|
Post by franko on Apr 24, 2005 21:47:24 GMT -5
I have followed with great interest the ongoing “discussion”, avoiding weighing in with my obviously different perspective as an evangelical Protestant. May I join in? (oh . . . I’m going to anyway). The bible is a compound of many sources. It has been revised and redacted over and over. It assumes "truths" that are unproven and counterintuitive. Accepting it verbatim is a blindfolded leap of faith. Someone who has taken the leap and is still in midair reproaches those who have not leaped before he or she has reached the rocks below. The one who has not leaped recognizes the hand of man in the bible and sees the Wizard of Oz miracles and is more than skeptical about promises of heaven. While there are some wise and noble thoughts expressed in the bible there are some base ones that have been used to justify slavery and other despicable practices. I would never make myself subservient to churchly confidence men who use the splendor and wealth and mystery of the church to awe and intimidate people into compliance with papal bulls and other manmade edicts. Indeed, the Bible is a compendium of ideas, gathered from many different sources. History (a history of the Jewish and early Christian religions). A plethora of prophets. Four Gospels. Apocalyptic literature. 66 Christian “books”; parts applied by 3 major religions. 40 writers. 1600 years. All bound up together in one “book” that has been handed down from generation to generation. Revered and reviled through the generations. Within it are found general directions for living that have been interpreted and reinterpreted – and for that matter continue to be. Human hands are indeed involved and errors have happened in transcription (I would like to think all by error, but . . . ). There were many differing views of Jesus to be found in the early New Testament era – finally the church of the day was forced to decide (albeit years after the facts) who Jesus was. New Testament canonized in 365 AD; the decision was that Jesus was not the Gnostic interpretation of Thomas but the One we know today (though He continues to be shaped by culture). And herein lies the problem. The church attempts to hold fast to her norms during a changing culture and often fails, trying to be relevant to a changing society. Niebuhr’s excellent Christ in Culture (out of print; took me months to get a copy from the University library) is a fantastic exegesis of the problem Christianity faces (problems Christians face?), and the various ways the church attempts to remain significant. And while the church of the post-modern era attempts to keep her place, she is not only mocked and ignored and ridiculed by secularists, other religious entities try to claim her for their own: Jesus as a Hindu, Jesus as a Buddhist, Jesus as . . . well, wherever there is a need for the figure in an Americanized Jesus He will be adopted. Again I point out the lack of connectivity to the two issues here: AIDS and contraception. AIDS is a horrific disease. In North America it is still mostly gay related; in Africa not. But the injunction, found in the Bible, that a man have sex with his wife only (and that he remain married to her . . . and that he cherish her [and conversely she to him]), would go a long way to end the spread of the disease. I realize that this is minority thinking in sex-driven North America . . . especially when we value our freedom to act as we please . . . but we are responsible for our actions, no? The laws; the commandments have been given for our own good, for our own protection . . . and for the protection of society as a whole. God is not some cosmic kill-joy who wants to make us miserable, but a protecting guardian (I have deliberately avoided use of the traditional term Father ), looking after our own good. I find it interesting that you continue to encourage us to keep our feet on the ground when science must take grand leaps of faith in order to discover the previously unfound . . . to suspend reality and posit the impossible – or at least the unknown . . to step beyond the “it can’t be” to find the “this is it!”<br> My leap (and it seems, MC, that I am not alone after all) was toward the as-yet-not-proven- empirically possibility that a Creator-God does indeed exist. It colours how I live and how I act. Am I perfect? Not on your life. Am I closed to anything new? Again, no. My life continues to be a search for deeper meaning. I just find it within the confines of a spiritual experience.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Apr 25, 2005 1:19:09 GMT -5
The bible is a compound of many sources. It has been revised and redacted over and over. It assumes "truths" that are unproven and counterintuitive. Accepting it verbatim is a blindfolded leap of faith. Someone who has taken the leap and is still in midair reproaches those who have not leaped before he or she has reached the rocks below. The one who has not leaped recognizes the hand of man in the bible and sees the Wizard of Oz miracles and is more than skeptical about promises of heaven. While there are some wise and noble thoughts expressed in the bible there are some base ones that have been used to justify slavery and other despicable practices. I would never make myself subservient to churchly confidence men who use the splendor and wealth and mystery of the church to awe and intimidate people into compliance with papal bulls and other manmade edicts. On mundane grounds I dispute the prohibition of contraception. The ban was instituted at a time when of seven births, one or two children would grow to adulthood. Now, seven births could very well