Non-denominational Christians

[guanophore]

I did not ask you to be my teacher: I did not get a choice. But you have done your best with me. I am not aware of attacking anyone, but speaking with authority, and asking legitimate questions, which is what the Forum is supposed to be about.

I think there is a presumption that people are coming here for answers, which maybe makes an assumption that they are wanting to learn, and perhaps the senior posters felt an obligation to attempt to provide perspective or information?

If you were not coming to learn, and not to convert, then that leaves the option that you are using the forum as a place to work out your inner debate. There is nothing wrong with that either, except that your style of debate is confrontational, and brought some unwanted heat on yourself.

Oh gosh, what is this about ‘humbly receiving teachings’? My whole life I have been taught to believe nothing of what I hear, and only half of what I see.

What if the time has come for a new way?
Carol Coombe;2092575:

I think it is incumbent upon learners or listeners or questers to examine the proposition to determine whether or not it is correct… Do you agree? And what is this humble jazz please?

So if you do not want to feel defensive, what would you like me to do, other than being humble, gracious and accepting?

I agree that it is incumbent upon learners to examine a proposition. However, in many of your posts, you start out by saying “I don’t believe…” If you start out sounding like you have your mind made up, then where is the examination? I don’t think there is a better way to avoid putting people on the defensive than humility, meekness, and acceptance. A soft answer turns away wrath. And I don’ t mean by saying that you cannot be authoritive on a subject, or firm. Jesus did not compromise His authority in his meekness and humbleness of heart.

Did you understand that many people wish to be chaste, and that this was a long and strong tradition in many African communities.

Truthfully? No, it sounded like rampant madness from reading your posts. Also I am impregnated by an HIV training I had here, which basically described the childbearing (sexually active?) part of the population to be decimated by disease, children orphaned, only grandparents and little kids. What happened to chastity?

Do you understand that we are well past the missionary stage here: our Churches look just like yours, and ours has a congregation of about 2000, with another being built to hold 2000 by 2010.

No, at least, if the behavior of the natives is as you describe, it certainly seems like there is much more missionary work to be done. It sounds as if a lot of these people do not know who Jesus is, much less grasp that treating others badly is the same as desecrating God. ARe you saying that the people that belong to the Churches are not part of the problem? Only heathen?

But a couple of beers often makes for confusion - and then the condom must come into play. We do not always choose our fate - especially if we are women (see other postings on this).

I have a lot of postings to get to, but I do understand that women are taken advantage of and placed at risk for infection, as are children, and some men. It is not their fault. But don’t you think the person drinking the beer has any responsibility in their fate?

Can you contemplate that in Zambia, only 10 per cent of the population is in employment, and that 70 per cent of people live on less than one US dollar per day? Job training would not help many - but better clinic training, health visits to schools, more action by churches and other nongovernment organisations on counselling and testing would all help. If you want information on this, write me a private message, and I will send you what you want to know, or direct you to a source that can help to keep you informed.

It seems to me that all these things can happen, and do not need the Church to interfere, or to promulgate Her teachings upon the recipients. Am I wrong about that? these are public health and social problems that can be addressed on that level. If you need a spiritual solution,then the church can become involved. Why conflate the two?

 

[lak611]

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.

Christ foresees everything that has happened in the world since His resurrection, and He knows everything that will happen until the end of time. He is God, who is omniscient.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

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. My postings have suggested that it is not rapists principally who need condoms - see elsewhere.

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. OK, then take it from a step further back: reduce the poverty, ignorance and disease, hunger and homelessness for those among whom HIV is rife. Make the change needed in all our societies, and do not give HIV a place to plant its roots.

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. The answer to this is that most governments, in Africa and in Asia (and Islamic countries cannot be read because women are in purdah and men are not talking) are in denial about HIV, they do not have money or inclination or plans to deal effectively with the pandemic. As a result, it has become clearly the responsibility of people themselves to save lives: that means local communities, teachers and health workers and social workers; faith-based organisations of all kinds; international and national nongovernment organisations as well as international bilateral and unilateral agencies (USA, UK, France, UN, World Bank etc). And OK, if the RCC does not feel good about distributing condoms, someone else in the network can do that, and the Church of Rome can retain its dignity by setting up teaching programmes, working with abandoned street children, providing money for centres for orphans without homes, feeding children who would otherwise starve, training homebased care teams to go out to care for the dying. There is certainly plenty to do without getting hung up on condoms.

