"As it harm none, do what you will"

[Z]

I disagree. If you want to call rules of a superstitious faith "sound bites", then what about perhaps the best known "sound bites", namely the 10 commandments? "Thou shall not kill" is not exactly oversimplified - it is meant to be taken literally.

It would be a whole different religion, if it said "Do your absolute best not killing anyone".

Credos (why isn't that "credi"?) are not meant to be interpreted, precisely because they are ideals.

'Thou shall not murder' actually, and it is a restriction against killing adult male Jews, as a matter of fact.

And, yes, the 10 commandments are 'sound bites' - almost literally. They are ten categories of the over 600 'rules' in Jewish law that can be harvested from the Torah. They are also flexible as applied. Like 'No work on the Sabbath' can be followed to the letter of the law? I suppose you spend all day lying in bed letting loose with the body functions - nothing that can be considered 'work', you know - and praying? (Probably praying your bladder can just hold out 12 more hours)

Why do you think credos are not meant to be interpreted? Isn't that the major problem with the Bible - 34,000 different interpretations of credo?

 

[CFLarsen]

Why do you think credos are not meant to be interpreted? Isn't that the major problem with the Bible - 34,000 different interpretations of credo?

Are the edicts from the Pope up for interpretation?

 

[Z]

Are the edicts from the Pope up for interpretation?

IF one is a Roman Catholic who accepts the Second whatever they call it (seems a big point of contention, but I can't remember what it was called), then YES! After all, Popes re-interpret edicts from older Popes all the time, and individual churches accept, reject, and modify what those edicts 'mean' all the time.

But since the Pope is often rejected as the leader of the Christian world - in fact, very few churches give a damn what the Pope has to say - isn't this question somewhat irrelevant? Plus, Papal Bulls are rarely issues of the same magnatude as foundational ideals; a restriction against gay marriages or married priests is on a slightly different level from a general admonishment not to covet your neighbors' possessions or not to worship other gods before the Big Guy.

It's like saying a 'No Smoking' sign in the bathroom at the Hope Baptists Church is on the same level as the Golden Rule.

And even then, I'm sure there's room for interpretation.

 

[CFLarsen]

IF one is a Roman Catholic who accepts the Second whatever they call it (seems a big point of contention, but I can't remember what it was called), then YES! After all, Popes re-interpret edicts from older Popes all the time, and individual churches accept, reject, and modify what those edicts 'mean' all the time.

But since the Pope is often rejected as the leader of the Christian world - in fact, very few churches give a damn what the Pope has to say - isn't this question somewhat irrelevant? Plus, Papal Bulls are rarely issues of the same magnatude as foundational ideals; a restriction against gay marriages or married priests is on a slightly different level from a general admonishment not to covet your neighbors' possessions or not to worship other gods before the Big Guy.

It's like saying a 'No Smoking' sign in the bathroom at the Hope Baptists Church is on the same level as the Golden Rule.

And even then, I'm sure there's room for interpretation.

I am not talking about non-Catholics interpreting papal edicts. I am talking about catholics interpreting papal edicts. They don't - that's the whole idea of having a Pope.

An edict from John Paul II can be interpreted by Benedict XVI, but Benny gets the final word, simply because he is Pope now.

You don't see many catholic priests say "Oh, well, the Pope doesn't really mean that bit about homosexuals...."

And therein lies the problem with Wicca: It is not so much a superstitious belief centered around this Law (and you can jump up and down all you like, it is The Law), but rather a label that can mean anything to anyone, and therefore means nothing.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I am not talking about non-Catholics interpreting papal edicts. I am talking about catholics interpreting papal edicts. They don't - that's the whole idea of having a Pope.

No, everyone interprets everything, whether consciously or not. Your interpretation may or may not differ from the officially recognized authoritative interpretation. Pope says "X is Z!" The loyal Catholic, the cafeteria Catholic, and the Protestant are all going to hear that and think what it means, and possibly come up with different answers. According to the pope, the correct interpretation is his own. That doesn't make it the only interpretation.

An edict from John Paul II can be interpreted by Benedict XVI, but Benny gets the final word, simply because he is Pope now.

Because the authority has changed. That doesn't mean anything except to those who are accepting that authority. Not everyone will.

You don't see many catholic priests say "Oh, well, the Pope doesn't really mean that bit about homosexuals...."

