell a full grown adult that loves and cares about another full grown adult and is involved in a relationship with that adult that they cannot do so. No excuse is valid, especially not saying my god told me you cannot do so because he/she or it feels it is wrong. Your advice can be the same for that If you don't like a homosexual relationship don't get involved in one, but don't stop someone who wants one from doing so. Unfortunately too many religious nuts cannot keep their noses out of others lives.

Maybe I'm not as calm and focused as I thought so I am going to log off before i start getting this post luigi size and webber annoying.

Suffice to say that personal freedom in my book is more valuable and more important than anything even god.

That is where our viewpoints differ. I believe that I must sacrifice elements of my personal freedom to worship my almighty God. It all goes back to perspectives.

R,

But as i have said they (any religion you want to choose) are not content with merely controllling their own people. They will control anyone and everyone's lives if they get a chance adn that is wrong...

While I can understand your bitterness from your bad experiences with organized religion; and while there are fanatics, fundies and power-interested people twisting the ideas to their purpose potentially in every organization (even a bowling club can turn bad when the wrong guys take control, and make live unpleasant for the others) - not every church is as bad as the catholic church, which really goes to one of the more extreme ends in terms of controlling people and focusing on forbidding things instead of other more important things. It's probably hard to believe, since most of the non-catholic churches are splinters of the "make-your-own-denomination-by-directly-interpreting-the-bible, call-yourself-priest-without-any-serious-studying, but-dont-forget-to-thump-the-pulpit-alot" variety, but over here, the protestant church is more relaxed about things. (or the eastern religions - shintoism and buddhism don't have this sex obsession the west has. Though shintoism is a bit hard to get into... )

Ok I am calm now. Focused. Yes it does seem our viewpoints differ on that one major sticking point.

As I see it god (and the gods in general) are an abstract concept invented by humanity. A falsehood that does not exist in reality other than what each person makes and brings to the concept. So what difference does it make if I pray to a lamp or a cross they are equally meaningful or meaningless depending on how you want to call it. Its a joke to try and declare yourself (universal you there again) morally or ethically superior to someone else just because you follow a certain religion or behave a certain way. I mean if you called yourself a jedi and tried to practice the code of the jedi you still arnt going to be lifting any rocks with a wave of the hand. But God, The devil, sin all this is part of the human need to have somethign they can blame their failures on other than themselves.

In the begining humanity had no understanding of the universe around themselves and where afraid. And they looked around themselves and felt small by the big world. So they created bigger creatures and they called them gods. And the ones who named the gods called themselves priests. And the priests saw to it that they received the best foods, and the most nubile virgins and the best spoils of war without having to fight themselves. And thus religion was born.
(yes that was typed firmly tongue in cheek but is not far off from how i see the creation of religion.)

Constanze yes I am a bit bitter, I have not exactly had the best of relations with the church. And oh yes I know that any organization can go bad (I have been involved in a few. A star trek fanclub, the wargaming/rpg club, etc..) if you let it. Sometimes it is better just to fold up shop and call it done than to try and pretend that there is nothign wrong with the organization. Unfortunately what options does the church have? They cannot exactly fold up shop as they would call that letting the devil win. They can't easily let the folks who disagree with established dogma take themselves and go off and found their own church as that is letting their subjects go and reducing their powerbase. So they try to strangle any creativity, quash any rebellion and discourage any questioning.

I guess the catholics are among the worst when it comes to human rights abuses, but many of the PROTESTant (so called because they originally where protesting against the way the catholic church was running things) churches are pretty close. Almost like they want to be the catholic church.

I meant the protestant churches over here ... which are really called "Evangelish", from evangelium, the good news. Since it's based on the Bible (NT) and not dogma, saints or popes. While there are different groupings (I'm evangelish-lutheran, my mother is evangelish-reformed), mostly, we tend to think of just catholic and evangelisch as the two denominations (and since they're the semi-state churches).

Try joining a nondem church or an independent church. A lot less bureaucracy.

...Sometimes it is better just to fold up shop and call it done than to try and pretend that there is nothign wrong with the organization. Unfortunately what options does the church have? They cannot exactly fold up shop as they would call that letting the devil win. They can't easily let the folks who disagree with established dogma take themselves and go off and found their own church as that is letting their subjects go and reducing their powerbase. So they try to strangle any creativity, quash any rebellion and discourage any questioning.

I think that's a bit too black and white. A church always has the option of reform. That doesn't mean the devil wins; it means that fallible humans have interpreted God's word wrongly. (You can even say the devil led them astray, if you like).

Mike, the problem isn't the bureaucracy. It's the mindset of the people inside. E.g. I can't remember that Hell was mentioned in my normal religion class or confirmation lessons, and so I never worried about preaching to other people ... until I went to the US and went to a small, local church with a very fundie interpretation of the bible. Almost one year of intense preaching convinced me (hey, I was just a teen then) that those people who don't believe in Jesus won't come into Heaven when they die. (And the though of being seperated forever from your friends and family is scary enough, I think, without imaging fire and flames, too.)
So when I returned, I preached and was insufferable for several months, until I relaxed again and saw things from more normal perspective.

I believe that people who don't believe in Jesus won't come into Heaven when they die. I don't think it's a "fundie" interpretation, but a fairly literal one--what does Jesus mean when he says that he is the only way into Heaven?

Well, just for starters, he could mean "I'm dragging you up here with me whether you ask for it or not," rather than "Many will enter, few will win."

My answer has two parts. First, christianity can be the most exclusive or most inclusive religion, depending on where you put your own slant when interpreting the different views in the Bible (and in the traditions of Bible interpretations, too.)
If you believe that the most important part is when Jesus says "No one comes to the Father except through me"/ "I'm the way.." (and the dozen of verses that support this view) - then the most important thing would be to preach to everybody about Jesus so they'll get their chance to Heaven, too. This is the roman catholic/ evangelist (Mormon) view, where missionaries are important, and there's no salvation outside.

The other interpretation is that the most important message of the Bible is about love and when Jesus preached or showed his love for everybody.
If you follow the dozens of verses which support this view (right now, the verse is on the tip of my tongue), then the most important thing in your life isn't badgering your neighbors to see the light; or worrying about other people's sins. It's to love and accept yourself, and be a nice person yourself (and this is hard enough to leave no energy about the neighbors sex life).
Then christianity is inclusive, because everybody who is a nice person - even if he's never heard of Jesus - will end up in Heaven.

Both views are supported by the Bible, and discouraged.

The fundie part is where the stress is put. Generally, fundies (of whatever religion) have all the answers down pat, without any worries or shades of grey or new problems requiring thinking; everybody outside their exclusive circle is damned (which makes them neglectable); and they are more concerned with keeping the laws than being good. Those are some of the characteristics which make fundies dangerous and birds of the same feather, whether they're christian, hinduist, buddhist or islamic.

Real religion should acknowledge that for grown-up people living in a real world with complex issues that there are never simple black and white answers, and that morality doesn't come in stone for people of flesh and blood; that moral decisions should be made carefully for each situation (which isn't the same as allowing everything!) etc.
Also, it shouldn't rely on a mystic moment of oneness with God - some mystics waited all their lives for that! - to transform a normal being into one that can live a perfect life because now he's been reborn and has Jesus in his heart; because that's unlikely to happen in real life. What happens if most people don't feel that, or have to wait too long? Either they delude themselves into feeling sth., or they leave in disappointment. Instead, religion/churches shouldn't be afraid to recognize that we were given brains to use them, and that we can develop self-discipline - if we acknowledge that christians are humans, too, and therefore allowed to be not perfect.

Well when it comes to nondenominationals I hold them more suspicious than the established religions. My brother in law is a preacher at one (and he actually went to school for it was he is a LSW and preacher for the state prisons) and he and his folk work to exclude homosexuals from basically every aspect of thigns. If someone is openly homosexual they would not be allowed entry. Fortunately for them they are in chillicothe which does not have a significant openly homosexual population.

The church my mother in law goes to (when she doesnt go to her son's church) has recently decided that everyone in it should get their concealed carry liscence. The official stance is for the safety of the members. Unofficially (according to my MIL) it is due to the upcoming trouble times. Kinda scary.

"Many will enter few will win." Rahter interesting way of looking at religion.

Christ's own words, R. Narrow is the way, and only a few will find the path...

Now, I agree, Constanze, that true faith requires an element of questioning to it. My pastor encourages people to ask questions and ask for support for what our church believes in. I also agree that a legalistic interpretation of Christianity is also flawed.

However, I disagree as to your basic gist that there are no simple black and white answers. Heaven knows that I get a lot of flak from my friends for examining both sides of my issues and I will even say, yes, a lot of issues in the world today are very hard to reconcile with no easy answers. But at a certain level, I think it is essential in the Christian faith to say, "Yes, Christianity does bring clear answers to some issues. We know there is only one God. We know that our sins are forgiven. Etc."

I also disagree to the interpretation that you provide where simply being a nice person is the way to enter Heaven. Christ places a huge emphasis one one's deeds, certainly, more so than a legalist, going to church type approach. But nowhere in the Bible do I really find evidence that says "everybody who is a nice person, regardless of what they believe of Jesus, will go to Heaven."

Matthew, interesting interpretation. But how does that explain the people who are turned away, as Christ alludes to in the Gospels, and which are specifically mentioned in Revelation?

Mike, I would need specific references to properly discuss it, as I'm not willing to treat this issue with a typical Religious Musings lack of rigor.

The purpose of excommunication is what we would call an intervention. It's for when someone cannot recognize their sin, despite all other attempts to reconcile them with the church, that the only solution left is to deny them communion.
It's not a punishment, the aim is to reconcile them with the Body of Christ.

Now this group proclaims in their mission,

---

Quote:

In wearing the Rainbow Sash we proclaim that we are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people who embrace and celebrate our sexuality as a sacred gift.
In wearing the Rainbow Sash we call the Roman Catholic Church:
to honor our wisdom and experience;
to enter into public dialogue with us;
to work with us for justice and understanding.
Together, let us seek a new appreciation of human sexuality in all of its diversity and beauty.

---

Okay, Revelation 20, "The Dead Are Judged." By what standard is Jesus judging these people on?

Funny how the Church will enact this "intervention" regarding homosexuals, but not child-molesting priests.

Well, tell the Rainbow Alliance to start molesting then.

(That was a joke.)

Mike,

.. But at a certain level, I think it is essential in the Christian faith to say, "Yes, Christianity does bring clear answers to some issues. ..

I didn't say there aren't any black and white issues. I said that one characteristic of fundies (and sadly, many churches) is the belief that all answers are black and white and have been answered forever.

... But nowhere in the Bible do I really find evidence that says "everybody who is a nice person, regardless of what they believe of Jesus, will go to Heaven." ...

I presented these two views as different approaches to what the central message of Jesus is - believing in Jesus; or practising love. These are the extreme end of the spectrum. But both can support their view in the NT.

How about the scene when Jesus divides the people into the right and left side? He divides them according to their deeds "You feed me when I was hungry, you clothed me when I was naked, you took me in when I was homeless..." He doesn't say "You believed in me - go to the right, you didn't believe in me, so go to the left, although you were a nice person."

I've always believed the point of Jesus' message there was that people who believe in Jesus SHOULD and WILL do godly deeds, such as caring for others. I don't look at it as two alternative paths, but rather a If One, Then the Other, type approach.

Mike, I'm looking at Revelation 20, specifically verses 11-15 (which I think are the ones you meant).

(11) Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. (12) And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. (13) The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. (14) Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. (15) If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Saying that "each person was judged according to what he had done" certainly seems to me that, based on this passage alone, a plausible case could be made that belief never even enters the equation. We're also not told here what it is that the people whose names are written in the book of life have done, so it's possible that the entire process is indeed quite arbitrary.

Mike,

so what happens to those people who haven't heard of Jesus (or who've turned away from organized religion), but still do good deeds? One group of Christians say that they'll end up in Hell (or not in Heaven) since belief is most important.

The other group of Christians say that if they showed the love, than that's important (that doesn't mean earning it like brownie points, but showing love in deeds, not in words.)

Matt,

I was thinking of the parable Jesus himself told in one of the gospels where he divides people right and left.

Or to refer more to the topic: Is it more important to follow the law - interpreted by the catholic church - that the type of sexual relationship is important? Or is it more important that two people have found a loving relationship, but they happen to be homos? ("Man was not made for the law, but the law was made for man" is in the gospels. But also "Do not think I've come to demolish the laws, but to fulfill them. Heaven and Earth shall pass before one small letter falls from the law.")

Matthew, that's a reasonable interpretation. I'm just trying to see how you personally reconcile that with Christ's comment about Himself being the only way to God. Do you take it to mean that the people who are selected for Heaven "go through" Christ, regardless of their beliefs? I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I just want to get a handle on what you believe.

Constanze, I take Jesus at His word when He says He is the only way to Heaven. Not being God, I don't know what happens to people who live exemplary lives without believing in Him. I can say that I believe that one cannot enter Heaven without a belief and acceptance of Christ.

On the flip side, that also means that I believe a belief in Christ is FAR more important than the law.

