[quote]ephrem wrote:That´s exactly how I looked in 2006. It wasn´t fun.[/quote]I’m certainly sorry you had to go through that Ephrem. My point does however stand. You are spiritually and morally, or actually immorally enslaved. You cannot even conceive of anybody being any different than you are. They simply MUST be like you. You know everybody’s hearts just because you’re you. You are the best object lesson so far. Please do keep talkin. [quote]There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.[/quote]16th chapter of the proverbs, 25th verse.
The way the human body works is, in broad strokes, the same for everyone.
That means that the structure of the mind is, in broad strokes, the same for everyone.
Ofcourse we all are unique; how we are “painted” on the canvas of the mind is unique, however, the technique is the same for everyone.
You are basically doing the same thing you accuse me of, it’s just the opposite.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Well, that’s the point, isn’t it. Yes, I do determin what’s moral and what’s not, and so do you.
[/quote]
No, you determine nothing and neither do I. We can act how we wish, but whether it’s moral or not is not up to us. If we act in a way that causes other conscious beings grievous harm, that act is immoral whether we think so or not. That is not up to us, it never has been. Thinking 2+2=5 doesn’t make it so. Likewise, thinking slavery is a-ok does not make it so. It is what it is despite our thoughts on the matter. And THAT is the point.
I don’t feel compelled to confess my weaknesses to you, but sure if I could do what ever I want no matter who it hurts, I could have a little more fun in life. Everybody needs to keeps themselves in check to live a more moral life.
Around in the circle we go. So morality is an individual thing now? So if I thought it was a perfectly moral thing to say rape a family member of yours, it’s ok because I think it’s moral? You don’t see the weankness in that line of reasoning?
Why would it be necessary if its not a moral thing to do? That makes no sense what so ever. Just for the record, I am not a big spanking advocate.
Then it begs the question, why should we do what evolution wants us to. And we are the only species that can consciously and deliberately buck the trend.
China. I don’t think the individuals are immoral by nature, but the overbearing government who interferes with every aspect of thier lives forces them in to situation they cannot do anything about.
So you behave on a completely emotional level? You’ve never had to do some thing hard you did not want to do, because it was the right thing to do?? I would imagine most people have, though. I am constantly doing things I’d rather not, for the good of others.
It’s by default exempt from your ‘mirror neuron excitation’ process. The object of a electo-chemical, biological activity is not the same as the activity itself. I have never understood why that is so hard for you to understand. We can have the exact identical neural activity in our brains and have completely different thoughts. You can have two identical computers, and have different data in each.
[quote]
I’ll even submit, for your consideration, that all our actions are premeditated through feelings and emotions.
We’re not Vulcan, you see.[/quote]
Yeah, no. There’s a lot of emotive thinkers out there. They tend to be women generally. I have done many things in my life contrary to my emotional state.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
This as opposed to many Christians who believe in evolution and would entertain the idea of morality being an evolved thing. Perhaps they believe morality evolved a little differently than an evolutionary biologist may believe, perhaps they believe our morality evolved in a deterministic way with God behind the scenes pulling the strings necessary for us to evolve in such a way that aligns with say the ten commandments. It’s pretty complicated, but Christians, especially Catholic leadership has constantly, and consistently changed interpretation and philosophy in an attempt to stay somewhat modern. It took them a while to admit Galileo was right, men don’t have to fail at fornicating with whores in front of a room of Bishops to prove they failed to conceive in order to have a divorce, and the Papacy isn’t purchased, the Catholic Church is ever evolving as well. [/quote]
Want to show me what you mean by interpretation? Yes, we have changed the philosophy we used because…society has changed how they think. The Catholic Church has no philosophy to speak of. So, we use the best one man has come up with to explain it to modern man, after all philosophy is the handmaiden of theology. 
And, I don’t quite remember anyone admitting that Galileo was right. After all, how can you prove yourself right, when you didn’t provide proof (besides his half cocked wave explanation).
I have no clue what fornicating with whores has to do with anything, and within the Catholic Church divorce is impossible.
Yes, ever new, ever ancient as the motto goes.
Anyway, regards.
BC[/quote]
I was raised Catholic, attended a Catholic High School, I was baptized, holy communion, and confirmation. For the record, Galileo was considered a heretic by the church, his status as such was changed in 2008 on the 400th anniversary of the telescope.
