Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Wouldn't it be Great if there really was a God? (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Wouldn't it be Great if there really was a God?
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church entrusts the fate of infants and the unborn to the mercy of God:

CCC #1261 states:

As regards children who have died without baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God, who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children, which caused him to say, 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them' [Mark 10:14, cf. 1 Tim. 2:4], allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy baptism.

A revision has been suggested to the present Pope which would say that all children who die do so "in the hope of eternal salvation."
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, the position is now "We're not saying they're going to hell, and we hope they don't, but they might, so you better baptize them just in case?"
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Funny thing is - I was actually baptized Catholic when I was born. You know, it might not be such a bad idea to get your kids sprinkled with some holy water whether you're Catholic or not, just to hedge your bets.

[ September 19, 2006, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Should I make a pilgramage to Mecca as well, just to hedge my bets? Not to mention, make sure I die in battle to give me a chance of meeting Valkyries?
Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It wouldn't hurt. I bet Odin is pissed.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
(hoarse voice, Italian accent):

"Just pay Jimmy whatchya owe and you can go to Fantasy Island, for all we care. You want-a respect, you gotta show respect."

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
(wise guy persona):

"Odin? ODIN?!? Ha! Lissen to this mook, Sal. A Norwegian heavy weight! Big timber, eh? Ha! SOme dumb lumberjack's gonna muscle in on our turf, eh? Gonna swing a big axe and mow us down?!? I tell you what. YOu go back to your lumber camp, and -----"

Odin's Hammer replaces his dentures with a cranial veranda dentata...

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hobsen, from the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913 we have:

quote:
IX. NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

Theologians distinguish a twofold necessity, which they call a necessity of means (medii) and a necessity of precept (præcepti), The first (medii) indicates a thing to be so necessary that, if lacking (though inculpably), salvation can not be attained, The second (præcepti) is had when a thing is indeed so necessary that it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin; yet, ignorance of the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance. Baptism is held to be necessary both necessitate medii and præcepti. This doctrine is rounded on the words of Christ. In John, iii, He declares: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." Christ makes no exception to this law and it is therefore general in its application, embracing both adults and infants. It is consequently not merely a necessity of precept but also a necessity of means. This is the sense in which it has always been understood by the Church, and the Council of Trent (Sess, IV, cap, vi) teaches that justification can not be obtained, since the promulgation of the Gospel, without the washing of regeneration or the desire thereof (in voto), In the seventh session, it declares (can. v) anathema upon anyone who says that baptism is not necessary for salvation. We have rendered votum by "desire" for want of a better word. The council does not mean by votum a simple desire of receiving baptism or even a resolution to do so. It means by votum an act of perfect charity or contrition, including, at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary for salvation and thus especially to receive baptism, The absolute necessity of this sacrament is often insisted on by the Fathers of the Church, especially when they speak of infant baptism.

quote:
XI. UNBAPTIZED INFANTS

The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, on Scripture and tradition, and the decrees of the Church. Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The same doctrine is found also in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull "Lætentur Caeli" of Pope Eugene IV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that authorized for the Orientals by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV. Many Catholic theologians have declared that infants dying without baptism are excluded from the beatific vision; but as to the exact state of these souls in the next world they are not agreed.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#IX

I was not aware that a catechism could override an authorative council (such as Trent), but I do agree, I much prefer the new user friendly Catholic Church [Wink]

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mormegil
Member
Member # 2439

 - posted      Profile for Mormegil         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As far as the doctrine of infant damnation, there is not a single shred of evidence for it in the Bible. Any religion claiming to be Bible-based and also claiming that babies can go to hell is a false religion, plain and simple.

As for what God does and doesn't do to intervene, consider this: in the book of Genesis, Joseph's brothers sell him into slavery and lead his dad, Jacob, to believe that he's been killed by wild animals. Years pass, and it turns out Joseph was alive and in Egypt all along... and God never told Jacob! All the times that God spoke to Jacob, and he never once said "by the way, your son isn't really dead." Jacob said "I will go down to Sheol weeping for my son" and God didn't correct his misapprehension.

