Non-denominational Christians

[jmcrae]

Are you drawing a parallel between yourself and Mary?

Certainly not. I was hoping to inspire you to attempt to follow her example.

By being smart and querulous.

This strategy does not appear to be working.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

But people are not made to be 100 per cent chaste. In Africa, men expect not to be chaste - at least the older generations. And if they are not naturally, or by education, chaste, then how does one change the behaviour of millions upon millions of people to make them chaste?

Again, with respect, Carol, what authority do you base the above on? How are people not ‘made to be chaste?’ Are they genetically ‘hard wired’ for promiscuity? I think not. Margaret Mead aside (and we know now that there are serious problems of factual misinformation in the “Coming of Age”), Alfred Kinsey aside (again, serious problems of factual misinformation in the ‘report’), you really cannot say that ‘scientifically speaking’ it is a proven fact that 'people are not made to be 100 per cent chaste.

You’re buying into the mindset of "they’re already doing something wrong, therefore the only thing to do is try to make the consequences of the wrong as ‘good’ as possible–i.e., no disease/death from infected people, or a ‘lower rate’.

You don’t see that the anomaly–which is being pushed upon us as ‘the norm’–is the current situation with its sexual crimes and promiscuity. That even in antiquity marriage was a sacred bond and that those who went outside the bond were known to be transgressing not just a ‘man made law’ but a God made law. Even in societies where things were ‘winked at’ (which usually happened toward the END of the particular society’s cycle of power–as in late Greece, late Rome, and now late “U.S.”) these were primarily the ‘powerful’ and the ‘learned’ who became corrupted; the majority of the ‘common people’ maintained their respect for both human and Divine law.

A thorough study of history reveals that it is when societies stop caring about man-made and Divine law and figuratively ‘wash their hands of problems’ that they are nearing the end of their dominance as societies. It isn’t that they couldn’t have addressed their problems (they could, just as we could) without resorting to evil; they chose rather to accept the evil as something that they ‘could not change’, or even as something that they thought ‘less evil’ than the status quo (just as those do who think that by ‘refusing’ condoms to those in Africa is far more ‘evil’ than allowing them).

 

[Iowa_Mike]

You have spoken clearly and professionally and I am grateful for that. Thank you.

But you have also spoken about religious issues which complicate any consideration of health issues.

I do not accept that it would be Christ’s intention that milions of people should die unnecessarily - that is without using every tool at our disposal - whatever the Church and the Pope have said. I apologise for the offence I know this gives many Catholics, but not all.

Christ could not foresee many of the things that have happened to the world since his resurrection. He could not have known about global warming, or the pandemics which threaten to overwhelm us now. We can hope that his fundamental theses provide sufficient guidance whereby we can challenge these dangers to our existence. That means, of course, that his theses must be interpreted and understood by men - with however much divine inspiration. While I do not suggest that reinterpretation of an original interpretation is a good idea, you and I know that it is not impossible, regardless of the yoke of infallibility which does not apply in this case.

I have said elsewhere that all great religions must grow and adjust within changing contexts, or else they die. I believe this to be true. History shows it to be true. The Church will have to make a choice here, and her adherents as well.

We know that the commission was set up because of dissension within the church over John Paul II’s beliefs on HIV prevention, inter alia, and I suggest perhaps, given the information you have provided, that we await the outcome of the Vatican’s clearly quite problematic and convoluted considerations.

Carol,

I am horrified that your are predicting the demise of the Church unless it bows to secular and pop culture pressure. It is proof positive that you simply do not understand the Catholic Faith. The Church will be intact at the end of time…and so will its core beliefs.

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

You have spoken clearly and professionally and I am grateful for that. Thank you.

But you have also spoken about religious issues which complicate any consideration of health issues.

I do not accept that it would be Christ’s intention that milions of people should die unnecessarily - that is without using every tool at our disposal - whatever the Church and the Pope have said. I apologise for the offence I know this gives many Catholics, but not all.

Christ could not foresee many of the things that have happened to the world since his resurrection. He could not have known about global warming, or the pandemics which threaten to overwhelm us now. We can hope that his fundamental theses provide sufficient guidance whereby we can challenge these dangers to our existence. That means, of course, that his theses must be interpreted and understood by men - with however much divine inspiration. While I do not suggest that reinterpretation of an original interpretation is a good idea, you and I know that it is not impossible, regardless of the yoke of infallibility which does not apply in this case.

I have said elsewhere that all great religions must grow and adjust within changing contexts, or else they die. I believe this to be true. History shows it to be true. The Church will have to make a choice here, and her adherents as well.

We know that the commission was set up because of dissension within the church over John Paul II’s beliefs on HIV prevention, inter alia, and I suggest perhaps, given the information you have provided, that we await the outcome of the Vatican’s clearly quite problematic and convoluted considerations.

Carol,

I am horrified that your are predicting the demise of the Church unless it bows to secular and pop culture pressure. It is proof positive that you simply do not understand the Catholic Faith.

I have said elsewhere that all great religions must grow and adjust within changing contexts, or else they die. I believe this to be true. History shows it to be true.

I challenge your assertion that history supports your belief…The Church is standing strong after more thant 2000 years and, according to scripture, the Church will be intact at the end of time…along with its core beliefs.

Iowa Mike

 

[guanophore]

( very judgemental, hurt, and angry.) You are right: it is all those things. My efforts to learn in conditions which jmcrae describes blithely as ‘correcting error’ of questers like myself and JH, has made me more than grumpy.

If others can make you “grumpy” then you are suffering from an external locus of control. jmcrae has a point about questers approaching with humility. I did not learn this myself until I undertook the study of martial arts in a very traditional school. Even then, it took many years for me to achieve the submission and humility that is more commonly found in the far East in a padawan.

Why is there such an adverse reaction to hard questioning, to challenges, to puzzlement, or lack of knowledge?

It is the manner in which they have been brought, that defensiveness and hostility in the attitude. There is a bluntness that engenders defensiveness.

People who do ask questions are told to be patient, to be polite, to be less arrogant, not to overtep the bounds of … I know that Defence of the Faith is an explicit and very tangible responsibility for all Catholic Christians. And perhaps that explains the sometimes frantic efforts to deliver correction, truth and conviction. That is what is damning us all: it is hard to learn from correctors, and correctors are reluctant to learn.

It does seem that a most uncharitable environment has been created. All I am asking you to do is to see to your part. There have been a lot of fingers pointing, and the other three are pointing back at self!

You especially know that not every question is answered before we become converts: you yourself have said numerous times it is a process of greater understanding from the point where we start, even after conversion. None of us is expected to know all there is to know about transubstantiation and the founding of the RCC inter alia in one go.

Yes, and I affirm that each one will be held firmly by Christ until that day.

I ask myself why she wrote in these terms a private message to JH? What did she want to say that she could not say in public?

It is grossly off topic, for one thing, and being judgemental of one another has no place on this forum!

I am sorry if I have offended the inherent courtesies of the Church.

“the Church” sounds impersonal. When we are discourteous (all of us) we are doing to Jesus what we have done to the least of His brethren. Perhaps, in our doctrinal disputes, we forgot about that?

The strong feelings are perhaps not so much about the Church, but about people and their focus, their seeming self-righteous carelessness about (as I have said before) their responsibilities as opposed to their prerogatives as Catholic Christians.

It is difficult, I think, seeing the glaring needs that you do in the world, to see some of us sit back at our keyboards and engage in doctrinal disputes. I understand this, having been in the trenches many years in the human services field. The strong feelings you have are an important part of your spiritual development. They are showing you what you need to do to get from your head to your heart.

I do not fight the doctrines of the RCC: I seek to use them to my advantage and to the advantage of others, and I have made that clear in other postings.

just don’t lose sight of the fact that it is not the doctrines that do the work, it is the people who espouse them. The doctrines will do you no good if you alienate their strongest proponents. You have found a treasure trove in the Church, and you have come to a real fount of life. However, pumping the handle with wrath, or whacking the folks on the head with the pump handle will not make the water flow.

guan

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Again, with respect, Carol, what authority do you base the above on? How are people not ‘made to be chaste?’ Are they genetically ‘hard wired’ for promiscuity? I think not. Margaret Mead aside (and we know now that there are serious problems of factual misinformation in the “Coming of Age”), Alfred Kinsey aside (again, serious problems of factual misinformation in the ‘report’), you really cannot say that ‘scientifically speaking’ it is a proven fact that 'people are not made to be 100 per cent chaste.

Sorry, it is 0100 in the morning, and I have been here for 7 hours because of the HIV discussion. I have lived as a sociologist, historian, educator, policy and planning advisor, and farmer among Zambians, South Africans and in the 17 countries of the Commonwealth in Africa for 40 years. I do not know what to say when you ask me how do I know, except that I can let you have a list of the books I have read, the professors I have spoken to, the journeys I have made, the people who have taught me in the field and in the university. I can give you some of the papers I have written - and now I will be accused of not being humble enough.

Please go onto the internet and Google an HIV topic that you want to know more about. There has been a lot written about HIV and the complexities of cultural understandings, the roles that mothers and fathers and peers play in educating sons and daughters in very different role models which are in many ways antipathetic.

I can write no more now.

Blessings

 

[RNRobert]

I have said elsewhere that all great religions must grow and adjust within changing contexts, or else they die. I believe this to be true. History shows it to be true. The Church will have to make a choice here, and her adherents as well.

I respectfully disagree. G.K. Chesterton said “we don’t want a church that moves with the world, we want a church that moves the world.” I think that’s the problem with many non-Catholic churches- they are so infected with the spirit of the age, to be ‘trendy,’ or ‘with it’ or whatever- that they have lost their “saltiness” and their ability ro change the world.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Carol,

I am horrified that your are predicting the demise of the Church unless it bows to secular and pop culture pressure. It is proof positive that you simply do not understand the Catholic Faith. The Church will be intact at the end of time…and so will its core beliefs.

Iowa Mike

You are again deliberately putting words into my mouth: where did I predict the demise of the Church? Where did I ever suggest that the Church should bow to secular and pop culture pressure? What nonsense!

The Church will be intact if it grows, adjusts and focuses on Christ. Name me five great religions, or more, that no longer exist. Two thousand years is actually not a long time, is it?

I have stood amongs the ruins (now under the protection of the UN) of Pagan/Bagan in Burma/Myanmar. Here, on the banks of the Irrawady River, a fabulously wealthy merchant city arose, a crossroads for trade between East and West. Between 800-1100 CE, the city’s residents built a vast tribute to Buddha: a small area of about 2 square miles, with 1600 temples and shrines of all sizes and styles and decor. There are at least 6 temples which are as big as St Paul’s Cathedral in London, Notre Dame in Paris, or Westminster Cathedral in London. From there we go down to simply huge temples, and on down to person-sized shrines. I asked myself what had caused this incredible outpouring of religious fervour. And more importantly, why it had suddenly, and in such a short time, died out when it should not have.

The same can be said of the South American Indian religions: we all know about tearing out people’s hearts etc. And we know too why those religions died out.

I have no doubt the core beliefs of the Church will be extant for centuries to come - but the Church itself might look substantially different from the one we know now, not out of necessity, but because - as we see now - it is desirable, especially in cases of social rights and social justice.

 

[jmcrae]

I respectfully disagree. G.K. Chesterton said “we don’t want a church that moves with the world, we want a church that moves the world.” I think that’s the problem with many non-Catholic churches- they are so infected with the spirit of the age, to be ‘trendy,’ or ‘with it’ or whatever- that they have lost their “saltiness” and their ability ro change the world.

Reminds me of an old saying of my mother’s (she was a famous politician during her younger days): “Where has the crowd gone? I must get in front of them, for I am their leader!”

We can race along trying to get ahead of the crowd, or else we can follow Jesus Christ. It’s difficult to do both, though, since each is going in a different direction.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Sorry, it is 0100 in the morning, and I have been here for 7 hours because of the HIV discussion. I have lived as a sociologist, historian, educator, policy and planning advisor, and farmer among Zambians, South Africans and in the 17 countries of the Commonwealth in Africa for 40 years. I do not know what to say when you ask me how do I know, except that I can let you have a list of the books I have read, the professors I have spoken to, the journeys I have made, the people who have taught me in the field and in the university. I can give you some of the papers I have written - and now I will be accused of not being humble enough.

Please go onto the internet and Google an HIV topic that you want to know more about. There has been a lot written about HIV and the complexities of cultural understandings, the roles that mothers and fathers and peers play in educating sons and daughters in very different role models which are in many ways antipathetic.

I can write no more now.

Blessings

Carol,

With all due respect it is the quality of your aruguments not your credentials that interest me. I don’t mean this in a mean-spirited way, but your resume does not make you right.

I believe you are a good person, I believe you are smart, I just don’t believe you are right.

Iowa Mike

 

[RNRobert]

Reminds me of an old saying of my mother’s (she was a famous politician during her younger days): “Where has the crowd gone? I must get in front of them, for I am their leader!”

We can race along trying to get ahead of the crowd, or else we can follow Jesus Christ. It’s difficult to do both, though, since each is going in a different direction.

G.K Chesterton said something else too: One of the reasons he believed the Catholic Church was true was because “it made a definitive statement first and was proven right later.” I think *Humanae Vitae *is a sterling example of this.

 

[jmcrae]

G.K Chesterton said something else too: One of the reasons he believed the Catholic Church was true was because “it made a definitive statement first and was proven right later.” I think *Humanae Vitae *is a sterling example of this.

I think that Humanae Vitae should be required reading at every high school in the whole world.

 

[arcadia]

normally PMs should be kept private. however I find this one so unbelievably uncharitable that I think before I leave this forum I should make it public. I am flabbergasted that someone on a Christian forum could say such things personally, but I will let others decide for themselves

so I’m a liar who needs to get a grip on reality apparently, who definitely shouldn’t have joined the Catholic Church
nice:thumbsup:

Dear Jack,

I want to repeat what I wrote to you in private. You have not offensive. Rather, you have been upfront and very transparent. Whatever path you choose i have a great deal of respect for you.

arcadia

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Carol,

With all due respect it is the quality of your aruguments not your credentials that interest me. I don’t mean this in a mean-spirited way, but your resume does not make you right.

I believe you are a good person, I believe you are smart, I just don’t believe you are right.

Iowa Mike

I accepted that you do not think me right a long time ago, on the other thread. How often do you need to tell me? I do not need your approbation, and I am not seeking it. But I felt, perhaps incorrectly, that my experience as a researcher might help to legitimise whatever observations I have, and to make them more than just opinions.

You could just accept that I do not agree with you, and then we would both be happy and satisfied.

I notice that you do not answer questions - a criticism you will remember making of me - so I will ask you what you mean by the quality of my arguments. I would like to improve if I can.

I do not recollect that you have made any arguments so I am afraid I cannot comment on them.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

You are again deliberately putting words into my mouth: where did I predict the demise of the Church? Where did I ever suggest that the Church should bow to secular and pop culture pressure? What nonsense!

The Church will be intact if it grows, adjusts and focuses on Christ. Name me five great religions, or more, that no longer exist. Two thousand years is actually not a long time, is it?

I have no doubt the core beliefs of the Church will be extant for centuries to come - but the Church itself might look substantially different from the one we know now, not out of necessity, but because - as we see now - it is desirable, especially in cases of social rights and social justice.

Carol,

These are your words from your mouth via your keyboard:

I have said elsewhere that all great religions must grow and adjust within changing contexts, or else they die. I believe this to be true. History shows it to be true. The Church will have to make a choice here, and her adherents as well.

You went on to say:

but the Church itself might look substantially different from the one we know now, not out of necessity, but because - as we see now -it is desirable, especially in cases of social rights and social justice.

What exactly do you mean by changing contexts? What do you mean when you say religions must grow and adjust within changing contexts, or else they die? What do you mean by social rights and social justice? I think the meaning and context of your remarks are quite clear and I agree with you that they are nonsense.

Regarding the number of religions that have disappeared, think of their disappearance as a testimony to the truth of the RCC that is standing strong after more than 2000 years.

If you think Christs Church needs to change to man’s behavior, you are badly and sadly wrong.

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

G.K Chesterton said something else too: One of the reasons he believed the Catholic Church was true was because “it made a definitive statement first and was proven right later.” I think *Humanae Vitae *is a sterling example of this.

Amen brother.

Iowa Mike

 

[MrS]

Christ could not foresee many of the things that have happened to the world since his resurrection. He could not have known about global warming, or the pandemics which threaten to overwhelm us now.

I have said elsewhere that all great religions must grow and adjust within changing contexts, or else they die. I believe this to be true. History shows it to be true. The Church will have to make a choice here, and her adherents as well.

.

You are so off base it is truly sad. Gee maybe you should have been there to teach Christ a thing or two

 

[guanophore]

It’s great to know that you are thinking about long term solutions whilst people are contracting the virus daily
Do you realise how that sounds?
Basically this is about controlling people - and judging people for their disease. You’re saying they are to blame for getting HIV, whilst denying the means to limit the transmission.
The people that have these ideas are those remote from the problem who need the least about the situation - this is the saddest thing. You are happy to feel better about yourself by condemning others to death.

No, Jack, I think it is about teaching people to control themselves. No one can “control” someone into chastity. It has to be a personal decision. It sounds to me that many of these people are not to blame for gettng HIV, and it is for exactly that reason that I think condoms would have limited value. I deal with rapists every day, and I can tell you that they are quite adamant about not using condoms. The Catholic Church does not condemn others to death, death is an inherent consequence of living in a culture of death, in a fallen world. Distributing condoms, while it may do something to stem the tide, will not solve the fact that we live in a culture of death in a fallen world. The only solution to that is the kingdom of heaven, in which we can live in the world, but not be “of” it.

What I don’ t understand in reading all these posts is why does the CC have to have something to do with distributing condoms anyway? Isn’t that the function of the public health department? Why does it need to involve the Church in any way? I will keep reading this thread, and look for the answer to that.

 

[MrS]

You are again deliberately putting words into my mouth: where did I predict the demise of the Church? Where did I ever suggest that the Church should bow to secular and pop culture pressure? What nonsense!

The Church will be intact if it grows, adjusts and focuses on Christ. Name me five great religions, or more, that no longer exist. Two thousand years is actually not a long time, is it?

.

well to quote you, it sounds like you suggest that at the very least:

I have said elsewhere that all great religions must grow and adjust within changing contexts, or else they die. I believe this to be true. History shows it to be true. The Church will have to make a choice here, and her adherents as well.

oopps…should have read #577 first… so consider this post an affirmation.
.

 

[hosemonkey]

“Christ could not foresee many of the things that have happened to the world since his resurrection. He could not have known about global warming, or the pandemics which threaten to overwhelm us now.”

That posting by Carol Coombe exibits the heights of arrogance that he/she has ascended. She has been there, done that and got the t-shirt. Gives great insights as to what God Himself knew and didn’t know. wish we could all sit at her feet. Sorry, uncharitible. Your large helpings of learning would better accompanied with side dishes of humility. As another poster has observed, resumes don’t make you right. There’s a lot of highly educated idiots out there.