National Geographic's Slavery article

[Yahzi]

Yahzi, a legal expert like you doesn't need a lawyer anyway.

Any fool that has ever set foot in a courtroom knows that truth is not the objective, but merely a means to the end. You can assert that you have spent a great deal of time in courts, and not noticed that: I won't argue with your self-categorization.

 

[Cleopatra]

Dear Yahzi.

Your opinion regarding truth and courts has the same value as mine and as everybody else's opinion but it seems that this is exactly your problem.

When a lawyer doesn't share your opinion you conclude that this particular lawyer cannot really be a lawyer. In another thread you suggested that Michael Shermer must have been paying compliments to M.Gardner for pointing the later, a fideist, as the founder of modern skepticism and that just because you disagree with the idea that an non-atheist can be the founder of modern skepticism.

It seems that you have a problem dealing with different opinions that yours and in that you remind me of my dearest friend Doctor X- whom you pointed as a leading light of this forum.

Personally, I do not have a problem with this attitude because people who follow the threads can read and judge by themselves also, I do not practice law in the States so I am not losing you from a potential client, ceo_esq is the one who must be devastated about that, I would have lost my sleep if I were in his shoes.

I seriously hope that you won't quit the discussion because it's a real pleasure to read your posts -even those that you compose solely to insult those who commit the crime to disagree with you--and the most important is that you inspire ceo_esq to dig his Library and compose very educative posts.

 

[ceo_esq]

BTW ceo-esq which edition of Bible do you use?

Cleopatra, I completely overlooked until a moment ago that your post contained a question directed at me. I apologize.

If I am simply trying to evoke a common biblical citation, I'll frequently use the KJV. If the situation demands a more careful exegesis, I tend to reach (metaphorically speaking) for the NIV or New American. Finally, for French-language purposes, I refer to the Jerusalem version.

 

[ceo_esq]

Perhaps modern audiences simply don't draw a distinction between chattel slavery and serfdom. While I agree there are techinical differences, I don't think they matter very much to the issue at hand.

Sociologist Rodney Stark notes that a handful of scholars dispute the notion that slavery declined at all in early medieval Europe, claiming that nothing more occurred than a semantic shift from "slave" to "serf", and that the institution, though somewhat transformed, was essentially left intact. He observes, however:

Here it is not history but historians who are playing word games. As Marc Bloch noted [in Slavery and Serfdom in the Middle Ages (1975)] the life of medieval serfs "had nothing in common with slavery." Serfs were not chattels; they had rights and a substantial degree of discretion. They married whom they wished, and their families were not subject to sale or dispersal. They paid rent and therefore controlled their own time and the pace of their work, "which was generally slow and … individualistic." If, as in some places, serfs owed their lords a certain number of days of labor each year, the obligation was limited and more closely resembled "hired" labor than it did slavery. As Bloch put it, "The slave had been an ox in the stable, always under his master's orders; the … serf was a worker who came on certain days and who left as soon as the job was finished." Consequently, although serfs were bound to a lord by extensive obligations, so, too, was their lord bound by obligations to a higher authority, and so on up the line, and all of these were sets of mutual obligations - that was the fundamental nature of feudalism.

While no one would argue that medieval peasants were free in the modern sense, they were not slaves, and that brutal institution had essentially disappeared from Europe.

[source]

You may consider the "technical" differences between slavery and serfdom to be inconsequential, but (entirely without meaning to endorse the feudal system) I rather doubt that a slave, a serf, or even the average thinking person would share that view. That said, I have no problem in principle with using the term slavery in a metaphorical or analogical way. Someone can be a wage slave or a slave to his passions or prejudices, or the pope can liken sin to a kind of enslavement. We understand what these things mean. However, suggesting not merely analogy but actual moral equivalence between chattel slavery and other, even arguably related social ills, is inappropriate. I think it dilutes the term and tends to trivialize its real referent. But hey - if it'll help drag the Catholic Church's name through the mud, it's in fair territory, right?

This site also claims that "In 1866 a request for an opinion on slavery was made to the Holy Office in reaction to the passing of the 13th amendment to the United States Constitution," and thus identifies the 1866 document as a direct response to the American action. I don't know how to verify this, but it certainly is incompatible with your suggestion that the two were unrelated.

No, it is completely compatible with my suggestion - which was that the query to the Holy Office was likely prompted by the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, because Rome’s support of American abolition could fairly be expected to have raised questions regarding the legitimacy of just-title servitude in other parts of the world (as you have pointed out, the two institutions present at least a few similar features). The sentence you quoted links the timing of the two, but does not establish that the subject-matter of the query was American-style slavery. And how likely is that anyway, since American slavery had been directly addressed by the pope in unmistakeable and diametrically opposed terms less than 30 years earlier?

Any thoughts yet on the significance of the "justly or unjustly deprived" language in the 1866 statement?

Unless some new information comes forward, I don't think our discussion of the significance of the 1866 statement is going to advance any further - it will simply remain a controversial datum. It is referenced many times, but not actually reproduced or analyzed in any detail on the Web, it seems (the closest so far is the footnoted link at religioustolerance.org, which seems to support my argument more than yours). If the Church wanted to affirm a slavery-tolerant stance, it does seem strange to announce it in a minor and (relative to a papal one) unauthoritative document such as a Holy Office ruling. But ultimately we don't know its precise subject matter or scope. We can't even be sure how many real-world instances of servitude (or slavery) actually satisfied the standard established by the 1866 statement - possibly few or none, since the rule it set forth was contingent on the actual justice of the circumstances. If and when we learn more about all of these things, we can better incorporate the 1866 statement into our overall view of this subject.

I did not intend my remarks to discredit your logical argument. I intended them to discredit you. I am not refuting your argument: I am establishing whether it is worth my time to bother arguing with you at all.

I doubt whether anyone here cares to watch you do such things. Consider entertaining such reflections in private.

 

[elliotfc]

I salute you, elliot! You have indeed found a group of theologians who think just like you. And with their amazing word taffee, they have simply reinterpreted the facts of history and the text of the Bible until it fits their case.

