Réseau is the French word for "network", and we all know what France's only contribution to networking is. This was a proto-minitel. It is kinda like the internet, but you have to pay per-minute access fees, have slower connections, limited functionality, and have to work through a monopolistic PTT.
- doug
PS: Yes, he was Belgian, but who really can tell the difference?
Apple Computers gets its name from Apple Records. If there had been some sort of cosmic convergence I'd side with the computer company, but in this case, they brought it on themselves. It was a nice bit of homage to the Beatles, but a foolish business choice.
Back in the 90s I observed that the best Unix Admins seemed to all like King Crimson, and that most of the good Perl people I knew liked The Who. I doubt if anyone could prove any sort of direct correlation here, but it is a touchstone that has served me well enough for over a decade.
Handling oopses was the biggest skill I had learn when I got out of school. That is both figuring out what went wrong (debugging), and how to gracefully handle errors at run time in systems that can't go down. In fact, I'd like to see some sort of Forensics class be core curriculum for all Engineers because designing a new system is easier than cleaning up a broken one.
The foursome of the Tank, DPS, Healer and Blaster as roles within a party As opposed to the foursome of Warrior, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard thats been standard since the seventies? Actually, for us old farts that would be "fighter", "thief", "cleric" and "magic-user".
The Germans might be spoonfed on WWII, but the French have a minimum daily allowance for both WWI and WWII. And that minimum is quite high. Both Nov 11th, and May 8th are national holidays. And every third road is named after someone or something from one of those two wars. As for how well the Germans remember those dates, I don't believe either is a holiday in Germany or Austria. Perhaps a calendar-only designation, but that is the same category as "groundhog's day", which really doesn't qualify as a major observed holiday.
You always have choice, but if you know what is right, how can you chose wrong? I couldn't knowingly make a choice where I know someone innocent will be hurt. Who could? Being "without evil" doesn't mean you can't decide to wrong, it can equally mean you understand more and just won't let yourself do the wrong thing.
I remember a homily about Jesus being a human, but without sin. It wasn't that he couldn't do anything wrong, just that he didn't want to. I forget if it was that he didn't want to upset his Father, or there was nothing that he wanted to do that wasn't good.
In the days of the GOP (late 1800s) the Democratic Party was the Party of "Rum, Rome, and Rebels". For the non-US folks out there, that would be lax morals, Catholics, and Southerners (this was just after the war).
I believe that "Bishop of Rome" is the only title of the Pope, the rest being merely honorifics.
My understanding is that most Bishops went to the nearest Metropolitan Bishop to resolve disputes. There were a half dozen in the East (pre-Muslim conquest), and they rarely had need to come west to Rome. Since Rome was the only Metropolitan Bishop to never side with a Heresy (something that later provided fuel to the infallibility argument), it was undoubtedly in contact with all sorts of eastern Bishops. But as a rule, most eastern Bishops look to eastern Metropolitans for leadership, and eventually became what we call Orthodox, not what we call Catholic. And maybe I should use east vs. west, but should use Hellenistic vs. Latin instead. The Armenian Church has always been in Communion with Rome, and you don't get more east than that in terms of traditional Christian areas, but it isn't Hellenistic.
Just picking a nit, but you're not supposed to switch rites. I believe that you have to get approval from Rome to change from the rite of your birth, which is the Latin Rite for most of us. I'm not sure if this is for theological reasons, or just to prevent poaching. Interesting because I drive past a Byzantine Rite Church on my way to work. I don't know if I'm up to that much Greek, but it does sound interesting, and I've heard nothing but good stuff about Father Rick.
Being "born gay", or any other way, is not important. We are all born imperfect (Original Sin). Arrogance and Gluttony are my particular problem areas. It doesn't mean I'm off the hook for controlling them. The Old Testament describes a really tough set of requirements for getting to Heaven. The New Testament presents a replacement approach. In neither scenario do I see much room for "well, I was born different, so I need an exception." Naturally Jesus can show mercy and you might be able to get into Heaven, but there is no way you can know. Following the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the only way to be sure that you will get you into Heaven, provided you mean it and are not just paying lip service. Naturally your spiritual mileage may vary, this is just the doctrine of the Church.
Predestination is a Protestant thing (Calvinistic, I believe). Catholics are into Free-Will. The difference is one of attitude. Older Protestant groups were literally predestined in that God decided before you were born what your fate was, and there wasn't anything you could do to change it. Most modern Protestants believe that if you have faith in Jesus, God will ensure that you make it to Heaven. God decides who believes enough. The Catholic stance is that you have to keep trying to be good enough, and God will ensure that you make it. If you never stop trying, you'll get in.
Geek example: The Lord of the Rings vs. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
For those who don't know Tolkien and Lewis were roommates, and Tolkien fired up Lewis's religious fervor. In the LotR Frodo never stops trying to destroy the ring. In the end, it is just too tough and fate conspires to ensure that it gets done (Gollum bites his finger off). In LWW the kids and the people of Narnia fight the good fight against the Witch, but eventually Aslan shows up and saves the day. Tolkien was Catholic and his story shows the free will of Frodo to never quit, while the Anglican Lewis's Narnia demonstrates God doing the work, not the people. This isn't quite the predestination of old, but it isn't the free will of Catholicism either.
I'm not aware of the Church having any particular decrees on transexuality, but I imagine it would be against it. You were given a gender, and it is not your place to change it. Feeling the urge to change God's plan is pretty much the definition of temptation, and giving into it is Evil. Some of this stuff is black-and-white.
As for the medical thing, what sort of red herring is this? When has the Church ever recommended against medical procedures? I hear about faith healing in non-Catholic denominations, that is it. Down here in the South it seems that Baptists in particular like faith healing. Any Catholic examples? There are rules against abortion, birth control, and euthanasia, all of which because a life is ended (or prevented). The Church is equally against the death penalty and wars (even the Crusades don't live up to St. Aquinas's Just War requirement). But I've never heard of anythign preventing a medical procedure. Note: that until recently organ donating was taboo because of the literalism of "resurection of the body". You'd need those body parts. The Church was equally against cremation for the same reason. Both stances have soften, and my Church is even putting in a columbarium, which was unheard of 20 years ago.
BTW: The prohibition on divorce is that a vow was made to God. You shouldn't be able to walk away from them, should you? That is why there is a movement within the Church to bless "living together" and save the Sacrament of Marriage for those who are ready to take on more commitment. I don't expect this to show up within my lifetime, but the Church moves slowly.
PS: I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you don't understand Catholicism, and that your not simply a troll. You seem to lump all of Christianity into one box, which is kind like saying "all Chinese look the same".
The last time I checked the numbers the Roman Catholic Church was the largest single denomination in US at 26%. If you add up all various Baptist denominations that was in the low 30%s. And just to be picky, they add up to over 50%. which mean Protestants are less than 50% of the US, a fact that must overjoy any WASPs out there. In case anyone misses the distinction I'm making, technically Protestants are Churches that broke away from Communion with the Pope. This includes Lutherans, Presbyterian, the Anglican Communion (CoE, Episcopalian, etc), Methodists, and so forth. It does not include Orthodox (the difference is political, not spiritual) nor Baptists (who never were in Communion with the Pope to start with).
BTW: If any Baptists are reading this, my main source of Baptist info is a graduate of Bob Jones University. How mainstream are they? I know that they are way right politically, but that doesn't mean that doctrinally they are beyond the pale.
As for the sex-scandals, I read that over the past 50 years the amount of Catholic abuse is proportional to other denominations, just all of it has been uncovered over the past 10 years or so instead of trickling in over the past half century. Dunno if that is still the case (unfortunately more cases seem to pop up every month), but it is food for thought for anyone not afraid of statistics.
Maybe I've dropped the ball on Priest vs. Laity. I'm fairly certain that there is a distinction in the Old Testament, but maybe you're right about them being the same in the New. I'm so used to that distinction being so important, maybe I just assumed it was there. I'll try to pay attention next time. Thanks.
As for the Bishop, are the requirements in 1 Timothy? The description is minimalist, but it is defined. Isn't it? Is your comment that a modern Catholic Bishop has a lot more going on than what is mentioned in those few lines? Are there any denominations whose Bishops/Episcapos/Overseers do nothing more than that?
Original Sin says that we're all flawed (or "with error"), so how can we tell if anything is with or without error? Maybe the Bible is in better shape than we are?
And for what it is worth, you'll never get your "fantastic evidence", because faith is involved. Either you believe or you don't. In that sense we (Catholics) can't be separated from Scientologists. I think that comparing us to L. Ron's cult-for-profit is insulting, but your point stands. Faith in the unprovable is the basis of every religion that I'm aware of. I think that is the distinction between faith and personal philosophy.
Choices were made for what went into the Bible. Since the purpose of the Bible is to make us think and come to the right conclusion (note: not "any" conclusion), I'm not sure if "without error" really has that much meaning. Since it is designed to make you think, there is a whole lot of wiggle room. BTW: Can you tell that I don't have a lot of respect for fundamentalists who think the Bible is God's "Literal Truth", although they usually do mean well. I've lived just about my whole life in the "Bible Belt", so I've met a few of these literalist Bible thumpers.
As for books being lost, there is History Channel show called "Banned from the Bible" which mentioned it.
Well, the Church hasn't thrown away those other books. I've never looked into this deeply, but I've watched a lot of TV:-) My understanding is that most of the one that didn't make it were a) hard to demonstrate as having ties to its professed author, b) contradicted something of importance (heresy), c) didn't add anything to the discussion (fluff or redundant), or d) were badly written. I can't remember the titles right now (sorry), but I seem to recall that some of the "rejected" are still studied by seminarians. Although you are correct that a few have been lost, and after 17 centuries we only have the titles of some of the rejected books, not the text.
But you're absolutely correct that at some level an arbitrary choice was made. One hopes that Divine Inspiration ensured the correct choice, but there is no way to prove it. In the end certain works were floating around the Christian community and some were selected for the Bible and others weren't.
For what it is worth, the Church at the time of the Council of Nicea (323-325 IIRC) shouldn't be called "Roman Catholic". The Papacy doesn't even become strong in Rome until the fall of the Western Empire a century later. Also the Orthodox had at least as much to say as the Catholics, especially considering it was held in Turkey, in what was basically the Patriarch of Constantinople's back yard. Also since the Orthodox don't have a Pope, I do think you can have one (the Bible) without the other (the Pope).
- doug
PS: As I've said in other postings, I consider the Bible to be spiritually correct, but I don't consider it to be a history text. And I certainly think the Church has flaws.
My understanding of Onanism isn't the "wasting of sperm" but the "willful wasting of sperm". There was no "oops" going on here, it was an attempt to have sex without repercussions. It wasn't a 16yo experimenting, but an adult trying to get around the system. Sex is designed to produce kids, the fact that it is pleasurable is only an added bonus. BTW: It is strawman to talk about artificial insemination of all women of child bearing years. Why does everyone forget the role that marriage is supposed to play in this? note: it is more for the kid than the parents.
Your argument, as I understand it, is that there are enough people on Earth to back off from the "Be fruitful and multiply" directive. At face value, you could very well be right. That isn't my call to make. Maybe the directive could be extended to imply we're supposed to colonize space and that will be our outlet for "surplus population". (Please forgive that horrible phrase, but I'm in a hurry to go, so I'm not picking my words as well as I should.)
As for your main point of "there can be too much of a good thing" (close enough?), again you could be right. But who am I (or who are you for that matter) to decide who lives and who doesn't? Wouldn't it be better to find a way for everyone to live? Why should we settle when we haven't tried hard to come up with a solution. Especially when birth control won't fix the problem, just slow down the rate of growth. I acknowledge that I'm being wishful again.
One last comment: I remember reading years ago that the strongest indicators of reduced fertility are (in no particular order): wealth, education (especially that of the mother), and urbanization. I think that wealth and education were related, but I'm not sure. Can I vote to spend any money on birth control for increasing these three factors instead? It would have the same result (perhaps a bit more slowly) and would not required any Dr.Death type choices on anyone's part.
No argument with me. St. Jerome was divinely inspired when he collated the Vulgate Bible, but even much of that had already been put together by a group of Nuns in the Holy Land (forgive me if I don't look up the reference). But I don't think the divine inspiration was on the facts/history, but on the way it makes you think. The details people argue about are usually not important.
The thing that most people get is that the Bible is not designed to be a literal work. It has to function at way too many levels for that to pan out. It has way too much symbolism in it. This is why people study the thing, not just read it: It is made to make you think. While I don't think it has spiritual errors, I don't trust it for facts either. History and Theology (or Philosophy) are different beasties.
I realized that I'm going off on a tangent, but was the Earth made in seven days? Who cares? There were phases and God was the motivator behind them. Asking if he was done in a week is missing the forest because too many trees are in the way. I've always liked Azimov's creation story http://www.sumware.com/creation.html.
Go ahead. Declare whatever you feel like. It is a (mostly) free country.
But please remember that the Pope doesn't have a blank slate to do anything. Birth Control is restricted specifically because of Onanism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onanism, and more generally because of the doctrine that any life is good. Yes, it means that people will be poorer, and worse off materially, but what is the higher truth? The church is far more interested in your spiritual well-being in Heaven than your physical well-being on Earth.
Your tone makes it seem like you are non-believer. Fine. Most secularists disagree with that basic stand.
- doug
PS: As for the deforestation issue, I consider that a failing of Christianity. In Genesis we find we're supposed to take care of the world, and we certainly aren't doing a good job of that. http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v10n3p24.htm is a longer winded statement of the same idea. I haven't looked into this Dr. John E. Silvius fellow, so I don't know if he is spouting nonsense in general or not, but I like this one link.
You very well could be right, although I certainly hope that you're not.
The Church has a long history of policing itself, and it doesn't like secular authorities butting in. Don't forget that even today China is trying to control the Church in China http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=53 081. While I agree that the Church as screwed up on hiding the pedophiles instead not pro-actively doing something, I am not convinced that the reaction indicates further corruption. Of course this could be simple wishful thinking on my part.
Yes, the Popes are also the successor to St. Peter. My response was long winded as it was. You're absolutely correct that none of the other Metropolitan Bishops thought Rome was superior to them, which is one of the origins of the Great Schism. To add a bit more tension remember that of the seven ancient Metropolitan Bishops, six were in the East (Hellenistic) and only Rome was in the West (Latin). But those issues are political, not theological. The Orthodox can receive communion at a Catholic Church, something no Protestant is allowed to do, and that is because of the theological differences (transubstantiation being a good first example).
As for the shift from successor of St. Peter to God's Point Man on Earth, I consider that to be hubris. For most of the 12th-14th Centuries the Pope was the most powerful individual on Earth, with only the Emperor of China being close. That much power will go to anyone's head. And don't forget that just because some Pope spouts out stuff like that, it doesn't make it right. The Avignon Papacy (and Avignon Anti-Papacy) and the Borgias shows that the Church's history isn't always perfect. Like everything else, we have to try to do our imperfect best.
he Bishops exist as successors to the Apostles, although there are a lot more than 12 of them nowadays. Bishops are described in the New Testament, along with Priests, Deacons, and the Laity. Would you be so kind as to inform a fellow Catholic where in the New Testament are Bishops and Priests and Deacons and Laity described?? I don't have my Bible with me, but poking around I see http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1timoth y-asv.html has the text: read 1 Timothy, chapter 3 for Bishops and Deacons. I don't remember off the top of my head where the rules for Laity and Priests are spelled out. www.newadvent.org is a good starting place for research. For the laity in particular, glance at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08748a.htm DUTIES AND RIGHTS OF THE LAITY.
"Just because some book gives him power, who should believe some made up book? "
Frankly, I've never seen any passage in the Bible describing the position or, or need for a pope.
It doesn't. The Bishops exist as successors to the Apostles, although there are a lot more than 12 of them nowadays. Bishops are described in the New Testament, along with Priests, Deacons, and the Laity.
Historically disputes between Bishops were resolved by Metropolitan Bishops, a term that I believe is still used by the Orthodox Churches. These are merely Bishops of large cities which were influential, but have no position of spiritual superiority. Rome was one of these, and was the only Metropolitan Bishopric to never fall to a Heresy. (FYI see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm for way too much information about Heresy.) Of course Matthew 13 shows Peter being elevated above the other Apostles when it comes to running the Church (You are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.) Remember Peter==Rock, so it is a play on words.
The result is that the Bishop of Rome is just a "first among equals" who handles disputes. Mostly the Pope is juse the permanent tie-breaker if you will, and can only override the rulings of local Bishops in very rare circumstances. There are plenty of topics where US Bishops do things that Rome doesn't like, and there is nothing that the Pope can do about it. The whole infallibility thing only deals with specific points of doctrine, and almost never applies. It is certainly less useful than popular media makes it out to be. Remember that when the church does big shifts (Council of Trent, Vatican II), it is a coming together of large parts of the Church to form consensus, not the Pope making a decree.
And yes, this mechanism of Rome being the arbiter of disputes between Bishops is not Biblical. The Church is an artifact of Mankind, and as such is imperfect. Attempts are made to keep it working well, and somethings change over time. Remember that Bishops were installed due to popular decree (democratically, if you will) until corruption ended that process about a thousand years ago. Likewise the College of Cardinals is an attempt to shield the Papacy from local Roman politics. That hasn't been an issue for several centuries, but it is still the mechanism in use. A bit vestigial, somewhat like the US Electoral College.
Slashdot Mirror
Folks,
Réseau is the French word for "network", and we all know what France's only contribution to networking is. This was a proto-minitel. It is kinda like the internet, but you have to pay per-minute access fees, have slower connections, limited functionality, and have to work through a monopolistic PTT.
- doug
PS: Yes, he was Belgian, but who really can tell the difference?
Is this what you were talking about?
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/11/1818241
- doug
Apple Computers gets its name from Apple Records. If there had been some sort of cosmic convergence I'd side with the computer company, but in this case, they brought it on themselves. It was a nice bit of homage to the Beatles, but a foolish business choice.
Back in the 90s I observed that the best Unix Admins seemed to all like King Crimson, and that most of the good Perl people I knew liked The Who. I doubt if anyone could prove any sort of direct correlation here, but it is a touchstone that has served me well enough for over a decade.
Handling oopses was the biggest skill I had learn when I got out of school. That is both figuring out what went wrong (debugging), and how to gracefully handle errors at run time in systems that can't go down. In fact, I'd like to see some sort of Forensics class be core curriculum for all Engineers because designing a new system is easier than cleaning up a broken one.
- doug
The Germans might be spoonfed on WWII, but the French have a minimum daily allowance for both WWI and WWII. And that minimum is quite high. Both Nov 11th, and May 8th are national holidays. And every third road is named after someone or something from one of those two wars. As for how well the Germans remember those dates, I don't believe either is a holiday in Germany or Austria. Perhaps a calendar-only designation, but that is the same category as "groundhog's day", which really doesn't qualify as a major observed holiday.
- doug
Exactly. I've known people to do that with windows because of Quicken data that they didn't want stolen. It is certainly worth a shot.
You always have choice, but if you know what is right, how can you chose wrong? I couldn't knowingly make a choice where I know someone innocent will be hurt. Who could? Being "without evil" doesn't mean you can't decide to wrong, it can equally mean you understand more and just won't let yourself do the wrong thing.
I remember a homily about Jesus being a human, but without sin. It wasn't that he couldn't do anything wrong, just that he didn't want to. I forget if it was that he didn't want to upset his Father, or there was nothing that he wanted to do that wasn't good.
In the days of the GOP (late 1800s) the Democratic Party was the Party of "Rum, Rome, and Rebels". For the non-US folks out there, that would be lax morals, Catholics, and Southerners (this was just after the war).
Dunno. I just thought it was God saying "Nope, try again."
I believe that "Bishop of Rome" is the only title of the Pope, the rest being merely honorifics.
My understanding is that most Bishops went to the nearest Metropolitan Bishop to resolve disputes. There were a half dozen in the East (pre-Muslim conquest), and they rarely had need to come west to Rome. Since Rome was the only Metropolitan Bishop to never side with a Heresy (something that later provided fuel to the infallibility argument), it was undoubtedly in contact with all sorts of eastern Bishops. But as a rule, most eastern Bishops look to eastern Metropolitans for leadership, and eventually became what we call Orthodox, not what we call Catholic. And maybe I should use east vs. west, but should use Hellenistic vs. Latin instead. The Armenian Church has always been in Communion with Rome, and you don't get more east than that in terms of traditional Christian areas, but it isn't Hellenistic.
Just picking a nit, but you're not supposed to switch rites. I believe that you have to get approval from Rome to change from the rite of your birth, which is the Latin Rite for most of us. I'm not sure if this is for theological reasons, or just to prevent poaching. Interesting because I drive past a Byzantine Rite Church on my way to work. I don't know if I'm up to that much Greek, but it does sound interesting, and I've heard nothing but good stuff about Father Rick.
Being "born gay", or any other way, is not important. We are all born imperfect (Original Sin). Arrogance and Gluttony are my particular problem areas. It doesn't mean I'm off the hook for controlling them. The Old Testament describes a really tough set of requirements for getting to Heaven. The New Testament presents a replacement approach. In neither scenario do I see much room for "well, I was born different, so I need an exception." Naturally Jesus can show mercy and you might be able to get into Heaven, but there is no way you can know. Following the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the only way to be sure that you will get you into Heaven, provided you mean it and are not just paying lip service. Naturally your spiritual mileage may vary, this is just the doctrine of the Church.
Predestination is a Protestant thing (Calvinistic, I believe). Catholics are into Free-Will. The difference is one of attitude. Older Protestant groups were literally predestined in that God decided before you were born what your fate was, and there wasn't anything you could do to change it. Most modern Protestants believe that if you have faith in Jesus, God will ensure that you make it to Heaven. God decides who believes enough. The Catholic stance is that you have to keep trying to be good enough, and God will ensure that you make it. If you never stop trying, you'll get in.
Geek example: The Lord of the Rings vs. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
For those who don't know Tolkien and Lewis were roommates, and Tolkien fired up Lewis's religious fervor. In the LotR Frodo never stops trying to destroy the ring. In the end, it is just too tough and fate conspires to ensure that it gets done (Gollum bites his finger off). In LWW the kids and the people of Narnia fight the good fight against the Witch, but eventually Aslan shows up and saves the day. Tolkien was Catholic and his story shows the free will of Frodo to never quit, while the Anglican Lewis's Narnia demonstrates God doing the work, not the people. This isn't quite the predestination of old, but it isn't the free will of Catholicism either.
I'm not aware of the Church having any particular decrees on transexuality, but I imagine it would be against it. You were given a gender, and it is not your place to change it. Feeling the urge to change God's plan is pretty much the definition of temptation, and giving into it is Evil. Some of this stuff is black-and-white.
As for the medical thing, what sort of red herring is this? When has the Church ever recommended against medical procedures? I hear about faith healing in non-Catholic denominations, that is it. Down here in the South it seems that Baptists in particular like faith healing. Any Catholic examples? There are rules against abortion, birth control, and euthanasia, all of which because a life is ended (or prevented). The Church is equally against the death penalty and wars (even the Crusades don't live up to St. Aquinas's Just War requirement). But I've never heard of anythign preventing a medical procedure. Note: that until recently organ donating was taboo because of the literalism of "resurection of the body". You'd need those body parts. The Church was equally against cremation for the same reason. Both stances have soften, and my Church is even putting in a columbarium, which was unheard of 20 years ago.
BTW: The prohibition on divorce is that a vow was made to God. You shouldn't be able to walk away from them, should you? That is why there is a movement within the Church to bless "living together" and save the Sacrament of Marriage for those who are ready to take on more commitment. I don't expect this to show up within my lifetime, but the Church moves slowly.
PS: I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you don't understand Catholicism, and that your not simply a troll. You seem to lump all of Christianity into one box, which is kind like saying "all Chinese look the same".
The last time I checked the numbers the Roman Catholic Church was the largest single denomination in US at 26%. If you add up all various Baptist denominations that was in the low 30%s. And just to be picky, they add up to over 50%. which mean Protestants are less than 50% of the US, a fact that must overjoy any WASPs out there. In case anyone misses the distinction I'm making, technically Protestants are Churches that broke away from Communion with the Pope. This includes Lutherans, Presbyterian, the Anglican Communion (CoE, Episcopalian, etc), Methodists, and so forth. It does not include Orthodox (the difference is political, not spiritual) nor Baptists (who never were in Communion with the Pope to start with).
BTW: If any Baptists are reading this, my main source of Baptist info is a graduate of Bob Jones University. How mainstream are they? I know that they are way right politically, but that doesn't mean that doctrinally they are beyond the pale.
As for the sex-scandals, I read that over the past 50 years the amount of Catholic abuse is proportional to other denominations, just all of it has been uncovered over the past 10 years or so instead of trickling in over the past half century. Dunno if that is still the case (unfortunately more cases seem to pop up every month), but it is food for thought for anyone not afraid of statistics.
Maybe I've dropped the ball on Priest vs. Laity. I'm fairly certain that there is a distinction in the Old Testament, but maybe you're right about them being the same in the New. I'm so used to that distinction being so important, maybe I just assumed it was there. I'll try to pay attention next time. Thanks.
As for the Bishop, are the requirements in 1 Timothy? The description is minimalist, but it is defined. Isn't it? Is your comment that a modern Catholic Bishop has a lot more going on than what is mentioned in those few lines? Are there any denominations whose Bishops/Episcapos/Overseers do nothing more than that?
Original Sin says that we're all flawed (or "with error"), so how can we tell if anything is with or without error? Maybe the Bible is in better shape than we are?
And for what it is worth, you'll never get your "fantastic evidence", because faith is involved. Either you believe or you don't. In that sense we (Catholics) can't be separated from Scientologists. I think that comparing us to L. Ron's cult-for-profit is insulting, but your point stands. Faith in the unprovable is the basis of every religion that I'm aware of. I think that is the distinction between faith and personal philosophy.
Choices were made for what went into the Bible. Since the purpose of the Bible is to make us think and come to the right conclusion (note: not "any" conclusion), I'm not sure if "without error" really has that much meaning. Since it is designed to make you think, there is a whole lot of wiggle room. BTW: Can you tell that I don't have a lot of respect for fundamentalists who think the Bible is God's "Literal Truth", although they usually do mean well. I've lived just about my whole life in the "Bible Belt", so I've met a few of these literalist Bible thumpers.
As for books being lost, there is History Channel show called "Banned from the Bible" which mentioned it.
Well, the Church hasn't thrown away those other books. I've never looked into this deeply, but I've watched a lot of TV :-) My understanding is that most of the one that didn't make it were a) hard to demonstrate as having ties to its professed author, b) contradicted something of importance (heresy), c) didn't add anything to the discussion (fluff or redundant), or d) were badly written. I can't remember the titles right now (sorry), but I seem to recall that some of the "rejected" are still studied by seminarians. Although you are correct that a few have been lost, and after 17 centuries we only have the titles of some of the rejected books, not the text.
But you're absolutely correct that at some level an arbitrary choice was made. One hopes that Divine Inspiration ensured the correct choice, but there is no way to prove it. In the end certain works were floating around the Christian community and some were selected for the Bible and others weren't.
For what it is worth, the Church at the time of the Council of Nicea (323-325 IIRC) shouldn't be called "Roman Catholic". The Papacy doesn't even become strong in Rome until the fall of the Western Empire a century later. Also the Orthodox had at least as much to say as the Catholics, especially considering it was held in Turkey, in what was basically the Patriarch of Constantinople's back yard. Also since the Orthodox don't have a Pope, I do think you can have one (the Bible) without the other (the Pope).
- doug
PS: As I've said in other postings, I consider the Bible to be spiritually correct, but I don't consider it to be a history text. And I certainly think the Church has flaws.
My understanding of Onanism isn't the "wasting of sperm" but the "willful wasting of sperm". There was no "oops" going on here, it was an attempt to have sex without repercussions. It wasn't a 16yo experimenting, but an adult trying to get around the system. Sex is designed to produce kids, the fact that it is pleasurable is only an added bonus. BTW: It is strawman to talk about artificial insemination of all women of child bearing years. Why does everyone forget the role that marriage is supposed to play in this? note: it is more for the kid than the parents.
Your argument, as I understand it, is that there are enough people on Earth to back off from the "Be fruitful and multiply" directive. At face value, you could very well be right. That isn't my call to make. Maybe the directive could be extended to imply we're supposed to colonize space and that will be our outlet for "surplus population". (Please forgive that horrible phrase, but I'm in a hurry to go, so I'm not picking my words as well as I should.)
As for your main point of "there can be too much of a good thing" (close enough?), again you could be right. But who am I (or who are you for that matter) to decide who lives and who doesn't? Wouldn't it be better to find a way for everyone to live? Why should we settle when we haven't tried hard to come up with a solution. Especially when birth control won't fix the problem, just slow down the rate of growth. I acknowledge that I'm being wishful again.
One last comment: I remember reading years ago that the strongest indicators of reduced fertility are (in no particular order): wealth, education (especially that of the mother), and urbanization. I think that wealth and education were related, but I'm not sure. Can I vote to spend any money on birth control for increasing these three factors instead? It would have the same result (perhaps a bit more slowly) and would not required any Dr.Death type choices on anyone's part.
- doug
No argument with me. St. Jerome was divinely inspired when he collated the Vulgate Bible, but even much of that had already been put together by a group of Nuns in the Holy Land (forgive me if I don't look up the reference). But I don't think the divine inspiration was on the facts/history, but on the way it makes you think. The details people argue about are usually not important.
The thing that most people get is that the Bible is not designed to be a literal work. It has to function at way too many levels for that to pan out. It has way too much symbolism in it. This is why people study the thing, not just read it: It is made to make you think. While I don't think it has spiritual errors, I don't trust it for facts either. History and Theology (or Philosophy) are different beasties.
I realized that I'm going off on a tangent, but was the Earth made in seven days? Who cares? There were phases and God was the motivator behind them. Asking if he was done in a week is missing the forest because too many trees are in the way. I've always liked Azimov's creation story http://www.sumware.com/creation.html.
Go ahead. Declare whatever you feel like. It is a (mostly) free country.
But please remember that the Pope doesn't have a blank slate to do anything. Birth Control is restricted specifically because of Onanism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onanism, and more generally because of the doctrine that any life is good. Yes, it means that people will be poorer, and worse off materially, but what is the higher truth? The church is far more interested in your spiritual well-being in Heaven than your physical well-being on Earth.
Your tone makes it seem like you are non-believer. Fine. Most secularists disagree with that basic stand.
- doug
PS: As for the deforestation issue, I consider that a failing of Christianity. In Genesis we find we're supposed to take care of the world, and we certainly aren't doing a good job of that. http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v10n3p24.htm is a longer winded statement of the same idea. I haven't looked into this Dr. John E. Silvius fellow, so I don't know if he is spouting nonsense in general or not, but I like this one link.
You very well could be right, although I certainly hope that you're not.
3 081. While I agree that the Church as screwed up on hiding the pedophiles instead not pro-actively doing something, I am not convinced that the reaction indicates further corruption. Of course this could be simple wishful thinking on my part.
The Church has a long history of policing itself, and it doesn't like secular authorities butting in. Don't forget that even today China is trying to control the Church in China http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=5
Yes, the Popes are also the successor to St. Peter. My response was long winded as it was. You're absolutely correct that none of the other Metropolitan Bishops thought Rome was superior to them, which is one of the origins of the Great Schism. To add a bit more tension remember that of the seven ancient Metropolitan Bishops, six were in the East (Hellenistic) and only Rome was in the West (Latin). But those issues are political, not theological. The Orthodox can receive communion at a Catholic Church, something no Protestant is allowed to do, and that is because of the theological differences (transubstantiation being a good first example).
As for the shift from successor of St. Peter to God's Point Man on Earth, I consider that to be hubris. For most of the 12th-14th Centuries the Pope was the most powerful individual on Earth, with only the Emperor of China being close. That much power will go to anyone's head. And don't forget that just because some Pope spouts out stuff like that, it doesn't make it right. The Avignon Papacy (and Avignon Anti-Papacy) and the Borgias shows that the Church's history isn't always perfect. Like everything else, we have to try to do our imperfect best.
- doug
- doug
It doesn't. The Bishops exist as successors to the Apostles, although there are a lot more than 12 of them nowadays. Bishops are described in the New Testament, along with Priests, Deacons, and the Laity.Frankly, I've never seen any passage in the Bible describing the position or, or need for a pope.
Historically disputes between Bishops were resolved by Metropolitan Bishops, a term that I believe is still used by the Orthodox Churches. These are merely Bishops of large cities which were influential, but have no position of spiritual superiority. Rome was one of these, and was the only Metropolitan Bishopric to never fall to a Heresy. (FYI see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm for way too much information about Heresy.) Of course Matthew 13 shows Peter being elevated above the other Apostles when it comes to running the Church (You are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.) Remember Peter==Rock, so it is a play on words.
The result is that the Bishop of Rome is just a "first among equals" who handles disputes. Mostly the Pope is juse the permanent tie-breaker if you will, and can only override the rulings of local Bishops in very rare circumstances. There are plenty of topics where US Bishops do things that Rome doesn't like, and there is nothing that the Pope can do about it. The whole infallibility thing only deals with specific points of doctrine, and almost never applies. It is certainly less useful than popular media makes it out to be. Remember that when the church does big shifts (Council of Trent, Vatican II), it is a coming together of large parts of the Church to form consensus, not the Pope making a decree.
And yes, this mechanism of Rome being the arbiter of disputes between Bishops is not Biblical. The Church is an artifact of Mankind, and as such is imperfect. Attempts are made to keep it working well, and somethings change over time. Remember that Bishops were installed due to popular decree (democratically, if you will) until corruption ended that process about a thousand years ago. Likewise the College of Cardinals is an attempt to shield the Papacy from local Roman politics. That hasn't been an issue for several centuries, but it is still the mechanism in use. A bit vestigial, somewhat like the US Electoral College.