Mike, I'm going to dance around the topic of what I believe, because as far as I'm concerned at the moment I *have* no beliefs, only a few hunches and hopes. But yes, your statement is essentially correct. Posit the following:

1) The Incarnation and resurrection occurred.
2) This is the *only* mechanism by which fallen humanity is redeemed.

It then follows that whoever is redeemed is done so by this act of God's incarnation, death, and resurrection as a human, whether they know it or not. The problem then becomes one of determining selection criteria, i.e. what determines who gets in and who doesn't? I personally don't quite buy that there are going to be provisos on the whole thing -- I can't quite reconcile that with the idea of an infinitely merciful deity who went to the immense bother of incarnating and dying as a human. Maybe that's a personal failing of mine, but I just don't see it.

Well since I don't believe in and totally reject the divinity of jesus that resolves that issue with me. The actions of the person are the sole criteria of entrance into valhalla, heaven, happy hunting grounds, hooters or whatever else you want to call paradise.

All people are born totally innocent and clean slate of any "sins", crimes or bad karma. They accumulate them as they go on and what a christian may call a sin the universe may not (and many "sins" I don't call a sin). That is the selection criteria.

The Riddle of Epicurus
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Sorry I grabbed the wrong quote out of my file. I got these quotes from an excellent website called www.positiveatheism.org

The following quotes are from Saint Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica. They are both rather interesting and I present them for consideration with no further editorializing.

If forgers and malefactors are put to death by the secular power, there is much more reason for excommunicating and even putting to death one convicted of heresy.
-- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell.
-- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

Of course the one thing about posting quotes is that it shows we can post quotes and that people said these things.

Now I had almost forgotten about this person. And since his crimes are part of what we are talking about I thought I had better look him up. At least he did the right thing and resigned his position before he could do anymore harm.

I am of course talking about The Rev. Chan Chandler, 33 of the East Waynesville Baptist Church who ,it is claimed, told his congregation last fall to vote for bush or leave. Also he told the deacons that the church was going to be more political and anyone who didnt like it could leave. This appears to have split the church into a schism.

"A lightning rod on a church implies a certain lack of faith."

I just can't believe, though, Matthew, that there are NO criteria at all for entrance into Heaven. At a certain point, how do we separate, say, the apostle Paul and Adolf Hitler from ending up in the same place after death?

R, I would classify God as able and not willing. To eliminate evil would require a termination of free will or a destruction of humanity as we know it. That time will eventually come, as delineated in Revelation, but God is allowing evil to happen before that time in order to give us time to repent.

And the Rev. Chandler is an idiot. But you knew that already, didn't you?

Mike, who says it's up to us to decide who gets to be sent where? It may be that there are selection criteria, but they're beyond our ken. It may be that there aren't any. Or it may be that they're exactly as you describe. But in any case, why is it of human concern at all?

Or try this one on for size: if the soul's not mortal, then why should its chance for redemption end at the death of the body?

Luigi Novi: Because most of them admit the error of their ways, and do penance. Excommunication would be for the priest who thinks raping children is okay, and refuses to change his mind on the subject regardless of what his superiors tell him. Sinners who recongize their sin need the grace of the sacraments as much as anyone else.

R: Out of context statements made by a 12th century theologian? You show your ignorance.

I refuse to believe that God would not tell people what they need to do to achieve salvation.

Pesti I show my ignorance hmmm. I'll let that one go. For now. And I didn't think they where out of context given that this conversation is about excommunication and someone earlier had mentioned (or was that on the lost and found religion thread *shrug*) how the saints in heaven could look upon the sinners in hell.

Why would ridding the world of evil be trampling free will? Good people still would be able to freely go about and do their normal activities without the threat of evil inerfereing or tempting them. See the problem I have with that riddle or the concept is that evil is in the eye of the beholder for the most part. My ex-friends call me evil for rejecting their religion and basically the way i live my life. I call them misguided. What I call evil is stuff like rapists, murderer's, child molesters (including priests as it is their duty to be above all of that and should be held to a higher standard if they are going to accept the calling) etc...

Yes he was an idiot. I don't like it when a church or preacher uses their position to bully people around or otherwise enter the political arena. I know churches and relgion have tried to manipulate or control politics for as long as the two have existed but it seems like some of the churches are getting more blatent now. I feel like if a church wants to enter the political arena it should give up its tax exempt status and all other special priviledges. (Around here churches are exempt from property and a few other taxes)

I'm not entirely sure how to eliminate murderers, rapists, liars, molesters, without eliminating free will or preventing all those people from being born or something like that.

R: In the 12th century, Heresy was the equivalent of treason. Alternatively, in your case, denying equality of the sexes, races et cetra. The Social Order was built upon the theory of subsidiary (The Concept that Rulers and the Ruled had duties towards one another and to God) and authority, so denying God meant denying the King. Second, the concept of leinency was non-existent. Crime was punished (rehabilitation and corrections did not exist until the 19th century) by death, public ridicule, banishment, or family revenge. 1 This type of statement needs to be evaluated in the light of the customs of the time and the existing alternatives, not our standards of human rights. The gulf between humans of different ages is the level of education and technology, both of which were passed on from previous generations. Do not mock the shoulders of the giants you stand upon.

The second quote is consistent with scripture. Again, being persecuted for your faith probably has some causal relationship to your feelings towards infidels.

I am not prepared to have a debate over the nature of free will. However, Evil is not a force like Gravity, or Weak Nuclear. Evil is like cold or darkness, the lack of what ought to be there. Free will is then not the choice to do what is good or evil, but rather the choice to do good or to not do good. Second, God's providence extends to evil doers and they serve his will and are part of his plan. Even the worse man is still capable of redemption, and the chief of sinners can still become St. Paul.

Matt,

Thomas of Aquin was one of the influential thinkers in church history, so R isn't showing ignorance (rather, you showed it with your statement...)

In the 12th century, Heresy was the equivalent of treason. Alternatively, in your case, denying equality of the sexes, races et cetra. The Social Order was built upon the theory of subsidiary (The Concept that Rulers and the Ruled had duties towards one another and to God) and authority, so denying God meant denying the King. Second, the concept of leinency was non-existent. Crime was punished (rehabilitation and corrections did not exist until the 19th century) by death, public ridicule, banishment, or family revenge. 1 This type of statement needs to be evaluated in the light of the customs of the time and the existing alternatives, not our standards of human rights. The gulf between humans of different ages is the level of education and technology, both of which were passed on from previous generations. Do not mock the shoulders of the giants you stand upon.

The old apologetic issue again.

First, the Church (I'll talk mostly about the catholic church here, since its history is the common history for all the other christian "branches", and because it's documented) says it proclaims and adheres to universal truths. You can't have universal truths which are indepent of contemporary morals and excuse wrongdoings with "those times were different".

Secondly, other societies at that time - and before that - knew well about leniency (the Hammurabi laws specified - like the Old Testament punishments - possible money fines instead of death.)
The Arabic kingdoms, as well as the moslem governors of Spain, practiced tolerance for other religions unknown in the christian kingdoms - same rights for Jews, Christians, and moslems, as long as they paid their taxes.

Thirdly, often the christian societies even went backwards on previously established rights - the most infamous example is the re-introduction of torture as method of examaniation in connection with a trial. The civil kings had abolished torture and followed the (non-christian at that time) principle of Roman law (in dubio pro reo et al.) Then, in the Middle Ages, the church allowed torture in connection with the Witches hunt. (And don't apologize that the belief in the power of witches was contemporary for those times because of lack of education - in the first centuries, christians were forbidden by the church to believe that witches or the devil had any power, since Jesus resurrection meant that the devil had lost all power. God was more powerful, and anybody who practised witchcraft was deluding themselves, a bit loony, but not dangerous. Then this doctrine was changed to the exact opposite - witches were powerful enough to fly through the air, damage the harvest, curse cows etc.)

... Again, being persecuted for your faith probably has some causal relationship to your feelings towards infidels.

You mean, it allows you to disobey Jesus when he says to love those who hate you, to turn the other cheek, to forgive your brother not 7, but 7 times 7 times etc.? While it's an understable human feeling, christians are expected to rise above their feelings in other matters, too (like sexuality.) So while it may be understandable, it's not excusable or allowable.

Luigi Novi: Because most of them [child-molesting priests] admit the error of their ways, and do penance.

Excuse me???? Wherever did you hear this? Are we talking about the same thing here? All I have heard are the priests who are silently transferred to another diocese when the news become public; and prominent bishops who attack the victims as "disturbed trouble-causers". I've heard of emotionally wrecked young men who said that all they wanted wasn't a million dollar compensation, but an excuse from the priest and the church that what was done to them was wrong. None such apology was ever given.
And these priests aren't investigated by the church, either. They just continue in another community, covered by their bishops and ultimately, Rome.

Mike,

Constanze, I take Jesus at His word when He says He is the only way to Heaven...

You still didn't answer why you don't take Jesus at his words when he says that showing love is important. What about the parable where he divides people according to their behaviour? He doesn't mention belief in him personally.

Ok I see where we are goign with that. I was on a time limit earlier so probably didn't make myself clear.

I agree that free will is a thorny subject in the aspect of religion. In that each person has the capacity within themselves to do good or evil actions but is it from themselves or is it from god? (with my POV it is totally in the human's hands)It is the definition of "evil" that I find difficult though. From a religious standpoint it appears that evil is a force ,like gravity or light, to an extent at least in the early days of religion. But the modern definition of "evil" ranges from the serious crimes (murder, rape, etc...) to merely disagreeing with established dogma (which my exfriend defined evil as). I was trying to make the point earlier that if god exists then as he is god he should be able to do something about the true evil.

Yes I was aware that heresy in the 12th centruy was somewhat more serious than what it is today. But there are those among the christian taliban who would say that heresy is heresy and should be treated as such no matter at what time it is. See much christian dogma is still rooted in the 12th century. It does not recognize the great advances in human rights, or science or medicine as it is a threat to the control of the dogma. In the modern world religious attitudes towards dissenters and questioners should not be excommunication and silencing of any who speak out, but an honest and intelligent dialogue. But that will never happen as long as relgion treats things as we are right and they are wrong. Life is not black and white but shades of gray.

So basically no you cannot eliminate evil as it is a part of human nature, we all have to live with it and do the best we can to control those internal impulses. It is a concept and most evil is in the eye of the beholder. There are some actions that are so bad that almost everyone you meet will agree they are evil (the aforementioned rape, murder, molestation, etc.) but minor stuff (disagreeing with dogma, not being baptised, dunking vs sprinkling, workign on sabbath) that are not evil in and of themselves just from a certain point of view. And I have to disagree that evil is nothing. It is a concept that does not exist until actons are taken. The same way good is a concept. Actions are what makes good or evil. If you just sit there and have no affect on the world around you you are neither good no evil. But a person is always taking action even if they do nothing so a person is always doing good, or evil, to one degree or another.

And as for the second quote i would find it quite malevolent or disgusting to believe the scripture would have somethign as insultign as people enjoying the torture of the souls in hell. Or is it one of those ego thigns like look how much worse you could have had it?

I believe Aquinas to be wrong on that quote and I would like to look at his Scriptural references.

Constanze, to be absolutely fair, Jesus, in his parable in Matthew 25, does not say "You didn't believe in me, but you did really good things." He says "Come, you who are blessed by my Father...for I was hungry and you gave me something to eat." I interpret that passage to mean, "You are believers in my name and because you were that, you behaved righteously and helped people and did good works." Because in John 14, Jesus says "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching." All true believers SHOULD be doing the good works described in Matthew 25.

You interpret that passage one way. But you don't know if that is right. Other interpretations are just as valid and bourne out by other references.

MikeC, why can't you read the argument in John the other way around? What if it proceeds in the opposite direction -- keeping the commandments, knowingly or unknowingly, demonstrates love for him, whether the keeper of the commandments is aware of it or not? (This is starting to become a rather tortured "Aslan vs. Tash" argument, which C.S. Lewis never did satisfy me with, but I'm just sort of throwing it out.)

You were asking me for why I interpreted it that way, and I told you. That's all I can do.

Thank you Constanze. Saint Thomas Aquinas is sort of the george washington, abraham lincoln and thomas jefferson of the old school catholic church. Which is still basically the modern catholic church only without the latin. So his teachings and his thoughts are very strong indicators of catholic dogma and by extension much of christianity as the catholic church is the parent company for all the rest of christianity inc.

The purpose of excommunication is what we would call an intervention. It's for when someone cannot recognize their sin, despite all other attempts to reconcile them with the church, that the only solution left is to deny them communion.
It's not a punishment, the aim is to reconcile them with the Body of Christ.

You make Excommunication sound like Amish "shunning." It was much more than this when the Catholic Church had the power of the state behind it and could mount crusades against the heretics. There are those who say that if the Church still had the power, it would still be using force. I don't know about that, but the actions of other contemporary religious groups, both in the Middle East and here in the US do show that even toay, religions are not immune to Lord Acton's dictum.

so what happens to those people who haven't heard of Jesus (or who've turned away from organized religion), but still do good deeds? One group of Christians say that they'll end up in Hell (or not in Heaven) since belief is most important.

The other group of Christians say that if they showed the love, than that's important (that doesn't mean earning it like brownie points, but showing love in deeds, not in words.)