You can join ceo_esq in defending the Pope when he says, "Slavery itself...is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law." Never mind that it is against American law. Never mind that Americans are not allowed to incarcerate people and force them to work. Never mind that apparently even the American legal system is apparently a higher standard than God's law. All that matters is that a single word might be interpretable as something slightly different, and thus we can all rest easy.

You can promulgate the teaching of one Pope as you will.

If one Pope says something that is against the magesterium of the Church, I have no reason to accept what that one Pope says.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Remember when we talked about making things up? There is no justification for this view of after-death salvation in Christian theology. It does not exist anywhere in any document that is even remotely Christian. In fact, the exact, explicit, unquestionable opposite is asserted in the strongest possible terms.

???

Catholics have believed in purgatory for a long time. Purgatory is necessary. And I don't know of any Catholic Pope who ever said that a human can refuse purgatory and be saved. But surely you can come up with one Pope who speaks differently from the magesterium.

I'm sorry you have a problem with my beliefs. Funny thing is I've talked to I don't know how many Catholics about my beliefs, and they do not respond as you do. From this, I can only posit that Catholics are much less dogmatic about Christianity than you are.

[/quote]Every Christian source ever known to man makes it clear that you choose in this life, not the next one.

You are ignoring ignorance. People who are clueless about what they are choosing, and what they are rejecting, aren't making choices. If you ask someone who has never seen a kiwi before if they'd like to eat a kiwi, what kind of choice is the person you're asking a question to making?

Also, the choices we make on Earth are indicative of the choices we would make elsewhere. In this case you are absolutely correct. If we embrace life on Earth, we'd embrace life elsewhere, and if we embrace death on Earth, we'd embrace death elsewhere. All of our knowledgeable choices on Earth are significant, and we must answer for them. And they will never just magically disappear. There is a rectification procedure (Catholic purgatory). Everything that happens in our lifetime matters. But can you understand that an attitude may carry over into the next one? If you hate the idea of God in your earthly life, you'll probably hate the idea of God in the next life. Or maybe more than probably. I don't know. All I know is that I have work to do on Earth. Anyone who believes in death-bed confessions or putting off God until after you are dead deserves a smack in the head. You can't possibly get that idea from the Bible, just the opposite in fact. Repentance, once that concept is understood, must not be put off. If you put it off, that is blasphemy. That is choosing other gods before the true God.

Absolutely every preacher of the Christian faith on this planet will tell you that waiting to embrace god until after you are dead is too late.

They might be right. I don't know. It depends on the individual. If you wait to embrace God, you are placing yourself at the center of the universe. And once you do that, I don't know why I should believe that a person will remove him/herself from the center of the universe. I try to be charitable when I think about people, so I reckon it's possible. Just like it's possible that the molecules in a statue of Mary can, in an instant, rearrange themselves into moving themselves into a different physical form. Theoretically that can physically happen given what we know about physics. How likely is that?

Also, people who have never heard of Jesus need to be considered. People raised in deplorable and evil perspectives need to be considered. So do babies. Absent the opportunity to embrace God, will you go to hell? Do you believe that "absolutely every preacher of the Christian faith" would damn these people to hell?

In my opinion, the worst possible attitude to have is to put off embracing God. Can't get anymore arrogant than that. You realize that God exists, that God is Love, but then you relegate accepting God to when it suits your own notions? That's really bad. And when you realize how bad that is, how will you react? Obstinacy does not magically disappear.

This is a fundamental, inarguable tenet of the Christian faith. Even ceo_esq can't find a way around this one.

Hey Yahzi. Print this post. Give it to several preachers/priests. Report back to me. I'll do the same. OK? You in? This may be easier for me because I see 6 different priests, minimum, on a weekly basis.

I don't know how you want your salvation. If you think you can live a life of rejecting God, die, meet God, flash a smile and it's all good, then no no no no no no no no no no. No. That's not what I was saying at all. Those who freely choose to reject God on Earth have a hell of a lot to go through. I can't imagine what that would be like. Probably like our popular conceptions of hell. Whether one soul or one billions souls go through that process I have no way of knowing. All I can do is advise people to embrace God immediately.

But you just toss it off, like a bit of used-up tinfoil

You don't really have even a tiny clue, do you?

Believe what you want Yahzi. You can't fit every Christian into a box. Deal with it. Thousands of branches of Christianity and you want us all to think the same. Whatever.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

If you like to do so I have several rules for all debate and would do so only by e-mail as my debates or my responses are long and detailed. It becomes hard here and rude to others as it will take up pages.

Rules:
1. All debate must be respectful and kind.
2. All debate must be free from emotion and logical and factual. If one makes a statement of belief it must be said to be a statement of belief and be respected. If it is a statement of fact then facts, proof and detailed logical conclusion must follow. It is never expectable to answer “ because” , “ because my hold book says so” etc.
3. Every single point and question must be address and answered. Too many simply ship over what they can not answer. If I can not answer I will say I do not know and seek to answer best I can.
My e-mail address is mbertran@nycap.rr.com

Interesting, I may take you up on that. Obviously, since we are talking philosophy and theology, these are "beliefs" as opposed to "facts".

I of course agree but add see no proof of a God/creator. The main point here is not if “he” wrote the book, sat down and wrote it etc you believe and I respect that, that he inspired it. It represents “him” his wish and what he would be, perfection yet you believe he allows so many contradictions, violence etc.

No, I don't see it that way. The Bible is a book of how humans understand God. As for what he would be, we'd have to wait for Jesus. The life of Jesus is (I think) obviously in contradiction to the purported workings of Yahweh in the Old Testament. I am not troubled by that fact because my expectations are not at the same level as your expectations. It isn't just expectations of God, but understanding of humans and where humans were on the journey of spiritual understanding.

God allows contradictions in the Bible because he allows free will. He allows violence in the Bible because he allows free will. You are right in that there are more fundmantal issues where we diverge. Perhaps we need to start at proof of God/creator, or the whole status of free will. We started much further down the line and are thus not communicating very well.