 

[arcadia]

I’m sorry, but what in the world is a chaste person going to do with a condom?

Condoms may save some lives by preventing the spread of HIV. They are not fullproof.

It seems to me that if secular Doctors want to help the spread by giving out condoms so be it. Some might argue that this promotes promiscuous sexuality. I do not know. They are already very promiscuous.

It seems to me however that Jesus seemed far more interested in our final destination (heaven). The culture in some parts of Africa is such that men oppress women and there is a macho attitute whereby the women do the vast majority of the work while the men are very promiscuous. (I generalizing so please be gracious). I recently returned from Suriname South America. The largest people group in that country are black african heritage. The slaves of the Dutch plantation owners escaped from their masters and fled into the jungle to re-establish their African tribal villages in South America. There, AIDS is spreading very rapidly. Many men have 3 wives and many other partners. So many single Moms trying to feed their children while hubby is off somewhere with new wife.

When a person become a Christian then Jesus must become his or her new culture. They must divorce themself from the old way and adapt to Him. They must repent from their old lifestyle and adopt a new christian lifestyle that honors mother, father, wives, etc. I believe this is the only way to live in this world and the next.

In Christ,
arcadia

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Originally Posted by guanophore

*I think there is a presumption that people are coming here for answers, which maybe makes an assumption that they are wanting to learn, and perhaps the senior posters felt an obligation to attempt to provide perspective or information? *Senior posters are senior because they post a lot. That does not mean they are authoritative. Or have I got it wrong again?

If you were not coming to learn, and not to convert, then that leaves the option that you are using the forum as a place to work out your inner debate. There is nothing wrong with that either, except that your style of debate is confrontational, and brought some unwanted heat on yourself*.I was coming to learn! Why else would I be here – except to seek serenity in a network of believers: I believe; help thou my unbelief.*
*I have suffered lifelong from my confrontational style, and understand how it must have grated on people whose belief is fundamental. I too have suffered a share of confrontation: refer to horsemonkey above. This does not excuse my hardheadedness. There is however a reason: my style also attempts to be authoritative as my profession has required that, my publications have required that, and my experience has required that. The two have been, in your word, conflated. I need a good kick (not horsemonkey’s) to become less confrontational, and am sure I could given greater humility and impetus on my part. I find it hard to consider giving up an authoritative stance in support of facts, observations, suggestions, and intelligent and genuine questions. *What if the time has come for a new way? Let me think.

*I agree that it is incumbent upon learners to examine a proposition. However, in many of your posts, you start out by saying “I don’t believe…” If you start out sounding like you have your mind made up, then where is the examination? I don’t think there is a better way to avoid putting people on the defensive than humility, meekness, and acceptance. A soft answer turns away wrath. And I don’ t mean by saying that you cannot be authoritive on a subject, or firm. Jesus did not compromise His authority in his meekness and humbleness of heart. *I was raised on your wrath quote. Why can a proposition not start with a ‘this is what I do not believe, now tell me what I might believe so that I can consider it, so that I can understand it, so that I can realize its potential, so that it can become real to me, so that I can process it head and heart’. And why cannot I say to someone ‘what you have posted is ill-considered, let’s start again’? The problem, and perhaps the first and most fundamental crisis, is that people expect that I will believe all that they tell me to believe (who has not done that?), and that I can believe all that the Church of Rome has taught them to believe. Let me think.

I am impregnated by an HIV training I had here, which basically described the childbearing (sexually active?) part of the population to be decimated by disease, children orphaned, only grandparents and little kids. What happened to chastity? Can we believe that our African brothers and sisters – and others here – are so inherently different from us ethically and sexually that the disease is rife here? Is this racist? Yes, sexually active adults have an infection rate of between 20 per cent and 40 per cent in this region. I visited a village in Zimbabwe with not one living adult: all childheaded households. Grannies have coped, just, until they died, exhausted from caring for up to 40 grandchildren while planting the food to feed them. They are mostly gone now, and the extended family system that provided support in the past is breaking up. That is the situation on the ground. I have explained elsewhere – please see posts – that it is not necessarily related to chastity or lack of it. Chasteness has been a traditional value, and I saw it and lived with it when I first came to Africa as a volunteer forty years ago. See other posts.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Continued (2)

*No, at least, if the behavior of the natives is as you describe, it certainly seems like there is much more missionary work to be done. It sounds as if a lot of these people do not know who Jesus is, much less grasp that treating others badly is the same as desecrating God. ARe you saying that the people that belong to the Churches are not part of the problem? Only heathen? *Oh Guan, we do not have natives, we have very few missionaries (perhaps some holding out in the Congo) because they have been replaced by Doctors Without Borders, the United Nations programmes, Peace Corps and other volunteers, World Vision and other quasi-church organisations, the bilateral aid programmes of wealthy governments (USA, Britain, Canada), and unilateral agencies like the UN and the World Bank. As I understand it, the Catholic Church is growing faster in Africa than anywhere else. I am not sure how to answer the rest of this comment, and will perhaps consult with Msgr Marc, who spent 25 years in the townships of South Africa. There are huge numbers of Christians all over Africa. But when I say that the Catholic Church is not monolithic, I intend that explicitly to mean that despite the Vatican’s wishes and best efforts, local belief is developed locally. Yes, we hope that the Bishop has the correct message from Rome, and that he passes that on to the priests, both European and American, and new indigenous religious. But in the chaos that is Africa, it does not always work like that. People believe, they live in that belief in Jesus, meetings start with prayer – all kinds of meetings – and usually hymns. We sing our way through degradation and death with praises to God and Christ.Our evangelical churches provide hope for the afterlife, when pain will be gone, and all that is wished for is given by our blessed Christ, Lord Jesus. The ZCC (Zionist Christian Church) has just met at its simple centre at Moriah: over 1 million members (total membership 6+ million) came there for Easter, to sing, pray, dance and be blessed with great joy. They are people of their own church, and people of great integrity.

Given all this, perhaps useless, information it is certainly true as it is elsewhere, that members of RCC and other faiths stray. Why? If you lived in these conditions where would you find your joy? If you lived in a village with nothing but a tavern, what would you do in your spare time? I am trying to find employment, books, learning opportunities, something to think about for a lovely 30 year old man. What does he do in his lonely room, when he is stuck there 24 hours a day? Read his Bible. Our Church is trying to help – but he is only one of of the millions of lost people.

I have a lot of postings to get to, but I do understand that women are taken advantage of and placed at risk for infection, as are children, and some men. It is not their fault. But don’t you think the person drinking the beer has any responsibility in their fate?* Of course, of course. But we know, from experience on university campuses across Africa, that kids get pretty drunk after two beers. Answer: remove all liquor outlets from all campuses. That has been the first reaction, along with setting up counseling and testing centres. But then along come the drugs. We are now into tik, a chemical compound that is easily made anywhere, and readily available to anyone, at very small cost. Schools are rife with drugs, because of the greed of the dealers, and schools are dangerous places to be for many students. Where do we go from here? My mind boggles.*

*It seems to me that all these things can happen, and do not need the Church to interfere, or to promulgate Her teachings upon the recipients. Am I wrong about that? these are public health and social problems that can be addressed on that level. If you need a spiritual solution,then the church can become involved. Why conflate the two? **Yes I have written about that elsewhere and you will find the answer there perhaps. *

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Christ foresees everything that has happened in the world since His resurrection, and He knows everything that will happen until the end of time. He is God, who is omniscient.

I apologise for my error here. You are correct.

 

[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.

Carol,

Your arguments for the most part are completely empty. They are based upon your views of Christianity or the human condition. They are simply just your opinions. Well, just because you say it or think it or believe it does not make it so.

For example you said, Christ could not foresee global warming etc…hello…don’t you believe in the divinity of Christ?..don’t you believe he is all knowing?

For example you posture that all great churches must change or die… apparently you don’t believe the RCC is a great religion even though it has lasted for over 2000 years. Instead you make the same unfounded and empty claim in another post as if it were fact.

For example, your arguments against the doctrine of transubstantiation on the basis of natural law were poorly thought through, empty of logic and sad. When I asked you why you demand literal proof of transubstantiation but accept the existence of God without literal proof…no answer. In another post I pointed out that you must not believe in any of the miracles of Jesus because natural law is suspended whenever a miracle takes place…again no response.
When I provided you with numerous proofs of transubstantiation from scripture…you either ignored them or simply dismissed them by saying, “I don’t trust anything handed down orally”.
What a great argument!

In an earlier post today you accused me of putting words in your mouth, you said:

**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!
**

I gave you a detailed response by saying:

These are your words [Carol] from your mouth via your keyboard:

Quote: (Carol)
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:

Quote: (Carol)
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.

Then I asked you the following questions:

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 also said the following:

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.

From you: No response, no historical proof… you simply repeat the same error in your next post.

I also said the following:

(Iowa Mike) If you think Christ’s Church needs to change to [accomodate] man’s behavior, you are badly and sadly wrong.

I’m still waiting for your answers to these and other questions posed to you on this forum by me and other forum members.

Well here is another chance for you to answer these questions and explore RCC teachings…but I doubt you will do so.

Iowa Mike

 

[guanophore]

Senior posters are senior because they post a lot. That does not mean they are authoritative. Or have I got it wrong again?

No, I think you have it right. But I also think they post a lot because they have a lot to say. What they are saying must be basically consistent with the forum rules and purpose, because they are not getting banned for breaking them.

I was coming to learn! Why else would I be here – except to seek serenity in a network of believers: I believe; help thou my unbelief.
I have suffered lifelong from my confrontational style, and understand how it must have grated on people whose belief is fundamental. I too have suffered a share of confrontation: refer to horsemonkey above. This does not excuse my hardheadedness. There is however a reason: my style also attempts to be authoritative as my profession has required that, my publications have required that, and my experience has required that. The two have been, in your word, conflated. I need a good kick (not horsemonkey’s) to become less confrontational, and am sure I could given greater humility and impetus on my part. I find it hard to consider giving up an authoritative stance in support of facts, observations, suggestions, and intelligent and genuine questions.

I realize it is difficult, but if you want a different experience in an environment such as this, then it will have to be done. I will use one of your posts as an example.

.

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

This is a bold, direct assertion. When I read it, I am puzzled. I think to myself, ‘why?’ I cannot understand why religious issues should complicate consideration of health issues. You do not say" it seems to me" or “could it be possible” or “perhaps”. It is very direct and conclusive. It does not come across sounding as if there is any room for another point of view.

I do not accept…

Other phrases you have used are “I don’t believe” “It is intolerable” and other statements that are definite conversation stoppers. If you have already made up your mind (which it sure sounds like you have) what is the use of any discussion?

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.

Here is an inflammatory assertion, the nature of which you may not even appreciate. What you are saying here is that Jesus is not God. If He is not omniscient (could not foresee) then He is not God. You are also implying that the saving work He did, and the instruction He provided is somehow insufficient to meet our current modern need. That implies that the deposit of faith He left with His church is inadequate. ARe you following my track here? You are wondering why your expressions are taken as demeaning and insulting,and I am trying to show you how it gets there from where you started.

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.

Is infallibility a yoke (constraining burden)? If infallibility does not apply, then basically you are saying that Christ did not provide His church with the fundamental tools to be able to solve the problems in the modern world. Couple that with other postings that the church needs to change and keep up, or it will dissolve, and it amounts to saying that the Church must adapt to modernism or become extinct.

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 am not sure what you are saying the Church needs to make a choice about, but from the general context, you have already stated or implied that 1) the Head of the Church (Jesus) is not omniscient (not God), that2) He did not provide sufficient guidance and truth to cope with modern problems, and 3) The Church needs to change or die.

I am not sure how much Catholic teaching you are throwing out the window here, but it is considerable.

(continued)

 

[guanophore]

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.

Here you are saying that there is something possible wrong with JPII’s beliefs. I am not even sure what they are, but then you say that the Vatican’s considerations (results of commission?) are problematic and convoluted. So it appears that the Pope and the Vatican both get aspersions here.

