NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, Im a Catholic. I want to know, who else here is catholic, and if you are, what do you agree with or disagree with about your Church, what made you decide to follow this religion? So tell me your view of our faith. (and don't even bother if your an extreme anti-catholic, this is not a place for you, i want catholics and christians to talk among other chrisitans and catholics about the finer points of the faith)

For the record, exclusion only beckons them(us) stronger...So yeah...Be prepared and all I guess.

No, I'm not a Catholic, but one thing I have always thought interesting about Catholocism was praying the rosary. It's the only Christian religion that seems to have a form of meditation built into it.

and don't even bother if your an extreme anti-catholic, this is not a place for you, i want catholics and christians to talk among other chrisitans and catholics about the finer points of the faith)

Good luck with that. Some guy made a thread the other day wanting to discuss the religious aspects of Easter and it turned into a discussion about chocolate.

Good luck with that. Some guy made a thread the other day wanting to discuss the religious aspects of Easter and it turned into a discussion about chocolate.

Turned into? Heck, every reply was about chocolate, it didn't even get a religious reply at all. The topic may as well have been chocolate.

Turned into? Heck, every reply was about chocolate, it didn't even get a religious reply at all. The topic may as well have been chocolate.

Soem sort of compromise could be in order. Tom Waits knows what I mean.

Stuff me and the church both agree on:
No gay marriage
No abortion unless the mother's life is at stake
Evolution is okay to believe in

Stuff me and the church have opposing views on:
I support the death penalty and the church doesn't
I like Harry Potter and Benedict XVI thinks it's evil
My parish is pro-illegal immigration and I'm against it

:fluffle: :mp5:
"All's fair in love and war."
-Robert A. Heinlein

Aaah, the lovely Catholic church... lets see here... I'll just point out what I find wrong about it.

1. If it was so great, it wouldn't have broken off into the protestant churches.
2. It is waaaaay too conservative and WILL NOT CHANGE it's ways.
3. The entire "SEX IS THE WORK OF THE DEVIL GOD DAMNIT!!" crap needs to go.
4. It's sexist, I don't see why women even attend it, seeing as how they are not allowed to become priests.
5. They seem to have a problem with their priests and little boys.
6. All of this happens because they will not change and adapt for the future, which I already said.

I'm a Catholic Atheist, does that count?

The catholic church has its faults, most notably its opposition to condom use in Africa, but is otherwise quite reasonable, at least compared to "evengelical" american groups.

1. If it was so great, it wouldn't have broken off into the protestant churches.

Name any major religion which hasn't split. You won't find one. People have differing views on how religion should be cast. Infact, the church has split twice, first was involving Icons, and the second was the Protestant movement. And the Protestant movement involved specific practices of the Church several hundred years ago, most(if not all) of which have been abolished.


2. It is waaaaay too conservative and WILL NOT CHANGE it's ways.

That's a bold faced lie. The Church prefers to try to work WITH the Jewish and Muslim communities, focusing on their similarities instead of differences. Second, in these days, it is FAR more accepting of Science than most other sects. Third, the Church allows Homosexual priests, provided that they take the same vows as heterosexual priests. All quite progressive in religion standards.


3. The entire "SEX IS THE WORK OF THE DEVIL GOD DAMNIT!!" crap needs to go.

Sex is viewed only as sin if done solely for pleasure. It's not the work of the Devil, but it is a sin. There is a huge difference between the two. I think you crossed lines here with Baptists.


4. It's sexist, I don't see why women even attend it, seeing as how they are not allowed to become priests.

The Church is deeply rooted in tradition. It's not necessarily sexist, but it is tradition.


5. They seem to have a problem with their priests and little boys.

SOME priests have problems. This occurs in all sects and all religions. It's just that the Catholic Church gets more publicity for it. It's deplorable, however, and I wish the Church would do more to punish priests for this.


6. All of this happens because they will not change and adapt for the future, which I already said.

And yet they HAVE changed, they HAVE adapted, but they still hold onto tradition. It's not impossible to have tradition and still adapt and change. Which the Church has.

No, I'm not a Catholic, but one thing I have always thought interesting about Catholocism was praying the rosary. It's the only Christian religion that seems to have a form of meditation built into it.Meditation and prayer are described in the Bible. There early church practiced it and only the Romans continue it.

I'm Holy Roman Catholic of the Liber Order of the Mariamist Sect. I'm also agnostic.

I'm a Catholic Atheist, does that count?

Could you please explain this oxymoron to me please?

The Church is deeply rooted in tradition. It's not necessarily sexist, but it is tradition.

However, if tradition is sexist, and the Church is deeply rooted in tradition, then the Church is sexist.

I go to Church quite often, and I happen to agree with just about every position that the Church takes on most issues, social and religious. Instead of going into to deep detail of how correct it is or how right it is, I would rather not have this turn out of control. Simply put, Catholicism works for me.

*shrug* And yet there are millions of Catholic women who apparently are not bothered by it.

Heck, the Lutheran church itslef is at the moment on the brink of a schizm. What does that say about Protestant churches, if it's so significant that the Protestant churches split off from Catholicism?

Soem sort of compromise could be in order. Tom Waits knows what I mean.

Clicky (http://www.lyricsfreak.com/t/tom-waits/138867.html)

Eh.

I agree with a lot of things in the CC, such as no death penalty and no abortion, but I don't agree with the no gay marriage thing, or no birth control. I don't like how uppity they are about telling followers what they should and should not read, either. (ie Da Vinci Code.)

I have a deep respect for the CC, and I am a cradle Catholic, but it isn't perfect.

Aaah, the lovely Catholic church... lets see here... I'll just point out what I find wrong about it.

1. If it was so great, it wouldn't have broken off into the protestant churches.
2. It is waaaaay too conservative and WILL NOT CHANGE it's ways.
3. The entire "SEX IS THE WORK OF THE DEVIL GOD DAMNIT!!" crap needs to go.
4. It's sexist, I don't see why women even attend it, seeing as how they are not allowed to become priests.
5. They seem to have a problem with their priests and little boys.
6. All of this happens because they will not change and adapt for the future, which I already said.


OK LET ME SET YOU STRAIGHT

1. It is the human error of Pope Leo X (yea, thats right, we had a bad pope, it happens)and Martin Luther that caused the split, not the church itself. The church is not based on human behavior, it was created by god and sometimes people screw shit up.
2. Its conservative becuase its message of Love, Truth, and Reverence is never going to change even though the world might
3. We love sex, It si God's work, the thing is, There is ONLY ONE PLACE IN WHICH IT IS SACRED, within marriage to draw a couple together and procreate(make babies)
4.Not sexist, There is a reason, Chrsit was a man, as a priest one will act in the person of chrsit and emulate him in the blessing of the eucahrist, there is one difference I think we all know about between men and women which does not allow a woman to be in the person of christ, also seperate roles does not rule out equality.
5. Again, human error, many menatlly demented men joined the priesthood in the 60s and 70s as the screening for the entrance was so low, thy saw it as a way to easily cover there demented desires, also only 2% have ever commited that crime, dont generalize
6.People may change with times,God's message is always the same, no matter what year it is, abortion is always murder, sex outside marrriage is a perversion of its intent, and the word of god is always the same.

OK LET ME SET YOU STRAIGHT


Geez, is this what we've been picking up over time? We haven't had a good abortion debate recently have we? Need some cleansing, they always seem to clear out for a bit after those.

Eh.

I agree with a lot of things in the CC, such as no death penalty and no abortion, but I don't agree with the no gay marriage thing, or no birth control. I don't like how uppity they are about telling followers what they should and should not read, either. (ie Da Vinci Code.)

I have a deep respect for the CC, and I am a cradle Catholic, but it isn't perfect.

I understand where you are coming from on the reading thing, the gay marriage is a pretty obvious perversion of God's intent, penis+penis=no connection, doesnt fit guys, our bodies were designed that way for a reason.
With the book, tough the authro of them may not intend a degrading of the church, it still does, people are more easily influenced than you think, when they read they tend to pick up ideas like the conspiracy theory in Da Vinci, and the church has very good reason and intent bhind there rulings, its more complicated than oyu think, you probably dont undersatnd all the evidenc so to speak.

6.People may change with times,God's message is always the same, no matter what year it is, abortion is always murder, sex outside marrriage is a perversion of its intent, and the word of god is always the same.

Funny how that hasn't always been Church doctrine -- at least not towards pre-quickening abortions.

Funnier still how you can't find a quote from the Bible saying abortion is murder. To the contrary, you can find a quote expressly saying it is not the equivalent of murder.

I understand where you are coming from on the reading thing, the gay marriage is a pretty obvious perversion of God's intent, penis+penis=no connection, doesnt fit guys, our bodies were designed that way for a reason.
With the book, tough the authro of them may not intend a degrading of the church, it still does, people are more easily influenced than you think, when they read they tend to pick up ideas like the conspiracy theory in Da Vinci, and the church has very good reason and intent bhind there rulings, its more complicated than oyu think, you probably dont undersatnd all the evidenc so to speak.

Well...I believe someone's set to mention all the other places a penis fits, but whatever...not my area....

I understand where you are coming from on the reading thing, the gay marriage is a pretty obvious perversion of God's intent, penis+penis=no connection, doesnt fit guys, our bodies were designed that way for a reason.

Again, not always the position of the Church.

And hard to support Biblically.

The catholic church has its faults, most notably its opposition to condom use in Africa, but is otherwise quite reasonable, at least compared to "evengelical" american groups.


Man that condom thing is so missrepresented, right we are against condoms, but we are also against sex outside marriage, If they won't listen to that rule in the first palce how can they honestly get mad if they don't like to listen to us in the first place, they think that our rules are pick and choose.