result in seven adults. Is this good for people? I think not. Yet the pope maintains that the use of condoms is a sin in sub-Saharan African regions where one of every four is infected with HIV. Better suffer misery and death than contravene an outmoded edict based on some biblical expressio of go forth and multiply. Maybe if the world population dwindled from 6.2 billion (and climbing) to 6.2 million I could see the sense. But without such shrinkage the world is much worse off if it heeds the pope. Even the use of the rhythm method of contraception goes against Go forth an multiply, so that's another self-contradiction. Moreover, it is useless in warding off AIDS. If your comments on sacred scripture have me in mind somewhat, you seem to be presenting a view of them that is not that of Christianity at large. I do not hold the evangelical perspective on the nature of scripture or any notion involving uncritical literalism. No Kierkegardian "leap of faith" is involved. So to me, you are addressing a a weak strawman argument to the matter. It does not reflect mainstream Christian thought. Most people over the age of twelve can easily recognize the hand of man in the bible. You seem to be criticizing the easy target of evangelicalism. Do you really not know how most of Christianity approaches sacred scripture? That's pretty basic stuff to miss for so stident a critic. Catholic old and new testament scholars will not be running around with their hands over their ears yelling "oh my gosh, I didn't know that". Your unsavoury comments about confidence men, and I quite frankly find a much higher standard for intellectual honesty and fairness, integrity, scolarship and repect for persons generally than I have been able to discover in your postings. However, for men of good will, Catholics do not accept all claims of the miraculous events to be true, but one doesn.t have to be much of a thinker, let alone believer, to see that many of the events attested to by the actual witnesses could hardly be reported in their time and place, as they were, and what, fool the people of Jerusalem and Galillee. They WERE THERE. It's like the historicity of the trial of Socrates. If a person applies a little mental effort, one can quickly see that Plato who wrote of it, was read by the very people who followed the trial. he could hardly misrepresent the details in his own home town. The idea reflects an almost willing naivete, or more likely a lack of interest in discovering the truth. The exact same thing is true of the ministry of Christ and of those who witnessed and lived with him for three years. Thre might well have been a moral miracle of sharing loaves and fishes and not a physical miracle in that instance, but other reported and very public events like the raising of Lazarus would be pretty hard to fake. There was Lazarus after all, his buddies, his villagers etc. I will repeat that waht you have to believe to not accept the kernal of truth in the new testament witnesses requires a lot more gullibility and uncritical thinking than what stares you in the face if your eyes are open. So, insulting and defamatory comments about "churchly confidence men using the yada yada yada " seem more than a little puerile and truly facile. What I find more than a little repugnant personally is the judgement and condemnation of others with so little evidence of even rudimentary investigation of the issues. It puts me in mind of a biblical quote that Franko would appreciate. "The proud he confuses in their thoughts." As to awe and intimidation, may I suggest you play back a few tapes of the visits of John Paul II. Check out the faces of the incrdible kids I saw in Toronto a while ago. There was awe, alright but not of the variety you prefer to imagine. Your criticisms would be more interesting if they reflected reality. avoided logical fallacies and reflected more than unfamiliarity with even the basics of issues, Insults and ill will should at least reflect more than a completely misplaced sense of intellectual and moral superiority. If these characteristics are somehow really there, don't disguise them with such devastaing effectiveness. Setting a strawman of fire with poor quality matches almost defines "facile". It is too late to deal adequately with the issue of artificial means of contraception and whether mankind's hopes are indeed best protected in latex. I will deal with these quaint notions later.
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Apr 25, 2005 7:03:46 GMT -5
Returning to thesubject of the papacy, I was struck by the pomp and ceremony surrounding the funeral of John Paul II and the installation of Benedict XVI. It reminded me of the coronation of a Roman emperor aftert the decline of Rome. The papacy is a dying institution struggling for survival. The people (Catholic laity) have lost control of the dioceses and they watch the pope appoint their bishops from a far-off bunker. Want ro know why the pedophilia scandal erupted during the reign of John Paul II? Look no farther than the ideology of infallability and the selection process itself. In an effort to ensure doctrinal purity and block dissent, the pope rules out priests who show the slightest sign of independence and instead promote sycophants and incompetents--hence the cover-up of the scandal. The conscienceless bishops were more concerned with protecting the institution than the congregations and district attorneys in the US who belong to Opus Dei, a semiosecret organization and are complicit in the cover-ups. How else explain the ascent of a Bernard Law in Boston and his being accorded an honored role in the Vatican despite his infamy?