Even with God's own hand-picked people, he was very hands-off. He does a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff, but he also set up the universe to run on certain rules, and he lets it just run on it's own. He "sends rain on the just and the unjust."

*If* there's a God, why couldn't he have some reason for setting the world to work this way that we simply aren't capable of understanding right now?

If you argue that there *couldn't possibly* be a good reason, and therefore God must not exist, well, you must know everything then, because if you don't, one of the things you don't know might be that there is such a reason.

But I do think a lot of the outrage stems from already believing that this life is all there is. Jacob is in paradise now, and I'm sure that, while he didn't like being kept in the dark about his son's death while it was happening, he is now okay with it.

When King David's son was sick, he prayed and fasted. When his son died, he got up and ate. His servants didn't understand, and he said there wasn't any point in praying any more because it was now too late. He also said "he will not return to me, but I shall go to him." Which, if there is a heaven, makes sense. Why be outraged at God for his son's death when he son was in greater comfort now than he'd ever been in? And David knew he would see him again.

Posts: 800 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe it was new revelation.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mormegil:
quote:
As far as the doctrine of infant damnation, there is not a single shred of evidence for it in the Bible. Any religion claiming to be Bible-based and also claiming that babies can go to hell is a false religion, plain and simple.
quote:
This doctrine is rounded on the words of Christ. In John, iii, He declares: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God."
Right, now that we've established that Christianity is a "false religion, plain and simple" we can get on with the rest of our lives.

Of course, whether that verse proves the prior Cahtolic Doctrine is a matter of interpretation, but it is a matter of interpretation and nothing says theirs is worse than yours. I do not think a God who could command Saul to kill all the Amelekites "man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass" because of something their ancestors had done 400 years before can be assumed to not punish infants for their "original sin".

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Sa/1Sa015.html
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Exd/Exd017.html#16

quote:
*If* there's a God, why couldn't he have some reason for setting the world to work this way that we simply aren't capable of understanding right now?

If you argue that there *couldn't possibly* be a good reason, and therefore God must not exist, well, you must know everything then, because if you don't, one of the things you don't know might be that there is such a reason.

I quite agree. The "problem of evil" as a disproof of the existance of god fails. BUT if all you can say is that there might be a reason that God knows, then you yourself have no explanation for suffering, and you yourself can therefore provide no solace to those whose children suffer. All that religion offers is that there might be a reason that justifies the pain, but then all it is offering is that there might not be either. Cold comfort indeed.
Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rightleft22
Member
Member # 2832

 - posted      Profile for rightleft22   Email rightleft22   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The following is from the novel "Absolute Truths" by Susan Howatch
quote:

Artist – "Creation has to be the greatest pleasure in the universe, but it can be pretty damned harrowing when the work's in process"

When things go wrong I don't chuck in the towel. I just slave harder than ever to make everything come right. That's what its all about. No matter how many disasters happen, no matter how many difficulties encountered, I can't rest until I've brought order out of chaos and made everything come right.

Of course I made a lot of mistakes, I turned down various blind alleys and had to rework everything to get back on course. But that’s normal. You can't create without waste and mess and sheer undiluted slog – you can't create without pain. It's all part of the process. It's the nature of things"

"No creator can forget! If the project starts successfully you're hooked, and once your hooked you're inside the work as well as outside it, it's part of you you're welded to it, you're enslaved, and that's why it's such bloody hell when things go adrift. But no matter how much the mess and distortion make you want to despair, you can't abandon the work because you're chained to the thing, it's absolutely woven into your soul and you know you can never rest until you've brought truth out of all the distortion and beauty out of all the mess – but it's agony, agony, agony – while simultaneously being the most wonderful and rewarding experience in the world – and that's the creative process which so few people understand. It involves indescribable sort of fidelity, hope and love. You love your work and you suffer with it and always – always – you're slaving away against all the odds to make everything come right."

Theologian –
"When the work is finally finished does every step of the creation make sense? All the pain and slog and waste and mess – how do you reconcile yourself to that? Is every disaster finally justified?"

