A Child's Abortion

@savagemonk,

Although i happen to agree with the mother's decision, I also defend the Church's right to pass the edict. Ethical question of the edict aside. It is entirely within their prerogative and entirely within their rights to dictate the belief standards of those who choose to stay in the Church. Excommunication is simply another way of a church member to express that they no longer have the same belief standards that a church has. These people aren't dictating action in a binding physical way. The trauma lies in the decision to defy tradition and risk (eternal damnation). This may be a very real trauma for that poor mother and her daughter.

Relying to the (anyone who thinks they have the answers is egotistical and whatnot). How is that? they may be deluded depending on what the real "answers" may be, but how is it egotistical to have a transmental (spiritual) experience and think, hey I'm much happier this way than that way. It is egotistical to want to believe in something, it is egotistical to want to have something outside the empirical realm?

For the innevitable forcing religion on me replies, other than the magnitude of scope what is the difference between a papal decree and a law, what is the difference for that matter between catholic dogma influencing an edict and the fact that and the fact that i could not have defended a thesis in college using the words ain't and gonna. I have a goal i gotta play by the rules. Just as Catholicism has a dogmatic history that has taken arbitrary snippets of doctrine that likely were never taught by jesus and transposed them into enforcable doctrine, Standardized English is the creation of a rich history of dogmatic 'scholars" who consolidated power around people like Thomas Swift, convinced everyone that to get to X social station or sound X educated one must write in the prescribed manner. It happens in life, the arbitrary becomes ossified into the enforcable and then a few centuries later something esle is.

2 Replies

@GoshisDead,

I agree with some of what you had stated. I neglected to consider the personal choice of mother and daughter to be associated with the church. If they feel that the spiritual ramifications that they will face is true than my they live they best life they can until the truth is revealed.

As for the egotistical part. I think most people will agree that religious faith( belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. is based on no solid evidence) is just that faith. So to hold on to the delusion that some being gave you divine power to guide peoples life is a pretty big ego to see yourself as that. Fact of the matter is that all religion(a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs) begins with the views of man. Yeah some of them are good moral standards to live by. The teach you the value of life and give you a good path to walk. Aside from that it is all speculation. A collective agreement of what the best belief is. So to take that and press it upon people is pretty twisted.

The education part not so sure about. I don't think that just because some one talks frilly means that they are intelligent. I have met a bunch of idiots that have a good vocabulary. I personally have not been able to get a mainstream education. As you can tell in my writing style. That doesn't mean that I have not studied and observed my own path in life, giving me a in-depth view on the world. Knowledge is gained through experience and understanding. Not words. If someone wants to write me off, and not listen to what I have to offer merely because I choose to speak on a more common level. Than I will most likely would have gotten annoyed be them any way.

(I did not put the definitions in the reply to mock you. I just wanted you to see what part of the word I was referring to)

0 Replies

@GoshisDead,

Quote:

Although i happen to agree with the mother's decision, I also defend the Church's right to pass the edict. Ethical question of the edict aside. It is entirely within their prerogative and entirely within their rights to dictate the belief standards of those who choose to stay in the Church. Excommunication is simply another way of a church member to express that they no longer have the same belief standards that a church has. These people aren't dictating action in a binding physical way. The trauma lies in the decision to defy tradition and risk (eternal damnation). This may be a very real trauma for that poor mother and her daughter.

I would be inclined to agree with this forgiving stance, but if the Catholic Church can exert such power and influence over such decisions, do they not have a responsibility to not exert an influence (and allow those involved in such situations to make up there own mind)?

1 Reply

@Parapraxis,

The very fact that you are spelling the way you do, punctuating the way you do, even putting your adjectival phrases together the way you do is testiment to how you are part of an arbitrary system forced upon you by a series of adopted social norms executed by a system you are hard pressed to escape. It really has little to do with actual higher education, i was using that as an example. The education system in general is simply the executor of the norm that was put together hodgepodged in order to systematize the unruly. This is much the same as with a religion, if by historical and or possibly (divine) circumstance the majority of people end up believing one thing, much like by historical happenstance a group of people ends up speaking a certain language, the natural tendency of systematization will normally take hold and an executor of the system (Church/Education System/ Academe Frances/whatever) will then execute systamtic policy. The system is often a hodgepodge or accepted rules (17 different ways in English to spell the /s/ sound) and influenced by later historical presidence, for example, (the Celebate) priesthood and the continuing will to acceptance in standardized English of contractions. The example was to express that we are all no matter what we think of as our (free will) enbroiled in thousands of social systems that operate in much the same way as people are complaining about churches. The only way to be free of it is to be a hermit I suppose.

2 Replies

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

The very fact that you are spelling the way you do, punctuating the way you do, even putting your adjectival phrases together the way you do is testiment to how you are part of an arbitrary system forced upon you by a series of adopted social norms executed by a system you are hard pressed to escape. It really has little to do with actual higher education, i was using that as an example. The education system in general is simply the executor of the norm that was put together hodgepodged in order to systematize the unruly. This is much the same as with a religion, if by historical and or possibly (divine) circumstance the majority of people end up believing one thing, much like by historical happenstance a group of people ends up speaking a certain language, the natural tendency of systematization will normally take hold and an executor of the system (Church/Education System/ Academe Frances/whatever) will then execute systamtic policy. The system is often a hodgepodge or accepted rules (17 different ways in English to spell the /s/ sound) and influenced by later historical presidence, for example, (the Celebate) priesthood and the continuing will to acceptance in standardized English of contractions. The example was to express that we are all no matter what we think of as our (free will) enbroiled in thousands of social systems that operate in much the same way as people are complaining about churches. The only way to be free of it is to be a hermit I suppose.

This is true we are all subject to social influence. We are products of our environment. I can't argue the fact that most educational establishments focus more on the budget than the learning. The current social standard of education is designed to produce consumers not ideology. As for "free will" that only exist in ones mind. All though we are able to do what ever it is that we want. There are social consequences that have been put in place to control "free will". So how can you make your own choices if the are governed by social acceptance. It is the same issue just on more of a broad spectrum as the child and mother.

In my opinion must of our teachings either school, religion, spirituality or so forth. All have some type of ulterior motive behind them. To peak the truth when you have no truth is just as bad as a lie. If you know it or not. As soon as the world realizes that we are all ignorant of our beginnings. And stops trying to control the world. Peace and content may be possible. Perhaps all of these senseless wars and power struggles will end when we admit that no man alive knows what is right and what is wrong. And just work on living a good life and helping extend and understand man kind.

But that most likely will not happen so I dip and dodge mankind's ambitions to prolong my own survival. In hopes that one day it will change. I tried the hermit thing for about six years. I had very little contact with people. I lived in the mountains out side of a town called Shilo in Arizona. It was the closest thing to freedom that I have ever felt. Then I thought one day. If I just stay up here in the mountains and figure everything out I have done nothing for mankind. That the world progreses through the experiance of others. That and getting a woman to give everything she had up to live in a pine hut and eat juniper berries was pretty much impossible LOL. So here I am trying to learn how to write again how to properly punctuate a paragragh. As well as design and build a socially acceptable life. So that I can mabye help out a bit. I am behind the power curve so it is going to take me a minute to catch up. But when I do watch out. :eek:

0 Replies

@GoshisDead,

*Deleted* - apologies

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

I'm not a Catholic, and I certainly do not understand all of the workings of the Church; however, I was raised Episcopalian. The ArchBishop of Canterbury, the head priest if you will, has written a wonderful treatise on why his Church should embrace homosexual parishioners. It's a treatise on tolerance from a thoughtful theologian. I can't help but wonder why the Catholic Church cannot bring itself to make similar reevaluations.

My wonderings (Catholic and other churches) have left me believing that organized religion is a form of maffia, little else. "Give us money, do as we say, and we will bring you closer to a deity. Or else..."

"Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone and you will find me there." ~The Gospel of Thomas 77
So tell me again what organized religion is about?

To hell with the clergy. They are not closer to God.

2 Replies

@Ola,

Ola wrote:

My wonderings (Catholic and other churches) have left me believing that organized religion is a form of maffia, little else. "Give us money, do as we say, and we will bring you closer to a deity. Or else..."

If that was true of all organized religion, then you would have a point. As the above is true in only certain cases, there is not much of a point other than: organized religion can be abused.

It is easy to take a few terrible instances and extrapolate from them a pessimistic and cynical view of organized religion. What is far more difficult, but also far more appropriate if one is concerned with the truth, is looking at all instances, good and bad, and seeing the potential for abuse and the potential for improving the condition of mankind.

Ola wrote:

"Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone and you will find me there." ~The Gospel of Thomas 77
So tell me again what organized religion is about?

Community. Organized religion is not necessary, however, it is useful for most practitioners. The spiritual life is not easy: if someone thinks it is easy, they are mistaken as to what the spiritual life consists of. By having a community people can find support. Within the community there are rituals which help illuminate spiritual teachings. Not everyone needs a community, but most of us do.

Ola wrote:

To hell with the clergy. They are not closer to God.

That is a terribly negative statement. I recommend you look into this before you convince yourself of this claim. In the Christian tradition, Thomas Merton is a standout figure, as is the current Archbishop of Canterbury.

0 Replies

@Ola,

Ola wrote:

To hell with the clergy. They are not closer to God.

Who is closer to God? Is any one person closer to God than another? We are all incapable of gaining a position of favor , because we are all capable of screwing up from time to time. This includes the clergy as well. Understand that we are all human. We are frail. Prone to error. All of us. We often times, become angry at those who have let us down. Those who it would seem occupy a seat of authority concerning matters of spirituality. But, you might have to claim some of the fault, because you assumed them to be so. They cannot stay on the pedestal they have been placed. They will fall, because they are human. Understanding this, may well place you in a positive perspective concerning the nature of humanity, and get you somewhat closer to the perspective of the one who you call "God".

0 Replies

@No0ne,

Ever since man first developed understanding the well spoken parasite also appeared.
This might be the shaman selling charms against demons, politicians with their empty promises, professional liers known as diplomats or our modern clergy who through their rituals claim to have a closer connection to a god than all the rest have.
Why else can't I baptize a child or get married to someone without this medium to god? Priests are just people like any other. Ask yourself why they take the stage every sunday and why so many think that they actually are heard by a god.
Then comes the collection plate. First the show - then you pay.
no no no
If you can accept that there are people that have no problem with taking other peoples money, that there really is such a thing as theives, con-men, then the act the clergy puts on is revealed - as a scam.
It's about faith they say - then get into politics.

1 Reply

@Ola,

Ola wrote:

Ever since man first developed understanding the well spoken parasite also appeared.
This might be the shaman selling charms against demons, politicians with their empty promises, professional liers known as diplomats or our modern clergy who through their rituals claim to have a closer connection to a god than all the rest have.
Why else can't I baptize a child or get married to someone without this medium to god? Priests are just people like any other. Ask yourself why they take the stage every sunday and why so many think that they actually are heard by a god.
Then comes the collection plate. First the show - then you pay.
no no no
If you can accept that there are people that have no problem with taking other peoples money, that there really is such a thing as theives, con-men, then the act the clergy puts on is revealed - as a scam.
It's about faith they say - then get into politics.

Maybe try wiccan.

1 Reply

@Elmud,

Ola wrote:

Ever since man first developed understanding the well spoken parasite also appeared.

Sure, what else is to be expected? And we should also expect that some of these parasites dawn robes and call on God as their authority. But simply because some parasites chose the robe, it does not follow that all who chose the robe are parasites.

Ola wrote:

This might be the shaman selling charms against demons, politicians with their empty promises, professional liers known as diplomats or our modern clergy who through their rituals claim to have a closer connection to a god than all the rest have.

Shaman play a vital role in certain societies: they maintain the precarious balance between man and the natural world. In traditional, pre-industrial society, these shaman were the ones who determined how much lumber could be harvested from the forest, how many crops could be planted: and they did so in order to maintain balance; if you cut too many trees, too few will regrow to replace the loss; if you plant too much, the soil will be deplete faster and soon you will not have enough nutritious soil in which to grow food at all.

It is easy to call these people charlatans and liars, but you couldn't be further from the truth.

You mention modern clergy and call them liars. Some are liars and cheats. But to write off the whole class of clergy as liars and cheats is nonsensical. Heck, it's a logical fallacy.

Ola wrote:

Why else can't I baptize a child or get married to someone without this medium to god?

Well, the whole point of Baptism, as a water ritual, is to bring the child into the community of Christians. If you are a non-theist, there is no reason to baptize the child.

And you can get married without religious ceremony: you go to the local court house and sign some papers. Boom, you're married.

Ola wrote:

Priests are just people like any other. Ask yourself why they take the stage every sunday and why so many think that they actually are heard by a god.

They are people like any other. And like most people, they have a specialized set of skills, skills which they use in the community. A lumberjack is a man like any other, one who cuts timber. You and i could cut timber, but chances are the lumberjack is better at the work. Similarly, you and i could preach a sermon, but a minister is (typically) educated and trained to do so, and chances are, will deliver a better sermon than you or I.

It's specialization of labor.

Ola wrote:

Then comes the collection plate. First the show - then you pay.