A while back I mentioned that although Jesus did say "No man cometh unto the Father, but by me," and we can say that it is only because of His sacrifice that anyone can achieve Salvation, we do not have any definitive statement on whether the ways in which the Scriptures guides those who know and believe Jesus are the only ways by which He will bring people to eternal life.

After all, there are all the people who lived and died before the Incarnation, and even afterward it took centuries for the evangelum to spread to many parts of the world. Surely He made some provision for these people.

Likewise, when there is legitimate and honest disagreement or uncertainty about the way to understand a certain precept, or even an intellectually honest rejection of one, how can we be certain that it is our version that must be the proper one? It is more than enough to worry about being the best person we can be as we understand the guidance of the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit without worrying about everyone else.

Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day [is] the evil thereof.

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam [is] in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.Matt 6:34 - 7:5

It's either excommunication or THE COMFY CHAIR!

Constanze:
Re: Ignorance: I am very much aware of Aquinas’s role as the second most important theologian in Church History, and of his intellectual contributions to Church History. I mean, normally, when one lists "Looney Law" (Century old laws that when taken out of their original context make a great joke) style quotes, and without context, one is trying to paint the quoted as a backwards knave, who could not possibly have anything to teach us in the sophisticated 21st century. In addition, when those quotes are cited from an Atheist website, well, yeah, I guessed.

Re:Point 1: Not everything the Church does is universal truth. Salvation? Gospel? Yes. Doctrine? Yes. The Criminal Justice Process? No. That is a matter of particular truth. In fact, the church even says that about the Death Penalty today. The Particular truth in the 12th century was that the church was a secular power, and that the best way to punish criminals was public executions (Although the Church never directly executed a criminal). Some things are unchanging regardless of circumstances. They are called universal. Some things vary from person to person. They are called the Individual, and some things are influenced by universal truths, while subject to individual whims. These are called the particular.

Re: Second Point: You cannot compare the Europeans and the Moslems. Islam grew up in the highly civilized Middle East, and inherited thousands of years of civilization, culture and learning. Europe, on the other hand, was the western provinces the Roman Empire gave up on after they were overrun by Barbarians and Vikings. Islam in its height had a unified government. Europe was a chaotic hodgepodge of fiefdoms. Rich, stable prosperous countries ran by educated people can treat their criminals better than Warlords can whose first inclination is to kill something. (Of course, I could note the Ottoman Sultan had the right to kill five innocent people a day, but...)

Re: Third Point: History is circular, not progressive. Much knowledge and many concepts were loss in the chaos of the early middle ages.

Why is torture an absolute wrong anyways? The State can kill in the pursuit of the moral end of justice, why cannot it maim or mutilate. It is the only real way to break a cell-structured conspiracy. I mean, as a particular I can see, but not as absolute moral issue.

Second, the worse of the Witch trials took place after the reformation, not the middle ages. In addition, they mostly took place in the protestant countries. As I have said previously, the belief in conspiracy theories (Which is what the Malefactors would have been), is the result of Gnostic tendencies in humanity, rooted in an inability to accept the seemingly meaningless nature of suffering, and deciding that something must be at their root.

Re: Forgiveness: Revelations 6: 9-11, Matthew 10: 14-15. Jesus commanded the Church Militant not to, his Father and the Church Triumphant, is another story.

Re: Abuse: Whatever happened between a Priest and his confessor is under the seal of confession. I do not know what happened between a Priest and his superior, I can only assume.

R:
Re: Heresy in the Modern World: The Truths of the Catholic Church are not determined by Democracy, but by Scripture, Authority and Tradition. Besides, democratic influence on the issue of homosexuality? Never have I heard of such a thing.

...Europe, on the other hand, was the western provinces the Roman Empire gave up on after they were overrun by Barbarians and Vikings. Islam in its height had a unified government. Europe was a chaotic hodgepodge of fiefdoms. Rich, stable prosperous countries ran by educated people can treat their criminals better than Warlords can whose first inclination is to kill something....

Your portrayal of Europe as fiefdoms is a bit off. Islam a unified government? What area are you talking about? What period? And I'll try to refrain from a comment on how civilized America treats its criminals...

Why is torture an absolute wrong anyways? The State can kill in the pursuit of the moral end of justice, why cannot it maim or mutilate. It is the only real way to break a cell-structured conspiracy. I mean, as a particular I can see, but not as absolute moral issue.

If you don't understand or know why torture is always an absolute no-no for civilised countries - then I don't know how to argue anymore about that. Just don't talk to me about ethics or moral any longer.

Second, the worse of the Witch trials took place after the reformation, not the middle ages. In addition, they mostly took place in the protestant countries. As I have said previously, the belief in conspiracy theories (Which is what the Malefactors would have been), is the result of Gnostic tendencies in humanity, rooted in an inability to accept the seemingly meaningless nature of suffering, and deciding that something must be at their root.

Do you have some proofs, or quotes, for that theory? The Inquisition was strong in Catholic spain, and witch-hunts didn't happen in anglican England, though in puritan US. As for the timeframe ... that's pretty long.
Gnostic tendencies? Where did you get that from? The best theory I've heard was in a book explaining why the Hindus declaring their cows holy made a lot of economic sense, instead of being stupid superstition, and which tried to explain various religios commandetmends from around the world from a economic/societal viewpoint. The argument was that the witch-hunts were a way for the Church and state to distract the angry, protesting farmers from the inequality in the system, by providing protection from the supernatural forces of witches among them. (The old trick of using an external foe to unite your group behind you).

Re: Forgiveness: Revelations 6: 9-11, Matthew 10: 14-15. Jesus commanded the Church Militant not to, his Father and the Church Triumphant, is another story.

I'm not sure I understand your second sentence right. Are you saying that christians should show love, but God is allowed to be wrathful? Then I agree with the atheits, that a god like this isn't loving at all, but a big bully, and I wouldn't have anything to do with him.

Besides, even in OT, God isn't always wrathful. Very often, he's loving and compassionate. In one of the Jewish interpretations of the Bible (I forgot their names, darn) there is a cite where God himself says it's wrong that he punishes the children 3rd and 4th generation for wrongdoings. The rabbis use God's own words to argue against him, so to speak.

But I guess you just won't accept that there's a mass of contradictions in the Bible, and every view can be supported with quotes. And even if using the same quote, people can arrive at wildly different interpretations.

Re: Abuse: Whatever happened between a Priest and his confessor is under the seal of confession. I do not know what happened between a Priest and his superior, I can only assume.

Huh? I think you missed the point. Luigi reminded you of the priests who molested small boys. You said that if they repented, they should be forgiven, so I pointed out they hadn't repented. Neither the indivdual priest nor the church has apologized publically or privately to the molested boys. In public, the bishops who were the superiors of the priests have attacked the victims. The priests weren't suspeneded until further investigation, they were simply transferred, in an attempt to sweep it under the rug, with the possibility that they further molest in the new diocese.

What has any of this got to do with the confidentialtiy of the confession? Or do you mean that a confession is the *only* thing necessary - no public excuse, no normal investigation and punishment? Does this apply to murderers and rapists as well, or only to priests? Can we do away with prison sentences for catholics who confess?

Re: Heresy in the Modern World: The Truths of the Catholic Church are not determined by Democracy, but by Scripture, Authority and Tradition. Besides, democratic influence on the issue of homosexuality? Never have I heard of such a thing.

You never heard that in the beginning of the church - the first couple of centuries, before the pope became so strong - all important questions were decided by synods? With bishops from all over deciding by majority vote (preferably unanimous)? Sounds democratic to me. (Yes, not wholly democratic, since the bishops weren't voted by the normal christians. But not the pope himself deciding all alone).
After all, if the holy ghost is present (which is always the tricky bit - how do you know? There's no objective test), then everybody should agree. Besides, if many (hopefully wise) people agree on something, the chance is better that it will work, and is good and sound.
Authority and Tradition - that's the part that people have a problem with. Over the last centuries, the Church has changed positions on several important issues a 180°, without ever announcing it, off course. Some parts were quietly dropped, or old annoucements re-interpreted. And Authority doesn't make anybody right. It just calls to mind Lord Acton's quote.

No the truths of the catholic church are rooted in a book that was written by humans over a long time period, edited poorly by humans and determined and by popes and bishops who where at the mercy of secular lords with big armys or coffers of coins.

I am sorry but I don't care if the priest confesses directly to the pope if he is guilty of a crime he should not be able to hide behind the church. Even lawyers and doctors have to release information under court orders during criminal investigations the priest has no more right than they do.

Democracy what is that? I live in america, we don't know what true democracy is.

There is no true democracy.

Constanze, I would agree that there are different interpretations in the Bible, but I would say that is different than contradictions. Contradictions, to me, suggests the book, rather than the reader, is wrong. Nobody said the Bible is easy to understand.

Matt,

You cannot compare the Europeans and the Moslems. Islam grew up in the highly civilized Middle East, and inherited thousands of years of civilization, culture and learning. Europe, on the other hand, was the western provinces the Roman Empire gave up on after they were overrun by Barbarians and Vikings...

So in other words, if Islam is introduced into a civilized nation, the nation continues to be tolerant, educated and stays civilized. But if Christianity (which is supposedly much better for human rights, since it's the good news and story of salvation) is introduced into a barbaric society, it doesn't make that barbaric society better, instead it takes the values of the barbaric society (and twists them even worse).

Does this mean we should throw christiantiy out of the US and introduce Islam to make the US more civilized?

I think Matt's point, which I'm not entirely convinced by, is that Islam had the benefit of being introduced in a more civilized culture than Christianity. It's not that Islam is a more civilized religion to begin with; it's just that it had a better starting ground.

Well the bible does have contradictions within its pages. Not surprising since it was written (by humans) over a couple hundred years time period and edited and re-edited and translated from the original aramaic, into hebrew into english.

And religion in and of itself is neither civilizing nor uncivilizing (unless you happen to be on an internet discussion group) As the barbarians and vikings had their own native relgiions which when christianity arose took many of their traditions and symbols upon themselves to help wipe out and ease the takeover of those areas.

And now the contradictions. I will warn you I did not go and pull these out of mother's bible so I used the internet for them and used a list on infidels.org but i do remember there being contradictions when i last read the christian bible.

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

There are three contradictions. From a book which is alleged to be the perfect unquestionable word of the christian god. But a very questionable, very human book.

Actually another place to find good info is skepticsannotatedbible.com they have thigns searchable and listed out and also have the quran and morman books there as well.

Again, I feel those are not contradictions.

For instance, in Genesis 7, my Bible translates "seven" as "seven pairs." Thus, verse 8 is translated as "PAIRS of clean and unclean animals...entered the ark." Not a contradiction.

My Bible also translates Genesis 2 as "the Lord God HAD formed out of the ground all the beasts of the air"--suggesting that God had already created the animals when He brought them to Adam. Not a contradiction.

I also don't see the John verses as contradictions, but more of an interpretation issue involving the concept of the Trinity. Jesus is God, but God is Christ's Father. Difficult concept. Not necessarily a contradiction.

So even in those three examples of contradictions, there is some dispute as to the nature of their contradiction. I have never said the Bible is simple to understand, even intuitive to understand. But I do not believe that showing difficult passages or less than intuitive verses demonstrate that the Bible is wrong.

My Bible also translates Genesis 2 as "the Lord God HAD formed out of the ground all the beasts of the air"--suggesting that God had already created the animals when He brought them to Adam. Not a contradiction.

Taht's a problem with the translation. The original Hebrew is "Vayitzer Y*** Elo**m ..." (Name of Hakadosh Baruch Hu redacted), or "And the Lord G-d formed..."

But all the various translations are what is causing the conflict within religion. When you have one passage that can be interpreted in many different ways that is just a setup for strife. If the bible where a perfect word of god book (which it isnt, it is a work of many humans.) then he wouldn't want his people to be in conflict and would have given a more consistent story throuhgout the christian bible. The word of a god should not be open for interpretation but should be a clear and consistent message. Anythign else allows hucksters, frauds and power hungrey dictators to claim to be servants of god and doing his works while oppressing, stealing and destroying.

But since the christian bible is nothign more than a collection of stories, tribal histories and oral traditions written down over an extended period of time (hundreds to a thousand or so years) it is not surprising that there are contradictions (even if they are able to apologized or glossed over) and inconsistencies.

It is the unswerving, total and obsessive insistence of many religious people or groups that the bible is a perfect and totally unquestionable word of a god that is scary. I mean the church claims that the christian bible is the instruction manual for life. (actual words from the message board in front of a church) If so then the book is not very clear.

Yeah, did you see what happened when those other guys thought their precious book got flushed? Then it turned out not to be true? Even if it were true, was that a legitmate reason for 16 or more people to die?

I believe the Bible is an instruction manual for life; hopefully, most Christians do as well.

And I think you're projecting your idea of what you would like the Bible to be onto what it actually is. Is there any particular reason that the Bible must be easy to understand and not have passages open to interpretation? No. Even the apostle Peter admitted that he found the apostle Paul hard to understand at times! The Bible is a difficult book even in the original tongues; it uses metaphors, prophecies, all sorts of tough stuff. And then we translate it. And then we try to understand it in our own modern context. No wonder it's hard.

