Fundamentalism and Atheism

[josie_L]

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

Yes, they did, but what does that have to do with what I said, i.e., the Church was against murder so it didn’t matter what stage that human was in (the Church unlike pro-abortionists does not view the unborn as just a blob of tissue)??

p.s. When the soul entered the body had no effect on the Church’s stance against abortion because the unborn were already members of the human race and thus to be protected.

 

[josie_L]

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

The reasons the Jews wore arm bands during the Nazi reign was so that they would eventually be identified and carted away to concentration camps to be gassed and killed, that is why I used the word “sinister”. I wasn’t trying to justify the actions of the Church for forcing Jews to wear arm bands (or being put in ghettos) so much as trying to show that the reasons for wearing the arm bands were not for the sinister reasons of promoting (future) and perpetrating genocide.

Edit: The actions of the Church (for which blessed Pope John Paul II has publicly apologized to the Jews for) was wrong but not sinister.

 

[bridgeforsale]

Yes, they did, but what does that have to do with what I said, i.e., the Church was against murder so it didn’t matter what stage that human was in (the Church unlike pro-abortionists does not view the unborn as just a blob of tissue)??

OK so the church realized a pregnancy began at the beginning of the gestation cycle (that’s when the potential life was created). Why then did they have policies like life begins at “quickening” (the point when the mother could feel the child inside her womb)? What scientific development, exactly, has changed this former view (keeping in mind the modern view began to develop in the 19th century; when quite frankly the science in this area wasn’t much better than it was during the 12th century)?

p.s. When the soul entered the body had no effect on the Church’s stance against abortion because the unborn were already members of the human race and thus to be protected.

OK assuming the church holds no opinion on when the soul enters the body (you might be right, I’m not sure), when they say life begins at conception, they really don’t mean anything special. They simply mean biological life begins at conception (which is really no different than calling it a blob of cells, since cells in fact are biological life).

The pattern I see here is these guys who claim to be infallible (at least as a collective) really don’t know squat, and their so called dogmas really reduce to anyones best guess (and the whole pro-life racquet seems to working well and driving enthusiasm … so let’s stick with it).

When does the soul enter the body … umm we have no idea. So then what the ***

Not only are they clueless, but they’re men who wear dresses

 

[josie_L]

OK so the church realized a pregnancy began at the beginning of the gestation cycle (that’s when the potential life was created). Why then did they have policies like life begins at “quickening” (the point when the mother could feel the child inside her womb)? What scientific development, exactly, has changed this former view (keeping in mind the modern view began to develop in the 19th century; when quite frankly the science in this area wasn’t much better than it was during the 12th century)?

I’m not sure what you mean by policies, although I am aware of the fact that the Church was still unsure as to when “life” began and by that I mean when the body would be animated by the soul (hence the term “quickening”)? This, of course, did not mean that it was not life biologically speaking (i.e., a human was developing). As to the other questions, I’m not sure when the Church became convicted of the fact that the soul entered the body at conception, but irregardless, abortion was always viewed as murder because no one doubted the humanity of the unborn (it definitely wasn’t a fish or a bird growing in a woman’s womb).

Edit: In the U.S., for a time Government allowed abortion on the basis of “quickening” but that was not the Catholic Church’s doing, rather it was a Protestant understanding which led to this.

OK assuming the church holds no opinion on when the soul enters the body (you might be right, I’m not sure), when they say life begins at conception, they really don’t mean anything special. They simply mean biological life begins at conception (which is really no different than calling it a blob of cells, since cells in fact are biological life).

The Church had opinions with respect to when the soul entered the body but no uniform conviction as to whether it was true or not. Furthermore, biological life was considered special and that is why the Church protected the unborn (at whatever stage) from being harmed, i,e., aborted.

The pattern I see here is these guys who claim to be infallible (at least as a collective) really don’t know squat, and their so called dogmas really reduce to anyones best guess (and the whole pro-life racquet seems to working well and driving enthusiasm … so let’s stick with it).

Actually, the Church was/is very cautious in making statements and so what you see as waffling is really prudence. Nevertheless, the Church was never in doubt that abortion was immoral.

When does the soul enter the body … umm we have no idea. So then what the ***

Why is this so difficult to understand especially since this issue had no effect on the Catholic Church with regard to abortion?

 

[bridgeforsale]

I’m not sure what you mean by policies, although I am aware of the fact that the Church was still unsure as to when “life” began and by that I mean when the body would be animated by the soul (hence the term “quickening”)? This, of course, did not mean that it was not life biologically speaking (i.e., a human was developing). As to the other questions, I’m not sure when the Church became convicted of the fact that the soul entered the body at conception, but irregardless, abortion was always viewed as murder because no one doubted the humanity of the unborn (it definitely wasn’t a fish or a bird growing in a woman’s womb).

Edit: In the U.S., for a time Government allowed abortion on the basis of “quickening” but that was not the Catholic Church’s doing, rather it was a Protestant understanding which led to this.

During the 12th century abortion wasn’t done by doctors, it was generally done at home using various types of herbs (and other techniques). When popes during this era discussed the question of when a soul enters a fetus it was in the context of abortion (and when St. Augustine devised the rule of “quickening” it was for the purpose of delineating at what point terminating a pregnancy should be considered “abortion” and therefore illegal).

The Church had opinions with respect to when the soul entered the body but no uniform conviction as to whether it was true or not. Furthermore, biological life was considered special and that is why the Church protected the unborn (at whatever stage) from being harmed, i,e., aborted.

Yes but it hasn’t been until more recently (late 19th century) that these two ideas became divorced from one another. Formerly, the proscription of abortion was based on the premise that the fetus (at a certain stage of development) represents a living being with a divinely implanted soul.

So, to clarify, yes there was always a rule against abortion, but the definition of what constitutes abortion shifted over the centuries.

Actually, the Church was/is very cautious in making statements and so what you see as waffling is really prudence. Nevertheless, the Church was never in doubt that abortion was immoral.

I usually wouldn’t call changing ones position based on new information waffling; but of course most people don’t claim to be the earthly representative of the omnipotent god of our universe. What I’m saying, really, isn’t so much directed at the abortion question. It’s more a question concerning what does the CC really base it’s authority on? Apparently, besides an 1,800 year old letter (the Didache), copies of biblical manuscripts we’ve managed to dig up over the centuries, and other ancient texts, it seems there is no other source of guidence. Indeed even on the question of abortion the popes and bishops had to sit around and wait for science to develop further before they could formulate a clear policy.

And the same holds true for everything else doesn’t it? In past centuries popes believed it was perfectly moral to extract information from accused heretics by using torture, and gave both express and implicit authorization for executing heretics by burning them. The pile of abuses over the centuries doesn’t require any further elaboration, everyone knows what they are. Has the secular world been just as bad? Of course; and I’m not sure which held more influence over the other. But my point is I’d expect more out of an organization if it was truly annointed by the all powerful god of the universe to be his representative. Yet the church has been no better than society at large has been, and in some cases far worse

A small group of men (who were essentially agnostics), whom we today refer to as the enlightenment thinkers and founding fathers, gave us more morality than all the churches and holy books in history combined. I’d take the morality of a Thomas Jefferson or Susan B. Anthony over the church any day of the week (even though neither of those two people were by any means perfect).

 

[CWBetts]

During the 12th century abortion wasn’t done by doctors, it was generally done at home using various types of herbs (and other techniques). When popes during this era discussed the question of when a soul enters a fetus it was in the context of abortion (and when St. Augustine devised the rule of “quickening” it was for the purpose of delineating at what point terminating a pregnancy should be considered “abortion” and therefore illegal).

Yes but it hasn’t been until more recently (late 19th century) that these two ideas became divorced from one another. Formerly, the proscription of abortion was based on the premise that the fetus (at a certain stage of development) represents a living being with a divinely implanted soul.

So, to clarify, yes there was always a rule against abortion, but the definition of what constitutes abortion shifted over the centuries.

I usually wouldn’t call changing ones position based on new information waffling; but of course most people don’t claim to be the earthly representative of the omnipotent god of our universe. What I’m saying, really, isn’t so much directed at the abortion question. It’s more a question concerning what does the CC really base it’s authority on? Apparently, besides an1,800 year old letter (the Didache), copies of biblical manuscripts we’ve managed to dig up over the centuries, and other ancient texts, it seems there is no other source of guidence. Indeed even on the question of abortion the popes and bishops had to sit around and wait for science to develop further before they could formulate a clear policy.

And the same holds true for everything else doesn’t it? In past centuries popes believed it was perfectly moral to extract information from accused heretics by using torture, and gave both express and implicit authorization for burning heretics alive. The pile of abuses over the century doesn’t really require any further elaboration, everyone knows what they are. Has the secular world been just as bad? Of course; and I’m not sure what held more influence over the other. But my point is I’d expect more if an organization was truly annointed by the all powerful god of the universe to be his representative. Yet the church has been no better than greater society has been, and in some cases worse

You aren’t making any sense. Are you so desperate to try to find error in the Church’s teachings that you will grasp at anything to vindicate your life?

 

[bridgeforsale]

You aren’t making any sense. Are you so desperate to try to find error in the Church’s teachings that you will grasp at anything to vindicate your life?

dude, I really don’t need to talk about the more nuanced inconsistencies of its ancient policies to find error in the church (it’s enough to point out things like past popes expressly authorized burning human beings alive, and torturing them to extract information in the name a supposedly loving god). I could also get into the religious claims themselves (you know, god-men rising from the dead, burning bushes, and all the rest of the nonsense). In other words, picking apart religion (and exposing its absurdity) isn’t rocket science.

Nonetheless, may I suggest the reason you’re not following my previous post, has nothing to do with how much sense it makes (or doesn’t make). Rather it was written under an assumption that it’s audience has a certain minimal level of reading comprehension ability and grammar skills

 

[josie_L]

During the 12th century abortion wasn’t done by doctors, it was generally done at home using various types of herbs (and other techniques). When popes during this era discussed the question of when a soul enters a fetus it was in the context of abortion (and when St. Augustine devised the rule of “quickening” it was for the purpose of delineating at what point terminating a pregnancy should be considered “abortion” and therefore illegal).

And using such methods was against Church teaching, the didache makes it quite clear that any women using "potions’ (and/or other means) to kill their unborn were committing a great evil (there were no exceptions). Thus, whatever you may think St. Augustine said on the matter is not the consensus of the Church. Furthermore, no pope or otherwise has ever allowed abortion of any kind to be administered or practiced (amongst Christendom). There is no way the Church would have gone against the Didache (a document of the first century based on the teachings of the twelve apostles).

Edit: I would appreciate very much if you would provide sources that the Church allowed for abortion (it should be easy enough to find if they approved such a practice).

 

[bridgeforsale]

And using such methods was against Church teaching, the didache makes it quite clear that any women using "potions’ (and/or other means) to kill their unborn were committing a great evil (there were no exceptions). Thus, whatever you may think St. Augustine said on the matter is not the consensus of the Church. Furthermore, no pope or otherwise has ever allowed abortion of any kind to be administered or practiced. There is no way the Church would have gone against the Didache (a document of the first century based on the teachings of the twelve apostles).

Edit: I would appreciate very much if you would provide sources that the Church allowed for abortion (it should be easy enough to find if they approved such a practice).

1140– The monk John Gratian completed the Concordia discordantium canonum (Harmony of Contradictory Laws) which became the first authoritative collection of Canon law accepted by the Church. In accordance with ancient scholars, it concluded the moral crime of early abortion was not equivalent to that of homicide.

1200– Pope Innocent III wrote that when “quickening” occurred, abortion was homicide. Before that, abortion was considered a less serious sin.

books.google.com/books?id=6HZ2aOV2BSQC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=thomas+aquinas+abortion&source=bl&ots=f5BTQJS5vP&sig=MxsDkvYEch61rI2B_AKVRczR5LY&hl=en&ei=gHuTSs3oJuC3twew7ahM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=thomas%20aquinas%20abortion&f=false

books.google.com/books?id=VBN6r3cC6v0C&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=early+christianity+and+abortion&source=web&ots=Ew-3l3eEYS&sig=JWPvHb7VXPN37YXN4GeiVL2iKNI#v=snippet&q=abortion&f=false

 

[josie_L]

1140– The monk John Gratian completed the Concordia discordantium canonum (Harmony of Contradictory Laws) which became the first authoritative collection of Canon law accepted by the Church. In accordance with ancient scholars, it concluded the moral crime of early abortion was not equivalent to that of homicide.

1200– Pope Innocent III wrote that when “quickening” occurred, abortion was homicide. Before that, abortion was considered a less serious sin.

books.google.com/books?id=6HZ2aOV2BSQC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=thomas+aquinas+abortion&source=bl&ots=f5BTQJS5vP&sig=MxsDkvYEch61rI2B_AKVRczR5LY&hl=en&ei=gHuTSs3oJuC3twew7ahM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=thomas%20aquinas%20abortion&f=false

books.google.com/books?id=VBN6r3cC6v0C&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=early+christianity+and+abortion&source=web&ots=Ew-3l3eEYS&sig=JWPvHb7VXPN37YXN4GeiVL2iKNI#v=snippet&q=abortion&f=false

But abortion was still a grave sin even if Pope Innocent III did not chalk it down to homicide. Therefore, abortion was and always will be wrong. Furthermore, this is not evidence that the Church approved of abortion (at any stage).

 

[bridgeforsale]

But abortion was still a grave sin even if Pope Innocent III did not chalk it down to homicide. Therefore, abortion was and always will be wrong. Furthermore, this is not evidence that the Church approved of abortion (at any stage).

Well, you can go back and argue that point with Pope Innocent III if you like (I suggest bringing an automatic weapon and plenty of ammo with you in the time machine; questioning the pope in those days wasn’t a real winning solution for the average Joe, or Josie)

Moreover, I never said the church at one time approved of abortion (nor did I infer it). I said their position has shifted, and it has. When a pope clarifies a position, to try and say that doesn’t matter, is ridiculous (and grossly inconsistent). Basically, we’re back to the old let’s invent rules as we go along, and let’s even invent our system for making rules as we go along. Everytime there’s an apparent inconsistency, let’s simply invent a new rule or new approach, and use our innovation to prove there’s been no inconsistency.

Not that religion isn’t absurd enough already (because of course it is). But you guys make absurd into an art form

 

[josie_L]

Well, you can go back and argue that point with Pope Innocent III if you like (I suggest bringing an automatic weapon and plenty of ammo with you in the time machine; questioning the pope in those days wasn’t a real winning solution for the average Joe, or Josie)

Moreover, I never said the church at one time approved of abortion (nor did I infer it). I said their position has shifted, and it has. When a pope clarifies a position, to try and say that doesn’t matter, is ridiculous (and grossly inconsistent). Basically, we’re back to the old let’s invent rules as we go along, and let’s even invent our system for making rules as we go along. Everytime there’s an apparent inconsistency, let’s simply invent a new rule or new approach, and use our innovation to prove there’s been no inconsistency.

Not that religion isn’t absurd enough already (because of course it is). But you guys make absurd into an art form

You’re the absurd one because this argument was an exercise in futility, being that the Church’s stance against abortion has always been one of great immorality (at whatever stage), notwithstanding degrees in kind.

p.s. It’s your understanding or ignorance of “development of doctrine” that fails to see how morals/faith may be refined over time (but this does not entail innovation or new rules).

 

[bridgeforsale]

You’re the absurd one because this argument was an exercise in futility, being that the Church’s stance against abortion has always been one of great immorality (at whatever stage), notwithstanding degrees in kind.

p.s. It’s your understanding or ignorance of “development of doctrine” that fails to see how morals/faith may be refined over time (but this does not entail innovation or new rules).

You’re absolutely right, having numerous different positions, doesn’t really mean having numerous different positions; but only of course only if you’re an idiot.

I’m sorry, but I’m unable to transmit my high IQ to anyone over the internet (and therefore people will continue adhere to bizarre ancient religions, including those ran by a mafia of child rapists, who change their minds all the time but say they don’t)

I bet you wear overalls quite often and eat grits most mornings?

 

[CWBetts]

You’re absolutely right, having numerous different positions, doesn’t really mean having numerous different positions; but only of course only if you’re an idiot.

I’m sorry, but I’m unable to transmit my high IQ to anyone over the internet (and therefore people will continue adhere to bizarre ancient religions, including those ran by a mafia of child rapists, who change their minds all the time but say they don’t)

I bet you wear overalls quite often and eat grits most mornings?

What numerous different positions? If nothing can develop, then I guess you still think the sun revolves around the earth, and yo accept the Rutherford model of the atom, or do you stick with the four basic elements?

 

[bridgeforsale]

What numerous different positions? If nothing can develop, then I guess you still think the sun revolves around the earth, and yo accept the Rutherford model of the atom, or do you stick with the four basic elements?

Hmmm, it’s hard not to answer these questions without using terms like DUH.

You can’t compare a church (who claims to be divinely guided by an all powerful spirit god, who guides their doctrines and ensures their infallibility) to science, DUH.

Science not only admits it’s not perfect, but they revel in it. Every scientist is out there trying to one up his peers, and either prove them wrong, perhaps prove a theory right against opposition by other scientists, or build on well settled ideas. They’re not a bunch of guys walking around in ridiculous dresses, who defend little boy rapists, who vomit out nonsense like they’re infallible.

 

[CWBetts]

Hmmm, it’s hard not to answer these questions without using terms like DUH.

You can’t compare a church (who claims to be divinely guided by an all powerful spirit god, who guides their doctrines and ensures their infallibility) to science, DUH.

Science not only admits it’s not perfect, but they revel in it. Every scientist is out there trying to one up his peers, and either prove them wrong, perhaps prove a theory right against opposition by other scientists, or build on well settled ideas. They’re not a bunch of guys walking around in ridiculous dresses, who defend little boy rapists, who vomit out nonsense like they’re infallible.

A doctrine of the Church has never changed.

 

[bridgeforsale]

A doctrine of the Church has never changed.

Here’s a good youtube video on the crimes of the Catholic Church:

youtube.com/watch?v=B7Bq7KcAsG8&NR=1

Watch it if you have the stones.

 

[CWBetts]

Here’s a good youtube video on the crimes of the Catholic Church:

youtube.com/watch?v=B7Bq7KcAsG8&NR=1

Watch it if you have the stones.

Anybody can make false claims.

 

[bridgeforsale]

Anybody can make false claims.

I don’t even think the bishop or whoever the lady was who was there (I think she’s some sort of big deal in Catholic circles) denied the claims

 

[CWBetts]

I don’t even think the bishop or whoever the lady was who was there (I think she’s some sort of big deal in Catholic circles) denied the claims

Blaming the Catholic Church for the holocaust is patently false. Pope Pius XII is regarded as a “Righteous Gentile” by Israel, and his actions saved the lives of countless Jews. The video was an exampe of what happens when you give an idiot with an ax to grind a platform.