"Why Won't God Heal Amputees?"

[Wanderer]

You fabricated an attack on women, then stuck up for them! How brave!

The usual method. Did you expect anything better? Two pages back, in order to intimidate another member and hint at some special insight on matters scriptural, he even claimed he has "actually read most of the NT in the original" Greek. There are some (conveniently ignored?) questions on that claim some way up the (previous) page.

[Florestan]

you have apparently decided to give up your intellectual and spiritual freedom

M,

I refrained from intervening until now, but enough is enough! Although this will incur your wrath, I can't help but saying it loud and clear:

There are a lot of Catholic scientists, philosophers and artists whose intellectual and spiritual achievements far surpass anything you 'll ever achieve.

Actually, you may think you're a free and enlightened person, but you're just a slave of your hyperinflated ego, a prisoner of your pride and prejudice. It is really a pity to see a brilliant intelligence ruined by an empty heart.

Dixi et salvavi animam meam.

(And please, spare me your foppery and insults. They neither impress nor scare me)

[Catison]

I have a question: it's my experience that the most fervent believers of the immorality of abortion are the most ardent supporters of the death penalty.  Are these your own feelings (all y'all pro-lifers), and if so, can you explain the contradiction?

I'm against both types of killing.

[karlhenning]

M isn't here for the content of the discussion;  he just gets kicks out of slinging personal remark.  I forebear to speculate why.

He is perfectly happy to "negatively affect" others, so we're just back to the mote and the beam again, after all.

[Al Moritz]

M,

I refrained from intervening until now, but enough is enough! Although this will incur your wrath, I can't help but saying it loud and clear:

There are a lot of Catholic scientists, philosophers and artists whose intellectual and spiritual achievements far surpass anything you 'll ever achieve.

Actually, you may think you're a free and enlightened person, but you're just a slave of your hyperinflated ego, a prisoner of your pride and prejudice. It is really a pity to see a brilliant intelligence ruined by an empty heart.

Dixi et salvavi animam meam.

(And please, spare me your foppery and insults. They neither impress nor scare me)

Bravo.

Well, it's obvious that in this discussion M couldn't even get a foot in the door -- thanks to the calm and collected responses of Catison and others -- and that is why he is fuming.

[Catison]

I didn't say that. Please read again.

Ok, I did.  I understand your post better now.  Forgive me, because before I was short on time.

You said there are no objective morals.  Then you said there are no personal (i.e. subjective?) morals.  Your interpretation of morals is that they are the agreements between two consenting adults about what is right and wrong.  Is that right?

Then how am I supposed to interpret a statement like this:

On the other hand, I find it highly immoral if people want to dictate other people what to do in their personal and private spheres.

How, given your thesis above, is something immoral?  Is something not moral because it was not agreed upon, in the sense that, if two adults don't discuss their imminent actions first everything is immoral?  Or can something only be immoral if it lies the outside the agreement?

In both cases, I don't see how you can call someone immoral in this context.  In the former, if no basis for being moral exists, there shouldn't be a basis for being immoral either.  In the latter, whoever these "people" are, you haven't made an agreement with them.

Can you please clear this up for me.  

Explain how saying everyone should be free to do what they like is I "imposing my morals" on other people. It is the contrary. I am saying, let everyone find their own "morals". I don't care if they conform with mine. That people can't just do what they like in situations in which it affects others is self-explanatory, follows from that, and a matter of mutual respect and social behavior and solidarity. But mostly respect.
Give me a reasonable answer. No kindergarten stuff like the above.

Simple  .  If I find my own morals, and these morals, however I found them, say it's OK to do what I want with whom I want, regardless of what they think, then I should be allowed that, correct?  But you want to arbitrarily deny me the right to those morals.  It is arbitrary because you can make no appeal to an objective truth, i.e. a truth that is true for everyone, regardless of what they personally believe; you deny such a thing exists.

So you want to impose this part of your personal definition of morals, but at the same time you deride others for doing the same thing.  You can't have it both ways.

[adamdavid80]

M,

I refrained from intervening until now, but enough is enough! Although this will incur your wrath, I can't help but saying it loud and clear:

There are a lot of Catholic scientists, philosophers and artists whose intellectual and spiritual achievements far surpass anything you 'll ever achieve.

Actually, you may think you're a free and enlightened person, but you're just a slave of your hyperinflated ego, a prisoner of your pride and prejudice. It is really a pity to see a brilliant intelligence ruined by an empty heart.

Dixi et salvavi animam meam.

