The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

[MissThundercat]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

That's kinda out there.....The only part I like is "faith that is redemptive and true, but not automatic--you must choose to embrace it." Hopefully you are making good progress with your depression and anxiety, I have a sister who has the same issues. For the last few year's she's had very good control over her issues.

I am making progress, yes. But I am shocked and appalled that a member of the church would out and out pray for my mental anguish.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Interesting trivia: today (well, beginning with yesterday's sunset and ending at today's sunset) is Eid Al-Adha, a Muslim holiday that honors Abraham for being ready to sacrifice Isaac upon God's command. It floats backwards through the calendar by about 11 days a year, making a complete circuit of the calendar in approximately 33 years. I don't know of another holiday that does that.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Pope throws a bone to the anti-abortion crew, then immediately pivots and calls for the global abolition of the death penalty.

Edit: Also were some awkward moments when he invoked the golden rule while talking about immigration.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

And now the Jesuit in him is coming out, talking about academics and education.

 

[geezer]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Pope throws a bone to the anti-abortion crew, then immediately pivots and calls for the global abolition of the death penalty.

Pivot? I think these views are morally consistent. "Culture of life" should not end (or begin) at birth.

 

[unofan]

Pivot? I think these views are morally consistent. "Culture of life" should not end at birth.

Oh I agree, though it was funny to see the GOP congressmen go from "WOO ANTI-ABORTION!" to "Huh? No death penalty? Who and the what now?"

There's also at least one Catholic on here who still argues in favor of the death penalty while being staunchly anti-abortion. So it is still a thing.

Also noted that Scalia, Alito, and Thomas did not show up. Frankly, I can't imagine any Catholic turning down a chance to hear the Pope speak in person. Hell, I'm a lapsed Catholic and I would've gone if I'd hada chance.

 

[geezer]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Oh I agree, though it was funny to see the GOP congressmen go from "WOO ANTI-ABORTION!" to "Huh? No death penalty? Who and the what now?"

There's also at least one Catholic on here who still argues in favor of the death penalty while being staunchly anti-abortion. So it is still a thing.

Also noted that Scalia, Alito, and Thomas did not show up. Frankly, I can't imagine any Catholic turning down a chance to hear the Pope speak.

They're probably watching on the tube from the bomb shelter, like the State of the Union.
I'll never understand enthusiastic support for continuing the death penalty. Where does the motivation come from to stand up for something like that? ... especially considering the probable rate of error/corruption/deception in past convictions.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Oh I agree, though it was funny to see the GOP to go from "WOO ANTI-ABORTION!" to "Huh? No death penalty? Who and the what now?"

There's also at least one Catholic on here who still argues in favor of the death penalty while being staunchly anti-abortion. So it is still a thing.

Well, you know, that and indiscriminate wars of choice as a commercial tool.

If sure the GOPers will argue that when the Pope talks about gay marriage and abortion we all need to listen to a moral teaching, but when he talks about the death penalty, the environment, or capitalist greed...

I'm amazed the three blind mice didn't show. If I had their seats I'd have been there, even for the Nazi Pope. It would be an incredible experience to have the access to actually personally meet a world spiritual leader.

 

[joecct]

Oh I agree, though it was funny to see the GOP congressmen go from "WOO ANTI-ABORTION!" to "Huh? No death penalty? Who and the what now?"

There's also at least one Catholic on here who still argues in favor of the death penalty while being staunchly anti-abortion. So it is still a thing.

Also noted that Scalia, Alito, and Thomas did not show up. Frankly, I can't imagine any Catholic turning down a chance to hear the Pope speak in person. Hell, I'm a lapsed Catholic and I would've gone if I'd hada chance.

Yea - that's me. And after two unabashedly anti abortion message Popes, this one threw the pro life movement under the (nuns on) the bus.

Canon Law does not forbid the death penalty. It forbids the Church from putting a person to death, but permits the state to do so for particularly heinous crimes (sounds like Jerusalem circa 30 AD).

