|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on May 12, 2009 21:18:19 GMT -5
While Skilly and Toronthab have different opinions, I doubt they really are personally critical of eachother. I occasionally say it's absurd to believe "X" or "Y" and I don't really mean that person "A" or "B" are stupid for holding an opinion different from mine. Hell, by tomorrow my own opinion may change.
The Catholic Church states that a Priest can not take a woman for a wife. Does that mean that in states where gay marriage is allowed, they can now get married?
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 12, 2009 21:18:39 GMT -5
>> But even now, with Vactican II half a century behind us, they still cling to a lot of the old outdated ideas that don't really mean all that much in today's world<< Since you are describing me accidentally, in this post, I am curious. I find Roman Catholicism to be the one and only institution that makes complete and utter sense of both the universe and human life, and further had this opinon strengthened by the study of philosophy at U of T. That's good THab. You see, while I don't agree with it, I respect this opinion wholeheartedly. I spent 23 years in uniform (not including cadets and militia) defending this concept. But, this is where you distance me from any debate, any discussion. But, I don't respect this opinion. If nothing else it smacks of intollerance, both religiously and personally. In my family just about everyone, cousins, aunts and uncles, were raised as Catholics. Now that everyone has grown up, most still practice Christianity albeit through different churches. Doesn't make them any less Christian than Catholics. You ask Skilly not to worry about your "sensibilities." Yet, through the thread you dismiss any and all other beliefs as "amusing" and "incoherent." If nothing else you're suggesting to me that if you're not Catholic you're nothing at all. It's all well and fine to defend your religious beliefs, but to do it by dismissing others' opinions and beliefs as incoherent garbage is not on. I am convinced this is not policy of the Catholic Church. Part of my responsibilities as a moderator IS to worry about such things. As I go through the thread I noticed a pattern to your methodology. You start off defending your position well enough, but then make judgments on people for their opinions and beliefs. At this point it is not longer a dispute, but a conflict; a disagreement with the person (conflict) instead of the opinion (dispute). And from there it becomes personal. We actually talked about this very thing a few years ago in a similar debate. Do you remember this by chance? Cheers. Hi Dis You're a nice guy, but you are judging me unfairly. What judgments have I made on persons for their opinions and beliefs. You in fact are passing a judgment on me. I have not done that with anybody. What are you looking for here? Incoherent has a particular meaning. It has nothing to do with any given person mumbling things but denotes a metaphysical self contradiction. For example..if atheism is were true, we could not know it. We could not know anything for all events would be purposeless physical and unintelligible acts. It is actually you who are getting personal with me. I find materialism, the view that only not even accidental physical events without purpose has caused everything to be utterly absurd. Do you have a problem with that? Why shouldn't I? The idea IS absurd. Are you just picking me out because I'm a Catholic? Just who's calling who intolerant around here, and it seems to me that what you find intolerant is my clear expression of what I think. Should I find Franko intolerant because he presumably disagrees with me? Try to recognize that an assertion and its contrary cannot both be true at the same time and in the same respect. That I think an awful lot of people wrong or incomplete in their ideas, cosmologies, or theologies is just exactly the expression of what they implicitly hold of me. This is not intlolerance but the clear exposition of distinctions. Incidentally, the last time we had this discussion I thought you were doing something similar to what you're doing now. Do you think that there are no right answers and no way to arrive at them? I have not adopted tones similar to Skilly's for instance as he refers to we poor controlled duped ones etc etc etc.. Have I used tones like this not uncommon, not defensible but nevertheless patronizing and insulting approach? No. I have not. You will find more instances of this from others than you will find from me. And by the way, if you want to defend blind materialism or random-physical-stuff- only-ism, as coherent or not self-defeating like Hume's epistemology or Kant's then by all means have a go at it. But please don't bother labeling me as 'intolerant' for I am not intolerant at all in thes matters. My points no doubt challenge any number of positions, but that is neither the intent or my purpose, and