Why Catholicism stands for freedom and literal interpretation is without concience.

_Myg

http://news.eircom.net/breakingnews/21179719/?view=Standard

This link caught my eye today.

I realized...

Without the standing conciense's of these people who are against it, such an event would never of happened, even if it was only in a limited scale.

If it was not for the basis and inspired teaching that the bible is not read fully literally and taken with the spirit of humanity, understanding and tradition. These people would be seeing a foetus as just a foetus, and not a reference to the greater truth and reality behind the word: a human being.

I will extend further to say: Literacy without humanity is just an empty shell of concept and dichotemous emotion looking for itself in others; wilfully denying those who do not share its recognition, their very existence.

Beware of literal thinking on its own, it is little more then logic and order without life and morality, the source of everything.

clairefontaine

_Myg wrote: »

http://news.eircom.net/breakingnews/21179719/?view=Standard

This link caught my eye today.

I realized...

Without the standing conciense's of these people who are against it, such an event would never of happened, even if it was only in a limited scale.

If it was not for the basis and inspired teaching that the bible is not read fully literally and taken with the spirit of humanity, understanding and tradition. These people would be seeing a foetus as just a foetus, and not a reference to the greater truth and reality behind the word: a human being.

I will extend further to say: Literacy without humanity is just an empty shell of concept and dichotemous emotion looking for itself in others; wilfully denying those who do not share its recognition, their very existence.

Beware of literal thinking on its own, it is little more then logic and order without life and morality, the source of everything.

Literal readings are the roots of fundamentalist ideologies. Unless you cherry pick your Catholicism you may as well be a fundamentalist.

Quite ridiculous are some of the things they expect you to believe; such as transubstantiation, virgin Mary,popes being descendants of St. Peter, and last but not least zombie Jesus. At least the priests in my school offered the "he was in a coma" explanation. If you follow the doctrine literally and without hypocrisy it's crazy stuff.

Saying that, I think religious fundamentalism is a different issue to the debate over right to life.

_Myg

What Jesus did, was to be taken literally, as he was the example; and like now: You are just an example to the ideals you hold, and unless you wish it to be a unsubstanciated joke, you expect people to take you literally.

The Bible on the other hand, is a collection of histories and works put together; not by Jesus, but his account is there and is the pillar of why it exists, of course but: To those who come after, they should not be taken literally because of the properties of "Chinese Wispers" and the obvious difference in their intents.

Holding a double standard to ideologies you clearly disagree with does not make your dislike any more valid (beside the obvious and opposite nature of it becoming more invalid to those with critical minds).

You can't deny "religion" (as from a secular view) is the foundation of every society, even the Greeks with their philiospical minds and amazing reasoning were founded on a strict and deeply supersticious set of roots, which may of even provided it with the ability of higher thought through such social bonds. A building is only as sturdy as its foundation, no matter what goes ontop of it to say.

I think it has everything to do with the right to life, because as secular society progresses, it assimilates things which become useful for it to achieve its goals, and one of those is clearly religious lines of reasoning, thought and presentation; which shows that it wishes to become a religion in itself and thus be taken literally. But with no higher foundation, through selfless sacrifice or giving, there is no connection to anything higher. I will not separate Science and Religion, because I believe that both are of the same origins and have just been hijacked and separated for other purposes then their own, just as a state assimilates its local spiritual beliefs to use for command & control mechanisms. But the idea that a human can be defined as not a human, based on a definition basis only, belies the true nature of the situation and thus exposes the literal interpretacy undercurrent in said society. There is no coincidence between the gradual removal of Catholicism from society as a whole and its declining ability to understand the world around it.

The Corinthian

_Myg wrote: »

The Bible on the other hand, is a collection of histories and works put together; not by Jesus, but his account is there and is the pillar of why it exists, of course but: To those who come after, they should not be taken literally because of the properties of "Chinese Wispers" and the obvious difference in their intents.

Errors and amendments to religious scripture are the least of one's worries. More important is the sources, and both old and new Testament (or the Torah or Koran) are all very dubious on this front.

You can't deny "religion" (as from a secular view) is the foundation of every society, even the Greeks with their philiospical minds and amazing reasoning were founded on a strict and deeply supersticious set of roots, which may of even provided it with the ability of higher thought through such social bonds. A building is only as sturdy as its foundation, no matter what goes ontop of it to say.