But I think I understand that you would have a God, who wants humanity to know him, to be keenly interested in the existence of a book that will conform to the highest possible standards. That is not an unreasonable response. As a Christian, and a Catholic, I do not believe that the Bible is the key to salvation. Rather, I believe that the person of Jesus is the key to salvation. That the Bible is the book that tells the story of Jesus gives the Bible worth. Absent the New Testament I would not care about the Old Testament. I am interested in the progression from O.T. to N.T., and I will not be so silly as to say such a progression is not problematic. In this case I believe it helpful to consider the cultural times and situations, as well as the fact that human understanding and lack thereof was the vehicle for the exercise.

“He” is portrayed as violent, angry, ego filled, hateful, a killer of “his children”, a God that has sex with prostitutes, 2 sister 9 Ezekiel 23:1-4) etc.

A being of such great power and perfection as I pointed out would know how such a book that must reflect him and his “rules” wishes etc should and would turn out.

Interesting.

On a personal level, I really don't care what people think about me. Of course in a conversation I may correct what other beliefs about me might be forwarded. However, let's say, theoretically, that a book out in circulation purports that I molest children. I'm not sure how much that would bother me. It would bother me on some level. But people can say what they will. People who know me and love me would know that I do not, in fact, molest children.

I think God takes every human being seriously. If someone writes something incorrect about them, even a person who has a "personal" relationship with him, it is important to understand what is behind that incorrect statement. And the marked contrast between Jesus and the O.T. speaks (pun intended) volumes. I am interested in how people think, even people who completely disagree with me. I would not have such thoughts stricken from the record. We can learn from everything that has ever been written. That God is not bothered by incorrect statements about him does not strike me as peculiar. Let me explain. Let's say someone is hitting me on the head with a shovel. Should I be bothered that someone else might be tickling me with a feather? God has been rejected by humanity. Yet you fixate on his apparent unconcern about being libel. Either God doesn't exist, or he doesn't think as you would have him think.

Place yourself where you believe this God is.

I believe that God operates on the planet Earth in a peculiar way. He has allowed open rebellion and evil to flourish on Earth. Yet he became a human being, and his Spirit engages every human being on a spiritual level.

If I felt someone would be harmed by what I said or how someone printed what I said I would take steps to change it.

God allows us to act as we will, and as we all have the ability to reason, we all must consider what has been written using discernment.

You are leaving out, in all of this, the *gift* (you may not like the use of that word, I'm sorry) of discernment. Discernment is more valuable than the written word.

I respect that you would have your ideas broadcast as you, in fact, would articulate them. I believe that God wants himself to be transmitted to humanity as humans would transmit God to others. That is why God became a human being. That is why the Spirit speaks to us not through words but through spirit, and many humans have spread this personal interaction to others through words. And since this is put into words it is not surprising that the translation would not reflect the absolute truth of God. All humans do the best they can, and I do not feel comfortable judging others for their mistakes in radically different environments. And I do not feel comfortable in having God conform to human standards of etiquette and sensibility.

Again first let me say I respect your belief as to God is, but you say that God did not write a perfect book because he did not create perfect beings yet knowing they were not perfect and knows before hand what they will do

I never said "knows before hand what they will do". You have inserted your theological impression into statements I have made. God knows us in every single moment of our continuous life. I believe he considers us as we are, not as we will be. Given the state of our existence, what we are encompasses what we were. But the future is up to our free will, and I do not believe that God takes that into account. These are my opinions of God, and I hope you understand that I would not use the phrase "knows before hand what they will do".

and what they will believe he still punishes them for what he knows will happen.

I think God allows us to punish ourselves. That is a form of punishment, I would call that divine punishment. Of course it is a radically different idea of punishment than earthly punishment.

That is not loving nor unconditional love, unconditional love is just that love without conditions.

Do you see the irony in what you have said? You have just said what is *not* unconditional love. Therefore, you have conceptual conditions in which unconditional love works.

In any case, I do not view divine punishment as you do.

A perfect being would make darn sure his “ rule book” would be perfect and not be used to cause harm to others.

It would be blasphemous for me to characterize the Bible as a "rule book". If I wanted a rule book I would look elsewhere, or make a compilation for myself after much research.

I don't believe in blaming books on the harm that is done to others. Unless of course someone bludgeons another to death with a book. The cause for harm lies within a person. Ideas can stimulate, and never compel.

For personal reasons I will break this reply into parts. Consider this part one. I will begin part two posthaste, but my time is rather limited today. I do apologize for not replying to this message earlier. It is a busy time of year for me. Not until late next week will I be able to supply prompt responses.

I am intrigued by the possibility of conversing with you by e-mail Pahansiri. I have a sense of the kind of person you are, and I'd like to believe you have a sense of the kind of person I am. Such a conversation will be beneficial to me, and if you can say the same about you then maybe we should move this to the personal correspondence level.

I was a bit put off by your specific rules? You have a sense for how I discuss, and if it does not suit your aesthetics then I am sorry for that. Correspondence is a personal thing and to subject it to concrete rules makes it unpalatable to me. I'll take you as you are, and not as I would take you. I hope it's clear that I am not some sort of loose cannon, and that I am respectful to what you say and how you say it. If that is not good enough, I am sorry for that.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

WOW my friend, you are a very intelligent person and this question surprises me that you would ask it.

1- I have already answered it in my other post and above.
2- Your own statement contains the answer with in it. I.e.

Because “he’ is perfect, all knowing. How can not a perfect being, a all knowing being NOT know how to do anything?

Hellow again Panhisiri, the above is in response to my musing "why should a perfect being know how to write human books?"

God may *conceptually* understand the process of how humans write books. Or more than that. Since God became a human being as Jesus, I am quite certain that he does, in fact, know how to write human books.

I admit that you have caught me in an error. Will you be so charitable as to allow me to disengage?

I should have stated "why should a perfect being write human books?" The knowledge to do so is there. God knows how to blow up planets I suppose, knows how to create car accidents, knows how to molest children. God knows *how* to do everything. So is the problem since he knows *how*, *why* doesn't he?

Let me start with an extreme and approach the issue. God knows how to drop chemical weapons onto a village. If he doesn't do so, is that problematic?

God knows how to write human books. If he doesn't do so, is that problematic?