Artist –
"Every step taken – every bit of clay touched – they're all there in the final work. If that hadn't happened, then the creation wouldn't exist. In fact they had to happen for the work to emerge as it is. So in the end every major disaster, every tiny error, every wrong turning, every fragment of discarded clay, all the blood, sweat and tears – everything adds meaning. I gave it meaning, I reuse, reshape, recast all that goes wrong so that in the end nothing is wasted and nothing is without significance and nothing ceases to be precious to me"

Theologian –
So you're saying that the creative process includes a very strong doctrine of redemption"

Artist –
"I don't trust those theological words, - speaking as a creator I'd say he makes too damn many mistakes. I deal in inert materials, God deals in living creatures. If I were one of God's creative mistakes – a child dying of congenital disease, perhaps – I'd want to kick God in the teeth"

Theologian –
"So would I, but if God never wills the suffering and works always to redeem it – if he's driven on by hope, faith and love to make everything come right – if he's inside the work as well as outside, sharing the pain and suffering alongside his creation…."

Artist –
"I'd still want to kick him in the teeth and scream at him for making such a mess."

Theologian –
I saw now that her art was her religion and she felt no need for another. Yet how could she ultimately journey in her art if she remained self-centered and not God-centered? To be centered entirely on the self is inevitably to be limited in one's range; to be centered on God, aligning one's own puny self with the power of the Creator, is to be open to the spiritual range of all humanity, to be in touch with the eternal, not merely the ephemeral.

With such a narrowed vision does she risk failing to reach her full potential – or was she in her preoccupation with beauty and truth, not so far from being God-centered as I in my arrogance supposed? Certainly one could argue that God was using her talent to express beauty and truth – with the result that in her Godlessness God was still revealed."

"It was not coincidental that despite its abiding tone of melancholy there was a sense of the triumph of life over death at the core. “In the absence of hope we must still struggle to survive, and so we do – by the skin of our teeth.” – William Styron (Darkness Visible - A Memoir of Madness)

[ September 19, 2006, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: rightleft22 ]

Posts: 935 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mormegil
Member
Member # 2439

 - posted      Profile for Mormegil         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So-called new revelations wers predicted in the NT and denounced ahead of time.

Paul said, "if anyone preaches to you any gospel other than that which we preached, let him be anathema."

You probably can't get too much more anathema than preaching that babies go to hell.

Posts: 800 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was pregnant 3 times. Twice I had the exact same problem during my pregnancy. Both times I prayed that God would let my baby be OK. Once out of the two times I prayed a warm feeling came over my body as if a blanket was wrapped around me and instantly my baby that was in distress, was perfectly fine. She was born and is now 26 years old.

Should I discount the fact that God did a miracle in my life that day... because my prayer was not answered for my other child?

I don't know why some prayers are answered and others seem to fall on deaf ears but God has miraculously touched my life twice and I am glad that He did.

Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mormegil
Member
Member # 2439

 - posted      Profile for Mormegil         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
This doctrine is rounded on the words of Christ. In John, iii, He declares: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God."
Right, now that we've established that Christianity is a "false religion, plain and simple" we can get on with the rest of our lives.
Oh please. First, Jesus isn't talking about babies. Second, he isn't even talking about heaven in this passage.
Posts: 800 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mormegil
Member
Member # 2439

 - posted      Profile for Mormegil         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
BUT if all you can say is that there might be a reason that God knows, then you yourself have no explanation for suffering, and you yourself can therefore provide no solace to those whose children suffer.
I'll agree I most likely can't provide solace to those whose children suffer. But that doesn't mean I don't think I have a sufficient explanation of suffering. Perhaps I can't explain it very well. Perhaps I know it wouldn't be believed. I know people who have lost children and do not lose their faith in God. And yet even they would never be able to provide solace to many people, even though they experience it themselves.
Posts: 800 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Oh please. First, Jesus isn't talking about babies. Second, he isn't even talking about heaven in this passage.
Regardless of what your interpretation is, there is no question that this verse (and several others) can be interpreted as supporting the previous(?) Catholic doctrine. Your interpretation that it does not puts you at odds with the vast majority of theologians, Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant prior to the 20th century. By your claim this means Christianity has been a "false religion, plain and simple" for at least 1700 years of its 2000 year existence. As it happens, not even Christianity has been immune to the post enlightenment ethical growth of the Western world, culminating in Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr; so that interpretation is probably not the majority interpretation now (though it would still hold a significant minority).

