Why are these Fora so overwhelming Conservative

[PRmerger]

PR, you place faith in yourself and in your faith choices too. You choose to have faith in the Catholic Church.

This, Matt, is a nonsensical statement. If I put my faith in myself, then I cannot put my faith in the Church.

 

[PRmerger]

What yardstick would you use to measure simony, selling indulgences, the Crusades, and the Inquisition?

I think perhaps you are having a misunderstanding about the difference between orthodoxy and orthopraxy?

The Church has always been correct in her orthodoxy. But in her praxis, not so much. :sad_yes:

Often she has not been orthopractic but rather heteropractic.

 

[PRmerger]

But in the body of Christ, if you fancy yourself an antibody and sinners as cancer cells, then go for it.

This, Alan, is unworthy of you. And unworthy of me.

I hope you apologize, because you hurt my feelings.

For real, this time. :sad_yes:

I can’t imagine what I have said that would make you think that I believe that sinners are cancer cells and that I fancy myself an “antibody”, but, as I type this, I am getting .

Best for me to close our dialogue here.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

If so, then you are acknowledging the authority of the Church to tell you what Jesus did or didn’t do.

OK, so I am. I said I am probably conservative at heart. Gosh, I was elected to conservative office more times than most people here.

And, of course, the Church tells us, to “call down sinners”, just like Christ does.

You say it this way.

I think perhaps you are having a misunderstanding about the difference between orthodoxy and orthopraxy?

I don’t know the technical terms. Mistakes were made.

I can’t imagine what I have said that would make you think that I believe that sinners are cancer cells and that I fancy myself an “antibody”, but, as I type this, I am getting .

Oh, gosh. I think all the time of all the different roles I would possibly be assigned to, if I were a part of the Body of Christ? For example, if God wanted me to be a red corpuscle, I would get to carry oxygen to the other cells. If He wanted me to be a lymph node then I guess I get to filter the water that’s going to the other parts – or whatever it is lymph nodes do.

In this case I think I worded it wrongly and didn’t catch it. I didn’t mean to imply that you saw others as cancer cells. Maybe other organs in the Body of Christ with cancerous specks? Anyway since you have taken offense I think I’ll stop trying to make a point here.

Best for me to close our dialogue here.

Your choice. It’s been real. :tiphat:

Alan

 

[PRmerger]

In this case I think I worded it wrongly and didn’t catch it. I didn’t mean to imply that you saw others as cancer cells. Maybe other organs in the Body of Christ with cancerous specks? Anyway since you have taken offense I think I’ll stop trying to make a point here.

Your choice. It’s been real. :tiphat:

Alan

Oh, Alan. You disappoint.

[sigh]

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/7/10/128917150316483316.jpg

 

[CMatt25]

This, Matt, is a nonsensical statement. If I put my faith in myself, then I cannot put my faith in the Church.

PRmerger, my point was before you could put your faith in your church, you first had to have faith in yourself’s choice as you came of age, to place faith in God, Jesus as Savior, and the Catholic Church. Yourself didn’t choose to place faith and belief in a non Christian religion or another Christian one.

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger, my point was before you could put your faith in your church, you first had to have faith in yourself’s choice as you came of age, to place faith in God, Jesus as Savior, and the Catholic Church. Yourself didn’t choose to place faith and belief in a non Christian religion or another Christian one.

I understand that, Matt.

But here’s the thing: I understand that when I have a different belief than what Christ has proclaimed through the Church, the problem is with ME, not with the Church.

Those who leave the Church because she does not teach what they profess believe that the problem is with the Church.

Does it not make sense that if one is going to be a follower of Christ that one is going to have to change her views on some things?

Not seek a church that conforms to her views?

 

[atheistgirl]

The gif reminds me that some of our trainings in disaster mitigation and such included the emphatic warning that the first nearly intractable human response in the face of disaster is denial. Go figure. I mean, how useful is that?

