(June 22, 2015 at 9:24 am)abaris Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 7:25 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Well, the Borgia popes were pretty bad, but yes, generally speaking God leads the cardinals to choose the man God desires as pope. And from that point, yes, the pope is PREVENTED by God from teaching error in his formal capacity as Pope. He can still be in error privately.

Not as bad as their successors made them out to be. Alexander VI offered a safe haven for the jews being thrown out of Spain after the reconquista, Just to give one example. But it's certainly correct that he was corrupt to the bones, especially when it came to his family.

Interestingly enough, some have pointed out that the really bad popes seem to have been so busy engaging in wordly affairs that they did not bother with anything that might have been false doctrine. Weird, but true, I think.

(June 22, 2015 at 11:19 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 6:02 pm)Neimenovic Wrote:

---

well, what then? Did god change his mind? Or were the popes fallible?


I don't know, are they? so how does this work? God makes sure they don't pick an asshole and then makes him infallible? this is more curiosity than objection


is....god ok with that? People quoting infallibility? sounds like it would be a job for life (I know it's not common to quit, but it does happen)


no, I know it's a bit off topic, I'll try to keep it on track

a couple questions regarding the above:
~is Jesus god?
~Does god have a gender?
~why is a penis necessary to represent a perfect being?
~why does a perfect being have a penis!?!? nah, just kidding with this one

[hide]
I'm impressed. You admitted to not knowing. and well, fair enough


yes, I'm actually glad because I feel like we're having a proper discussion. I don't think you can get me to like the catholic church's teachings, but to be fair you cleared up a couple things and I learned something too, so I'm inclined to call this discussion fruitful.

---

Who circumcised God?

We don't know which of the Temple priests performed the circumcision, but we do know it was done:

Luke 2:22-39
22 When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”), 24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”

25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was on him. 26 It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Messiah. 27 Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required, 28 Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying:

29 “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised,
you may now dismiss your servant in peace.
30 For my eyes have seen your salvation,
31 which you have prepared in the sight of all nations:
32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles,
and the glory of your people Israel.”
33 The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him. 34 Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, 35 so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.”

36 There was also a prophet, Anna, the daughter of Penuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, 37 and then was a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. 38 Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.

39 When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. 40 And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was on him.

(June 22, 2015 at 4:06 pm)Metis Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 8:19 am)Randy Carson Wrote: There is a special formulation in the language they use. Here is the paragraph from Munificentissimus Deus:

44. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

HOWEVER - this is where it gets a little bit tricky: the popes in more ancient times used different wording, so there is some disagreement over exactly which dogmas were declared infallibly. As I said before, the list ranges from about 6-10 generally recognized examples.

Pope Eugene IV: “We decree and order that from now on, and for all time […] All and every single Jew, of whatever sex and age, must everywhere wear the distinctive dress and known marks by which they can be evidently distinguished from Christians.”

Pope Eugene IV: “We decree and order that from now on, and for all time, Christians shall not eat or drink with the Jews, nor admit them to feasts, nor cohabit with them, nor bathe with them. […]  They cannot live among Christians, but in a certain street, separated and segregated from Christians, and outside which they cannot under any pretext have houses.”

Both from his decree of 1442
Guess my boyfreind was never a very good Catholic then, he lived next door to a Jew that dresses like everyone else. He even went to her barbaques!

We decree for now and all time....That sounds like a pretty specific pronouncement Randy, one that dear old Eugene put in such strong terms it was evidently rather important to him. I can pull out several others ranging from calling for the execution of non-Catholics to Innocent III proclaiming himself king of the universe. How come these proclamations aren't infalliable but are worded if not just as strongly than even stronger than the ones Catholic take as Gospel?

Edit: The pun was unintended -_-;

My opinion is that how Jews should or should not dress does not meet the standard of being a matter of "faith and morals".

Here is a more complete list from Wikipedia:

Regarding historical papal documents, Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz made a thorough study, published in 1985, that identified the following list of ex cathedra documents (see Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6):

Tome to Flavian, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just after death rather than only just prior to final judgment;[70]
Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;
Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.

There is no complete list of papal statements considered infallible. A 1998 commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published on L'Osservatore Romano in July 1998[71] listed a number of instances of infallible pronouncements by popes and by ecumenical councils, but explicitly stated (at no. 11) that this was not meant to be a complete list.

(June 22, 2015 at 7:12 pm)Dystopia Wrote: Why do Catholics oppose contraception and premarital sex (and the question is valid for most Christian denominations)?

Short answer: the former is considered intrinsically evil while the latter is considered a sin and condemned in the NT.

I have posted on the former in this or Catholic_Lady's morality thread (which is currently active), but here is an article that might help:

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/article...ark-fruits

(June 22, 2015 at 7:35 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: My opinion is that how Jews should or should not dress does not meet the standard of being a matter of "faith and morals".