There is no question either, that the former Catholic interpretation is in keeping with the apparent ethics of the God of the Old Testament. Isaiah even describes one of the benefits of heaven as being the existance of a balcony from which the suffering of those in hell can be watched and gloated over.

quote:
I'll agree I most likely can't provide solace to those whose children suffer. But that doesn't mean I don't think I have a sufficient explanation of suffering. Perhaps I can't explain it very well. Perhaps I know it wouldn't be believed. I know people who have lost children and do not lose their faith in God. And yet even they would never be able to provide solace to many people, even though they experience it themselves.
If you have a sufficient explanation, you can expound it. If you cannot expound it, or if you need to appeal to mysteries beyond human comprehension (and ergo, beyond your comprehension) in order to expound it, you don't have an explanation - you just believe and hope that there is one.
Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Everyone who is pro-abortion better hope that babies don't go to Hell, either that or there is no God... because they would have sending countless babies to Hell to account for when they stand before God.

Winkey ducks as she leaves the thread. [Eek!]

Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
By your claim this means Christianity has been a "false religion, plain and simple" for at least 1700 years of its 2000 year existence.
Actually, that is pretty much what the LDS church claims. When they discuss the founding of their church they use the phrase "Restoration of the Gospel."
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by winkey151:
Everyone who is pro-abortion better hope that babies don't go to Hell, either that or there is no God... because they would have sending countless babies to Hell to account for when they stand before God.

Winkey ducks as she leaves the thread. [Eek!]

I don't think I've ever even HEARD of someone that's pro abortion unless you're talking about those eugenics wackos. [Confused]

[ September 19, 2006, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
John, your arguement reminds me of Ivan Karamozov's arguements.

At least, an Ivan Karamozov without the asshole-ness, who isn't using the question as an excuse to be an asshole, and who isn't using the question specifically to hurt his brother Alyosha.

It's the most powerful, most damaging, most damning ( [Big Grin] sorry, bad pun) arguement against the existence of God that I've ever seen. None of the other stuff comes close to this, in my view. This is pretty much it, and it comes down to it.

Free will: We have the power to choose what we want. But can we choose what we want to choose? That's the problem. I used to think free will was the linchpin... but it isn't. It doesn't work well enough. I know that I can choose to make whatever choice I want, but I'll make a choice. But why couldn't God give us "free will" where we always wanted to be good?

What is God, really? What is the point of all the needless suffering, especially of children? To be of benefit to others? That's bull****. Even Jesus said bad things don't happen because of God. the Book of Job argued it was inscrutible.

But Jesus was right. It doesn't happen because of anything, it happens because that's the nature of the world.

And what sort of God would allow the world to be as it is...?

Well. If we happen to die at the same time, KE, you should know that I'll be tagging along with great interest to see what God says to your challenge, if we get to meet him.

Oh! Ivan Karamozov had a great arguement about that. Even if God shows you why it all happened, even if he showed forgiveness and the REASON, even if he forced us to accept it... we would no longer be what we are, it would not be our true selves, the ones who accept it because He says so.

Ahh, Dostoyevsky.

But yeah, John, your arguements mirror it. This problem of evil cannot really be explained.

I have no answer. I know nothing of the world, and in truth nothing about God, at least, not really. I don't even know what He's not.

But that's the Big Problem: If God is perfectly good, and God is perfectly powerful, how can evil exist?

Only two of those statements can be true. God is good, God is all powerful, evil exists.

Most arguements seem to end up, at their core, that evil isn't real. In other words, evil doesn't exist, because God is using what seems evil or that it doesn't really hurt us or etc.

