Slashdot Mirror

Well, your honest, but wrong.

"Fifthly, almost every developed culture since the ancient Greeks practiced abortion or infanticide right after birth--this includes Christians up until the last couple of centuries;"

You are correct that cultures such as the Roman Empire practiced abortion, but perhaps you have not actually read what the actual Christians actually thought about it:

"...you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born..." - Didachecirca 100AD

"Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born." - Epistle of Barnabas circa 74AD

"And near that place I saw another strait place into which the gore and the filth of those who were being punished ran down and became there as it were a lake: and there sat women having the gore up to their necks, and over against them sat many children who were born to them out of due time, crying; and there came forth from them sparks of fire and smote the women in the eyes: and these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion." - Apocalypse of Peter circa 130AD

...and so forth. If you are interested in more, searching for 'church fathers' and abortion on google would do you well.

The Church never defined when life began. The only discussions one could enlist on this point would be some musings on when ensoulment happened, but even then, it was agreed that it is still murder. This is often trotted out by pro- abortion Christians, but if you actually read the documents they point to(such as the 25th chapter of Augustine's Enchiridion) you find a different story.

"no one can say with any real meaning when human life begins."
"[it] can have no definite scientific answer"

Only if one has an idealogical axe to grind. Read an intro to biology textbook sometime, and you will find a fit with the definition of life.
Secondly, your opinion that this ok's abortion would be criminal negligence in any other case. Third, you obviously don't believe it, or at least you act that way, because you willing to risk the possibility of a loss of human life. It would only be unimportant if you have already decided that it isn't a human life.

"abortion serves a useful practical purpose of population control, which is important in the modern world"

I suppose when one lacks a basic respect for human life, one can come to conclusions like this. Despite the fact that even the UN is starting to worry about population decline, talking about such things as raising fertility and adjusting migration laws(read the PDF at that link).

"Thirdly, I value sex and see it as an essential part of the human experience"

Ah, the crux of the issue. "Who cares if it might be a human life? It's in the way of my rutting." I'd laugh if this weren't so damn pathetic. It's exactly this type of idiotic lack of self control that leads directly to the type of STD epidemics we see today. Essential? Go ask an AIDS patient if they still think their sexual activity was "essential." Or wait until you get the news that you have the honor of living with herpes the rest of your life, and then contemplate whether it was "essential."

"it's almost impossible for young people to both care for a baby and go to school"

Well, then, I am the master of the nigh impossible. I did it twice. And I am not alone, nor am I exceptional in that regard. I was a full time parent, a full time student, and I held down a part time job on the side. It didn't require "killing one's child." But it did require "personal resposibility," a concept that is probably lost on many /. readers.

"I'm also pro-abortion, finally, because it's not my damn business to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body"

Of course, that isn't the issue. The issue revolves around whether or not that woman is harming someone else's body. The location of that body is immaterial. If that baby is human, she has no damn business killing it.

Creedo

Well, your honest, but wrong.

"Fifthly, almost every developed culture since the ancient Greeks practiced abortion or infanticide right after birth--this includes Christians up until the last couple of centuries;"

You are correct that cultures such as the Roman Empire practiced abortion, but perhaps you have not actually read what the actual Christians actually thought about it:

"...you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born..." - Didachecirca 100AD

"Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born." - Epistle of Barnabas circa 74AD

"And near that place I saw another strait place into which the gore and the filth of those who were being punished ran down and became there as it were a lake: and there sat women having the gore up to their necks, and over against them sat many children who were born to them out of due time, crying; and there came forth from them sparks of fire and smote the women in the eyes: and these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion." - Apocalypse of Peter circa 130AD

...and so forth. If you are interested in more, searching for 'church fathers' and abortion on google would do you well.

The Church never defined when life began. The only discussions one could enlist on this point would be some musings on when ensoulment happened, but even then, it was agreed that it is still murder. This is often trotted out by pro- abortion Christians, but if you actually read the documents they point to(such as the 25th chapter of Augustine's Enchiridion) you find a different story.

"no one can say with any real meaning when human life begins."
"[it] can have no definite scientific answer"

Only if one has an idealogical axe to grind. Read an intro to biology textbook sometime, and you will find a fit with the definition of life.
Secondly, your opinion that this ok's abortion would be criminal negligence in any other case. Third, you obviously don't believe it, or at least you act that way, because you willing to risk the possibility of a loss of human life. It would only be unimportant if you have already decided that it isn't a human life.