it sure as hell isn't intollerance. Franko characterized my remarks with his own added flavor to them which is fine though I did not express what he claims I did at all, which would have been judgmental and wrong. But neither did I claim what he said. Who's intolerant around here. I will happily repeat that I find Catholicsm to be the ONLY institution that in its fundamental positions, and understandings is completely consistent with what we can know of human existence. Why the hell else would or should anyone be Catholic? I happen to know fairly exactly what I think and why I think it. I don't take other people's beliefs and arguments as threatening in any way, and neither do I expect people to jump into line with what I hold to be true. But it seems you, Dis are uncomfortable that I hold these propositions to be true. Lots of people believe, erroneously I think that one cannot arrive at reasonable and true propositions. I have even read the arguments. And I disagree. And yes that means that necessarily I think they are wrong in these opinions. So? |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 12, 2009 21:47:17 GMT -5
Just to be clear, "atheistic materialism" isn't the all-encompassing "religion" of those who don't follow Catholicism. I have no want nor desire to praise a God that needs praising, and instead follow (much like Skilly) my own path to righteousness which isn't based on material possession. This discussion is interesting on a message board, but the holier-than-thou-because-I'm-Roman Catholic/Catholic/Protestant/Whatever-and-we're-better sentiment that's coming across in this thread frankly isn't something that would fly in a civil discussion face to face. For me, anyway. Yes, I understand the irony of using the word holy in that sentence. Technically it's true. However I don't believe that those who follow an indoctrinated religion are -- on an individual level -- any "better" than anyone who doesn't. Hey Redskull, Who ever said atheistic materialism IS the all-encompassing religion of those who don't follow Catholicism. I never said or implied such a thing, and materialism has nothing to do with owning material things which is a common mistake in people who don't read much philosophy. Your notion of a God that "needs praising' also signals that you haven't spent much time actually becoming literate on the matter of religion, but may I at least assure you that no monotheistic God 'needs praising', though I am at a loss at how you could have arrived at such a notion. And as to the holier -than- thou...business, perhaps you'd like to point out where I have implied or stated any such nonsense and I'll correct it. May I be forgiven for suggesting that if this observation is similar to your first ones it is also more reflective of a lack of knowledge. Now the pursuit of truth is indeed a virtue and its own reward, so perhaps some remedial reading in the areas you are commenting upon would not be wasted time. Indeed I do find your tone thoroughly uncivil, obviously ad hominem and utterly intolerant, something Dis accused me of for some reason. And what praytell is 'one who follows an indoctrinated religion' supposed to mean. The phrase is incoherent, or put another is a category error. Religions aren't indoctrinated. And which doctrine are you defending that has given you such an exalted perspective on such matters. I'm sorry you don't like my completely voluntary,very long, very well considered and very happy acceptance of the claims of Roman Catholicism, but alas, it is I, not you, who must live this one life I am given. It would be nice however if you would, if even out of simple civility, good manners, common respect or whatever you wish, read up a little bit on your misunderstandngs and descriptions of a religion about which you appear to understand nothing. Your unhappy, and speaking as a Catholic, naive and insulting depiction of both the religion and adherents certainly smacks of what one might charitably call intolerance. Sorry you feel this way RedSkull |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 12, 2009 21:55:57 GMT -5
I do suppose it's a pretty good principle to try to quote directly I’ll say! But when you say “Christ says specifically” then imo you are quoting – whether or not you try to couch it by “not using quotes”. Otoh, if you are and then you are not “saying specifically” – you are offering a second-hand interpretation by a council. Don’t say “the Bible says” or “Christ says” when neither do – this is where I draw the line. [OK, mods, I’ll accept the rebuke] Hi Franko I found this on Wikipedia and it seems a pretty reasonable presentation of the Catholic tradition and history, though more could easily be found directly on the Vatican site. Historical origins Studies by Catholic scholars, one of which is available on the Vatican website,[1] have argued that, in early Christian practice, married men who became priests—they were often older men, "elders"—were expected to live in complete continence, refraining permanently from sexual relations with their wives.