No... I don't believe that, though. Evil's real.

So, which of the other two is false? Maybe that God is perfectly good. Because if he's the God that created this universe, an amoral universe in which the only ones who created Good and Evil were humans...

We were supposedly created in His image. And good and evil both exist solely in us. Perhaps God isn't good.

Of course, maybe some of those fundamentalist Christians and Muslims are right. Maybe God IS the Tyrant Monster that they worship.

Or he's neglectful. Or he's off playing with another universe.

Either way... the God of the fundamentalists is my enemy. The God that would send humans into eternal torment when He creates them to be the way they are, that God is my adversary.

The sort of human-hating God a lot of people believe in is humanity's enemy.

The proper word for such an enemy is Satan.

So maybe God's the Satan.

Or maybe He doesn't exist.

I dunno, I'll sleep on it again and get back to myself on the subject. I'm hungry so I'm gonna go eat.

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't think I've ever even HEARD of someone that's pro abortion unless you're talking about those eugenics wackos.
I was expecting something profound and all I get is a split hair over terminology.
Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
All Solomon had to offer was a sword and two halves of a former whole baby.

We're trying, winkey.We'll say something profound yet.

But we don't think of ourselves as pro-abortion. We like the term pro-choice because we qre for the power to choose partuition or not. We are NOT promoters of abortion. I have no ground floor opportunity in an abortion multi-level marketing company took hype on you.

Anyway, better split hairs than split babies, yes?

I am pro-responsible sex. VERY pro, in fact. I get... excited just thinking about it. But I get very sad thinking about unwanted babies. The facty a woman is willing to abort a fetus is something of a clue.

As for the debate on who, in effect, 'owns' a woman's fetus; I;ve weighed on that plenty in the past. I wonder if something will be said that will entice me to weigh in again.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
We're trying, winkey.We'll say something profound yet.

Thanks kenmeer... I am looking forward to reading it.

But does your explanation about pro and anti prefixes go for those who say that I am pro-war?

Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But does your explanation about pro and anti prefixes go for those who say that I am pro-war?
Dunno. Who's saying it? I haven't and I don't think that kenmeer has either. If you believe it's a distortion of your views, then you should attempt to correct that distortion rather than look for a way to similarly distort the views of others.

[ September 19, 2006, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom Curtis, the extract from the Catholic Encyclopedia certainly explains your post regarding the fate of unbaptized infants. But the Council of Trent in 1545 was succeeded by the First Vatican Council in 1869 and the Second Vatican Council in 1962, and the current catechism reflects the views of the latter. One reason for calling Vatican II was that it was felt that the Council of Trent, summoned in response to the Reformation, had been too defensive and too legalistic. After all, asserting that unbaptized infants can never experience the beatific vision amounts to setting limits on the power and love of God, and as you remark for no very good reason.

Wikipedia has an interesting article detailing the progress of its attempt to swallow the Catholic Encyclopedia. It seems they identified over 12,500 entries with lots of valuable information. And they found no uniform bias, but a general lack of editorial control. Thus any article might turn out to represent only the opinion of the author - perhaps an extreme one - rather than being representative of Catholic opinion of its time, let alone ours. So it must be used with care.

Dante's Limbo--technically the first circle of hell--included virtuous non-Christian adults in addition to unbaptized infants. These were deprived of the beatific vision, but endured no positive suffering. That never became official Roman Catholic doctrine, but something like it represented the common teaching in 1913. Officially the Church has never claimed to know. As you quoted from the Encyclopedia, "but as to the exact state of these souls in the next world they are not agreed."

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mariner
Member
Member # 1618

 - posted      Profile for Mariner   Email Mariner       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom, the Catholic Church still maintains (post Vatican II and all) that Baptism is the only known method of getting into heaven. However, it has backed off on the statement that just because it's the only known method doesn't mean it's the only method. Like hobsen said, the Church isn't trying to limit the powers of God. And the Church has no problems admitting they don't have all the answers of how the afterlife works out. Besides which, this new version tends to be more in line with the Gospels anyway, at least a couple passages from it (the story of the lambs and the goats at the end of time and the person casting out demons using Jesus' name, for instance).
Posts: 538 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
But does your explanation about pro and anti prefixes go for those who say that I am pro-war?
Dunno. Who's saying it? I haven't and I don't think that kenmeer has either. If you believe it's a distortion of your views, then you should attempt to correct that distortion rather than look for a way to similarly distort the views of others.
The term Pro-War is regularly used. For lack of time I will only post a few from this forum...
quote:
Whether you happen to be pro war, anti war, or simply ambivelent to war with Iraq, Ornery members pretty much already covered this long ago. In fact we all pretty much hashed these issues out even before the war.
quote:
This list drives me nuts, I was hoping to see a list that actually encompassed the true best and worsts of 2005, but it was a just a pro war republican agenda list.

I'm not saying that some of these aren't the bests and worsts of 2005, I'm just saying anyone who agrees exactly is probably a fool.

When, Oh when, will someone come along to unite this country, this divide is ridiculous...when's our next civil war, I wonder.

quote:
Paladine

My point is that the argument as to what the argument is has made almost any attempt at reasonable discussion almost impossible. The pro war and anti war camps cant even agree as to what constitutes a war. Which to me is incredible. The point I am trying to make, is that regardless of your personal approach to the issues of USA policy, you could read the above counterpane reality in multiple ways. The real trick is knowing what we know about how things really turned out, vs how they turned out in the above fictive work, is there or could there be a third reality that satisfies both sides of the argumentative perspectives of the pro policy and antipolicy? And if there is, can we draw valid conclusions about our policy as it exists now to effect an outcome which satisfies both camps.

Personally I am a bit extreme and have at times called for nuking various islamic sites to hold terrorists hostage to any further aggression, or even declaring war on the entire Islamic world and conducting a heck of a crusade. To be frank I find our policies timid and require an endurance that is not availible in the American public. Knowing this, I think anything short of a 24 hour video extravaganza war of shear subjugation of Islam falls far short of what is needed.

And on that note its time for bed after watching Friday practice at Suzuka Japan to see if McClaren can at least get the constructors championship

quote:
I think the second word describes this one best.

Heard there were like 5 ppl who showed up for the pro war (arugh!) rally. How embarassing!

I was just wondering if the same consideration could be used for those of us on the other side of the political isle. It seems that the conservative point of views don't rate.
Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For what it's worth, and without trying to offend, I do think that being "pro war" is more descriptive of an actual viewpoint than "pro abortion" is. Did you support the decision to go to war? If so, it's not a distortion to say you were "pro war." I would put myself in the same camp. I was convinced by Bush & co. at the time and I would have labeled myself as pro war at that point. I was for (pro) the war.

The "pro choice" side of the abortion issue supports a woman's right to make the decision herself as to whether to get an abortion. I am in this camp. I'm not pro abortion and I think most abortions that occur today are not even minimally justified. I support a woman's absolute right to choose for herself whether to have an abortion while also stating that I don't believe it is the correct choice in most cases, even most cases involving rape or incest.

[ September 19, 2006, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom, you are making a very basic mistake: not entering Heaven is NOT the same as going to Hell in Catholic theology.

The works you cited speak of not achieving salvation, not going to Hell:

quote:
"Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God."
quote:
the Council of Trent (Sess, IV, cap, vi) teaches that justification can not be obtained, since the promulgation of the Gospel, without the washing of regeneration or the desire thereof (in voto), In the seventh session, it declares (can. v) anathema upon anyone who says that baptism is not necessary for salvation.
quote:
Moreover, ... those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven

Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I do think that being "pro war" is more descriptive of an actual viewpoint than "pro abortion" is.
There are many people who are "pro-abortion" in the sense you use "pro-war" here.

I'm assuming, of course, that you aren't assigning the position of being in favor of all war to those who you say the label fits. Rather, as in your example, those in favor of a specific war can be called "pro-war."

And I know many people who are pro-abortion, not merely pro-choice, in many cases.