"abortion serves a useful practical purpose of population control, which is important in the modern world"

I suppose when one lacks a basic respect for human life, one can come to conclusions like this. Despite the fact that even the UN is starting to worry about population decline, talking about such things as raising fertility and adjusting migration laws(read the PDF at that link).

"Thirdly, I value sex and see it as an essential part of the human experience"

Ah, the crux of the issue. "Who cares if it might be a human life? It's in the way of my rutting." I'd laugh if this weren't so damn pathetic. It's exactly this type of idiotic lack of self control that leads directly to the type of STD epidemics we see today. Essential? Go ask an AIDS patient if they still think their sexual activity was "essential." Or wait until you get the news that you have the honor of living with herpes the rest of your life, and then contemplate whether it was "essential."

"it's almost impossible for young people to both care for a baby and go to school"

Well, then, I am the master of the nigh impossible. I did it twice. And I am not alone, nor am I exceptional in that regard. I was a full time parent, a full time student, and I held down a part time job on the side. It didn't require "killing one's child." But it did require "personal resposibility," a concept that is probably lost on many /. readers.

"I'm also pro-abortion, finally, because it's not my damn business to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body"

Of course, that isn't the issue. The issue revolves around whether or not that woman is harming someone else's body. The location of that body is immaterial. If that baby is human, she has no damn business killing it.

Creedo

Well, your honest, but wrong.

"Fifthly, almost every developed culture since the ancient Greeks practiced abortion or infanticide right after birth--this includes Christians up until the last couple of centuries;"

You are correct that cultures such as the Roman Empire practiced abortion, but perhaps you have not actually read what the actual Christians actually thought about it:

"...you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born..." - Didachecirca 100AD

"Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born." - Epistle of Barnabas circa 74AD

"And near that place I saw another strait place into which the gore and the filth of those who were being punished ran down and became there as it were a lake: and there sat women having the gore up to their necks, and over against them sat many children who were born to them out of due time, crying; and there came forth from them sparks of fire and smote the women in the eyes: and these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion." - Apocalypse of Peter circa 130AD

...and so forth. If you are interested in more, searching for 'church fathers' and abortion on google would do you well.

The Church never defined when life began. The only discussions one could enlist on this point would be some musings on when ensoulment happened, but even then, it was agreed that it is still murder. This is often trotted out by pro- abortion Christians, but if you actually read the documents they point to(such as the 25th chapter of Augustine's Enchiridion) you find a different story.

"no one can say with any real meaning when human life begins."
"[it] can have no definite scientific answer"

Only if one has an idealogical axe to grind. Read an intro to biology textbook sometime, and you will find a fit with the definition of life.
Secondly, your opinion that this ok's abortion would be criminal negligence in any other case. Third, you obviously don't believe it, or at least you act that way, because you willing to risk the possibility of a loss of human life. It would only be unimportant if you have already decided that it isn't a human life.

"abortion serves a useful practical purpose of population control, which is important in the modern world"

I suppose when one lacks a basic respect for human life, one can come to conclusions like this. Despite the fact that even the UN is starting to worry about population decline, talking about such things as raising fertility and adjusting migration laws(read the PDF at that link).

"Thirdly, I value sex and see it as an essential part of the human experience"

Ah, the crux of the issue. "Who cares if it might be a human life? It's in the way of my rutting." I'd laugh if this weren't so damn pathetic. It's exactly this type of idiotic lack of self control that leads directly to the type of STD epidemics we see today. Essential? Go ask an AIDS patient if they still think their sexual activity was "essential." Or wait until you get the news that you have the honor of living with herpes the rest of your life, and then contemplate whether it was "essential."

"it's almost impossible for young people to both care for a baby and go to school"

Well, then, I am the master of the nigh impossible. I did it twice. And I am not alone, nor am I exceptional in that regard. I was a full time parent, a full time student, and I held down a part time job on the side. It didn't require "killing one's child." But it did require "personal resposibility," a concept that is probably lost on many /. readers.

"I'm also pro-abortion, finally, because it's not my damn business to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body"

Of course, that isn't the issue. The issue revolves around whether or not that woman is harming someone else's body. The location of that body is immaterial. If that baby is human, she has no damn business killing it.