Here is a more complete list from Wikipedia:

Regarding historical papal documents, Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz made a thorough study, published in 1985, that identified the following list of ex cathedra documents (see Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6):

Tome to Flavian, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just after death rather than only just prior to final judgment;[70]
Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;
Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.

There is no complete list of papal statements considered infallible. A 1998 commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published on L'Osservatore Romano in July 1998[71] listed a number of instances of infallible pronouncements by popes and by ecumenical councils, but explicitly stated (at no. 11) that this was not meant to be a complete list.

I should have posted more really, you are right Randy in that these perscriptions at first don't appear to be about faith or morals. However, Eugene and several other Popes before and after him held very strongly to the idea that the Jews as a race were evil and accursed; as the Catholic Church had upsurped them as the "New Israel" they would never find nationhood again and of course they were collectivley responsible for the death of Christ.

Eugene was adressing a matter of faith; he believed the Jews were diabolic and cursed by God so he was providing instruction for correct conduct with them that upheld Catholic virtue.

Really when one thinks about it a matter of faith or morals can stretch to just about anything; we find no perscription in the bible about co-habitation, we find several examples of it throughout the scriptures and Church history and yet it's still a matter of faith to believe it's a mortal sin.

Forgive me if I seem overly harsh, it would appear Mr. Sullivan is cherrypicking from statements which are phrased near identically. "For now and for all time" is just as much a decree as "The Catholic Church holds that" and "It is a matter of absolute Catholic faith that" if not more so, it's adressing a matter of faith (the Jews are cursed and must be cast out until they accept Christ) but yet that bit is being ignored.

As for evidence used for the idea of Jews being cursed and expanded upon as a doctrine of the Church over an extended period of time....


Pope Saint Peter I: “And when they had brought the apostles, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, saying, Did not we straitly command you that you should not teach in this name?  And, behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.  Then Peter and the other apostles answered, and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.  The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. […]  And we are witnesses of these things.” (Acts 5)


Pope Innocent III: “The Lord made Cain a wanderer and a fugitive over the earth, but set a mark upon him, making his head to shake, lest anyone finding him should slay him.  Thus the Jews, against whom the blood of Christ calls out, although they ought not to be wiped out, nevertheless, as wanderers they must remain upon the earth until their faces are filled with shame and they seek the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Epistle to the Count of Nevers)

Pope Martin V: “However, we received a short time ago through credible reports knowledge to our great alarm, that various Jews of both sexes in Cafas and other cities, lands and places overseas, which fall under the jurisdiction of Christians, are of obstinate mind and, in order to conceal swindling and wickedness, wear no special sign on their clothing, so that they are not recognisable as Jews.  They are not ashamed to give themselves out as Christians before many Christians of both sexes of these cities, districts and places mentioned, who could not in fact identify them, and consequently commit shameful things and crimes.” (Sedes Apostolica)

And my personal favorite...


Pope Saint Pius V: “The Jewish people fell from the heights because of their faithlessness and condemned their Redeemer to a shameful death.  Their godlessness has assumed such forms that, for the salvation of our own people, it becomes necessary to prevent their disease.  Besides usury, through which Jews everywhere have sucked dry the property of impoverished Christians, they are accomplices of thieves and robbers; and the most damaging aspect of the matter is that they allure the unsuspecting through magical incantations, superstition, and witchcraft to the Synagogue of Satan and boast of being able to predict the future.  We have carefully investigated how this revolting sect abuses the name of Christ and how harmful they are to those whose life is threatened by their deceit.  On account of these and other serious matters, and because of the gravity of their crimes which increase day to day more and more, We order that, within 90 days, all Jews in our entire earthly realm of justice - in all towns, districts, and places - must depart these regions. After this time limit shall all at the present or in the future, who dwell or wander into that city or other already mentioned, be affected, their property confiscated and handed over to the Siscus, and they shall becomes slaves of the Roman Church, live in perpetual servitude and the Roman Church shall have the same rights over them as the remaining [worldly] lords over slaves and property.” (Hebraeorum Gens)

Randy, I'm reading the article and this reply serves the purpose of commentary (and asking a few questions) - If you wish you can reply.

Quote:Being a faithful Catholic couple does not mean you must have an unlimited number of children. The Catechism of the Catholic Churchallows that there are times when spouses “may wish to space the births of their children” using “a method of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods” (CCC 2368, 2370).

The obvious question - Why does God prefer one birth control method to another? Technically, any birth control method, as long as it is properly applied, can have satisfactory results - So why the preference for natural forms of birth control?

Quote:When I became a Catholic I didn’t know anything about this method, often called natural family planning. I found out that modern methods of NFP are highly effective when followed correctly—equally as effective as the contraceptive pill, according to a 2007 report published in Europe’s leading reproductive medical journal, Human Reproduction. And they are easier to use than ever due to modern developments such as a small hand-held device that detects changes in temperature, urine, or saliva to help determine times of fertility.

As for artificial birth control improving marriages, a number of women I talked to who have recently started using NFP instead of the Pill enthused about how their marriages have become much more of a loving partnership. Yes, using NFP requires self-discipline, commitment, and open communication from a couple, but don’t those sound like the very qualities that would be helpful in a mature, loving relationship?

It is effective, the issue is that it only occurs in certain periods and sexual libido may not be coincident with those - You do realize that is a problem, right? Using this logic, I could easily point out that abstinence is the perfect birth control method - Except that couples can't copulate, and they want to.

Quote:Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised to learn that couples using NFP have a dramatically low divorce rate—less than one percent (“National Survey of Family Growth” by Dr. Robert Lerner, University of Chicago, 2000). In society at large, the divorce rate has skyrocketed since the 1960s, which flies in the face of the assertion that the use of artificial birth control has been a boon to marriages.

It has been postulated in a few studies that our high divorce rates are partly because couples now are able to delay parenthood and have fewer children. The experience of parenthood generally has a maturing effect and strengthens marriages. Besides being a unifying source of love and pride for couples, it causes them to become more responsible and less focused on their own needs.

- Low divorce rates doesn't mean anything, and the reasons divorces have increased are due to a number of variables such as the emancipation of women and the lack of social prejudice against those who divorce. This is a huge fallacy. If I lived in a society where my wife is my property and I refused her divorce proposal, in theory this would mean low divorce rate.

- The experience of parenthood prevents divorces because of economic and social reasons - Most parents do what is best for their children, and not what they really want to do. The only reason my parents didn't divorce earlier was because of me.

Quote:Does having more siblings than the average family “handicap” children? Studies have shown, in fact, that due to the increased sibling connection, children from large families have better social skills (Journal of Marriage and Family, Ohio State University, May 2004), do better at school (Family Composition and Children’s Educational Outcomes, Institute for Social and Economic Research, 2001) and grow up feeling more emotionally supported (Sibling Relationships Across the Lifespan, University of Utah, 1982). These studies and others have shown that children in large families naturally develop skills to negotiate and accommodate, are more independent and self-sufficient as young adults, and are more resilient in coping with life’s stresses.

But it costs money. And time. And resources.

Quote:In 1973, the year abortion was legalized in the U.S. and statistics were first gathered, there were approximately 615,000 abortions performed (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Abortion Surveillance statistics). That annual number has increased substantially since then, reaching a peak in 1990 at 1.4 million. Why is this? With easier access to contraceptives, shouldn’t there be fewer unplanned pregnancies and therefore fewer abortions?

It is natural that when something is legalised more people do it, specially those who didn't do it before because they were afraid of going to jail. Not to mention abortion happens for a lot of reasons like sexual assault, disability, etc. I don't see what is the problem, have you ever wondered that some people may not be able to afford contraceptives? Or maybe, just maybe, they're not educated enough?

Quote:The answers are complex. The number of men and women who, from their teen years, became sexually active outside of marriage increased dramatically since the early 1960s. Pregnancy became seen as something under our control because of the availability of contraceptives, and there was a subtle shift in how children were viewed—not so much as “gifts from God” but as either inconveniences or, conversely, trophies. Nowadays, if an unplanned pregnancy occurs when contraceptives are not used correctly or not used at all, the first reaction for many is to terminate the “problem.” Attitudes toward the sacredness of life are much more cavalier, and abortion is now seen by many as merely another option in a range of reproductive rights.

If you mean sexually active without signing the papers - yes, I don't see the issue - If God condones love and affection, why shouldn't he allow for the greatest demonstration of love?

Quote:The ascendancy of pornography, which is filtering into mainstream media, is an assault on the well-being of women. From a very young age, girls are subjected to the pressure of conforming to the “norm” of no-strings sex and promiscuous behavior as projected in the movies, TV shows, and magazines all around them. All this has helped to solidify the image of women as sex objects. The huge numbers of young females being forced into prostitution around the world, and the high rates of sexual abuse of girls and women even in our own country, cast a dark shadow on the hoped-for benefits of sexual liberation kindled by the accessibility of contraceptives.

Please Catholics, don't pull the feminist argument. So it is suddenly ok to make a very rational exposure of problems with women's rights but when it comes to abortion and gender roles it's according to God's will?

Quote:Current statistics on the number of single mothers living in poverty contradict the belief that women’s lives would improve substantially with the advent of artificial birth control. From 1960 to 2000, the proportion of children in single-parent families headed by females has more than tripled in Europe and North America, and many studies have shown that coming from single-parent families plays a major role in the persistence of poverty. Even though more women are in the workforce than ever before, government statistics show that poverty rates among women are increasing.