Again, not always the position of the Church.

And hard to support Biblically.


The position of the Church is that homosexual acts are not in union with God's design for the human body. God established marriage between man and woman with adam and eve so yes, it is in the bible.

Man that condom thing is so missrepresented, right we are against condoms, but we are also against sex outside marriage, If they won't listen to that rule in the first palce how can they honestly get mad if they don't like to listen to us in the first place, they think that our rules are pick and choose.

Sorry, but the effect of the policy regarding condoms is more unsafe sex. Unintended consequence, but forseeable and preventable.

The position of the Church is that homosexual acts are not in union with God's design for the human body. God established marriage between man and woman with adam and eve so yes, it is in the bible.

Thats funny since you know marriage has been around way before the christian religion and the whole creation story has become kind of suspect with the whole evolution/dinosaurs thing.

The position of the Church is that homosexual acts are not in union with God's design for the human body. God established marriage between man and woman with adam and eve so yes, it is in the bible.

1. The Church has not always been against same-sex marriage. It used to preform them.

2. Show me the quote that says Adam and Eve were married. Show me the quote where it says marriage is only between man and woman.

Thats funny since you know marriage has been around way before the christian religion and the whole creation story has become kind of suspect with the whole evolution/dinosaurs thing.


Did I say marriage was exclusively Christian? The bible was pre christian too.
And the evolution defense is really a fuzzy way to defend your point dont you think, why do you think there is a missing link between apes and humans,
There is none, apes have no soul, we do, only God gave us souls, not evolution.

1. The Church has not always been against same-sex marriage. It used to preform them.

2. Show me the quote that says Adam and Eve were married. Show me the quote where it says marriage is only between man and woman.


Man you people throw "The Church" around a lot. The erroneous memebers of the Church ued to preform gay marriage. And try not to be so base as to debate the basics of the wording of the bible, the marriage is a very basic conclusion of the words used. Also try reading hte original greek or hebrew version, the english translation tends to lose things here and there.

Well...I believe someone's set to mention all the other places a penis fits, but whatever...not my area....

I'm pretty sure a penis fits in at least some of your areas.

Now as opposed to the catholic church's politics I do like the religione behind it. I have been going to catholic school for my whole life.
What I agree with:
Jesus
heaven
the golden rule
Mary and all the saints
loving others (which I think a lot of Catholics are forgetting)

What I dont agree with:
I think abortion should be legal in all cases; you shouldnt allow your religious beliefs make decisions for others
I think gay people and marriage is perfectly normal; read my above comment
I dont think the Pope is always right; God never said this the Pope just made it up one day
The sexism; as a woman I belive i should be able to be a priest
priests not being able to marry; Priest were once allowed to marry it stopped because they were then leaving their money once they died to their family instead of the church
the "we are the only people going to heaven" mentality; I think that there is no wrong religion out there, they are all right and all good people are going to heaven.

that being said i still do believe in God and Jesus, and I am a Catholic but I think the church needs to change

Man you people throw "The Church" around a lot. The erroneous memebers of the Church ued to preform gay marriage. And try not to be so base as to debate the basics of the wording of the bible, the marriage is a very basic conclusion of the words used. Also try reading hte original greek or hebrew version, the english translation tends to lose things here and there.

Sorry, but the Roman Catholic Church has a history. Some of you were just nattering on about the value of tradition.

I see you avoid this by merely claiming anything in that history that you disagree with was "erroneous."

Again, you do not provide a quote. Is that because there isn't one in "the english translation?" Are you claiming there is one in the greek or hebrew versions?

I have problems with the church (I'm Catholic, but not really prcticing at the moment) on issues such as women's role in the church, gay marriage, birth control & abortion, and I certainly don't approve of the sex-abuse scandal: I think those priests guilty of it should have been allowed to be prosecuted. That being said, I have many more problems with the Evangelical Protetantism that is prevalent in this country. To support the death penalty and agressive war, woth some anti-abortionists going so far as to kill people over abortion, while calling oneself "pro-life" is hypocrisy. Pro-life itself isn't even so much about saving unborn children as it is about controlling women. And the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell feigning support for Israel because the Fundamentalists need Israel to exist for their prophesies to come true is excrable. A quick google search will turn up any number of anti-semetic remarks by them and numerous other evangelical leaders. The Catholic church has done several things that I don't agree with, and Opus Dei just gives me the creeps, It also has its own shameful history of racism and anti-semitism (Inquisition, anyone?), but the alternative is worse.

Now as opposed to the catholic church's politics I do like the religione behind it. I have been going to catholic school for my whole life.
What I agree with:
Jesus
heaven
the golden rule
Mary and all the saints
loving others (which I think a lot of Catholics are forgetting)

What I dont agree with:
I think abortion should be legal in all cases; you shouldnt allow your religious beliefs make decisions for others
I think gay people and marriage is perfectly normal; read my above comment
I dont think the Pope is always right; God never said this the Pope just made it up one day
The sexism; as a woman I belive i should be able to be a priest
priests not being able to marry; Priest were once allowed to marry it stopped because they were then leaving their money once they died to their family instead of the church
the "we are the only people going to heaven" mentality; I think that there is no wrong religion out there, they are all right and all good people are going to heaven.

that being said i still do believe in God and Jesus, and I am a Catholic but I think the church needs to change



Hmm Hmm Hmm, abortion is not a very oloving thing to do to a nely developing human being(you contradicted yourself) I am prett damn tired of repeating myself on gay marriage look a little bit up for those arguments. I also have already stated the reason behind the woman priest (its more complex, read the catechism for it). We know we arent the only ones going to heaven(trying picking a fight with someone who actually disagrees and get all the facts but some religions are completely wrong some are pretty damn close to the whole truth, we belive that we have the whole truth(hard to see with human error, but its there)) The married priest is far too compex to even beignn to mention(it would take a 20 page dissertation) And the papal infallibility has only been used Twice EVER(its not everything he says, its only when it must be absolutely necessary, so popes can still be wrong). One of those times was the Mary, mother of god thing.

Yes, Im a Catholic. I want to know, who else here is catholic, and if you are, what do you agree with or disagree with about your Church, what made you decide to follow this religion? So tell me your view of our faith. (and don't even bother if your an extreme anti-catholic, this is not a place for you, i want catholics and christians to talk among other chrisitans and catholics about the finer points of the faith)
I was catholic. Once I got kicked out of church for laughing really loud, but I was 10.

i'm nominally catholic, though i don't really believe in god, but i've spent four years learning theology at catholic high school so...

catholics are very good about de-emphasizing the bible; an arbitrary collection of ancient, non-historical, contradictory stories should only be taken so far. the emphasis on church teaching is good in that way

however, church teaching is often quite ridiculous. birth control stands out, particularly the (completely unjustifiable) exception for natural family planning. i think they should allow it all, but they could at least be consistent. papal infallibility is fairly silly, male-only priesthood as well, "double effect" moral decision-making principle (which i only know because i had to take theology) is really dumb; basically, if you're on a sinking ship and you shut some hatch to seal off water but close a person inside, it's ok, but not because of the greater good or something, but b/c according to the church you didnt intend to cause his death. that was fairly rambling.

in conclusion, i'd rather be catholic than baptist or something, but it's dumb too in its own special way

I'm pretty sure a penis fits in at least some of your areas.

I imagine, but I was thinking more along the lines of not my area to debate.

i am a christian, to be more accurate a protestant, and i attend a Presbyterian church. i personally like my church for numerous reasons, the major reason is because the minister doesnt preach down to us as if he himself is closer to god then we are.

Did I say marriage was exclusively Christian? The bible was pre christian too.
And the evolution defense is really a fuzzy way to defend your point dont you think, why do you think there is a missing link between apes and humans,
There is none, apes have no soul, we do, only God gave us souls, not evolution.

Ummm duh the bible has parts that are pre christian. Hell the OT is the jewish part no ones debating that. But marriage was here way before the jewish too. And on the fuzzy defense with evolution try to look at it this way. You say that god stated the purpose of marriage with the whole adam and eve thing. But if the whole creation story is false and adam and eve never existed then your whole point is bunk. Also you seem to be very misinformed on the whole missing link thing. We've got plenty of specimens like lucy and such that point towards apes becoming humans. Now the whole soul thing is imaterial becuase frankly you can't prove we have one or not and it doesn't have a damned thing to do about the creation story and if its true or not.

A Self-exiled RC. Born into it. Many years of Catholic Schools. Did the Alterboy thing and even considered the Priesthood at one time. Opted for children instead.

Now as to some of your comments:


OK LET ME SET YOU STRAIGHT

2. Its conservative becuase its message of Love, Truth, and Reverence is never going to change even though the world might

The message is one thing; the interpretation is something else.


3. We love sex, It si God's work, the thing is, There is ONLY ONE PLACE IN WHICH IT IS SACRED, within marriage to draw a couple together and procreate(make babies)

Now we don't. If we did then condom use would not be frowned on.


5. Again, human error, many menatlly demented men joined the priesthood in the 60s and 70s as the screening for the entrance was so low, thy saw it as a way to easily cover there demented desires, also only 2% have ever commited that crime, dont generalize

Human error allowed them in. The greator evil was hiding and moving them around and allowing them to attack again and again. Let us also say they used peoples faith against them well. "Don't bring this to the authorities; let us deal with it"

UpwardThrust knows this first hand.

A coworker's husband is from Ireland. He found out 25 years ago that the local Priest kidnapped his best friend, took him out in the middle of nowhere, tortured and raped him. The Churches response was "don't bring this up with the authoraties, let us deal with it" They moved him to Canada and gave him a Parish with a school.

