1. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    19 Feb '08 08:06
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Noble sentiments, but empty ones if the Vatican does nothing to put some 'teeth' into it. How does the Vatican propose to advance the cause of the working class and the poor, other than by telling everyone else that they should do it?
    It is my personal opinion that in 3rd world countries like most of those in Africa, that employment is all about education. The people who cant find jobs are those with no skills. So as a long term solution education is key.

    I must also add that the Catholic Church does run schools in Africa (I was educated in one). In fact, I believe that in Zambia, the Catholic Church provides more community services than any other denomination (possibly more than all the others put together). They are however also the largest denomination.

    My concerns with the original post however are that the implication is that community service and the good of the poor etc are important for the sake of maintaining peoples trust, though he did at least start by mentioning human dignity.
  2. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    27626
    19 Feb '08 12:01
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    [b]I think the Bible is largely a fictional characterization of Jesus. I don't think Jesus said most of the things that are attributed to him in the Bible. I think the modern Christian churches have almost nothing in common with what Jesus was preaching in his lifetime. And I think Catholic dogma owes more to Paul than it does to Jesus.

    I agree. But ...[text shortened]... rights, and that's right, a Catholic priest was part of the taskforce that produced it.[/b]
    What a curious rebuttal. You start off by agreeing with my assertion that "the bible is largely a fictional characterization of Jesus", but then you go on to defend all the dogma contained within the bible. Which parts do you think were fictionalized, then? For my part, I think the passages referring to behavior in this world have a greater likelihood of being authentic than passages referring to life in the next world. While it goes without saying that Jesus believed in the Jewish God, and thus his message had a certain supernatural content, I really don't think heaven and hell were big on his agenda, if at all. I think his message was about more practical considerations for life in this world, like 'turning the other cheek', or 'loving your neighbor as yourself', or as Acts 2:44 to 45 says:

    44 And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

    Or Acts 4:32 to 35

    32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

    Compare those two passages to one from Karl Marx: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

    During Jesus' time, the bulk of the message was about helping the poor and the oppressed. By the time Christianity had become the official religion of the Roman Empire, it's concern with the poor had devolved into a side issue. So the Catholic Church obviously has some concern for the poor in today's world, but its primary concern is with issues that Jesus simply didn't address. Salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus is a doctrine that was invented after Jesus' death, most likely by Paul.
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    19 Feb '08 12:23
    Originally posted by rwingett
    There's a reason why Church attendance is declining throughout the western world: The Church has simply made itself irrelevant to people's daily lives. It's difficult to take the Pope seriously when he stands in the Vatican and opines about the plight of the poor while at the same time hindering the work of advocates of Liberation Theology who would actively work for social justice.
    Do you think that the Catholic Church should change its theology in order to keep attendance up? If that is the true reason for poor attendance then either it is not a very democratic Church or the people simply don't know whats good for them.
    I come from an Anglican background, and it is a fairly democratic denomination. There do tend to be differences between the youth and the older members, with the older members tending to set the rules (as they are the ones in charge etc). As a result there is some loss of youth to other denominations who offer more excitement etc. But the other choice is to go with the youth and possibly loose the older members who like things done the traditional way.
  4. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    27626
    19 Feb '08 19:021 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Do you think that the Catholic Church should change its theology in order to keep attendance up? If that is the true reason for poor attendance then either it is not a very democratic Church or the people simply don't know whats good for them.
    I come from an Anglican background, and it is a fairly democratic denomination. There do tend to be differences ...[text shortened]... o with the youth and possibly loose the older members who like things done the traditional way.
    There is a difference between changing to appeal to the latest fad and changing to keep from becoming obsolete. The enthusiastic adoption of Liberation Theology might have revitalized a moribund Catholic Church. As I have taken pains to say, I do not disagree that the Catholic Church has done much to help the poor. My point is that just helping the poor, while ignoring the social factors that contribute to their poverty, is essentially a waste of time. The Church's entire reason for being is to help overturn unjust and exploitive social relations. That is what Jesus' message was all about, in my opinion.
  5. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    19 Feb '08 19:241 edit
    Originally posted by rwingett


    Compare those two passages to one from Karl Marx: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
    RWillis, I encourage you to watch the video here with an open heart:
    http://saigoncharlie.blogspot.com/2007/11/ayn-rands-fountainhead.html

    “From the beginning of history, the two antagonists have stood face to face: the creator and the second-hander. When the first creator invented the wheel, the first second-hander responded. He invented altruism.