Now, the response could be, scenario A is performing evil, while scenario B is performing good. I would look at it differently. God doesn't do very many things, not because he can't, but because it is not of his nature. Books are not for God, but for people. He created people, and books are for them, and they will write their own books. God creates creators, God creates processes, God creates laws. We are talking about a particular object (a book). Books are created by people. You would have God, in one instance, decide to take such an activity away from humanity and do it as he would. I don't know why God should have to act in that way.

So when I used the word *how*, I did not say what I meant to say. Please count that as a mistake on my part made through carelessness, I am typing as fast as I can because my time on this forum is limited, and if 1% of what I say is not what I mean do not judge the other 99% by that.

You believe he knows all, he knows your thoughts, how to make you and the complexity of life how your brain works yet he does not how to write a book for humans? That is illogical.

When a TV manufacturer makes a TV he knows how it works.

You have superbly demonstrated the silliness of believing that God does not know how to write a human book.

As for the TV analogy, here is a better analogy. A toaster makes toast. The man who makes a toaster does not make the toast directly, but he understands how toast is made. He may hever make a slice of toast in his entire life, yet he knows how toast is made.

As an aside Panhisiri, do you believe that a "perfect" book exists? If no, then we are in agreement.

Should God's existence be contingent upon the existence of a "perfect" book, or, if God exists, must there eventually exist a "perfect" book? I don't think any of these questions must follow, or must be true.

Does the Bible have to be a "perfect" book in order for the claims of Christians or Jews to have validity? This would depend upon your standards of validity. The obvious problems within the Bible, to me, speak to the obvious difficulties in bridging the gap between humanity and God. This would be bridged not through a book, but through the person of Jesus. That is the fundamental belief, the fundamental position, and the central idea of the faith that I possess.

Why? This is not just a book about birds, it is the rules by which “he” is telling you must live to please him and reach the goal of heaven. When I teach my children I am kind and loving and very clear so as they are not confused. If I wish them not to do something I tell them clearly. I can not “punish” a child for something I did not explain to him.[/quote[

I agree, you should not punish anyone for what has not been explained.

I don't understand the Bible as a rule book. If that is your understanding, I agree that the Bible is a faulty rule book. If others believe that the Bible is a rule book sui generis, I would press them for specifics. I wouldn't let them have that opinion without expounding on it, but I admit that I might (and have) grant them that position. It would take me quite a bit of space to expand on what I have just said, perhaps that could be an item of personal correspondence?

This is not just a “book” this is the base of your religion.

It is the most important book ever written. The base of my religion, however, is the person Jesus.

My great friend you are an example of what the problem would be, you have your beliefs as to it and almost every Christian has their beliefs and they will interconnect on some points and not at all on others.

Yes, you have identified something very important. All Chrisitians, at some point, have divergent notions of Christianity, the Bible, you name it. There are four gospels, and we can list different notions that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John have. This indicates to me that every human being will understand God in a unique way (not necessarily a radically different way) because every human being is unique. I could never expect that anyone would believe and think as I do, but I feel it a worthy goal to grow closer to others in understanding. As an example I have a bit of a calculator for a mind. I do multiplication, in my head, in ways that other people do not. We are all unique.

I have many Christian friends and family who say “ well I don’t believe Jesus said that but I do believe he said this” How can you pick and choose?

Using reason and intuition and working within the construct of belief you have chosen for yourself. Now, as for myself, I don't know if I can identify a single "quotation" of Jesus (from the 4 gospels) that I would reject. I do pick and choose from the O.T. (of course), and it isn't a random, or whimsical, or helter-skelter approach. Since I take the Bible seriously, I do not, in fact, reject anything from the Bible, but I understand different things in the Bible in different ways.

I posted above several post before this to another where Jesus clearly condones slavery and the beating of slaves.

Many will say “ well he did not really say that” how can you know?

http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/ds/q1109/point4.html

I am content with the weblink above. Jesus did not come to demand that governments act in a certain way.

Not sure how that is relevant. I will tell you when someone makes space shuttles he DOES write detailed instructions how it works and how to operate it, lives depend on it. He would instruct that children NOT operate it or anyone who did NOT fully understand his rules and instructions.

Space shuttles are objects and come with written instructions.

People are more than objects, they are creative creatures, and the instructions are of a different type. The instructions for morality can be found in nature, found within each of us, found in various religions and philosophies and explanations. The focus is not on what the letter of the law says. If we have to consult a rule book in order to know how to act then we are very sorry creatures. God does not think of us as space shuttles, and the rules for morality are, dare I say, self-evident? Of course self-evident things are a matter of debate. Is that a contradiction? I suppose. Yet the fact that we are appealing to each other's reason is promising. It is as if each of us believe that if the correct words are applied, maybe we can approach a certain idea. Who knows where that will lead. If words would bring us salvation I think the world would be a much different place today. Yet with all the words, all the rules, all the edififying statements that have been recorded, things are arguably as bad today as ever. Therefore I don't see the efficacy of even the most perfect rule book, which I admit remains a theoretical concept.

If he did not write a detailed operation and instruction manual he would be liable and sued for the harm it caused as he should be. He, could not sue someone he gave it to and was harmed by it when he did not really tell them how it worked.

I believe you have an important issue, and *if* you ever come face to face with the Creator (please work within the *if* for a moment ), the answer will be superior to any answer I could give.

Jesus did not think as the scribes of his day, who continually approached him with the written law. A Christian must integrate that approach with the O.T. I have done so, other Christians make it work in different ways than I do.

Why?

This question you ask is in response to my not being entirely interested in God's ability to write human books.

God has the ability to do things I cannot do. I am not worried about his ability to do things that I can do. It doesn't interest me very much as far as my understanding of God goes.

What he does do is inspire humans to write books in a way that I could not possibly do. Perhaps someone will write a book about me one day. But will it be through my ability to connect with them, discourse with them, and reveal things to them on a spiritual level?

No, you believe it you do not know it. I also do not believe there are such beings or being yet of course I can NOT say I “know it”.

This is in response to my belief that God has never written a book, or Jesus has never written a book.

Yes. It is my belief. When I say *know* the implication is that there is no evidence to the contrary. From this moment on I will be careful with my use of the word *know*, or discard it altogether. I admire your stance that the word *know* should either never be used when it comes to conveying ideas we have and would promulgate, or, should rarely be used. And this may make another possible avenue of correspondence.