I know of a couple who’s house burned down, and they were lucky to escape with their lives. Following an investigation, they were accused of starting the fire deliberately, possibly for an insurance payout.

What swayed things for them was their initial statement to investigators.

They reported seeing ash falling and settling on the ledge outside.

Their first thoughs were uh oh, that looks like ash, hot ash, which means there could be a fire in the roof.

Their first action, was to carry on watching tv, because their house couldn’t possibly be on fire

It’s an interesting response.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

The problem was, as one of the analysts described, that when the failure occurred, the two in the cockpit couldn’t see through the electronics, given that they had been trained to uterly rely on them.

Love it.

And so very apt.

Sarah x

 

[iloveangels]

I know of a couple who’s house burned down, and they were lucky to escape with their lives. Following an investigation, they were accused of starting the fire deliberately, possibly for an insurance payout.

What swayed things for them was their initial statement to investigators.

They reported seeing ash falling and settling on the ledge outside.

Their first thoughs were uh oh, that looks like ash, hot ash, which means there could be a fire in the roof.

Their first action, was to carry on watching tv, because their house couldn’t possibly be on fire

It’s an interesting response.

Sarah x

Atheistgirl,

Your post makes no sense. In point of fact, most people who burn things down walk away unharmed, basically because they know there’s fire because they set it themselves. They often come back after calling the department to watch the fire and pretend they are surprised, because it fascinates them to watch. They get their jollies, but they almost never get hurt. Eventually, they usually get caught because it’s a pattern well-known to fire departments, police departments and mental health specialists alike.

I think here you tried to make a little parable about how you think if the church doesn’t change, it’s going to preside over its own destruction. If you think that, you should have just said so. Even so, it’s a contentious point of view, and not accepted by everyone, by far. In fact, scripture itself denies it.

I’m interested in knowing why you care, given your screen name: “athiestgirl.”

BTW, it’s not “who’s.” It’s “whose.”

 

[PRmerger]

It’s a coincidence that I would see this post right when I happened to have been leafing thru the pages of my Bible and Mark 12 popped up where Jesus told the Pharisees to pay taxes.

Indeed. I don’t think there’s anyone here on this thread who has been proposing that we disabuse ourselves of our responsibility to pay taxes.

But since you mention the Pharisees, and what Jesus said about them, did you know that Jesus also told us to obey them?

 

[iloveangels]

I have an idea for you. The Catholic church in the USA is actually much smaller than many people think it is. Moreover, it’s always been that way. The reason it looks like it does now is that people don’t cover up their real behaviors and intentions like they used to. They no longer pretend–while trying to impress the neighbors–because they no longer live next door to their relatives in an ethnic enclave where everyone is Catholic. Accountability is gone and so the real truth that was always really there comes out.

Anyone who really wants to go to Church can and still does. People who are actually still Catholic generally know that about themselves and act accordingly. But there are lots of hangers-on for whatever reasons of their own. And that’s fine, whatever. That’s all this amounts to.

 

[atheistgirl]

Atheistgirl,

Your post makes no sense.

I don’t actually care that it makes no sense to you. I’m relaying what happened. The couple’s first reashion was not, oh no, the house is on fire, when fased with a ‘‘suspicion’’ someting might be rong, it was denyal.

I think here you tried to make a little parable about how you think if the church doesn’t change, it’s going to preside over its own destruction.

No, you’re completely rong. I was acknowledging what Gaber said about a human response in the face of disaster, or empending disaster, is denial that whats happening, is aktually hapening.

If you think that, you should have just said so.

I’m perfectly capible of and do, say exactly what I think, plaine and simpil.

BTW, it’s not “who’s.” It’s “whose.”

Eny uder mistikes I should no about that you’s spotted?

tanks.

Sarah x

 

[iloveangels]

I don’t actually care that it makes no sense to you. I’m relaying what happened. The couple’s first reashion was not, oh no, the house is on fire, when fased with a ‘‘suspicion’’ someting might be rong, it was denyal.