Creedo

As the other responder suggested, this has been the most ignorant thing that people actually modded up. Secondly, just like the article talks about, you are just fueling more biased opinions and pawning them off as truths.

As a disclaimer, I am spiritual, but against all forms of organized religions. I believe that the "message" itself gets distorted as it passes through the people that are trying to spread it. I have read the bibles, quran, and other books and each of these have an inherently good message.

The truth is, Christianity has murdered more people throughout history than any other religion. Look at the crusaders and the Spanish Inquisition. Secondly, the only religion that has practiced forceful conversions of other people through missionaries are the Christians. Lastly, every religion has faced a point in which they have to fight for their own survival. For the Christians, it's the Roman era. For the Jews, it was the crusades and the holocaust. For the Muslims, it was also the crusades and maybe even now.

Now, it is totally unfair to say that because a minority group of people have hijacked the religion and used it towards their extremist purposes, to say that the religion is inherently evil. In every religion, a number of passages can also be analyzed that way. And because a minority views it in that perspective, doesn't mean that the message is corrupt. (Again, rings back to my original belief that the messenger corrupts the inherent good of these religions stated above)

Are we going to say that the abortion clinic bombers are representative of the Christian religion? How about the KKK and the Aryan Nation? They believe that they are the crusaders for the christian cause. Also remember, the Nazis believed they were fighting for their faith. In addition, at the time in the US, many top politicians and business men support the Nazis. In fact, George W Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush has been a long supporter of the Nazis.

Now it comes to another point. Why do people honor those that go out there to fight and die for their country..but we look at the Palestian bombers as uneducated savages? Is it honorable to risk your life for the better future of your family and/or your country? If not, try telling the soldiers that as they head off to Afghanistan. Are human bombs any worse than carpet bombing a large area indiscriminately as they did in Afghanistan?

That brings up another point. Throughout history, the underdogs (or the oppressed) have always needed to find new ways of fighting to take advantage of the opponent's vulnerability. Look at the 1770s. The British felt the same way about the Revolutionary fighters as we now do towards the human bombs. The "standard" way of fighting was to stand up in 2 lines directly in front of the enemy and fire on command. The revolutionists fought from behind trees as individuals and moved to dodge the gunfires. All I'm saying is it is a failure on everyone's part when a group of people feel that they have to turn to bombing to get their point across (ie Palestinian bombers, abortion clinic bombers, unabomber, and the kid that they just arrested the other day for the mailbox bombs).

Now to wrap this up and relate it somewhat to the article. Don't believe everything that you read on the internet (including this). Verify stuff yourself. And if you believe all US news channel are unbiased, you are clearly wrong.

Interestingly, Aristotle proposed that the world was created in eternity. St. Thomas Aquinas argued that God could have created the world either in time OR in eternity, but there was no way to prove one way or the other. He did note, however, that God must have created the universe, since the universe is not pure act. BTW, I've never read a decent refutation of Thomas' "first way." The argument of God's existence from motion. Anyone have a good counter argument?

For instance, the Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say concerning Hebrews:

Even in the first centuries commentators noticed the striking purity of language and elegance of Greek style that characterized the Epistle to the Hebrews (Clement of Alexandria in Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", VI, xiv, n.2-4; Origen, ibid., VI, xxv, n. 11-14). This observation is confirmed by later authorities. In fact the author of the Epistle shows great familiarity with the rules of the Greek literary language of his age. Of all the New Testament authors he has the best style.

If Hebrews was originally written in Hebrew, as you say, then the Greek style should be of little importance.

No mention is given to the original being written in Hebrew. Can you point me to your source?

BigBir3d says,

all others mentioned who "discovered" the americas are not christian

Not true. Claimants St. Brendan the Navigator and Leif Ericson were Christian.

Ironic of you to think of that. I was thinking the same thing, and how "dubya" would mark it as an attempt at social terrorism on america. An axis of evil's attempt to "confound our tongues", and "confuse us into defeat". I can really picture dubya warning the public about this through the idiot-box while all the hicks who voted for him sit there cleaning their guns, drooling in awe. The sad thing is, we're not to far from that.

I just double checked these are really insurmontable differing view. US constitution is based on the views of the philosopher Locke summed up well, that indeed freedom and also property, are basic rights, and goes on saying that a democracy with a minimum is the best way to keep them.