End of part two, if you are reading this Pahansiri thank you for your patience. I am doing the best I can, and always strive to do better.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Then how can this being, be upset when people do not do as he wishes? He can not.

Because it isn't *just* the Bible.

People can do, as you put it, "as he wishes", without ever picking up a Bible.

Yes they are flaws when seen as the only way to God.

i.e. "I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME." -- Jesus Christ (John 14:6)

Yes. Jesus is not the Bible.

Remember Leviticus are said to be God’s LAWS. Also the 10 commandments are said to be just that commandments not suggestions.

I glean from Leviticus that God is interested in human conduct. I don't go for the specifics of Leviticus. If others do, that is there choice. Many righteous people have chosen the way of Leviticus and if that is their path and it leads them to God I am content with that. Of course I can't expect anyone to follow my path, and it's rather obvious that many people may think my path to be foolish or have no basis, yet I am content and am willing to discuss my path with others, and would not be disappointed if what I say could possibly help or make others think.

Of course we do not disagree here but most Christians will disagree with you, most by far.

Most of a certain *kind* of Christian. Most Christians don't go to a church on a weekly basis. Most Christians use birth control and fornicate. Most Christians do not read their Bibles. Certain types of Christians act extremely differently from most Christians, they have TV shows, they get much publicity from the media, they are extremely vocal, and in certain instances *falls from grace* are well-documented.

I reckon we disagree on the definition of "Christian". I believe that a Christian is one who believes that Jesus was God. That would be an interesting question for a Zogby poll.

Of course it would have to be blamed on this God, this book has been used to harm millions he would have known this and yet did not stop it would be his fault.

I understand that books influence people, but books don't do direct harm.

Of course why should we stop at the Bible? Why not the Koran, or Mein Kampf, or any of the mythologies that have ever existed? How many books in existence have been purported to be influenced by God? And how many of those books have influenced others to commit evil? Since evil existed before the Bible, I don't see evil as contingent on the Bible, or any book for that matter.

Whenever evil is committed you can find traces of ideas that inspired it. Apparently God is not in the business of stamping out evil ideas (or he doesn't exist, I know...). Evil ideas are a consequence of the ability of creative creatures to think. This is the state of the created universe, and since I value my ability to think and choose...

In this human realm such a thing would be followed by a law suit and jail time for a human who wrote a book that told followers to stone people to death for example.

If the people who wrote the Bible lived today, I'm sure they would have been sued by now.

But that does not change the point of my statement, a God, a perfect being would be a perfect father.

Yes...but you should not apply a human standard of perfection to divine perfection.

More later...

-Elliot

 

[Cleopatra]

Thanks ceo_esq I asked just out of curiosity,I use the KJV when interacting with Americans.

Since I know Greek I can always check the Septuangit version although there are some mistakes in the translation from the Hebrew text.

In discussion forums, when I want to check biblical referencies that other posters post, I find this site very helpful. One clik and you have all the versions together!

elliotfc

Could you please indicate whom are you quoting each time? Thank you.

 

[elliotfc]

elliotfc

Could you please indicate whom are you quoting each time? Thank you. [/B]

Hi Cleopatra, apologies for my lack of etiquette in using quotations.

The three posts from above are all quoting Pansihiri, exclusively. Within this thread I have also quoted Yahzi, mainly. But I think Yahzi's statements and Pansihri's statements are stylistically different, and can be identified as such.

-Elliot

 

[Cleopatra]

Hi Cleopatra, apologies for my lack of etiquette in using quotations.
-Elliot

I didn't take it as a lack of netiquette, I asked it for practical reasons only. It's easier to follow the discussion

 

[Yahzi]

Elliotfc

If one Pope says something that is against the magesterium of the Church, I have no reason to accept what that one Pope says.

What if he says it Ex Cathedra? How do you reconcile the right to dismiss what a Pope says with the notion that the Pope can speak infallibly?

Do you simply reject the concept of infallibility? If you do, doesn't that put you in the exact same boat as all those birth-control using Catholics? If you don't, then how can you even say such a thing (unless you just meant the Popes of the past, the falliable ones).

Catholics have believed in purgatory for a long time.

I realize that I'm not Catholic, but my understanding of Purgatory is that it does not involve a choice. You suggested that no one could refuse Purgatory and be saved: implying that people could refuse purgatory and be damned. So in other words, if the hell of Purgatory is too much to bear, you can opt out... and go to permanent Hell. Which is once again suggesting that you have some kind of choice after death. Which I once again assert there is absolutely no Biblical justification for whatsoever.

Yes, yes, I know that some Pope made it up once, and that's good enough for you. If everybody agrees to make up the same thing, that's somehow better than if just one person makes it up.

Thousands of branches of Christianity and you want us all to think the same.

How many Gods are there? Just one, right? Then how many different ways can you think about God? There is only one way that is correct: that is, corresponds to the greatest degree with the actual facts of God. All the rest are therefore wrong.

You might notice that there are many branches of physics, and yet they all think the same. In fact, all disciplines of scence in general can be said to think the same. Why do you suppose it is that biologists and physicists can completely and unquestionably accept each other's doctrines, but Episcopalians and slightly less liberal Episcopalians can't even agree on whether homosexuality is a) perfectly fine, or b) a ticket to hell?

Discernment is more valuable than the written word.

It's nice to see that admission, for once. But consider: what you really mean to say is that discernment is all that matters.

Once you establish that the Bible is inadequate as mere text, you have not merely shown the need for discernment, you have shown the worthlessness of the Bible. What this tells us is you reserve the right to make any part of the Bible say anything you want. That is the same as rejecting it in toto. And, as you note elsewhere, you can do the work of God without hearing it. Add these two together and what you get is: "discernment is all that is necessary."

Now I ask you: how do you distinguish between "Discernment" and "making things up?" One of them is reaching conclusions independently without regard to external facts but only paying attention to internal feelings, and the other one is exactly the same.

Discernment is just a fancy word for making things up. And despite your claim to use reason and logic, you admit that discernment comes first: it trumps mere evidence (such as the actual text of the Bible).