I was raised on your wrath quote. Why can a proposition not start with a ‘this is what I do not believe, now tell me what I might believe so that I can consider it, so that I can understand it, so that I can realize its potential, so that it can become real to me, so that I can process it head and heart’. And why cannot I say to someone ‘what you have posted is ill-considered, let’s start again’? The problem, and perhaps the first and most fundamental crisis, is that people expect that I will believe all that they tell me to believe (who has not done that?), and that I can believe all that the Church of Rome has taught them to believe. Let me think.

Only you can know, but it seems to me that it will be hard to think when your omind is already telling you “this is what I do not believe”. It is not right for people here to tell you what you can or should believe. People can hold out how they see the truth, but you must evalutate it for yourself. I believe it is the way you think out loud, but it is really a conversation stopper.

What happened to chastity? Can we believe that our African brothers and sisters – and others here – are so inherently different from us ethically and sexually that the disease is rife here? Is this racist?

I think probably not racial, but very possibly cultural.

I have explained elsewhere – please see posts – that it is not necessarily related to chastity or lack of it. Chasteness has been a traditional value, and I saw it and lived with it when I first came to Africa as a volunteer forty years ago. See other posts.

I have not made my way through all the posts yet, but I will. I am still confused about what happened to the traditional values.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Within a generation, all sexually transmitted diseases would be gone.

WRONG!!! - ever heard of vertical transmission?
how does Hep B most commonly get spread?
what was bejel?
how do neonates get HIV and “the snuffles”?

 

[jack_hawkins]

I am not condemning anyone to death. If a person has HIV, he or she needs medicine to control the amount of virus in his/her bloodstream, which should be made available to anyone who is infected, even if he/she is poor;

…and you think that testing and treatment are freely available in all countries?
so despite your protestations, you are condemning people to death

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Carol,

Your arguments for the most part are completely empty. They are based upon your views of Christianity or the human condition. They are simply just your opinions. Well, just because you say it or think it or believe it does not make it so.

God gave me the gift of travelling and learning the human condition, and I have been humbly grateful. My life has been richly textured by people and places.

I posted until 0500 Pretoria time last night,and then could do no more. I am sure I have made errors in several places, but for the most part the information on HIV is useful and correct.

I made an error when I said that Christ could not have foreseen the HIV crisis or global warming. Of course he did. But then I should have said that the Church has not been able perhaps to interpret his insights yet, as to the correct response to this pandemic or to the rapid increase in the temperature of our environment which threatens all of us.

So I apologise heartily for stating that Christ could not have foreseen these crises - of course he did. This must have offended many people, and in fact many wrote and reminded me of my error. I am sorry.

What I should have said is that the onus is now on the Church to determine its response in terms of people’s lives, based on its interpretation of holy scripture.

I have seen all your questions and comments Iowa Mike. Please understand that there have been many questions, comments, observations and criticisms thrown in my direction from various posters in the past 24 and more hours. I have tried diligently to answer as many as possible. I hope the picture I painted of the HIV pandemic is vivid enough to encourage all of us to learn more, and to try to understand what the role of our local churches might be.

And also to understand what the stance of the Vatican might be once we know, after 30 years of the pandemic raging across the globe, what its stance is on the basis of its interpretation of scripture.

That sounds odd to me, come to think of it: that we should determine our response to the death of 70 million people already, the infection of hundreds of million more, and their impending death, in terms of the teachings of Christ recorded from written and oral records 2000 years ago. I find it hard to get my mind around that apparent dichotemy. But the position is that one must wait for the correct interpretation of scripture, no? That there is nothing to do but care for the sick, dying, orphaned and starving until the Vatican has spoken about how to help prevent the deaths. That there is nothing we can do to stop the dying off our own initiative. It is a difficult thing to think about, and significant.

I cannot answer your posting now: I am not available for some weeks as I will be away. This is not an attempt to avoid your pointed questions: I am just letting you know I will be somewhere else and out of touch. And I think perhaps I have answered enough questions about my beliefs for the present. It is time to reflect and pray. I know you will understand.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

One last observation here. I find it fascinating that by far the majority of posters have returned again and again to what the Church says, and their understanding of it. There has been virtually no discussion of the pandemic, and its global and humanitarian implications for us as Christians, except in terms of condoms and all that involves.

When you were confronted by the fall of the Twin Towers in New York, how did you react? Was your first reaction to say, wait, wait, let me think about how Christ and the Vatican would tell me to deal with this?

Or do you think those first firemen, many of them Irish and firmly Catholic, raced up those stairs to save as many lives as they could, in the end losing their own lives? They reacted to a crisis, responded, did what they could do, and died doing it.

Who is prepared to die for humanity, as Christ did? Or must we wait for instruction? Must we look to our own souls first, and then the lives and souls of others?

 

[MrS]

What I should have said is that the onus is now on the Church to determine its response in terms of people’s lives, based on its interpretation of holy scripture.

.

Another strange coment… do you think, or are you saying that the Church should repeat or rethink something that it has already made clear.

Contraception in any form is evil and forbidden… there is no “onus” on the Church to respond to the latest form of contraception, or the latest “need” to excuse a wrong. The answer is and has been instruction in a moral life, and developement of a well-formed conscience.

.

 

[MrS]

One last observation here. I find it fascinating that by far the majority of posters have returned again and again to what the Church says, and their understanding of it. There has been virtually no discussion of the pandemic, and its global and humanitarian implications for us as Christians, except in terms of condoms and all that involves.

When you were confronted by the fall of the Twin Towers in New York, how did you react? Was your first reaction to say, wait, wait, let me think about how Christ and the Vatican would tell me to deal with this?

Or do you think those first firemen, many of them Irish and firmly Catholic, raced up those stairs to save as many lives as they could, in the end losing their own lives? They reacted to a crisis, responded, did what they could do, and died doing it.

Who is prepared to die for humanity, as Christ did? Or must we wait for instruction? Must we look to our own souls first, and then the lives and souls of others?

in this analogy, the reaction was to get rid of the evil, and that effort still goes on (assuming cut and run politicians don’t win out).

Under what I think your premise might be… we should allow the evil to exist because it exists… and instead just build stronger building, and increase security.

Condoms… and terrorists… wrong… both wrong. And they need to be eliminated.

Unless you know of a way for parents of future terrorists to all start using condoms to prevent future pain and suffering

.

 

[guanophore]

the onus is now on the Church to determine its response in terms of people’s lives, based on its interpretation of holy scripture.

I hope the picture I painted of the HIV pandemic is vivid enough to encourage all of us to learn more, and to try to understand what the role of our local churches might be.

And also to understand what the stance of the Vatican might be once we know, after 30 years of the pandemic raging across the globe, what its stance is on the basis of its interpretation of scripture

I think it is much broader than scripture, because in the Tradition of the Church there have been many sweeping pandemics. I think that the church has already spoken on these matters, and it remains for us, as you say, to apply these teachings in our local parishes.

That sounds odd to me, come to think of it: that we should determine our response to the death of 70 million people already, the infection of hundreds of million more, and their impending death, in terms of the teachings of Christ recorded from written and oral records 2000 years ago. I find it hard to get my mind around that apparent dichotemy. But the position is that one must wait for the correct interpretation of scripture, no? That there is nothing to do but care for the sick, dying, orphaned and starving until the Vatican has spoken about how to help prevent the deaths. That there is nothing we can do to stop the dying off our own initiative. It is a difficult thing to think about, and significant.

You have put your finger on the essence of why the Magesterium is so important to Catholics. It is a living and constantly present direction for the times in which we live. Your posts have reflected the sense of despair and hoplessness that will befall anyone of compassion faced with this level of devastation. All that the church teaches about the gospel of Jesus and the identity and dignity of the human persons will save lives. I don’t think that ALL of them would be saved, since we still live with the consequences of sin. But the pandemic is being enflamed by sinful behavior, and correcting that will be the best treatment. Granted, this will not address public health issues, which I think need to be taken care of as well.

jesus said "the poor you will always have with you, and emphasized how important it is to care for them, as well as the infirm, the imprisoned, and the disenfranchised. I don’t think this is “all we can do” but rather a reflection of caring for Christ Himself, as Mother Teresa taught.

 

[fix]

One last observation here. I find it fascinating that by far the majority of posters have returned again and again to what the Church says, and their understanding of it. There has been virtually no discussion of the pandemic, and its global and humanitarian implications for us as Christians, except in terms of condoms and all that involves.

For one thing the emphasis on condoms is part of the problem. What is the root cause for the spread? It is a behavioral probelem.

When you were confronted by the fall of the Twin Towers in New York, how did you react? Was your first reaction to say, wait, wait, let me think about how Christ and the Vatican would tell me to deal with this?

Well, yes should one think to do the opposite of what Christ wants?

Or do you think those first firemen, many of them Irish and firmly Catholic, raced up those stairs to save as many lives as they could, in the end losing their own lives? They reacted to a crisis, responded, did what they could do, and died doing it.

Where is the analogy? Saving life is great. Again, not all means are good.

Who is prepared to die for humanity, as Christ did? Or must we wait for instruction? Must we look to our own souls first, and then the lives and souls of others?

The basic problem with the entire argument is that we have left out what consitutes good, how one forms their conscience, and that all means to any end are not justified.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

One last observation here. I find it fascinating that by far the majority of posters have returned again and again to what the Church says, and their understanding of it. There has been virtually no discussion of the pandemic, and its global and humanitarian implications for us as Christians, except in terms of condoms and all that involves.

When you were confronted by the fall of the Twin Towers in New York, how did you react? Was your first reaction to say, wait, wait, let me think about how Christ and the Vatican would tell me to deal with this?

Or do you think those first firemen, many of them Irish and firmly Catholic, raced up those stairs to save as many lives as they could, in the end losing their own lives? They reacted to a crisis, responded, did what they could do, and died doing it.

Who is prepared to die for humanity, as Christ did? Or must we wait for instruction? Must we look to our own souls first, and then the lives and souls of others?

Carol,

You just don’t get it…take off your secular-humanist glasses for a minute and think about things from religious point of view.

Jesus Christ laid down his life to redeem man and gave us precepts to live by. Jesus Christ is God and God is omniscient therefore he can see even to the end of time. You are asking God to change his precepts to accommodate man’s current behavior no matter how abhorrent it is; abortion, euthanasia, contraception, divorce etc. Why don’t you think God’s in His wisdom did not make allowances for these things? You need to get your head around this concept Carol, God expects us to live in accordance with his word - - - not yours.

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

God gave me the gift of travelling and learning the human condition, and I have been humbly grateful. My life has been richly textured by people and places.

I posted until 0500 Pretoria time last night,and then could do no more. I am sure I have made errors in several places, but for the most part the information on HIV is useful and correct.

I made an error when I said that Christ could not have foreseen the HIV crisis or global warming. Of course he did. But then I should have said that the Church has not been able perhaps to interpret his insights yet, as to the correct response to this pandemic or to the rapid increase in the temperature of our environment which threatens all of us.

So I apologise heartily for stating that Christ could not have foreseen these crises - of course he did. This must have offended many people, and in fact many wrote and reminded me of my error. I am sorry.

What I should have said is that the onus is now on the Church to determine its response in terms of people’s lives, based on its interpretation of holy scripture.

I have seen all your questions and comments Iowa Mike. Please understand that there have been many questions, comments, observations and criticisms thrown in my direction from various posters in the past 24 and more hours. I have tried diligently to answer as many as possible. I hope the picture I painted of the HIV pandemic is vivid enough to encourage all of us to learn more, and to try to understand what the role of our local churches might be.

And also to understand what the stance of the Vatican might be once we know, after 30 years of the pandemic raging across the globe, what its stance is on the basis of its interpretation of scripture.

That sounds odd to me, come to think of it: that we should determine our response to the death of 70 million people already, the infection of hundreds of million more, and their impending death, in terms of the teachings of Christ recorded from written and oral records 2000 years ago. I find it hard to get my mind around that apparent dichotemy. But the position is that one must wait for the correct interpretation of scripture, no? That there is nothing to do but care for the sick, dying, orphaned and starving until the Vatican has spoken about how to help prevent the deaths. That there is nothing we can do to stop the dying off our own initiative. It is a difficult thing to think about, and significant.

I cannot answer your posting now: I am not available for some weeks as I will be away. This is not an attempt to avoid your pointed questions: I am just letting you know I will be somewhere else and out of touch. And I think perhaps I have answered enough questions about my beliefs for the present. It is time to reflect and pray. I know you will understand.

Carol,

You evade. Keep safe in your travels.

Iowa Mike