Again, you come to the table with remarkably cynical takes on these matters. "the show"? Not to defend every manifestation of religious ritual, but most are designed to evoke in the parishioner a sense of community with the divine being. The collection plate pays for the upkeep of the building, provides food, water and shelter for the clergy and the rest goes to charity, you know, poor people. So, if you have a problem with maintaining the place of worship, maintaining the local spiritual teacher, and a problem with helping the poor, by all means, neglect to add to the collection plate.

Further, you are under no obligation to donate.

You know, not all ministers wear Versace and ride in private jets. That's the minority, a very small minority. To take a few outlyer examples as evidence and conclude that all clergy members follow the same pattern just does not make sense.

Ola wrote:

If you can accept that there are people that have no problem with taking other peoples money, that there really is such a thing as theives, con-men, then the act the clergy puts on is revealed - as a scam.
It's about faith they say - then get into politics.

Actually, if you can accept that some people have no problem taking other people's money, if you can accept that there are theives and con-men, then what you call the "act" of the clergy is not revealed as a scam. the argument does not follow; instead, the argument suffers from some logical fallacies. Hasty generalization, fallacy of composition.

0 Replies

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead;52774 wrote:

Sad story very sad about the real trauma created for this mother and daughter. However, if it is true to the doctrine what choice does the Church have? The Pope would have to decree that "hey God changed his mind!" and he might not want to do that, or God may not be speaking to him at the moment.

Since the Catholic Church does hold the position that human life begins at conception, I agree they couldn't have flip flopped. But I do think they had many milder options available then excommunication, which is part of what I find so egregious about it (I'm pro-choice btw).

1 Reply

@Phronimos,

Phronimos, I totally agree that there were better ways to deal with it, however there were probably not many other ways to deal with it that would save face. Seeing as the news story made it this far away from its source, I would bet that the final decision was more of an example decision bolstering the doctrine and dogma. Makes me sad but however we consider the morals, it is still their right to excommunicate.

1 Reply

@Parapraxis,

excommunication is only a injustice if you need spiritual support from a club that claims exclusive rights to living a truly spiritual life according to interpretations of doctrine.
Sad situation for the family and even sadder that a disconnect is the supportive answer from the catholic church.

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead;54270 wrote:

Phronimos, I totally agree that there were better ways to deal with it, however there were probably not many other ways to deal with it that would save face. Seeing as the news story made it this far away from its source, I would bet that the final decision was more of an example decision bolstering the doctrine and dogma. Makes me sad but however we consider the morals, it is still their right to excommunicate.

I agree that it was within the catholic church's power to pass the edict. But I don't think that fully let's them off the hook morally (it doesn't seem like you do either). To return to one of your earlier points, there are consequences to excommunication beyond simply being expelled from the Catholicism: social ostracism is a big one. I'm not very familiar with Brazilian culture, but I imagine excommunication is a much bigger deal in their culture than in our own or even most European cultures.

1 Reply

@Joe,

Joe;54271 wrote:

excommunication is only a injustice if you need spiritual support from a club that claims exclusive rights to living a truly spiritual life according to interpretations of doctrine.
Sad situation for the family and even sadder that a disconnect is the supportive answer from the catholic church.

...I disagree, as I would analogously contend that racism is an injustice regardless of the target's feelings about it.

1 Reply

@Phronimos,

Oh indeed excommunication in most of Brazil would mean a degree of social ostracism. And in a static sense or synchratic sense it is harsh, and is meant to be harsh. In a diachronic sense it is even more harsh, in effect damning them to hell. Like I stated before within the catholic doctrine if the Girl would have died bringing the child to bare she would have been assured a place in heaven. Assuming, and I think we should, that the catholic hierarchy do believe in the afterlife and their own doctrine, they were not being immoral qua their own internalized beliefs by insisting that the girl bring the child full term or as far along as she could before she and the child died. In fact they were being benevolent, by encouraging her to achieve the heavenly reward versus "choosing" hell by going contrary to the "divine" doctrine.

0 Replies

@Phronimos,

Phronimos wrote:

...I disagree, as I would analogously contend that racism is an injustice regardless of the target's feelings about it.

completely out of context. Racism is a tool against something that is not a choice and does not deal with metaphysical beliefs.

1 Reply

@Joe,

Joe;54279 wrote:

completely out of context. Racism is a tool against something that is not a choice and does not deal with metaphysical beliefs.

Can you unpack that some, especially the last part? I'm not sure I see it with respect to this case. Doesn't racism in effect deal with the metaphysical issue of personhood? Also, presuming you meant metaphysical in a more religious sense, I think that point is debatable historically, if that is really what you were driving at.

1 Reply

A Child's Abortion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know