Beyond that, it would be more accurate to say pro-choice-concerning-abortion than merely pro-choice.

Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
tj

Nice to see you around, Dag!

/tj

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hey, Funean!
Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well... do you support keeping abortion laws intact that allows people to abort their children on demand?
If so then I think that Pro-Abortion fits nicely.

It doesn't matter what you feel in your heart it matters what is done because of your support.

I accept the responsibility when innocent life is taken during war. Do you accept the responsibility when people abuse the abortion laws?

Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I also want to add that I don't have a problem with someone calling me pro-war. People can say what they want. But, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Well... do you support keeping abortion laws intact that allows people to abort their children on demand?
If so then I think that Pro-Abortion fits nicely.

Nonsense. I am anti-abortion, I think there are vanishingly few conditions in which an aportion is appropriate. I just don't think the government should decide which conditions qualify.

I don't think you should ever strike your kids, but the fact that I would object to legislation outlawing corporal punishment doesn't make me "pro spanking." I also don't think that prohibition was a good idea, but that doesn't make me "pro alcohol." I support loosening drug laws to make marijuana legal, but I'm not "pro drugs"

Just because a given policy may have negative consequences as individuals exercise their own free will does not mean I am "pro" those negative consequences.

By that logic, you're not "pro war", you're "pro civilian casualties."

quote:
Do you accept the responsibility when people abuse the abortion laws?
Absolutely not. Any "abuse" that occurs is a result of those people exercising their agency and they alone are responsible for their actions. If God exists and He is just and those that are aborted have souls then there will recieve their appropriate reward. Those involved in preventing those souls from coming into this world will also be accountable and be treaty justly.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Winkey,

I can't tell you how glad I am that those good things happended to you. And I guess I'm an optomist, but to me and my son too. He is happy healthy and not horribly disfigured or in pain. Not that I care what he looks like but it would make his life ininitely harder.

But what about the boy in my first post? What about all those 'other' children. You're a mother. Doesn't it tear at your heart and soul? It does mine.

I'm mot asking for a perfect world, just one where childern don't suffer. Maybe there is a reason they have to. But the mortal I am can't see one that doesn't make me want to spit in God's eye.

Over the years I've presented many reasons for my dislike of religioin, this is my real one hatred of God, if he exists.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pickled shuttlecock
Member
Member # 1093

 - posted      Profile for pickled shuttlecock   Email pickled shuttlecock   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I knew a woman who had become irreligious because a friend's baby died. Her friend was still devout. The irreligious woman spent an awful lot of time consumed by hate and confusion. The devout one was generally quite happy and well-adjusted.

Rather than empathize with the woman who lost a child, this irreligious woman was taking a very self-centered view on things. How can I make such a bold claim? Well, if she truly empathized, she'd be glad her friend found a way to pull through it and be happy. Instead, she spent her time concentrating on how the child's death made her feel.

So, KE, maybe you could try, instead, to be glad that such a thing as religion exists to provide solace to many of those who have had horrible things happen to them and theirs. In your perfect world without religion, they'd all be a lot angrier than you are, and live a lot more miserably than they do now.

Not that I intended to preach or anything.

Posts: 1392 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You are right, and I am glad for those people. Sometimes I feel guilty about possibly taking that comfort away. If only it wasn't wrapped up in all the other stuff. (I told this to Pete just the other day on the phone.)

I would never say to a mother "your child is dead, not in Heaven!" I would do almost anything to take away her suffering.

I have this same issue with my dad who believes because he wants to see his dad, and me eventually, again in Heaven and it makes him happy.

There are many great things about religion, and I've said I envy people who can believe. But it is in my nature to point out the inconsistincies and dangers of some of those beliefs.

I truly am sorry if I've ever caused anyone pain, like that.

KE

[ September 20, 2006, 04:22 AM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I do think/believe that humans should do more. Do better. Make cars that don't explode. Protect each other. Evolve past our need to kill and destroy. Prolong life. Erradicate cancer, disease, and hunger.

And I believe WE can do it. I have faith in us. (****, did I say faith?)

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1