This is just a side show. The real battle will be fought at the Synod next month. If you thought Vatican II was hijacked by the Germans and progressives, this one could put V2 to shame.

Never put the Jesuits near the seat of power.

 

[unofan]

Canon Law does not forbid the death penalty.

It should, and the fact that it doesn't hinders much of the church's moral authority when it comes to its overarching pro-life message.

It's tough to get into nuance when there's a big gaping plot hole staring you in the face from the git go.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Yea - that's me. And after two unabashedly anti abortion message Popes, this one threw the pro life movement under the (nuns on) the bus.

Canon Law does not forbid the death penalty. It forbids the Church from putting a person to death, but permits the state to do so for particularly heinous crimes (sounds like Jerusalem circa 30 AD).

This is just a side show. The real battle will be fought at the Synod next month. If you thought Vatican II was hijacked by the Germans and progressives, this one could put V2 to shame.

Never put the Jesuits near the seat of power.

It is awesome that this stuff is still going on.

joe, are there really doctrinal changes in the works in your opinion? My (very outsider) view of F1 is he's all about emphasis and reminding Catholics of the full range of moral teaching, but that he's not about to make any changes to doctrine. I think the Vatican recognized the damage of moving so fast at V2 and they have been back-peddling ever since. The last thing they need is a schism with the ultra-conservative but not necessarily ultramontane African Catholics if they budge on abortion, gays or women. The Papacy is like the Chinese -- the granularity of their calculations is in 500-year increments. I believe this Pope just wants Catholics to recognize that the moral responsibility to "the least of us" is not something people can set aside, as is done so often in the rich countries.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

It should, and the fact that it doesn't hinders much of the church's moral authority when it comes to its overarching pro-life message.

As the church lost power to monarchs and secular governments in the late Middle Ages it had to make two huge compromises to keep from being ground under and made irrelevant: civil penalties and just war. Both are obviously against the spirit, if not the Word, of Jesus' teachings of morality. But given the realities of the time ("Of course he has a knife, he always has a knife, we all have knives! It's 1183 and we're barbarians!"), it's completely understandable.

There are areas now where the more civilized secular governments are actually closer to Jesus than the Church, but given their problems with people in the pews it's going to be a long time until the Church can catch up. Again, I don't view that as tarnishing the Church's overall mission to ethical leadership. When you play in the big leagues of social control, you have to think long term.

 

[joecct]

It is awesome that this stuff is still going on.

joe, are there really doctrinal changes in the works in your opinion? My (very outsider) view of F1 is he's all about emphasis and reminding Catholics of the full range of moral teaching, but that he's not about to make any changes to doctrine. I think the Vatican recognized the damage of moving so fast at V2 and they have been back-peddling ever since. The last thing they need is a schism with the ultra-conservative but not necessarily ultramontane African Catholics if they budge on abortion, gays or women. The Papacy is like the Chinese -- the granularity of their calculations is in 500-year increments. I believe this Pope just wants Catholics to recognize that the moral responsibility to "the least of us" is not something people can set aside, as is done so often in the rich countries.

The Synod in Rome on Marriage and the Family (Part 2) is setting up to be a battleground between those who want to follow the Protestant mode of anything goes (a bit harsh, perhaps) regarding marriage vs. the followers of the unbroken Catholic teaching on marriage.

Since His Holiness is not a fan of traditionalists (see Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, amongst others), I have an ugly feeling where this is headed.

If you want two 180° viewpoints
Way Right: churchmilitant.com
Way Left: ncronline.org

As to the problem in the pews - Nobody goes there. It's too crowded.
Another casualty to the interpretations of V2.

 

[joecct]

It should, and the fact that it doesn't hinders much of the church's moral authority when it comes to its overarching pro-life message.

It's tough to get into nuance when there's a big gaping plot hole staring you in the face from the git go.

Nuremberg trials?

 

[unofan]

Nuremberg trials?

