palaeologos Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 [quote name='A wilding' post='1717503' date='Mar 12 2009, 11.40']Incidentally a further argument against the "If she doesn't like the club rules, she can go elsewhere" analogy is that the RCC's aim is to prevent anyone from having an abortion, not just their members.[/quote] How is that an argument against the analogy? The RCC doesn't control the democratic process, even in Brazil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 [quote name='Seventh Pup' post='1717293' date='Mar 12 2009, 08.48']That arguments that are both absurd and hyperbolic (that a fetus is the equivalent of a 2 year old)[/quote] The argument is that that is what the church believes. Are you suggesting that my assertion that this is what the church believes is absurd and hyperbolic? Because it's neither. [quote]Congratulations...[/quote] Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirius Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 [quote name='palaeologos' post='1717250' date='Mar 12 2009, 10.22']As far as interpreting the Bible goes, I can't help but think that the religious body (or bodies) that assembled it in the first place might have the best idea about what it means. And it's worth remembering as well that the Catholic Church (by which I mean, the undivided early church, not that entity which is known today as the Roman Catholic Church) existed before the New Testament was even written, let alone compiled in the form that we now see. In that light, the various reformative movements of Protestant schismatics seem to lack authority. If Martin Luther were correct in his belief that the Holy Ghost inspires individual interpretation of the Bible, then the Holy Ghost must be a terrible prankster--just look at all the little Protestant sects, each of them sure its interpretation must be correct, because after all their consciences couldn't possibly be wrong![/quote] Okay, but even then. They did not take all writings about Christianity and compile them into the Bible. They took the documents that they liked and could use, and excluded the rest. It was done by one of the Emperors, don't remember which at the moment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seventh Pup Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 [quote name='Swordfish' post='1717571' date='Mar 12 2009, 12.42']The argument is that that is what the church believes. Are you suggesting that my assertion that this is what the church believes is absurd and hyperbolic? Because it's neither. Thanks![/quote] I am asserting that those beliefs are both inane and absurd. That defending those beliefs is both inane and absurd. You seemed to be arguing from a position as though you believed they had validity. To be clear in your arguments you seemed to be arguing that it acceptable and valid to argue that a two year old is equal to a fetus; not merely that was the position of the RCC. If you do not hold those beliefs I am sorry if I miss understood you. But those beliefs are both hyperbolic and absurd and arguing them in a situation like this can lead logical people to their breaking point quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meili Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I get the gist and 20 pages is a lot, so I just have three questions (or three groups) What are they doing to the father? Trial? Did he please guilty? Or is he out on bail? What punishment is he looking at Jtime wise. What about the mother, any charges on her? Was she a 'silent witness' who turned her eyes and pretended it didn't happen like so many do? Did they take the girl from the family and put her in foster care/relative care/ etc. Why do they even want to go back to church? I mean the step-father shouldn't show his face anyways, the girl (and mom, if she has custody) were treated horribly by it, so why not go to another? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palaeologos Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 [quote name='King of the Wolf Pack' post='1717678' date='Mar 12 2009, 14.27']Okay, but even then. They did not take all writings about Christianity and compile them into the Bible. They took the documents that they liked and could use, and excluded the rest. It was done by one of the Emperors, don't remember which at the moment...[/quote] No, it wasn't. The canon of the NT was set at the Council of Carthage, without an Emperor present. The findings of the Council of Nicea (an ecumenical council, which Constantine called, but whose conclusions were none of his doing) in AD 325 influenced which writings could be selected, because that council clarified the theology with regard to the relationship between the members of the Trinity. But even afterward, there were plenty of Christian texts which are perfectly orthodox but were not considered authoritative, and thus were not admitted into the canon (e.g. the Apostolic Fathers, several of the apocryphal Acts & Apocalypses). As far as the Gnostic texts go, we have practically no lists of NT books which include them. You'd think that if people really thought the Infancy Gospel of Mark was authoritative, we'd have someone's list on which it appeared--but no, we don't, giving the impression that it was [b]never considered authoritative in the first place[/b]. Gnosticism was not a current within Christianity, but a competing belief system which made use of the popular figure of Jesus in order to appeal to Christians. The Gnostic texts are uniformly of later date than the canonical books of the NT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 [quote name='Seventh Pup' post='1718143' date='Mar 12 2009, 23.28']I am asserting that those beliefs are both inane and absurd. That defending those beliefs is both inane and absurd. You seemed to be arguing from a position as though you believed they had validity. To be clear in your arguments you seemed to be arguing that it acceptable and valid to argue that a two year old is equal to a fetus; not merely that was the position of the RCC.[/quote] i don't recall doing any such thing. Either way, it's irrelevant whether I believe that or not, since what we are discussing is what the church believes, and whether it was reasonable for them to take the actions they've taken which were based upon those beliefs, and further, whether those actions were onerous or not. I don't believe that what they've done is particularly onerous or objectionable for reasons already discussed. When pressed for reasons why this is a good example of the church acting improperly, there has been a void of any rational description about what is so terribly wrong with it. [quote]If you do not hold those beliefs I am sorry if I miss understood you.[/quote] I am not supporting the validity of those beliefs. I'm supporting their right to hold them, and their right to enforce them among their members. [quote]But those beliefs are both hyperbolic and absurd and arguing them in a situation like this can lead logical people to their breaking point quickly.[/quote] What point do you think has been broken here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirius Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 [quote name='Swordfish' post='1718981' date='Mar 13 2009, 16.11']What point do you think has been broken here?[/quote] His temper smart guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.