That is why I believe the Bible requires constant study to be fully understood; I think its basic message (sinfulness of man, Christ's message of salvation) is fairly consistent in the New Testament and can be digested in a few chapters. To fully understand all aspects of that, including its context--not so simple.

You call the bible an instrcution manual yet you also say it must be interpreted and intuited. That doesn't sound like an instruction manual i'd like to try and do a job with. The bible has pasages extoling polygamy, murder, slavery and sex as well as passages renouncing them. So which passage do you choose to be right? And how do you know that your passage is right when the christian church down the street chooses a different passage? They both came from the bible so they are both allegedly the word of god.

I am trying not to project my own beliefs into this but i think i tried to make it clear what i would expect a book written by a god to be and the bible fails miserably. It would be like i took a collection of short stories by heinlen or asimov and tried to say they where parables telling you how to live your life. The only difference is that the asimov and heinlen stories would be more consistenly and better written.

You asked if there was any particular reason the bible bible must be easy to understand and not have pasages open to interpretation. If I was a god and wanted my message to be universally understood and believed I would want to make sure my book was not open to interpretation in any way other than what i wanted it. That sounds like a good enough reason to me.

Of course putting the quron in the toilet and the riots afterwards are an example of how seriously (or not) people take their (or another's) relgious texts. And even though they are denying it now i could see christian's doing that to the quron. Especially the ones who feel that christianity (or their interpretation of it) is the one true religion.

And I could see Muslims doing it to the Bible.

"If I was a god and wanted my message to be universally understood and believed I would want to make sure my book was not open to interpretation in any way other than what I wanted it." I don't know what to say, but my reading of the Bible suggests that this is NOT God's intention. Jesus himself used parables, not flat-out commands, to get his points across, saying His parables would be understood by those that were meant to understand it. As I've also said, people like Peter admit in the Bible to find other passages in the Bible difficult to understand. The Bible is not an easy book. That is why it requires study. But I also feel that many times people have trouble with the Bible (I know I did) because they try to understand it from a modern, human perspective. And I don't think you can do that.

"The bible has pasages extoling polygamy, murder, slavery and sex as well as passages renouncing them."

This is a common slur against the Bible. I am not convinced that murder is ever really extolled (could you provide your example?) and I don't know what you mean by "renouncing" sex (obviously, people in the Bible have sex). Polygamy and slavery are tougher issues; I believe those particular concepts are addressed in the Bible in light of the context in which they existed. Several passages in the NT suggest alternative viewpoints on them, as well, such as the chaper in which someone asks Jesus about polygamy and in the sections of Paul's letters where he talks about slaves obeying their masters. Paul's point is not so much to say, "You're a pathetic slave and you must obey your master," but instead to suggest that humble obedience was a way of making a good impression on one's master. Slavery at the time was also different and was more out of fulfilling economic responsibilities rather than the sinister race-based slave system in the U.S. (not that there wasn't race-based systems back then as well).

And I could see Muslims doing it to the Bible.

Church of the Nativity.

I have looked at the bible from the historical perspectives of the humans who wrote it. And in their time period when the oral traditions and stories that comprise the bible where written I am sure the book was a great idea. Take all these disparate traditions, compile them in one story and invent our own relgion to take control of people. You say the bible is hard to understand because god wanted it that way so that all but his chosen people would not understand it. I say it was written poorly because of all the different authors who made stuff up and didnt get together (because many of the authors where dead when some of the stories where written.) to make sure all their ideas meshed properly.

Perhaps extollling murder was a bit strong. I am not sure as to exact verses as I do not own a bible and rely upon online versions when i want to research something or goign over to mothers and borrowing hers. But the passages do exist. By renouncing sex i am referring to the interpretation that i ahve heard the most in that sex is ONLY for procreation and nothign else. That is both unnatural and sick and disgusting to be that narrow minded. What goes on between consenting adults is no one's business but theirs.

Unfortunately too many relgions feel that they have the right to tell others what to do because it is in their bible or their god told them to. I don't care what the bible says it is just a book like any other book. No more important or special than Huck Finn or Asimov or any other work of humanity. So when i said i could see christians flushing the quron i could also see islams doing that to the christian bible, heck i could see christian's doing that to other christians. All becuase of the fluidity of the interpretation of the passages of the bible. One denomination says this means that another says no it doesnt. The whole game is just silly.

One religion is just the same as another all creations of humanity. I mean it doesnt matter if you call your god jehovah, jesus, allah, buddha or zeus. Heck it doesnt even matter if you pray to your desk lamp and call it the great god jujubee. Its all the same results. And as long as it makes a person happy to do that fine let them. But the moment they start using their relgion as an excuse to denigrate others, discriminate, persecute or otherwise generally be intolerant bigoted, narrow minded people and tell others that they have to worship the same way as they do or they are goign to be treated as scum and go to heck for it they loose all respect and should be laughed at for the jerks they are.

And ScottN I forgot to say that you are quite correct. Each religion gives to the others just what they get back. The crusades, jihads it all goes around and around in one form or another. Hate begats hate and intolerance begats intolerance. Is it any wonder people get tired of all the BS relgion causes and walks away from it?
Like i have said before more attrocities and wars and evil have been done in the name of relgion than any other cause save the struggle for resources.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that sex is only for procreation.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that sex is only for procreation.

The current Catholic doctrine is that sex is only allowed in marriage, because although sex is always sinful, in a marriage it is a bit less sinful, if it's for procreation, or for keeping the spouse from being unfaithful (=adultery).
Also, the marriage as a whole needs to be considered.

But each time a married couple has sex and procreation isn't possible is a grave sin: e.g. when the man is wearing a condom. (The only way allowed by the catholic church to try to prevent kids is the calendar method - critics joke because it's too unreliable to really work). Also, when the woman is already pregnant (and thus can't conceive) - no sex allowed.
Other positions than missionary which prevent conception - not allowed.
Sex beyond the menopause - not allowed.
Just live chaste and pure like brothers and sisters.

Since this is the official position, it's derived from the bible, the teachings of the church fathers, tradition, and the interpretation of the pope.

I remember in the 90s reading about a case in the newspaper which at that time shocked me (before I read DeRosas explanation of the convoluted reasoning behind all this) about a catholic man in South America, who'd fallen in love with his nurse and wanted to marry her, and asked the pope about permission. His problem? He was wheelchair-bound, and one side effect of this was that he wouldn't have been able to procreate. Thus the aim of marriage to procreate wasn't fulfilled, and every sex this couple would've had would've been grave sin. So the pope forbid the marriage.

About murder being condoned in the Bible: In several instances in the OT, the Israelites are commanded by God to kill their (unbelieving) enemies mercilessly. Not only does God commit Murder by wiping out cities for not believing him, he also punishes the Isrealites (at least once, possible several times) when they haven't killed all of their enemies, but kept some alive to sell as slaves or suchlike.
If that isn't comparable to the Jihad-interpretation of the Moslems, I don't know what is.

That may be the Catholic Church's stance, but:

a. I'm not Catholic
b. I still don't think that comes from the Bible! (unless you count some of Paul's comments about marriage)

So don't pick on the Bible for something one branch of the Christian Church does. I am Protestant and I was taught that sex was given to us for our enjoyment (within the context of marriage, yes, but not just for procreation).

Well you might want to start sharing that news as there are quite a few protestants who are taking the catholic interpretation of sex is only for procreation. My inlaws being a prime example (They are a nondenominational christian cult and husband and wife dont even sleep in the same bed due to sinful thoughts) of people who are that uptight. So its not limited to just catholics.

Thank you Constanze for pointing me in the right direction. The israelites wanted to feel good about wiping out their enemies so by making it look like it was a command from their god it could assauge their conscience. A couple of verses:

1 Sam.6:19
"Because they had looked into the ark of the Lord, even he smote of the people fifty thousand, and three score and ten men."

Just for being curious about what their lord's word was and trying ot find the truth they where killed by their merciful god. I guess in that case curiosity really did kill the cat.

1 Sam.15:2-3
"Now go an smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."

Kill them all and let me sort them out was what he was thinking eh?

Again, I'm still looking for any sort of Biblical justification that denounces sex.

As for the war verses:

I'm not going to try to sugarcoat things. God did command the Israelites to kill and "smite" their enemies. There have been various reasonings as to why God ordered such on the surface ruthless commands. Part of it is that the people Israel was squaring off against were being punished for their own brutal sins (the Amalekites, for instance, were Not Not People). Part of it is that the Israelites would be tempted into following other gods (which they were anyway). Regardless if these are accurate reasons, the passages are difficult to understand; overall, I believe they were specific commands directed for specifically the Israelites in a specific context. And it's not like the Israelites didn't play under the same rules; they got punished pretty harshly too when they disobeyed. Anyway, nowhere in the New Testament does God order a holy war.

Your first verse you cite though is not as innocent as you make it seem. The people were well aware that looking into the Ark of God was not allowed, verboten; in fact, people had been killed for mishandling the Ark/sacrifices (see Numbers). So this was not some innocent, "I want to see what's inside to learn about God's word" thing.

Constanze: Prior to the Mongol Invasion, the Moslems would always have some major dynasty, mostly the Abbasids Dynasty.

Barbarians do not become the people of God overnight. It takes years for faith to work it's way into a culture. When the militant Turks took over the Moslem world, the Islamia became militant. The Sejuks incited the crusades, and the Ottomans nearly conquered half of Europe. While Christianity does have the power to instantly change an entire civilization (Kiev Russia,) history also proves this wasn't always the case.

Europe, on the other hand, during the Early middle Ages (Dark Ages,) was a hodgepodge of feudal states. The High Middle Ages, however, produced a fine civilization, that was cut down by the 1300s.

Re: Torture: Why if the state can kill millions in a just war, can it not torture one man in a just interrogation? I'm not talking about some European Sadist getting his jollies at the suffering of others, I'm talking about legitimate law enforcement aims.

Witch Hunts: The best source I could find online is this this It's a 96 page PDF of a scholarly document on the subject.

RE: Gnostic tendencies?: Eric Voeglin. Yeah, Inequality, keep using that classical marxist thought.

Re: Re: Forgiveness: God is both merciful and just, and part of being just is making the wicked pay for their sins. God can do a lot of things, as Sovereign of the Universe, like kill people and tell people not to kill people.

Re: Democracy: First of all, those early synods were heated, long debate by Bishops, who argued on vauge Doctrinial issues. They were well respected men, who were already in authority, and took time to decide. In fact all major changes in the Catholic Church are the result of long deliberation. The Rainbow Sash Coalition are gay rights activists, who are arguing Catholic doctrine should be altered, not because of scriptural or religious truth, but rather humanist ideology, and hold no authority.

Child Molestors: If the Priest has done penance for his sins, I wouldn't know about it. Second, organizations in general do not turn their members over to the police for crimes they discover, the instinct of most groups is to protect their own. That's the root of all organizational scandals. And yes, I do agree that the Bishops should have commanded the Priests to turn themselves over to civil authorities or risk excommunication.

Re:Contradictions Most "contradictions" in the bible bear little effect the major parts of Christian Doctrine. It would be like destroying the United States on the grounds George Washington didn't chop down a Cherry tree.

So the crusades where not about plundering the riches of the middle east for the coffers of europe and taking the land? Yeah right. The defense against islam rhetoric used then sounds a lot like the rhetoric used today to justify the invasion of iraq. i will admit that when the fighting finally calmed down that the peaceful exchange of ideas and technologies enriched and assited the development of europe. It also strengthened the islamic lands into a more cohesive and unifed land.

And as for contradictions most american's lives dont revolve around the argument of whether washington cut down a cherry tree or a peach tree. But the bible ,the supposedly perfect word of a god, has and does cause those kinds of squabbles that can lead to fights and death and all sorts of hatred. And some of the contradictions do happen to be involving key facets of christian dogma that is ignored or apologized over. Say the debate over capital punishment.

Gen.9:6
"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed."

Gen.4:15
"And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him."


As for the ark of the covenent most people would like to know what the details of a contract they have agreed to are, with or without the interpretations of a middle man. And any organization or god or whatever without anythign to hide should be open and upfront about it. But at the very least that seems like the ultimate punishment for the simple questioning of authority. Couldnt a slap on the wrist be more merciful than outright murder? For somethign as minor as wanting to know?

Again, you are assuming that these people were blithely trying to want to understand God.

However, they already knew the details of the "contract they agreed to"--it's written very plainly in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, including the command to be extremely careful with the Ark. I interpret that passage to say that God cannot be disrespected; the people flagrantly disobeyed God's Commands about the Ark and sadly paid the punishment. God was punishing disobedience and carelessness, not truth-seeking.

I agree that the Bible can be interpreted various ways in regards to the death penalty (I know genuine believers who have very different views on this subject). Of the verses you list, though, Cain in Genesis 4 was specifically being punished/protected in his role as wanderer and fell out of what I believe to be a general principle (and not a hard rule) listed (much later, mind you) in Genesis.

Actually R, It depends on what you are talking about when you say the crusades. I won't deny that it turned into a very ugly time of plundering. However, this was not the goal or the aim of the crusades until many of the later crusades. The original first crusades were all about recapturing the Holy Land. Time went on, and many ugly things happened (including the Childrens Crusade). Some "Crusades" didn't even go into Muslim territory, they went up and ransacked northern Europe. But yeah, the first crusades were not about getting rich and pilaging, they were about religious ideals.