On the contrary, bishops have a habit of interpreting things as they see fit. Since Vatican II, bishops have been growing in authority. They meet, and work out church policy and stands. Sometimes they even disagree with the pope. Technically, every bishop in the US is in schism with Rome because the tabernacle no longer resides on the altar here. That was a change never approved by Vatican II, although many pushed for it. It's been going on here my entire life, but you won't find it in Rome.

And therein lies the problem with Wicca: It is not so much a superstitious belief centered around this Law (and you can jump up and down all you like, it is The Law), but rather a label that can mean anything to anyone, and therefore means nothing.

Oh dear! It's not an absolute, and not absolutely recognized and followed! It simply must mean the entire idea is worthless!

Sheesh. Ever heard of relativism? It's not a bad word.

 

[HarryKeogh]

zaayrdragon, excellent posts with much food for thought. thanks.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

To the bit about handcuffing children... I have no idea what that refers to. Personally, handcuffs are an offensive idea. But there is no 'Wiccan policy' on anything at all.
...

That's O.K... Sort of an inside joke.. You had to be there...


Enjoyed the rest of your post, very enlightening.. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for CLF to address any of the substance..

 

[Skeptical Greg]

"Thou shall not kill" is not exactly oversimplified - it is meant to be taken literally.

Really? And your evidence for this belief ?

 

[CFLarsen]

TragicMonkey,

Relativism? If you are saying that the Pope is not percieved by Catholics as God's infallible representative on Earth, then I suggest you read up on the subject.

Name one catholic priest or cardinal who - with the approval of the Pope - says "Oh, well, the Pope doesn't really mean that bit about homosexuals...."

 

[CFLarsen]

Really? And your evidence for this belief ?

It's not a belief, it's a fact. The 10 Commandments are not up for interpretation.

Ask your local priest, if you don't believe me.

Are you going to ask me for evidence that the sky is blue next?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

TragicMonkey,

Relativism? If you are saying that the Pope is not percieved by Catholics as God's infallible representative on Earth, then I suggest you read up on the subject.

Perceive ? Perceive ? There's no Perceiving in Catholicism!


You mean every single Catholic ( priest or no ) doesn't question any of the official dogma ?


Just like every single Wiccan doesn't question The Wiccan credo ?


Wait a minute.. No one said that.. Did they ?

 

[TragicMonkey]

TragicMonkey,

Relativism? If you are saying that the Pope is not percieved by Catholics as God's infallible representative on Earth, then I suggest you read up on the subject.

And that represents the opinions of all Catholics?

Guess what, Absolute Boy, I know plenty of Catholics. Including my family, for starters. Apparently you are unaware of the phenomenon of "the cafeteria Catholic". The cafeteria Catholic selects which Church teachings they agree with, and ignores the rest. They show up in church, they receive sacraments, but they follow their own consciences. There are a great many cafeteria Catholics, especially in the US. They do not see themselves as being impious because they're using their own brains.

People always make up their own minds. Sometimes they make up their minds that they're going to follow someone else's teachings. That's still individual choice. The Catholic Church may think it is, and would probably like to be, a monolithic entity, with all the followers 100% on board with the official policy, but it isn't the case. It's never been the case. You think all the objections lead to a Reformation? There are quiet "heresies" all over the place. And yes, priests and bishops and nuns and monks sometimes follow them.

Name one catholic priest or cardinal who - with the approval of the Pope - says "Oh, well, the Pope doesn't really mean that bit about homosexuals...."

Firstly, of course the pope will not officially sanction someone who officially disagrees with him. Secondly, this is one particular issue, which probably doesn't enjoy a vast number of people disagreeing with the pope on it. For a much, much more popular disagreement with official Church policy, look at birth control. The Church is against it. The individual Catholics? Some are, but a very large percentage are not. The four-or-more-child Catholic family is now the anomaly in the US. I'd say the majority of American Catholics practice birth control, and don't find it a sin to do so.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

It's not a belief, it's a fact. The 10 Commandments are not up for interpretation.
Evidence ?
Ask your local priest, if you don't believe me.

You are making this claim. You produce the evidence.

Are you going to ask me for evidence that the sky is blue next?

Strawman...

 

[HarryKeogh]

If I had an account I'd go to RaptureReady and post a poll "Are you in favor of the death penalty?"

You'll find plenty of Christians who interpret the "Thou Shalt not Kill" commandment differently...many with the blessing of their church leader (granted not Catholic church leaders).