[2][3][4] When at a later stage it was clear that not all did refrain, the Western Church limited ordination to unmarried men and required a commitment to lifelong celibacy, while the Eastern Churches relaxed the rule, so that Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches now require their married clergy to abstain from sexual relations only for a limited period before celebrating the Eucharist. The Church in Persia, which in the fifth century became separated from the Church described as Orthodox or Catholic, decided at the end of that century to abolish the rule of continence and allow priests to marry, but recognized that it was abrogating an ancient tradition. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, whose separation, along with the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, came slightly later, allows deacons (who are ordained when they are boys) to marry, but not priests: any future priests who wish to marry must do so before becoming priests. The Armenian Apostolic Church, which also belongs to Oriental Orthodoxy, while technically prohibiting, like the Eastern Orthodox Church, marriage after ordination to the sub-diaconate, has generally let this rule fall into disuse and allows deacons to marry up to the point of their priestly ordination, thus continuing to maintain the traditional exclusion of marriage by those who are priests.[5] This theory would explain why all the ancient Christian Churches of both East and West, with the one exception mentioned, exclude marriage after priestly ordination, and why all reserve the episcopate (seen as a fuller form of priesthood than the presbyterate) for the celibate. The earliest textual evidence of the forbidding of marriage to clerics and the duty of those already married to abstain from sexual contact with their wives is in the fourth-century decrees of the Council of Elvira and the later Council of Carthage. According to some writers, this presumed a previous norm, which was being flouted in practice.[6] Council of Elvira (c. 305) (Canon 33): It is decided that marriage be altogether prohibited to bishops, priests, and deacons, or to all clerics placed in the ministry, and that they keep away from their wives and not beget children; whoever does this, shall be deprived of the honor of the clerical office. Council of Carthage (390) (Canon 3): It is fitting that the holy bishops and priests of God as well as the Levites, i.e. those who are in the service of the divine sacraments, observe perfect continence, so that they may obtain in all simplicity what they are asking from God; what the Apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed, let us also endeavour to keep… It pleases us all that bishop, priest and deacon, guardians of purity, abstain from conjugal intercourse with their wives, so that those who serve at the altar may keep a perfect chastity. Among the early Church statements on the topic of sexual continence and celibacy are the Directa and Cum in unum decretals of Pope Siricius (c. 385), which asserted that clerical sexual abstinence was an apostolic practice that must be followed by ministers of the church. The writings of Saint Ambrose (died 397) also show that the requirement that priests, whether married or celibate, should be continent was the established rule. To the married clergy who, "in some out-of-the-way places", claimed, on the model of the Old Testament priesthood, the right to father children, he recalled that in Old Testament times even lay people were obliged to observe continence on the days leading to a sacrifice, and commented: "If such regard was paid in what was only the figure, how much ought it to be shown in the reality!"[7] Yet more sternly he wrote: "(Saint Paul) spoke of one who has children, not of one who begets children."[8] [edit] Theological foundations Theologically, the Church teaches that priesthood is a ministry conformed to the life and work of Jesus Christ. Priests as sacramental ministers act in persona Christi, that is in the person of Christ. Thus the life of the priest conforms to the chastity of Christ himself. The sacrifice of married life for the "sake of the Kingdom" (Luke 18:28–30, Matthew 19:27–30; Mark 10:20–21), and to follow the example of Jesus Christ in being "married" to the Church, viewed by Catholicism and many Christian traditions as the "Bride of Christ". [edit] Scriptural foundations Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) in Salt of the Earth also explained that this practice is based on Jesus' preaching on the eunuchs or celibates "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" which links with God's decision in the Old Testament to confer the priesthood to a specific tribe, that of Levi, and who unlike the other tribes did not receive from God any land — an essential need for one's posterity as a wife and children are today — but had "God himself as its inheritance" (Numbers 1:48–53). Also of import are the teachings of St. Paul that celibacy is the superior state of life, and his desire expressed in 1 Corinthians 7:7–8; 7:32–35: "Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction." [edit] Eleventh century developments It is sometimes claimed that celibacy became mandatory for Latin-Rite priests only in the eleventh century; but others say, for instance..." |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 12, 2009 21:56:50 GMT -5