In the US alone they have unwillingly paid out over a billion so far.

Ever hear of the Duplessis orphans?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duplessis_Orphans

What does that say about Protestant churches, if it's so significant that the Protestant churches split off from Catholicism?

One could in fact argue - and many of us would - that before the Protestants split off from the Catholics, the Catholics split off from us Orthodox.

I'm often asked whether the Orthodox Church is more similar to Protestantism (in all its varieties) or Catholicism, but Orthodox theologians often argue that this is a false dichotomy. As the Protestant churches separated from the Roman Church after the latter had separated from the Eastern Orthodox Church many theologians have argued that it's better to say that the Roman and Reformed Protestant churches are much closer to each other -- historically, spiritually, theologically, culturally, psychologically -- than the Orthodox Church is to either.

Just a thought from a different perspective....

The position of the Church is that homosexual acts are not in union with God's design for the human body. God established marriage between man and woman with adam and eve so yes, it is in the bible.

Adam and eve were joined. They were never married.

Again interpretation....

Did I say marriage was exclusively Christian? The bible was pre christian too.
And the evolution defense is really a fuzzy way to defend your point dont you think, why do you think there is a missing link between apes and humans,
There is none, apes have no soul, we do, only God gave us souls, not evolution.

Parts of the Bible are pre-christian. They were borrowed.

The bible itself happened during the Christian movement. The four main Gospels are estimated to have been written 60 years after the death of Christ.

And the evolution defense is really a fuzzy way to defend your point dont you think, why do you think there is a missing link between apes and humans,
There is none, apes have no soul, we do, only God gave us souls, not evolution.

How do you know apes have no soul? You don't.

There is a link between apes and humans as we share 98.9% of DNA.

Primatology is my thing so I am happy to correct your mistakes as to the similarites between us.

For the person who wanted proof from the Bible that Adam and Eve were married, Genesis 2:25, "The man (Adam) and his WIFE were both naked, and they felt no shame."

How do you know apes have no soul? You don't.

There is a link between apes and humans as we share 98.9% of DNA.

Primatology is my thing so I am happy to correct your mistakes as to the similarites between us.

Apes don't got Soul. Everyone knows they're into Jungle beats.

For the person who wanted proof from the Bible that Adam and Eve were married, Genesis 2:25, "The man (Adam) and his WIFE were both naked, and they felt no shame."

Ahh but was it a Christian marriage? Who married them?

Were they simply pair bonded? Many animals take life long partners....

Apes don't got Soul. Everyone knows they're into Jungle beats.

:D

But can they dance?

:D

But can they dance?

hm this is a valid point. if they can dance, and know they're dancing, then that is art, and art requires conscience, and conscience implies a soul. So perhaps apes have a soul, but not Soul.

For the person who wanted proof from the Bible that Adam and Eve were married, Genesis 2:25, "The man (Adam) and his WIFE were both naked, and they felt no shame."

OK. But does that say God created the institution of marriage from Adam and Eve? No. It merely says in passing that Eve was a wife.

How does that imply that marriage is only between a man and a woman?

OK. But does that say God created the institution of marriage from Adam and Eve? No. It merely says in passing that Eve was a wife.

How does that imply that marriage is only between a man and a woman?

if that implies the creation of the institution of marriage, does that mean God also created the institution of incest? what with abel marrying his sister(s) and all...

Ahh but was it a Christian marriage? Who married them?

Were they simply pair bonded? Many animals take life long partners....

First off, animals and humans are two totally separate categories. Second, what part of "wife" do you have trouble understanding? Theology lesson: the term "Christian" did not come around until after the Great Commission when Christ ascended into heaven. Why? Because Christ had not died to pay for the sins of the world yet. And as far as whether or not it was a "Christian" marriage, I don't think that it really had anything to do with what we were talking about before. And on that note, I'm heading to bed!

hm this is a valid point. if they can dance, and know they're dancing, then that is art, and art requires conscience, and conscience implies a soul. So perhaps apes have a soul, but not Soul.

Well Jane Goodall once commented on that.

http://www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=229

Chimps have been known to paint and actually prefer certain colors.

Question: If you are self aware, does that mean a soul?

First off, animals and humans are two totally separate categories. Second, what part of "wife" do you have trouble understanding? Theology lesson: the term "Christian" did not come around until after the Great Commission when Christ ascended into heaven. Why? Because Christ had not died to pay for the sins of the world yet. And as far as whether or not it was a "Christian" marriage, I don't think that it really had anything to do with what we were talking about before. And on that note, I'm heading to bed!

Sorry kiddo, you don't have to "explain" Christianity to me. Was in the system probably longer then you.

All that is explained is that Eve was Adams "wife" but it is never defined. The muslims can have mulitple wives.

As Cat has already stated. It does not define marriage.....

if that implies the creation of the institution of marriage, does that mean God also created the institution of incest? what with abel marrying his sister(s) and all...
What was the other option?

And technically Adam was procreating with himself, as God made Eve out of one of his ribs, so what would you say about that?

if that implies the creation of the institution of marriage, does that mean God also created the institution of incest? what with abel marrying his sister(s) and all...

They were from Kentucky? :p

Well Jane Goodall once commented on that.

http://www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=229

Chimps have been known to paint and actually prefer certain colors.

Question: If you are self aware, does that mean a soul?
Just because they "prefer" certain colors doesn't mean that they are self aware. There are many explinations, and not all of them include the assumption that chimps are self aware. They have highly advanced brains, and certain impulses may cause them to have a certain reaction, influencing their future decisions. This could be because they are able to better percieve that color, or something, but it doesn't make them self aware.

Well Jane Goodall once commented on that.
http://www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=229
Chimps have been known to paint and actually prefer certain colors.


those chimps are very 2001: Space Odyssey-esqe :eek:

Question: If you are self aware, does that mean a soul?

ooo that's a can of worms. if i say yes, then you question if babies have a soul before they're a few months old, and we start an abortion debate.

If i say no, then i've got problems with dancing chimps. hm. that's a toughie. I'm tempted to say that soul is personality, but I know bacteria with a whole lot more personality than some people.

Just about the whole creation versus evolution argument, who says that Genesis was supposed to be taken literally? There are certainly lessons in it that could be understood without thinking that the characters were real, and that they truly did live 6000 years ago (or whatever the number is). The book was written not to be a transcript of events, but to teach the believers important lessons about trust, obediance, and give them some closure about how they came to be, as that was one of the major reasons for religion way back when.

People who take the bible too literally just make all Catholics look a little bit stupid. It's not an owners manual, it's a set of guidelines, tip sheet type thing.

What was the other option?

And technically Adam was procreating with himself, as God made Eve out of one of his ribs, so what would you say about that?
I would laugh and say i have never, at any time having religious debates, thought of that. well played.

Just because they "prefer" certain colors doesn't mean that they are self aware. There are many explinations, and not all of them include the assumption that chimps are self aware. They have highly advanced brains, and certain impulses may cause them to have a certain reaction, influencing their future decisions. This could be because they are able to better percieve that color, or something, but it doesn't make them self aware.

Actually they are. You have to look to the dot tests of Harlow.

He introduced mirrors to his chimps. Which by the way are notorious for liking to look at themselves in mirrors.

When they got used to them or bored; he tranked them and painted a red dot on their heads. I forget the material but it was something that would not itch, etc.

Well they woke up and started doing their thing then one by one they glanced at the mirror and raced over and checked out the dots.

They knew it didn't belong there.

He tested on other animals and they could care less.....

Actually they are. You have to look to the dot tests of Harlow.

He introduced mirrors to his chimps. Which by the way are notorious for liking to look at themselves in mirrors.

When they got used to them or bored; he tranked them and painted a red dot on their heads. I forget the material but it was something that would not itch, etc.

Well they woke up and started doing their thing then one by one they glanced at the mirror and raced over and checked out the dots.

They knew it didn't belong there.

He tested on other animals and they could care less.....
OK, so even granting them some form of "awareness", does any awareness at all immediately make them conscious? They can recognize changes in their apperance, or an image that they see in a mirror, which is an important step, but we cannot assume that they can have anything approaching real thought. Is there a cutoff point for being sentient? Where is it? I agree that Chimps are the closest to us in terms of intelligence and level of thought, but just because they are closest doesn't make them all that close in general.

Calling them self-aware because they can acheive image recognition is just irresponsible.

I would laugh and say i have never, at any time having religious debates, thought of that. well played.
thank you

OK, so even granting them some form of "awareness", does any awareness at all immediately make them conscious? They can recognize changes in their apperance, or an image that they see in a mirror, which is an important step, but we cannot assume that they can have anything approaching real thought. Is there a cutoff point for being sentient? Where is it? I agree that Chimps are the closest to us in terms of intelligence and level of thought, but just because they are closest doesn't make them all that close in general.

Calling them self-aware because they can acheive image recognition is just irresponsible.

Pray tell how you would test for self-awareness.

OK, so even granting them some form of "awareness", does any awareness at all immediately make them conscious? They can recognize changes in their apperance, or an image that they see in a mirror, which is an important step, but we cannot assume that they can have anything approaching real thought. Is there a cutoff point for being sentient? Where is it? I agree that Chimps are the closest to us in terms of intelligence and level of thought, but just because they are closest doesn't make them all that close in general.

Calling them self-aware because they can acheive image recognition is just irresponsible.

Well I guess it's your definition in play then?