That's because Europe is living in a crisis - Or because there's social pressure from certain groups of people to not abort and women are forced to have children they don't want to.

(June 22, 2015 at 7:10 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 9:12 am)Neimenovic Wrote: Cool. I mean I still don't buy it, but whatever. We can move on

Okay. And for the next topic:

YOUR PICK!

I chose the first two...you choose the next one.

Alrighty

1. That we're born broken, sinful and sick and need to be saved.

What I'm receding to specifically is the idea of original sin and baptism.

I'm not so much interested in technicalities, but:

~the contradiction between 'god created us' and 'we need to be saved'.

If we are a failed creation, the only one we can blame is the failed creator. The very fact that humans are imperfect speaks against god's alleged perfection.

Is he not capable of creating species that would not sin if he doesn't want us to sin?

~god set Adam up

Furthermore, if god is omniscient, he already knew Adam would sin. He knew beforehand exactly how it would play out.

What about the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Why was it in clear sight, in the center of the garden? Why was it there at all? God not only knew Adam would sin, he must've WANTED him to.

If you say it was meant as a test - god is omniscient. He doesn't need a test. He already knew the result.

Also....tree of knowledge of good and evil.

If going against god is evil, they could not have known that BEFORE eating from the tree. They had no concept of morality before then and they could not understand what sin is.

~The idea of group responsibility

Because of the original sin, we need baptism to be forgiven for something we did not do and could not have done - as well as something that was apparently meant to happen all along.

God is not forgiving or merciful or even good if he holds the actions of two human beings against all their alleged descendants, who had no part in the crime.

But, considering the catholic church did not drop charges of decide against all Jews until fairly recently, it should not be surprising.

~created sick and commanded to be well

If humans were created as prone to sin, commanding them to go against their nature on pain of eternal torment is not only immoral, it's cruel and sick and denies all notions of benevolence and god's love.

He could have easily created species that didn't feel the urge to sin without denying them free will.

~the moral implications

Mythology aside, let's consider the real world consequences of the idea that we are born sick.

It's a hurtful notion that implies there is something deeply and fundamentally wrong with each and every one of us and that it is our own fault. It teaches that we need to be fixed. It's a psychologically damaging, sick, immoral, baseless idea.



Ok. That's it for now. I'll let you know if I get pissed.

Oh boy.... I initially read 'your pick' as 'your prick'

Is my subconscious trying to tell me something?.....

(June 23, 2015 at 3:11 am)Neimenovic Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 7:10 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Okay. And for the next topic:

YOUR PICK!

I chose the first two...you choose the next one.  

Alrighty

1. That we're born broken, sinful and sick and need to be saved.

What I'm receding to specifically is the idea of original sin and baptism.

I'm not so much interested in technicalities, but:

~the contradiction between 'god created us' and 'we need to be saved'.

If we are a failed creation, the only one we can blame is the failed creator. The very fact that humans are imperfect speaks against god's alleged perfection.

Is he not capable of creating species that would not sin if he doesn't want us to sin?

~god set Adam up

Furthermore, if god is omniscient, he already knew Adam would sin. He knew beforehand exactly how it would play out.

What about the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Why was it in clear sight, in the center of the garden? Why was it there at all? God not only knew Adam would sin, he must've WANTED him to.

If you say it was meant as a test - god is omniscient. He doesn't need a test. He already knew the result.

Also....tree of knowledge of good and evil.

If going against god is evil, they could not have known that BEFORE eating from the tree. They had no concept of morality before then and they could not understand what sin is.

~The idea of group responsibility

Because of the original sin, we need baptism to be forgiven for something we did not do and could not have done - as well as something that was apparently meant to happen all along.

God is not forgiving or merciful or even good if he holds the actions of two human beings against all their alleged descendants, who had no part in the crime.

But, considering the catholic church did not drop charges of decide against all Jews until fairly recently, it should not be surprising.

~created sick and commanded to be well

If humans were created as prone to sin, commanding them to go against their nature on pain of eternal torment is not only immoral, it's cruel and sick and denies all notions of benevolence and god's love.

He could have easily created species that didn't feel the urge to sin without denying them free will.

~the moral implications

Mythology aside, let's consider the real world consequences of the idea that we are born sick.

It's a hurtful notion that implies there is something deeply and fundamentally wrong with each and every one of us and that it is our own fault. It teaches that we need to be fixed. It's a psychologically damaging, sick, immoral, baseless idea.



Ok. That's it for now. I'll let you know if I get pissed.

Okay. Outstanding topic...and I'll have some work to do to answer it well.

I'm off to work in a few minutes, so I won't be able to respond until later this evening at the earliest.

See ya then.

Gonna work hard or hardly work?