While Skilly and Toronthab have different opinions, I doubt they really are personally critical of eachother. I occasionally say it's absurd to believe "X" or "Y" and I don't really mean that person "A" or "B" are stupid for holding an opinion different from mine. Hell, by tomorrow my own opinion may change. The Catholic Church states that a Priest can not take a woman for a wife. Does that mean that in states where gay marriage is allowed, they can now get married? HAHAHA! |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 12, 2009 23:49:16 GMT -5
Hi New guy I don't think the church weakens herself at all in insisting ordinarily upon celibacy for the priesthood. For me to accept the numbers argument would be like holding that the world would be better with 7, 435 Christs, and God for some reason just sent One. The evangelical counsels are a formal commitment in response to a calling that doesn't count the cost and lays down one's life for God and for one's fellow man. I think its by far the better way. You would compare the choices of men to the choices of the Lord? Daring indeed! Also, I get a little kick out of your telling the Catholic church what is 'scriptural'. The church is the mother of the book , not the book the mother of the church, and the authority to teach is not in the bible but in the apostolic authority exercised by priests under the local apostolic authority of the bishop. You may get a "little kick out of it" but this is not a matter of debate. What is scriptural and what is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact. If it is in the book, it is scriptural. If it is not, it is not. And short of adding another Gospel or more Epistles, there is no scriptural basis for the discipline of clerical celibacy. There is the basis for supporting it, even encouraging it, but the scripture actually points to a clerical set who are married with children. Now if the church wants to say elsewhere that it is a matter of doctrine or discipline, that is fine. I do not debate the privilege of the church to set its own rules. I do take issue with the fact that the Church, in an age where it has needed a strong priesthood more than ever, where it is crying out for candidates to the priesthood, puts up barriers to qualified young men (to say nothing of the exclusion of women from the priesthood) based on a "discipline" (that is to say, not an element of doctrine that the church teaches, but a discipline which they wish their followers to adhere to). It is foolish and shortsighted. That is all. I believe that either you are incorrect with your date, or perhaps I am mistaking Otranto with the name of another coastal town in the Mediteranean that led, two years later to the petition to (Urban VI?) for an inquisition specifically due to the moorish presence and threat. I assure you I am not mistaken on either of my dates (I checked). You may be mistaken for your town, but as far as I know there was no attack in the immediate years before Otranto (the Reconquista was mostly completed, having driven out all the Moorish kingdoms in Iberia save Granada which was more or less in shambles; and the Sack of Otranto was largely considered a surprise attack by the Ottoman's, meaning I doubt there were any other raids on Western Med coastal towns in that era by the Ottomans - they were too busy rolling over the remains of the Byzantines). Isabella, the Catholic Queen of Spain, was convinced of the need for a Inquisition by Alonso de Hojeda, a Dominican who reported to the Queen on the practice of Crypto-Judaism (practising Judaism under the guise of Christianity - mainly because to get lucrative government posts in that era in Spain one had to be Christian). It's also something the church considers a sin, and so it's worth noting that they had legitimate concerns. Alonso was corroborated by Pedro González de Mendoza - the Archbishop of Seville - and some guy named Tomás de Torquemada. The Pope initially refused Isabella's request (because the request would have placed the Inquisition under her and her husband's oversight, not the churches), but Ferdinand (her husband) threatened to withdraw military support in the east (where Christian Europe was slowly being overrun) and so Pope Sixtus IV relented. As I understand it, historians claim between 800 and three to five thousand deaths under the Spanish Inquistition, and while I am aware of the earlier one