Other examples, they problem solve, they make war, they make tools, and have strong family bonds, they practice rudimentary politics, they feel loss. Heck I have even seen a tape offering the question of the ability to lie?

god is a man made entity.but why would i even follow a religion that advicates child molestation, and breaking laws. first you have mahoney protecting child molesters then he's out there saying we should let illegals run wild in our country. if he would bother to read what he is supposedly preaching.he would know that the bible is a strong defender of nation borders. if this fucker and the catholic lemmings want illegals, it should come out of YOUR pocket to house, feed and getting rid of there diseases.strong tariff on all catholics.and church should not be exempted from taxs.its time that all churchs start paying taxs, they are always envolved in politics, and sticking there nose in government affairs.

Well I guess it's your definition in play then?

Other examples, they problem solve, they make war, they make tools, and have strong family bonds, they practice rudimentary politics, they feel loss. Heck I have even seen a tape offering the question of the ability to lie?
War isn't a sign of intelligence, almost all animals have conflict of some kind, Sticks aren't really great tools, once they start making their own I'll get more excited for that one, family bonds are characteristic to many mammals, and not all mammals are smart, the politics point is overblown, they do have a social structure, but so do lions, and no one says that they are self-aware.

These are all signs of some intelligence, I just wouldn't go so far as to say that they are self aware because of them.

War isn't a sign of intelligence, almost all animals have conflict of some kind,

Actually no. You are describing dominance matches or chasing off some another male from your females.

The case in question was monitored on the Gombe. A group split. The original group started "missions" looking for certain individuals in the other group. One they were killed the "missions" stopped.

Sticks aren't really great tools, once they start making their own I'll get more excited for that one,

When you are fishing for termites; they are excellent tools. Chimps have been observed look for a certain type a stick over simply taking one.family bonds are characteristic to many mammals, and not all mammals are smart, the politics point is overblown, they do have a social structure, but so do lions, and no one says that they are self-aware.

These are all signs of some intelligence, I just wouldn't go so far as to say that they are self aware because of them.

As cat has mentioned why don't you define it then.

War isn't a sign of intelligence, almost all animals have conflict of some kind, Sticks aren't really great tools, once they start making their own I'll get more excited for that one, family bonds are characteristic to many mammals, and not all mammals are smart, the politics point is overblown, they do have a social structure, but so do lions, and no one says that they are self-aware.

These are all signs of some intelligence, I just wouldn't go so far as to say that they are self aware because of them.

Again, this begs the question of what you would count as evidence of self-awareness.

god is a man made entity.but why would i even follow a religion that advicates child molestation, and breaking laws. first you have mahoney protecting child molesters then he's out there saying we should let illegals run wild in our country. if he would bother to read what he is supposedly preaching.he would know that the bible is a strong defender of nation borders. if this fucker and the catholic lemmings want illegals, it should come out of YOUR pocket to house, feed and getting rid of there diseases.strong tariff on all catholics.and church should not be exempted from taxs.its time that all churchs start paying taxs, they are always envolved in politics, and sticking there nose in government affairs.

1. It is?

2. Tell us how you really feel about immigrants.

god is a man made entity.
Well the problem is you can't prove it or disprove it.

but why would i even follow a religion that advicates child molestation,

Advocating and trying to hide it are two different things.


and breaking laws. first you have mahoney protecting child molesters then he's out there saying we should let illegals run wild in our country. if he would bother to read what he is supposedly preaching.he would know that the bible is a strong defender of nation borders. if this fucker and the catholic lemmings want illegals, it should come out of YOUR pocket to house, feed and getting rid of there diseases.strong tariff on all catholics.and church should not be exempted from taxs.its time that all churchs start paying taxs, they are always envolved in politics, and sticking there nose in government affairs.

What?

Why even bother with that kind of post, just let it go

they are always envolved in politics, and sticking there nose in government affairs.


You've got Catholics confused with Fundies.

Again, this begs the question of what you would count as evidence of self-awareness.
"I think, therefore I am"
I just find it an inexcusable jump in logic to say that because chimps are able to preform these tasks that they are truly sentient. If I could see a chimp's brain, I doubt any type of action on the level of "I think, therefore I am" would be taking place.

"I think, therefore I am"
I just find it an inexcusable jump in logic to say that because chimps are able to preform these tasks that they are truly sentient. If I could see a chimp's brain, I doubt any type of action on the level of "I think, therefore I am" would be taking place.

You are begging the question.

How would you test for whether a chimp thinks?

You are begging the question.

How would you test for whether a chimp thinks?
I really don't have an answer.

Do you?:)

"I think, therefore I am"
I just find it an inexcusable jump in logic to say that because chimps are able to preform these tasks that they are truly sentient. If I could see a chimp's brain, I doubt any type of action on the level of "I think, therefore I am" would be taking place.

eh? Are you suggesting because they can't argue philosophy, they aren't self aware?

Well only you can take off the blinders.

So another example. Amercian Sign language and the chimp Washo. She was observed teaching her son how to sign. Why would an unaware animal do that?

Sorry lad but I have to declare you are arguing from a lack of perspective in this matter.

I really don't have an answer.

Do you?:)

Well, I think you will ahve to define thought before we can answer that one.

I am also a Catholic.

I am also a Catholic.

Do you want a medal or sympathy? :p

Just about the whole creation versus evolution argument, who says that Genesis was supposed to be taken literally? There are certainly lessons in it that could be understood without thinking that the characters were real, and that they truly did live 6000 years ago (or whatever the number is). The book was written not to be a transcript of events, but to teach the believers important lessons about trust, obediance, and give them some closure about how they came to be, as that was one of the major reasons for religion way back when.

People who take the bible too literally just make all Catholics look a little bit stupid. It's not an owners manual, it's a set of guidelines, tip sheet type thing.

They are also going against Catholic teaching, which views the Old Testament as a record of the history of the development of the spirituality that culminated in Jesus.

eh? Are you suggesting because they can't argue philosophy, they aren't self aware?

Well only you can take off the blinders.

So another example. Amercian Sign language and the chimp Washo. She was observed teaching her son how to sign. Why would an unaware animal do that?

Sorry lad but I have to declare you are arguing from a lack of perspective in this matter.
It's more me wanting you to do all the arguing for me than anything else.

Language is a big indicator of intelligence, and it certainly appears that some chimps are able to learn, but are they able to expand on that knowledge by themselves? Have they thought up new uses for their language, or tried to describe things other than bodily needs or emotions (when prompted), my guess would be no. I'm not saying that they aren't a few thousand generations away from some semblence of self-awareness, but I am saying that what they have now doesn't qualify.

I used to be catholic, not by choice really more by birth. I've given up on the concept by now. That bunch of old men should best be left alone to drivel their hatred against women who refuse to be their slaves and homosexuals who lead a happy and fulfilling life.
The good thing is, their church forbids them to procreate, so hopefully the entire thing will be extinct in, oh, say another century or so.

Well, I think you will ahve to define thought before we can answer that one.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines thought as "A single act or product of thinking; an item of mental activity; something that one thinks or has thought; a thing that is in the mind; an idea, notion. (Sometimes, as expressed in writing)"

god is a man made entity.but why would i even follow a religion that advicates child molestation, and breaking laws. first you have mahoney protecting child molesters then he's out there saying we should let illegals run wild in our country. if he would bother to read what he is supposedly preaching.he would know that the bible is a strong defender of nation borders. if this fucker and the catholic lemmings want illegals, it should come out of YOUR pocket to house, feed and getting rid of there diseases.strong tariff on all catholics.and church should not be exempted from taxs.its time that all churchs start paying taxs, they are always envolved in politics, and sticking there nose in government affairs.

Oooh, Angry!

The child molestation thing is terrible and reflects that the Church is run on Earth by people rather than God. There is a concept of the Mother Church, which is the perfect Church and then there is the Church, the one we have. Neither advocate child molestation.

We are people first and borders come second. I cannot recall Jesus prioritising national borders, indeed the famous disruption of the market in the temple reflects this. The market was located in an area which was for Gentiles to come and worship God, many Jews did not see the point, and this angered Jesus who wished to see Gentiles made Welcome.

I used to be catholic, not by choice really more by birth. I've given up on the concept by now. That bunch of old men should best be left alone to drivel their hatred against women who refuse to be their slaves and homosexuals who lead a happy and fulfilling life.
The good thing is, their church forbids them to procreate, so hopefully the entire thing will be extinct in, oh, say another century or so.
Wow, somebody didn't have their nap today.

Wow, somebody didn't have their nap today.

Well, you best tuck the Pope in then... we wouldn't want him to become cranky, now, would we?

Well, you best tuck the Pope in then... we wouldn't want him to become cranky, now, would we?
So you care if he's cranky while he's driveling?
Why?:confused: :confused:

It's more me wanting you to do all the arguing for me than anything else.

Language is a big indicator of intelligence, and it certainly appears that some chimps are able to learn, but are they able to expand on that knowledge by themselves? Have they thought up new uses for their language, or tried to describe things other than bodily needs or emotions (when prompted), my guess would be no. I'm not saying that they aren't a few thousand generations away from some semblence of self-awareness, but I am saying that what they have now doesn't qualify.

As to the question of language. yes. Kanzii was tought a symbol language and a special keyboard was created for him. He has created symbol orders for certain things that were not involved in his lessons and or sessions.

Even Koko who I have my doubts does ask for things. Washo for sure.

Expand knowledge? Ok why would you even ask that if they are passing on knowlege(ie Washoo teaching her son how to sign as in shoing the correct way to make a motion with his hand?).

Prompted is not a valid claim as great care is put into the study to avoid it especially after the Nim affair.

Well, you best tuck the Pope in then... we wouldn't want him to become cranky, now, would we?