Do you see why I keep saying you are just making things up? I don't mean to single you out: your priests are making it up, too.

the rules for morality are, dare I say, self-evident?

I completely agree with you. I understand your position on morality and rule books, and I agree. However, there is one problem.

Moral acts can arguably be graded. Given the picture of morality you described above, you can imagine a person doing a mostly moral thing but not completely or perfectly moral. However, getting into Heaven is not graduated: it's binary, you are in or you aren't. Purgatory does not solve this problem, for several reasons: 1) it's insane to assert that an immoral act can be made up for (restituted) by punishment, 2) if you eventually get into Heaven, then Purgatory doesn't count. As Ingersoll said, "from the vantage point of eternity the mountains are as transient as the clouds."

So, given the binary nature of Heaven (in or out), it is not unreasonable for us to ask what the rules for making that decision are. This is like medicine: there is no simple rulebook for being a good doctor. At the same time, there is a rulebook that says what you have to do to get a medicine degree.

Many righteous people have chosen the way of Leviticus and if that is their path and it leads them to God I am content with that.

More post-modernist relativism (sigh). Do you suppose God is a post-modernist?

Allow me to suggest a trite concept: perhaps atheism is my path to God. Tell me how you can assert that my path is false, while not condeming any other path? What criteria do you apply to distinguish between true and false paths - given that you have just asserted that you cannot declare other paths false?

Since I take the Bible seriously, I do not, in fact, reject anything from the Bible, but I understand different things in the Bible in different ways.

I don't go for the specifics of Leviticus.

Is it even possible for me to convince you that "interpreting the book to mean what you want" is the same as "rejecting what the book says?"

 

[elliotfc]

Hey Yahzi

What if he says it Ex Cathedra? How do you reconcile the right to dismiss what a Pope says with the notion that the Pope can speak infallibly?

I'm not sure if you read papal decrees, encyclicals, etc. The Pope never announces ***Listen up, I am speaking ex cathedra*** It is either a tacitly obvious thing - ***centuries of Church teaching, the immutable postition, etc.*** - or, an appeal is made to specific statements in the past. If I dismiss what a single Pope says it is because Popes are sinners, like me. Are you aware that one of the oldest actual positions in the Church is the confessor to the Pope? If Pope's have always had confessors, obviously Pope's are sinners.

If the Pope, when he makes a statement, appeals to the magesterium, or whatever, you are on the road to an infallible position. See, because the Pope is not forwarding his own personal opinion.

Exceptions mostly center on Marian theology, like the Immaculate Conception, etc. That's a whole other thing separate from human practices like slavery.

Do you simply reject the concept of infallibility? If you do, doesn't that put you in the exact same boat as all those birth-control using Catholics? If you don't, then how can you even say such a thing (unless you just meant the Popes of the past, the falliable ones).

No, I just view it differently than you.

I don't think the Pope always speaks the 100% straight-from-God truth. I don't know a single Catholic who believes that every Pope in history spoke infallibly 100% of the time.

So that doesn't put me in the same exact boat as the birth controllers, since some Catholics never use birth control. There is not a single Catholic who has ever said that every Pope in history has always spoken infallibly in all words written and oral.

This is from newadvent.org

**********EXPLANATION OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

The Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra -- that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church -- is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent" (Densinger no. 1839 -- old no. 1680). For the correct understanding of this definition it is to be noted that:


what is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration (see above under I).
the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church's in order to be infallible.
infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:

The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher ar allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).
Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.
Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.
It should be observed in conclusion that papal infallibility is a personal and incommunicable charisma, which is not shared by any pontifical tribunal. It was promised directly to Peter, and to each of Peter's successors in the primacy, but not as a prerogative the exercise of which could be delegated to others. Hence doctrinal decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations, even when approved by the pope in the ordinary way, have no claim to be considered infallible. To be infallible they must be issued by the pope himself in his own name according to the conditions already mentioned as requisite for ex cathedra teaching.**********

I realize that I'm not Catholic, but my understanding of Purgatory is that it does not involve a choice.

Meaning God compels each soul to enter purgatory? Meaning the soul can not refuse purgatory?

You suggested that no one could refuse Purgatory and be saved: implying that people could refuse purgatory and be damned. So in other words, if the hell of Purgatory is too much to bear, you can opt out... and go to permanent Hell. Which is once again suggesting that you have some kind of choice after death. Which I once again assert there is absolutely no Biblical justification for whatsoever.

Opting out of purgatory...well, it depends if you think purgatory works as a prison sentence. I don't conceive purgatory as a time-bounded situation, where it lasts for chronological time, and all this time you have the option of making "choices".

Purgatory is a God process, that we can speculate by comparing to human processes. My notion is that it is, perhaps, best to think of it as an instantaneous thing. Meaning you can't real opt out of it once you are in it.

I think choices can be made after death. As for Biblical justification, I think you already know how I feel about that. Since you don't use the Bible as your sole source of justification, I'm not sure why you expect that I should. I could see if you were proseltyzing, but you're not doing so.

Once and for all, I will say that what I believe might be in the Bible, and might not be in the Bible. I think an atheist could say exactly the same thing.

Yes, yes, I know that some Pope made it up once, and that's good enough for you. If everybody agrees to make up the same thing, that's somehow better than if just one person makes it up.

For all I know one of my great-grandfather's raped a sheep. I can't do anything about that, other than condemn it.

I think slavery is despicable. Am I making that up?

The Catholic Church is against sin. Yet, every Pope has sinned. That's just how it is. The magesterium, and *infallibility*, transcends individuals.

How many Gods are there? Just one, right? Then how many different ways can you think about God? There is only one way that is correct: that is, corresponds to the greatest degree with the actual facts of God. All the rest are therefore wrong.

Well there is only one true God. There are countless false gods. Is a false god a god? Well, yeah. A false tooth is a tooth.

You can think of a Rubik's cube as a hunk of plastic. Or as a challenging and nifty brain teaser. Or as a colossal waste of time. How do you think of a Rubik's cube?