However, France, and more generally, Europe (after Napoleon swept the European monarchies, which, when he lost, had to be re-installed but this time with stuff like "Charters"), were under the influence of the "Enlightenment"'s philosophers. The most important philosopher for the principles on which the society must be built, is Jean-Jacques Rousseau, with the idea of "Social Contract". To Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the central problem of society, lays in the fact there might be conflicts, and the solution is then "a social contract [...whose basics...] reduce to one unique : the total submission of each member with all his rights, to the whole community". The citizen signing this contract, are then sharing "the persons and their powers under the supreme commandment of the general will". As you see, democracy is then a natural implementation of this idea, but property is only a byproduct of the "community" deciding to grant this right (under its own terms). Note that Jean-Jacques Rousseau himself said casually "property is the source of all problems".

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was not the only philosopher on which the Revolutions were based (there were probably about 10 which had fundemental ideas, plus a whole network of other ones), but this very idea of the basis on which the Republic is built was so widely accepted, an French aristocrat which had flew to Great Britain, said "it is the Koran of all those philosophers".

And second you have to consider how this makes complete sense historically. Historically, Europe has been ruled by aristocracy for centuries ; in France and in other catholic countries, the Church had also an extreme power (there were taxes for the Church ; and King power was legitimated by the fact that his power was gien by god). The 1st French revolution was just focusing on combatting this: the arbitrary power of a few on the most. The privileges of the aristocrats was extremely resented - unbearable. After sweeping aristocracy and the Church (all property from Church were seized by the laic 1st republic), there was a phase of chaos, then Napoleon, then the installation of a constitutionnal monarchy, then various monarchies, republics, democratically elected Emperor (Napoleon's nephew), and a rightously failed communist revolution.

You have to understand that after Napoleon, it's the top-middle class who partly remplaced the aristocracy as a leading class in France, and that they tried their best to impose their views (only the rich had the righ to vote, union were strictely forbidden, etc...), and that's exactly why you got some strange things like Napoleon III being elected and winning a referedum for being emperor(and note that it's Napoleon III, not middle class "republics", which gave the right to strike, and to create unions) - Germany had also popular Bismark. You have to understand that after the revolution for instance, land was given to peasants... However due to the randomness of agriculture, many had to borrow to survive some year(s), and then, on the next bad year(s), loss their land to middle class owners ; they had to come to town in mass and live in complete misery to accept the worst jobs with almost no rights (no vote, no strike, no unions) in some monarchic republics governed by middle class ; where unregulated capitalism was systematically creating economic crisis about every ten years. On the other hand, middle class land owners, who could live without working at all became numerous.

The life of peasants who became workers was worse under those republics than under aristocracy (exactly like life is much in today capitalist Russia than in USSR) ; and unlike US, there was no new frontier the poorest could explore in order to earn their life and save it.

A good description of those times is the french masterpiece "Les Miserables" from Victor Hugo ; an equivalent are probably Charles Dickens' works.

It's no wonder, at those times, there was a huge surge in the development of theories about socialists systems (of all kinds ; Marx was only an example, and "marxism" was never properly implemented) ; that's exactly why Prudhon said, in 1840: property is theft (while US argued that "taxes" are).

This is another reason, after aristocracy, why the focus on both equality and freedom, was kept.

By the way, and on a side note, there is an idea becoming increasingly popular, that what happened at those times, is a bit similar to what is happening to Third World countries, thus the "drop the debt" or "anti-" globalization protests of all kinds ; in strong opposition to the "pure free market" religion endicted by libertarian economists working in IMF, Work Bank, WTO, etc... which is benefitting to Western Country essentially (the average money flow is the equivalent of one "Marshall plan", going from poor countries to Western countries, PER YEAR, due to the enormous debts - in long term, 1/3 of those countries are dead).

You have to throw in the fact that there were 2 world wars in Europe, which killed a tremendous number of soldiers/people... You can't say "go fight at the risk of your life, for the salute of our Great Country", and then back from war, "heck no, there is no equality, no fraternity, freedom is the only right ; if I became rich while you fighted, well it's only that I deserved it, stop being a freeloader with my money.".

If freedom is a commodity, that's fine. The govt. can force you to relinquish some of that commodity, and gift it to others in the form of a guarantee. But if Freedom is a basic human right, then you cannot allow the government to diminish the right of one person for the benefit of another.

We agree on this.

