New Pope

[Cali James]

... in response to Re: New Pope, posted by Pete E on Apr 20, 2005


"Not only the poverty,but the policy is probably the biggest single cause of ABORTIONS,where in the case of a late term abortion a human being is being killed,compared to intercepting a shot of semen."

Pete, this is an opinion not supported by any facts.  Abortion doesn't occur in larger numbers in countries with Catholic populations, abortion for the most part is farely uniform across the globe.  In the United States, for every four children born, one is aborted.  Very few people in the United States even listen to the Catholic Church's teaching on abortion and contraception.  Pointing to Catholic's teaching as the biggest single cause of abortion is a stretch in my mind.

[Pete E]

... in response to Re: Re: New Pope, posted by Cali James on Apr 20, 2005

James,
MAYBE you are right.I was extrapulating from them being the biggest cause of unwanted births,but they are probably less likely to have an abortion than other people.EVEN then I bet its millions of abortions,and Millions of kids who starved,all over a thought that every shot of semen should have an unblocked target of a possible fertile egg.No birth control method other than don't do it is acceptable to them.As a catholic I never knew that was the case untill I was about 14 years old and my brother in law had to go in for counsoling before the church would let my sister marry him in a church ceremony,somerthing to make my parents happy.You can bet that guy was not going to be back later.They quit attending the Catholic church many years ago.
I think thats a very EXTREME opinion,not to mention about the DUMBEST thing I ever heard that will in my mind some day be no more.After Millions of abortions and kids dying of starvation.MAYBE Billions if it is as slow coming as it might be.I would immagine its in 9 figures already.
And,as I said before,I think huge numbers of Catholics just ignore that rule.It really doesn't make any difference what the catholic church thinks in your relationship to god.They are NOT the ultimate authority,just think they speak for the ultimate authority.
A little power play of the past I guess they still use is to excommunicate people.Depending on how caught up you are in the belief system you could disagree with them but still believe you needed communion to save your soul,the ultimate exclusive franchise thinking.You could be thinking,wow I need to make a deal with them so I can go to communion to rid myself of this mortal sin so I don't go directly to hell when I die.As rediculous as that sounds hundreds of millions of people believe it.

Pete

[Cali James]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: New Pope, posted by Pete E on Apr 20, 2005

[This message has been edited by Cali James]

For historical perspective, prior to the twentieth century, not one Christian community (Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist etc) taught that birth control was good.  They all opposed it based on the idea that sex had a twofold nature, a love aspect and a procreative aspect.  Birth control was seen as an afront to the procreative aspect. The first community to break from their historical past was the Anglicans around 1930 and over the next 30 years all the other denominations followed suit except the Catholics.

[Pete E]

... in response to New Pope, posted by Cali James on Apr 20, 2005

James,
So basically the current Catholic belief was the old thinking.I am not surprised.The question is when will they Catholic church change?Are they sticking to a correct opinion,I guess they would say so,or hugely slow to change anything?
My guess is it will change,but not anytime soon.Even a very progressive pope,like the one after this one might be would probably not be up for it.50 years ???BUT MAYBE ,MAYBE things will gang up on them faster then that.The world is changing fast,real fast.AND,if the other churches could dump it I don't think its an issue that is unchangable.
So 50 years,100,000,000 abortions,200,000,000 starvations or infant deaths is my guess right now.The price of stuborness to be paid by those on the bottom of the barrel.
Hmm,probably all of the current cardinals gone in 30 years?Maybe then?Maybe with a new pope in 5 yearsor so.No,too soon probably.

Pete

[Cali James]

... in response to Re: New Pope, posted by Pete E on Apr 20, 2005

[This message has been edited by Cali James]

Pete, my basic problem with your position is that you give Catholics far more credit for the world's problems than I think is warranted.  I'm open minded enough to listen to your opinion but I don't think all of your facts are correct. For example, prior to the industrial revolution, or 80 percent of the history of the Catholic faith up until today, having many children was in many cases a matter of survival.  The economy was agriculture based and families needed a lot of hands to survive.  Having many children was seen as a sign of family strength and not as it is today.  Even after the ind. revolution, desease was rampant and was not uncommon for people to die of infection and other ailments.  As an example, my grandfather died in 1929 from an infection that today would have been treated by a common antibiotic.

It is true that over the centuries, the world has seen great famines.  There have been millions who have died.  If they had not been born in the first place, certainly there would be less who died. Is this what you are advocating, that it would be better if they had not been born?  

The greatest famine in history occured in China about 40 years ago.  It is estimated that 30 million Chinese died.  These were not Catholics with huge families.  The people died because they lived under a communist system that forced poor agricultural methods on all the people.  Communism was at fault here, not the Catholic Church. An example of this today, is the famine in communist North Korea while you don't see famine in South Korea.  Certainly we can't blame the Catholic Church for these problems.  

In predominately Catholic countries of Latin America for example, many people are certainly poor but would the world be better had they not been born?  I'm not willing to say that.  Furthermore, poverty in Latin America is not just a function of how many children you have.  Colombia as an example, is a resource rich country, the economic problems in my opinion are primarily due to corruption,  lack of infrastructure and quite frankly attitude.  If half the children in Colombia disappeared tomorrow, the other half wouldn't necessarily have a better future.

I traveled to Russia in 1999.  The Orthodox faith which is almost identical to Roman Catholicism was all but dead after 70 years of communism.  The people believed that more children lead to more poverty and so you didn't see very many kids.  I can truthfully say that I never saw a family with more than one child in my 17 days in St. Petersburg. It was truly amazing, almost a cookie cutter society, living in their little boxes.  Were these happy people like the Latins, not particularly.  Anyway, I'm not sure there is a direct connection but I think you may underestimate the positive aspects of Catholicism on culture and on people.  

Take care, James

[Pete E]

... in response to New Pope, posted by Cali James on Apr 20, 2005

James,
I don't doubt the catholic position was the position in the past.And with high death rates maybe a high birth rate had its benefits.AND much of the 3rd world the governments are actively promoting birth control to limited effect.Changing peoples ways isnot easy.
And I will admit I get carried away and probably exagerate the actual effect the church policies have.
BUT,when we have so many children born in to poverty in the third world and the major church in many of these countries is actively opposing birth control I think its a  BIG negative effect.And in my opinion a very unnecessary one promoted by an organization that seems to be living way in the past.So maybe 100,000,000 abortions and 100,000,000 starvations are a little high.Would 10,000,000 each make it worthy of reconsideration?
Positive effects of catholic culture?Well most religions seem to say be honest,don't steal,kill ect.Even love thy neighbor.The catholic church seems to be saying this also so there is a positive effect.I used to think the net effect of religion was positive.I'm not so sure any more.Moral systems would develop anyway.But look at all the people who have died over religious wars.I think someone said it is historically the biggest cause of war.I'm not sure thats true.
And all religions can share some blame.
One interesting thing.In Colombia even though I see few people I would consider religious as in being real active in a church,there is a sort of trust in god thing.It seems when people have little control over so much in their life they just kind of depend on divine providence.It might surprise you but I think there is something to devine assistance.I don't think its a grand puppeteer in the sky.A little different than that probably.
Things like prayer but also commitment and intention do produce results I think.Probably not in the manner most organized religions would tell you.Them being an intermediary in it probably does nothing.
Ah,2 guys arguing over or should we say discussing the unknown.Lots of ideas and no  certainty.
Almost as  confusing as women.

Pete

[Cali James]

... in response to Re: New Pope, posted by Pete E on Apr 21, 2005

[This message has been edited by Cali James]

"Ah,2 guys arguing over or should we say discussing the unknown.Lots of ideas and no certainty.
Almost as confusing as women."

Well my days of discussing women on the board are all but over, but that still leaves politics and religion.  (-:

[Pete E]

... in response to New Pope, posted by Cali James on Apr 21, 2005

James,
Reading the Economist magazine yesterday on the future of the Church it brought up a whole different angle on the birth control thing thats so basic but it had not occured to me- - AIDS.The church insists that the use of condoms is unnaceptable because of the possibility of intercepting a possible conception.So they say you can't use them to protect from AIDS either.The Economist basically chided them for not being able to discern  between greater or lessor evil.The supposed evil of the possible contraception compared to a person getting AIDS.Seems like a no brainer to me.
They did,however,give the church credit for being the sole supplier of medicine and education in some 3rd world countries where the governments basically do nothing.

Pete

[OkieMan]

... in response to New Pope, posted by Cali James on Apr 19, 2005

CaliJames,

To be sure there are problems with any denomination or group.  The main difference between denominations such as Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Methodists is how their organizations are ran.  Who pulls ther strings and makes decisions. In those denominations, the leadership at the top appoints all the priests or ministers in the church organizations.  In other words, the local church congregation has no say about who their local pastor is; and there are other pertinent issues as well. Certainly, they have no say into who the heirarchy is.  So, if you prefer that form of church government, then that will probably better serve you.  The other Protestant organizations and denominations mostly falls into the Evangelical camp.  The Southern Baptist, the Assemblies of God (which is what I am), and other smaller denominations and organizations.  There are also many independent churches and organizations.  They may have some collective organizations, but do not fall into a formal denomination, as such. At any rate, that form of church government is known as congregationalist. It simply means that the local church has a large say in who their pastor is, as well as how their local church is ran.  Unfortunately, when you are dealing with many people, there will be disagreements.  That is where some of the splits come into play,  It is not desirable, but it does happen.  Naturally, there are many variables between the many organizations.  So, ultimately, it all depends on where a person feels they fit in, or relate to.

                           OkieMan

[valuedcustomer]

... in response to New Pope, posted by Pete E on Apr 19, 2005

[This message has been edited by valuedcustomer]

They are turning to a defender of the faith during a period when their organization is verging on bankruptcy, that is, when in trouble crank the old formula even harder.  The problem is the old formula doesn’t work in a modern world.  This is all so typical and is part of the well-documented life/death cycle of organizations.  When the protestants take over, latin americans will turn into the same WASP A-holes as the gringos... and there won’t be any more point in going to Latin America.