I believe that not every idea of God is equally correct. I believe that theology is an exercise in analogy, and since all analogies break down, it is a problematic yet vital exercise. Since I believe that God became a human being, I think the problems are made a bit easier.

You might notice that there are many branches of physics, and yet they all think the same.

Maybe. Try teaching superstrings alongside Newtonian mechanics. I think that all people think the same, in general. The ability to think outside of the box often advances a science.

In fact, all disciplines of scence in general can be said to think the same. Why do you suppose it is that biologists and physicists can completely and unquestionably accept each other's doctrines, but Episcopalians and slightly less liberal Episcopalians can't even agree on whether homosexuality is a) perfectly fine, or b) a ticket to hell?

Well since I had a physics phD at Boston College who believed in the existence of God, yet obviously you don't believe in the existence of God, I am suprised by your declaration of scientific unanimity.

As for the Episcopalians, obviously you have a humanisitc branch and a bible-based branch. I mourn their disconnect, but it is an understandable disconnect.

It's nice to see that admission, for once. But consider: what you really mean to say is that discernment is all that matters.

At the individual level, yes. Now, I do not discern the value of, say, mathematical proofs, but I accept that they matter. But as far as my most *precious* beliefs, I cannot and do not separate them from personal discernment.

Once you establish that the Bible is inadequate as mere text, you have not merely shown the need for discernment, you have shown the worthlessness of the Bible.

Depends on the approach and the attitude!

I do not approach the Bible wishing it to conform to my way of thinking. The Bible is a compendium of how many people in a distant time thought. I adjust my thinking to understand their thinking. In this way it is of great worth.

Inadequacy is, therefore, not an objective opinion. I accept that to you, and with your mindset, the Bible is worthless to you. It is of great worth to me, and I'm sorry I can't make you to see it differently, as I do.

What this tells us is you reserve the right to make any part of the Bible say anything you want. That is the same as rejecting it in toto.

No, the Bible says what it says. I try to understand the people who wrote it as best I can, their motivations, their culture and the world in which they lived. If I read someone's memoirs they speak for themselves, but should I share their biases et al.?

Since I read the Bible, how can I reject the Bible? I don't watch sitcoms. I reject sitcoms. Can't be bothered with them. I accept the Bible so much that I will understand the Bible as I would understand a person.

And, as you note elsewhere, you can do the work of God without hearing it. Add these two together and what you get is: "discernment is all that is necessary."

Yes. When it comes to morality, it is all about discernment.

Now I ask you: how do you distinguish between "Discernment" and "making things up?"

It's up to the person. Personally it is hardly an easy endeavor, and it would vary depending on the question at hand. Sorry to be vague. I could go into a specific example I suppose, but a different specific example would be, perhaps, different.

One of them is reaching conclusions independently without regard to external facts but only paying attention to internal feelings, and the other one is exactly the same.

Surely feelings are important. Does anything that you believe feel wrong? For instance, do you have strong internal feelings opposed to, say, quantum mechanics?

When it comes to the Bible, I use the external facts outside of the Bible to understand the Bible. Those include many things, particularly the culture of the time. My feelings have to make do with the fact that the people who wrote the Bible feel differently about things than I do. In this case I value their feelings as much as my own. When it comes to literature you can't get around or away from feelings.

Discernment is just a fancy word for making things up.

OK.

And despite your claim to use reason and logic, you admit that discernment comes first: it trumps mere evidence (such as the actual text of the Bible).

Well that's silly. I didn't make up the story of Job, somebody else did. My discernment of the book of Job is contingent upon somebody else making the book of Job.

The same with you. Your discernement of what I say is not made up out of thin air. I am a person known as elliotfc, or Elliot. I say things. Based on what I say, you discern. You didn't create me, or create what I say.

In that way I don't make things up. I didn't write the Bible.

Do you see why I keep saying you are just making things up? I don't mean to single you out: your priests are making it up, too.

Sure, I think I sort of get you, but you seem to be ignoring cause and effect stuff. And theology (an exercise in analogy) is a contrived thought-process. I admit that. Heaven is not a place, say, as the post office down the road from me.

Moral acts can arguably be graded. Given the picture of morality you described above, you can imagine a person doing a mostly moral thing but not completely or perfectly moral. However, getting into Heaven is not graduated: it's binary, you are in or you aren't.

Agreed. But we are not connected with God because we were able to act 100% morally on Earth. We are connected with God despite the fact that we did not act 100% morally on Earth.

Purgatory does not solve this problem, for several reasons: 1) it's insane to assert that an immoral act can be made up for (restituted) by punishment,

!!!

No, our immoral acts are not made up for by purgatory! They are restituted by the death of Jesus!

Purgatory is for our benefit, so we can realize how despicably we have acted. I have hurt many people in my life. I don't know how badly I have hurt them. Purgatory will let me know just how atrocious I have been in my life. Purgatory is a way to connect me not just with God, but with everyone, including those with whom I have interacted and hurt in my life.

That isn't restitution since the knowledge I gain in Purgatory is beneficial. Is college an exercise in restitution?

Now, the only true restitution is in the sacrifice of Jesus.

2) if you eventually get into Heaven, then Purgatory doesn't count. As Ingersoll said, "from the vantage point of eternity the mountains are as transient as the clouds."

Everything counts. If I fail a course, but retake it and pass it, I still failed the course. Anything that happens in the universe counts.

So, given the binary nature of Heaven (in or out), it is not unreasonable for us to ask what the rules for making that decision are. This is like medicine: there is no simple rulebook for being a good doctor. At the same time, there is a rulebook that says what you have to do to get a medicine degree.

The rule is Jesus died so that we could be reconciled. Not must be reconciled. Could be reconciled. If you want to accept the reconciliation, accept the rule that enables the reconciliation.

More post-modernist relativism (sigh). Do you suppose God is a post-modernist?

No, he transcends modernism (of course ).

Allow me to suggest a trite concept: perhaps atheism is my path to God. Tell me how you can assert that my path is false, while not condeming any other path?

Your path is false. Your path will lead you to hell. Yet it is your path, and your path may eventually lead you to heaven. You'll have to stop walking the way you are, and turn you are? Will you do that? I don't know. Yet your path is your path.