with the Cathars, it is the Spanish Black Legend that is alive and well in the imaginations of English speaking people to the great injustice of Spain which was perhaps the most civilized of European nations at the time. Check out Elizabeth's inquisition. However, as I understand, and consistent with the fears of the Muslim Turkish superpower, most of the deaths resulting from the inquisition ..which was devised to protect the rights of the innocent, occurred around Granada for fear of the Muslim presence in Spain. If you have been to the south of Spain as I once had the immense pleasure of seeing, one can see North Africa with the unaided human eye across the straights of Gibralter. The fear and the threat were real, while many modern historians see the inquisition as but another part of the reconquista. You are right about my misuse of the term 'converso', though the principle was the same, as the Jewish people of the time according to prominent Jewish historians were in fact siding with the Moors against Castillle and Aragon. I will try to clear up the issue of the coastal town that saw the slaughter of 12000 who refused to 'convert' to Islam. I have two modern histories on the Inquisition, and I read of the incident from another historian, but I'll make sure I had the right town. My recollection is that there were two towns with quite similar names implicated in the early stages. Thanks for the correction. (a) This is all really irrelevant to our original discussion - the history of the Inquisition is immaterial to the discussion of "silly church rules". So you can save yourself the effort of looking up your "Otranto". (b) Turk != Moor. Moors are Berbers from Western Africa and were never under the banner of the Ottoman Empire (the closest the Ottoman's got was Algiers - close, but not Gibralter close. (c) Even if we were debating Church history, the Inquisition would have little relevance as it was a political tool of two monarch who just happened to be Catholic. That's like the oft used refrain of saying Atheism is bad because Stalin was an atheist. You can find evil, unholy people in almost any culture. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on May 13, 2009 0:49:30 GMT -5
Who ever said atheistic materialism IS the all-encompassing religion of those who don't follow Catholicism. I never said or implied such a thing, and materialism has nothing to do with owning material things which is a common mistake in people who don't read much philosophy. Nobody said that. I intended to convey that there are other schools out there. You indeed are correct, as I was wrong. I am an economist by schooling, so I associated materialism with the economic term automatically. After further reading, I wouldn't change anything in my post except 1 word. Your notion of a God that "needs praising' also signals that you haven't spent much time actually becoming literate on the matter of religion, but may I at least assure you that no monotheistic God 'needs praising', though I am at a loss at how you could have arrived at such a notion. The Sabbath being a day of worship might suggest that. Otherwise 1st Chronicles 16:23-30 seems like a decent place to start. This being after David brought the Ark of the God to the tent he constructed. Sing unto the LORD, all the earth; shew forth from day to day his salvation. Declare his glory among the heathen; his marvellous works among all nations. For great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised: he also is to be feared above all gods. For all the gods of the people are idols: but the LORD made the heavens. Glory and honour are in his presence; strength and gladness are in his place. Give unto the LORD, ye kindreds of the people, give unto the LORD glory and strength. Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name: bring an offering, and come before him: worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness. Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved. I'm no Biblical scholar, and I'm quite sure there's numerous other scripture quotes that both corroborate and contradict the one above -- one reason I don't particularly think the Bible is a wonderful book, despite the life lessons contained within. And as to the holier -than- thou...business, perhaps you'd like to point out where I have implied or stated any such nonsense and I'll correct it. May I be forgiven for suggesting that if this observation is similar to your first ones it is also more reflective of a lack of knowledge. Now the pursuit of truth is indeed a virtue and its own reward, so perhaps some remedial reading in the areas you are commenting upon would not be wasted time. Having spent my youth being instilled with Catholicism, I'll let others continue the reading on that matter. I have no desire to further fill my mind with the hocus pocus that has to offer. My largest problem with most religions is the institution of it. The truth is, in my view, that there's