Religion was almost certainly an important building block in the formation of the first societies of the Neolithic era; after all, most religious laws (including the Abrahamic Ten Commandments) are largely social rather than spiritual rules, when you look at them - most historical data points to a shift from the disorganized worship of anthropomorphic divinities to organized worship of personified divinities closely aligned to the State.

However, it's interesting you might mention the Greeks, as the logic of their religious beliefs, as with the Romans later, was closely linked to the Polis or the State; not unlike the atheistic ideologies of the twentieth century, such as Communism or Fascism - gods were only necessary to underline the authority of the State, not the other way around.

I think it has everything to do with the right to life, because as secular society progresses, it assimilates things which become useful for it to achieve its goals, and one of those is clearly religious lines of reasoning, thought and presentation; which shows that it wishes to become a religion in itself and thus be taken literally.

This unfortunately is nonsense as it is easy to demonstrate that there has never been any kind of (even approaching) absolute right to life in human history; be the morality dominated by literal, atheistic or any other kind of belief system.

There is no coincidence between the gradual removal of Catholicism from society as a whole and its declining ability to understand the world around it.

If anything we have a better understanding of the World around us. Our false understanding may have declined (e.g. the universe being created in seven days or the World being flat), but that's hardly a negative, is it?

_Myg

"gods were only necessary to underline the authority of the State"

This goes further to present what I am saying; using local spiritual/superstition to further apply control mechanisms on the people. Thus they were only "necessary" in the practical sense to the state, not the spiritual; in which they naturally arose.


"This unfortunately is nonsense as it is easy to demonstrate that there has never been any kind of (even approaching) absolute right to life in human history; be the morality dominated by literal, atheistic or any other kind of belief system."

Men provide women with an absolute right to life by being genetically programmed to protect them with their lives, the same way women provide children with an absolute right to life by being genetically programmed to protect them with their lives. This same circle of absolutes exists within all nature and is part of the natural order. Without those absolute's, we would have no trust in our humanity at all.


"If anything we have a better understanding of the World around us. Our false understanding may have declined (e.g. the universe being created in seven days or the World being flat), but that's hardly a negative, is it? "

Again, those things are only a problem if you take things literally... Just because the world provides you with a frame, doesn't mean you have to be the same colour as the canvas.

The Corinthian

_Myg wrote: »

Men provide women with an absolute right to life by being genetically programmed to protect them with their lives, the same way women provide children with an absolute right to life by being genetically programmed to protect them with their lives. This same circle of absolutes exists within all nature and is part of the natural order. Without those absolute's, we would have no trust in our humanity at all.

Which, as I said, is nonsense as there are exceptions to all these rules, regardless of whether their socially or biologically originated - humans can and do kill, with gusto, in certain circumstances. Mothers commit infanticide, in certain circumstances. Even in modern society the right to life is overridden in numerous circumstances.

And once you have such exceptions, then the right to life is no longer absolute. The problem, I find, when people cite the 'natural order' is that often they don't actually understand what the 'natural order' is, let alone whether we should take it too seriously.

Again, those things are only a problem if you take things literally... Just because the world provides you with a frame, doesn't mean you have to be the same colour as the canvas.

True, but organized religion in general doesn't encourage this - indeed, the Catholic Church particularly doesn't appreciate independent interpretation, which is why I found your thread title odd. It wasn't too long ago that it was pretty literal too, and while it has moved twoards a more 'interpreted' view of scripture, if one is a Catholic, one is still required to accept the 'official' interpretation.

clairefontaine

_Myg wrote: »

"gods were only necessary to underline the authority of the State"

This goes further to present what I am saying; using local spiritual/superstition to further apply control mechanisms on the people. Thus they were only "necessary" in the practical sense to the state, not the spiritual; in which they naturally arose.


"This unfortunately is nonsense as it is easy to demonstrate that there has never been any kind of (even approaching) absolute right to life in human history; be the morality dominated by literal, atheistic or any other kind of belief system."

Men provide women with an absolute right to life by being genetically programmed to protect them with their lives, the same way women provide children with an absolute right to life by being genetically programmed to protect them with their lives. This same circle of absolutes exists within all nature and is part of the natural order. Without those absolute's, we would have no trust in our humanity at all.


"If anything we have a better understanding of the World around us. Our false understanding may have declined (e.g. the universe being created in seven days or the World being flat), but that's hardly a negative, is it? "

Again, those things are only a problem if you take things literally... Just because the world provides you with a frame, doesn't mean you have to be the same colour as the canvas.