I may disagree harshly with the evangelicals on philosophical grounds but at least they aren't burdened by a corrupt hierarchy that covers up the halitosis of decaying meat with sprays and lozenges. Careful where you sit ... Removed by Disgruntled70sHab
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 25, 2005 7:27:08 GMT -5
Returning to thesubject of the papacy, I was struck by the pomp and ceremony surrounding the funeral of John Paul II and the installation of Benedict XVI. It reminded me of the coronation of a Roman emperor aftert the decline of Rome. The papacy is a dying institution struggling for survival. Nope. The papacy will continue as long as there is a Catholic Church. Benedict's homily on uniting the church (bringing the Greek Orthodox Church, then the Anglicans, then the Protestants, and then the evangelicals back into the fold) is quite ambition . . . and quite impossible. "One Church, one shepherd" . . . hmmm, I wonder who that might be? It ain't going to happen -- Blaise, you aren't the only one disagreeing with Papal infallibility. Unfortunately, power and leadership beget the idea of entitlement, and the possibility of cover-up of problems. Don't hear about Pope John dying in the arms of his mistress nor about Pope Joan very often, do we? Not to disparage the Catholic Church; only to say that the hierarchy is made up of people, and people fall and fail (the evangelical term, avoided in North American society: sin). No, it happened because those who were abused were no longer afraid to speak out. It happened because the church began to lose domination of peoples' minds. And it happned because there is money to be made in a lawsuit (please note: I do not discount the fact that abuse happened -- it did. However, I also do not deny that people are also at times motivated by money). No, we are burdened by other problems . . . Jim Baker and Jerry Falwell and Jimmy Swaggart and Oral Roberts and . . .
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Apr 25, 2005 10:32:01 GMT -5
Returning to thesubject of the papacy, I was struck by the pomp and ceremony surrounding the funeral of John Paul II and the installation of Benedict XVI. It reminded me of the coronation of a Roman emperor aftert the decline of Rome. The papacy is a dying institution struggling for survival. The people (Catholic laity) have lost control of the dioceses and they watch the pope appoint their bishops from a far-off bunker. Want ro know why the pedophilia scandal erupted during the reign of John Paul II? Look no farther than the ideology of infallability and the selection process itself. In an effort to ensure doctrinal purity and block dissent, the pope rules out priests who show the slightest sign of independence and instead promote sycophants and incompetents--hence the cover-up of the scandal. The conscienceless bishops were more concerned with protecting the institution than the congregations and district attorneys in the US who belong to Opus Dei, a semiosecret organization and are complicit in the cover-ups. How else explain the ascent of a Bernard Law in Boston and his being accorded an honored role in the Vatican despite his infamy? I may disagree harshly with the evangelicals on philosophical grounds but at least they aren't burdened by a corrupt hierarchy that covers up the halitosis of decaying meat with sprays and lozenges. Careful where you sit in the cathedral. The velvet cushions of your pew may be stained with semen. Blaise You are a very vulgar and uncouth religious bigot. I protest to the moderators of this board your degrading and disgusting imagery and content. I will now cease to dialogue with you. I continued largely to counteract the bile spewed for the sake of the proverbial persons of good will. You are just a little too disgusting for me however.
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Apr 25, 2005 10:39:21 GMT -5
True, there are corrupt and power-hungry evangelicals, and there are others besides the ones you name, and I loathe their stands on many issues. But they aren't counterparts to the Catholic hierarchy. And if you don't like one denomination you can join another without risking your immortal soul. I listened to a roundtable discussing the papacy and one participant who is on the papal s-list predicterd that by 2050 the number of people in the US who identify themselves as Catholics will have shrunk by one third (from 60 million to 40 million).
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Apr 25, 2005 10:43:15 GMT -5
Blaise You are a very vulgar and uncouth religious bigot. I protest to the moderators of this board your degrading and disgusting imagery and content. I will now cease to dialogue with you. I continued largely to counteract the bile spewed for the sake of the proverbial persons of good will. You are just a little too disgusting for me however. I wish you reserved some of your wrath for the unworthy institution. Arguments about theology are one thing. Defense of criminals in cassocks is another.
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Apr 25, 2005 14:56:54 GMT -5
OK boyz,
Threads regarding religion MUST be approached and treated here with the utmost respect for the religion discussed which includes the beliefs and symbols inherent to that religion. It is very easy to get into sacrilegious territory when trying to evaluate a Religion under the microscope of a scientific, social or political debate. We must remember what the Pope is to Catholics and that his nomination is done by God enlightening the people to choose the right Pope for his time. While I am not advocating the merit of this, it's what it is to many believers and that's the end of it.
Thanks,
Doc.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 25, 2005 16:39:13 GMT -5
Returning to thesubject of the papacy, I was struck by the pomp and ceremony surrounding the funeral of John Paul II and the installation of Benedict XVI. It reminded me of the coronation of a Roman emperor aftert the decline of Rome. The papacy is a dying institution struggling for survival. I contest the last statement. I submit that organized Christianity in all its forms is struggling for survival not just Catholicism. I used to work for an organization that was once a regular target for the media. It's unfortunate but far too often if something detrimental happens to a serviceperson in the military, it becomes a reflection of the whole organization. Having said that, why doesn't the Chief of Defence Staff resign if a soldier is convicted for a war crime? Could it be a faulty recruiting process? Who is to blame other than the soldier? Hence, I contest your opinion. You are among many posters who have helped establish high levels of discussion to which this board has become noted for. Thank you. However, it is my belief that this comment was designed solely to solicit an emotional response. There are other ways of expressing your beliefs and I've seen you use them before. For the most part I enjoy the level of interest you generate on the board. And while I do not feel you to be a vulgar person by nature (quite the contrary), this comment is totally inappropriate and disrespects organized religion generally, Catholicism specifically, the HabsRus community and, regretfully, your efforts to this thread. I now must insist that you respect HabsRus Code of Conduct and its community. Opting not to delete the discussion entire, I have no recourse but to envoke corrective action to specific comments made in this thread. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 25, 2005 16:42:38 GMT -5
Blaise You are a very vulgar and uncouth religious bigot. No he isn't. In fact having corresponded with Blaise I have found him to be quite the contrary. However, his reference is and I will take appropriate action for this stage. Noted. And you're doing the right thing. Thank you. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Apr 25, 2005 20:30:12 GMT -5
OK boyz, Threads regarding religion MUST be approached and treated here with the utmost respect for the religion discussed which includes the beliefs and symbols inherent to that religion. It is very easy to get into sacrilegious territory when trying to evaluate a Religion under the microscope of a scientific, social or political debate. We must remember what the Pope is to Catholics and that his nomination is done by God enlightening the people to choose the right Pope for his time. While I am not advocating the merit of this, it's what it is to many believers and that's the end of it. Thanks, Doc. Thank you for your attempt to restore basic civility to the board. For the record, I don't ask anyone to respect my religion. All fair comment is more than welcome. The relentless injustice of bigotry is another matter. One is bound morally to defend the good name and honour of others from slander and calumny. If Franko wonders if a pope Joan could have even possibly have been validly ordained, let him ask by all means. The answer is of course no, if you think about it for a moment. Want to ask about widespread abuses that helped fuel the protestant reformation, fine. Just don't forget St. Francis and the counter-reformation. The difference between Dante and Machiavelli was that Dante coould see good as well as evil. Want to argue that Catholicism is anti-scientific or even slightly philosophically naive, prepare well. Think that the Avignon popes nullify the succession of popes from St. Peter? Fine ask away. I'm no Catholic scholar or expert, but lots of this stuff is several hundred years old and neither startling news or threatening. Anybody ever hear of Judas? Is it possible to deny Christ three times and still be the first pope? We're not really dealing with the 800 lb. gorilla of philosophical debate here guys. Ask if St Peter whose bones apparently lie in the vault in the Vatican was just taken in by a fast-talking nutbar who married a hooker and is the ancestor of the Jesusbergs family in France, and I might laugh out loud, but you have to start somewhere, even if it's the supposed 'gospel" of Philip. Was Cardinal Law, whose resignation as bishop was accepted two years ago by the pope asked to perform a special Vatican mass for John Paul II. No. He was not. The pope happens also to be the bishop of Rome and Cardinal Law happenned to have been the prelate at one of Rome's four cathedrals. An unfortunate product of protocol. Do I think Law made some terrible errors of judgement and should have known better? Yes I do. Apparently after about 1986, it was more common knowledge that certain psyco-sexual disorders do not respond well to psychiatric treatment. As far as I have heard, Cardinal Law was a highly respected and good man who believed in forgiveness. repentence and redeeming lives. The vast majority of these criminal acts were not of course pedophelia, but involved teen-aged boys. That in the 70's and 80's men of known homosexual orientation were unwisely accepted into the close life of U.S. seminaries and that from these same men sprang the tragic predatory homosexual behaviour is of course true. Seminaries are run quite differently today for the most part. Much of this is fairly well documented in "Goodbye, Good Men" Is due process the best way to deal with serious allegations? In most cases. hard and difficult as it is, I would say, yes. In some perhaps not. Does this flow from the doctrine of infallibility or some imagined religious necessity? No. It flows from predatory homosexuality. Did the Pope investigate the seminaries of the US church to determine and root out the source of truly evil behaviour. Yes. Does this mean Christ didn't rise from the dead, and that there was not apostolic succession? No. Have no fear about damaging or offending my religious sensibilities. I'm a big boy who spent literally thousands of hours examining just about everything under the sun about Roman Catholicism before I was able to give full amd reasonned assent to her. Far from discovering her to be intellectually shaky, I found her to be the only body of thought or belief that ran in complete harmony with what the human intellect can know about self and the nature of existence. I realize that the proceeding statement will not appear as instantly true to anyone reading it, but by all means, feel free to challenge so seeming ly outrageous a statement. All I ask is that one attempt some modicum of balance. Don't feel obliged to paint some very obviously great human beings as evil, narcissistic monsters. I don't deride Hindus atheists or moral relativists. Descartes and Kant were fundamentally wrong on critical things, but I will not engage in character asassination. Think the Crusades were all about monstrous, fanatical religionists gone on a rampage. I think that idea is almost completely ridiculous. If I'm not right in this, you probably wouldn't be here to read this. You want to risk comments on Pope Benedict XVI's ideas concerning human sexuality, I'll just forwarn you that they are most likely to be completely orthodox. Catholic sexual morality is predicated upon loving your spouse or girlfriend and living up to what a wonderful gift human sexuality is in all its dimensions. God, not the devil created the human body and sex. Catholic understands men and human to compliment and fulfill one another. Together we are completely human. Think as some do that Catholic aid workers should be passing out condoms. I sure do not, but if you can resist the temptation to see me as an irrational Pollyanna living in LaLa Land for a moment or two, and consider a point or two that I would happily raise, you may end in disagreeing, but I doubt if you will find my positions untennable. I will endeavour to respect the merits of your case as well. Anybody really at peace with contemporary teen sexuality in Canada? I have rattled on enough. Don't feel you have to respect my religion. But do feel you have to respect me and others, all others and truth. Not selective truth. Not half truths. My answers will often be in conflict with A&E, but that's a good thing. So says Saint Martha.
|
|
|
Post by HardCap on Apr 26, 2005 12:20:55 GMT -5
Thank you for your attempt to restore basic civility to the board. For the record, I don't ask anyone to respect my religion. All fair comment is more than welcome. The relentless injustice of bigotry is another matter. One is bound morally to defend the good name and honour of others from slander and calumny. If Franko wonders if a pope Joan could have even possibly have been validly ordained, let him ask by all means. The answer is of course no, if you think about it for a moment. Want to ask about widespread abuses that helped fuel the protestant reformation, fine. Just don't forget St. Francis and the counter-reformation. The difference between Dante and Machiavelli was that Dante coould see good as well as evil. Want to argue that Catholicism is anti-scientific or even slightly philosophically naive, prepare well. Think that the Avignon popes nullify the succession of popes from St. Peter? Fine ask away. I'm no Catholic scholar or expert, but lots of this stuff is several hundred years old and neither startling news or threatening. Anybody ever hear of Judas? Is it possible to deny Christ three times and still be the first pope? We're not really dealing with the 800 lb. gorilla of philosophical debate here guys. Ask if St Peter whose bones apparently lie in the vault in the Vatican was just taken in by a fast-talking nutbar who married a hooker and is the ancestor of the Jesusbergs family in France, and I might laugh out loud, but you have to start somewhere, even if it's the supposed 'gospel" of Philip. Was Cardinal Law, whose resignation as bishop was accepted two years ago by the pope asked to perform a special Vatican mass for John Paul II. No. He was not. The pope happens also to be the bishop of Rome and Cardinal Law happenned to have been the prelate at one of Rome's four cathedrals. An unfortunate product of protocol. Do I think Law made some terrible errors of judgement and should have known better? Yes I do. Apparently after about 1986, it was more common knowledge that certain psyco-sexual disorders do not respond well to psychiatric treatment. As far as I have heard, Cardinal Law was a highly respected and good man who believed in forgiveness. repentence and redeeming lives. The vast majority of these criminal acts were not of course pedophelia, but involved teen-aged boys. That in the 70's and 80's men of known homosexual orientation were unwisely accepted into the close life of U.S. seminaries and that from these same men sprang the tragic predatory homosexual behaviour is of course true. Seminaries are run quite differently today for the most part. Much of this is fairly well documented in "Goodbye, Good Men" Is due process the best way to deal with serious allegations? In most cases. hard and difficult as it is, I would say, yes. In some perhaps not. Does this flow from the doctrine of infallibility or some imagined religious necessity? No. It flows from predatory homosexuality. Did the Pope investigate the seminaries of the US church to determine and root out the source of truly evil behaviour. Yes. Does this mean Christ didn't rise from the dead, and that there was not apostolic succession? No. Have no fear about damaging or offending my religious sensibilities. I'm a big boy who spent literally thousands of hours examining just about everything under the sun about Roman Catholicism before I was able to give full amd reasonned assent to her. Far from discovering her to be intellectually shaky, I found her to be the only body of thought or belief that ran in complete harmony with what the human intellect can know about self and the nature of existence. I realize that the proceeding statement will not appear as instantly true to anyone reading it, but by all means, feel free to challenge so seeming ly outrageous a statement. All I ask is that one attempt some modicum of balance. Don't feel obliged to paint some very obviously great human beings as evil, narcissistic monsters. I don't deride Hindus atheists or moral relativists. Descartes and Kant were fundamentally wrong on critical things, but I will not engage in character asassination. Think the Crusades were all about monstrous, fanatical religionists gone on a rampage. I think that idea is almost completely ridiculous. If I'm not right in this, you probably wouldn't be here to read this. You want to risk comments on Pope Benedict XVI's ideas concerning human sexuality, I'll just forwarn you that they are most likely to be completely orthodox. Catholic sexual morality is predicated upon loving your spouse or girlfriend and living up to what a wonderful gift human sexuality is in all its dimensions. God, not the devil created the human body and sex. Catholic understands men and human to compliment and fulfill one another. Together we are completely human. Think as some do that Catholic aid workers should be passing out condoms. I sure do not, but if you can resist the temptation to see me as an irrational Pollyanna living in LaLa Land for a moment or two, and consider a point or two that I would happily raise, you may end in disagreeing, but I doubt if you will find my positions untennable. I will endeavour to respect the merits of your case as well. Anybody really at peace with contemporary teen sexuality in Canada? I have rattled on enough. Don't feel you have to respect my religion. But do feel you have to respect me and others, all others and truth. Not selective truth. Not half truths. My answers will often be in conflict with A&E, but that's a good thing. So says Saint Martha. Bravo....From The Bible, Timothy 6.12. 'Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.'
|
|
|
Post by HabbaDasher on Apr 26, 2005 13:22:27 GMT -5
My left-handed mother writes with her right hand. Why? The nuns that schooled her decided it was improper and would rap her knuckles with a ruler if she transgressed. Relevancy? Just another anecdote to judge the institution and it's members by.
|
|
|
Post by HardCap on Apr 26, 2005 13:34:51 GMT -5
My left-handed mother writes with her right hand. Why? The nuns that schooled her decided it was improper and would rap her knuckles with a ruler if she transgressed. Relevancy? Just another anecdote to judge the institution and it's members by. Yes, all Catholics are knuckle rappers...ROFLMAO
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 26, 2005 13:43:31 GMT -5
Yes, all Catholics are knuckle rappers...ROFLMAO Akin to saying that all atheists are knuckleheads. Pig's knuckle with horseradish sauce1 good-sized knuckle (pickled and smoked, "Eisbein") 3 carrots 1 onion peppercorns, salt, bay leaf and pimento for the sauce: 1 small jar grated horseradish 200ml cream 2 tbsp. flour lemon juice, sugar, salt, ground white pepper Method: Boil meat gently with cut up vegetables and spices for about 2hrs. Thicken strained broth with flour and cream, add horseradish and season to taste. Serve with potato dumplings.
|
|
|
Post by HabbaDasher on Apr 26, 2005 13:43:54 GMT -5
Yes, all Catholics are knuckle rappers...ROFLMAO Finally some good humour in this thread to lighten things up. Yes, the outfits and bling would lend themselves well to the Hip Hop genre, but I'm not sure the institution is ready to market themselves with Rap Music. Although I have to admit, Maestro Fresh Ratzengberger has a nice ring to it.
|
|
|
Post by HardCap on Apr 26, 2005 13:50:04 GMT -5
Finally some good humour in this thread to lighten things up. Yes, the outfits and bling would lend themselves well to the Hip Hop genre, but I'm not sure the institution is ready to market themselves with Rap Music. Although I have to admit, Maestro Fresh Ratzengberger has a nice ring to it. the Pope would now like to be called his Eminem instead of his Eminence... ;D
|
|
|
Post by HabbaDasher on Apr 26, 2005 14:01:26 GMT -5
the Pope would now like to be called his Eminem instead of his Eminence... ;D How about His Eminemence?
|
|
|
Post by HardCap on Apr 26, 2005 14:03:20 GMT -5
How about His Eminemence? Word..............................of God from Da Prince a Peace...yo...
|
|
|
Post by HabbaDasher on Apr 26, 2005 14:03:51 GMT -5
My left-handed mother writes with her right hand. Why? The nuns who schooled her decided it was improper and would rap her knuckles with a ruler if she transgressed. Relevancy? Just another anecdote to judge the institution and it's members by. Edit - grammar is more important than penmanship
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 26, 2005 14:18:47 GMT -5
My left-handed mother writes with her right hand. Why? The nuns that schooled her decided it was improper and would rap her knuckles with a ruler if she transgressed. Relevancy? Just another anecdote to judge the institution and it's members by. Let's not blame all of the problems of the world on Catholic teaching! Left-handedness was also seen as a problem by Protestants and by the pagans, by the uneducated and by the educated.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 26, 2005 14:33:18 GMT -5
One is bound morally to defend the good name and honour of others from slander and calumny. If Franko wonders if a pope Joan could have even possibly have been validly ordained, let him ask by all means. The answer is of course no, if you think about it for a moment. Discussion is great, even in anonymity! It is not my intent to discredit the papacy, even though I am not Catholic and dispute Apostolic Succession and the claim that Jesus made Peter the first Pope based on Matthew 16:18: ( I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it). Jesus – and Peter – and for that matter Paul – attempted to work within the framework of the Jewish tradition, not begin a new religion but renew one that had become increasingly dogmatic and legalistic. In fact, Paul had more of an impact on the formation of the Christian Church than did Peter. And in fact, Paul rebuked Peter for legalistic tendencies, and Peter accepted Paul’s correction, as the new church tried to find its place in society. Add to that the fact that this theory (Apostolic Succession) only began to take hold late in the second century. While the non-Catholic Church has no difficulty in accepting the apostolic office (it is, after all, one of the gifts of the Spirit [1 Corinthians 12]), it rejects the doctrine that only those whose ordination is approved by bishops “in an approved Roman line of succession” are valid. Further, the idea of a celibate priesthood is a later development to the Roman Catholic tradition. If one were to use Peter as an example he himself would be disqualified for the position, as he was married (Mark 1:30). It has been suggested that Paul was also married, and that when he complained about his “thorn in the flesh” he was referring to his mother-in-law, but I wouldn’t go that far ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) . Bishops were to have only one wife (I Timothy 3:2) – an injunction against polygamy (why is monogamy stressed? Because no man can serve two masters ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) ) Once the church organized into structure and began paying its priestly leaders, and once the church realized that it could not afford to support its priest and family (before the church hierarchy developed into powerful and wealthy political leaders) an unmarried priesthood was demanded. But I digress. I was referring to the legend of Pope Joan. Pope Joan is one of the most fascinating, extraordinary characters in Western history -- and one of the least well known. Most people have never heard of Joan the Pope, and those who have regard her story as legend.
Yet for hundreds of years -- up to the middle of the seventeenth century -- Joan’s papacy was universally known and accepted as truth. In the seventeenth century, the Catholic Church, under increasing attack from rising Protestantism, began a concerted effort to destroy the embarrassing historical records on Joan. Hundreds of manuscripts and books were seized by the Vatican. Joan’s virtual disappearance from modern consciousness attests to the effectiveness of these measures.
Today the Catholic Church offers two principal arguments against Joan’s papacy: the absence of any reference to her in contemporary documents, and the lack of a sufficient period of time for her papacy to have taken place between the end of the reign of her predecessor, Leo IV, and the beginning of the reign of her successor, Benedict III.
These arguments are not, however, conclusive Pope Joan existed. Pope Joan, by Donna Woolfolk Cross, is an interesting read. I readily admit that the evidence that there was a Pope Joan is circumstantial at best, and has been called “a convenient piece of anti-Catholic propaganda”. The Museum of Hoaxes tells us that Modern scholars have been unable to resolve the history of Pope Joan. Just another mystery . . . and another discussion opportunity!
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 26, 2005 14:33:58 GMT -5
I listened to a roundtable discussing the papacy and one participant who is on the papal s-list predicterd that by 2050 the number of people in the US who identify themselves as Catholics will have shrunk by one third (from 60 million to 40 million). That’s only if immigration ceases or if the immigrants take North American standards (or lack there-of) as their own.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 26, 2005 14:34:35 GMT -5
I contest the last statement. I submit that organized Christianity in all its forms is struggling for survival not just Catholicism. I’ll give you that mainstream Christianity is on the wane . . . but conservative Christianity is on the rise. No, let me rephrase that: it is traditional Christianity is on the wane; Pentecostal/Charismatic/experiential Christianity is becoming more and more attractive. Even as it is dismissed as peripheral (note the Airport Blessing with a miraculous God changing mercury fillings in teeth to gold), it – and even a conservative-evangelical doctrine with more legalistic tendencies – is attracting people who are searching for spiritual meaning in life. Of course, they are defining their religious needs by their own terms, but are still (for the most part) designating themselves Christian.
|
|
|
Post by HabbaDasher on Apr 26, 2005 14:36:29 GMT -5
Let's not blame all of the problems of the world on Catholic teaching! Left-handedness was also seen as a problem by Protestants and by the pagans, by the uneducated and by the educated. I think I was pretty specific about who I blame for what.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 26, 2005 15:04:55 GMT -5
I think I was pretty specific about who I blame for what. True. I merely pointed out that the nuns were not alone in their belief. I spent most of my years in the public education system (no wonder I'm in such bad shape!), where left-handed friends of mine also had their knuckles smacked (this was pre-rap) for the error of their ways. Ah . . . memories of childhood. Now I'll have nightmares for a week!
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 26, 2005 15:34:08 GMT -5
Social stigma and repression of left-handednessMany European languages (including English) use the same word for "right" (in a directional sense) to mean "correct, proper". Throughout history, being left-handed was considered as negative — the Latin and Italian word sinistra (from which the English 'sinister' was derived) means "left". There are many negative connotations associated with the word "left-handed": clumsy, awkward, unlucky, insincere, sinister, malicious, and so on. French gauche, meaning "left", means "awkward or clumsy" in English, whereas French droit is cognate with English "adroit", meaning dexterous, skillful with the hands. As these are all very old words, they would tend to support theories indicating that the predominance of righthandedness is an extremely old phenomenon. The Eskimos believed that every lefty was a sorcerer. A Japanese man could divorce his wife if he discovered that she was left-handed. There have been, however, many famous left-handed people, and the associated right brain hemisphere that is said to be more active in left-handed people has been found in some circumstances to be associated with genius and is correlated with artistic and visual skill. Until very recently in Taiwan, left-handed people were strongly encouraged to switch to being right-handed (or at least, switch to writing with the right hand). It is more difficult to write legible Chinese characters with the left hand than it is to write Latin letters. Remember that "easy" and "difficult" are subjective terms, so your writing may be neater. Because it is supposedly easier to write when moving your hand towards its side of the body, it is easier to write the Roman alphabet with your right hand than with your left. Some theorize that those languages that have a written language from right to left, such as Arabic and Hebrew, are derived from cultures where the first writing was chisled by hand in stone, where right-handed masons would write from right to left. Under this theory, cultures where the first written words were on some form of paper use left to right. This is not universally accepted, however. Until the latter part of the twentieth century, Roman Catholic nuns in American elementary schools (and possibly elsewhere) would punish children for using their left hand to write, typically by slapping their left hand with a ruler if they attempted to pick up a pen with it. Left-handedness was interpreted as a sign of Satanic influence, and thus prohibited. It has been hypothesised that some sun worshipers have grown to associate their left sides with evil, since people facing north would see the sun set (disappear) on their left. The evidence for this is very weak, however, as the opposite conclusion can be drawn when one considers a person facing south (the opposite direction). It has been suggested that there may be a preference for northern hemisphere dwellers to face the fixed north star (i.e., north) when making directions judgements. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southpaw* There have been lefthanded Presidents of the United States, but there will never be a lefthanded Pope.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 26, 2005 16:54:44 GMT -5
there will never be a lefthanded Pope. Nor likely (Blaise) a left-leaning one. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Apr 26, 2005 17:25:55 GMT -5
Finally some good humour in this thread to lighten things up. Yes, the outfits and bling would lend themselves well to the Hip Hop genre, but I'm not sure the institution is ready to market themselves with Rap Music. Although I have to admit, Maestro Fresh Ratzengberger has a nice ring to it. How about German Shepherd?
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 26, 2005 17:58:08 GMT -5
How about His Eminemence? A sense of humor as sick as mine, I like it! As I told the Pope, don't let the Cardinals in on your plans, keep it under your hat.
|
|