Piss of the Panzer Pope. Nononono NOPE! ;)

I am, and we need to kill more heretics!

As to the question of language. yes. Kanzii was tought a symbol language and a special keyboard was created for him. He has created symbol orders for certain things that were not involved in his lessons and or sessions.

Even Koko who I have my doubts does ask for things. Washo for sure.

Expand knowledge? Ok why would you even ask that if they are passing on knowlege(ie Washoo teaching her son how to sign as in shoing the correct way to make a motion with his hand?).

Prompted is not a valid claim as great care is put into the study to avoid it especially after the Nim affair.
Passing on knowledge is not the same thing as expanding knowledge. Expanding knowledge would be making new words, being inquisitive, showing initiative, etc., none of which the chimps seem to be doing. If the Chimp has been trained well enough, and had the right vocal equipment, they would talk, though only in a few phrases. That would be an echo of the people teaching them, there would be no outward advancement.

So you care if he's cranky while he's driveling?
Why?:confused: :confused:

Cause people like my grandparents still try to live their life according to what he says (which is confusing enough for the poor folks), and when he's cranky he'll make them even more miserable.

Cause people like my grandparents still try to live their life according to what he says (which is confusing enough for the poor folks), and when he's cranky he'll make them even more miserable.
K
I'm sure other people would try to reason with you, but I don't have the time or the patience to. I hope you feel content with whatever you believe right now.

Passing on knowledge is not the same thing as expanding knowledge. Expanding knowledge would be making new words, being inquisitive, showing initiative, etc., none of which the chimps seem to be doing. If the Chimp has been trained well enough, and had the right vocal equipment, they would talk, though only in a few phrases. That would be an echo of the people teaching them, there would be no outward advancement.

Ok cherry pick what you want but you are evading.

Again Kanzi made up new symbols for things that were not involved in his sessions and or lessons.

Inquistivie and initative? Ok you need to stop commenting on things you do not know. Chimps are very inquisitive and have no problems initiating.

Speaking? So speech is the only way something is self aware?

Passing on knowledge is not the same thing as expanding knowledge. Expanding knowledge would be making new words, being inquisitive, showing initiative, etc., none of which the chimps seem to be doing. If the Chimp has been trained well enough, and had the right vocal equipment, they would talk, though only in a few phrases. That would be an echo of the people teaching them, there would be no outward advancement.

Since chimps are doing those things, you should concede. By your own standards, chimps are sentient.

Ok cherry pick what you want but you are evading.

Again Kanzi made up new symbols for things that were not involved in his sessions and or lessons.

Inquistivie and initative? Ok you need to stop commenting on things you do not know. Chimps are very inquisitive and have no problems initiating.

Speaking? So speech is the only way something is self aware?
Try reading the post and then retort.

Since chimps are doing those things, you should concede. By your own standards, chimps are sentient.
Do you have any evidence?

Do you have any evidence?

Not handy, but I bet TBF does. Prepare to eat your hat.

EDIT: BTW, you keep conceding that chimps do exhibit "signs of intelligence." How many signs of intelligence must something exhibit before you infer it is intelligent?

Not handy, but I bet TBF does. Prepare to eat your hat.
If I had a hat, and if you had evidence, than I would do so.

Do you have any evidence?

For chimps being sentient? As far as I'm aware, it's a commonly accepted fact. All sentience is is the ability to perceive things. It's not even necessarily self-awareness.

Not handy, but I bet TBF does. Prepare to eat your hat.

EDIT: BTW, you keep conceding that chimps do exhibit "signs of intelligence." How many signs of intelligence must something exhibit before you infer it is intelligent?
Intelligent and self-aware are two different things.

Intelligent and self-aware are two different things.

But what about "I think therefore I am"?

Try reading the post and then retort.

Actually I did. What do you not understand?

As to Cat's comment?

What would you like for evidence?

Here is an article about reasoning. It was Premacks and the chimp Sarah.

http://www.nbu.bg/cogs/personal/kokinov/COG501/Reasoning%20in%20the%20Chimpanzee.pdf

Here is Kanzi (I didn't mention he was a bonobo) making up his own words.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3218

Hmmm should I mention the sexual habits of the bonobo? ;)

there are many more but I need to know what you are interested in....

But what about "I think therefore I am"?
What about it?
Intelligence doesn't have to mean thought

I believe all animals have a soul, not just humans.

What is your standard?

The chimp arguments being beaten to death, I wont go there but to say it appears that they have a soul and are sentient by even your own standards.

However, lets take another step down. Dogs, for instance. Less like us then chimps. They have not made art as we understand the word, which would be your strongest argument I would say against them having a soul.
They do not speak in a language we understand. Of course, if you speak only english, neither do Germans, Frenchmen, etc... Do they have souls?

Taking iniative should probably be defined too. When my dog is hungry he will nudge me to get food. He took the initiative to tell me he was hungry. He may depend on me for food, but so would a very young child. Do they have souls?

And there is something that transcends language. Something that transcends species. I have looked into the eyes of various dogs Ive had and seen pain. I have heard dogs whine with longing when seperated from a particualrly loving owner. They can FEEL, which in my opinion is the single most important factor in determining soul.

Just because something is different does not mean it is less than (many could stand to learn this for people too). However, if you look closely you'll see that even things that seem very different at first still aren't so fundamentally different.

I mispoke. For whatever reason I always credit the dot tests to Harlow.

They were done by Gordon Gallup.

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0401/resources_who.html

I believe all animals have a soul, not just humans.

What is your standard?

The chimp arguments being beaten to death, I wont go there but to say it appears that they have a soul and are sentient by even your own standards.

However, lets take another step down. Dogs, for instance. Less like us then chimps. They have not made art as we understand the word, which would be your strongest argument I would say against them having a soul.
They do not speak in a language we understand. Of course, if you speak only english, neither do Germans, Frenchmen, etc... Do they have souls?

Taking iniative should probably be defined too. When my dog is hungry he will nudge me to get food. He took the initiative to tell me he was hungry. He may depend on me for food, but so would a very young child. Do they have souls?

And there is something that transcends language. Something that transcends species. I have looked into the eyes of various dogs Ive had and seen pain. I have heard dogs whine with longing when seperated from a particualrly loving owner. They can FEEL, which in my opinion is the single most important factor in determining soul.

Just because something is different does not mean it is less than (many could stand to learn this for people too). However, if you look closely you'll see that even things that seem very different at first still aren't so fundamentally different.
I can't help but think this was directed at me. I never said that chimps didn't have souls, just that they were not self-aware. It was an assertion with no founding which could have taken the discussion totally off the tracks. I have done my best to make the other people here qualify and provide evidence for their assertion, which they have done.

I'm Anglican (Episcopalalian, to be more specific) and it suits me just fine.

All (okay, most) the tradition, liturgy, and spirituality...

None (okay, much MUCH less) the hypocrisy, ultra-conservativism, etc.

The Catholic Church is getting better, but it still has its problems.

*shrug* What organization doesn't?

What about it?
Intelligence doesn't have to mean thought

Eh?

If there is no thought, then how do you define intelligence?

What about it?
Intelligence doesn't have to mean thought

Keep on movin' the goal posts.

Doesn't matter The Black Forrest's evidence is still sufficient.

I can't help but think this was directed at me. I never said that chimps didn't have souls, just that they were not self-aware. It was an assertion with no founding which could have taken the discussion totally off the tracks. I have done my best to make the other people here qualify and provide evidence for their assertion, which they have done.


Actually, I think it was True Being who made the claim only humans have souls. I suppose when I wrote it it was also directed at you, because you seemed to be defending said assertion. If you don't believe it however, then sorry for the misinterpretation, though I would still like True Being and any others who say that we are the only ones who have soul to justify it.

Eh?

If there is no thought, then how do you define intelligence?
Ok, the Oxford English Dictionary defines intellingence as "Interchange of knowledge, information, or sentiment; mutual conveyance of information; communication, intercourse"

I dont know why everyone makes such a big deal about religion. Youd think that as smart intelligent human beings we could just set our differences aside. Iam a buddhist myself and belive strongly in karma. It dosnt matter what religion your part of, you can still reach enlightenment through doing good deads and helping others.

I believe all animals have a soul, not just humans.

What is your standard?

The chimp arguments being beaten to death, I wont go there but to say it appears that they have a soul and are sentient by even your own standards.


Wellllllll

The question of Soul is not one that we can answer. Even with humans, not everbody buys into it. It's a metaphysical question. Do we get horns or wings when we die and take up residence in our defined places? or are we simply energy as in the Force?

Primatologists usually avoid the question of souls as it opens the doors for anthropomorphism.

Keep on movin' the goal posts.

Doesn't matter The Black Forrest's evidence is still sufficient.
I'm not moving the goals, you guys just aren't exactly acheiving the goals. At least in my mind. Ur getting closer though.

The real question is how can anyone firmly say without a doubt that animals dont have souls? If god created humans, and we have a soul, then why if he also created animals can they not have a soul as well? Is there something in the bible that says animals dont have souls?

I'm not moving the goals, you guys just aren't exactly acheiving the goals. At least in my mind. Ur getting closer though.

Ok what do you want then?

A chimp speaking in prose? Not happening.
A chimp arguing greek philosophy? Not happening.

The real question is how can anyone firmly say without a doubt that animals dont have souls? If god created humans, and we have a soul, then why if he also created animals can they not have a soul as well? Is there something in the bible that says animals dont have souls?

I forget the passage but it mentions they are basically tools. As such people make an interpretation......

Ok what do you want then?