nothing out there. No God. No Devil. No Heaven. We live as we are. How sad for me, I'm sure is what you'll be thinking -- it seems to be the common response. Indeed I do find your tone thoroughly uncivil, obviously ad hominem and utterly intolerant, something Dis accused me of for some reason. And what praytell is 'one who follows an indoctrinated religion' supposed to mean. The phrase is incoherent, or put another is a category error. Religions aren't indoctrinated. No? Religions are absolutely indoctrinated. They're unquestioned from within. And external questions are by and large are dismissed. And which doctrine are you defending that has given you such an exalted perspective on such matters. I'm sorry you don't like my completely voluntary,very long, very well considered and very happy acceptance of the claims of Roman Catholicism, but alas, it is I, not you, who must live this one life I am given. I'm not defending any faith. I believe everyone is on equal ground. Equally, I have to live my life. What's your point? I didn't mention you, am not judging your choices and don't intend to start. It would be nice however if you would, if even out of simple civility, good manners, common respect or whatever you wish, read up a little bit on your misunderstandngs and descriptions of a religion about which you appear to understand nothing. Your unhappy, and speaking as a Catholic, naive and insulting depiction of both the religion and adherents certainly smacks of what one might charitably call intolerance. Perhaps naive, I have only my own experiences with the Catholic (and more recently Protestant) faith to fall back on. There was no incivility intended within my post as I am enjoying the conversation, but found your posts "smacking" (to borrow a word root) of dismissal toward the broader atheism/agnosticism/materialism, and your latest post replying to Dis (where you term the idea of materialism "absurd") would support that. I'm hardly intolerant. I could not care less what you believe. To each their own, as it clearly works for you and you've found the answers within Roman Catholicism. Good for you -- seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 13, 2009 8:00:49 GMT -5
I know , I know ... I said I was going to stay away .... but stuff like this can not go unchecked.... As I said earlier: I At every point you try to put words in people's mouth or twist what they said Which is my biggest beef in any debate .... if you are going to debate the points, debate the points, but do not go misquoting people or making stuff up ... so please .. I have not adopted tones similar to Skilly's for instance as he refers to we poor controlled duped ones etc etc etc.. provide a quote showing I have said what you accuse me of, and I will certainly provide a public apology |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 13, 2009 11:43:05 GMT -5
On this board, everyone is entitled to their opinions without personal ridicule.
I understand that when someone criticizes something held as dearly as an adhered religion, the adherent will defend. Agnostics, atheists, et al, will also defend their positions when met with disagreement.
But let's do so by sticking to the points.
I mean, truly, no one here is going to be swayed either way, right? If an impasse is reached, as in political discussions, can't we just agree to disagree?
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 13, 2009 11:43:59 GMT -5
Indeed I do find your tone thoroughly uncivil, obviously ad hominem and utterly intolerant, something Dis accused me of for some reason. And what praytell is 'one who follows an indoctrinated religion' supposed to mean. The phrase is incoherent, or put another is a category error. Religions aren't indoctrinated. You continue to judge rather than debate. "The phrase is incoherent". = a straightforward judgement on the poster not the opinion. There are other ways of approaching this and I'm convinced you know this also. This, to me, is your position when trying to convince others that Roman Catholicism provides the only 'rational' explanation of Christianity. Furthermore, you're suggesting that the poster is arrogant. See your "exalted" reference above. You've been talking down to other posters all through this thread. It's a little late to admit that you can't take it in return. =============================================================== To the community: I haven't read the rest of the thread as yet. I will be when I have time, but I doubt it will prevent me from locking this thread. If anyone feels I'm acting inappropriately consider contacting the board administrator, Clear Observer. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 13, 2009 12:19:22 GMT -5
TH,
Once again, you think of yourself as a "warrior" for religion and the RC disregarding and stepping on anything and anyone in your path. At this point, it's in Dis's hands and not in mine, otherwise you would have "guest" under your name.
|
|