 

[CFLarsen]

And that represents the opinions of all Catholics?

Guess what, Absolute Boy, I know plenty of Catholics. Including my family, for starters. Apparently you are unaware of the phenomenon of "the cafeteria Catholic". The cafeteria Catholic selects which Church teachings they agree with, and ignores the rest. They show up in church, they receive sacraments, but they follow their own consciences. There are a great many cafeteria Catholics, especially in the US. They do not see themselves as being impious because they're using their own brains.

People always make up their own minds. Sometimes they make up their minds that they're going to follow someone else's teachings. That's still individual choice. The Catholic Church may think it is, and would probably like to be, a monolithic entity, with all the followers 100% on board with the official policy, but it isn't the case. It's never been the case. You think all the objections lead to a Reformation? There are quiet "heresies" all over the place. And yes, priests and bishops and nuns and monks sometimes follow them.

Again, we are not talking about opinions but what their faith decrees.

Firstly, of course the pope will not officially sanction someone who officially disagrees with him. Secondly, this is one particular issue, which probably doesn't enjoy a vast number of people disagreeing with the pope on it. For a much, much more popular disagreement with official Church policy, look at birth control. The Church is against it. The individual Catholics? Some are, but a very large percentage are not. The four-or-more-child Catholic family is now the anomaly in the US. I'd say the majority of American Catholics practice birth control, and don't find it a sin to do so.

So, you can not name one Catholic priest or cardinal who - with the approval of the Pope - says "Oh, well, the Pope doesn't really mean that bit about homosexuals...."

 

[CFLarsen]

Perceive ? Perceive ? There's no Perceiving in Catholicism!

Exactly. I used the wrong word, I should have used "faith".

You mean every single Catholic ( priest or no ) doesn't question any of the official dogma ?

Not officially, because that would be to question the infallibility of the Pope. And that is to question one of the basic tenets of the Catholic faith.

Just like every single Wiccan doesn't question The Wiccan credo ?

Wait a minute.. No one said that.. Did they ?

You haven't paid attention to what zaayrdragon said. There is no credo. But there is. Wait, there isn't. Wait...

 

[TragicMonkey]

Again, we are not talking about opinions but what their faith decrees.

As I have been pointing out for some time now, "decrees" doesn't mean anything. People believe however they happen to believe. They may or may not agree with the supposed authority, whether they or the authority knows it or not. If it turns out that 99% of "believers" in a religion actually hold opinions on some of the teachings that are directly contradicting the official teachings of the church, are they still just "opinions"?

The Church is the authoritative body that makes decrees. The religion is what the faithful believe. The two are not the same thing, whether they are in harmony or not.

So, you can not name one Catholic priest or cardinal who - with the approval of the Pope - says "Oh, well, the Pope doesn't really mean that bit about homosexuals...."

As I've already pointed out, the pope would not approve of people disagreeing with him. The question is therefore ridiculous.

It does not mean that there aren't priests and cardinals and bishops who disagree with him. But of course such wouldn't have his approval.

 

[CFLarsen]

You are making this claim. You produce the evidence.

The Ten Commandments, or Decalogue, are a list of religious and moral imperatives that feature prominently in Judaism and Christianity.
Wikipedia

Do you know what an "imperative" means?

not to be avoided or evaded : NECESSARY

Will you now ask that I provide evidence of what "ten" means?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Not officially, because that would be to question the infallibility of the Pope. And that is to question one of the basic tenets of the Catholic faith.

Papal infallibility is a relatively new addition to Catholicism, and characterizing it as a "basic tenet" is open to argument.

Anyway, the pope only claims infallibility when speaking ex cathedra, which is not done with frequency.

I recommend reading up on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Invocations of the Pope's Solemn (or "Extraordinary") Magisterium are rare. Since 1870 only one statement exercising the Solemn Magisterium has been made, Pope Pius XII's explicitly defining in 1950 the doctrine concerning the Assumption of Mary into Heaven. Some commentators regard the dogmatic definition of Papal Infallibility itself in 1870, and the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary in 1854, to be other recent examples of infallible pronouncements.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Again, we are not talking about opinions but what their faith decrees.

So Catholics DO have opinions in spite of what their faith decrees?


But Wiccans don't ?



Maybe you need to restate your point. I don't think anyone got it..