A chimp speaking in prose? Not happening.
A chimp arguing greek philosophy? Not happening.
That would be pretty definative, wouldn't it...
But no, I just wanted clarification so that other people coming back to this argument wouldn't follow an illogical path to conclusions that are outrageous and totally unfounded, or are founded on an illogical path.

Plus, I was bored, and you guys took the bait.

I'm not moving the goals, you guys just aren't exactly acheiving the goals. At least in my mind. Ur getting closer though.

Sounds like a bunch of bs to me. We've established so far that they show signs of toolmaking, learning, writing, recognizing physical appearence, loving, hating, fighting, and loss

What more could you possibly want? Thats exactly what humans do, except that we have a higher level of it.

Ok, the Oxford English Dictionary defines intellingence as "Interchange of knowledge, information, or sentiment; mutual conveyance of information; communication, intercourse"

Again, chimps have been shown to meet this definition.

Sounds like a bunch of bs to me. We've established so far that they show signs of toolmaking, learning, writing, recognizing physical appearence, loving, hating, fighting, and loss

What more could you possibly want? Thats exactly what humans do, except that we have a higher level of it.
Whoa now, which we? You just joined this party, give Cat-Tribe and Black Forrest the credit, not yourself.

And read the progression of the posts before you start spouting again.

Again, chimps have been shown to meet this definition.
Well, ok then, so they do.:)

Whoa now, which we? You just joined this party, give Cat-Tribe and Black Forrest the credit, not yourself.

And read the progression of the posts before you start spouting again.

Whoa yourself. ImperiumVictorious made a sensible comment and you replied with pure venom.

Whoa yourself. ImperiumVictorious made a sensible comment and you replied with pure venom.
He's acting like he's been here the whole time, and he hasn't, I was trying to assign credit where it was due, not to someone who isn't fully involved in the discussion.

Ahh well then.

Time for bed.

Night all.

Oh an lalaland. Franz De Waal is always a good read if you are curious. Chimpanzee politics would be a good start.....

Ahh well then.

Time for bed.

Night all.

Oh an lalaland. Franz De Waal is always a good read if you are curious. Chimpanzee politics would be a good start.....
OK, thanks for the conversation.

Thanks for the conversation Cat-Tribe, g'night.

However, if tradition is sexist, and the Church is deeply rooted in tradition, then the Church is sexist.
His Holiness Pope John Paul I (Good Keep Him and Protect Him) had no issue with women in the Church. It is tradition, not the Church

*shrug* And yet there are millions of Catholic women who apparently are not bothered by it.

Heck, the Lutheran church itslef is at the moment on the brink of a schizm. What does that say about Protestant churches, if it's so significant that the Protestant churches split off from Catholicism?
It is also important to note that The Anglican Church of Australia identifies itself as Catholic and differs to Rome, not England. Furthermore, the Lutheran Church and Catholic church "Re-embosomed" themselves circa 1996.

Funny how that hasn't always been Church doctrine -- at least not towards pre-quickening abortions.

Funnier still how you can't find a quote from the Bible saying abortion is murder. To the contrary, you can find a quote expressly saying it is not the equivalent of murder.
The Abortion Issue was created through a doctrinal grey area. The Church had always believed the human soul entered the human body at birth, since that is when science said life began. However, as science developed the nature of life changed and we end up in the conundrum we're in now.

Man that condom thing is so missrepresented, right we are against condoms, but we are also against sex outside marriage, If they won't listen to that rule in the first palce how can they honestly get mad if they don't like to listen to us in the first place, they think that our rules are pick and choose.
The Church does -however- sanction the use of condoms to prevents STDs/STIs

The Abortion Issue was created through a doctrinal grey area. The Church had always believed the human soul entered the human body at birth, since that is when science said life began. However, as science developed the nature of life changed and we end up in the conundrum we're in now.

Um. You're not seriously claiming that science developed new information on when the human soul entered the body, thus causing a change in Church doctrine??!!

For some reason this thread reminded me of a good ol emo phillips quote

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. so i ran over and said "stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?" He said, "Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.

Um. You're not seriously claiming that science developed new information on when the human soul entered the body, thus causing a change in Church doctrine??!!
No, what I'm trying to explain is the doctrine never changed. it has always been a sin to murder a living human being. However, when the definition of life changed from the moment a person was born to the moment their heart stopped beating, to including the idea of life inside the womb, the Church was forced into a corner on doctrine. The Catholic Church is not the only society to find mordern science and ancient ethics to create problems.

No, what I'm trying to explain is the doctrine never changed. it has always been a sin to murder a living human being. However, when the definition of life changed from the moment a person was born to the moment their heart stopped beating, to including the idea of life inside the womb, the Church was forced into a corner on doctrine. The Catholic Church is not the only society to find mordern science and ancient ethics to create problems.

Nice attempt at apologetics.

But you ignore the possibility (which is the truth) that Church doctrine changed as to when the definition of life began.

You make it sound like the definition of life changed and that forced the Church's hand, but that simply not accurate.

Catholics...still haven't cleared their name...

Im extreme anti-catholic but im going to be nice and point out what i think the major anti-populist ideals are.

Contraception. (nuff said)
Abortion (Im with you guys on this personally but im also pro choice argh!)
The pope. ELECT A YOUNG ONE FFS!!! someone charismatic not old and dull, yeh he may not have earned the place but if you dont do something soon then you'll lose support everywhere! you need a leader!

The swiss guard. ASSHOLES seriously "Why CANT i sit down?! ok put the pike away im going."


Being just a bit harsh... If you do something like grant amnesty to all non-catholics every now and then people will like you more, plus they get to go to heaven so your doing a moral thing :D it gives everyone a clean slate.
Plus you wont "Lose" believers, not REAL ones anyway

Im extreme anti-catholic but im going to be nice and point out what i think the major anti-populist ideals are.

Contraception. (nuff said)
Abortion (Im with you guys on this personally but im also pro choice argh!)
The pope. ELECT A YOUNG ONE FFS!!! someone charismatic not old and dull, yeh he may not have earned the place but if you dont do something soon then you'll lose support everywhere! you need a leader!

The swiss guard. ASSHOLES seriously "Why CANT i sit down?! ok put the pike away im going."


Being just a bit harsh... If you do something like grant amnesty to all non-catholics every now and then people will like you more, plus they get to go to heaven so your doing a moral thing :D it gives everyone a clean slate.
Plus you wont "Lose" believers, not REAL ones anyway


Not a very coherant post there.

Especially following "catholics havent cleared their name..."

We need less rambling nonsense on the forum, not more.

Catholics seem to be doing quite well as it is, not "losing support everywhere" and certainly not concerned with whether or not abandoning their religion will make people "like them more."

No, I'm not a Catholic, but one thing I have always thought interesting about Catholocism was praying the rosary. It's the only Christian religion that seems to have a form of meditation built into it.
That's not just Catholicism. All Christian denominations but the post-Lutheran one do the prayer beads thing.

Could you please explain this oxymoron to me please?

A Catholic Atheist is someone who was born, baptised and raised Catholic. Most of us went to Catholic school growing up, and at some point, either between being smacked on the knuckles with a ruler by a nun, or by having the priest creep you out, or whatever, realized religion is a bunch of crap. Then we became atheists. Different people have different reasons of course, like all atheists, but Catholic Atheists generally refer to once Catholic people who have consciously rejected religion.

A Catholic Atheist is someone who was born, baptised and raised Catholic. Most of us went to Catholic school growing up, and at some point, either between being smacked on the knuckles with a ruler by a nun, or by having the priest creep you out, or whatever, realized religion is a bunch of crap. Then we became atheists. Different people have different reasons of course, like all atheists, but Catholic Atheists generally refer to once Catholic people who have consciously rejected religion.
nicely explained. i dont know why people have such a problem with it.

one doesnt devote so many years of their lives to something and STOP being it simply because they dont believe the core message anymore...

besides, im a member in good standing in the catholic church and, should i change my mind, i am but one trip to the confessional way from being pure as the driven snow.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty
Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible:
And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds;
God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God;
begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father,
by Whom all things were made:
Who for us men and for our salvation came down from Heaven,
and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man:
And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried:
And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures:
And ascended into Heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father:
And he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead:
Whose Kingdom will have no end:
And I believe in the Holy Ghost the Lord, and Giver of Life,
Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified,
Who spake by the Prophets.
And I believe in One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,
I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.
And I look for the Resurrection of the Dead:
And the Life of the world to come. Amen.

Enough said.

Alleluia, Christ our Lord, our Saviour, our King, is Risen. Alleluia. Alleluia.

I am a catholic and agree with my church

A Catholic Atheist is someone who was born, baptised and raised Catholic. Most of us went to Catholic school growing up, and at some point, either between being smacked on the knuckles with a ruler by a nun, or by having the priest creep you out, or whatever, realized religion is a bunch of crap. Then we became atheists. Different people have different reasons of course, like all atheists, but Catholic Atheists generally refer to once Catholic people who have consciously rejected religion.


I agree, more or less.

Also, there is sometimes a partiality towards catholicism v. protestant denominations.

I think its basically the same as "jewish atheists."

Nice attempt at apologetics.

But you ignore the possibility (which is the truth) that Church doctrine changed as to when the definition of life began.

You make it sound like the definition of life changed and that forced the Church's hand, but that simply not accurate.
I have made to pretence of apologetics, nice attempt at deception.

I ignore the possibility of something that did not happen? Of course I did. Catholic doctrine on life was set in the 6th century and has remained largely consistant.

If you are trying to say that our understanding over life hasn't changed in two thousand years, I'd be forced to call you an idiot. Because that statement would be idiocy.

