MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: muwarrior69 on October 06, 2014, 12:59:55 PM
-
Will be interesting to see what comes of this. I hope its more scripture and less doctrine. "What is bound on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever is loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/10/06/pope-urges-bishops-at-start-big-family-debate-to-speak-without-fear-listen-with/?intcmp=latestnews
-
Betting pool starting now on how when the thread lock hits.
-
It will lock when enough people cherrypick the particular Pope quotes that fit their ideology and disparage the people who use Pope quotes that don't fit their ideology.
-
Why do people pay much attention to a bunch of guys that worship a sky wizard & his hippy, tree hugging son?
What a weird world.
-
Why do people pay much attention to a bunch of guys that worship a sky wizard & his hippy, tree hugging son?
What a weird world.
https://twitter.com/Jesusontwittorr/status/519185136316071936
-
Maybe someone here can tell me the "practical difference" between an annulment and a divorce. I realize they are not the same thing, but don't they accomplish exactly the same thing?
I was raised in a pretty strict protestant home and always wanted to be a catholic as a kid. I had to follow all these rules about what I could and couldn't do (fun things always lined up on the "couldn't side) and they got to do whatever they wanted and then just go to confession and everything was reset.
-
Hey hey hey you are forgetting all the "Our Fathers" and "Hail Mary" we had to recite
-
Maybe someone here can tell me the "practical difference" between an annulment and a divorce. I realize they are not the same thing, but don't they accomplish exactly the same thing?
I was raised in a pretty strict protestant home and always wanted to be a catholic as a kid. I had to follow all these rules about what I could and couldn't do (fun things always lined up on the "couldn't side) and they got to do whatever they wanted and then just go to confession and everything was reset.
A divorce is civil & secular and an annulment is religiously related. That probably still doesn't answer your question?
-
It will lock when enough people cherrypick the particular Pope quotes that fit their ideology and disparage the people who use Pope quotes that don't fit their ideology.
I am a conservative and I think Pope Francis is the best hope for the Catholic faith lasting another 1000 years. People's feelings on this Pope do not necessarily follow traditional ideological lines.
I do hope he a Pope for our time and a long time after....
Mods...delete this if you find it too political, but please don't lock the thread. I sure would appreciate learning what my fellow Marquette alums (mostly) feel about Pope Francis.
-
I am thrilled with Pope Francis and I believe that he is the leader the Church needs for our time. To paraphrase what some on this board would say, sometimes it is how you say what you say. Compassion goes a long way, and I believe in this case may even lead to a dialogue that will result in a change in social positions that are not fundamental to the Church but are ultimately damaging to the Church.
And if you want some insight into how his leadership style could result in some non-radical change, I recommend Chris Lowney's book on the Pope Francis's leadership style, grounded in Ignatian Spirituality.
-
I am not Catholic so I don't know if people will care. But I think the Christian Church has traditionally spent too much time on laws and judgement and not enough time on love and compassion. I find Pope Francis a breath of fesh air not because he seems more liberal, but because he seems to be a man of humility and compassion, and listens with a sense of genuine-ness.
-
John Paul II was ideal for his time of appointment but an anachronism towards the end. Francis is a breath of fresh air - how can any caring human being believe that God views homosexual love as less worthy than heterosexual affection?
The Church is at a critical juncture in its history and must adjust if it is to survive.
-
A divorce is civil & secular and an annulment is religiously related. That probably still doesn't answer your question?
Annulment sounds kinda like a get out of jail free card. Like a special rider that lets you break the no-divorce rule.
-
I am not Catholic so I don't know if people will care. But I think the Christian Church has traditionally spent too much time on laws and judgement and not enough time on love and compassion. I find Pope Francis a breath of fesh air not because he seems more liberal, but because he seems to be a man of humility and compassion, and listens with a sense of genuine-ness.
Agreed. Jesus talks in the bible about exactly this.
-
Annulment sounds kinda like a get out of jail free card. Like a special rider that lets you break the no-divorce rule.
In a way, I suppose. Marriage is a contractual agreement. Annulment voids the contract ([a]null and void). Divorce terminates the contract.
-
In a way, I suppose. Marriage is a contractual agreement. Annulment voids the contract ([a]null and void). Divorce terminates the contract.
So, other than semantics..... there is no difference.
-
So, other than semantics..... there is no difference.
well, there is one difference...
-
Annulment sounds kinda like a get out of jail free card. Like a special rider that lets you break the no-divorce rule.
That's actually a pretty fair description. Divorce used to be a total no no in the Catholic Church. It was illegal in Ireland as recently as 1995. If you got an annulment, though, it was as if your marriage never happened. You could marry again in the church (a no no if only divorced, not annulled).
-
John Paul II was ideal for his time of appointment but an anachronism towards the end. Francis is a breath of fresh air - how can any caring human being believe that God views homosexual love as less worthy than heterosexual affection?
The Church is at a critical juncture in its history and must adjust if it is to survive.
Here here.
I'm a follower of the fsm, but I have no problem with people who want to peacefully follow what they want and believe what they want to believe.
-
That's actually a pretty fair description. Divorce used to be a total no no in the Catholic Church. It was illegal in Ireland as recently as 1995. If you got an annulment, though, it was as if your marriage never happened. You could marry again in the church (a no no if only divorced, not annulled).
It's all such mental masturbation. From the same folks who gave us indulgences...
"When a coin in the coffer rings/a soul from Purgatory springs..."
-
For some reason I was always under the impression that an annulment was like saying some defect in the marriage (for example failure to consummate, material misrepresentation, etc) caused the marriage to be invalid, like it never happened. A divorce, I always thought, was just a severing of the marriage. One treated the marriage as never existing, the other treated it as a contract that was destroyed. I'm not sure where I got that impression, but I guess it's nice to finally know.
I should note that I was not raised Catholic, so that may have some impact on my frame of reference.
-
For some reason I was always under the impression that an annulment was like saying some defect in the marriage (for example failure to consummate, material misrepresentation, etc) caused the marriage to be invalid, like it never happened. A divorce, I always thought, was just a severing of the marriage. One treated the marriage as never existing, the other treated it as a contract that was destroyed. I'm not sure where I got that impression, but I guess it's nice to finally know.
I should note that I was not raised Catholic, so that may have some impact on my frame of reference.
Pretty sure you are correct with these impressions.
-
Hopefully this doesn't take us into the locked thread alley, but as a non-catholic (lutheran...so catholic lite, twice the salvation, half the guilt) I've always been confused by how "strict" the church is and how blatantly the believers ignore the churches rules.
My wife is catholic and before we got married we had a serious discussion about what faith we wanted to follow. She didn't have to become lutheran, but I told her in no uncertain terms I would not become catholic. I just can't get up before god and pledge to faithfully adhere to his rules per the catholic church when I know I'm going to ignore/fight against 75% of them.
Apologizes for my callousness but why is it that folks of the catholic faith hold it to be such a part of their identity and speak so highly of it but than choose to ignore it when it comes to the vast majority of their life decisions/politics?
The most liberal people I know are catholic....clearly I'm missing something. ;D
I'm not judging in any way just trying to understand it. My wife couldn't explain it and she went to a catholic school for everything but high school and college.
-
Hopefully this doesn't take us into the locked thread alley, but as a non-catholic (lutheran...so catholic lite, twice the salvation, half the guilt) I've always been confused by how "strict" the church is and how blatantly the believers ignore the churches rules.
My wife is catholic and before we got married we had a serious discussion about what faith we wanted to follow. She didn't have to become lutheran, but I told her in no uncertain terms I would not become catholic. I just can't get up before god and pledge to faithfully adhere to his rules per the catholic church when I know I'm going to ignore/fight against 75% of them.
Apologizes for my callousness but why is it that folks of the catholic faith hold it to be such a part of their identity and speak so highly of it but than choose to ignore it when it comes to the vast majority of their life decisions/politics?
The most liberal people I know are catholic....clearly I'm missing something. ;D
I'm not judging in any way just trying to understand it. My wife couldn't explain it and she went to a catholic school for everything but high school and college.
As someone who is also Lutheran, I never understood this either. But I think what I have figured out is that most people, including most Catholics, remain in whatever church they are in because of a comfort factor. It is what they grew up with and it is what they are comfortable with. That doesn't mean they agree 100% with everything the Church teaches. I mean, I don't agree 100% with Lutheran theology either. But I continue going to a Lutheran church because it is what I am used to and I get a sense of comfort and satisfaction from that.
Let's face it, most people (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc.) are who they are because that's what their parents were. Most people have had very little true experience with other faiths, and have made decisions based on deep theological philosophies.
-
Catholic social teaching is very broad. No political party or ideology matches up perfectly with it. For example, the American Catholic Bishops have long favored universal health care. Until contraception was covered. Catholic economic thought spans from the free market devotees to socialists. Open borders for immigration, big safety net for the poor, few justifications for war..... The commitment to life starts with conception and goes to the end where Catholic teaching is anti-death penalty, anti-assisted suicide. It is actually very consistent. The inconsistencies begin when political ideologies get mixed in.
All of this will be on display at the conference that Pope Francis has called. The conservative bishops will be debating with the liberal bishops about Catholic doctrine. Ease some things or hold the line. The classic struggle.
-
Maybe someone here can tell me the "practical difference" between an annulment and a divorce. I realize they are not the same thing, but don't they accomplish exactly the same thing?
I was raised in a pretty strict protestant home and always wanted to be a catholic as a kid. I had to follow all these rules about what I could and couldn't do (fun things always lined up on the "couldn't side) and they got to do whatever they wanted and then just go to confession and everything was reset.
The Catholic Church (as of now, this may be changing as we speak) does not allow for divorce. Annulments, in their truest sense (the marriage was never valid, and never happened) have historically been allowed for very specific reasons: marriage was never consummated, inability to procreate, marriage was conducted under duress or influence, etc. There was very specific criteria that had to be met for the marriage to be declared as never happening. However, more recently annulments have become a de facto Catholic divorce, and now the Church just allows divorce by another name. Since the cat is already out of the bag, the Church should just stop pretending and accept that divorces happen and keep those people as part of the Church, if they want to be.
-
Hopefully this doesn't take us into the locked thread alley, but as a non-catholic (lutheran...so catholic lite, twice the salvation, half the guilt) I've always been confused by how "strict" the church is and how blatantly the believers ignore the churches rules.
My wife is catholic and before we got married we had a serious discussion about what faith we wanted to follow. She didn't have to become lutheran, but I told her in no uncertain terms I would not become catholic. I just can't get up before god and pledge to faithfully adhere to his rules per the catholic church when I know I'm going to ignore/fight against 75% of them.
Apologizes for my callousness but why is it that folks of the catholic faith hold it to be such a part of their identity and speak so highly of it but than choose to ignore it when it comes to the vast majority of their life decisions/politics?
The most liberal people I know are catholic....clearly I'm missing something. ;D
I'm not judging in any way just trying to understand it. My wife couldn't explain it and she went to a catholic school for everything but high school and college.
The Catholic legal system (aka Canon Law) is very different from the civil legal system we are used to. For example, in secular society we have relatively lax laws when it comes to morality (do basically whatever you want, as long as it doesn't trample on others' rights or harm the common good). But if you break the laws, there will be consequences and you will have to suffer the punishment. The Church runs in the opposite way: very strict moral code, but a more forgiving attitude if they are broken: we are all sinners, right? So confess, do your penance, and life is good. Its just a different way of approaching morality. And its very strange for people used to secular law.
-
To OP of the thread, I also hold great hope for Pope Francis. He is sorely needed. If the Church continues to cling to medieval conceptions of sexual morality, it will be irrelevant by the end of my lifetime. It has a very short window to adjust its teachings before enough people leave that it is an afterthought in society.
I think Francis knows this, and is beginning the process of dragging the rest of the hierarchy, kicking and screaming, up to modern times.
-
The Catholic legal system (aka Canon Law) is very different from the civil legal system we are used to. For example, in secular society we have relatively lax laws when it comes to morality (do basically whatever you want, as long as it doesn't trample on others' rights or harm the common good). But if you break the laws, there will be consequences and you will have to suffer the punishment. The Church runs in the opposite way: very strict moral code, but a more forgiving attitude if they are broken: we are all sinners, right? So confess, do your penance, and life is good. Its just a different way of approaching morality. And its very strange for people used to secular law.
Yeah but I think he is touching on something more than that. For instance, many Catholics use birth control. They do so knowing that it is against Catholic teaching and my guess is that they don't view it as a sin and don't confess about its use. I had a good friend at Marquette that simply called its prohibition by the church "silly."
And that's just one issue. Homosexuality is another. How many Catholics actively campaign for the death penalty? For pro-choice? Against universal health coverage?
-
Yeah but I think he is touching on something more than that. For instance, many Catholics use birth control. They do so knowing that it is against Catholic teaching and my guess is that they don't view it as a sin and don't confess about its use. I had a good friend at Marquette that simply called its prohibition by the church "silly."
And that's just one issue. Homosexuality is another. How many Catholics actively campaign for the death penalty? For pro-choice? Against universal health coverage?
You're right. It is more than what I said, I was just trying to provide some deeper context.
But yes, so many of the teachings are outdated/irrelevant that people are beginning to ignore them.
-
Hopefully this doesn't take us into the locked thread alley, but as a non-catholic (lutheran...so catholic lite, twice the salvation, half the guilt) I've always been confused by how "strict" the church is and how blatantly the believers ignore the churches rules.
My wife is catholic and before we got married we had a serious discussion about what faith we wanted to follow. She didn't have to become lutheran, but I told her in no uncertain terms I would not become catholic. I just can't get up before god and pledge to faithfully adhere to his rules per the catholic church when I know I'm going to ignore/fight against 75% of them.
Apologizes for my callousness but why is it that folks of the catholic faith hold it to be such a part of their identity and speak so highly of it but than choose to ignore it when it comes to the vast majority of their life decisions/politics?
The most liberal people I know are catholic....clearly I'm missing something. ;D
I'm not judging in any way just trying to understand it. My wife couldn't explain it and she went to a catholic school for everything but high school and college.
The modern Catholic Church (post Vatican II) is far closer to Lutheran than ever before. If you actually look at Martin Luther's thesis, he was right. I'm a Catholic, and I can admit that.
The Catholic Church is just REALLY slow to change. Eventually, the Catholic Church evolved and looks more similar to Luther's original vision, but the Church is never going to openly admit that.
As far as Francis, I LOVE everything about him. He's an inspiration.
The power of humbleness, charity, love and forgiveness are the foundations for Christianity. If we actually read and follow the spirit of the text, we know what is right/wrong. It's when people get caught up in church dogma/politics/specifics that things get twisted into agendas.
People (including me) call Francis a radical, but the truth is, the dude is more traditional than we have ever seen. He's stripped down his Papacy to Catholicism's true values, and it's been amazing to watch.
-
Pretty sure you are correct with these impressions.
Then this thread is more confusing than I initially thought...
-
The Catholic Church (as of now, this may be changing as we speak) does not allow for divorce. Annulments, in their truest sense (the marriage was never valid, and never happened) have historically been allowed for very specific reasons: marriage was never consummated, inability to procreate, marriage was conducted under duress or influence, etc. There was very specific criteria that had to be met for the marriage to be declared as never happening. However, more recently annulments have become a de facto Catholic divorce, and now the Church just allows divorce by another name. Since the cat is already out of the bag, the Church should just stop pretending and accept that divorces happen and keep those people as part of the Church, if they want to be.
not so sure about those reasons for anullments, I work with a guy that after 5 years of marriage and 2 kids was granted an annulment after a $10,000 contribution, that was over 20 years ago
-
Hopefully this doesn't take us into the locked thread alley, but as a non-catholic (lutheran...so catholic lite, twice the salvation, half the guilt) I've always been confused by how "strict" the church is and how blatantly the believers ignore the churches rules.
My wife is catholic and before we got married we had a serious discussion about what faith we wanted to follow. She didn't have to become lutheran, but I told her in no uncertain terms I would not become catholic. I just can't get up before god and pledge to faithfully adhere to his rules per the catholic church when I know I'm going to ignore/fight against 75% of them.
Apologizes for my callousness but why is it that folks of the catholic faith hold it to be such a part of their identity and speak so highly of it but than choose to ignore it when it comes to the vast majority of their life decisions/politics?
The most liberal people I know are catholic....clearly I'm missing something. ;D
I'm not judging in any way just trying to understand it. My wife couldn't explain it and she went to a catholic school for everything but high school and college.
What exactly (specifically) do you mean by ignoring the church rules when it comes to the "vast majority" of their life decisions? Artificial birth control, yes. Premarital sex, yes. What else?
There are some ultra conservative Catholics who agree with you. They refer to self identifying Catholics who don't accept everything that comes out of Rome as "cafeteria Catholics" who pick and choose which parts of the faith to observe. Most Catholics I know don't buy that, though. They know that in the Catholic faith the individual conscience is sacrosanct and that very few of the "rules" have come from ex cathedra pronouncements. Their rituals are Catholic, their community is Catholic and their small community within the larger one is Catholic, too. Most of their families go back through personal histories of persecution for their faith. Disagreement with a man made rule here or there isn't enough for most to leave. It's been too much of who/what we are for too long to abandon it. That said, I think (with my children's generation), the Church is at a tipping point. They love what they've seen from Pope Francis (as do I) but unless the church officially becomes more accepting of all God's children (especially those from the gay community) I'm afraid the Catholic Church in America is in big trouble.
-
Yeah but I think he is touching on something more than that. For instance, many Catholics use birth control. They do so knowing that it is against Catholic teaching and my guess is that they don't view it as a sin and don't confess about its use. I had a good friend at Marquette that simply called its prohibition by the church "silly."
And that's just one issue. Homosexuality is another. How many Catholics actively campaign for the death penalty? For pro-choice? Against universal health coverage?
I was very fascinated when I read this article of Malcolm Gladwell's. The guy who helped invent the birth control did it so it would be natural and therefore approved by the catholic church.
http://web.archive.org/web/20130219103742/http://www.gladwell.com/2000/2000_03_10_a_rock.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20130219103742/http://www.gladwell.com/2000/2000_03_10_a_rock.htm)
I have the same impression, any of my catholic friends that disagree with the church don't view their stance as a sin, simply as the church being "backwards". I get that change is slow (sometimes for good reason, you want to make sure it's the right moral direction to go) but it seems to me the reason for it's existence is essentially going away.
I ultimately agree, what the majority of catholics are these days are lutherans with a lot of reverence for saints and Mary. So that's what the people are...does the church change to reflect that or try and "force" some less lax middle ground?
-
What exactly (specifically) do you mean by ignoring the church rules when it comes to the "vast majority" of their life decisions? Artificial birth control, yes. Premarital sex, yes. What else?
homosexual marriage, not divorcing, no meat on Fridays, regular attendance of confession, not taking the lord's name in vain, etc. Ya know, your basic venial sins. I could probably create a whole list of church teachings (as I understand them) that I've seen countless catholics ignore.
-
Self-gratification.
-
Self-gratification.
That's a big one
-
not so sure about those reasons for anullments, I work with a guy that after 5 years of marriage and 2 kids was granted an annulment after a $10,000 contribution, that was over 20 years ago
Which is why I said it has become divorce by another name. I was giving the historical reasons. Like historical as in 200+ years ago.
-
That's a big one
Not that I would know.
-
Not that I would know.
God blesses some more than others
-
not so sure about those reasons for anullments, I work with a guy that after 5 years of marriage and 2 kids was granted an annulment after a $10,000 contribution, that was over 20 years ago
You could ask the Kennedy clan, John Kerry and Rudolph Giuliani about RC annulments.
-
homosexual marriage, not divorcing, no meat on Fridays, regular attendance of confession, not taking the lord's name in vain, etc. Ya know, your basic venial sins. I could probably create a whole list of church teachings (as I understand them) that I've seen countless catholics ignore.
No meat on Friday has been off the list of rules for decades. I don't think of swearing as being a "life decision", merely a bad and lazy habit. I don't agree with the official church stance on gay marriage or divorce, but like the "vast majority" of Catholics neither has been part of any personal "life decision". I'm unaware of the "regular attendance of confession" rule if there is one. I do know, though, that the sacrament hasn't been confession for decades - it's called reconciliation.
-
No meat on Friday has been off the list of rules for decades.
This might surprise you, but technically it hasn't. It is up to the local Bishop conference. In some places in the world, giving up meat on Friday would amount to a meaningless requirement. And in this country how much of a sacrifice is it really? Shrimp scampi instead of meatloaf?
What is still Canon law, however, is the requirement on each and every Friday to perform some kind of penance. Sincere, practicing Catholics who honestly do not know of this obligation are of course not culpable for failing to follow it, but the fact remains that it's still on the books.
Canon 1251
Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.
-
That's a big one
That's what a Navy wife said to me...
-
This might surprise you, but technically it hasn't. It is up to the local Bishop conference. In some places in the world, giving up meat on Friday would amount to a meaningless requirement. And in this country how much of a sacrifice is it really? Shrimp scampi instead of meatloaf?
What is still Canon law, however, is the requirement on each and every Friday to perform some kind of penance. Sincere, practicing Catholics who honestly do not know of this obligation are of course not culpable for failing to follow it, but the fact remains that it's still on the books.
Canon 1251
Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.
Somehow, I am guessing St. Peter is laughing at the abstruse, pedantic nature of all of this...
-
Somehow, I am guessing St. Peter is laughing at the abstruse, pedantic nature of all of this...
Jesus wept.
-
That's what a Navy wife said to me...
Thank god you were you using the Zoomie personality as a form of birth control. It is of course a natural form acceptable to the church
-
Jesus wept.
I'd like to think that he saves his weeping for the victims of pedophiles wearing Roman Collars.
-
I'd like to think that he saves his weeping for the victims of pedophiles wearing Roman Collars.
He probably weeps a lot.
-
Thank god you were you using the Zoomie personality as a form of birth control. It is of course a natural form acceptable to the church
The Zoom Bag is like catnip, man. Dropping panties since 1926!
-
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/10/13/bishops-say-gays-have-gifts-to-offer-church-positive-aspects-civil-unions/?intcmp=latestnews
Looks like change is coming.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/10/13/bishops-say-gays-have-gifts-to-offer-church-positive-aspects-civil-unions/?intcmp=latestnews
Looks like change is coming.
Looks like the media jumped the gun and didn't translate very well. It's always amazing to me how many stories come out in the first hours after he speaks that are so dead wrong or go way too far on what wasn't said, but implied to have been said. Makes me think SixStrings is writing this stuff.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/390228/great-catholic-cave-wasnt-george-weigel
http://www.newsweek.com/what-did-vatican-really-say-about-gay-marriage-yesterday-catholics-disagree-277360
-
I guess their love for gays only extends as far as the priesthood, huh?
-
I guess their love for gays only extends as far as the priesthood, huh?
That went well.
However, I support inclusion of all in Catholicism and think the Pope is moving the creaking, sagging old wagon incrementally forward.
-
That went well.
However, I support inclusion of all in Catholicism and think the Pope is moving the creaking, sagging old wagon incrementally forward.
I don't understand Brand's comments as that isn't the case at all, but whatever. I'm not aware of a major religion in the world that supports gay marriage, so this is hardly surprising that Catholicism doesn't either.
The question becomes what do institutions stand for and if they change at every whim, does that mean the institutions require any rigidity at all? That is a general question that can be applied to many institutions.
My nephew is gay, going to his gay wedding next Summer. Looking forward to it. On the other hand, I don't hold it against the Catholic church either if they adhering to 1000's of hears of church dogma in setting doctrine.
-
I don't understand Brand's comments as that isn't the case at all, but whatever. I'm not aware of a major religion in the world that supports gay marriage, so this is hardly surprising that Catholicism doesn't either.
The question becomes what do institutions stand for and if they change at every whim, does that mean the institutions require any rigidity at all? That is a general question that can be applied to many institutions.
My nephew is gay, going to his gay wedding next Summer. Looking forward to it. On the other hand, I don't hold it against the Catholic church either if they adhering to 1000's of hears of church dogma in setting doctrine.
Many Christian denominations support gay marriage. Episcopalians/Anglicans are an example. Archbishop Desmond Tutu has spoken in favor of marriage equality. There have even been openly gay (as in, with partners) bishops.
Outside of Christianity, it is a mixed bag. Ask a reformed Jewish rabbi and he may be in full support of it. An Orthodox Jew may not. Many Buddhists support gay rights. Most Muslims do not.
It's a mixed bag, but many religions do in fact support it or at least have nothing against gay marriage. Just wanted to educate you since you said you were not aware of any.
The Catholic Church has changed its position on moral issues many times. Slavery is an obvious example. Many popes released papal bulls endorsing slavery by Catholic nations, such as Spain. They realized their mistake centuries later. Religious freedom is another example. Up until Vatican II the official position of the church was that people could be forced to become Catholic, and that was ok. Now that is universally recognized as a violation of human rights. So, it would certainly not be unprecedented for the Church to change its position on an issue such as marriage equality or welcoming gays in the Church.
-
Many Christian denominations support gay marriage. Episcopalians/Anglicans are an example. Archbishop Desmond Tutu has spoken in favor of marriage equality. There have even been openly gay (as in, with partners) bishops.
Outside of Christianity, it is a mixed bag. Ask a reformed Jewish rabbi and he may be in full support of it. An Orthodox Jew may not. Many Buddhists support gay rights. Most Muslims do not.
It's a mixed bag, but many religions do in fact support it or at least have nothing against gay marriage. Just wanted to educate you since you said you were not aware of any.
The Catholic Church has changed its position on moral issues many times. Slavery is an obvious example. Many popes released papal bulls endorsing slavery by Catholic nations, such as Spain. They realized their mistake centuries later. Religious freedom is another example. Up until Vatican II the official position of the church was that people could be forced to become Catholic, and that was ok. Now that is universally recognized as a violation of human rights. So, it would certainly not be unprecedented for the Church to change its position on an issue such as marriage equality or welcoming gays in the Church.
Appreciate the response. Maybe a better clarifying statement by me, "I'm not aware of any major religion performing gay marriages". If there is, I'll need further education. Presbyterians are the only one I'm aware of, though I'm not sure I would classify them as a major religion. Some of those in the table below that support it and listed as "major", I think they're being a bit generous with their sizing. Will things change? Probably.
(http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2014/06/FT_14.06.18_ChurchesOnSSM-1.png)
-
One thing to add in all of this is the distinction between being pro gay marriage generally and pro gay marriage within the Church.
There are many devout religious people I know who don't care to much about the gay marriage issue (some even support it), but only in a secular setting; they are opposed to gay marriage happening in the Church however. So the position would be one of 'why should I care what the state "blesses," so long as it is not happening in my parish/other parishes in the Church'.
-
Appreciate the response. Maybe a better clarifying statement by me, "I'm not aware of any major religion performing gay marriages". If there is, I'll need further education. Presbyterians are the only one I'm aware of, though I'm not sure I would classify them as a major religion. Some of those in the table below that support it and listed as "major", I think they're being a bit generous with their sizing. Will things change? Probably.
(http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2014/06/FT_14.06.18_ChurchesOnSSM-1.png)
That's a good chart. It pretty much exactly expresses what I was trying to say. Pretty mixed bag.
I find it extremely interesting that many, many Christians use the Old Testament as justification of their prohibitions of same sex marriage when Reform and Conservative Jews have embraced it without issue.
-
I recognize that many religions may never do anything other than condemn gay marriage. IMO, though, the equal protection clause of the constitution should make it legal.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United Stantes and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
-
The question becomes what do institutions stand for and if they change at every whim, does that mean the institutions require any rigidity at all? That is a general question that can be applied to many institutions.
Simply, put those institutions can be wrong. They have been wrong previously. They most certainly can be wrong again.
Maybe I am being too simple, but I tend to try to think about these things through the "Greatest Commandment" from Matthew 22.
"34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
So when I think of issues like gay marriage, I ask myself "OK, where am I showing the most love, compassion and empathy?" And when I see church policies that exclude rather than include, regardless if they are Catholic, Protestant or even Christian, I think that Jesus Christ may have had a problem with it.
In summary, perhaps we are more like the Pharisees and Sadducees than we would like to admit.
-
And Jesus said to him: Why dost thou call me good? None is good but God alone. Lk:18:19 KJV
We should all take pause in that.
-
Simply, put those institutions can be wrong. They have been wrong previously. They most certainly can be wrong again.
Maybe I am being too simple, but I tend to try to think about these things through the "Greatest Commandment" from Matthew 22.
"34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
So when I think of issues like gay marriage, I ask myself "OK, where am I showing the most love, compassion and empathy?" And when I see church policies that exclude rather than include, regardless if they are Catholic, Protestant or even Christian, I think that Jesus Christ may have had a problem with it.
In summary, perhaps we are more like the Pharisees and Sadducees than we would like to admit.
"Everyone is welcome in the kingdom of God... well, except for dudes who like dudes." - Jesus.
-
The question becomes what do institutions stand for and if they change at every whim, does that mean the institutions require any rigidity at all? That is a general question that can be applied to many institutions.
Well, if the Catholic Church continues to "stand for" the idea that living a homosexual lifestyle is sinful and punishable by eternal damnation its relevancy in the USA will continue to diminish. This is a basic civil rights issue to our children and the "this is what we've held for centuries" line won't cut it with them.
-
Well, if the Catholic Church continues to "stand for" the idea that living a homosexual lifestyle is sinful and punishable by eternal damnation its relevancy in the USA will continue to diminish. This is a basic civil rights issue to our children and the "this is what we've held for centuries" line won't cut it with them.
Yup
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/17/young-catholic-gay-pew_n_6006328.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000051
-
Well, if the Catholic Church continues to "stand for" the idea that living a homosexual lifestyle is sinful and punishable by eternal damnation its relevancy in the USA will continue to diminish. This is a basic civil rights issue to our children and the "this is what we've held for centuries" line won't cut it with them.
It's not important to the Catholic Church to be relevant. Or fashionable. Or hip.
-
Well, if the Catholic Church continues to "stand for" the idea that living a homosexual lifestyle is sinful and punishable by eternal damnation its relevancy in the USA will continue to diminish. This is a basic civil rights issue to our children and the "this is what we've held for centuries" line won't cut it with them.
I'm going to take this a step closer to locksville - You can think something is sinful and punishable by eternal damnation but still support someone's right to conduct themselves in that manner.
-
I'm going to take this a step closer to locksville - You can think something is sinful and punishable by eternal damnation but still support someone's right to conduct themselves in that manner.
Not lockable at all - sounds like plain old, common sense to me.
-
Not lockable at all - sounds like plain old, common sense to me.
And to me too.
-
It's not important to the Catholic Church to be relevant. Or fashionable. Or hip.
The last two I agree with. But the first? I am sure that the Catholic Church wants to be relevant.
-
Well, if the Catholic Church continues to "stand for" the idea that living a homosexual lifestyle is sinful and punishable by eternal damnation its relevancy in the USA will continue to diminish. This is a basic civil rights issue to our children and the "this is what we've held for centuries" line won't cut it with them.
That may be the case, but I suspect that doesn't matter to many. I'm guessing most young Catholics don't believe in going to church, giving to the church, etc, etc, either. That also makes them less relevant. Secondly, how does civil rights have anything to do with the Church's stance? The church cannot stop two people of the same sex from marrying, so their civil rights aren't in question or in any way held back.
Back to my statement, is the church's role to guide the flock or have the flock guide the church. I don't know the answer to that, but if it is the former they aren't going to particularly care. They aren't here to be popular. The priests in our parrish are supportive of gay rights, but don't believe the church should be marrying gays. Seems to me, you can do both. It is simply a question of religion, gay people can get married by the gov't.
-
That may be the case, but I suspect that doesn't matter to many. I'm guessing most young Catholics don't believe in going to church, giving to the church, etc, etc, either. That also makes them less relevant. Secondly, how does civil rights have anything to do with the Church's stance? The church cannot stop two people of the same sex from marrying, so their civil rights aren't in question or in any way held back.
Back to my statement, is the church's role to guide the flock or have the flock guide the church. I don't know the answer to that, but if it is the former they aren't going to particularly care. They aren't here to be popular. The priests in our parrish are supportive of gay rights, but don't believe the church should be marrying gays. Seems to me, you can do both. It is simply a question of religion, gay people can get married by the gov't.
Very well put
-
The last two I agree with. But the first? I am sure that the Catholic Church wants to be relevant.
semantics, but i see your point.
-
Thoughts on this?
http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/20/news/companies/porsche-sistine-chapel/
-
Very well put
To me it seems that people want religion to be like a corporation and to modify their product to the consumer. I just find that an amazingly arse backwards way of thinking about something like religion, but not surprised either in this country.
What if a bunch of young Catholics believe abortion is the cat's meow, should the church start to line up and have abortion clinics? It could be a two for one, have grandma come play Bingo on Tuesday night and drop her grand daughter off at the clinic right there on campus....everyone can be a winner.
Whether I agree or disagree with the church's position on gay marriage, divorce, abortion, whatever, their role should be to decide what is right or wrong not based on what the "consumers" want.
-
To me it seems that people want religion to be like a corporation and to modify their product to the consumer. I just find that an amazingly arse backwards way of thinking about something like religion, but not surprised either in this country.
What if a bunch of young Catholics believe abortion is the cat's meow, should the church start to line up and have abortion clinics? It could be a two for one, have grandma come play Bingo on Tuesday night and drop her grand daughter off at the clinic right there on campus....everyone can be a winner.
Whether I agree or disagree with the church's position on gay marriage, divorce, abortion, whatever, their role should be to decide what is right or wrong not based on what the "consumers" want.
I agree with you to a point. Religions like societies, humans, planets, and all things, evolve. My favorite prof at MU was John Zemler and I had him for a couple of theology classes. One of the things I remember vividly that we discussed was how the bible was a roadmap for evolution of a species and a society. In the early days, if you killed someone their family could wipe out your whole family so "eye for an eye" was born because it was an improvement. Later came the golden rule because now society had been conditioned to only take an eye for an eye, we were ready to "turn the other cheek". There are a lot of other examples of this.
Society evolves and religion should be helping guide that evolution, keep it on the rails so to speak. Some times religion needs to shape society and some time religion needs to catch up to society.
In this case, I think religion needs to catch up. Correct, a religion doesn't need to perform, support, or recognize a gay marriage in a religious context....but they should recognize it as a civil right and they should recognize gay individuals as no different than any other human being of any type. I'm not saying the catholic church doesn't, but they could certainly use some clarification if nothing else.
-
To me it seems that people want religion to be like a corporation and to modify their product to the consumer. I just find that an amazingly arse backwards way of thinking about something like religion, but not surprised either in this country.
What if a bunch of young Catholics believe abortion is the cat's meow, should the church start to line up and have abortion clinics? It could be a two for one, have grandma come play Bingo on Tuesday night and drop her grand daughter off at the clinic right there on campus....everyone can be a winner.
Whether I agree or disagree with the church's position on gay marriage, divorce, abortion, whatever, their role should be to decide what is right or wrong not based on what the "consumers" want.
Because there are two different ways of looking at "religion." The Catholic Church is top-down and dogma based. That there is "truth" out there and such truth is discerned by those at the top and filtered down from there.
Some of the churches that are approving gay marriage, such as the UCC and ELCA, are bottom-up, grassroots organization while being guided by leadership, the truth can be discerned by anyone through prayerful consideration. So policies tend to develop from the bottom up.
So there are two ways of looking at these issues. Has God declared that <insert issue here> is "wrong" for time eternal, but the flock has strayed away from that message due to immorality. Or can the flock determine what God has in mind and act accordingly.
As someone who grew up in the latter tradition, I never really had a list of rights and wrongs. Simply guided by faith and love to love God and love our neighbor. That is open to a great deal of interpretation I know. But I don't find it "squishy" in that sense.
-
Whether I agree or disagree with the church's position on gay marriage, divorce, abortion, whatever, their role should be to decide what is right or wrong not based on what the "consumers" want.
The reason that "consumers" want the church to change their views on homosexuality is that the church's views are based on a bunch of fictions from a bygone day. It's pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that homosexuality isn't a "choice" or a disease from which one can be cured. The nonsense that underpins the church's position on homosexuality defies science and is an affront to common sense and common decency. But glad to know that they're "leading the flock" and basing their decisions on "what is right and wrong". LOL. They are decades behind the curve - thank God that some of their "consumers" are helping to drag them out of the ignorance, intolerance and bigotry that you don't think they should question.
-
To me it seems that people want religion to be like a corporation and to modify their product to the consumer. I just find that an amazingly arse backwards way of thinking about something like religion, but not surprised either in this country.
What if a bunch of young Catholics believe abortion is the cat's meow, should the church start to line up and have abortion clinics? It could be a two for one, have grandma come play Bingo on Tuesday night and drop her grand daughter off at the clinic right there on campus....everyone can be a winner.
Whether I agree or disagree with the church's position on gay marriage, divorce, abortion, whatever, their role should be to decide what is right or wrong not based on what the "consumers" want.
One of the Church's primary missions is to seek truth.
When facts change, when science changes perception of reality, it is the Church's obligation, in seeking the truth, to adjust Her teachings to account for these realities, these facts.
For centuries the Church taught the earth was the center of the universe, but when science disproved this notion, the Church had to adjust (although it took way too long).
The Church's current teachings on homosexuality are rooted in misconceptions that science has disproved (homosexuality is a choice, a disease, is unnatural, even though it is not a choice, not a disease, and happens in nature). Thus, they need to adjust. Your abortion analogy holds absolutely no water. Science has not come through with some development that now allows for a justification of abortion.
Religion should not conflict with science. They should compliment one another. Science answers how and religion answers why. They must be in concert. Religion must be grounded in reason and rational thought. This is central to Catholic teaching and Catholic philosophy.
-
One of the Church's primary missions is to seek truth.
When facts change, when science changes perception of reality, it is the Church's obligation, in seeking the truth, to adjust Her teachings to account for these realities, these facts.
For centuries the Church taught the earth was the center of the universe, but when science disproved this notion, the Church had to adjust (although it took way too long).
The Church's current teachings on homosexuality are rooted in misconceptions that science has disproved (homosexuality is a choice, a disease, is unnatural, even though it is not a choice, not a disease, and happens in nature). Thus, they need to adjust. Your abortion analogy holds absolutely no water. Science has not come through with some development that now allows for a justification of abortion.
Religion should not conflict with science. They should compliment one another. Science answers how and religion answers why. They must be in concert. Religion must be grounded in reason and rational thought. This is central to Catholic teaching and Catholic philosophy.
Precisely why it's all bogus to begin with.
-
My Sky Wizard could beat up your Sky Wizard.
-
Precisely why it's all bogus to begin with.
That's an entirely different discussion, but not really. Religion and science answer different questions.
-
One of the Church's primary missions is to seek truth.
When facts change, when science changes perception of reality, it is the Church's obligation, in seeking the truth, to adjust Her teachings to account for these realities, these facts.
For centuries the Church taught the earth was the center of the universe, but when science disproved this notion, the Church had to adjust (although it took way too long).
The Church's current teachings on homosexuality are rooted in misconceptions that science has disproved (homosexuality is a choice, a disease, is unnatural, even though it is not a choice, not a disease, and happens in nature). Thus, they need to adjust. Your abortion analogy holds absolutely no water. Science has not come through with some development that now allows for a justification of abortion.
Religion should not conflict with science. They should compliment one another. Science answers how and religion answers why. They must be in concert. Religion must be grounded in reason and rational thought. This is central to Catholic teaching and Catholic philosophy.
Perhaps, though science has also "proven" things that turned out to be disproven....you gave examples here in your own paragraph. Just as science has said things are "settled" and predicted we would be standing in several feet of water here on the west coast by now (I can cite you a number of scientists that said this), but it hasn't happened.
My dad was a scientist and didn't believe in God until late in life. It was then that he got baptized Catholic. If we're truly going to go on religion and science, you might want to obliterate religion altogether, which I have no doubt many people would applaud. There are things within religion that cannot be explained, where no scientific consensus can support the outcome or belief. That's why it is called faith. I don't disagree with some of your examples, but my overall point is science and religion don't always mesh and that doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Certainly some people wield it as a political tool to say believers are stupid or don't believe in science. In reality, there are plenty of people that have faith and believe in science, they do not have to be mutually exclusive.
-
That's an entirely different discussion, but not really. Religion and science answer different questions.
Okay I'll bite.
1.) What question(s) does religion "answer"?
2.) If they're supposed to answer different questions, why does religion constantly attempt to answer a question it's unqualified to answer, then force-feed it as dogma?
-
1.) What question(s) does religion "answer"?
It 'answers' questions that science can't quite fully explain and gives those needing assurance an avenue to direct their lives.
Does that make it correct? No. Does it make it necessary? For some, yes.
The issues are when science can fully answer a question, religion offers too much resistance instead of accepting the truth and incorporating that.
-
The reason that "consumers" want the church to change their views on homosexuality is that the church's views are based on a bunch of fictions from a bygone day. It's pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that homosexuality isn't a "choice" or a disease from which one can be cured. The nonsense that underpins the church's position on homosexuality defies science and is an affront to common sense and common decency. But glad to know that they're "leading the flock" and basing their decisions on "what is right and wrong". LOL. They are decades behind the curve - thank God that some of their "consumers" are helping to drag them out of the ignorance, intolerance and bigotry that you don't think they should question.
You're arguing a totally different point. The church sees the sacrament of marriage more than just the act of marrying, but the fruits of that commitment, including children. So does the Islamic Faith, and the Jewish Faith, and so on and so forth.
Look, I don't particularly give a rip what people do, I have gay friends, gay employees, gay relatives. Some have married (and divorced), some are about to be married. The church has a different stance, and I'm fine with that as well.
At the end of the day, the church is supposed to be about what they feel is right, wrong, etc.....this isn't a consumer gets to decide. Cafeteria Catholics have done that forever as it is, so none of that is going to change.
When it all ends, it could be for not. We die, it goes black, we take a dirt nap and nothing ever happens. Or, there is something beyond, and maybe the church is right, or maybe it isn't. We'll all find out someday. If one believes in the latter, does that mean people that followed the church teachings that you don't agree with are damned forever? Or vice versa? Or neither? I have no idea, I'm just curious your point of view. As far as intolerance and ignorance, I don't see it in this case. The Church is saying they won't perform gay marriages, but they have supported gays in many other ways.
Are you hopping mad about this, or is this just what consumers want as well? http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/22/california-orders-churches-to-fund-abortions-or-else/
-
It 'answers' questions that science can't quite fully explain and gives those needing assurance an avenue to direct their lives.
Does that make it correct? No. Does it make it necessary? For some, yes.
The issues are when science can fully answer a question, religion offers too much resistance instead of accepting the truth and incorporating that.
That's pretty fair statement in my opinion. I would only add that "when science can fully answer" is subjective, but often portrayed as settled. Quite frankly, science should never be "settled" is what my dad brilliantly told me. Science is about the pursuit of truth and one may think what is known today in science is the truth, but it may not be 10 years later of 500 years later. The problem is when people say it is settled for reasons that have NOTHING to do with science, but solely on policy or politics or what have you. Even Einstein's work came out to have some issues in the last 2 years that was considered settled, but now proven not to be entirely accurate. As long as people understand this, all is good. When they say it's settled, they usually want to stop discussion and lock in on a result, not the continued pursuit of truth and knowledge.
-
Okay I'll bite.
1.) What question(s) does religion "answer"?
2.) If they're supposed to answer different questions, why does religion constantly attempt to answer a question it's unqualified to answer, then force-feed it as dogma?
Good points. If they are supposed to answer different questions, why are (religious) politicians constantly trying to add religious elements into scientific studies in our schools. Why do they want Creationism taught in science class if they are "supposed" to answer different questions.
-
That's pretty fair statement in my opinion. I would only add that "when science can fully answer" is subjective, but often portrayed as settled. Quite frankly, science should never be "settled" is what my dad brilliantly told me. Science is about the pursuit of truth and one may think what is known today in science is the truth, but it may not be 10 years later of 500 years later. The problem is when people say it is settled for reasons that have NOTHING to do with science, but solely on policy or politics or what have you. Even Einstein's work came out to have some issues in the last 2 years that was considered settled, but now proven not to be entirely accurate. As long as people understand this, all is good. When they say it's settled, they usually want to stop discussion and lock in on a result, not the continued pursuit of truth and knowledge.
So it's not "settled" that the earth revolves around the sun but a "good Catholic" should consider all homosexual sex an abomination until further notice. Right.
-
Good points. If they are supposed to answer different questions, why are (religious) politicians constantly trying to add religious elements into scientific studies in our schools. Why do they want Creationism taught in science class if they are "supposed" to answer different questions.
This makes me so mad I can hardly believe it's a real thing sometimes. Among thousands of other reasons, this is just one more that leads our education system to be severely hampered.
-
So it's not "settled" that the earth revolves around the sun but a "good Catholic" should consider all homosexual sex an abomination until further notice. Right.
Gravity is just a theory as well. If we could actually see the trillions of invisible little creatures holding everything down, we could know the truth.
-
Okay I'll bite.
1.) What question(s) does religion "answer"?
2.) If they're supposed to answer different questions, why does religion constantly attempt to answer a question it's unqualified to answer, then force-feed it as dogma?
Religion that attempts to answer scientific questions, such as Christian Creationism, isn't only bad science, it is bad religion. I abhor and detest such "religion."
Religion should not try to trump science. A rational religious person, hopefully such as those who attended a Jesuit university, does not deny scientific evidence. I love science. I embrace scientific theory, including scientific descriptions for the creation of the universe and everything else. The Bible is not a history book, nor is it a science book. It conveys Truth, but through myth and metaphor. This is the thing biblical literalists do not understand.
But even if the Big Bang theory can explain "how" we are here, it cannot answer "why." It cannot answer the questions regarding the purpose of our lives, the meaning of existence, and other deep philosophical questions humanity has pondered for millenia. It will never be able to answer these questions. Will religion ever be able to fully answer these questions either? No. But it is one of the avenues (along with philosophical inquiry) that allows humans to pursue this Truth.
One of my favorite Jesuits (other than Bob Wild), is Guy Consolmagno, who is a head of the Vatican observatory. He better than anyone knows how science and religion are mutually compatible. I encourage you to watch his TED talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmU2gDbP_Tk
-
Religion that attempts to answer scientific questions, such as Christian Creationism, isn't only bad science, it is bad religion. I abhor and detest such "religion."
Religion should not try to trump science. A rational religious person, hopefully such as those who attended a Jesuit university, does not deny scientific evidence. I love science. I embrace scientific theory, including scientific descriptions for the creation of the universe and everything else. The Bible is not a history book, nor is it a science book. It conveys Truth, but through myth and metaphor. This is the thing biblical literalists do not understand.
But even if the Big Bang theory can explain "how" we are here, it cannot answer "why." It cannot answer the questions regarding the purpose of our lives, the meaning of existence, and other deep philosophical questions humanity has pondered for millenia. It will never be able to answer these questions. Will religion ever be able to fully answer these questions either? No. But it is one of the avenues (along with philosophical inquiry) that allows humans to pursue this Truth.
One of my favorite Jesuits (other than Bob Wild), is Guy Consolmagno, who is a head of the Vatican observatory. He better than anyone knows how science and religion are mutually compatible. I encourage you to watch his TED talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmU2gDbP_Tk
This is very well put. I will have to check out the Ted talk too.
The way I have always viewed it is that God gave us minds for a reason.
-
The way I have always viewed it is that God gave us minds for a reason.
Wait, are you including all scoopers in "us"?
-
In my experiences, I have noticed that many of those who cling so tightly to science have but a superficial understanding of it. They suffer from a strand of the Dunning-Kruger effect--they aren't aware of what they don't know. At the risk of 'appealing to authority', I would recommend those who take modern science as gospel to take a look at the religious/philosophical beliefs of the academics in the natural sciences. The number of theists (including deists) may surprise you.
One other point to keep in mind is that there are some very outspoken scientists who are incredibly great at what they do. They are experts in their respective fields. However, they often go on talk shows, write books, etc., and they voice their personal, philosophical opinions on God, religion, the afterlife, etc. When many of these scientists speak about such matters, they have tacitly removed their scientist hat and replaced it with their I-have-an-opinion hat. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who do not see the switch.
Okay, one other point. The Bible contains both real historical events and allegory. Some passages in the Bible could be interpreted literally or figuratively; science can reveal how to interpret ambiguous scriptures. This is one of the important roles of science, according to modern-day Roman Catholic doctrine (and historically, St. Augustine of Hippo).
For example, after the destruction of the Tower of Babel, the Bible says (paraphrasing) that 'God dispersed the people among the four corners of the earth'. Of course, some could interpret this to mean that the earth has four literal corners. However, science reveals to us that we should interpret this passage figuratively. Yet another example is the earth being created in six literal days. For those painting religion with a broad brush, I would ask that you keep in mind that the majority of the people who believe in a 6,000 year old earth that was created in six 24 hour days are Protestants and Evangelicals.
Anyway, I could go on for hours. For those who are truly curious about the interaction between science and religion, I would highly recommend visiting the Magis Center's website. They have some good resources.
http://www.magiscenter.com/science-reason-faith/
It is run by Father Robert Spitzer, a Jesuit priest who is a physicist (cosmologist specifically, I believe) by trade and the former president of Gonzaga University.
-
You forget to mention that most of the Old Testament was oral stories passed down from generation to generation for thousands of years before anyone even wrote it down, so what you read in the OT should not be taken literally. You're just seeing the point where the story evolved to when it was finally written.
-
This makes me so mad I can hardly believe it's a real thing sometimes. Among thousands of other reasons, this is just one more that leads our education system to be severely hampered.
Yeah, certainly something like Common Core or teachers that are unqualified but protected by Unions don't hamper it. LOL
-
So it's not "settled" that the earth revolves around the sun but a "good Catholic" should consider all homosexual sex an abomination until further notice. Right.
You are missing his overall point as a scientist. Science is about the pursuit of truth. What is known today, may be different as additional knowns become known in the future. Or a better way to put it, you don't stop the science. You don't just put things in a case and close the book. Now, he was speaking figuratively, of course, but the premise is absolutely correct. Today, if I drop a ball, it will hit the ground due to gravity. In 1000 years, that may not be the case because of influences we cannot predict.
A quote that he would share.
"Who would dare assert that we know all there is to be known?"
- Galileo
Stephen Hawking has talked about this many times. “No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.”
We can go through 1000's of examples where science of the day said one thing, but ultimately turned out wrong. Whether it is the mundane like margarine is better for you than butter, or using leaches to bleed you out, of people in a car going over 50mph would not be able to breathe due to a lack of oxygen, the earth being flat, so on and so forth. And those conclusions may be wrong again, at some future time.
-
When a significant % of people in our country believes this:
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--cdaFSdNb--/18jpz57gozge9jpg.jpg)
Is it really worth arguing between science and religion?
-
This would make a great mascot
When a significant % of people in our country believes this:
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--cdaFSdNb--/18jpz57gozge9jpg.jpg)
Is it really worth arguing between science and religion?
-
This would make a great mascot
Yet another mascot better than Golden Eagles.
-
Yet another mascot better than Golden Eagles.
There are so many.
-
You are missing his overall point as a scientist. Science is about the pursuit of truth. What is known today, may be different as addition knowns becomes known in the future. Or a better way to put it, you don't stop the science. You don't just put things in the case is closed book. Now, he was speaking figuratively, of course, but the premise is absolutely correct. Today, if I drop a ball, it will hit the ground due to gravity. In 1000 years, that may not be the case because of influences we cannot predict.
A quote that he would share.
"Who would dare assert that we know all there is to be known?"
- Galileo
Stephen Hawking has talked about this many times. “No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.”
We can go through 1000's of examples where science of the day said one thing, but ultimately turned out wrong. Whether it is the mundane like margarine is better for you than butter, or using leaches to bleed you out, of people in a car going over 50mph would not be able to breathe due to a lack of oxygen, the earth being flat, so on and so forth. And those conclusions may be wrong again, at some future time.
OK, ultimately what is your point? Yes science can be wrong and evolves. Religion can be wrong and should evolve. If anyone accepts science or religion as incontrovertible fact, they are a fool. Both disciplines serve a purpose, but one should not be exchanged for the other, they can and should co-exist.
-
nm - not worth it
-
nm - not worth it
I think you should have stuck with it, you weren't wrong.
-
I think you should have stuck with it, you weren't wrong.
+1 But here is how it would have played out.
HS: Original Comment
CBB: Smarmy retort, with probably this emoticon, ::)
Rinse & repeat, and then this.
(http://images.all-free-download.com/images/graphiclarge/lock_100016.jpg)
-
You are missing his overall point as a scientist. Science is about the pursuit of truth.
So is religion. And when a religion asks you to blindly accept things that defy reason and/or a functioning conscience one shouldn't be a lemming. That's not what constitutes a good Catholic.
-
When a significant % of people in our country believes this:
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--cdaFSdNb--/18jpz57gozge9jpg.jpg)
Is it really worth arguing between science and religion?
http://creationmuseum.org/
Read it.....and weep.
-
+1 But here is how it would have played out.
HS: Original Comment
CBB: Smarmy retort, with probably this emoticon, ::)
Rinse & repeat, and then this.
(http://images.all-free-download.com/images/graphiclarge/lock_100016.jpg)
http://youtu.be/A8MO7fkZc5o (http://youtu.be/A8MO7fkZc5o)
-
Yeah, certainly something like Common Core or teachers that are unqualified but protected by Unions don't hamper it. LOL
Oh, so exactly like I said when I stated "among thousands of other reason"? I literally stated there are many different reasons our education system is hampered. No, I didn't list them all, just pointed out the one that was already brought up. Yes, there are problems with unqualified teachers and unions and the Common Core. Teaching creationism in schools as fact is wrong. There is no disputing that. Plain and simple. You can argue all the other reasons. You cannot argue this one.
-
Yeah, certainly something like Common Core or teachers that are unqualified but protected by Unions don't hamper it. LOL
Can you even make it through one thread without bringing up your right-wing crap?
Are you not intelligent enough to discuss any issue without falling back on your cliches?
-
In my experiences, I have noticed that many of those who cling so tightly to science have but a superficial understanding of it. They suffer from a strand of the Dunning-Kruger effect--they aren't aware of what they don't know. At the risk of 'appealing to authority', I would recommend those who take modern science as gospel to take a look at the religious/philosophical beliefs of the academics in the natural sciences. The number of theists (including deists) may surprise you.
One other point to keep in mind is that there are some very outspoken scientists who are incredibly great at what they do. They are experts in their respective fields. However, they often go on talk shows, write books, etc., and they voice their personal, philosophical opinions on God, religion, the afterlife, etc. When many of these scientists speak about such matters, they have tacitly removed their scientist hat and replaced it with their I-have-an-opinion hat. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who do not see the switch.
Okay, one other point. The Bible contains both real historical events and allegory. Some passages in the Bible could be interpreted literally or figuratively; science can reveal how to interpret ambiguous scriptures. This is one of the important roles of science, according to modern-day Roman Catholic doctrine (and historically, St. Augustine of Hippo).
For example, after the destruction of the Tower of Babel, the Bible says (paraphrasing) that 'God dispersed the people among the four corners of the earth'. Of course, some could interpret this to mean that the earth has four literal corners. However, science reveals to us that we should interpret this passage figuratively. Yet another example is the earth being created in six literal days. For those painting religion with a broad brush, I would ask that you keep in mind that the majority of the people who believe in a 6,000 year old earth that was created in six 24 hour days are Protestants and Evangelicals.
Anyway, I could go on for hours. For those who are truly curious about the interaction between science and religion, I would highly recommend visiting the Magis Center's website. They have some good resources.
http://www.magiscenter.com/science-reason-faith/
It is run by Father Robert Spitzer, a Jesuit priest who is a physicist (cosmologist specifically, I believe) by trade and the former president of Gonzaga University.
thank you....just an amazing video.
-
Can you even make it through one thread without bringing up your right-wing crap?
Are you not intelligent enough to discuss any issue without falling back on your cliches?
Those educated by FOX/MSNBC are taught never to stray from one's talking points.
-
When a significant % of people in our country believes this:
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--cdaFSdNb--/18jpz57gozge9jpg.jpg)
Is it really worth arguing between science and religion?
A significant number of people believe a certain former pres. made 9/11 happen in this country....on the flip side, a significant number of people believe the current guy is from another country. You can always find a significant population that is out there on a topic.
-
Those educated by FOX/MSNBC are taught never to stray from one's talking points.
Brand is on ignore, but I laughed especially coming from him.
Personally, I read the NY Times, Wa Post, watch CNN, Fox, PBS, etc among others. Just got done voting myself, happily voted...again....for people of different parties without batting an eye. The parties suck, the talking points are lame, but continue with the false narrative if you wish Lenny....it's like a cliche fortune cookie and you just cracked one open.
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html
-
Interestingly, 2 weeks at my cousins daughter's confirmation, in his homily the arch-bishop included that evolution as science tells us is correct and mentioned that even Pope JPII said so.
-
That was being taught in my catholic grade school 35+ years ago.
-
That was being taught in my catholic grade school 35+ years ago.
As it should have been.
Unfortunately we took a couple steps back with this "intelligent design" silliness. Thankfully that is not being pushed anymore.
-
As it should have been.
Unfortunately we took a couple steps back with this "intelligent design" silliness. Thankfully that is not being pushed anymore.
The Catholic Church is not on board with intelligent design and, to the best of my knowledge, never has been.
-
The Catholic Church is not on board with intelligent design and, to the best of my knowledge, never has been.
Benedict flirted with it.
JPII spoke in favor of scientific theories such as the Big Bang and evolution. But Benedict was pretty wishy washy on scientific topics
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
The Catholic church has been all over the Big Bang Theory for awhile... ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel
And genetics... ie Evolution
-
Benedict flirted with it.
JPII spoke in favor of scientific theories such as the Big Bang and evolution. But Benedict was pretty wishy washy on scientific topics
The Church declared intelligent design "not science" in 2006, about a year after Benedict's ascension. So, if he flirted with it, it wasn't for long, and it wasn't seriously.
Anyhow, timely subject, as Francis weighed in on evolution today:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/10/28/pope-francis-backs-theory-of-evolution-says-god-is-no-wizard/
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
The Catholic church has been all over the Big Bang Theory for awhile... ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel
And genetics... ie Evolution
Yes, some great contributions over the years.
Don't forget about this guy, a Jesuit too
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin
-
The Church declared intelligent design "not science" in 2006, about a year after Benedict's ascension. So, if he flirted with it, it wasn't for long, and it wasn't seriously.
Anyhow, timely subject, as Francis weighed in on evolution today:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/10/28/pope-francis-backs-theory-of-evolution-says-god-is-no-wizard/
Pope Pius XII said something very similar some 60+ years earlier in 1950....theory of evolution in conjunction with God as creator is not at odds.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html
Officially, the church holds no position on evolution or creationism.