First off: with no inherent personal freedom, what's to stop the majority from trading ALL their freedom for safety? I certainly have different wishes than THAT, but individual freedom having no sanctity and no protection, I guess I'd just be fucked in that case, eh?

Yes. Note that in a libertarian system, it's not clear that everything goes fine and dandy, if, say, 90% of the economical agents make an union on some point ; which is the equivalent of what you fear from a democracy.

I grasp it well enough. When you're talking about a welfare system, it's perfectly legitimate to discuss. IMHO, it's an outrage to take HALF of what I work every day to earn, and give it to someone who is unwilling to work at all.

It's not HALF of the money which goes to people who are unwillingly to work, it's HALF of the money which goes to the governement which pays military expenses, jails, justice system, education (including University), social security, public research, infrastructure (roads, airports, ...), EU institutions, retirement or retired people, some small part of public TV, EU contribution, foreign aid, etc... It's only a small part of the money, say 0.1 % to 10% which goes to free loaders.

In this context, "Taxes = paying the lazy" is simply bullshit. This is a point of view which was heavily spread during the Reagan/Thatcher years: "HATE that lazy welfare queen who is stealing all your hard earned money and dares to buy luxury items you won't never be able to afford!". IMHO, it's more based on feelings than on rationality. The neat result is you letting hard-working poorer people (and Black) live in misery, just on the fear of the 20% hidden there that would be free-loaders. In anycase, it's interesting how US dismantled a perfectly working welfare system (in the 1960s), and made it a harsh system (with now the strongest number of people in jail per capital, highest murder rate than most third world countries, etc...), on with effective diffusion of this system in the population.

In the 1960s, actually at the apogee of Keynesianim, conservatives were thought definitly dead: it was genuinely said: "There Is No Alternative" [to the social system]. 20/30 years later, the exact same sentence is used, with acronym even "TINA", to meant the idea of reduction of social system ; and even in UK Tony Blairs was recognize as the "best conservative of the year", by a conservative journal.

I hope that this

Second, I'd hope you were CERTAIN (not just doubtful) that it was no big deal before you used your majority power to bludgeon the retail sector into doing it. Since they can't protect themselves from you because their freedom is a commodity which can sometimes be ripped from them without their individual consent, I hope you make sure to vote wisely...

Yes it is a big deal. Think of all the 5 FF, 10 FF coin vending machines, which translate to 0.76 EUR and 1.52 EUR ... there is strong incentive to make them go to "1 EUR" and "2 EUR" coins respectively, and in fact looking at vending machines at a railway stations, I precisely saw some new prices of "13 FF" which WILL be changed in "2 EUR" when the machine gets upgraded. Same for all those prices "9.90 FF, 19.90 FF", etc... There is strong incentive to round them to the next same "marketingly-friendly" price.
It's governement job to prevent such arbitrary inflation .

Second, I'm not focusing on the financial loss really, I'm focusing on the constriction of a basic human right and the lack of protection of individual freedom that the act highlights. So what if it's only a few cents, for a few months. It's not so bad, right?

Your freedom [to inflate artificially prices] can really be traded in favor of the public good (including your, by not letting the capital you own in your retailer shop, have a declining value because of inflation).

Let the retailer ruin himself with dishonesty.

He won't ruin himself (because of precisely loss of information on customer sides, free market laws don't apply perfectly, and he can take advantage of this), and he will incur a cost on most of us, by triggering ECB intervention for controling the generated inflation.

Of course, if freedom is a tradeable commodity, then perhaps you can get some of it given back to you...

Yes. For instance, the new 35 hours working limitation was discussed with employee AND employer unions, and employers got greater "flexibility", i.e. more lenient rules on some precise points. The good point about such a system, is that Europeans don't tend to argue religiously using immutable principle like "freedom" (and the derivative "inefficient governement", "bureaucratic regulations", "theft taxes"), but always on the pro-side and the con-siden and negociate. This is more or less marked depending on the country of course.

Taking the medieval analogy to its logical conclusion I have one question: who gets to be the pope? Bill Gates or Richard Stallman?

Who says there has to be only a single Pope? Ever hear of the Great Schism? Even in the middle ages there were times when 2 or even 3 popes existed, each excommunicating the other(s).

There's nothing new under the sun.

I wonder why the Catholic Church hasn't sued over their new OS yet.

No you won't, cause you cannot libel the dead. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09210a.htm, http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/specials/w eblines/533.html, http://www.wga.org/WrittenBy/0401/essay.html,http: //www.freeadvice.com/law/5765us.htm,http://codoh.o rg/bbs/messages/1649.html as just a few references.

Regarding point 1: Without going into a long philosophical or psychological explanation of the Human Psyche (tm), suffice it to say that we are victims of our own free will. Our free will allows people, not 'organized' religions to inflict harm on others. The religion itself is not imperfect (so its followers believe), but the execution of a religion, because it is carried out by fallible humans, is definitely imperfect. Therefore, all religious organizations are human creations and therefore are subject to human mistakes in judgement. Can you make perfect decisions? Of course not, so to expect that a group of humans will make perfect decisions is too much to ask.

On Creationism. As a trained biologist (with a BS and MS) I can tell you that any cosmological (i.e., 'start of the universe') hypotheses contain little empirical evidence. This means that unlike the law of entropy, cosmological phenomenon cannot be repeated or observed and therefore not predicted. Sure, cosmologists sound convincing, but after teaching the Big Bang theory for several years to college freshmen, I believe it less and less because it is so full of conjecture. An objective scientist must reject it as almost pure speculation.

The scientific method is used to make observations and draw conclusions within our physical world. The Universe is already created and any objective biologist or physicist will admit that we cannot re-test the creation of the Universe. So, anyone can purport his theory of the Big Bang, but the fact is that we'll probably never know how the Universe was created (maybe it was never created, maybe it has 'just existed' for eternity).

What isn't a priority for you (e.g., 'organized' religion) is a definite priority for the majority of everyone else on the planet. There are countless religious individuals who have changed the world for the better. To generalize that organized religion and creationism have been the largest setbacks to human development is naive at best and idiotic at worst. Some of the greatest thinkers and innovators were deeply religious individuals. One example that immediately comes to mind is Thomas Aquinas.

Later

"Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life."

The Catholic Church has been in the business of making money for a millenia. (Indulgences, crusades, the mafia, etc.)

First, I admit that no one in the Church is perfect, and that many in the Church have done ungodly acts through the ages. However, as a whole, I do believe that the Church is based on the truth of Jesus Christ, and it's mission is good. I will now turn to your statement.

If the Church is in the business of making money, why then does it promote selflessness (even to the point of demanding celibacy)? Why are the clergy, for the most part, unpaid? From the Pope to the deacon! How many "businesses", or even churches can say the same? For those of you who do not know, until the 90s when a thorough bureaucratic change was ordered by the Pope, the Church had been in debt for decades.

Indulgences: Even though it is not practiced as widely as before, the Church still has the right to indulgences (you can read more about this at the Catholic Encyclopedia linked below). I don't believe anyone has forced you to be a member of the Church, and I don't believe anyone has forced you to pay anything toward indulgences.

Crusades: Where were you when the Church was being persecuted and ransacked? Where were you when the Pope and the entire Holy See was exiled to Avignon, France? Where were you when ten of the twelve disciples were being hung, crucified, or beheaded because of the Gospel they preached? What happened when God came down and gave us the most selfless and loving philosophy ever known in history? Where were you when martyrs were stoned to death? Of course no violence is to be condoned, and those members of the Church that did kill went against the teachings of the Church.

The Mafia: There's a good one. Where were you when Pope John Paul II openly chastised the Mafia? And where were you when the mafia bombed the church of Saint John Lateran in retaliation?

Please.

New Advent
The Catholic Encyclopedia

The Catholic Church has been in the business of making money for a millenia. (Indulgences, crusades, the mafia, etc.)

First, I admit that no one in the Church is perfect, and that many in the Church have done ungodly acts through the ages. However, as a whole, I do believe that the Church is based on the truth of Jesus Christ, and it's mission is good. I will now turn to your statement.

If the Church is in the business of making money, why then does it promote selflessness (even to the point of demanding celibacy)? Why are the clergy, for the most part, unpaid? From the Pope to the deacon! How many "businesses", or even churches can say the same? For those of you who do not know, until the 90s when a thorough bureaucratic change was ordered by the Pope, the Church had been in debt for decades.

Indulgences: Even though it is not practiced as widely as before, the Church still has the right to indulgences (you can read more about this at the Catholic Encyclopedia linked below). I don't believe anyone has forced you to be a member of the Church, and I don't believe anyone has forced you to pay anything toward indulgences.

Crusades: Where were you when the Church was being persecuted and ransacked? Where were you when the Pope and the entire Holy See was exiled to Avignon, France? Where were you when ten of the twelve disciples were being hung, crucified, or beheaded because of the Gospel they preached? What happened when God came down and gave us the most selfless and loving philosophy ever known in history? Where were you when martyrs were stoned to death? Of course no violence is to be condoned, and those members of the Church that did kill went against the teachings of the Church.

The Mafia: There's a good one. Where were you when Pope John Paul II openly chastised the Mafia? And where were you when the mafia bombed the church of Saint John Lateran in retaliation?

Please.

New Advent
The Catholic Encyclopedia

True, he married twice and had three daughters and a son.
__

Even filtering advocates should be appalled at the actual practices of the industry. See peacefire.org for more analysis of filtering software.

Don't forget the wonderful censorware.org site. This is what we recommend to parents. Peacefire has more of a "how dare they lock me out!" mentality.

Censorware has a "Look what doesn't work to protect your children" mentality.

In either case, my husband and I ended up getting a Sunday editorial spot in our local paper on the school library and censorware issue. (It doesn't carry editorials past day one, so there is no link to place here.) This is a case where the technologically literate need to do a few simple things to fight censorware.

1. Write letters to the editor of all local papers. Include facts. Hammer on the facts. Hammer on pages that do get banned, and pages that slip through. censorware.org's review of bess contains excellent ammunition.
2. When discussing censorware with the community, make sure your language and affect are similar to that of a Baptist Sunday School teacher. Show deep concern, explain that these things don't work, express dismay at this abrogation of parental and community responsibility, and do it without frothing at the mouth.
3. Do not use ad hominem arguments. (What would you expect coming from an ignorant slob like that?) Instead, be the voice of sweet reason and responsibility. Explain the wonders that can no longer be seen. Blocks flesh tones? No more Sistine Chapel Ceiling. Uses keywords? No more Testicular cancer. Uses algorithms? No more information on the Brotherhood of Flagellants. If all else fails, use
4. Indignation. How dare anyone decide what your child gets to see? Who appointed them the ultimate decider of your child's upbringing? What standards shall be used?
5. Bring up community standards. Communities are changing so rapidly that the demographic standards obscenity have changed. In many cultures, the pictures of astronauts in shorts at NASA is offensive to modesty. In other cultures, the human body is something to be celebrated. Shall I assume that the female breast is taboo, as in Baptist Illinois, or shall I be like the folk on Pago Pago and forbid the display of female thighs, and the discussion of bodily function between father and son?
6. Finally, if necessary, in public debate, ask how much time they spend watching TV with children, reading the books their children read, and providing other outlets. Remind the audience that the Internet has never been a substitute for parenting. Remind the audience of the evils of using the public library as a babysitter. If parents do not trust their own children, have them watch their children, rather than forcing us to do it for them.

There is certainly a connection between scientists and mystics; Mystics are scientists.

Consider the following questions:

• How do things work?
• How does consciousness work?
• Does consciousness ever work differently?
• How is it that we are aware?

These are questions that scientists and other technically minded people ask, and they are questions that mystics ask as well. Note that the word "Gnostic", used in this Slashdot intro, means "Understanding".

Of all religious devotees, Mystics are the most scientific, since they constantly try to find the truth through observation, trial, and error. Mystics generally find that the the written word takes second place to first hand repeatable experiments, usually in the form of meditation.

If there is any one thing that would make a mystic out of a scientifically minded person (assuming that the scientist hasn't already taking Socrates' advice to heart and studying their own awareness), it would have to be the hard problem of consciousness, which is essentially, the problem of how we are ever aware of anything at all; why it is that there is something like to be a person (or a butterfly).

If you can explain the universe, but can't explain how it is that you're even aware of it in the first place, you may have just as well just explained a very nice and very neat little dream. Universes are probably a dime a dozen.

Let me put it a completely different way:

If you were a computer programmer, electronics enthusiast, or some other kind of tinkerer, and you come across these concepts of awareness, something called "God", different dimensions, and this mystery of light and sound, which of the following would appeal most to you:

1. Get a book telling you what the truth is, and then say, "Oh, okay; I'll just go along with what this says here."
2. Give up, and say that the problems too hard for you; let someone else bother with such things.
3. Get yourself a DSL connection with the spirit world, have a few chat sessions with God, play around with some different dimensions, and try and figure out what the hell is going on and try to have have some fun.

(Necessary plug: Personally, I practice Surat Shabda Yoga).

"When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood."

My point is good, is survival. Ethical conduct is survival. Evil conduct is nonsurvival.

I suggest The official publication of the American Society of Sociopaths

1. The idea of sola scriptura is invalid because the New Testament is a product of the Church. Modern biblical scholarship has shown that the New Testament was written quite late (much of it after 80A.D.) by elements of the early Church. I could explain further and in much greater detail why this idea of Scripture only is invalid but this is probably sufficient here as Penance/Confession is the primary topic.

2. Confession is Scriptural and instituted by Christ -- 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain,they are retained' (John, xx, 22-23).

3. Absolution of sin is not granted by the judgement of mortal priests, it is granted by God through mortal priests. On this see for instance > It is fairly old but it's online and thus easily accessible and might be worth looking at.

3. Saints are not worshiped, they are venerated. Only God/Jesus/Holy Spirit is worshiped. The veneration of Saints may or may not be directly scriptural, but it is logical to deduce the Community of Saints from Scripture.

4. Catholicism can hardly be called an offshoot cult as it has been around for nearly 2000 years (it began at Pentecost). Less than 500 years ago Protestant groups began to break away from Catholicism and thus it is they, not Catholics who are offshoots (although I would hardly call these Protestant groups cults).

Although I disagree with certain Protestant beliefs/practices and with your comments I would certinaly not go so far as to say Protestants are not Christian (or you, if you in fact are). Although Catholics and Protestants disagree on a number of issues, some fairly minor others fairly major, we share the same basic faith. Recently this gap has gotten smaller and hopefully that will continue.

Finally, if you are going to criticize something, be sure to understand it first. Otherwise you come across as a fundementalist nut.

How can people remember Galileu and not Saint Thomas Aquinas, author of the Suma Theologica?

How can people remember Linus Torvalds and forget Donald Knuth, author of I-don't-know-how-many-wonderful-stuff-besides-TeX?

Boy, that list will always be incomplete.

Of course it is really about Jesus.

It was originally a pagan holiday.

The pagans didn't go around celebrating the birth of Christ.

Jesus was born on January 6th (somewhere around there).

No one knows what day Jesus was born, or the month. Some people have made educated guesses as to what the date is, but there isn't a general concensus. Celebrating birthdays is a pagan thing anyway.

The church said "well, if we want to convert these people, we best tie our holidays together. So, December 25th (The pagan winter fest thing) is the birth of christ (Christmas), and

Yes, the aim of the Church is to convert, anything that is helpfull toward that goal would be a Good Thing(tm).

Easter (The pagan celebration of a new season, new life etc) was when jesus rose again. When did he arise? I don't know and lets not get into whether he did or not.

You are confused. While the reason why the date for Christmas was chosen is pagan in origin, Easter is not. Check this link for details: Easter.

It can be anybody's holiday my friend, not just those who believe in Christ.

I disagree. Christmas by definition is celebrating Christ. If you don't beleive in Christ it would be surprising that one would celebrate his birth. Also, can you celebrate Christmas without a Mass?

To clarify that Scientology produced disk
defragmentation thing:

It is the German catholic church which is opposing
Windows 2000 because of that piece of software
This has nothing to do with German government or
German laws (not yet :)

As so often, IMHO moral and business are often
pretty close together. Among moral considerations,
churches see Scientology as competition for the
souls and the purses of their faithful.

The church ban
was often used in former times to fight against
individuals which were not in line
with religious (or political) ideas of those at
the top of the catholic church.

More famous people banned were Martin Luther (in 1521),
who later translated the bible from Latin into a
living language and queen Elisabeth I of England (in 1570).

So if you should get banned by accident, you are
in prominent company :)


--

Here are some Catholic links which should help answer your questions.

Catholic FAQ - topic 'the soul'

Catholic Encyclopedia - article on the soul

St. Augustine - A Treatise on the Soul You will probably have more questions and they would be best directed to alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic.

Here are some Catholic links which should help answer your questions.

Catholic FAQ - topic 'the soul'

Catholic Encyclopedia - article on the soul

St. Augustine - A Treatise on the Soul You will probably have more questions and they would be best directed to alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic.