F
fiddler927
Guest
I use the words fruit and works interchangeably.
- Status
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
I wasn’t really making a serious comment about Luther’s mental state (just about religion in general). Not that this discussion really concerns me; but obviously Luther was far from insane. He certainly promulgated a theology that was much closer to scripture than anything the CC said since Augustine. After that came Calvin, who describes the meaning of scripture better than anyone. Of course since none of it is true it hardly seems very relevant to me to contemplate who is more right among a bunch of people quibbling over an absurd fairy tale.
I am curious to understand why you people prevent the progression of medical science, prevent the distribution of lifesaving condoms to third world peoples, etc. all in the name of ancient mythology that has no more credibility than Santa Clause or the tooth fairy.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
when I was younger … yes I had the misfortune to waste my time reading it. So yes under your terms I would be a full blown heretic (since I don’t believe in religion at all; but have been both baptized and confirmed a Catholic).By the way Humble, have you read the Cathecism of the Catholic Church?
Cinette
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Humble_in_doubt,
Well, it seems like you have quite a sense of both humor and irony. The humor is in the way you change directions (as evidenced by calling Luther ‘nuts’ but then not being serious) and the irony is in the name you have chosen: there is neither humility or doubt in any of your posts. But, let’s see what can be done about your expressed concern about the AIDS victims in Aricia and the stand taken by the CC.
After you handle that, now try this - from Voice of America: voanews.com/english/2009-03-18-voa33.cfm and, then finally the actual statement from The Holy See. Here is the link: vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20010627_declaration-aids_en.html If you want the real answer - read this. If you just want to vent, why not vent somewhere else?
The first thing to consider is that this is a disease and as such, should be treated like one. I was not able to find a diagram for the spread of AIDS, but, here is one on River Blindness: timpanogos.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/river_blindness_cycle-carter-center-alberto-cuadra.jpg There are many common features in the spreading of any disease: there is a pool of the micro-organisms that are living a basically undisturbed life and are simply multiplying, then there is way for that a micro-organism to be carried to a host. In AIDS, the pool exists in an infected person and is usually spread by either sexual contact or illegal IV drug use. The infected person now spreads it to an un-infected person and the cycle continues. Believe me, this is a very simple explanation - there are very complex organism and multiple ways a disease can be spread. The ‘take home message’ is that if you break the cycle of transmission at any point, you have broken the spread of the disease. The ‘pool’ of AIDS is located in infected people. if there were a vaccine that knocked out this disease - that would take care of this problem. Lacking a vaccine, the next step is to look at the method of transmission - person to person - and now we are looking at basically uncontrolled sexual activity and IV drug use.
So, how does this work (or, in case of AIDS and condoms, not work) in practice. Comdoms have been around a long time before the AIDS virus was discovered. Not having access to condoms was never a reason given for the spread of the disease - and having them can not be substantiated as reducing the disease! Why? Well, the disease is still around and that tells me that condoms are not working. Now, whether the fault lies with the product or the use of the product is immaterial - simply giving condoms out is not going to do anything with regards to this disease.
The CC is speaking as a moral authority - not as a health care authority. In this particular case of AIDS in Afiricia, however, the two can focus on a single issue from different perspectives. The CC is advocating that sex be used only within the context of marriage by partners faithful to one another. Health care advocates have no real argument about abstaining from sex as a means of eliminating the spread of this disease - except, it is not popular. Health care officials know that if people were faithful in marriage, this disease would not have spread like it has - but, again, it is not a popular position. So, Instead of simply being honest and advocating for marital fidelity - and the respect for women, and the family and a stable home life (way to complicated when compared to just passing out condoms!) they cop-out and criticize the Pope.
The concern with just passing out condoms is that it gives people the false sense that they are protected from their own destructive behavior. Not only is this a false presentation, but it is actively encouraging the destruction of the African family.
To summarize: condoms do not work, as evidenced by the fact that they have not worked - for over 30 years we have had an epidemic! And, the only safe sex is between faithful partners in marriage - and who can honestly argue with that? Answer: only those who want license to act as they want and have no responsibities afterwards. Well, get a grip: that approach will only encourage the spread of AIDS - in Africa or any where else.
Well, it seems like you have quite a sense of both humor and irony. The humor is in the way you change directions (as evidenced by calling Luther ‘nuts’ but then not being serious) and the irony is in the name you have chosen: there is neither humility or doubt in any of your posts. But, let’s see what can be done about your expressed concern about the AIDS victims in Aricia and the stand taken by the CC.
Let’s start out with a non-religious newspaper (“Telegraph UK”) reporting on Pope Benedict’s trip. Here is a link: telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/5005357/Pope-Benedict-XVI-condoms-make-Aids-crisis-worse.html
After you handle that, now try this - from Voice of America: voanews.com/english/2009-03-18-voa33.cfm and, then finally the actual statement from The Holy See. Here is the link: vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20010627_declaration-aids_en.html If you want the real answer - read this. If you just want to vent, why not vent somewhere else?
The first thing to consider is that this is a disease and as such, should be treated like one. I was not able to find a diagram for the spread of AIDS, but, here is one on River Blindness: timpanogos.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/river_blindness_cycle-carter-center-alberto-cuadra.jpg There are many common features in the spreading of any disease: there is a pool of the micro-organisms that are living a basically undisturbed life and are simply multiplying, then there is way for that a micro-organism to be carried to a host. In AIDS, the pool exists in an infected person and is usually spread by either sexual contact or illegal IV drug use. The infected person now spreads it to an un-infected person and the cycle continues. Believe me, this is a very simple explanation - there are very complex organism and multiple ways a disease can be spread. The ‘take home message’ is that if you break the cycle of transmission at any point, you have broken the spread of the disease. The ‘pool’ of AIDS is located in infected people. if there were a vaccine that knocked out this disease - that would take care of this problem. Lacking a vaccine, the next step is to look at the method of transmission - person to person - and now we are looking at basically uncontrolled sexual activity and IV drug use.
So, how does this work (or, in case of AIDS and condoms, not work) in practice. Comdoms have been around a long time before the AIDS virus was discovered. Not having access to condoms was never a reason given for the spread of the disease - and having them can not be substantiated as reducing the disease! Why? Well, the disease is still around and that tells me that condoms are not working. Now, whether the fault lies with the product or the use of the product is immaterial - simply giving condoms out is not going to do anything with regards to this disease.
The CC is speaking as a moral authority - not as a health care authority. In this particular case of AIDS in Afiricia, however, the two can focus on a single issue from different perspectives. The CC is advocating that sex be used only within the context of marriage by partners faithful to one another. Health care advocates have no real argument about abstaining from sex as a means of eliminating the spread of this disease - except, it is not popular. Health care officials know that if people were faithful in marriage, this disease would not have spread like it has - but, again, it is not a popular position. So, Instead of simply being honest and advocating for marital fidelity - and the respect for women, and the family and a stable home life (way to complicated when compared to just passing out condoms!) they cop-out and criticize the Pope.
The concern with just passing out condoms is that it gives people the false sense that they are protected from their own destructive behavior. Not only is this a false presentation, but it is actively encouraging the destruction of the African family.
To summarize: condoms do not work, as evidenced by the fact that they have not worked - for over 30 years we have had an epidemic! And, the only safe sex is between faithful partners in marriage - and who can honestly argue with that? Answer: only those who want license to act as they want and have no responsibities afterwards. Well, get a grip: that approach will only encourage the spread of AIDS - in Africa or any where else.
J
John7
Guest
what’s wrong with Santa Clause…
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
let me stop you right there (I’m sure somewhere in there you or an article you cite will say something absurd like condoms aren’t effective in fighting AIDS … whatever). I’m really not here to quibble about what the Pope thinks about distributing condoms, thankfully we elected a liberal Pres. & one of the first things he did was to reinstitute this sound policy .
As for my name … you’re right, I have no doubt nor am I humble
****OK maybe I’m humble sometimes.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
Santa is cool … so is Jesus. Great stories for the kids, but let’s face it fairy tales should not form the basis of public policy?
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Not necessarily: his being condemned does not make him a heretic - it’s the other way round: he was condemned for heresy, because he was judged to be a heretic. One can be condemned on all sorts of grounds, even if one is orthodox: sacrilege, for example, or attempting to murder a bishop; or committing bigamy.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Bliar is hardly a convert, except externally. A celebrity “catch”, possibly. The former Bishop of London is worth any number of Bliars - now there’s a convert. Mgr. Leonard explains why he converted, here:
- [ad2000.com.au/articles/2002/mar2002p8_938.html (http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2002/mar2002p8_938.html)
- [Pro-lifers reject Blair’s abortion spin (http://www.spuc.org.uk/news/releases/2004/july7a)**
**
M
motstraumen
Guest
Just look into any history of the Reformation and you will find him. Try to understand the context of the time before you grap a scrap and throw it a certain group or person as damning. We all fall short and can only rely on God’s grace!
D
distracted
Guest
no, they shouldn’t…
I’m thankful Jesus has diabused me of all the “fairy tales” i was beleiving…
for instance, i used to believe God didn’t want me …
such a lie…
only the rosary saved me from that false belief… and i mean ONLY… nothing else worked…
from there i was fortunate enought to find the Real Presence…
i pray you go There some day… Most Churches are open 9-5… and if you go There & just sit quietly with Jesus, saying nothing… well, it is very interesting…
D
distracted
Guest
yes, the RCC condemning him as heretic IS enough… because the Christ was instituted by Jesus Christ, who is the Word Incarnate… and told us that His Church would never “lose” against the gates of Hell…
Jesus keeps his word…
too bad nobody else seems to… but tha’s another story…
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Got it in one 
- the T-presence is a spiritual presence. What it is not, is grossly material (many Catholics seem to be Ultra-Realists in belief, which makes them material heretics).
If it could be broken by the teeth, it could not be multiplied without also multiplying the Passion of Christ: it would be impossible without a continual re-crucifying of Christ. The Body of Christ is no more broken by the teeth when received, than an idea is broken when it is shared.
There is where C. S. Lewis is so helpful - he does a lot to dispel the idea that a spiritual entity is gaseous, foggy, unsolid: & thus, unreal (in the “popular” sense of the word “real” - which is not the sense it bears in RC Eucharistic theology). I think this uncorrected notion or assumption that the spiritual is the unreal (in the “popular” sense of the word “real”) is what makes a lot of Catholics unwilling to
affirm that the Eucharistic Presence is spiritual. An edible Jesus is much easier to imagine. And perhaps to adore.
N
nsper7
Guest
In response to the OP’s post, I remember reading about this sort of thing in an undergraduate history class (“Jews in the Early Modern Period” it was called).To compare Luther to Hitler is incorrect, although Hitler used Luther’s words to try and get some Christians to support the Holocaust.
Luther never called for the extermination of Jews. I believe his goal was to try and force Jews to try and force Jews to convert to Christianity by basically making their lives very difficult until they agree to convert. Secondarily, by destroying synagogues and Jewish writings and forbidding Jewish teaching, he was trying to prevent further dissemination of Judaism and make Judaism impractical, if not impossible, to practice (i.e. no buildings, no holy writings, no one allowed to train Jewish leaders and teach Jewish theology).
Luther’s goal was not extermination of human beings, but the elimination of a religion that he viewed as patently incorrect and bringing all Jews to Christ by any means necessary. The fact that Hitler used Luther’s writings does not mean Luther was genocidal, only that Hitler was and that he could manipulate writings. It is a fine line, yet very distinct.
Now, the morality of what Luther intended to do is a whole other discussion, but my reading of history is that he was NOT promoting genocide or some Early Modern version of the Holocaust.
Luther never called for the extermination of Jews. I believe his goal was to try and force Jews to try and force Jews to convert to Christianity by basically making their lives very difficult until they agree to convert. Secondarily, by destroying synagogues and Jewish writings and forbidding Jewish teaching, he was trying to prevent further dissemination of Judaism and make Judaism impractical, if not impossible, to practice (i.e. no buildings, no holy writings, no one allowed to train Jewish leaders and teach Jewish theology).
Luther’s goal was not extermination of human beings, but the elimination of a religion that he viewed as patently incorrect and bringing all Jews to Christ by any means necessary. The fact that Hitler used Luther’s writings does not mean Luther was genocidal, only that Hitler was and that he could manipulate writings. It is a fine line, yet very distinct.
Now, the morality of what Luther intended to do is a whole other discussion, but my reading of history is that he was NOT promoting genocide or some Early Modern version of the Holocaust.
J
jean8
Guest
M
motstraumen
Guest
Hi, Jean. I’m a Lutheran pastor. Here is the Papal Bull excommunicating Luther. His main error was questioning the authority of the pope, but also questioning indulgences, purgatory, and others listed in this letter.
cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a040.html I tis not the easiest thing to read but you will get the drift.
C
CJ_Nick
Guest
Hello motstraumen,
" Papal Bull " ??? What exactly is this Papal Bull ??
Also, could you tell me if it is common practice for " Lutheran Pastors " to post things in this Christian light ???
Thanks and God bless
CJ ( A Papal Bull follower
)- Status