Also, the Church used to not allow divorce. It was normal for men to prove that their marriages were illegitimate because they had not yet, “deflowered” their wives. In order to prove such, they had to come up with some explanation, say impotence. In order to prove impotence, men would have to fail at fornicating with whores in front of bishops. Often times the woman would have to prove her virginity by losing it. These are known as the impotency cases… Here’s a citation. The Galileo one is very easy to find. European History Archives | History Cooperative
When I finished my Junior year at this high school, I found out my single parent mother had fallen behind in payments to the school, I was an athlete and had a partial scholarship. Rather than drive my mother into further debt, I asked her if I could just finish up my senior year at a public school. Well guess what? The Arch Diocese decided not to release my grades until my mother paid what she owed, and I was stuck in a continuation school for my senior year. I did four years of work that year and graduated, 2 months before graduation the end of the year the Diocese released my grades. I’ve been screwed over by the Church myself…
I can go on, the Church also believed Blacks had no souls and were savages.
[/quote]
LOL!
You really need to educate yourself. I get your pissed at the archdiocese, but most of your information is just flat false.
Divorce simply doesn’t exist in the Church. there is the ability to annul the marriage, but that’s not the same as divorce. The story about fornicating with whole in front of bishops is amusing, but complete and utter bullshit. Let’s see the proof of that one.
Galileo status was changed a while back and the church did apologize for the behavior of it’s predecessors. The church is run by people who are far from perfect.
The church does occasionally do a course correction, but I’d hardly consider that it’s ‘softened’ anything. I mean if you consider things like having the mass in native languages a big softening. Hell we can’t win, some people complain we’re to hardass others complain we’re to soft. We’re not here to please man, so whatever.
Last, I think you just pissed at what happened to your situation. I can tell you that that’s not an unusual practice though. People try to take advantage of the church all the time, it has to have some protection in place. I assume you got your records out of hoc. So all is well.
I don’t see the point in repeating ad hoc stories that one time somebody said that somebody’s uncle’s, cousin’s friend had heard that once upon a time you have to get it on with a whore to prove you can’t get it up. Life’s to short for this garbage.
[/quote]
Perhaps you do not follow history closely, or maybe the truth is making you upset. You clearly didn’t read the link I posted. When a couple goes through a legal process that ends their marriage, that is usually called a divorce. In the past the Church used to have a say in marriage, because marriages were and still are considered a sacrament, church and state weren’t necessarily completely separate entities. I’m aware that when Jesus came around, he said marriages were for life, but that does not mean that people didn’t get married, go through a process and end up not married. Like I said, most people call that a divorce, but if that is getting you upset, then call it an annulment. In order to have an annulment, people often claimed impotence, or that a spouse was impotent. Often times the Church would need proof of such, they would stick wax penises and all sorts of different in women to test their impotence. Men would be tested for impotence as well via various tests including the one I described.
As for the history of the Catholic Church and blacks, look no further than the history of Mexico. When the Spanish were colonizing Mexico there was much debate as to whether the indigenous people had souls or were beasts. If you are unaware, Spain had a conquest model based on something academics call the Mission System, maybe you should familiarize yourself with it because it answers the question as to how Spain colonized Mexico, and why Mexico is predominantly Catholic today.
Anyhow, end of the day since the Church decided indigenous Mexicans were, “innocents.” They brought black slaves for labor because they were considered to be beasts without souls by many. Yes, historically the Spanish brought African Slaves to Mexico for the Mission System. You know what? There were Popes with slaves as well, I believe Paul III was one of several.
St. Thomas Aquinas believed there was reason for slavery… Immanuel Kant, who is one of my heroes was a Lutheran who believed blacks were an inferior creature as well. I understand how much it sucks that some people we consider great were flawed and racist, but we change and evolve socially as well as spiritually, nothing wrong with it. I think you should maybe do a little more reading. You hold the church in such high esteem, it bugs you when people bring up it’s flaws. Anyhow, I hope you decide to brush up on your history. Sometimes sources outside of the Church are good especially if you want to get a more robust understanding of history. The victor usually writes history, but sometimes people just don’t bother to read the history at all. [/quote]
I think your just a hater. Any group run by men, is going to have bad things in their history. Nobody is exempt. It doesn’t mean the whole damn thing is bad or that everyone in it is bad. If some rogue bishop, somewhere did less than savory shit, it’s bound to happen.
Nobody is exempt. Protestants have plenty of warts too, Muslims have a tiny terrorist issue, the buddhists have the Burma problem, hindus have the cast problem and the extreme misery it can cause, and atheists are the biggest murders in all of history. So whose you favorite? Which team you want to be on.
I think you just spewing hate filled vomit.
And no, I seldom read links people provide unless there is a damn good reason. All I would do is read stupid links or watch videos all the time. I don’t have time for that shit.
Aren’t you grateful to live in a time of enlightenment compared to the olden days?
So maybe you’ve thought about cheating on your wife but didn’t do it because you felt it would’ve been immoral. Hypothetically speaking ofcourse.
I can see how that works.
Hasn’t it been always? I wouldn’t feel that raping a familymember is okay, because I think rape is immoral. You’re still thinking in terms of either/or.
Is something that’s sometimes necessary by definition moral? I don’t think so. Or you must mean that anything is either moral or immoral?
That’s just how nature works I guess, but yes, I do believe that we are the only species that has the ability overcome genetic limitations.
Really? China has its problems, but to call it wholly immoral goes too far, imo. Nonetheless, you’re entitled to your opinion.
Well, that’s actually a tough question to answer. Not every emotion or feeling is pronounced or even present in your everyday awareness yet still has the clout to motivate you to do something.
I can’t recall ever having to do something hard I did not want to do, except maybe breaking-off contact with my father. That choice was mired in emotion though, so perhaps that’s not what you mean.
Can you give me an example?
The observer is the observed. As above, so below. etc… etc…
Yes, ofcourse we’d have completely different thoughts; our brains are different, our experiences that made us into who we are are different, our language is different, our cultural imprint is different.
The software may run on near identical hardware but is written with totally different data-sets.
The reason for doing things contrary to your emotional state is also based in emotion. Maybe you felt responsible, or guilty or pressured into doing them, whatever the reason, the basis is emotion.
[quote]
The reason for doing things contrary to your emotional state is also based in emotion. Maybe you felt responsible, or guilty or pressured into doing them, whatever the reason, the basis is emotion.[/quote]
are you suggesting that reason doesn’t exist or that reason doesn’t have any power over emotions ?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Aren’t you grateful to live in a time of enlightenment compared to the olden days?
[/quote]
Time doesn’t enlighten, wisdom does. There were plenty of wise folk in the olden days. I’d venture to say most enlightenment is as a result of the seeking of wisdom in the olden days. Which in the end is irrelevant as despite the obvious, and the fact that it totally impossible to create or destroy anything in metaphysics, you blissfully hang on to the notion that you can and do.
Ironically, your the one hanging on to antiquated ideas with out fact or basis in reality and your supposed to be the rational thinker.
Not quite that, but sure I have wanted be selfish, but did not because it would hurt others.
No it never has, ever.
If by necessary, you mean for the well being of another individual you are making a moral decision. You cannot make an immoral decision and hope the outcome is moral, that’s a fail on a logical level. Just like you cannot posit that 2+2=5 in the hopes that the rules of math change one day.
Not all decisions or actions are moral or not moral, some things are not in the realm of morality.
Any country that forces you to murder you second born is immoral. Not all chinese people are immoral, but they are forced to do immoral things by treat. While this eliminates culpability, it does not remove the morality of the action.
That could be a good example. Despite your feelings you had to break contact with your father. Without delving into the situation to deeply I imagine the break was the results of some pretty abominable behavior on his part. Dare I say immoral? He must have hurt your family in a pretty profound way. It’s a situation I am not unfamiliar with.
Well, there is getting up to feed your kid when you’d rather sleep, working at a job you hate to support your family, giving your low life neighbor yet another ride to the store, etc. It could be a lot of things.
They aren’t different, they are the same for the most part. It’s the parts that aren’t physical that make the manifestations different.
Well the computer analogy wasn’t really that good as in that if you had the exact same binary information written the exact same way then the results would be the same. However the objects of out thoughts are not like this. The biology allows us to tap into it, but it doesn’t exist there.
Computers cannot tap in to the metaphysical, we can.
Or you could take a logical, well reasoned course of action despite what your emotions tell you.
Let me just ask you this flat out, do you deny the existence of metaphysics?
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]
The reason for doing things contrary to your emotional state is also based in emotion. Maybe you felt responsible, or guilty or pressured into doing them, whatever the reason, the basis is emotion.[/quote]
are you suggesting that reason doesn’t exist or that reason doesn’t have any power over emotions ?[/quote]
He’s saying that emotion and reason are by design intricately intertwined.
Anything you “feel,” you try and reason with, you attempt to analyze, adapt, and apply logical thought to it to make more sense of it.
Naturally these accumulated experiences result in changed emotional states, and hence more opportunity for reason.
It’s rather cyclical.
So Pat, you get no personal satisfaction from feeding your child or helping a neighbor?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< I knew you wouldn’t miss a chance to try and blind side me. Lol. >>>[/quote]I’m sorry Chris. I see now that it wasn’t right for me to interject when I did with what I did. However, you have my word that I did not see his post just above mine until 5 minutes ago. That played no part in my response whatsoever. It was the one you quoted in the post I was quoting you from. I didn’t see his next one at all until this morning. I see now how you took me the way you did. Please accept my apology.
[/quote]
i will always accept your apology.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]
The reason for doing things contrary to your emotional state is also based in emotion. Maybe you felt responsible, or guilty or pressured into doing them, whatever the reason, the basis is emotion.[/quote]
are you suggesting that reason doesn’t exist or that reason doesn’t have any power over emotions ?[/quote]
No, one can use reason to make a decision, but the motivation for doing so [what motivates a person to do so] is often based on an emotion.
For example, a child that was raised by an irrational parent [bipolar, manic depressive] can choose to live a rational life, to decide to make decisions based on reason.
This choice is based on an emotion that motivates the child to make rational decisions.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Perhaps you do not follow history closely, or maybe the truth is making you upset. You clearly didn’t read the link I posted. [/quote]
Both Pat and I read your link. It’s completely biased. The man doesn’t even consult someone that could be in some way regarded as for the Church.
It’s telling though that the man 1) is a later wave feminist 2) makes no effort to show the other side or even refute it, and 3) he makes no distinction between annulment and divorce. He goes even so far as to call annulment, de facto divorce.*
The one person that can be considered “not against the Church” is John McCarthy. However, though he is a professor at a Catholic University, he is a known supporter of phenomenology (Hegelianism). He basically denies metaphysics or epistemology as the foundation of philosophy. He’s not in line with contemporary thought of the Church (read: dark-ages/medieval) so how he can speak for what he does is beyond me.
Yes, that is true. However, that is not the process that the feminist is talking about. He’s talking about annulment process in a country court in the middle of the sticks of Spain that is overseen by the King of Spain, as it says in the feminists paper, “While its nominal head as a Catholic tribunal was still the Pope, the Spanish Inquisition was actually controlled by the king.”
- Annulment is a process in which one or both of the assumed spouses brings the case forward to authorities in order to demonstrate against previous assumption that they were in fact married. They have to prove they were NOT married. So if they prove they are were NOT married, that means they can’t get divorced…as they were never married in the first place.
The Church assumes that the spouses consummate the marriage, and that the spouses were in full knowledge of what they were doing. That is why they ask for objections to be brought forward before the final vows are exchanged.
A divorce is a separation of actual spouses. So, they are actually married, then they split up. Annulment, never were married.
I’m not sure how antique they are [my ideas] but surely the idea that an external higher force exists [whether that’s god or morality] is at least as antique.
This raises an interesting point: I don’t blame him for the things he did, and especially didn’t do, because I’ve come to realise that, due to illness, he simply isn’t able to behave in an empathic way.
Let’s assume this is the case; does intention play a role? Suppose he really isn’t aware and able to comprehend the outcome of his actions, are they still immoral?
Suppose I’ve learned to understand him and know why he did what he did inspite of the consequences having an impact on me, were his actions still immoral?
There’s a reason why I don’t have kids, lol. Look, if I don’t want to do a thing, even if that means not helping someone else, I won’t do it. If I decide to help someone, or to do something, then I’ll make the best of it.
Saves me a lot of stress that way.
[quote]They aren’t different, they are the same for the most part. It’s the parts that aren’t physical that make the manifestations different.
…do you deny the existence of metaphysics? [/quote]
I believe that the untangible aspects of “self” are the product of the brain. I believe there is no separate existence [in any conscious way] of self outside of the physical constraints.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
As for the history of the Catholic Church and blacks, look no further than the history of Mexico. When the Spanish were colonizing Mexico there was much debate as to whether the indigenous people had souls or were beasts. If you are unaware, Spain had a conquest model based on something academics call the Mission System, maybe you should familiarize yourself with it because it answers the question as to how Spain colonized Mexico, and why Mexico is predominantly Catholic today. [/quote]
The Spanish…not the Church. Mexico is predominantly Catholic today because of the apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe. The Papacy told the Spanish to knock it off when they found out what they were doing.
But, not by the Church. They willingly baptized slaves, proving that they had souls.
Pope Paul III issued three major announcements against slavery…the most famous…Pope Paul III applied the same principle as Pope Eugene a century before, to the newly encountered inhabitants of the West and South Indies in the bull Sublimis Deus (1537).
You’re also not making a distinction between slavery based on debt and slavery based on color and religion. The Church didn’t say the former was inherently bad.
“Slavery” is the condition of involuntary servitude in which a human being is regarded as no more than the property of another, as being without basic human rights; in other words, as a thing rather than a person. Under this definition, slavery is intrinsically evil, since no person may legitimately be regarded or treated as a mere thing or object. This form of slavery can be called “chattel slavery.” (There are other ways in which the term can be used, such as in reference to the slavery discussed in the Old Testament, where slaves were regarded as property but nonetheless as bearers of human rights.)
However, there are circumstances in which a person can justly be compelled to servitude against his will. Prisoners of war or criminals, for example, can justly lose their circumstantial freedom and be forced into servitude, within certain limits. Moreover, people can also “sell” their labor for a period of time (indentured servitude).
60 years before Columbus, Pope Eugene IV condemned the enslavement of peoples in the newly colonized Canary Islands. His bull Sicut Dudum (1435) rebuked European enslavers and commanded that “all and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of [the] Canary Islands . . . who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money.”
When Europeans began enslaving Africans as a cheap source of labor, the Holy Office of the Inquisition was asked about the morality of enslaving innocent blacks (Response of the Congregation of the Holy Office, 230, March 20, 1686). The practice was rejected, as was trading such slaves. Slaveholders, the Holy Office declared, were obliged to emancipate and even compensate blacks unjustly enslaved.
Further decrees against slavery:
Pope Gregory XVI’s 1839 bull, In Supremo, for instance, reiterated papal opposition to enslaving “Indians, blacks, or other such people” and forbade “any ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this trade in blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse.”
Pope Leo XIII in 1888 and 1890 condemned South America and Africa for their slavery.
[quote]St. Thomas Aquinas believed there was reason for slavery.
[/quote]
This is just a lie. St. Thomas Aquinas proved that slavery was a sin. Thomas’ overall analysis of morality in human relationships, Aquinas placed slavery in opposition to natural law, deducing that all “rational creatures” are entitled to justice. Hence he found no natural basis for the enslavement of one person rather than another, “thus removing any possible justification for slavery based on race or religion.” Right reason, not coercion, is the moral basis of authority, for “one man is not by nature ordained to another as an end.”
The fact that slavery was pretty much nonexistent around Thomas is telling on his lack of writing on the subject. The Church willingly baptized slaves was claimed as proof that they had souls, and soon both kings and bishops–including William the Conqueror (1027-1087) and Saints Wulfstan (1009-1095) and Anselm (1033-1109)–forbade the enslavement of Christians.
[quote]
Immanuel Kant, who is one of my heroes was a Lutheran who believed blacks were an inferior creature as well. I understand how much it sucks that some people we consider great were flawed and racist, but we change and evolve socially as well as spiritually, nothing wrong with it. I think you should maybe do a little more reading. You hold the church in such high esteem, it bugs you when people bring up it’s flaws.[/quote]
I don’t think it bothers either one of us, but when don’t do your own reading…then make false accusations that does upset us.
Lol.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
The way the human body works is, in broad strokes, the same for everyone.
That means that the structure of the mind is, in broad strokes, the same for everyone.
Of course we all are unique; how we are “painted” on the canvas of the mind is unique, however, the technique is the same for everyone.
You are basically doing the same thing you accuse me of, it’s just the opposite. [/quote]You don’t find any of this to be a statement of faith huh?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< I will always accept your apology. :)[/quote]Thank you Christopher.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
The way the human body works is, in broad strokes, the same for everyone.
That means that the structure of the mind is, in broad strokes, the same for everyone.
Of course we all are unique; how we are “painted” on the canvas of the mind is unique, however, the technique is the same for everyone.
You are basically doing the same thing you accuse me of, it’s just the opposite. [/quote]You don’t find any of this to be a statement of faith huh?
[/quote]
Why would it be?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
This as opposed to many Christians who believe in evolution and would entertain the idea of morality being an evolved thing. Perhaps they believe morality evolved a little differently than an evolutionary biologist may believe, perhaps they believe our morality evolved in a deterministic way with God behind the scenes pulling the strings necessary for us to evolve in such a way that aligns with say the ten commandments. It’s pretty complicated, but Christians, especially Catholic leadership has constantly, and consistently changed interpretation and philosophy in an attempt to stay somewhat modern. It took them a while to admit Galileo was right, men don’t have to fail at fornicating with whores in front of a room of Bishops to prove they failed to conceive in order to have a divorce, and the Papacy isn’t purchased, the Catholic Church is ever evolving as well. [/quote]
Want to show me what you mean by interpretation? Yes, we have changed the philosophy we used because…society has changed how they think. The Catholic Church has no philosophy to speak of. So, we use the best one man has come up with to explain it to modern man, after all philosophy is the handmaiden of theology.
And, I don’t quite remember anyone admitting that Galileo was right. After all, how can you prove yourself right, when you didn’t provide proof (besides his half cocked wave explanation).
I have no clue what fornicating with whores has to do with anything, and within the Catholic Church divorce is impossible.
Yes, ever new, ever ancient as the motto goes.
Anyway, regards.
BC[/quote]
I was raised Catholic, attended a Catholic High School, I was baptized, holy communion, and confirmation. For the record, Galileo was considered a heretic by the church, his status as such was changed in 2008 on the 400th anniversary of the telescope.
Also, the Church used to not allow divorce. It was normal for men to prove that their marriages were illegitimate because they had not yet, “deflowered” their wives. In order to prove such, they had to come up with some explanation, say impotence. In order to prove impotence, men would have to fail at fornicating with whores in front of bishops. Often times the woman would have to prove her virginity by losing it. These are known as the impotency cases… Here’s a citation. The Galileo one is very easy to find. European History Archives | History Cooperative
When I finished my Junior year at this high school, I found out my single parent mother had fallen behind in payments to the school, I was an athlete and had a partial scholarship. Rather than drive my mother into further debt, I asked her if I could just finish up my senior year at a public school. Well guess what? The Arch Diocese decided not to release my grades until my mother paid what she owed, and I was stuck in a continuation school for my senior year. I did four years of work that year and graduated, 2 months before graduation the end of the year the Diocese released my grades. I’ve been screwed over by the Church myself…
I can go on, the Church also believed Blacks had no souls and were savages.
[/quote]
LOL!
You really need to educate yourself. I get your pissed at the archdiocese, but most of your information is just flat false.
Divorce simply doesn’t exist in the Church. there is the ability to annul the marriage, but that’s not the same as divorce. The story about fornicating with whole in front of bishops is amusing, but complete and utter bullshit. Let’s see the proof of that one.
Galileo status was changed a while back and the church did apologize for the behavior of it’s predecessors. The church is run by people who are far from perfect.
The church does occasionally do a course correction, but I’d hardly consider that it’s ‘softened’ anything. I mean if you consider things like having the mass in native languages a big softening. Hell we can’t win, some people complain we’re to hardass others complain we’re to soft. We’re not here to please man, so whatever.
Last, I think you just pissed at what happened to your situation. I can tell you that that’s not an unusual practice though. People try to take advantage of the church all the time, it has to have some protection in place. I assume you got your records out of hoc. So all is well.
I don’t see the point in repeating ad hoc stories that one time somebody said that somebody’s uncle’s, cousin’s friend had heard that once upon a time you have to get it on with a whore to prove you can’t get it up. Life’s to short for this garbage.
[/quote]
Perhaps you do not follow history closely, or maybe the truth is making you upset. You clearly didn’t read the link I posted. When a couple goes through a legal process that ends their marriage, that is usually called a divorce. In the past the Church used to have a say in marriage, because marriages were and still are considered a sacrament, church and state weren’t necessarily completely separate entities. I’m aware that when Jesus came around, he said marriages were for life, but that does not mean that people didn’t get married, go through a process and end up not married. Like I said, most people call that a divorce, but if that is getting you upset, then call it an annulment. In order to have an annulment, people often claimed impotence, or that a spouse was impotent. Often times the Church would need proof of such, they would stick wax penises and all sorts of different in women to test their impotence. Men would be tested for impotence as well via various tests including the one I described.
As for the history of the Catholic Church and blacks, look no further than the history of Mexico. When the Spanish were colonizing Mexico there was much debate as to whether the indigenous people had souls or were beasts. If you are unaware, Spain had a conquest model based on something academics call the Mission System, maybe you should familiarize yourself with it because it answers the question as to how Spain colonized Mexico, and why Mexico is predominantly Catholic today.
Anyhow, end of the day since the Church decided indigenous Mexicans were, “innocents.” They brought black slaves for labor because they were considered to be beasts without souls by many. Yes, historically the Spanish brought African Slaves to Mexico for the Mission System. You know what? There were Popes with slaves as well, I believe Paul III was one of several.
St. Thomas Aquinas believed there was reason for slavery… Immanuel Kant, who is one of my heroes was a Lutheran who believed blacks were an inferior creature as well. I understand how much it sucks that some people we consider great were flawed and racist, but we change and evolve socially as well as spiritually, nothing wrong with it. I think you should maybe do a little more reading. You hold the church in such high esteem, it bugs you when people bring up it’s flaws. Anyhow, I hope you decide to brush up on your history. Sometimes sources outside of the Church are good especially if you want to get a more robust understanding of history. The victor usually writes history, but sometimes people just don’t bother to read the history at all. [/quote]
I think your just a hater. Any group run by men, is going to have bad things in their history. Nobody is exempt. It doesn’t mean the whole damn thing is bad or that everyone in it is bad. If some rogue bishop, somewhere did less than savory shit, it’s bound to happen.
Nobody is exempt. Protestants have plenty of warts too, Muslims have a tiny terrorist issue, the buddhists have the Burma problem, hindus have the cast problem and the extreme misery it can cause, and atheists are the biggest murders in all of history. So whose you favorite? Which team you want to be on.
I think you just spewing hate filled vomit.
And no, I seldom read links people provide unless there is a damn good reason. All I would do is read stupid links or watch videos all the time. I don’t have time for that shit.[/quote]
I have reservations for the Church, but I respect people of faith. My sister is Catholic and Married, I greatly respect it, but at the same time I’ve done things like purchased various gnostic gospels for her, and explained some of the historic flaws of the Church to her. She likes having the structure of the Church and would like to raise her children Catholic, which I have no problem with. As a matter of fact, when people come out and say religious people are stupid like Dawkins, I take offense because all of my ancestors are/were very religious/ Catholic. I have no beef with you, or religious people, or the faith.
I’m more trying to point out much of what you just said. I am saying the Church’s system of morality is constantly evolving to reflect the times. If they didn’t, well then we would still have the problem with blacks not having souls, colonialism, slavery, etc… All these things were okay according to the Church at one time or another.
Keep in mind, I’m not attacking God, I’m not saying God is wrong. I’m saying the Church/ the human authority on “God’s word” who interpret the Bible have obviously been wrong, and that their interpretations and morality has evolved with time… Since we know the Church is historically been wrong interpreting gospel, perhaps they were also wrong in the gospels chosen to make up the Bible itself. Christ had more than 4 apostles, so why are there only 4 gospels in the Bible? Just something to think about…
You may consider me Atheist, I consider myself Agnostic. I simply don’t know whether or not there is a God, and I am okay with simply withholding belief and disbelief and sitting on the fence.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
This as opposed to many Christians who believe in evolution and would entertain the idea of morality being an evolved thing. Perhaps they believe morality evolved a little differently than an evolutionary biologist may believe, perhaps they believe our morality evolved in a deterministic way with God behind the scenes pulling the strings necessary for us to evolve in such a way that aligns with say the ten commandments. It’s pretty complicated, but Christians, especially Catholic leadership has constantly, and consistently changed interpretation and philosophy in an attempt to stay somewhat modern. It took them a while to admit Galileo was right, men don’t have to fail at fornicating with whores in front of a room of Bishops to prove they failed to conceive in order to have a divorce, and the Papacy isn’t purchased, the Catholic Church is ever evolving as well. [/quote]
Want to show me what you mean by interpretation? Yes, we have changed the philosophy we used because…society has changed how they think. The Catholic Church has no philosophy to speak of. So, we use the best one man has come up with to explain it to modern man, after all philosophy is the handmaiden of theology.
And, I don’t quite remember anyone admitting that Galileo was right. After all, how can you prove yourself right, when you didn’t provide proof (besides his half cocked wave explanation).
I have no clue what fornicating with whores has to do with anything, and within the Catholic Church divorce is impossible.
Yes, ever new, ever ancient as the motto goes.
Anyway, regards.
BC[/quote]
I was raised Catholic, attended a Catholic High School, I was baptized, holy communion, and confirmation. For the record, Galileo was considered a heretic by the church, his status as such was changed in 2008 on the 400th anniversary of the telescope.
Also, the Church used to not allow divorce. It was normal for men to prove that their marriages were illegitimate because they had not yet, “deflowered” their wives. In order to prove such, they had to come up with some explanation, say impotence. In order to prove impotence, men would have to fail at fornicating with whores in front of bishops. Often times the woman would have to prove her virginity by losing it. These are known as the impotency cases… Here’s a citation. The Galileo one is very easy to find. European History Archives | History Cooperative
When I finished my Junior year at this high school, I found out my single parent mother had fallen behind in payments to the school, I was an athlete and had a partial scholarship. Rather than drive my mother into further debt, I asked her if I could just finish up my senior year at a public school. Well guess what? The Arch Diocese decided not to release my grades until my mother paid what she owed, and I was stuck in a continuation school for my senior year. I did four years of work that year and graduated, 2 months before graduation the end of the year the Diocese released my grades. I’ve been screwed over by the Church myself…
I can go on, the Church also believed Blacks had no souls and were savages.
[/quote]
LOL!
You really need to educate yourself. I get your pissed at the archdiocese, but most of your information is just flat false.
Divorce simply doesn’t exist in the Church. there is the ability to annul the marriage, but that’s not the same as divorce. The story about fornicating with whole in front of bishops is amusing, but complete and utter bullshit. Let’s see the proof of that one.
Galileo status was changed a while back and the church did apologize for the behavior of it’s predecessors. The church is run by people who are far from perfect.
The church does occasionally do a course correction, but I’d hardly consider that it’s ‘softened’ anything. I mean if you consider things like having the mass in native languages a big softening. Hell we can’t win, some people complain we’re to hardass others complain we’re to soft. We’re not here to please man, so whatever.
Last, I think you just pissed at what happened to your situation. I can tell you that that’s not an unusual practice though. People try to take advantage of the church all the time, it has to have some protection in place. I assume you got your records out of hoc. So all is well.
I don’t see the point in repeating ad hoc stories that one time somebody said that somebody’s uncle’s, cousin’s friend had heard that once upon a time you have to get it on with a whore to prove you can’t get it up. Life’s to short for this garbage.
[/quote]
Perhaps you do not follow history closely, or maybe the truth is making you upset. You clearly didn’t read the link I posted. When a couple goes through a legal process that ends their marriage, that is usually called a divorce. In the past the Church used to have a say in marriage, because marriages were and still are considered a sacrament, church and state weren’t necessarily completely separate entities. I’m aware that when Jesus came around, he said marriages were for life, but that does not mean that people didn’t get married, go through a process and end up not married. Like I said, most people call that a divorce, but if that is getting you upset, then call it an annulment. In order to have an annulment, people often claimed impotence, or that a spouse was impotent. Often times the Church would need proof of such, they would stick wax penises and all sorts of different in women to test their impotence. Men would be tested for impotence as well via various tests including the one I described.
As for the history of the Catholic Church and blacks, look no further than the history of Mexico. When the Spanish were colonizing Mexico there was much debate as to whether the indigenous people had souls or were beasts. If you are unaware, Spain had a conquest model based on something academics call the Mission System, maybe you should familiarize yourself with it because it answers the question as to how Spain colonized Mexico, and why Mexico is predominantly Catholic today.
Anyhow, end of the day since the Church decided indigenous Mexicans were, “innocents.” They brought black slaves for labor because they were considered to be beasts without souls by many. Yes, historically the Spanish brought African Slaves to Mexico for the Mission System. You know what? There were Popes with slaves as well, I believe Paul III was one of several.
St. Thomas Aquinas believed there was reason for slavery… Immanuel Kant, who is one of my heroes was a Lutheran who believed blacks were an inferior creature as well. I understand how much it sucks that some people we consider great were flawed and racist, but we change and evolve socially as well as spiritually, nothing wrong with it. I think you should maybe do a little more reading. You hold the church in such high esteem, it bugs you when people bring up it’s flaws. Anyhow, I hope you decide to brush up on your history. Sometimes sources outside of the Church are good especially if you want to get a more robust understanding of history. The victor usually writes history, but sometimes people just don’t bother to read the history at all. [/quote]
I think your just a hater. Any group run by men, is going to have bad things in their history. Nobody is exempt. It doesn’t mean the whole damn thing is bad or that everyone in it is bad. If some rogue bishop, somewhere did less than savory shit, it’s bound to happen.
Nobody is exempt. Protestants have plenty of warts too, Muslims have a tiny terrorist issue, the buddhists have the Burma problem, hindus have the cast problem and the extreme misery it can cause, and atheists are the biggest murders in all of history. So whose you favorite? Which team you want to be on.
I think you just spewing hate filled vomit.
And no, I seldom read links people provide unless there is a damn good reason. All I would do is read stupid links or watch videos all the time. I don’t have time for that shit.[/quote]
I have reservations for the Church, but I respect people of faith. My sister is Catholic and Married, I greatly respect it, but at the same time I’ve done things like purchased various gnostic gospels for her, and explained some of the historic flaws of the Church to her. She likes having the structure of the Church and would like to raise her children Catholic, which I have no problem with. As a matter of fact, when people come out and say religious people are stupid like Dawkins, I take offense because all of my ancestors are/were very religious/ Catholic. I have no beef with you, or religious people, or the faith.
I’m more trying to point out much of what you just said. I am saying the Church’s system of morality is constantly evolving to reflect the times. If they didn’t, well then we would still have the problem with blacks not having souls, colonialism, slavery, etc… All these things were okay according to the Church at one time or another.
Keep in mind, I’m not attacking God, I’m not saying God is wrong. I’m saying the Church/ the human authority on “God’s word” who interpret the Bible have obviously been wrong, and that their interpretations and morality has evolved with time… Since we know the Church is historically been wrong interpreting gospel, perhaps they were also wrong in the gospels chosen to make up the Bible itself. Christ had more than 4 apostles, so why are there only 4 gospels in the Bible? Just something to think about…
You may consider me Atheist, I consider myself Agnostic. I simply don’t know whether or not there is a God, and I am okay with simply withholding belief and disbelief and sitting on the fence. [/quote]
Where ever people are running something, they are going to find fuck ups. There have been good and bad people in the church and outside the church. Good and bad people exist every where. If all you do is focus on the bad, then you will find it, but you’re not looking for truth. You’re looking for flaws in others to prop yourself up. That’s what I see. It’s very much being spurned and ego in play.
People mess up, those people pay the price, but it misses the point to focus only on that. The church has done lot’s of good historically too, God forbid you look at the good stuff. I don’t care what you are, but your proclaiming a partial story.
I need sources for this “slaves have no soul” crap. I haven’t seen it, and I am not compelled to take your word for it since you clearly have a bone to pick.
I’d love to get involved in this thread, however I just don’t have the time to read the last 31 pages nor the time you guys seem to have free to discussing this. However, I’d like to post a link to an article that may be of interest to you all. Some neat neurological studies that try to shed light on the brain areas responsible for “morality”
How Does the Brain Secrete Morality?
Pondering the neuroscience of moral platitudes, free will, and sacred values.
If the link doesn’t post, goto reason.com and search for the title: How Does the Brain Secrete Morality?