On the question of the Ark. Some people have argued that following the instructions for constructing it will produce an electrical capacitor or a battery capable of a very stong voltage. That many of the specific intructions to the priests insulate them from the charges in the Ark and from stray static charges that the Ark might multiply. (They say, for example, that this is why the priests should not wear wool and linen together.) That the commands to not touch the Ark were the equivalent of "Danger! High Voltage!" signs. That when the unauthorized persons touched the Ark and were smitten the were electrocuted by the charge in the Ark, not by the Hand of God or those of the priests. They say that there is no other "reasonable" explanation for the smiting of the one soldier who only wanted to save the Ark from falling off the cart and into the mud.

I don't really buy this explanation, but I am not 100% certain that it cannot be at least partly grounded in fact.
______

This thread has drifted from the original topic. Although I am not as fanatical about keeping the threads "pure" as Luigi is over on PM, I am considering moving some of the posts to a more appropriat thread.

I have no problem with the "evolution" of the thread as it currently stands (since I started it). I've found the volleying quite interesting. It's just that I think it would be difficult for me to remain civil at this time and it is best that I stay out of it for now.

However, kudos to those posters showing restraint on "both sides", and by debating (mostly) about the arguments and not the posters themselves.

I am not sure what the appropriate thread would be; some of the later stuff is clearly about the Bible, but this thread is just sort of a catch-all right now for discussion.

Your theory makes some sense, Tom; I'm not 100% convinced as to the scientific aspect, but I agree that the Ark just must be handled with care.

I'll have to take your word MikeC as to the reasons for the smiting and all. It just seems like the god God takes abit of a heavy hand when doling out punishments.

I have heard the ark as a gigantic capaciter/battery theory before. Not having tried to build one I don't know. It is possible to make a natural battery/electric spark generator out of the materials they wouldhave had avaialable at that time and region.

Yes the fun filled and exciting time period known as the crusades. Begun with the most noble of intentions of taking back the christian holy lands (not counting that quiter a lot of people call that area their holy land too) for the pope and good christians everywhere. And ending as many wars do with just plain wasted blood. I was being a bit cynical and sarcastic in my comments but for the most part the Crusades taken as a whole did very little good other than what i mentioned.

This thread has been going a bit better than i thought it might. Restraint has been shown and I am glad for that very much so. Usually in real life I have not had it as good. My ex-friend would start jumping up and screamign at the top of his lungs that I was wrong for even questioning religion or jesus and it was disrespecting him personally to say ANYTHING negative towards relgion at all. And this is a 32 year old supposedly mature adn responsible person screamign worse than my 5 yrold about how saying anythign negative about relgion or jesus was insulting him (my exfriend) personally and an attack at him and i was trying to destroy his faith by even discussing or questioning religion near him. That is rather psychotic behavior. But it is in general the type of behavior i have encountered when questioning or trying to have a discussion about things religious.

And as for the handling of the ark, I thougt you where supposed to crate it and place it in a wharehouse somewhere in Nevada?

TomM: Although I am not as fanatical about keeping the threads "pure" as Luigi is over on PM...
Luigi Novi: Hey!

R: Umm, the bellum Causi for the First Crusade was to avenge the Turks actions agaist Pilgrims and the Byzantines, and to redirect the military power of Europe for holy purposes. Any children's book on the subject should verify this. The Second and Third Crusade were defensive wars on behalf of the Crusader states. Everything after that followed the law of diminishing returns for sequals. By your logic, Churchill was a warmonger.

Your "Contradictions" argument is still unconvincing. The Key Christian Doctrines are not positions on social issues, they are as "The Triune God," "The Nature of Christ," "Justification by Grace." Second, Historical Material doesn't have to be consistant, because the sources may not have been the same. The purpose is a moral story, and what moral lessons we can learn from history. As someone who uses the Witch Craze, the Inquestion, and the first thanksgiving in arguments about "Theocracy," you should understand that use.

Yes since the pilgrims wouldn't pay the appropriate tolls and respect to the turks who owned and controlled the land the europeans decided to invade and liberate the lands in the first crusade. The second and third crusades where defense in that since the christians had taken those lands from the turks and the turks where trying to take them back they had to attack the invading christians. And no Churchhill was not a warmonger in that regards as his counrty was attacked. I would put him in the same position as the defending turks during the crusades.

I think part of the problem is in the view of what the bible is. I see it as merely a book written with no more divine inspiration than the lord of the rings or huck finn and it was written totally by humans. Many christians see it as the exact word of god written throuhg divine influence upon the mere mortals. Therefore a perfect and unerring work so any problems a person has with it is not the problem of the book but the problem of the person. I say the problem is the bible and how it is interpreted by the various churches.

Yes, that's exactly the problem.

And the other part of the problem is who is right? I know I am right about it from the research and logic and pondering I have put into this questionover the years. Christians KNOW they are right because god said so. But the only ones who truely know are incapable of telling as they ahve already crossed over.

Neither side will acknowledge anything positive about the other. Many christians will even go so far as to throw you away if you will not change your entire POV and accept their saving them. My ex-friend being a prime example of this he regarded any "attack" on religion as an attack on him personally. And he defined an attack as so much as questioning any points of religion. And my ex-girlfriend would denigrate anythign I would say as being merely my opinion on that.

Now I know that I am not alone in this stand on the issue, and I know that they are not alone on their stand. So where does that leave humanity as a whole?

I mean I walked away from religion for the plain and simple fact that it causes more grief and trouble than it solves for a lot of people and i was one of them. I feel so much better, freer and less stressed about intangible BS (of course that does nothign for the tangible BS) than I did when I was infected with religion.

Like I have said before I would have no problem with religion if it makes a person happy, as long as that religion is not used as an excuse to insult, denigrate, exclude, discriminate or otherwise try and make unhappy or detroy anyone else. Just because you have religion does not give you the right to do so. Also realizeing that the bible was written over 2000 years ago and the situation has changed a bit. Humanity has grown up and maybe religion should too.

That's the big difference between science and religion. Science is always self-correcting, peer-reviewed, and is willing to study and accept new information that may contradict its earlier theories, therefore constantly refining a truer picture of the real world.

Religion does not.

Of course it doesn't; that's like saying "oranges aren't red!" The point of (most) religions is that they set up a belief system that is considered essentially perfect and immutable. That is different than a scientific study.

And no one sees the problem in that kind of a system?

That what once may have been good and right several hundred years ago may have fallen out of step with the times and need to be either updated or deleted because it is no longer good.

There are very few absolutes in the universe, most of them are found through science. (gravity being the best example of an absolute) Religion tries to deal in absolutes but only deals in abstract feelings and opinions based on the interpretations of a book written by people 2000 years ago.

I mean look at L Ron Hubbard's invention of scientology and how that has claimed many people, look at cults. All of them are inventions of humanity and they successfully take in people left and right. How do they do it no different than the christian church. The trick to getting people to believe a lie is to use a big enough one. Get people so fearful of finding out or even questioning the truth that they stop wondering and asking and become good little obedient drones. Sheep ready for the shearing.

Is it any wonder then that there is so much divisive feelings among both sides about each other. That there is so much hatred and strife and evil done in the name of god. Both the christian one and allah the islamic one.

Then if you decide to walk away from all the BS and try and make yourself happy living life on your own terms, even if you don't do any harm, people think you are somehow less worthy than them because you don't know the TRUTH! That you lack a certain aspect of your personality because you are not saved. And they either try to save you or they throw you out of their lives as a threat to their peace or act like you are garbage that is beneath them. Very rarely does the two sides reach a balance, an accord, on behavior towards each other. Like travels with like. Huamsn fear change, fear that which is different. And that is the weakness in humanity that relgion preys upon.

The greatest fear of all is that of what lies beyond death. And noone alive today actually and truely knows what lies beyond. We can make guesses, we can make assumptions, we can believe science or faith or nothign. But all fear it, and all will face it. So the only thing a person must do is what they can do and deal with that fear. Rationally and acceptingly. Most turn to religion in the end. Some like I face it with an attitude of acceptance. What I expect when I die will be a discontinuation of my life energy and nothignmore. That is why life is so much more precious to me than it might not be otherwise. Since I dont see anythign happenign when i die other than my body eventually turning to dirt I'm not going to go blow myself up just to take a couple of soldiers out, or a building or whategver. But a person who has the faith that they will be rewarded in the afterlife has nothign to loose in the mortal realm.

That is one of the dangers of the drug of religion. Instead of working harder to make this world a better place, this mortal realm a paradise relgion tells people to struggle along and make do for there is a better place awaiting you when you die. JUst be patient and play by our rules and you'll get there is all they say.

Times change, people change. what once was good can turn evil. What once was evil can turn good. Life isn't the black and white it is portrayed so many times in religion. It is a braod spectrum embracing all the colors of the rainbow and that is what makes life so wonderful. Embrace it, accept it and value it. Encourage love, encourage life, encourage helping instead of harming. Be good.

Well, I've never blown anybody up yet...

MikeC,

(on sex only for procreation): That may be the Catholic Church's stance, but:

a. I'm not Catholic
b. I still don't think that comes from the Bible! (unless you count some of Paul's comments about marriage)

Given your previous unconditional defense of the Catholic church, I assumed you were a Catholic.

And just because you don't see it coming from the Bible doesn't mean that's true. Any catholic believer will tell you that the traditions are rooted in the interpretation of the bible. (And since I'm not catholic or studied theology, I can't quote the verses the Catholic base their ideas on.)

Well, I've never blown anybody up yet...

So when do you start?

Matt,

Re: Torture: Why if the state can kill millions in a just war, can it not torture one man in a just interrogation? I'm not talking about some European Sadist getting his jollies at the suffering of others, I'm talking about legitimate law enforcement aims.

There are some basic human rights today that are recognized as such in civilized states by civilized people. I'm not going to argue or explain why torture (and death penalty) is forbidden and a barrier that shouldn't be crossed. Just don't talk to me about morals or ethics if you don't understand this.

I'll read your links later when I have the time.

...Yeah, Inequality, keep using that classical marxist thought.

I'm not sure which context you are referring to. I'm guessing that marxist is meant as an insult. Though I'm not marxist (I think he was pretty wrong with his ideas) and I disliked the regime in the USSR (because it was a dictatorship), I still take it as a compliment, since I know of that strange ideology over there that everyobdy who expresses concern for the welfare of poor people is labelled a liberal (which is considered an insult) or worse. (And I'm certainly no social democrat here anymore after what the party has become...)
I wonder if you know how the conditions for the farmers in the Middle Ages I was referring to lived, and what you would have done in their situation? (Not taking a gun and starting a revolution - they didn't have guns available. The farmers did have a couple of rebellions with pitchforks and the like, which were bloodily crushed.)
I also wonder if you know that the early christian community - before they became powerful and corruption set in, when the ideals were still being followed - was pretty communist (like todays kibbutz)? Everybody owned what was necessary, the rest went into a community fund to help others.

The Rainbow Sash Coalition are gay rights activists, who are arguing Catholic doctrine should be altered, not because of scriptural or religious truth, but rather humanist ideology, and hold no authority.

Well, look at that. Humanist ideology is just so obviously plain wrong in the face of the scripture. After all, the story of the samaritan and the command to love one another isn't as important as the parts in the OT that deal with punishing people, right?

...God can do a lot of things, as Sovereign of the Universe, like kill people and tell people not to kill people. ...

If I get this right - together with the comments of the priests molesting children - then heaven will look like this:
The priests who molested the children, but repented (not that they stopped - we'll just have to assume they went to confession), believe in Jesus and will therefore be in Heaven.
The children, who's faith was often shaken through this trauma and therefore turned away, will burn in hell.
And the priests will watch from heaven and be glad about it.
Those children who didn't loose their faith will meet these priests up there.

Yes, I know why I don't want to go to this kind of heaven...

R, lets be glad you won't go there ..

MikeC,

(on sex only fro procreation): That may be the Catholic Church's stance, but:

a. I'm not Catholic
b. I still don't think that comes from the Bible! (unless you count some of Paul's comments about marriage)

Given your previous unconditional defense of the Catholic church, I assumed you were a Catholic.

And just because you don't see it coming from the Bible doesn't mean that's true. Any catholic believer will tell you that the traditions are rooted in the interpretation of the bible. (And since I'm not catholic or studied theology, I can't quote the verses the Catholic base their ideas on.)

Well, I've never blown anybody up yet...

So when do you start?

Matt,

Re: Torture: Why if the state can kill millions in a just war, can it not torture one man in a just interrogation? I'm not talking about some European Sadist getting his jollies at the suffering of others, I'm talking about legitimate law enforcement aims.

There are some basic human rights today that are recognized as such in civilized states by civilized people. I'm not going to argue or explain why torture (and death penalty) is forbidden and a barrier that shouldn't be crossed. Just don't talk to me about morals or ethics if you don't understand this.

I'll read your links later when I have the time.

...Yeah, Inequality, keep using that classical marxist thought.

I'm not sure which context you are referring to. I'm guessing that marxist is meant as an insult. Though I'm not marxist (I think he was pretty wrong with his ideas) and I disliked the regime in the USSR (because it was a dictatorship), I still take it as a compliment, since I know about that strange ideology that everyobdy who expresses concern for the welfare of poor people is labelled a liberal (which is considered an insult) or worse. (And I'm certainly no social democrat here anymore after what the party has become...)
I wonder if you know how the conditions for the farmers in the Middle Ages I was referring to lived, and what you would have done in their situation? (Not taking a gun and starting a revolution - they didn't have guns available. The farmers did have a couple of rebellions with pitchforks and the like, which were bloodily crushed.)
I also wonder if you know that the early christian community - before they became powerful and corruption set in, when the ideals were still being followed - was pretty communist (like todays kibbutz)? Everybody owned what was necessary, the rest went into a community fund to help others.

The Rainbow Sash Coalition are gay rights activists, who are arguing Catholic doctrine should be altered, not because of scriptural or religious truth, but rather humanist ideology, and hold no authority.

Well, look at that. Humanist ideology is just so obviously plain wrong in the face of the scripture. After all, the story of the samaritan and the command to love one another isn't as important as the parts in the OT that deal with punishing people, right?

...God can do a lot of things, as Sovereign of the Universe, like kill people and tell people not to kill people. ...

If I get this right - together with the comments of the priests molesting children - then heaven will look like this:
The priests who molested the children, but repented (not that they stopped - we'll just have to assume they went to confession), believe in Jesus and will therefore be in Heaven.
The children, who's faith was often shaken through this trauma and therefore turned away, will burn in hell.
And the priests will watch from heaven and be glad about it.
Those children who didn't loose their faith will meet these priests up there.

(Reminds me of one of Jack Chick's tracts...)

Yes, I know why I don't want to go to this kind of heaven...

R, lets be glad you won't go there ..

And Matt, your comments about the crusades ... are very disturbing for me. Undoubtly many of the soldiers involved believed in a holy aim. That doesn't mean the crusade /War itself was holy, or started for good reasons.
Do you know how the crusaders behaved during the crusades and how they treated (= massacred) the people living in their holy city? Or that it was the crusaders (sent by Rome) who plundered and destroyed Byzanz (since it was a schismatic eastern church), not the Turks, and full of invaluable cultural things? (Go ahead, tell me that humanitarian issues aren't part of scripture, or that those were different times, or that the end justifies the means - my all time favorite.)

When did I do an unconditional defense of the Catholic Church? I analyzed the Church at the very beginning of this thread. I am definitely not Catholic and there are a lot of things about the Catholic Church that I disagree with.

R: Really, tolls and tarriffs were the cause for the Crusades? Was the Pope also a Sith Lord in diguise, or were the crusaders just accompanied by Jar Jar Binks? Were the Byzantines not worthy of Military aid. I stand by my claims.

But Churchill approved of the invasion of France. I mean, the French and the Nazis had a legal treaty. Wasn't that just an attempt to impose liberalism on an totalitarian state? I mean, if the Muslims get rights to any area they touch, why not the Germans? By your logic, Churchill was a warmonger. So what if his country was attacked, that was over three years ago. Either that, or you are a sophist, willing to use rhetoric agaist the side you disfavor.

Your problem is you are trying to make it a false choice. Either Scripture is what a group of people you used to hang out with think it is, or it is a really entertaining novel. You are combining two different debates, on the the Divine Inspiration of Scripture, and the the other on meaning of what divine inspiration is. If you want to say, Scripture is a purely human work, fine. Don't advance it by setting up a staw man of a doctrine as complex as divine inspiration, and knocking it down on a technicallity.

The crux of your second soapbox is that religion causes violence, and by promising a better world in the hereafter, leaves here in time bad.

The second is easily debunked. Most Christians, and religious people in general belive they will be rewarded and punished by their actions in this life. Many belive that their love for God demands good works towards all. 20 Centuries of Christinan Charity, and 15 centuries of Muslim Zakah should validate this.

Second, Atheists who have tried to make the world a better place tend to fail and on a spectactular scale. The Soviets and the Nazis were both materialists who tried. Their death toll was over a 100 million. Nothing about materialism ensures that it's adhearants will work for a better world for all mankind. Just because John Lennon sang about it, doesn't make it true.

Now, your second is that religion causes violence. This is unlikely, as I haven't met many violent Buddahists, but that's off subject. First of all, the last major religious war was the Thirty Years War, which was settled in the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Most wars after that dealt with ideology, and before the middle ages, most wars were fought over dynastic patrimony. Humanity is a violent creature, and most religions seek to curb mankind's violence. Yes, Mankind does kill in the name of religion, but does it not also kill over wine, women, land property, honor and just for sheer enjoyment? Are you not looking at God and blaming him for man being the devil?

There may not have been "official" religious wars, but there have been battles and killings conducted in the name of religion (jihads, if you will) since then.

Well I guess there are always exceptions to a polite conversation, isnt it Pesti?

The difference between france and the byzantines was this: France had been invaded, byzantine had not. The turks had bordered on the byzantine but had not invaded them. They merely controlled the land that christian's claimed as their holy land. Also with the seperate city states in italy feuding between each other a distraction like a war would come in quite handy. As well as filling the papal coffers.

And to take an example of how holy the crusades where ever hear of the crusade of Peter the Hermit (1095) who terrorized and persecuted jews along the way to byzantine and when he finally did get there he started in raping, pillageing and generally being as evil as possible. What was funny was he was doing all this to converted christians living around nicea. But oh well you are set in what you believe and will not consider another point of view.

Ok lets use an allegorical story as an example. Lets say a ceo dictates a letter to his secretary. She takes it down word for word exactly as spoken. This is the way christian's see the bible. You divine influence and inspiration. The way I see the bible is that the secretary made the letter up from her own head, and by asking the other secretaries whta has been going on in the office. No divine inspiration there.

It is not a flase choice. If you remove the divinity form religion, the world in general by default it removes it from the bible and vice/versa at least the way it looks from religion.

The evil of relgion is that it does not always have to be overt violence that it causes. The violence of molestation, of bigotry, and of intolerance towards others is not out weighed by giving out clothes or food at the local homeless shelter or throwing a few coins into the bellringers pot. You want to do good works? Stop discriminating. Allow same gender marriages and stop acting like it is the christian way or nothing among the various thigns the christian church is guilty of and needs to change.

And there are aethiests who have made the world a much better place on the small scale. And if enough of the small scale events and people work together then you can have a very large scale event indeed.
Not every aethiest is a hitler or stalin. As a matter of fact Hitler was a christian and used christian images, iconography and certain aspects of christian dogma to promote and create the nazi party. Let me quote you from mein kampf:"I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work."

True I have not met many violent buddists or taoist or many of the far eastern relgions. To clarify it is christianity and islam who have violence and evil entrenched within their very dogma. And I will agree with MikeC that there have been religiously caused wars/conflicts/battles since then. Hitler and his war against the jews, israel vs palestine, israel vs middle east, pakistan vs india, muslim faction vs muslim faction, etceetera etcetera etcetera.

And yes humanity does kill over many things. The biggest causes are resources and religion. if we solve the problems of those two then much death and strife will be resolved.

Not every atheist is a Stalin, and not every Christian is a Hitler either. Humanity has done much, much good in the name of God and religion.

Funny how the Church will enact this "intervention" regarding homosexuals, but not child-molesting priests. - Luigi Novi

Luigi Novi: Because most of them admit the error of their ways, and do penance. - Matt Pesti

Child Molestors: If the Priest has done penance for his sins, I wouldn't know about it. - Matt Pesti

I would say more like a little bit of good, offset by the bad and evil.

Again, it comes down to perspective. Think of the many people whose faith convinced them and empowered them to act--MLK, Gandhi, Abe Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, etc. etc. Religion has led to bad and evil. But it has done far more than "a little bit of good."

I guess if you say so.

I don't want to be rude, but that's a pretty cheap thing to say. It's not because I say so. If you don't believe it, don't say that, tell me why you disagree. If you're convinced you've come to the point where we can't agree, then say something like "I guess we'll have to agree to disagree."

Of course it doesn't; that's like saying "oranges aren't red!" The point of (most) religions is that they set up a belief system that is considered essentially perfect and immutable. That is different than a scientific study.

Therefore rendering any debate/discussion about it perfectly moot.

I was sort of exaggerating. There are ASPECTS to the belief system that considered essentially perfect and immutable. For example, in Christianity, there is room for a lot of debate/discussion about certain points of the belief system. There comes, however, a point where there is no room for debate. For instance, in Christianity, the question "What if there is no God?" doesn't work--the religion assumes there is a god. It's like in Buddhism asking if "What if there is no reincarnation?" The religion assumes there is reincarnation.

So I didn't want to seem too dogmatic there. Sorry.

Sorry I was a bit rushed earlier as I had only a few minutes on break time. I am at lunch now so I am able to be a bit more verbose.

So yes I guess we will ahve to agree to disagree because while religion may have played some role in those people's actions (some more than others) that was not the only thign they had to consider in their actions. But in the daily lives of many people relgion either plays a negative role when they interact with others (especially those who do not share their particular set of beliefs.) or society in general. So taken as a sum total of all facets big and small I don't see religion being that beneficial to humanity as a whole. You do not religion to be ethical, moral or a good decent person. You just have to understand the responsibility and consequences of your actions are more swiftly and effectively dealt with here on the mortal realm.

And actually I was the one who was rude because I knew I didnt have the time to go into detail but I went ahead and posted anyways. Sorry about that.

That's all right; I just thought that was the only thing you had to say. I definitely understand time crunch (I'm at work right now in fact--whoops gotta go...)

You should know by know that I am somewhat less verbose than luigi (usually) but slightly more than a single line. :-)

Nove Rockhoomer: I see no contradiction.
Q: Why were they able to remain in the church?
A: Because they did penance and sought forgiveness.
Q: How come we didn't hear about that?
A: Because what happens in a confession stays in a confession. We don't hear about it.

Mike C: Yes, there have been outbursts of religious violence since the French and the Protestant Leauge made peace with the Holy Roman Emperor. But how do they fit in a larger historical context? I will argue they are the historical exception, not the norm for the past centuries, and that current religious violence is actually civilizational violence.

I never claimed that Hitler and Stalin were typical of materialism and atheism. I claim that they are a natural evolution for both materialism and atheism, as both Hitler and Stalin are Nieschze's superman, not an abberation or corruption of theory, and that neither materialism nor atheism contains anything in it that guarentees positive evolution.

R:
Your French-Byzantine logic doesn't work. Germany had de jure possession over all of northern France, the Vichy French were German allies, and were at war with the UK and US. The Byzantines had been at war with the Moslems for five centuries, and all Crusader lands belonged to Christians for five centuries. To accept your position, the Muslims may conquer all of Christian lands but the Christians may not seek to retake them?

The People's Crusade? That was a collection of the ignorant masses whiped into a fervor. They were slaughtered somewhere in Asia Minor. They were not an sanctioned crusade.
Saying they are representive of Christianity is like saying the Weather Underground is a representive of the American Left. If you want to see a group that is "set in what you believe and will not consider another point of view" you should study them. I mean, trying to jump start the revolution through bombings?

Well, no that's not how Christians see the Bible was written. That's exactly how Moslems see the Koran was written, however.

And yes it is a false choice, because you are debunking a stawman as part of your proof.

Evil in Religion: Evil is caused by humans, not organizations. Humans are molesting children, not humans. Second, Christianity exists to serve God and uplift humanity, not sell out to the left. If you can give the Church in general and catholism in specific an argument based Scripture and tradition why Gay Marriage is compatible with Christian teachings, go ahead. If you are just going to shout "bigot!" at it, try the Anglicans.

Hitler was an egotist, he was his own god. (But then again, why someone who was influenced by Nieschze isn't a part of atheism is beyond me)is His use of Christian imagery to communicate his message really doesn't count either. No more than Soviet Russia was the most Democratic society on Earth, although it's constitution said it was.

Second of all, Hitler hated all inferior peoples (not just Jews), because he was a Nieschzen, not a Christian. He thought they were keeping the German People from reaching their true goal, that they were holding them back, and had cost them the First World War. The Jews were not very Jewish at that point. Hitler also hated Christianity. "Love thy neighbor" was weakness.

Yes, Islam is in war at every one of it's borders. But it's a civilizational problem, not a matter of religion. Islam lacks a core state and has a booming demographic youth bulge. See the Clash of Civilizations.

Really, you mean like how World War I or the Cold War or the Franco Prussian war were about religion and property? Wars were about ideology for a few hundred years. Wars are caused by Human nature. They can be curbed but never eliminated.

And what's this "entrenched evil?" The Muslim Jihad is founded the grounds that all humanity would be happiest submitting to the will of God, rather than living in perpetual warfare. Hardly sounds evil in the chaos of 7th century Arabia, or the post classical world in general. Christianity preaches non violence, and demands that war be used as a last resort and must have just ends. Organizations aren't evil. The people in them are.

I am sorry but priests should not have the privilege of keeping a secret when it involves a criminal case. Its not like they are a lawyer or doctor. If they want that privilege make them go to school and become liscenced. As it stands now any nutjob or criminal can hang a cross on his garage and call himself a priest.

As for the crusdes. I am willing to concede that it was a very complex and disgusting part of history just like every other war. But it still came down to (like all other wars) religion and resources.

What do you mean the jews werent very jewish at that point? What exactly makes a person jewish or not jewish enough? I thought it was sort of like being pregnant? either you are or you arnt.

As for Hitler he thought of himself as christian all his life. Quote:"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so" He was never excommunicated. He made prayers to Jesus mandatory, made homosexuality illegal, He made gott mit uns (God is with us) part of his militaries uniform, I mean he was the poster boy for the christian taliban.

I do not condone the actions of the weather underground or any group that takes thigns to that kind of extremes. I do favor though defending freedom and the right for a person to life their life of their choosing, regardless of what flag ,or cross, the opressor hides behind.

Among the christians i have run across and spoken with most of them seem to think that the bible was and is the pure and unadulkterated perfect word of god written throuhg his divine influence over his people.

So the israeli attitude of being jewish and the land belongs to them because god gave it to them and everyone else who doesnt like it should just go die, including the palestinians who happened to be living there for the past thousand or so years until the british/us/Un isreali homeland creation thing happene, isnt a religiously inspired war?

The cold war most certainly was a relgiously inspired war. It was the good god fearing christian america vs the godless heathen soviets. At least that is how things where portrayed and how mother remembers people getting all hyper about. (She was alive during the fifties and remembers them quite nicely,thank you very much) I mean it was the time of mccarthy and how under god was insrted into the pledge to differentiate us from them.

WWI was about political ties (which can fall under the resources category) and the franco prussian war was one of those wars that have a very complex begining. Land resources, political resources and nationalism all played major parts in that war. Every war doe snot have relgion as one of its major causealities, however both sides invoke their god for their people by saying that god is on our side (whichever side you wanna say) and will destroy our enemies.

Christianity in the new testament may be a bit more peaceful than in the old testament. I have been in some old testament bible thumping revivals before where it certainly didnt sound too peaceful. I guess its all in the interpretation.

Yes it is people molesting children, people do evil thigns. Both christians and nonchristians. But here is where thigns get different. If an aethiest sees another aethiest hating someone just for skin, or gender or sexual preference, if that second person is rational and resonable they will see that as wrong behavior. If a christian sees someone hating someone or degrading them and the subject oc the hate is homosexual then the christian will go congratulate the hater for following dogma.

An organization that has as part of its official dogma that it is ok to hate those who are not a part of the organization (and notice i am keeping that broad enough to include groups from liberal or conservative sides) is an evil organization. Maybe not nazgul level of evil but still not a good thing and somethign i would be proud to be a member of.

As for arguing scripture that is about pointless as you can see just from this site. If a person believes that the scripture is perfect and godly and unquestionable no amount of argument either rational and reasonable or scripture based will change their mind. as the scripture is able to be interpreted in many various ways. The same phrase can be taken by three different churches to mean three different things. Take the argument of polygamy it can be said that the scripture can be used to support and contradict the permisability of it.

So basically we come to the problem of belief vs reason. Logic vs faith. Those who belief in the bible and religion will not change their minds no matter how much evidence mounts. Those who do not belief but are reasonable and rational will be consider the evidence and make the changes they feel necesary or appropriate. They are a freer people. Those who are neither reasonable or rational will not chage either.

I am sorry but priests should not have the privilege of keeping a secret when it involves a criminal case. Its not like they are a lawyer or doctor.

The government has decided that certain relationships and their communications should be priveleged, and that its policing agencies shall not be allowed to force an intrusion even by subpoena or search warrant. (In my state, these relationships are spelled out in the official Rules of Court.) They include Doctor/Patient, Attorney/Client, Spouses* and, yes, Priest/Penitant.

Yes, it is a holdover from the Middle Ages, when the "princes" of the Catholic Church were the younger sons of the European kings and the Church was an arm of the governtmental power. But the government sees more good from encouraging religion and a change of heart than from fostering distrust of a spiritual advisor.

If they want that privilege make them go to school and become liscenced. As it stands now any nutjob or criminal can hang a cross on his garage and call himself a priest.

Most mainstream religions do require schooling (usually a Masters of Divinity and often a Doctorate) and the equivalent of licensing. In particular, since you are referring to Catholic priests (or at least to the scandal which focuses on the Catholic Church), the proceedure to become a (Catholic) parish priest in the Sacramento area is explained here, and it is basically the same in other dioceses.

----------

After correcting your misunderstandings, however, I agree that just moving the priests to a new parish is unconscionable. The Seal of the Confessional within the Church, and the legal privelege mentioned above, apply only to what specifically was said in the confessional sacrament. What the penitent says in the confessional should stay in the confessional.

But child abuse involves more than just the abuser. When the Church pays off the family of the abused child and transfers the priest to a new parish, it is acting on information that did not come from the confession. If the only information was from the confession, the bishop's staff would not know about the incident, and would have no reason to transfer the priest. It is at this point that the whole Church is as culpable as the abuser.

Q: Why were they able to remain in the church?
A: Because they did penance and sought forgiveness.
Q: How come we didn't hear about that?
A: Because what happens in a confession stays in a confession. We don't hear about it.

I don't understand why two sets of rules apply here. A priest molests a child (several children), goes to confession, and can continue to do so. (The problem isn't that the confession is secret. The problem is the lack of penance (punishment?))

So how come the homosexuals can't continue their lifestyle, as long as they go to confession?

And why I say that they continued: unless priests only need to confess every 10 years, the victims said that the abuse went on for years. (Normal catholics have to go to confession weekly, AFAIK). It's not like the priest sinned once, immediately went to confession, and never sinned again. The priests abused for years. The penance didn't involve apologizing to the victims, or going to the bishop and ask for security measures to prevent repetitions (not leaving this priest alone with kids, e.g.). And going to the secular authorities. (Or are thieves, murderers etc. not urged by their confessor to turn themselves in?). Apparently, the priests got off with a few Hail Marys.

But when homosexuals go to confession, are they allowed to continue, or are they told they have to stop their sinful ways if they want to receive communion? (And if a priest stopped taking communion, the parish would notice quickly!)

TomM: ...the proceedure to become a (Catholic) parish priest in the Sacramento area is explained
here.
Luigi Novi: The first four words to the second question at that page being quite ironic.

Ok so a well educated nutjob..... But seriously I was not fully aware that the major religions required that much education. It didnt seem like it was a requirement in that field as it is in say a lawyer or doctor. Especially since within a 10 mile radius of my house there are 3 people who run christian churches out of their barns or garages and i somehow dont think they went to college.

As for liscencing priests since the churches will not hold priests accountable (defrocking molesters and PERMANENTLY BANNING them from ever being in a position of authority like that again would be a very good thing.) and they wish to enter the field of politics then politics should be able to enter them. Also priests do many of the same duties as therapists, psychologists and counselers and they ahve to have liscences and be held accountable so why shouldnt priests be held accountable to someone other than the very organization that permits and excuses that kind of behavior?

Constanze: Sins of a sexual nature seem to follow a one time versus habitual when it comes to penance.

The problem with Priests is that they are bound by Holy Orders, which is something like marriage. The Church has to keep them, as they are under divine call, they just can't expel them without very good reason.

The problem with these Preist scandals is that they are a he said, she said situation, that happened behind closed doors, involved a small number of priests and all occured 30 years ago, and involve a good (seeking justice) versus a good (defending people who are close to you.) It's not an easy situation for the church to deal with. It's not an easy situation for any organization to deal with.

Tom M: I agree that as part of their penance, they should have had to turn themselves over to civil authorities for punishment.

R: Most Jews in Western Europe had either converted to Christianity (Marx, for example) or otherwise assimilated into the mainstream of European society (Freud).

Hitler thought of himself as a lot of things, a great artist, an Arayan hero, a great general and the ruler of Europe for a thousand years. He was delusional. His last words were "In the end, you lament the fact you were too kind." He had no sense of reality.

Zionism: The Zionists were secular jews. The religious Jew opinion was that only the Messiah could reestablish the Temple and the Kingdom of Israel. And the whole point of Zionism was that Jews could not trust the west, and needed their own homeland. Not every Israeli Jew is observant.

Cold War: The Cold War was primarily one of dualing ideologies, which are very much like religions, in fact several scholarly works have been made concerning the similarities between 13th century fanatics and Marxists, the most famous being "Fire in the minds of men." However, the major causes of the Cold War were Geopolitical, namely the question of what Soviet and US zones of control were. And personal memory is usally not a good source, that's why historians use documentry evidence.

Yes, all wars have a religious dimention to them. Sun Tzu alluded to that as much in his lessons concerning the moral law. However saying God favors our victory and we are attacking the infidels are two different things.

Define Hate. I mean, I assume "Christian Taliban" isn't meant as a compliment.

Polygamy: Well, it can be, but most Christians point to Christ's words on the subject. (Mark 10) But I think you understand neither the diversity of the Holy Faith nor the level of debate over the scriptures that has shaped most of western history.

I'll take the "blind faith" of Thomas Aquansis, William of Ockham, and Issac Newton over the "reason" of Rousseau, Marx, Sarte or Nieschze any day. And what are you talking about anyways? Do you really consider the resolution of the Homosexual Question to be of that much primacy?

To run a church you can be anyone. To be a priest in a Catholic Church, you need some education and to be propery ordained. Not all leaders of churches are Catholic priests.

Ok here we go.

As for Hitler apparently the catholic church did not see him as that bad a guy either. They never excommunicated him during his entire reign.

As for the cold war there are quite a few documentary evidencial items concerning the relgious inspiration and activiy as well as attitudes about the soviet american relations.

No Christian Taliban is not meant as a compliment. It is an identification of an organization that is a hate group. It is synonimous with Religious right or christian fundamentalist. Organizations that are dedicated to the destruction of civil liberties and equalities in America and would wish certain groups of people to go away. they are the equivalent of the KKK or american nazi party.

And thank you very much I may not have been a divinity student or have spent most of my life in bible study but i have seen and studied the affect of religion in societies throguh history class and grew up an episcopalean.

So you want a final resolution to the homosexual problem? Should they start wearing pink stars?

Sorry I had to turn that last train of thought into an express to go help the wife with the yard sale.

Ok now those people (newton, and occam) are all people who did not let their "faith" blind them to the fact that there are higher truths beyond that which relgion teaches. They did not allow their minds to be fettered or limited but instead questioned the universe around themselves.

Aquinas is a rather thorny person because he was on both sides of the issue taking the hard core church stance on somethigns and the liberal view on others. Today he would have been as ridiculed as Kerry was for flip flopping.

And what diversity of the Holy faith? The way I have seen it, after shopping around for about 5 years for a different faith that was comfortable, the only diversity of faith is that each denomination feels it is superior to any of the others and that they are the only truely chosen of god. I guess that is diversity just not in a good way.

And just what question is there about homosexuals? They are people just like you and I and deserve all of the same positive treatment, same rights, same priviledges as you or I.

As for Hitler apparently the catholic church did not see him as that bad a guy either. They never excommunicated him during his entire reign.

But was he a Catholic? Someone said he considered himself to be Christian, but of what denomination, if any? A church can only excommunicate its own members. You can't kick a person out of your club (even temporarily) if he never joined in the first place.

So you want a final resolution to the homosexual problem? Should they start wearing pink stars?

It was yellow stars for the Jews and pink triangles for the homosexuals. Both were sent to the death camps. (along with other "undesirables")

Among the christians i have run across and spoken with most of them seem to think that the bible was and is the pure and unadulkterated perfect word of god written throuhg his divine influence over his people.

That statement is almost as bad as a statement that among all the gays you have run across and spoken with most of them seem to be flaming queens. Most people, whatever their religion (or lack thereof) and whatever their sexual orientation, live quiet, normal lives. Unless you know them well, or they are specifically being persecuted, it is not obvious that they are "one of those people. The media focuses on the extreme minorities, and many people who don't personally know very any of these extremists believe thatthe don't know any representaives of the group.

And what diversity of the Holy faith? The way I have seen it, after shopping around for about 5 years for a different faith that was comfortable, the only diversity of faith is that each denomination feels it is superior to any of the others and that they are the only truely chosen of god. I guess that is diversity just not in a good way.

This does not describe most people in the mainstream denominations, especially in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Not all Christians are fundamentalists. (Though most fundie sects agree with you, in that they do not believe the "liberal" churches really are Christian any more.)

Hitler was raised Catholic and was baptized Catholic. His adult religion could charitably be described as a hodge-podge of Catholicism, Protestanism, and German cultural mythology.

Also bear in mind that the Catholic Church is in Italy...which was being ruled by of Hitler's good buddies, Mussolini. There has been some controversy and debate over the Church's role in WWII, with apologists arguing that the church was doing what it could within that context.

I was aware that the nazis made homosexuals wear pink triangles but I wasn't sure how many would be aware of it so I made sure of the christian fundie/nazi link by saying pink stars as I was pretty sure most people would get that. And I was the one that pointed out that Hitler was a christian (of the catholic persuasion).

And yeah the catholic church is surrounded by italy but they are in the country of vatican city. They could have declared themselves neutral but they didnt.

C'mon, man, do you think Mussolini would have cared one whit if the Vatican declared itself neutral? I don't know enough about the Catholic Church's role in WWII to mount any specific defense, but the Axis powers weren't exactly hip to neutrality declarations.