There are no such thing as rights in nature.

Rights are not gifts to women from men.

Catholicism is slavery like every other mind control cult out there.

Zombie Jesus and transubstantiation. No difference in wacky ness from their theory of how the world is created.

I've met Fundamentalist Catholics in Ireland who really believe this stuff and don't entertain any ideas about allegory.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

I've met Fundamentalist Catholics in Ireland who really believe this stuff and don't entertain any ideas about allegory.

Technically they're not real Roman Catholics, because official doctrine is not literal. More correctly official doctrine is the official interpretation given by the Roman Catholic Church.

I get the impression the Church largely turns a blind eye to such groups, most of the time, but every now an then has to slap them down - I believe there was a case somewhere in the West of Ireland, in the last few years, with one group that was pretty off the wall, when it started to emerge that it was a large money-making enterprise and that money was going to the inner circle of that group.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Technically they're not real Roman Catholics, because official doctrine is not literal. More correctly official doctrine is the official interpretation given by the Roman Catholic Church.

I get the impression the Church largely turns a blind eye to such groups, most of the time, but every now an then has to slap them down - I believe there was a case somewhere in the West of Ireland, in the last few years, with one group that was pretty off the wall, when it started to emerge that it was a large money-making enterprise and that money was going to the inner circle of that group.

That doesn't surprise me. I 've had discussions with them trying to explain that they are not in fact practising RC if they are still doing Vatican 1 practises. But they think it's the real thing. They are like off the wall Mormons in some way. One had 9 c sections because it's her duty. They raise their kids that way too in their homeschooling cults of religious mania.

And then there is the money making racket of the preachers and the various communities who all work together with their hands in the pot to keep the wheels turning.

I would say parts of the official doctrine are literal, like Virgin Mary and rising from the dead. Son of God too is also literal. These literal interpretations are at the core of RC. If you don't buy into transubstantiation, then you fall into Protestant territory.

_Myg

Sorry to interrupt the convo flow guys, I hope you don't mind me adding a bit more to it, but I just figured out the source of this whole mess with abortion (murder) and why people purposely/not-on-purposely see things the way they do.

Using references and taking them literally is only a means to an end, but it is not the source of the sickness that I am describing (other then the lack of Catholicism which causes it, which is my other point).

It is so sadistically simple that its actually humorus in the grim manner (the grief alone is too much for me).

Titles.

"I am a king, you are a peasent. I am a President, you are a citizen. I am a TD, and you are just a person. I am rich and you are poor."

Thus:

"I am a human, and you are just a foetus"

Zombrex

_Myg wrote: »

"I am a king, you are a peasent. I am a President, you are a citizen. I am a TD, and you are just a person. I am rich and you are poor."

"I am the Lord your God"

The Corinthian

_Myg wrote: »

Sorry to interrupt the convo flow guys, I hope you don't mind me adding a bit more to it

As this is supposed to be a discussion rather than a pulpit, it would be better if you engaged in what has been said to you before going off on a tangent and 'adding' further.

"I am a king, you are a peasent. I am a President, you are a citizen. I am a TD, and you are just a person. I am rich and you are poor."

Thus:

"I am a human, and you are just a foetus"

I'm afraid you've failed to demonstrate anything other than a very dubious correlation.

clairefontaine

_Myg wrote: »

Sorry to interrupt the convo flow guys, I hope you don't mind me adding a bit more to it, but I just figured out the source of this whole mess with abortion (murder) and why people purposely/not-on-purposely see things the way they do.

Using references and taking them literally is only a means to an end, but it is not the source of the sickness that I am describing (other then the lack of Catholicism which causes it, which is my other point).

It is so sadistically simple that its actually humorus in the grim manner (the grief alone is too much for me).

Titles.

"I am a king, you are a peasent. I am a President, you are a citizen. I am a TD, and you are just a person. I am rich and you are poor."

Thus:

"I am a human, and you are just a foetus"

What?

goose2005

A literal reading of the Bible shows that God considers killing a foetus to be less than killing a human, and possibly not a crime at all.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html

Zombrex

goose2005 wrote: »

A literal reading of the Bible shows that God considers killing a foetus to be less than killing a human, and possibly not a crime at all.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html

Well yeah but since when has facts ever stood between a religious person and their conclusions.

Banning abortion is about making these slutty women pay for the sin of having sex.