Catholics have for two thousand years said it is wrong to murder another living human being. There's no questioning that. It's a central and imovable pillar of the Church's Dogma and faith. However, the definition of life has not remained unchanged for two thousand years. Now tell me, if the definition of murder has not changed, but the definition of life has, how can you possibly support your position?

If you are trying to say that our understanding over life hasn't changed in two thousand years, I'd be forced to call you an idiot. Because that statement would be idiocy.




So they knew things like zygote and cell Meiosis?

You do realize they have changed their stances a few times such as it was once thought that "ensoulment" occured 40 days after conception?


Catholics have for two thousand years said it is wrong to murder another living human being. There's no questioning that. It's a central and imovable pillar of the Church's Dogma and faith.

Hmmmm? Then the Crusades and the inquisition were momentary lapses in memory?

However, the definition of life has not remained unchanged for two thousand years. Now tell me, if the definition of murder has not changed, but the definition of life has, how can you possibly support your position?

Actually it has changed in 2000 years. They didn't understand DNA or cell division back then. The re-aligned when more "evil" knowlege was found.....

I have made to pretence of apologetics, nice attempt at deception.

I ignore the possibility of something that did not happen? Of course I did. Catholic doctrine on life was set in the 6th century and has remained largely consistant.


I have to return on this one.

Actually no it has not been consistent since there were debates over this between the 5th and 17th centuries.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

St. Augustine (354-430 CE) reversed centuries of Christian teaching in Western Europe, and returned to the Aristotelian concept of "delayed ensoulment." He wrote 7 that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated). He wrote extensively on sexual matters, teaching that the original sin of Adam and Eve are passed to each successive generation through the pleasure generated during sexual intercourse. This passed into the church's canon law. Only abortion of a more fully developed "fetus animatus" (animated fetus) was punished as murder.

Augustine had little influence over the beliefs of Eastern Christianity. They retained their original anti-abortion stance.

St. Jerome wrote in a letter to Aglasia: "The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs" 8

Starting in the 7th century CE, a series of penitentials were written in the West. These listed an array of sins, with the penance that a person must observe as punishment for the sin. Certain "sins" which prevented conception had particularly heavy penalties. These included:
bullet practicing a particularly ineffective form of birth control, coitus interruptus (withdrawal of the penis prior to ejaculation)
bullet engaging in oral sex or anal sex
bullet becoming sterile by artificial means, such as by consuming sterilizing poisons.

Abortion, on the other hand, required a less serious penance. Theodore, who organized the English church, assembled a penitential about 700 CE. Oral intercourse required from 7 years to a lifetime of penance; abortion required only 120 days.

Pope Stephen V (served 885-891) wrote in 887 CE: "If he who destroys what is conceived in the womb by abortion is a murderer, how much more is he unable to excuse himself of murder who kills a child even one day old." "Epistle to Archbishop of Mainz."

Pope Innocent III (?-1216) wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not "animated."

Early in the 13th century, Pope Innocent III stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) also considered only the abortion of an "animated" fetus as murder.

Pope Sixtus V issued a Papal bull "Effraenatam" in 1588 which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty. Pope Gregory XIV revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in 1591. He reinstated the "quickening" test, which he said happened 116 days into pregnancy (16½ weeks).
This essay continues below.


horizontal rule
17th TO 19th CENTURY CE (Abortion becomes murder again):

In the 17th century, the concept of "simultaneous animation" gained acceptance within the medical and church communities in Western Europe. 9 This is the belief that an embryo acquires a soul at conception, not at 40 or 80 days into gestation as the church was teaching. In 1658 Hieronymus Florentinius, a Franciscan, asserted that all embryos or fetuses, regardless of its gestational age, which were in danger of death must be baptized. However, his opinion did not change the status of abortion as seen by the church.

Pope Pius IX reversed the stance of the Roman Catholic church once more. He dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" in 1869. Canon law was revised in 1917 and 1983 and to refer simply to "the fetus." The tolerant approach to abortion which had prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church for centuries ended. The church requires excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy.

Aaah, the lovely Catholic church... lets see here... I'll just point out what I find wrong about it.

1. If it was so great, it wouldn't have broken off into the protestant churches.
2. It is waaaaay too conservative and WILL NOT CHANGE it's ways.
3. The entire "SEX IS THE WORK OF THE DEVIL GOD DAMNIT!!" crap needs to go.
4. It's sexist, I don't see why women even attend it, seeing as how they are not allowed to become priests.
5. They seem to have a problem with their priests and little boys.
6. All of this happens because they will not change and adapt for the future, which I already said.

Im not Catholic although my dad is, and believe me the north American churches are extreme right wing fundamentalists compared to the Catholic Church, at least catholisism generally recognises science etc. I myself am Church of England (otherwise known as the Anglican Church) and it is from this church that most of the protestant churchs are descended. Not to demean this church or its offshoots but it was basicly started through a tiff between Henry VIII and the pope over a marrige. Not exactly an earth shakingly good reason for a religious divide. The preist thing is only a minority of cases, and as for adapting to the future they have evolved quite a bit since the bad old days of burning at the stake, and no longer blame Jews for the death of christ etc. which again is more than can be said for many North American churchs. This isn't to say there perfect, but just not as bad as the poster would have people believe. Personnally I have a fundemental problem with the pope and a fair bit of Catholic doctorine, but live and let live. Its also interesting to point out that despite popular belief the Catholic church is not the oldest church nor arguably is it the so called mother church.

I am catholic but more out of tradition than any actual faith, the church is obviously corrupt at the higher levels but my local Padre is a very decent bloke, together with his staff he looks after the local Pensioners, organizes Charity events, goes on anti war marches, etc.

So they knew things like zygote and cell Meiosis?

You do realize they have changed their stances a few times such as it was once thought that "ensoulment" occured 40 days after conception?

<&>

Actually it has changed in 2000 years. They didn't understand DNA or cell division back then. The re-aligned when more "evil" knowlege was found.....
This just proves my point. The doctrine of life hasn't changed, but the definition of life has. Thank you

Hmmmm? Then the Crusades and the inquisition were momentary lapses in memory?Get up on your history. The modern Church condmens both events and Pope JP2 actually issued apologies on behalf of the Church, kneeling before Muslim clerics and other religious figures at various points of his reign.

So they knew things like zygote and cell Meiosis?

You do realize they have changed their stances a few times such as it was once thought that "ensoulment" occured 40 days after conception?

<&>

Actually it has changed in 2000 years. They didn't understand DNA or cell division back then. The re-aligned when more "evil" knowlege was found.....
This just proves my point. The doctrine of life hasn't changed, but the definition of life has. Thank you

Hmmmm? Then the Crusades and the inquisition were momentary lapses in memory?Get up on your history. The modern Church condmens both events and Pope JP2 actually issued apologies on behalf of the Church, kneeling before Muslim clerics and other religious figures at various points of his reign.

So they knew things like zygote and cell Meiosis?

You do realize they have changed their stances a few times such as it was once thought that "ensoulment" occured 40 days after conception?

<&>

Actually it has changed in 2000 years. They didn't understand DNA or cell division back then. The re-aligned when more "evil" knowlege was found.....
This just proves my point. The doctrine of life hasn't changed, but the definition of life has. Thank you

Hmmmm? Then the Crusades and the inquisition were momentary lapses in memory?Get up on your history. The modern Church condmens both events and Pope JP2 actually issued apologies on behalf of the Church, kneeling before Muslim clerics and other religious figures at various points of his reign.

I have to return on this one.

Actually no it has not been consistent since there were debates over this between the 5th and 17th centuries.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

St. Augustine (354-430 CE) reversed centuries of Christian teaching in Western Europe, and returned to the Aristotelian concept of "delayed ensoulment." He wrote 7 that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated). He wrote extensively on sexual matters, teaching that the original sin of Adam and Eve are passed to each successive generation through the pleasure generated during sexual intercourse. This passed into the church's canon law. Only abortion of a more fully developed "fetus animatus" (animated fetus) was punished as murder.

Augustine had little influence over the beliefs of Eastern Christianity. They retained their original anti-abortion stance.

St. Jerome wrote in a letter to Aglasia: "The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs" 8

Starting in the 7th century CE, a series of penitentials were written in the West. These listed an array of sins, with the penance that a person must observe as punishment for the sin. Certain "sins" which prevented conception had particularly heavy penalties. These included:
bullet practicing a particularly ineffective form of birth control, coitus interruptus (withdrawal of the penis prior to ejaculation)
bullet engaging in oral sex or anal sex
bullet becoming sterile by artificial means, such as by consuming sterilizing poisons.

Abortion, on the other hand, required a less serious penance. Theodore, who organized the English church, assembled a penitential about 700 CE. Oral intercourse required from 7 years to a lifetime of penance; abortion required only 120 days.

Pope Stephen V (served 885-891) wrote in 887 CE: "If he who destroys what is conceived in the womb by abortion is a murderer, how much more is he unable to excuse himself of murder who kills a child even one day old." "Epistle to Archbishop of Mainz."

Pope Innocent III (?-1216) wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not "animated."

Early in the 13th century, Pope Innocent III stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) also considered only the abortion of an "animated" fetus as murder.

Pope Sixtus V issued a Papal bull "Effraenatam" in 1588 which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty. Pope Gregory XIV revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in 1591. He reinstated the "quickening" test, which he said happened 116 days into pregnancy (16½ weeks).
This essay continues below.


horizontal rule
17th TO 19th CENTURY CE (Abortion becomes murder again):

In the 17th century, the concept of "simultaneous animation" gained acceptance within the medical and church communities in Western Europe. 9 This is the belief that an embryo acquires a soul at conception, not at 40 or 80 days into gestation as the church was teaching. In 1658 Hieronymus Florentinius, a Franciscan, asserted that all embryos or fetuses, regardless of its gestational age, which were in danger of death must be baptized. However, his opinion did not change the status of abortion as seen by the church.

Pope Pius IX reversed the stance of the Roman Catholic church once more. He dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" in 1869. Canon law was revised in 1917 and 1983 and to refer simply to "the fetus." The tolerant approach to abortion which had prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church for centuries ended. The church requires excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy.

So much for a consistent position changed only by science.

I have to return on this one.

Actually no it has not been consistent since there were debates over this between the 5th and 17th centuries.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

St. Augustine (354-430 CE) reversed centuries of Christian teaching in Western Europe, and returned to the Aristotelian concept of "delayed ensoulment." He wrote 7 that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated). He wrote extensively on sexual matters, teaching that the original sin of Adam and Eve are passed to each successive generation through the pleasure generated during sexual intercourse. This passed into the church's canon law. Only abortion of a more fully developed "fetus animatus" (animated fetus) was punished as murder.

Augustine had little influence over the beliefs of Eastern Christianity. They retained their original anti-abortion stance.

St. Jerome wrote in a letter to Aglasia: "The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs" 8

Starting in the 7th century CE, a series of penitentials were written in the West. These listed an array of sins, with the penance that a person must observe as punishment for the sin. Certain "sins" which prevented conception had particularly heavy penalties. These included:
bullet practicing a particularly ineffective form of birth control, coitus interruptus (withdrawal of the penis prior to ejaculation)
bullet engaging in oral sex or anal sex
bullet becoming sterile by artificial means, such as by consuming sterilizing poisons.

Abortion, on the other hand, required a less serious penance. Theodore, who organized the English church, assembled a penitential about 700 CE. Oral intercourse required from 7 years to a lifetime of penance; abortion required only 120 days.

Pope Stephen V (served 885-891) wrote in 887 CE: "If he who destroys what is conceived in the womb by abortion is a murderer, how much more is he unable to excuse himself of murder who kills a child even one day old." "Epistle to Archbishop of Mainz."

Pope Innocent III (?-1216) wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not "animated."

Early in the 13th century, Pope Innocent III stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) also considered only the abortion of an "animated" fetus as murder.

Pope Sixtus V issued a Papal bull "Effraenatam" in 1588 which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty. Pope Gregory XIV revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in 1591. He reinstated the "quickening" test, which he said happened 116 days into pregnancy (16½ weeks).
This essay continues below.


horizontal rule
17th TO 19th CENTURY CE (Abortion becomes murder again):

In the 17th century, the concept of "simultaneous animation" gained acceptance within the medical and church communities in Western Europe. 9 This is the belief that an embryo acquires a soul at conception, not at 40 or 80 days into gestation as the church was teaching. In 1658 Hieronymus Florentinius, a Franciscan, asserted that all embryos or fetuses, regardless of its gestational age, which were in danger of death must be baptized. However, his opinion did not change the status of abortion as seen by the church.

Pope Pius IX reversed the stance of the Roman Catholic church once more. He dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" in 1869. Canon law was revised in 1917 and 1983 and to refer simply to "the fetus." The tolerant approach to abortion which had prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church for centuries ended. The church requires excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy.
All of these simply highlight the fact that the Church merely follows the changes in the definition of life.

All of these simply highlight the fact that the Church merely follows the changes in the definition of life.

LOL.

I can't believe you said that. Are you keeping a straight face?

Get up on your history. The modern Church condmens both events and Pope JP2 actually issued apologies on behalf of the Church, kneeling before Muslim clerics and other religious figures at various points of his reign.

Ohhhhhh!

So when you said:

"Catholics have for two thousand years said it is wrong to murder another living human being. There's no questioning that. It's a central and imovable pillar of the Church's Dogma and faith."

You meant:

Catholics have for two thousand years said it is wrong to murder another Catholic. There's no questioning that. It's a central and imovable pillar of the Church's Dogma and faith.

We work with what knowledge we have. Currently, our best understanding says that abortion at any stage is immoral.

If the Church had new information/a new understanding and didn't change the stance, the Church would be lying to the congregation.

I think that changed stance is, in some views, a healthy sign. It is a sign of being able to listen to and consider new evidence as it appears.

Ohhhhhh!

So when you said:

"Catholics have for two thousand years said it is wrong to murder another living human being. There's no questioning that. It's a central and imovable pillar of the Church's Dogma and faith."

You meant:

Catholics have for two thousand years said it is wrong to murder another Catholic. There's no questioning that. It's a central and imovable pillar of the Church's Dogma and faith.

No, you know just as well as I that the central teaching of the Church regarding murder has never changed. The Church has, in darker times, been hypocritical and not followed its own teachings, but the teachings have never changed. Which is one of the reasons that an apology from JPII was necessary.

We work with what knowledge we have. Currently, our best understanding says that abortion at any stage is immoral.

If the Church had new information/a new understanding and didn't change the stance, the Church would be lying to the congregation.

I think that changed stance is, in some views, a healthy sign. It is a sign of being able to listen to and consider new evidence as it appears.

The stance has moved back and forth over time. Not based on new information, but based on new dogma.

Really. This is very silly. the history is very clear.

BTW, on what Biblical basis is your current "best understanding" founded? How is that different than the Bible read before?

The stance has moved back and forth over time. Not based on new information, but based on new dogma.

I can prove that new information was added, because that is one of the side-effects of living in the 4th dimension. But I don't think that dogma has been changed. Can you prove the change was based on a change of dogma? Pointing out the specific change in dogma would be a good starting point.

BTW, on what Biblical basis is your current "best understanding" founded? How is that different than the Bible read before?

You seem to be confusing Catholics with Fundamentalists.

The Bible says "thou shalt not kill". That is constant. What has changed is the definition of the beginning of life. And we tend to rely more on science for that information than the Bible

I can prove that new information was added, because that is one of the side-effects of living in the 4th dimension.

Cute. But put up or shut up. What "new information" led to each of the various changes in the Church's teachings re abortion?

But I don't think that dogma has been changed. Can you prove the change was based on a change of dogma? Pointing out the specific change in dogma would be a good starting point.

TBF has already provided a history of the Church's teachings and how they have facillated back and forth.

You seem to be confusing Catholics with Fundamentalists.

The Bible says "thou shalt not kill". That is constant. What has changed is the definition of the beginning of life. And we tend to rely more on science for that information than the Bible

So the only Biblical basis for opposition to abortion is "thou shalt not kill"?

And the only thing that has changed overtime is the definition of the beginning of life. Evidence of this "science" please.

Cute. But put up or shut up. What "new information" led to each of the various changes in the Church's teachings re abortion?



TBF has already provided a history of the Church's teachings and how they have facillated back and forth.

We are discussing the process, not the product. To point to changes in the Church's specific stance as evidence that the basic dogmas of the Church have changed is only valid if the basic dogmas of the Church are the only factors involved in the Church's stance. But they are not, since the Church takes scientific understanding into consideration as well.

So the only Biblical basis for opposition to abortion is "thou shalt not kill"?

No, there are others, such as "love your neighbor as yourself". And before you say "then why don't you let the woman do what she wants?", remember that the fetus is also 'your neighbor' in the Church's view.

We are discussing the process, not the product. To point to changes in the Church's specific stance as evidence that the basic dogmas of the Church have changed is only valid if the basic dogmas of the Church are the only factors involved in the Church's stance. But they are not, since the Church takes scientific understanding into consideration as well.

You have yet to provide any evidence of a correlation -- let alone causation -- between scientific understanding and changes in the Church's position.



No, there are others, such as "love your neighbor as yourself". And before you say "then why don't you let the woman do what she wants?", remember that the fetus is also 'your neighbor' in the Church's view.

1. Love thy neighbor as yourself wouldn't forbid abortion.

2. I assume the Church's definition of neighbor has also had to change with scientific understandings. :rolleyes:

You have yet to provide any evidence of a correlation -- let alone causation -- between scientific understanding and changes in the Church's position.

Oh, come on now... Evolution. Geocentricity. The belief that Heaven is a physical place. How about those? Please don't make me do all the thinking...

Love thy neighbor as yourself wouldn't forbid abortion.

It would forbid it if, as I was sure to point out, the fetus is as much your neighbor as the mother is.

Oh, come on now... Evolution. Geocentricity. The belief that Heaven is a physical place. How about those? Please don't make me do all the thinking....

If you are claiming causation between the many facillations back and forth in the Church's position on abortion and changes in scientific understanding, then yes you get to do all the thinking.

You seem so smug about it. It must be easy to explain.

Just go back over the history of the changes in the Church's doctrine and explain what the new information was for each change.


It would forbid it if, as I was sure to point out, the fetus is as much your neighbor as the mother is.

No. It doesn't necessarily. You assume too much.

Oh, come on now... Evolution. *SNIP*

Actually, they are making noises that sound like a change in stance.....

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/11/in_evolution_debate_the_media.html

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=pope_speaks_on_evolution&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/11/updated_discovery_institute_we.html

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/new_york_times_reports_on_diff.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-01-18-vatican-article_x.htm

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=4340

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/182/story_18220_1.html

snip

It would forbid it if, as I was sure to point out, the fetus is as much your neighbor as the mother is.
Yeah that fucker keeps coming over to borrow flower all the time

I attend a Catholic secondary schoo.. I've been broguht up a Catholic. But just lately, I'm starting to question my faith more and more. Meh. I dunno.