(And please, spare me your foppery and insults. They neither impress nor scare me)

Now - as you said re: your own post -  I'm going to get flamed for saying this, and I understand that you were motivated to write this b/c you perceived M was attacking and insulting others, but, really, were the personal attacks wholly necessary?  You say that he will never achieve much in life, a slave, an egotist, file with hubris and prejudice, pitiful, shallow, and, as if that were not enough, let's top it off with a quote (b/c, as Mark Twain used to say, "Quotes prove the speaker has authority and knowledge about the subject at hand"*) him a fop.  Which, granted, is among the funniest words in the english language, but, come on, if you're challenging someone to raise the standards of the discussion and leave the insults out of it, well..."fop"?


*(actually, Mark Twain never said that.  I just wanted to cite a quote to prove my point and give it authority)

Brett, thanks for the response re: capital punishment.  Curious also...how do you feel about aborting a foetus if it endangers the life of the mother, or if it is the result of rape/incest, if the foetus is found to have some kind of abnormality? (Palin's recent birth to a Down's Syndrome child for example)

[Catison]

The usual method. Did you expect anything better? Two pages back, in order to intimidate another member and hint at some special insight on matters scriptural, he even claimed he has "actually read most of the NT in the original" Greek. There are some (conveniently ignored?) questions on that claim some way up the (previous) page.

I am enjoying this discussion with M.  Although occasionally it becomes difficult to extract the message of his posts from the ad hominem stuff, it usually gives me something to think about.  You can always learn something from those you have disagreements with, and if you are truly strong in your beliefs, you come out better on the other end.  And it is precisely at this moment that I am trying to shore up my knowledge (and faith) in God.

You refer to this post:

BTW, Catison, you really don't want to get into a discussion of Christianity with me. Believe me. That would get really ugly. I know tons more about that subject than you do. And not just from the Catholic angle and a few other prep books you may have read, but from many other angles and historical perspectives, especially about early and earliest Christianity. That is a subject I have studied for for a long time as it coincides with main interests for me such as the above stated, as well as history, archaeology, and other areas such as linguistics which deeply fascinate me. Unlike you, I have actually read most of the NT in the original.

We should be willing to give M the benefit of the doubt.  0:)  Although he doesn't think so, I do want to discuss Christianity with him, if this is not what we are already doing.  I am more than a little curious about the volumes of books he has read, and what insights from history, archeology and linguistics he can bring to the discussion.  And although I trust the scholars who translated my NAB, I am sure there are more than a few things glossed over in an effort to construct an effective American English NT. (Remember the difference between the American Bible and New American Bible, is that the latter corrected many mistakes in the OT.)  So I am interested in any of those mistakes and/or other errors found in the NT, especially from a non-Catholic or Atheist angle, as M mentions above. 

Or if any other Greek speakers want to chime in, that would be cool too. 

[Catison]

Brett, thanks for the response re: capital punishment.  Curious also...how do you feel about aborting a foetus if it endangers the life of the mother, or if it is the result of rape/incest, if the foetus is found to have some kind of abnormality? (Palin's recent birth to a Down's Syndrome child for example)

I know my answers sometimes appear scripted by the Catholic Church, but I only try to use the ones I believe in.  With that in mind, let me give you a Catholic answer.  In these cases, when it is not clear what to do, you must feel comfortable explaining to the unborn fetus in heaven why you thought it was OK to kill it.  If you can't do that, then you probably shouldn't support the abortion.

[adamdavid80]

I know my answers sometimes appear scripted by the Catholic Church, but I only try to use the ones I believe in.  With that in mind, let me give you a Catholic answer.  In these cases, when it is not clear what to do, you must feel comfortable explaining to the unborn fetus in heaven why you thought it was OK to kill it.  If you can't do that, then you probably shouldn't support the abortion.

This is going to sound glib, but this is mirrors my attitude towards non-vegetarians (I eat fish, but not dairy, chicken, or cow, so strcitly speaking I'm a pescitarian):  if you can look it in the eye before gutting or shooting it, then it's all yours.

What elements of religion give you the most trouble?  Do you find anything contradictory in nature, does the question of, ultimately, many answers to some of the most demanding questions, simplify to "God works in mysterious ways".  (And there's nothign wrong with that: that's the definition of Faith: believing in something though it may defy rationality)

[Catison]

This is going to sound glib, but this is mirrors my attitude towards non-vegetarians (I eat fish, but not dairy, chicken, or cow, so strcitly speaking I'm a pescitarian):  if you can look it in the eye before gutting or shooting it, then it's all yours.

No, not glib, but perfectly reasonable.  However, heaven is for humans, the pinnacle of creation.

What elements of religion give you the most trouble?  Do you find anything contradictory in nature, does the question of, ultimately, many answers to some of the most demanding questions, simplify to "God works in mysterious ways".  (And there's nothign wrong with that: that's the definition of Faith: believing in something though it may defy rationality)

There are many elements of religion which give me trouble.  I actually wish I could just forget about questioning things and allow myself to believe, but my brain is not wired that way.  Some of the things that trouble me are: the processes needed to detect truth, how to know when I am simply a pawn in God's plan and when I have a choice to follow, accountability to sin without full understanding of God, how prayer works, certain details about the Catholic mass, and many others.  No doubt at some point I will have to "punt" on some questions and be content that there is an answer.

No doubt, God does work in mysterious ways, but to me, this is equivalent to saying that Nature hides her secrets.  Just because we cannot fully know something doesn't mean we can't always be looking for more answers.  And, because we are lucky, there will always be people, probably smarter than me, trying to find them.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I know my answers sometimes appear scripted by the Catholic Church, but I only try to use the ones I believe in.  With that in mind, let me give you a Catholic answer.  In these cases, when it is not clear what to do, you must feel comfortable explaining to the unborn fetus in heaven why you thought it was OK to kill it.  If you can't do that, then you probably shouldn't support the abortion.

Not to sound glib either, but if heaven is the pinnacle and the unborn fetus ascends there right away, why not kill it and let it ascend before it has a chance to commit any kinds of sin or suffer the misery of life on earth? By your logic, the unborn fetus has it better than all the rest of us. Sounds almost Swiftian (even though Swift of course was talking about killing year-old babies rather than fetuses):

I desire those politicians who dislike my overture, and may perhaps be so bold as to attempt an answer, that they will first ask the parents of these mortals, whether they would not at this day think it a great happiness to have been sold for food, at a year old in the manner I prescribe, and thereby have avoided such a perpetual scene of misfortunes as they have since gone through by the oppression of landlords, the impossibility of paying rent without money or trade, the want of common sustenance, with neither house nor clothes to cover them from the inclemencies of the weather, and the most inevitable prospect of entailing the like or greater miseries upon their breed for ever.

[M forever]

Actually, you may think you're a free and enlightened person, but you're just a slave of your hyperinflated ego, a prisoner of your pride and prejudice. It is really a pity to see a brilliant intelligence ruined by an empty heart.

Dixi et salvavi animam meam.

M isn't here for the content of the discussion;  he just gets kicks out of slinging personal remark.  I forebear to speculate why.

Bravo.

Well, it's obvious that in this discussion M couldn't even get a foot in the door -- thanks to the calm and collected responses of Catison and others -- and that is why he is fuming.

I am not fuming, I am just saying, people, keep your noses out of other people's underwear. The above "responses" show that I hit a nerve there. Because there isn't really anything that you can rationally say to explain your desire to regulate aspects of toher people's most personal and intimate sphere.

Even Karl, who is a fairly calm and collected person in real life, too, and who also knows me in real life, once again shows the mental captivity of religious people with his thrown in personal attack. Sad. I forebear to speculate why.

Just shows us once again that religion mentally handcuffs people and that we have to be constantly aware that they aren't just interested in their "spiritual truths", they also want to force other people - not by the power of discussion and persuasion, but by the power of secular laws - to conform to their mythologically based world views.

That reminds us that for many millenia, people have fought to escape from this irrational influence, and for nearly two millenia, people had to struggle against the so-called Christian churches of all kinds to shake off their influence and control over all aspects of their lives. We live in a time in which it is not too long ago that that control was still fairly tight and farreaching, and we still have some way to go to get rid of it completely. But we have come a long way.

It doesn't even matter what we are talking about, abortions, condoms, whatever, it's always something, and what it really is about is not even the content, it is all about power over and control of people.

Apparently, the religious world view is not self-sufficient. I can understand that for the illusion of a god-centered world which is so important for some people, it is essential that they can imagine they are worshippers of the one and only power that moves the universe, and everybody who doesn't conform to that view basically spoils that illusion and is a "fuming fanatic" even when the basic message of these "fuming fanatics" is nothing more or less than: leave other people alone who do not want to take part in your idol worshipping cult.

[Al Moritz]

Apparently, the religious world view is not self-sufficient. I can understand that for the illusion of a god-centered world which is so important for some people, it is essential that they can imagine they are worshippers of the one and only power that moves the universe, and everybody who doesn't conform to that view basically spoils that illusion and is a "fuming fanatic" even when the basic message of these "fuming fanatics" is nothing more or less than: leave other people alone who do not want to take part in your idol worshipping cult.

We have been over this before. I don't call all non-believers "fuming" or "fanatic", not by a long shot. There are some quite reasonable non-believers also on this board, as I had stated before. I don't feel threatened by unbelief, and I grew up in secular Europe where belief like mine was the exception rather than the rule -- I got along with everybody just fine. The opposition of unbelief just makes me think harder and question my positions in an intellectually rigorous manner, which is a good thing. If my convictions become stronger during this process (which they have done especially during my intense probing of all issues in the past 2 or so years), I am not against that.

Just shows us once again that religion mentally handcuffs people and that we have to be constantly aware that they aren't just interested in their "spiritual truths", they also want to force other people - not by the power of discussion and persuasion, but by the power of secular laws - to conform to their mythologically based world views.

I have changed my mind on opposition to abortion. While I personally still think it is murder and don't approve when others have it perform, I do not think anymore that the government should impose constraints. When life as a person exactly begins is partially a matter of faith, and statistics show that where abortion is illegal the frequency seems not significantly down while the health risks go up. Like many things, it remains a matter of individual conscience.

[Catison]

Not to sound glib either, but if heaven is the pinnacle and the unborn fetus ascends there right away, why not kill it and let it ascend before it has a chance to commit any kinds of sin or suffer the misery of life on earth? By your logic, the unborn fetus has it better than all the rest of us. Sounds almost Swiftian (even though Swift of course was talking about killing year-old babies rather than fetuses):

Wow, I hadn't thought of that.  My guess is that being alive allows a person to participate in God's plan.  Taking that away is a sin.

That's a tough one. 

[knight66]

Whoever makes any further personal attacks, or generalisations that can be interpreted as direct attacks on others here; will find the entirety of their post deleted.

Knight

[M forever]

I have changed my mind on opposition to abortion. While I personally still think it is murder and don't approve when others have it perform, I do not think anymore that the government should impose constraints. When life as a person exactly begins is partially a matter of faith, and statistics show that where abortion is illegal the frequency seems not significantly down while the health risks go up. Like many things, it remains a matter of individual conscience.

That's basically what I think, too, especially because of the involved health risks in places where abortion is illegal, as you mentioned. In some people's imagined ideal world united through worship of the one and only god, that wouldn't be a problem because no one would do it. But we don't live in an ideal world - if we did, then none of these "moralistic" religious movements wouldn't have sprung into life as they obviously wouldn't even be needed -, so whether or not we call ourselves "Christians" or members of any other religious or other group which claims to be there for the good of the people, we should have the understanding and compassion not to deny women in such a situation medical and other support to make the right choice and make sure there are no unnecessary health risks.
Which is why I do think there should be some contraints, but not of a religiously based "moralistic" or legal nature, but because there are health risks as with any other medical procedure and it has to be ensured that the potential patient gets the right counseling and medical attention to make the right choice and be sure her health won't be affected negatively.

Now, if people think they are against that for whatever reason, they can of course still voice their opinions, preach, live under rules which do not allow that if they chose to do so freely. But they should not try to abuse the legal mechanism of the state to enforce their religious views on other people.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Wow, I hadn't thought of that.  My guess is that being alive allows a person to participate in God's plan.  Taking that away is a sin.

That's a tough one. 

Maybe, maybe not. Dante does not deal with abortions in the Comedy, but in the Inferno he does place infants who die unbaptized in the Limbo area - along with the virtuous heathens like Plato, Aristotle, and (of course) Virgil. Dante's Limbo is in fact the first circle of of hell, in that its dwellers, though not sinful, did not accept Christ.

In Roman Catholic tradition, limbo is a place to which the souls of
people go, if they are not good enough for Heaven or bad enough for
Hell. More exactly, according to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, it is
"...the permanent place or state of those unbaptized children and
others who, dying without grievous personal sin, are excluded from the
beatific vision on account of original sin alone."

http://www.123helpme.com/preview.asp?id=103252

Under this reasoning, fetuses cannot wind up in heaven in the first place.

[Catison]

Under this reasoning, fetuses cannot wind up in heaven in the first place.

But it is my understanding that Limbo (or Purgatory) is a place of temporary cleansing before finally reaching heaven.

[Al Moritz]

Limbo is not official Catholic doctrine, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo

(see also heading "Modern era")