No, you’re completely rong. I was acknowledging what Gaber said about a human response in the face of disaster, or empending disaster, is denial that whats happening, is aktually hapening.

I’m perfectly capible of and do, say exactly what I think, plaine and simpil.

Eny uder mistikes I should no about that you’s spotted?

tanks.

Sarah x

So why do you care anyway?

 

[iloveangels]

My parents who were totally secular, atheists and highly educated said the same thing. Socialism/communism or any of the “isms” that depend on the honesty and generous spirit of EVERYONE will always fail. As my father said, the problem with socialism and communism is that it doesn’t take into account lazy people or ambitious people. No matter how many times these systems fail, people still think they will work, it’s just a matter of tweaking them…too bad you cannot change our sinful human nature.

As to the thread, why are the CAF so conservative? I think what used to be ordinary traditional values have become “conservative.” If you believe in personal responsibility (which includes responsibility for a life you may create), strong marriages and families (man woman normal marriages not Sue and Jill or Bob and Fred), earned success rather than learned dependency, working to achieve goals such as education, “the American dream,” helping your neighbor, well you are suddenly a dinosaur mired in the 50s. What used to be taken for granted is now considered an anomoly. The Church supports what used to be traditional values and if one is a serious Mass attending and faithful Catholic you are probably going to be labeled “conservative” because of social and fiscal alignment with the conservative politics.

Lisa

Excellent post. I was there and I remember this, as were many other older people. It’s true.

 

[LisaA]

Hi again Lisa, I hope you don’t mind me not quoting your last post to me because with its length and in turn my response, I fear it will surpass the allotted limit of space.

And I have found I’m someone who might define “pro life” and “life issues” differently than many do today. **I certainly for instance do not subscribe to the general thinking I find in many quarters that you are “pro life” if you want to see Roe overturned and you are not “pro life” if you are “pro choice”. **Neither do I accept that pro choice means someone is pro abortion. I would not see myself, if I had a uterus, choosing an abortion. But in terms of secular legislation on this particular issue, I at the same time simply hesitate not to affirm some rights to women in regard to their bodies and reproductive freedom, in regard to freedom and responsibility of individual conscience on this issue. I see abortion as a conflict in rights. On the one hand the rights of the unborn and on the otherhand rights of women. One vs the other. I see it as an especially very difficult issue. I do also though see Roe for instance as attempting to strike some balance. Affirming the rights of women to a point with some restrictions allowed.

.

CMatt like you I can’t repeat the entire post and it’s time consuming to do all the cut and paste so instead I want to bold the statements that I question and ask if you would consider a few questions.

With respect to Roe, I am not hanging my pro-life hat on overturning it although I think it was really bad law (read the entire decision and it’s a head scratcher…) So whether or not someone wants Roe overturned isn’t the deciding factor IMO.

With respect to the second bolded statement, this is one of the arguments that I find completely lacking in credibility…I wouldn’t do it but others must make their own decisions. My acid test is if you could use the same excuse to excuse slavery then it might work. But the same theory “I wouldn’t own slaves but it’s up to you if you want to own them.” Just no substance to that argument.

Regarding the third comment, yes women have the right to do with THEIR body what they wish. However we are talking about someone else’s body, not the woman’s body. That’s where IMO that argument falls apart as well.

I agree the question of abortion is a conflict of rights, that of the woman versus that of the baby. Now there may be some extremely narrow situation where an abortion is justified (I am not talking from a strictly Catholic perspective but a basic human rights perspective) But the reality is that because of the bully pulpit of Big Feminisim and the abortion lobby, the unborn baby has been treated as not human. That is the only way that a woman could actually agree to the procedure. One of the reasons ultrasounds have been so effective in stopping abortion is that a woman can see this isn’t a “blob of tissue” but a human with fingers and toes and a beating heart.

I know that some pro abortion folks pull out the old “rape and incest” canard when in reality not only is this the rarest of circumstances but the fact that a baby was conceived in a violent or disgusting manner doesn’t make the baby less than human.

It is my hope and prayer that some day we will look back on abortion with the same horror and revulsion that we now view slavery or child abuse.

Again thanks for the thoughtful response. I want to address a couple of your other points later.

Lisa

 

[CMatt25]

I understand that, Matt.

But here’s the thing: I understand that when I have a different belief than what Christ has proclaimed through the Church, the problem is with ME, not with the Church.

Those who leave the Church because she does not teach what they profess believe that the problem is with the Church.

Does it not make sense that if one is going to be a follower of Christ that one is going to have to change her views on some things?

Not seek a church that conforms to her views?

Since I know by "the Church " you mean the Catholic Church, it can only begin to make any sense if you put faith in the belief that Christ proclaims through the Catholic Church. As you do. But we’re going in circles so I should perhaps just do what you did with Alan and end our discussion on this thread. God bless you PR in you faith journey and peace.

 

[CMatt25]

CMatt like you I can’t repeat the entire post and it’s time consuming to do all the cut and paste so instead I want to bold the statements that I question and ask if you would consider a few questions.

With respect to Roe, I am not hanging my pro-life hat on overturning it although I think it was really bad law (read the entire decision and it’s a head scratcher…) So whether or not someone wants Roe overturned isn’t the deciding factor IMO.

With respect to the second bolded statement, this is one of the arguments that I find completely lacking in credibility…I wouldn’t do it but others must make their own decisions. My acid test is if you could use the same excuse to excuse slavery then it might work. But the same theory “I wouldn’t own slaves but it’s up to you if you want to own them.” Just no substance to that argument.

Regarding the third comment, yes women have the right to do with THEIR body what they wish. However we are talking about someone else’s body, not the woman’s body. That’s where IMO that argument falls apart as well.

I agree the question of abortion is a conflict of rights, that of the woman versus that of the baby. Now there may be some extremely narrow situation where an abortion is justified (I am not talking from a strictly Catholic perspective but a basic human rights perspective) But the reality is that because of the bully pulpit of Big Feminisim and the abortion lobby, the unborn baby has been treated as not human. That is the only way that a woman could actually agree to the procedure. One of the reasons ultrasounds have been so effective in stopping abortion is that a woman can see this isn’t a “blob of tissue” but a human with fingers and toes and a beating heart.

I know that some pro abortion folks pull out the old “rape and incest” canard when in reality not only is this the rarest of circumstances but the fact that a baby was conceived in a violent or disgusting manner doesn’t make the baby less than human.

It is my hope and prayer that some day we will look back on abortion with the same horror and revulsion that we now view slavery or child abuse.

Again thanks for the thoughtful response. I want to address a couple of your other points later.

