Fundamentalism and Atheism

[CWBetts]

Let’s try this again (I wish I could send this in audio, I would speak very slowly and use the most rudimentary words). Regardless of what the Didache said, I quoted past popes, saints, etc. As far as I know the Didache (notwithstanding its historical importance) is not official doctrine. I ascribe more weight to what past popes and saints (particularly since it was the likes of Augustine) said on the subject. But look, if you thought the church told you to jump off a bridge, you would jump (so there’s really no point to all this)

You have just revealed how little you know about the Faith. The Didache is part of our tradition, and represents the earliest teachings of the apostles. I know this is hard for you to fathom, but the Church has consistently taught respect for the unborn since day one. Scientific advances have allowed the Church to refine the teaching by establishing that life does indeed begin at conception. Why don’t you go back to wherever it is that trolls live?

 

[bridgeforsale]

You have just revealed how little you know about the Faith. The Didache is part of our tradition, and represents the earliest teachings of the apostles. I know this is hard for you to fathom, but the Church has consistently taught respect for the unborn since day one. Scientific advances have allowed the Church to refine the teaching by establishing that life does indeed begin at conception. Why don’t you go back to wherever it is that trolls live?

So then given the quotes I listed from former popes, the church must have reversed its earlier position? The problem is everything I quoted was written or said after authorship of the Didache, the simple logical implication of which apparently escapes you (the Didache is one of the very earliest know documents in Christianity, which I’m sure I know much more about than you do).

 

[CWBetts]

So then given the quotes I listed from former popes, the church must have reversed its earlier position? The problem is everything I quoted was written or said after authorship of the Didache, the simple logical implication of which apparently escapes you (the Didache is one of the very earliest know documents in Christianity, which I’m sure I know much more about than you do).

Never reversed, only clarified. Abortion has always been forbidden. Science has allowed the Church to come to the understanding life truly does begin at conception. Not too hard to figure out.

 

[bridgeforsale]

The book actually deals with all the things you stated, moreover, might I remind you that the arm bands were to distinguish Jews from Christians while out and about in society (they were not allowed to intermarry), i.e., it did not hold the sinister qualities that you impute solely because you now anachronistically read into history what the Nazis have done to the Jews (based on their Darwinian/eugenics/Aryan ideology) onto the Church.

I just noticed this one … but you actually think forcing Jews to live in ghettos and wear identifying armbands, and I quote, “did not hold sinister qualities.” What can I really say. That is among the most horrible, racist, and ignorant things I’ve ever heard someone say. In this day and age can anyone really be so stupid as to believe forcing an entire ethnic people to wear an identifying symbol (that may as well compel them to put a bulls eye on their backs) is anything but sinister? I don’t think I even know any Catholic who would ever say something like this. Just unbelievable

 

[bridgeforsale]

Never reversed, only clarified. Abortion has always been forbidden. Science has allowed the Church to come to the understanding life truly does begin at conception. Not too hard to figure out.

You’re missing my point. If the churches doctrines and dogma can advance with science, then why should anyone trust it? After all it might just change tomorrow, if there’s a new scientific discovery. You’re the ones who are supposed to be getting celestial advice from an omnipotent and omniscient god (who I assume you guys believe understands the gestation process you claim he created). I assume you didn’t understand the logical implications of this “science” exception you’re I think inventing (of course every issue related to faith and morals also has a corresponding scientific element, which would consequentially mean the church doesn’t have substantially more insight into moraltiy than anyone else does; at least according to your logic).

Anyways …

 

[CWBetts]

You’re missing my point. If the churches doctrines and dogma can advance with science, then why should anyone trust it? After all it might just change tomorrow, if there’s a new scientific discovery. You’re the ones who are supposed to be getting celestial advice from an omnipotent and omniscient god (who I assume you guys believe understands the gestation process you claim he created).

Anyways …

The Church has never claimed to be an authority on science. The Church has always believed that abortion is wrong. The only way that the teaching has changed is to coincide with the beginning of life.