The Vatican was a neutral, seperate country long before WWII and before Mussolini. It was the remnant of the much bigger church state after Italy started to become a country on its own in the 19th century.

And the problem isn't declaring themselves neutral, but that the pope as the top voice in christianty, and thus the person most responsible for morale and ethics, should've spoken out and condemned the murdering of the Jews and others, against starting the world war and the other atrocities. But the pope didn't say one word. He was glad that Hitler and Mussolini were fighting against godless communism, and he didn't like jews.
Some brave individual catholic priests (together with brave individual protestant priests) spoke out and landed in the concentration camps, some monasteries and individuals hid jews and others.

But the voice of the instituion that claims to care about human people, that claims it's bound to speak about moral and ethic conduct no matter what the consequences in cases of sex, which tries to enforce a planet-destroying idea of no prevention at all today - that voice was silent at that time.

And the question isn't what Hitler or Mussolini would've cared about it. A bull from the vatican saying that no christian should serve under Hitler and Mussolini would've greatly hampered their efforts, because many christians would've obeyed. (The popes didn't have a problem in the previous centuries asking subjects not to serve a king they deemed unchristian.) And moral decisions shouldn't be made according to personal unpleasantness that might happen to you, or if one word of you will change the world, they should be based on what's right and what's wrong. Otherwise, it isn't moral, it's self-serving.
here is an article about the pope and here about Pius antisemitism.

Or go and read Hochhut's play "Der Stellvertreter" (the Deputy). There was even a movie made recently.

The pope was grateful about the treaty (Konkordat) signed with Hitler about the catholic church getting special status in Germany (that's what the popes had wanted when modernism started and states allowed other religions than catholicicsm). There were two groups, the "Deutsche Christen" (german christians), which followed the Nazis, and the much smaller "Bekennde Christen" (confirming christians), which saw that the nazi ideology was contrary to christian ideals.

So the question isn't what Hitler himself believed to be - you're right that his ideology is a hodge-podge of ideas, which is why you can't call him one label - but that most of his followers were christian, and an open declaration against him would've created a rift and a lot of problems.
Here's an article with some facts about it.


Also, Hitler got many ideas from established vatican practices of the past. The word ghetto for the only place where the jews are allowed to live comes from the italian world for the ironmongers in Rome/Vatican. The yellow star can be traced back to the yellow hats or yellow pieces of cloth the jews had to wear in the middle ages and much longer in the vatican state. A lot of the antisemitism in the centuries before was church propaganda, where the jews were denounced as "killers of christ", who still refused to believe in him, and were therefore persectued and denied rights. And this changed when humanistic, secular ideas rose with the enlightment. (For those that haven't heard of it, since it hasn't reached your population, it means to apply reason first, and think for yourself, instead of following what somebody preaches from the pulpit. E.g. Kant said "Act as if each of the maximes of your actions could be raised to a general law for everybody". Handle so, dass die Maxime deines Handelns zum allgemeinen Gesetz erhoben werden könnte.)

It took the downfall of christianity in the modern states in the 19th century to get human rights for everybody, regardless of religion.

here is the info about the movie about Pope Pius XI.

Note: I am not saying the Catholic Church should NOT have issued a bull decrying Hitler. I'm just interested in a theoretical exploration.

What would the effect have been of the Catholic Church decrying Hitler in Germany (not Italy, Germany)? I'm not convinced that there would be a dramatic difference in what happened. Hitler was a propaganda expert; I'm sure he could have painted it off as a Jewish plot or something. Protestant Germans wouldn't care. Atheist Germans (or those that actually bought into the party philosophy of Rosenberg) wouldn't care.

Of course it's difficult to project how many Catholics would've followed the order to resist Hitler and bring his regime down, esp. if they knew or guessed that this might cost them their own lives (unlike disobeying a bull on birth prevention).

But a large part of German population has traditionally been catholic (it's not a minority of 8% like in the US) - some counties like Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg are 80 or 90% catholic, and in middle germany (todays Nordrhein-Westfalen) some cities like Köln are archbistums and dominantly catholic, too.

Besides, the Pope issuing a bull that would've been read by all priests from the pulpits would've meant that most of the ordinary people would have had to take a stand and make a moral decision. They couldn't have gone on with their lives and ignored the whispers of what was really going on. A few priests preached from the pulpits on their own risk and iniative, but this isn't the same as the highest moral authority declaring that the regime was anti-Christian, was murdering people, that this was wrong, and that it should be stopped.

If only a part - a third, maybe - of the Catholic population had denied serving in the Army (like Jehovahs witnesses, which really were a small group), had gone on strike, had demonstrated in front of the concnetration camps .... It would've been a much too large part to ignore or shoot, and they would've had seriously disruptive efforts.

Besides, a respectable Catholic bishop protesting a concentration camp along with hundreds of normal citizens would've had an effect on the atheistic and protestant citizens, too. It would've been difficult to dismiss these protests as rabble or communists.

I don't have numbers of how many were catholics, or how high the total population was. And not everybody who gave his faith as catholic would've risked his life to resist. Many people also changed their religion during the Nazi time.

No I dont think it would have mattered to mousalini or hitler directly if the vatacin had excommunicated them and declared them evil sons of satan.

But as Constanze has already shown it might have made some difference or at the very least it would have shown a distinct and definate moral stance. Which I had always thought the church was supposed to do in instances like that.

I think a lot of people didn't speak up during the Holocaust; not just the church.

Fear will do that to a common person.

But as for the church (or at least the pope) you would think they would not be afraid to die for their faith. To become a martyr in the examples of the old school stand for what is right in the face of evil behavior.

To quote the relevant part of the article:

Let's not quibble, though. Here's the crux of the issue: By mid-1942, Pius could have had no doubt that the Nazis were slaughtering Jews en masse. Yet though papal representatives did lodge protests against the deportation of Jews, the pope himself made only vague appeals, never mentioning Jews or Nazis specifically. (The one time he intervened personally, in an attempt to halt deportations from Hungary in 1944, he referred only to people persecuted because of their race.) Granted, others also equivocated. The Red Cross, for example, kept silent for fear its humanitarian work would be halted. But Pius was the pope. He had a unique responsibility to speak out--no one else's words would've carried the same moral authority. Just a few years later, he denounced communism and made it clear he wanted bishops in Soviet bloc countries to oppose it, even if they risked persecution. Condemnation of the Holocaust might also have provoked reprisals, and certainly wouldn't have stayed Hitler's hand. But if ever there was an occasion that demanded such a noble if futile gesture, wasn't this it?


(Highlights mine)

So as long as the Pope wants Christians to stand up against communism (only because it's atheist doctrine, not because of the actual atrocities committed by Stalin); if the Pope demands Christians to follow his doctrine in matters of birth prevention and sex; if in the last century, Christians were forbidden to vote or be elected (democracy was evil, you know - according to an earlier Pope's edict) - then it's not excuseable that the Pope kept silent about the Nazis.

R, there were a lot of churchmen who were martyrs; Dietrich Bonhoeffer, for example.

Constanze, there have been some arguments that Pius condemning Hitler would have been counter-productive and resulted in more Jews/Catholics being punished. The apologist defense for Pius is that he saw his role as working behind-the-scenes to help those he could help such as hiding Jews in convents or approving secret escape routes to get Jews out of countries. The Catholic League's official stance is that a neutral Vatican had the power to do some good; a Vatican that took a position against Nazism would have been shut down immediately with nothing good happening. After the war, Pius was praised by many Jewish organizations. Hitler himself disliked Pius and thought that the pope was dangerous.

Mike,

you do know that Bonhoeffer was protestant, right?

And the apologists' take is mentioned in the article, and I don't buy it. But if you're comfortable with the moral authority being relativistic about moral issues....

Of course, many fundi christians are doing the exact same thing of pick-and-choose which part of the Bible are of the utmost importance to obey and to enforce in state laws (everything related to sex, of course), and which parts of the bible aren't as important (feeding the poor, speaking out for oppressed, ensuring justice. Or how about sharing everything in one community? That's close to communism - Gasp! )

So yes, the Holocaust could've been worse. I'm sure that's a comfort to the victims.

Yes, I know. R has been sort of lumping Catholics and Protestants together, so I figured he wouldn't mind.

The pope is not my moral authority. He is the leader of a temporal church and country. I have no idea if he did the right thing or not.

And it is a heck of a comfort to the SURVIVORS.

Yes I realize there where quite a few individuals who did stand firm and do what they could where they could to fight the darkness. Unfortunately it was not organized or encouraged by the papal authority.

And no I don't mind lumping catholics and protestants together in cases like this as they are supposed to be in agreement on somehting like this at least.

The neutral vs proactive church during wwii is a debate that like most what if games is not likely to produce much besides a lot of hot air. While it would have definately shown a moral strength for the pope and by extension the catholic church and every catholic (and by extension christian) personthat the silence of an official stance does bring into question.

Bring into question what?

The silence brings the moral strength (of the pope and by extension the church) into question.

R's phrasing was difficult to parse (no offense, R).

Sorry sometimes I get that. English isnt my first language redneck is. ;-) Maybe thats one reason i never did too good with the old text based games. So no problem ScottN As long as a person figures out what i'm talking about thats cool, anythign else is my zorkmids blowing in the wind.

But yes the catholic church has had no problem taking an official stance against various behaviors and ideaologies from homosexuality, to communism, to birth control. They would do this sometimes even if by taking an official position they place the official church or its members in a position of harm or discomfort.

So by not taking a stance and remaining silent officially (and not recognizing the ones who did speak out) it almost seems like the church if not officially sanctioned at the least did not care that the holocaust was going on.

I agree, I guess; I just disagree that it is

a. Clear-cut
b. Something unique to the Catholic Church

Well I'm sorry you don't see it so clear cut. I do. If the church (and yes it is somethign too many people in general not just the christians or the church have in common, not speakign up or helping out when they see their neighbor in trouble) can see the issues of brith control, same gender marriage, communism, etc.. in black and white terms why couldn't they see the holocaust , or even nazism itself, in such terms.

And to clarify my own muddled thought here. I was not comparing same gender marriages or homosexuality or birth control to communism or nazism or the holocaust. I was just saying that the church has a black and white stance on all of these issues save on nazism and the holocaust during ww2. So since they can take a stance on those issues why didn't they/couldn't they on that.

Because when one makes a ruling on birth control, one doesn't usually have a foreign power swoop in and kill you?

Again, I'm not saying "The Catholic church acted perfectly in this matter." I'm saying "Things were complicated." The United States government took a REALLY long time in making any statement about the Holocaust and it was a pretty watered-down one anyway (at least while the war was still on). It was not like everyone else was eager to jump up and denounce the Holocaust and the church wasn't. This was a dark period in history in general.

True I will give you that. It was definately a dark and complicated period in history, but when isnt it? In the big picture of things. I am not going to apologize for the us government's (and majority of the population of the time)lack of outrage over the actions of the nazis. I find it disgusting too. But politics is generally that way anyhow. To listen to the propaganda of the churhc they are supposed to be above politics and only deal with the pure spirit.


And no with birth control you don't usually run the risk of armed conflcit, but the church had made and has made comments denouncing issues that resulted in the death of priests and faithful followers in the past. Communism and the drug trade for two examples.

It just seemed slightly hypocritical from my POV that the church would be willing to denounce thigns so rapidly but when they have the chance to do somethign and make a big stand on an issue, even if it results in a few martyrs, that should be near to the ethos (stand up for your brother and neighbor)they don't.

The Catholic Church is incredibly not above politics. It is, in fact, an inherently political institution. Its history has been very closely intertwined with political leaders.

I know what they are. I was commenting on what they say they are and what they are supposedly supposed to be. The church is so embroiled in politics that it would be impossible for them to hold themselves seperate.

speaking of the catholic church this was on Yahoo news.

(forgive me but I am not certain on how to put a link in here)

DETROIT - The Vatican took action against nine local priests accused of sexual abuse, defrocking one and barring eight others from the ministry. The priests, who served parishes in the Archdiocese of Detroit, have been on leave, Auxiliary Bishop Walter Hurley told the Detroit Free Press for its Friday editions.

The article then goes on to describe that the diocese is awaiting the vatican's trial/decision regarding 14 other priests. Also that there where 63 priests involved in molesting 116 mostly male members from 1950- 2004.

While its not an apology it is a step in the right direction to do this. As they say at AA admitting you have a problem is the first step in solving the problem.

Wow in the time it took me to write that and then refreash the news of two priests from philadelphia being defrocked came up.

One of the defrocked priests, Edward DePaoli, 60, had been convicted of child-pornography charges in 1986 but had been allowed to remain in limited ministry until 2002.

The other, Martin Satchell, 39, was dismissed from ministry in 1993 for what church officials described as a "credible accusation of misconduct involving a minor."

Sorry if anyone else had seen this already but it is news to me.

The directives are coming from the Vatican -- this may be a positive sign of a shake-up in the Inquisition Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, since Archbishop William Levada of San Francisco has replaced (the former) Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as the Grand Inquisitor Prefect. (Or it may be that the issue has gotten a little too hot to ignore, for now.) Watch and wait