What about them? If the church believes in the sanctity of ALL life, it should believe in the sanctity of all life, including the worst among us. All means all, from Mother Teresa to the most vile despicable criminal out there.

It's easy to be pro life when talking about kittens and unicorns. The hard choices are the ones that matter most.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

The Synod in Rome on Marriage and the Family (Part 2) is setting up to be a battleground between those who want to follow the Protestant mode of anything goes (a bit harsh, perhaps) regarding marriage vs. the followers of the unbroken Catholic teaching on marriage.

Since His Holiness is not a fan of traditionalists (see Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, amongst others), I have an ugly feeling where this is headed.

If you want two 180° viewpoints
Way Right: churchmilitant.com
Way Left: ncronline.org

As to the problem in the pews - Nobody goes there. It's too crowded.
Another casualty to the interpretations of V2.

Interesting, thanks.

I don't know that the loss of congregations was particularly affected by V2 either way. I think there were two big cultural shifts that the Church couldn't (or at any rate didn't) assimilate. First was the wave of political democratization and economic progressiveness from the 1850s through the 1950s that the Church deliberately chose to be on the wrong side of. I think that was a critical error, if for no other reason than Christian practice ought by all rights to have been an ally of the movement. That really would have helped disassociate workers' movements from communism, as well, which would have been pretty helpful in the world at large.

Second, since the 1920s and continuing on through today, were the anti-elite, cultural liberation movements for ethic and racial groups, women, and gays. The Church actually was neutral towards the former two but was opposed to the latter two (deathly and IMO hysterically opposed to them), though I don't think the Church had much of a choice given its long history as a self-appointed bedroom referee. I don't expect the Church to significantly change its views on sexuality for centuries to come. While they have virtually nothing to do with Jesus' teachings, church doctrine is larded over with centuries of horrific misogyny that will take a long, long time for theologians to detoxify. If Church teachings towards the Jews are any indication, while they will get there, our grandchildren will be long dead before they do.

You and many Catholics may well argue that it's not the Church's job to assimilate these cultural changes. I respect that view... but it also explains the dramatic parishioner and vocational deficit.

 

[Timothy A]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Pivot? I think these views are morally consistent. "Culture of life" should not end (or begin) at birth.

I agree 100%. I am against abortion and against the death penalty. The sanctity of your life is not changed by what you do or don't do with your life. In the end it's all between you and God. I am always very confused by the hardcore Evangelicals (of which I would consider myself one of) who want to save an unborn but fry a murderer. The Pope and I are on the same page and I break from my fellow Evangelicals on this one. I can't see it any other way. I have heard the case made to defend the death penalty from an Evangellical point of view, but that is not a lunch time post, not enough time to make their case then shoot it down.

 

[geezer]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

I agree 100%. I am against abortion and against the death penalty. The sanctity of your life is not changed by what you do or don't do with your life. In the end it's all between you and God. I am always very confused by the hardcore Evangelicals (of which I would consider myself one of) who want to save an unborn but fry a murderer. The Pope and I are on the same page and I break from my fellow Evangelicals on this one. I can't see it any other way. I have heard the case made to defend the death penalty from an Evangellical point of view, but that is not a lunch time post, not enough time to make their case then shoot it down.

I'd be curious to hear a fuller explanation. I've heard the case that it's a Christian duty to follow the law of the land (our rulers are elected by God's will, "render unto Caesar", etc.), but IMO when the law so clearly conflicts with Christ/love/mercy, it's an "unfaithful" abdication to give the ultimate authority to a worldly government.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

I'm calling BS. So all the Nazis that were hung or shot should have received a Kumbaya and tossed in the slammer for the rest of their lives?

The theory sounds great. The evidence proves otherwise.

You shoot the mad dogs.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Which is just what a theory of love argues against. Nobody's arguing that it doesn't feel good and just to puff out our chests and take revenge. Most of us think we can put up a good argument for that. Which is fine. It just aint Jesus.