    “The creator—denied, opposed, persecuted, exploited—went on, moved forward and carried all humanity along on his energy. The second-hander contributed nothing to the process except the impediments. The contest has another name: the individual against the collective.

    “The ‘common good’ of a collective—a race, a class, a state—was the claim and justification of every tyranny ever established over men. Every major horror of history was committed in the name of an altruistic motive. Has any act of selfishness ever equaled the carnage perpetrated by disciples of altruism? Does the fault lie in men’s hypocrisy or in the nature of the principle? The most dreadful butchers were the most sincere.
  6. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    27626
    19 Feb '08 22:21
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    RWillis, I encourage you to watch the video here with an open heart:
    http://saigoncharlie.blogspot.com/2007/11/ayn-rands-fountainhead.html

    “From the beginning of history, the two antagonists have stood face to face: the creator and the second-hander. When the first creator invented the wheel, the first second-hander responded. He invented ...[text shortened]... sy or in the nature of the principle? The most dreadful butchers were the most sincere.
    At the beginning of history, there were ten hunters with sharpened wooden spears, all doing the same hunting and all sharing equally in the catch. With time their skills improved to the point where it took the labor of only nine hunters to feed all ten. The tribe took aside their most promising flint knapper and excused him from hunting so he could devise a better spearhead for their use. As hunting was both hard work and dangerous, he gladly accepted. The first nine continued hunting as usual, and continued to give an equal portion of their catch to the flint knapper who was engaged in the long process of testing different spear points. Eventually he devised a spearhead that was the envy of the Neolithic world. The flint knapper, flushed with triumph, emerged from his quarry and announced to the tribe that he was demanding a double ration of food because he was just so gosh darn clever. The other nine protested vigorously that it was their hunting which made possible the discretionary labor the flint knapper needed for his research, and which sustained him during that time. The flint knapper countered that he had no social obligation to the tribe. It was his invention and he was entitled to all the benefits derived therefrom. The other nine were dismayed at this outcome and wept bitter tears. But what could they do? The flint knapper told them the sanctity of private property could not be violated.
  7. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    19 Feb '08 23:078 edits
    Originally posted by rwingett
    The flint knapper countered that he had no social obligation to the tribe.
    The flint knapper was wrong. He had made a contract, and he was in violation of it. (Id. The tribe took aside their most promising flint knapper and excused him from hunting so he could devise a better spearhead for their use.)

    Pretty much the same thing described in the video.

    The hunters were the real capitalists, investing their excess capital for greater returns in the future. The flint knapper was the very sort of "second-hander" or "looter" described in the speech, thinking he was entitled to the fruits of others' labor. It sounds like you're becoming a real capitalist. Perhaps the reason you've been against capitalism all this time is that you were mistaking the flint knapper for the capitalist.
  8. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    27626
    20 Feb '08 02:59
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    RWillis, I encourage you to watch the video here with an open heart:
    http://saigoncharlie.blogspot.com/2007/11/ayn-rands-fountainhead.html

    “From the beginning of history, the two antagonists have stood face to face: the creator and the second-hander. When the first creator invented the wheel, the first second-hander responded. He invented ...[text shortened]... sy or in the nature of the principle? The most dreadful butchers were the most sincere.
    I watched the video. That was nearly six minutes of my life ill used. I wish to respond at length, but it may take me a while to compose my rebuttal. I'll get back to you in a couple days.
  9. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    20 Feb '08 03:29
    Originally posted by rwingett
    What a curious rebuttal. You start off by agreeing with my assertion that "the bible is largely a fictional characterization of Jesus", but then you go on to defend all the dogma contained within the bible. Which parts do you think were fictionalized, then? For my part, I think the passages referring to behavior in this world have a greater likelihood of be ...[text shortened]... n of Jesus is a doctrine that was invented after Jesus' death, most likely by Paul.
    You start off by agreeing with my assertion that "the bible is largely a fictional characterization of Jesus", but then you go on to defend all the dogma contained within the bible. Which parts do you think were fictionalized, then?

    All of them. But that is my de facto belief as an atheist. I perforce must repudiate all supernatural elements claimed in the gospels. However, I cannot expect other Christians, and especially Catholics, to embrace such a stance as they are comfortably with supernaturalism.