Lisa

Lisa, I’m under no illusion on a forum such as this one that I am not heavily outnumbered. And you’re certainly entitled to your opinion regarding arguments. As am I. And I know Catholics on CAF like to compare abortion with slavery and other issues but I consider these apples to oranges comparisons. I like to consider each issue separately and I was not talking about slavery. Abortion is an entirely separate and different issue to me. One of a kind. With the unborn, women are dealing with so many variables as I see it. The embryo/fetus is in the woman’s womb which is part of her body. There’s also the matter of at what point one believes human ensoulment occurs, and when under the law the embryo/fetus is to be given human personhood rights at the expense of women’s rights. To name a few. Now short of protecting her own life, I am not saying I would advocate abortion on demand up until the baby is born even if lets say a woman does not believe ensoulment occurs in the womb. Personally my belief I suspect is much like yours in regard to the unborn. That’s why I would not see myself aborting. At the same time though I can not put myself into every circumstance a woman might be faced with and walk in her shoes. I’m merely saying society attempts a balancing act of all of these conflicts in rights and tries to come up with a law of the land. God understands free will and understands we live in society of many beliefs. I personally may not always be pleased with what society determines. But I also understand if Catholics get their way on everything, a lot of other people are not going to be pleased. We simply don’t live in a perfect world. We live on an imperfect planet called earth not yet in heaven. Abortion will exist even if illegal. So I guess I would rather see it be safe, legal but rare. But when you have one camp so set on just getting everything their way and above all else so focused on this one issue and making it illegal in every case and returning to those back alley days, unwilling to compromise, I fear it can make it difficult to join together to work on those things to make it rarer. What I pray for is not that it’s illegal in secular law but that even if safe and legal, rare. Thank you as well but obviously we are going to I think have to agree to disagree. And I’m sure on other points as well. God bless though and peace.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Lisa, I’m under no illusion on a forum such as this one that I am not heavily outnumbered. And you’re certainly entitled to your opinion regarding arguments. As am I. And I know Catholics on CAF like to compare abortion with slavery and other issues but I consider these apples to oranges comparisons. I like to consider each issue separately and I was not talking about slavery. Abortion is an entirely separate and different issue to me. One of a kind. With the unborn, women are dealing with so many variables as I see it. The embryo/fetus is in the woman’s womb which is part of her body. There’s also the matter of at what point one believes human ensoulment occurs, and when under the law the embryo/fetus is to be given human personhood rights at the expense of women’s rights. To name a few. Now short of protecting her own life, I am not saying I would advocate abortion on demand up until the baby is born even if lets say a woman does not believe ensoulment occurs in the womb. Personally my belief I suspect is much like yours in regard to the unborn. That’s why I would not see myself aborting. At the same time though I can not put myself into every circumstance a woman might be faced with and walk in her shoes. **I’m merely saying society attempts a balancing act of all of these conflicts in rights and tries to come up with a law of the land. God understands free will and understands we live in society of many beliefs. ** I personally may not always be pleased with what society determines. But I also understand if Catholics get their way on everything, a lot of other people are not going to be pleased. We simply don’t live in a perfect world. We live on an imperfect planet called earth not yet in heaven. Abortion will exist even if illegal. ** So I guess I would rather see it be safe, legal but rare. ** But when you have one camp so set on just getting everything their way and above all else so focused on this one issue and making it illegal in every case and returning to those back alley days, unwilling to compromise, I fear it can make it difficult to join together to work on those things to make it rarer. What I pray for is not that it’s illegal in secular law but that even if safe and legal, rare. Thank you as well but obviously we are going to I think have to agree to disagree. And I’m sure on other points as well. God bless though and peace.

That was the lie that was sold to us when the Roe decision came down. That if abortion was legalized, it would be safe, legal and rare. 50 + million babies have been killed since 1973 - you tell me if that’s rare! Because we both know that’s a lot of children murdered in their mother’s wombs. And the figures that were widely publicized about how many illegal abortions were being done, were also lies. Bernard Nathanson, who later converted and became a Catholic, stated that he had helped propagate those lies. Here. Bernard Nathanson testimony.

You have been listening to many lies all along. The one that says you can’t understand what a woman who is pregnant goes through so you can’t have an opinion, being a male - well, a man was present when that baby was created, so of course you can have an opinion! What if we used that same argument when a man murdered another man? “Well, you, female judge, don’t have a penis, so you can’t possibly understand the situation men are in when they murder other men!” Logically, it falls apart at that basic level, let alone the biological fact that since the man helped create the baby, he DOES have a say in what happens to it. Right is right, and wrong is wrong, CMatt, or can’t you see that? Killing an innocent baby in the womb is always, ALWAYS wrong. Once the baby is created, the mother’s “choice” has been made.

The rape and incest cases, I admit, are harder for a lot of people to reconcile, but these are a very tiny percentage of all abortions. And of the studies done on rape victims, the great preponderance of the victims who had an abortion say that the abortion was by far the worse experience. So having an abortion after a rape is like being raped again, only this time the woman knows that she has killed a baby as well. It doesn’t un-rape her. Nothing can take that experience away, but some responses can make things radically worse. The woman deserves better than an abortion and “problem solved.” The same with incest. We can do better than killing the baby and saying, “There, it’s all fixed.” We must do better. Again, these cases are the “rare” examples, so to make law based on them, is simply the wrong choice.

The side that is unwilling to compromise is the one that believes that all life is sacred, and that a baby in its mother’s womb should be SAFE above all, since it was created by God and remains innocent and helpless. You think God understands that we have murdered 50 million babies in the name of “choice?” I think our day of reckoning is coming.

I pray you will be able to think clearly about this issue one day.

 

[LisaA]

Lisa, I’m under no illusion on a forum such as this one that I am not heavily outnumbered. And you’re certainly entitled to your opinion regarding arguments. As am I. And I know Catholics on CAF like to compare abortion with slavery and other issues but I consider these apples to oranges comparisons. I like to consider each issue separately and I was not talking about slavery. Abortion is an entirely separate and different issue to me. One of a kind. .

You are wrong in that. The parallels between slavery and abortion are quite compelling. In the case of slavery there were a class of human beings who were not considered human by certain elements of society. Unborn babies are not considered human beings by those who believe they can be killed without any justification. In the case of slavery, the slave owner had complete power and control over his slaves. He could sell them, abuse them, even kill them. With abortion the mother is in the role of slave owner. She alone decides if the baby lives or dies. The father has no say in the matter. Society has no say in the matter. She has the same power of life or death as the slave master. Finally the same excuses to allow slavery are also used to justify abortion–to wit your statement that you wouldn’t have an abortion but you do not think you can speak for others. Similarly the non-slave owning population looked the other way saying while they may not feel comfortable owning other human beings, it was the choice of the slaveowner what he did and thus could wash their hands of the whole issue. I think this is what many supposedly pro choice people do to assuage their consciouses.

With the unborn, women are dealing with so many variables as I see it. The embryo/fetus is in the woman’s womb which is part of her body.

.

Yes but the unborn baby is not PART of her body. Admittedly the baby is dependent upon the mother to sustain his or her life. But a newborn is also completely dependent upon adults (generally the mother and father) to sustain life. In fact the child is completely dependent upon adults for a number of years.

Would you support killing born babies, toddlers? Does a person have to achieve the age of reason to be considered human? That is the entire issue Matt. Is the unborn baby a human being or not? What do you think?

One of the most compelling stories about abortion was the case of a new mom who found herself unexpectedly pregnant again. It was ‘too soon’ to have another child she decided and she sought an abortion. The doctor after confirming the pregnancy spoke to the mother who was holding her young child on her lap. He asked well why not kill the one you’re holding. After all a young baby is far more expensive, far more effort than the unborn child. The mother was horrified…and then she realized her own request to abort was based on nothing more than the fact that she could see, touch and love the baby she had while the unborn baby was still an unknown. Unknown does not mean un-human does it?

There’s also the matter of at what point one believes human ensoulment occurs, and when under the law the embryo/fetus is to be given human personhood rights at the expense of women’s rights.
.

And what right is that? To murder an unborn human being? The concept of ensoulment is far too ethereal to be a defining issue. When sperm meets egg a completely uniquie and new human being is formed. No he or she is not developed but then neither is a baby. Again would you kill a baby? A toddler? I suspect a few parents might think about killing a teenager but the reality is that there is no difference between an embryo of a human being and a baby other than stage of life. At what stage can we kill with impunity?

But I also understand if Catholics get their way on everything, a lot of other people are not going to be pleased. We simply don’t live in a perfect world. We live on an imperfect planet called earth not yet in heaven.

.

Don’t mean to sound so very '60s but that is a cop out Matt. It is not a Catholic issue, it is a human rights issue. One does not even need to be a person of faith to believe in human rights. People assume I’m pro-life because I’m Catholic. I was pro-life long before I was Catholic and that was an evolution from being completely pro-abortion. I was ignorant and now I believe I know much more, not just theologically but from a scientific perspective. There is no justification for abortion other than 'might makes right" and that is not a concept even the most liberal Democrat would support if it were his ox being gored.

Lisa