If I'm walking to the bank, but I start walking the opposite direction, and then turn around, those backtracks and missteps are all part of my personal path.

What criteria do you apply to distinguish between true and false paths - given that you have just asserted that you cannot declare other paths false?

Good question.

All paths are paths. False, or true, is a matter of choice.

I can say that someone is heading the wrong way. But for all I know they may eventually go the right way. I can not make an eternal judgment on the snapshot of a person's voyage.

I can say that someone is headed the wrong way. Take Augustine, or Peter. At some points in their life they were going the wrong way, but their paths led to God. Big picture.

Is it even possible for me to convince you that "interpreting the book to mean what you want" is the same as "rejecting what the book says?"

The Bible is the story of how men understand God. I take it as that.

-Elliot

 

[Pahansiri]

Greetings elliotfc


I just got back from vacation to Cape Cod first time in 3 years NO rain, it is a great place.

I hope you are well and happy.

This will be brief as I have reviewed your responses and found them to not be in the form “I” like as you did not address as I do each point and answer each and every question etc.

I will be happy to address the points you did make and the questions you did ask in response to my post when you get the chance to again go ver over my post again and answer all points and questions as I have done for you. You may not wish to and I respect that, as I am sure school starts soon and you are in many debates here.

Again if you like we can do this by e-mail as it would take up far too much room here and may be rude to others.

You can go if you wish at your speed as your schedule allows for and take as long as you like to respond.

Again allow me to state I do not say my “rules” for debate are Best, or perfect or the way everyone should debate, I demand nothing.

This is the way “I” conduct myself and ask if one wishes to debate/exchange that it be done in the way I feel best and most respectful, honest and have ease with. If one does not wish to do this does this make them “wrong”?

NO, not at all, that is their choice as it is mine not to move forward it is all personal choice. I demand nothing.


I do wish to look at a few things you did say. My points need not be addressed or answered, as I am not sure I will check to see a response anyway.

You said:

I was a bit put off by your specific rules

I am sorry if you allowed yourself to become angry or put off by what I have asked, I have no control over your emotions, reactions, actions etc.

I believe my “rules” are fair, honest, kind, respectful, logical etc.

Allow me to again post what I had posted as to this.

Rules:
1. All debate must be respectful and kind.
2. All debate must be free from emotion and logical and factual. If one makes a statement of belief it must be said to be a statement of belief and be respected. If it is a statement of fact then facts, proof and detailed logical conclusion must follow. It is never expectable to answer “ because” , “ because my hold book says so” etc.
3. Every single point and question must be address and answered. Too many simply ship over what they can not answer. If I can not answer I will say I do not know and seek to answer best I can.
My e-mail address is mbertran@nycap.rr.com

Again for me I do not find where my post could cause anger to arise or to incite one to be “put off” but I can not read your mind and so can not know why but respect your opinion.


Allow me to respond to a few statements you did make. Again please know I respond with great respect for and to you and also again most likely will not check back to read a response and/or would not really respond to one anyway.

Yes...but you should not apply a human standard of perfection to divine perfection.

I find this an often said statement and a strange and illogical one.

If I read you right you then believe a;
1 Good human father who is not perfect but seeking to be so would not rape, kill, beat, starve etc his children.

BUT

God in his perfection would or may rape, kill, beat, starve etc his children and that would be OK because that would be “divine perfection”?

In “divine perfection” to never steal would then not be good and perfect behavior?

In “divine perfection” to never kill would then not be good and perfect behavior?
In “divine perfection” to never lie would then not be good and perfect behavior?
In “divine perfection” to never rape would then not be good and perfect behavior?

You say

Yes...but you should not apply a human standard of perfection to divine perfection.

But all we have as truth that can be measured and known to be truth is human standard of perfection to believe a divine perfection would be less then this is illogical.


You say

Do you see the irony in what you have said? You have just said what is *not* unconditional love. Therefore, you have conceptual conditions in which unconditional love works. .

Not at all, no irony at all.

You did a fine attempt at a dance around answering or addressing my point.

I have no conditions on a word as I did not create the word, I do not believe in a God so have never said my god has unconditional love.

Please and this is rhetorical, answer to if only for yourself.

What is the definition of unconditional?


Perhaps it is your belief that human standard of unconditional love is love with NO conditions, perfect love yet believe “divine perfection unconditional love” has and can have many conditions.


To that I can just say, I respect you and what you choose to believe and wish you to be well and happy my new friend.

 

[ceo_esq]

I'm not sure if you read papal decrees, encyclicals, etc. The Pope never announces ***Listen up, I am speaking ex cathedra*** It is either a tacitly obvious thing - ***centuries of Church teaching, the immutable postition, etc.*** - or, an appeal is made to specific statements in the past.

Didn't Pius XII explicitly announce that he was promulgating the doctrine of the Assumption infallibly?

 

[elliotfc]

Didn't Pius XII explicitly announce that he was promulgating the doctrine of the Assumption infallibly?

Yes. I did say that exceptions included Mariology, but thanks for clarifying this.

-Elliot

 

[ceo_esq]

Yes. I did say that exceptions included Mariology, but thanks for clarifying this.

-Elliot

So you did. That'll teach me not to speed-read posts.

 

[elliotfc]

So you did. That'll teach me not to speed-read posts.

It's cool. So you are an open-minded Catholic, ceo_esq?

A few months ago I was at a Catholic discussion group, and one highly educated woman remarked that if there is no reason to believe in the supernatural or an alternative explanation (scientific) is available, then the supernatural should be rejected. I found this highly ironic since the gal believed in Jesus, but she didn't agree that it was ironic. I didn't try to crack her skull open or anything.

I am always amazed and always reminded at the variety that exists within Catholic thought. Even with my parents, who are ostensibally both devout Catholics. I've never met to Catholics who think alike. Yes, on the surface we may all appear to have the same beliefs, but when you press the issue...

-Elliot

 

[ceo_esq]

It's cool. So you are an open-minded Catholic, ceo_esq?

I'm not a religious person of any faith, actually, but then I don't have to be to dispute certain skewed versions of religious philosophy, doctrine and history one encounters in the R&P forum. Catholicism is just one of the usual suspects, I'm afraid.