 

[bridgeforsale]

The Church has never claimed to be an authority on science. The Church has always believed that abortion is wrong. The only way that the teaching has changed is to coincide with the beginning of life.

What if there’s a radical new scientific discovery regarding abortion tomorrow, will the church again change position? If this is truly how church doctrine is guided, why would anyone find it a reliable source of morals? The problem is with your crowd is you really don’t think about all the angles involved with the claims made by your church. It’s the thousands of little logical parodoxes, the little subtle nuances (that escape sight of the average brain), which makes religion so absurd and impossible to believe.

 

[Colgate]

What if there’s a radical new scientific discovery regarding abortion tomorrow, will the church again change position? If this is truly how church doctrine is guided, why would anyone find it a reliable source of morals? The problem is with your crowd is you really don’t think about all the angles involved with the claims made by your church. It’s the thousands of little logical parodoxes, the little subtle nuances (that escape sight of the average brain), which makes religion so absurd and impossible to believe.

Well, but what would be this ‘radical new scientific discovery regarding abortion’? Getting rid of the baby without actually killing it? If that happened, then yeah, maybe we will start thinking differently about abortions. But is that even possible?

For now, abortion consists of killing babies off in their mothers’ wombs. You say it’s thousands of little logical paradoxes, and it is, except that it all boils down to one thing; babies are dying. This is why the Church opposes it.

 

[bridgeforsale]

Well, but what would be this ‘radical new scientific discovery regarding abortion’? Getting rid of the baby without actually killing it? If that happened, then yeah, maybe we will start thinking differently about abortions. But is that even possible?

For now, abortion consists of killing babies off in their mothers’ wombs. You say it’s thousands of little logical paradoxes, and it is, except that it all boils down to one thing; babies are dying. This is why the Church opposes it.

I have no idea what science will come up with next (if I could make a suggestion to them, I’d like to stay in my 30’s forever). But the original point was, according to CW, the church position on abortion evolved because of scientific advancement.

I simply don’t think that’s true; and the history seems to agree with me. In the twelfth century the church position varied (depending on the pope). Loose policies like abortion is proscribed after a fetus becomes animated, or after quickening (when the mother can feel it move around) were used, but a clear policy didn’t begin to crystallize until late 19th century (I note, long before we had modern devices like sonograms)

 

[CWBetts]

I have no idea what science will come up with next (I’d like to stay in my 30’s forever, I hope they’re working on that one). But the original point was, according to CW, the church position on abortion evolved because of scientific advancement.

I simply don’t think that’s true; and the history seems to agree with me. In the twelfth century the church position varied (depending on the pope). Loose policies like abortion is proscribed after a fetus becomes animated, or after quickening (when the mother can feel it move around) were used, but a clear policy didn’t begin to crystallize until late 19th century (I note, long before we had modern devices like sonograms)

The teaching about abortion was clear in the 19th century. I say again, the only change was revolved around when life began. That is all. I tried to use small words for you.

 

[Colgate]

I have no idea what science will come up with next (if I could make a suggestion to them, I’d like to stay in my 30’s forever). But the original point was, according to CW, the church position on abortion evolved because of scientific advancement.

I simply don’t think that’s true; and the history seems to agree with me. In the twelfth century the church position varied (depending on the pope). Loose policies like abortion is proscribed after a fetus becomes animated, or after quickening (when the mother can feel it move around) were used, but a clear policy didn’t begin to crystallize until late 19th century (I note, long before we had modern devices like sonograms)

I actually believe the Church is not exactly infallible. We are but humans, the Church is made of humans, and we are bound to make mistakes. And we learn from it and work towards greater degree of perfection.

And it really seems irrelevant to point out to the Church’s positions on abortion in the twelfth century. It simply wasn’t a big issue back then, it was an amazingly complicated and a dangerous procedure that was not used so frequently. Can you blame people for putting it at the back of their minds?

The fact that the Church’s position on abortion took its present form in the 19th century is not detrimental in any way. As I said before, we are but humans, working towards our goal. And even if it was not the case, abortion did not start killing off so many babies until our own times. The Church should actually be recommended for taking an established position on it so early.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

What if there’s a radical new scientific discovery regarding abortion tomorrow, will the church again change position? If this is truly how church doctrine is guided, why would anyone find it a reliable source of morals? The problem is with your crowd is you really don’t think about all the angles involved with the claims made by your church. It’s the thousands of little logical parodoxes, the little subtle nuances (that escape sight of the average brain), which makes religion so absurd and impossible to believe.

Properly speaking, the Church’s position has been been that recognizable human life must not be destroyed in the womb. Due to medical advances of the last two centuries, the concept of “recognizable” is all that has changed, widening in interpretation. If nothing else, this can pragmatically be called the “better safe than sorry” approach.

The morality is guided by the Church, and represented by the moral position opposing the killing of innocent life in the womb when it becomes inconvenient. Our understanding of life is all that has changed, not the moral doctrine.

To respond to an earlier comment of yours, do you realize how many times in the last century has the Pope exercised infallibility? Since you don’t, I’ll answer straight away: zero. In fact, the first and only time to date that a Pope has exercised infallibility since established as a doctrine regarded the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven, a statement made in the 1890s. Infallibility applies only in cases of matters of faith and doctrine, and doctrinally — correct me if I’m wrong — this infallibility is not that of the Pope but vested in the office itself by the grace of God.

It is not our position that morally the Church is wholly infallible. Our position is that She is closer to moral infallibility than anyone else and is therefore the ideal on Earth.

Chattel slavery in the New World was a wholly different institution than what existed when enslaving the Saracens, different enough that readers trip over and get stuck on the word. European serfs lived under similar conditions as the Saracen slaves, and both were far better off than the African slaves stolen from their homes to plantations across the ocean.

 

[bridgeforsale]

Properly speaking, the Church’s position has been been that recognizable human life must not be destroyed in the womb. Due to medical advances of the last two centuries, the concept of “recognizable” is all that has changed, widening in interpretation. If nothing else, this can pragmatically be called the “better safe than sorry” approach.

The morality is guided by the Church, and represented by the moral position opposing the killing of innocent life in the womb when it becomes inconvenient. Our understanding of life is all that has changed, not the moral doctrine.

To respond to an earlier comment of yours, do you realize how many times in the last century has the Pope exercised infallibility? Since you don’t, I’ll answer straight away: zero. In fact, the first and only time to date that a Pope has exercised infallibility since established as a doctrine regarded the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven, a statement made in the 1890s. Infallibility applies only in cases of matters of faith and doctrine, and doctrinally — correct me if I’m wrong — this infallibility is not that of the Pope but vested in the office itself by the grace of God.

The Doctrine of the Assumption (of Mary) was defined (through officially invoking his infallibility) by Pope Pius XII in 1950. Not exactly the 19th century, but I get your point. Infallibility isn’t invoked very often these days. However, it’s also important to realize the doctrine of infallibility wasn’t itself defined until 1870 (so relatively speaking, it’s a rather new development in Catholic history). Obviously in past centuries the office of the pope weilded much more power (I think that’s probably an understatement); and infallibility was always there (sort of). When the pope affixed his seal on something; that was always the end of the story (he was the monarch above all the other monarchs; and that’s exactly how his power was viewed).

It is not our position that morally the Church is wholly infallible. Our position is that She is closer to moral infallibility than anyone else and is therefore the ideal on Earth.

There is also a doctrine of church infallibility (unless Rome changed policy recently, which I strongly doubt).

Chattel slavery in the New World was a wholly different institution than what existed when enslaving the Saracens, different enough that readers trip over and get stuck on the word. European serfs lived under similar conditions as the Saracen slaves, and both were far better off than the African slaves stolen from their homes to plantations across the ocean.

The Saracen’s were basically Arabs (and north Africans), even thought there’s some distinction; and basically that writ (and its later reauthorizations) was a broad grant of authority and the Portugues and Spaniards did ultimately use it to kidnap Africans and enslave them. I believe the facts show (given the reauthorizations) that certain popes endorsed the policy (of slavery, even in its most aberrant forms) and some others did not (and were quite fervently against it). Anyway, perhaps the Spaniards would have done what they did whether they had permission or not; but I’m not so sure (in those days it was one big happy family, the crown and papacy were for all intents and purposes part of the same government, and the men who were kidnapping Africans and transporting them to the new world, or capturing and enslaving indigenous peoples, believed (in addition to making a bunch of money for themselves, and for their kings and queens and church) they were doing god’s work. My point was the culpability of past popes in this matter cannot be exculpated. The facts show they endorsed slavery, probably profited from it, and they likely knew exactly what was going on. Nonetheless, the church (and later popes) did ultimately reverse this position and come out against slavery. In this regard they were no better than the secular civilization they belonged to.

 

[josie_L]

Let’s try this again (I wish I could send this in audio, I would speak very slowly and use the most rudimentary words). Regardless of what the Didache said, I quoted past popes, saints, etc. As far as I know the Didache (notwithstanding its historical importance) is not official doctrine. I ascribe more weight to what past popes and saints (particularly since it was the likes of Augustine) said on the subject. But look, if you thought the church told you to jump off a bridge, you would jump (so there’s really no point to all this)

So just because popes and/or saints weren’t sure as to when the soul entered the body that meant they approved, i.e., sanctioned abortion? Moreover, I made it quite clear that they were in no doubt that what was growing in a woman’s womb was human and therefore deserving of life, i.e., it was not regarded as a (inhumane) blob of tissue. Thus, abortion which kills humans could not nor ever be approved by the Catholic Church. Get it now???

 

[bridgeforsale]

So just because popes and/or saints weren’t sure as to when the soul entered the body that meant they approved, i.e., sanctioned abortion? Moreover, I made it quite clear that they were in no doubt that what was growing in a woman’s womb was human and therefore deserving of life, i.e., it was not regarded as a (inhumane) blob of tissue. Thus, abortion which kills humans could not nor ever be approved by the Catholic Church. Get it now???

So then they didn’t realize (during the 12th century) that the gestation period is 9 months?

 

[Quid_estVeritas]

I’ve recently given up posting on the Amazon.com Religion Forum, it was too depressing. The “Religion” Forum was overrun with militant “new atheists”, at least 70% of the Forum was angry Fundamentalist atheists, the most intolerant people you’ll ever come across (and they say it’s religious people who are intolerant!). I find that many new atheists ARE Fundamentalist.

 

[jericho777]

I’ve recently given up posting on the Amazon.com Religion Forum, it was too depressing. The “Religion” Forum was overrun with militant “new atheists”, at least 70% of the Forum was angry Fundamentalist atheists, the most intolerant people you’ll ever come across (and they say it’s religious people who are intolerant!). I find that many new atheists ARE Fundamentalist.

What are fundamentalist atheists?

 

[Quid_estVeritas]

What are fundamentalist atheists?

just very very intolerant atheists (as opposed to tolerant “live and let live” atheists). They think everyone who isn’t atheist is either foolish or dangerous or both, and they show their superior “brain power” by mindlessly parroting everything that Richard Dawkins has ever said. When you’ve been around them for a while the world starts to look very bleak, I think I’d take an Islamic fundamentalist over an atheist fundamentalist. They are an off-shoot of “evangelical atheists”, see the first definition of evangelical atheist at this Urban Dictionary link.

 

[josie_L]

This is disgusting. You’re now reduced to being an apologetic for slavery; and trying to find a loop hole for the proclamations of your past popes (that had horrific consequences). You should try watching the movie Amistad one day, and see what the consequences were of your former popes actions. Let me post the words of the papal bull again:

There is a difference between the indentured servitude of prisoners of war, criminals . . . etc. as compared to the racial/chattel slavery which the Church condemned, in fact, the Church in 1435 (long before 1452) issued a bull using excommunication as a means to stop slave trade:

Eugene IV: Sicut Dudum, 1435

On January 13, 1435, Eugene IV issued from Florence the bull Sicut Dudum. Sent to Bishop Ferdinand, located at Rubicon on the island of Lanzarote, this bull condemned the enslavement of the black natives of the newly colonized Canary Islands off the coast of Africa. The Pope stated that after being converted to the faith or promised baptism, many of the inhabitants were taken from their homes and enslaved:

“They have deprived the natives of their property or turned it to their own use, and have subjected some of the inhabitants of said islands to perpetual slavery (subdiderunt perpetuae servituti), sold them to other persons and committed other various illicit and evil deeds against them… Therefore We … exhort, through the sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ shed for their sins, one and all, temporal princes, lords, captains, armed men, barons, soldiers, nobles, communities and all others of every kind among the Christian faithful of whatever state, grade or condition, that they themselves desist from the aforementioned deeds, cause those subject to them to desist from them, and restrain them rigorously. And no less do We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex that, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their pristine liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands … who have been made subject to slavery (servituti subicere). These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money.”

The date of this Bull, 1435, is very significant. Nearly 60 years before the Europeans were to find the New World, we already had the papal condemnation of slavery as soon as this crime was discovered in one of the first of the Portuguese geographical discoveries.

Eugene IV was clear in his intentions both to condemn the enslavement of the residents of the Canary Islands, and to demand correction of the injustice within 15 days. Those who did not restore the enslaved to their liberty in that time were to incur the sentence of excommunication ipso facto.

With Sicut Dudum, Eugene was clearly intending to condemn the enslavement of the people of the Canaries and, in no uncertain terms, to inform the faithful that what was being condemned was what we would classify as gravely wrong. Thus, the unjust slavery that had begun in the newly found territories was condemned, condemned as soon as it was discovered, and condemned in the strongest of terms.

All of Christendom must have known therefore that they were not allowed to participate in slave trading by the time Pope Nicholas V issued his bull.

We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property …] and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery.

The threat of the Saracens by the way was a real and present danger, they were constantly enslaving Christians (and trying to expand their empire), in fact, Constantinople fell to the Muslims in 1453 one year after Pope Nicholas V issued his first bull (and one year before he issued his second). This is not a coincidence, in fact the Pope clearly states that they had the permission to capture and subjugate “unbelievers and enemies of Christ”.

To think the pope didn’t really know what the crown of Spain had in mind, or what the likely result of this sort of grant of authority would be, is something only a gullible idiot could believe.

I don’t doubt that this (the first) bull was misabused by those who sought to take advantage of it but I can’t say for sure that the pope knew that it would be. I honestly think that he was to a great extent persuaded to issue such a bull because of the threat that the Saracens presented (just read the history thereafter and see how many attempts were made to invade and conquer Europe by the Muslims).

p.s. If the pope was aware of what he was doing then he will be judged for what he has done by God.

 

[jericho777]

just very very intolerant atheists (as opposed to “live and let live” atheists). They think everyone who isn’t Atheist is either foolish or dangerous or both, and they show their superior “brain power” by mindlessly parroting everything that Richard Dawkins has ever said. When you’ve been around them for a while the world starts to look very bleak, I think I’d take an Islamic Fundamentalist over an Atheist Fundamentalist. They are an off-shoot of “Evangelical Atheists”, see the first definition of evangelical atheist at this Urban Dictionary link.

Why would things not seem bleak them. Where is their hope? Who can they turn to, to deliver them? I think deep down inside they know there is a God and they are screaming really loud to drown out His voice because they hate Him.
I’m from MA too