    I think the passages referring to behavior in this world have a greater likelihood of being authentic than passages referring to life in the next world.

    A belief that is clearly shaped by your atheistic mindset. It is foolish to demand that the Catholic Church agree with your intuitions.

    I really don't think heaven and hell were big on his agenda, if at all.

    That is undoubtedly because you already reject heaven and hell. To those who do accept the supernatural reality of heaven and hell, it would seem that Jesus is very much occupied with the subject. From the Gospel of Matthew, you will find Jesus discuss hell explicitly in the following verses: Matthew 5:29; 8:12; 10:28; 13:42; 25:41, 46.

    During Jesus' time, the bulk of the message was about helping the poor and the oppressed.

    True. But Jesus also instructed people how to worship, how to pray. In the gospels he clearly establishes the Eucharist as a ritual to be observed regularly. Although Jesus does affirm the need to assist the poor and oppressed, he clearly as a divinely-ordained messianic mission in the gospels.

    So the Catholic Church obviously has some concern for the poor in today's world, but its primary concern is with issues that Jesus simply didn't address.

    What do you expect the Catholic Church to do? Renounce their doctrines, become atheists, and then strive to emulate the Jesus that is entirely your imagining?

    Salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus is a doctrine that was invented after Jesus' death, most likely by Paul.

    Probably; but the gospels clearly present Jesus as the paschal lamb and the new redeemer.
  10. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    20 Feb '08 03:36
    Originally posted by rwingett
    There is a difference between changing to appeal to the latest fad and changing to keep from becoming obsolete. The enthusiastic adoption of Liberation Theology might have revitalized a moribund Catholic Church. As I have taken pains to say, I do not disagree that the Catholic Church has done much to help the poor. My point is that just helping the poor, wh ...[text shortened]... ust and exploitive social relations. That is what Jesus' message was all about, in my opinion.
    My point is that just helping the poor, while ignoring the social factors that contribute to their poverty, is essentially a waste of time.

    So you think that the promotion of education is not a remedy to poverty?

    I am not exactly sure what you expect the Catholic Church to do. The Catholic Church cannot legislate to rectify poverty; she cannot dictate to other countries how they should arrange their economy. The best she can do is lobby governments and agitate for reforms. That is essentially the role of Archbishop Celestino Migliore at the UN. Ivanhoe has posted his past speeches which address the problems of poverty. So what more can you expect from the Church?
  11. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    20 Feb '08 04:013 edits
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    So what more can you expect from the Church?
    They had about a billion dollars just lying around last year. They could have used that to build some public hospitals and universities instead of buying the silence of child molestation victims (in Los Angeles alone). A billion dollars can buy a lot of education, but they used it to buy a lot of priest playtime instead.
  12. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    20 Feb '08 04:27
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    They had about a billion dollars just lying around last year. They could have used that to build some public hospitals and universities instead of buying the silence of child molestation victims (in Los Angeles alone). A billion dollars can buy a lot of education, but they used it to buy a lot of priest playtime instead.
    Do you think that these abuse-victims did not deserve a pay-out?
  13. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    20 Feb '08 07:51
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    Do you think that these abuse-victims did not deserve a pay-out?
    Was it compensation or hush-money?
  14. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    20 Feb '08 08:00
    Originally posted by rwingett
    My point is that just helping the poor, while ignoring the social factors that contribute to their poverty, is essentially a waste of time. The Church's entire reason for being is to help overturn unjust and exploitive social relations. That is what Jesus' message was all about, in my opinion.
    And that is where you are wrong. The Church does not have a reason for being. It just is.
    As for why it exists, that is very complicated.
    Most of its members would probably argue that the purpose of the Church is to cater for their spiritual well-being.
    A popular belief amongst theists, Catholics included, is that it is not really important how much you suffer in this world so long as you get to heaven. In fact, many would argue that it is better to suffer than to be tempted by the easy life if that will lead you to sin. In fact, Jesus is quoted as saying something about rich men, camels and needles.
    I believe that Saint Theresa, made it quite clear that her mission was to save souls and not help the poor. In fact I have heard that it is possible that she worked to keep people poor, or at the very least, did not try to help them out of poverty, because in that way she could save more souls. I think a lot of Catholics (the richer ones) would go along with that strategy.
  15. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    20 Feb '08 08:00
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Was it compensation or hush-money?
    Does it matter? Scribbles seems to think the Church should have used the money for better causes.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree