Just got back from a trip to Bedlam. Boy, if your faith isn't shaken by the 'far right' catholics, you're stronger than I am. How many times have I been told to "submit" to the magesterium, which I define as any in the catholic world supporting your view. Or at least that's the way the crazies define it. Joe Cecil once told me that , with its long history, and the billions of words written by clergy, you could support about any position. How true!!
The hightlight of my tour was to "Insidecatholic.com". This site starts off real nice till you find out it's stocked with "converts", "reverts" and ,well ........ I was going to say a word starting with "P", but I'lll just be nice and say creeps. The guy who runs it is a Repubican hack named Deal Hudson. I just found about him yesterday. Dismissed from Fordham for apparently having sex with a 19 year old after getting her drunk. Even dismissed by Bush-Chaney, and that should tell you something!! Really 'hot' for Hagee even if Hagee hates catholics as he does. (Now Hagee and Hudson have made up to get a few extra votes in November.} Oh, and also Hudson has been married at least 3 times, probably 4!!!. And this creep lectures on FAMILY VALUES.!! The favorite theme of some of these weirdos is to attack the USCCB. Apparently the bishops are not Republican enough and no part of the "magisterium."
You know, it's funny. A lifetime of defending catholicism, but I didn't know what was out there. In my blogging I met some real catholics, even though several of your liberal bloggers are a bit pompous.But I didn't know sexual creeps were out there. Ya, I defend a young man who had some "experiences" but not a teacher preying on teen agers. And I've met one person who fully deserves the appellation "Christian"and we often disagree.
Does the Church have no dogma except "right to life." According to these weirdos that is all the Church is about. No creed, no love, no caring for others: Just the right to life canard and the Republican party.
GREAT TO BE HOME
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Do you ever come across blogs that you like? Other than Joe Cecil's?
ReplyDeleteGod bless,
Anna
Why, Anna I like far more blogs than you might think. I won't list them here, but if you want I will.
ReplyDeleteI even like the ones that "throw me off." I don't like the "club" bloggers i.e, those who block me because a friend tells them to.
I think you believe I am old, and grumpy. Just the opposite of what people who know me say. Of course, I am old.
But please stay with Frank. He has been up late recently trying to map out his Why I am Catholic. You will be the only one who sees it probably; but he wants you to see. Maybe later I will get to see. Jack
Jack,
ReplyDeleteHow about you tell me three or so blogs that you like, with at least one blog that you haven't been banned from?
It's not so much that I think you couldn't possibly like any blogs as that I've never heard you say you liked a blog, besides Joe Cecil's. I've only heard you say lots of negative things about the blogs that annoy you. It kinda makes me wonder why you focus on those ones, although I suppose you just like to vent about them.
God bless,
Anna
Let's see, Anna, jut the ones I've bookmarked.
ReplyDeleteHank's Eclectic Meandering
Et tu
Perspective
Faithful Catholic
You
I go to many more as I see an interesting comment. The one you recommended was good to start with but I don't like blogs that start with a conclusion (all abortioms are murder) and then work backwards. But Crystal refered me to a wonderful article by a dominican, I read it all. Three of the blogs that block me have done so because their friends told them to I assume because I said nothing particularly offensive.
Now, Anna. which is worse? Calling a person (me)a supporter of murder and I say back something like I think you are ridiculous? Or I make a suggestion about the Obama campaign and 2 blogs have blocked me.
Anna, I'm not pandering, but you aren't afraid to engage any one. Some are afraid. Some are like junior high girls' clubs. Just our little group. Jack
Jack,
ReplyDeleteThe one you recommended was good to start with but I don't like blogs that start with a conclusion (all abortioms are murder) and then work backwards.
I don't really remember recommending a blog to you, but I'm guessing it was Et tu, since that's one of my favorite blogs. I wouldn't say she starts with the conclusion that all abortions are murder and then works backwards; if you want to know how she came to the *conclusion* that all abortions are murder, try reading this. Even if you don't find it in the least bit convincing, at least give her credit for not assuming something or just believing it because she was told it.
Now, Anna. which is worse? Calling a person (me)a supporter of murder and I say back something like I think you are ridiculous?
Honestly? For someone who sincerely believes that abortion is murder, calling you a supporter of murder is a statement of fact (in their eyes). I suspect they are usually just expressing their own anguish at what you believe, and are not deliberately trying to make you feel bad about yourself. They probably aren't considering your feelings much at all. When you call them ridiculous, you are responding emotionally and defensively; you are not addressing any logical point about abortion. Whether that is any worse or any better, I doubt. In the end, neither one of you is actually considering where the other person is at; neither one of you is listening to the other; therefore, neither one of you is living out a Christ-like love for the other. And no, I don't care if they were inconsiderate first, that doesn't make it ok for you to be inconsiderate to them.
Anna, I'm not pandering, but you aren't afraid to engage any one. Some are afraid. Some are like junior high girls' clubs.
Ok, the junior high girl's clubs reference made me laugh. But seriously, I don't know that most people ban you because they are actually afraid. I suspect they just don't care enough to keep listening to something that they consider obnoxious and pointless. And maybe they should see past the comments that seem to them offensive and illogical to the real person behind those comments; but I don't think you make it particularly easy for people. I think the reason that I am more willing to engage you, despite our differences of opinion, is not so much because I am less afraid of disagreement, but because I have a deep-seated aversion to writing people off as hopeless. I've had people talk about me as if I were a hopeless case; it boiled my blood and hurt like the dickens, and I don't ever want to treat someone else that way.
A lot of the time, when it comes to your opinions, I think I just don't get where you're coming from. I can't tell if you're just buying into what pop culture says, or if you have some sort of deep personal experiences in your past that have affected the way you think of sex (and therefore of the Church's attitude towards it), or something else entirely. I can't think of any good reason to decide that you can be sure that a baby's life begins when brain waves start, or any other measure during pregnancy/birth. I don't know how you can think that the Church's dominant attitude towards sex is that it is bad, when I've never met a Catholic who thought that, never seen that attitude in the actual formal teachings of the Church on sexual ethics. When I ask where you're getting that impression, you usually point to something on the internet that I consider either to be a radical fringe of Catholicism, or else it sounds to me like they're saying something very different from what you seem to think they're saying. I'm not even entirely sure which sexual ethics teachings you disagree with, except that I'm pretty sure you think masturbation ought not to be considered a sin. What else do you think should be considered ok? Contraception? Sex before marriage? Adultery? Homosexual sex? Maybe if we took them one at a time, instead of jumping all over the topic of sex as it usually seems to me you do, I could make a case for the Church's teachings. But maybe it wouldn't do any good; if your beliefs have deep roots in personal experiences of some sort, it wouldn't do any good to make an argument without addressing those experiences.
God bless,
Anna
Anna, I must say I was a bit suprised at your last comment. I thought it contained comments that were not accurate and the tone was very sharp. So let me respond.
ReplyDeleteYou say it is hard to follow what I am saying. This really amazed me! I've laid out in some detail my position on abortion. I wonder if you have read these? My first point was that almos no catholics accept the Church's position. You will probably reply that right is not determined by majority vote. But I say that catholics, having virtually the same position as non-catholics, and having as many if not more abortions than other groups, clearly see that the Church's absolutist position in this area is very weak, to be charitable.
No one I have addressed has made even the vagueist attempt to answer my arguments. Not one!!! Take , for example, that we consider the absence of 'brain waves' the criterion of death, even though there is a full body there. Yet the pro-life group takes a few cells, with no brain waves, no sentiate activities whatsoever an elevates it t a full person. Then you ask, are these insentiate cells a person and they fall back as does et tu on they could become a person. But something can not be potential and actual at the same time. What about acorns and trees?
Then, I believe she uses the "ensoulment" which even the church almost never uses today.
To force a 12 year old rape victim to carry to term is barbaric, and all catholics I know agree with me. You may know otherwise, but a hugemajority of the faithful agree with me, as polls clearly show.
I can go on and on. No law recognizes a fertilized egg as a person as that term is used.
Now suppose Anna, a person runs a child sex for rent ring, but they oppose abortion. They also oppose all catholic social teaching, except the abortion question.I strongly support 9 but differ on early term abortion. Who is the "more" catholic. Well, it seems to me the prolife group has only one issue. Catholicism is defined as opposing abortion. Oh yes, pastor Hagee says our church is spewed up from hell but he is "pro-life".So welcome aboard.
And what about charging the doctors only and not the person who seeks an abortion. A bit inconsistent, I would say.
I totally oppose abortion if a fetus is sentiate in any way. Not of course the discredited 'silent scream'nonsense. Et tu, I believe, and I could be wrong, switches from sentiate to insentiate quite smoothly but wrongly in my opinion.
I oppose sex before marriage. Maybe for different reasons than you. I cannot blame homosexuals. They are born that way, and only the Church hangs on to "it" is reversible. (I read once that Church therapy suggests priests think of feces when they have sexual thoughts}.
That the Church thinks no sex is better than sex is so obvious to me. Why so few married saints? Why make a saint out of a person who leaves their spouse? Why only celibates in any position of authority in the Church? Why the insistance on the perpetual virginity of Mary? Why elevate nuns over married women?
Why condemn homosexuality when the priesthood has such a high percentage of such? Is this not hyprocrisy?
So, Anna, let me repeat. I see 10 basic catholic teachings on social justice. I totally embrace nine. I disagre with early abortions involving nonsentiate cells. Now Mr.X opposes all nine but supports the pro-life one. So he is Christian and I am not?
And contraception. Do catholics pay any attention to this more than other groups. Did not a papal commission recommend this teaching be changed?
And masturbation the same as rape or worse. Well Aquinas said so and look at the catechism.Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, it says. What cruelty to almost all boys and young men.
But Anna, I was most stung by your suggestion that my views on sex come from personal experience. I would never make such an ad hominem attack against you. BTW, I think divorce is almost inexcusable. Jack
Anna, if I have offended you, please do not take it out on Frank.
Jack,
ReplyDeleteI didn't mean to sound sharp. I'm not mad at you – I just don't comprehend where you're coming from.
When I said that I don't get the way you think, I didn't mean that you hadn't explained *what* you think, about abortion or other things. I meant that I don't understand how or why you could come to those conclusions.
When it comes to your first point about Americans not accepting the Church's position, you're right: my response is that majority does not make right. And I think “majority of Americans” or “majority of American Catholics” is a very narrow definition of majority to begin with. The majority of Catholics in the world support the Catholic teaching against abortion (and support Catholic teachings on sexual ethics, too). American culture screams at us that abortion is ok, that sex is only for pleasure, etc. It doesn't surprise me in the least when Catholics listen more to their culture than they do to their church. But that doesn't make the culture RIGHT. (It doesn't make it wrong, either; it just means that there has to be a lot more to an argument than just that.)
Take , for example, that we consider the absence of 'brain waves' the criterion of death, even though there is a full body there. Yet the pro-life group takes a few cells, with no brain waves, no sentiate activities whatsoever an elevates it t a full person.
Medical people have to do whatever they can to determine the point of death. God hasn't given us some straightforward way to tell if someone is dead that will work in 100% of cases. The 'no brain waves' criterion is just an acceptable practical compromise, not an absolute moral criterion. When certain brain waves have ceased, there have been virtually no cases in which the person has returned to obvious life (to my understanding); therefore it is one of the best criterion we currently have. (Although I do recall hearing a story of a man who was brain dead and the doctors told the family to take him off life support, and he later recovered; thus showing that it is not an absolutely reliable criterion.)
When it comes to the beginning of life, brain waves are not the most reliable criterion we have. Biology says that there is a new, living organism from the moment of conception. Whether or not that organism is a person, whether or not it has a soul, science cannot answer. But science admits that a new life has begun at conception; a new life which might die before it ever achieves brain waves. So brain waves are no longer the best criterion we have for determining whether the organism is alive or not. (The very fact that we can kill it through abortion shows that it is alive).
But something can not be potential and actual at the same time. What about acorns and trees?
The argument is not that a baby is both a potential person and an actual person. The argument is usually that, even if you are not sure that a baby IS a person, there is no way for us to know for sure that the baby is NOT an actual person, and therefore it is wrong of us to RISK killing what might be a person.
To force a 12 year old rape victim to carry to term is barbaric, and all catholics I know agree with me. You may know otherwise, but a hugemajority of the faithful agree with me, as polls clearly show.
Numbered points:
(1)You are resorting to the majority argument again, which I think is baloney.
(2)Using extreme cases like a 12-year-old rape victim to justify abortion, when the majority of abortions are had by women for their convenience, is a misdirection of the argument. If you believe that any women may morally have an abortion for any reason before brain waves have developed, then argue that instead.
(3)Forcing a 12 year old rape victim to not kill her baby is lot less barbaric than dissolving a baby in acid (or dismembering it) because it had the misfortune to be conceived that way.
(4)Generally speaking, pregnancies of very young girls are not carried to term anyhow; the baby is removed by C-section as soon as it is reasonably viable, to minimize the possibility of complications for the mother.
I can go on and on. No law recognizes a fertilized egg as a person as that term is used.
Law doesn't make something right any more than majority makes right. Acts 5:29 “We must obey God rather than men.” C'mon, Jack, what kind of arguments are these?
Who is the "more" catholic. Well, it seems to me the prolife group has only one issue. Catholicism is defined as opposing abortion.
I'm not sure anyone is “more” catholic than anyone else. In general, I think that's just an excuse for saying that some of us are better than others, which is something Jesus was pretty insistent that we don't spend our time doing. And yes, some prolife people, particularly those who get caught up in politics, start forgetting that there are other important issues. But I would say that the Catholic Church as a whole spends its energies on a wide variety of activities, not primarily pro-life activities, and I would quite object to the idea that Catholicism is primarily about opposing abortion. But none of that has anything to do with whether or not abortion is ok, and whether or not it is ok for you to support it.
I totally oppose abortion if a fetus is sentiate in any way.
And how exactly do you define sentience? Even newborn babies don't have enough consciousness to be aware of themselves yet. And what reason do you have for thinking that a human is not a person until they are sentient? If sentience was a requirement for being a person, then a coma patient who ceases to be aware of his surroundings would cease to be a person.
I cannot blame homosexuals. They are born that way, and only the Church hangs on to "it" is reversible. ... Why condemn homosexuality when the priesthood has such a high percentage of such? Is this not hyprocrisy?
The Church does not teach that homosexuality is reversible, although I know there are some Catholics who believe it is. There are also many Catholics who believe it is not reversible. Nor does the Church teach that it is wrong to have a homosexual inclination; so there would be no hypocrisy in having priests with a homosexual inclination. (Priests who are having homosexual sex, on the other hand, are sinning.) The Catholic Church only teaches that, regardless of how they came to have homosexual desires, those desires must not be acted on. Just as the desire of heterosexuals to have sex before marriage must not be acted on, and many other desires too. I highly, highly recommend that you read this document, which the U.S. bishops put out in November of 2006. It's one of the best overall views of the Catholic position on homosexuality that I've seen, and since it is the combined result of multiple bishops, it's more authoritative than most of what you've probably come across on the internet.
That the Church thinks no sex is better than sex is so obvious to me. Why so few married saints? Why make a saint out of a person who leaves their spouse? Why only celibates in any position of authority in the Church? Why the insistance on the perpetual virginity of Mary? Why elevate nuns over married women?
Interesting. Do you realize what all your examples have in common? They aren't just examples of people not having sex. They are all examples of people giving up sex for the sake of God and his people. Do you see the difference? The Church elevates people who give up sex for God's sake for the same reason that it elevates people who give up money for God's sake. Not because having money is bad, or because you can't be holy if you have money (there are saints who were rich), but because giving up something that is such a strong natural desire (money, or sex/marriage), for the sake of God, shows great love and devotion for God. The Church doesn't elevate those examples because we are all supposed to follow them exactly, but because they show in an outwardly way the love for God that we are all meant to show in whatever way God calls us to.
And contraception. Do catholics pay any attention to this more than other groups. Did not a papal commission recommend this teaching be changed?
Maybe we should save this one for later. Once again, majority does not make right. Contraception is wrong because God has not given us authority over human life. We don't have the right to decide when its best for a human to die (not even ourselves), and we don't have the right to decide when its best for a human to be born. Our only control over it that God has granted us is the choice to have sex or not have sex. We may try to heal a sickness of infertility, but we do not have a right to sex, and we do not have the right to change the sex act (or the process of procreation) to suit our own ends.
And masturbation the same as rape or worse. Well Aquinas said so and look at the catechism.Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, it says. What cruelty to almost all boys and young men.
It is Church teaching that masturbation is a sin; it is NOT Church teaching that masturbation is “the same as rape or worse”. You may have encountered some extreme Catholic on the internet who said so, and backed it up with Aquinas, but not even Aquinas makes Church teaching by himself. You might also note that the Catechism says, “To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.” This virtually absolves boys and young men, if you notice.
But Anna, I was most stung by your suggestion that my views on sex come from personal experience.
I didn't mean to imply that you had been promiscuous or done something bad or anything like that. I was thinking more of something that might have happened TO you; we are all shaped by our experiences in life. It could be something like the way your parents related to each other; it could be that, like Frank, there was some religious figure telling you all about the evils and shame of sex instead of telling you about loving God and him loving you. Or there are more extreme examples. And it might be that nothing at all in particular happened to you; that your views are the result of what you've seen in the culture around you; I just don't really know.
God bless,
Anna
Anna, I'm joking here to start but I have heard 'the majority doesn't make it right" so much, I,ve taken to drinking. Because a small group of celibate disagrees does not make it right either. Assuming people have some sense, I'm going to go with the 80 percent. At least a great number of these have experience in 'making' a family, while your clergy dominated 20 percent have no experience and the clergy have the added motive of saying they are superior to others because they abstain from sex.
ReplyDeleteI very strongly object to your statement that the majority of catholics in the world fallow the church on abortion and sex ethics. I have research this a bit and what I have found is EXACTLY the opposite. For example, in Italy, hardly a Baptist country. EIGHTY PERCENT voted to legalize abortion. Where are you getting your figures----from Vatican City!!! In fact in Italy, the state pays for abortions.
Sperm are alive, but they are not persons. If, as happens, a person grows a third arm that is human life but not a person. Cancer is human life but not a person. To argue that 3 or 4 cells is a person, which you have to argue, is unreasonable to me. Do we mourn over spontaneous 'abortions' which number in the billions? That would be getting silly. And, of course, the argument by Danfort: If you were in a building where 50 fertilized eggs were in petre dishes and one 6 month old child and a fire broke out and you could rescue the child or the dishes which would you rescue? I talk about "persons"; you talk about cells. There is a great difference. Your argument is still the potential person argument. Anna, you're are back and forth between "alive" and "person". I still would like an "acorn" answer. When is it an oak tree? No society I am faniliar with recognizes 2 cells as a person. or in practice follows such an idea or counts those two cells in the population as your logic would require.
The twelve year old rape victim shocked me, I mean your argument did. Remember I am opposed to abortion if it causes pain to the fetus. But what is the cruelty to something that cannot feel pain. I just can't follow that.
I'm using sentient as having any feeling through the senses. Do you think 2 cells see, hear, feel. smell etc. And react to these stimuli? Coma patients do react to some kind of stimuli or they would have no brain waves. Do you not follow this?
We must follow God, rather than man. Well, that's what many murderers say. How do we know they are not following God? Now, Anna you're being funny. Civilization has developed over thousands of years, and to fluff off its judgments is very dangerous.
Anna, so giving up sex is a way to glorify God? Getting married , having and caring for other persons is not glorifying God? Anna you have stated this before, and you just can't get away from saying no sex is better than sex. Where do you get that?
On the homosexual thing, if a person is born with those genes then he is inferior and inclined to sin. Do those 4 cells persons you believe are persons desire to have premarital sex as an innate trait why does not the same apply to homosexuals. Do you not think it strange that a group that has a high percentage of homosexuals should codemn it. Well, you say they don't practice it. How do you know? Also maybe a bit of hypocrisy here?
Maybe we had better take up contraception later. People have nothing to say about it? Well later Anna. Youknow, of course, a papal commission said otherwise, butoverruled by PaulVI. But Anna, you do worry me when you say, as you do, my opinion is God's wish. Is that really an argument? Where to you go from there? Why can't my opinion be God's wish?
I am aware of the church's modified opinion on masturbation. I think the church thinks modification is good because of the old sayinggoes:"95 percent of males admit masturbating and the other 5 per cent lie."
On the personal matter. I have never known a person who had an abortion. I've only know three families that say they had one in their family.All catholics, by the way. I cannot claim a life of total non-promiscuity. My parents were like almost everbody I knew---down the middle of the road. No religious figure ever influenced me substantially on sex issues. sex before marriage,yes, but in strong oppisition to such. After marriage, no other flings, even close.
Anna, much more to say, but time has run out. Be back very soon. Reserve right to make corrections as you certainly do. Jack
Anna, I think we have had a fruitful discussion, at least in understanding where each is 'coming from'. We both think that our views are closer to the truth, and that the other is offering very specious arguments.But that was the point of the discussion in many ways;to see our differences. I would be more than happy to continue on this topic as long as you desire. So let me know.
ReplyDeleteI am putting up a new post this afternoon that may not be so contentious, and would appreciate your opinion as to what the church's position is and what your opinion is. If you think I am "sharp', I am doing so to get to the "heart of the matter." Jack
Jack,
ReplyDeleteYou have brought up good questions; I hope you take my answers seriously.
First let me address the “majority” issue. When I said the majority of Catholics in the world tend to go with the Church teachings, I was not referring to Europe. Italy may not be a Baptist country, but I would say that it is more of an areligious country than a Catholic one. However, 2/3 of the world's Catholics are in the Southern Hemisphere, and down there, they are more orthodox/traditional on issues of sex and abortion. Where do I get this from? Consider the following sources.
An interview with an African bishop: “Is it true that Africans are more traditional on sexual morality?
Yes, it is true. There's a basic cultural value in our heritage in which sexuality is sacred and respected.”
Or how about this article, which says:
“The most successful Southern churches preach a deep personal faith, communal orthodoxy, mysticism, and puritanism, all founded on obedience to spiritual authority ... American Catholics, for instance, talk about the necessity and the inevitability of reforms (reforms that Southern Catholics would most likely not condone), ... Catholics there are more concerned with the traditional, more willing to accept authority and leadership, more prepared to insist on orthodoxy. Whereas in America and Europe we tend to have cafeteria Catholicism, as in, I'll take a little bit of this, a little bit of that,”
Or here: “In fact, some Africans and Eastern Europeans [at a conference on ethics] in Padua expressed doctrinal views that, by the standards of northern theological debate, could seem quite "conservative," especially on sexual ethics.”
You might also read this article, which points out the growth and size of the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement, especially in the global south, and that – among other things – they tend to have a “conservative moral code on issues such as homosexuality, extra-marital sex, abortion and divorce”.
Sperm are alive, but they are not persons. ...To argue that 3 or 4 cells is a person, which you have to argue, is unreasonable to me.
But think about WHY it is unreasonable to you. Do you think God cannot give a human soul to those 3 or 4 cells? Do you think he would not? Do you have any basis at all for thinking it is unreasonable to have a 3 or 4 celled person, other than your difficulty imagining it? Do you think God would have difficulty imagining it?
I know the difference between life and personhood. I brought up the life of the unborn only in response to your discussion of brain waves. You pointed out that brain waves are a measure of a person's death. I was responding that they are only a practical measure of such, not an absolute moral determination of personhood. Although brain waves is one of the better ways of determining death, they are not what make a person a person. Animals, for example, can have brain waves, too, but are not people.
In order to deal with your “3 or 4 cells isn't a person” objection, let me deal with your acorn question. When does an acorn become an oak tree? When the acorn falls off the parent tree? When it sprouts? When it grows to a certain height? You could just as easily ask “when does a baby stop being a newborn?” The truth is that there is no right answer. “Baby”, “Newborn”, “toddler”, “child”, “adult”, “old man”, “acorn”, “oak tree”, “seedling”, “sprout”, etc. are all words we give to try to describe the phases which living things go through as they progress from the beginning of their life to the end. But while the difference between a baby and an adult may seem obvious to us, the truth is that there is no sharp delineation between the two, only a steady growth and progressive maturing of the individual over time. There is no one moment at which you can say my daughter has ceased to be a baby and is now a toddler.
What I am trying to get at is that these terms that describe phases don't describe two separate things, as if baby-Jack is a different person from adult-Jack. They only give rough descriptions of what Jack was like at a particular stage. In the same way, “acorn” and “tree” don't describe two separate plants; they just describe what that one plant was like at different stages of its existence.
I think if you look at the biology of it, this is what you will see. Biologically, an acorn is the same organism as the tree it grows into. The acorn isn't called a tree, because “tree” describes a later phase, kind of the way “butterfly” describes a later phase of the life of what is earlier a “caterpillar” (but a caterpillar and the butterfly it becomes are the same animal), or the way “old man” describes a later phase of life of a person than “baby” (but they are the same person). Biologically speaking, sexual reproduction of any living thing happens when two gametes combine to form one zygote. When the gametes from the pistil of an apple flower meet the gametes from the stamen, and combine to form the beginnings of a seed, then that zygote, that seed, is biologically recognized as the offspring of the apple tree, even while it is still attached to that apple tree. We may call the seed and the apple part of the original apple tree, but that is because it is more useful to us to label it that way, not because it is really the same organism as the parent tree.
So it is science itself that tells us that a new offspring, a new organism, exists at conception or the plant equivalent of conception. Science can't tell us when God gives a human organism a soul, but science does tell us that once sperm and egg have combined to make a zygote, there is a new organism present that is not part of the parent organism(s)'s body the way a sperm or egg is, even if it is inside, attached to, and dependent on that body.
Do you see what this means? The biological organism that has grown into your body began its life at conception. Your body began as a single fertilized cell. In order to argue that you were not a person yet at that time, when your body was already there, you have to argue that God simply chose to delay giving your body a soul until your body had developed to a certain point.
Now, can you really give me a good reason to believe that, from God's point of view, a soul should be given when brain waves become detectable, rather than when the body first exists?
Do we mourn over spontaneous 'abortions' which number in the billions? That would be getting silly. And, of course, the argument by Danfort: If you were in a building where 50 fertilized eggs were in petre dishes and one 6 month old child and a fire broke out and you could rescue the child or the dishes which would you rescue?
These are not questions of personhood; they are questions of affection. Tell me, do you mourn every person that dies of heart disease? We mourn for someone when they die, to the degree that we knew and cared about them. Many women do grieve when they have miscarriages, some have burials when possible. When women don't feel the need to grieve for spontaneous miscarriages, it could be that they (wrongly) don't believe the child to be a person; but it is just as likely that they don't grieve because they haven't had the time to become very attached to the child yet.
As for Danfort's argument, let me ask you this. If you are in a building with 10 orphan children whom you have never met, and the child of your neighbors, who is your kids' close friend, when the fire breaks out and you can save the 10 or the 1, who do you pick? Or what if the child is your own? Would you sacrifice your own child to save 10 that you have never met? Again, the question is not whether the 50 fertilized eggs are people, but about how we care about people that we know versus those we don't. Chances are good that someone loves a 6-month-old child more than those 50 fertilized eggs are loved, even if God has chosen to give those fertilized eggs human souls.
No society I am faniliar with recognizes 2 cells as a person. or in practice follows such an idea or counts those two cells in the population as your logic would require.
My logic requires no such thing. If a society wanted to only count the population of people who have reached the age of 5, or 12, or 18 or 21, I would not have to object. The worst I could say about it is that it might be a dangerous precedent, might encourage people to think of those not counted as unpeople simply because they were uncounted (as, in fact, you do). But if such a thing were done for practical reasons, and not as a tool for de-humanizing people, then I would have no moral objection to it. And, in truth, I don't think it's very practical to include the unborn in the census, especially before the name and gender are fully determined.
The twelve year old rape victim shocked me, I mean your argument did. Remember I am opposed to abortion if it causes pain to the fetus. But what is the cruelty to something that cannot feel pain.
Come now, Jack. I am allowed to kill you as long as you can't feel pain? What about a man in a coma who can't feel pain – I can kill him? If I can give someone a lethal injection so that they die painlessly, then there is nothing cruel about doing so? There is not something magical about being able to feel pain that makes the body into a person. You are ENDING that person's LIFE. Because they had the misfortune to come into existence through a horrible horrible act of violence against a young and innocent girl, you are going to murder them, remove any chance for a productive life, and, for all you know, risk their eternal salvation and happiness, and you don't think that that is cruel? I think your position would be just as shocking as mine, if I hadn't already known people think that way.
I'm using sentient as having any feeling through the senses. Do you think 2 cells see, hear, feel. smell etc. And react to these stimuli? Coma patients do react to some kind of stimuli or they would have no brain waves. Do you not follow this?
One-celled amoeba react to stimuli. Reacting to stimuli is one of the requirements for something to be biologically declared alive, and the unborn certainly are classified as alive all along. Really, though – if a child was born blind, deaf, with no sense of smell, taste, or touch, would you then conclude they were not a person? Animals have all five senses, and yet are less than such a child would be. Our five senses are NOT a determination of personhood; if they were, we would have to acknowledge animals as people.
Civilization has developed over thousands of years, and to fluff off its judgments is very dangerous.
Me! You're the one that is fluffing off the judgment of a two-thousand year old church. I'm only fluffing off the judgment of a culture that has been the way it is for .. what? 34 years since Roe vs Wade. Maybe 100 years or so building up to that. Is it just as dangerous for me to fluff off our culture's obsession with promiscuity, or with defining yourself by your successes? Should I stop being a stay-at-home mom because our culture tells me that I'm wasting my life if I don't have a rich and successful career? American culture is in love with immaturity, Jack. It's tempered by our Christian roots, so that we have many good things about our culture, too. But everywhere else that formal Church teachings diverge from our culture, I find Church teachings to be true. And I know you generally find it to be so, too, even if you don't agree with the Church absolutely. But I honestly find the Church a heck of a lot more reliable than our American culture.
Anna, so giving up sex is a way to glorify God? Getting married , having and caring for other persons is not glorifying God? Anna you have stated this before, and you just can't get away from saying no sex is better than sex.
Giving all your money to the poor is a way to glorify God, isn't it? And many, probably most, of the saints did some version of that. But there are also saints who didn't do that, just as there are saints that are married, because there is more than one way to glorify God. But people who give up all their money, or sex, are serving God in a more externally obvious way, so they make good examples to hold up to others. Saying that giving up marriage or riches is a nobler thing than not doing so is like saying that sacrificing your life to save someone is the greatest thing you can do. It doesn't mean that dying is better than living. It means that the greater the sacrifice you are willing to make, the more love you have. Whether you live or die, whether you marry or are celibate, whether you live poor or rich – you do best if you ask God and make what sacrifices he asks and not those that he doesn't. But you don't pretend that those who are sacrificing more, purely for love of him, aren't serving him in a higher way than those who sacrifice less, purely for love of him.
On the homosexual thing, if a person is born with those genes then he is inferior and inclined to sin. Do those 4 cells persons you believe are persons desire to have premarital sex as an innate trait why does not the same apply to homosexuals.
I bet you didn't read the paper I linked to, by the bishops. Here it is again. I really really think you should go read the whole thing. Among other things, it makes the point that those with the homosexual inclination are not inferior people. Yes, they are inclined to sin. So is everyone else. Personally I suspect that homosexuality is more often influenced by environment than by birth. I doubt that a child can be born with an innate trait of desiring premarital sex, either. The sex urge generally comes along during puberty, and I would think that, biologically, it's just an urge to have sex, period. What that urge focuses on is going to be the result of all sorts of factors, not primarily a particular wiring. But, really, it doesn't matter, does it? If someone was born a kleptomaniac, that wouldn't make it ok for them to steal. If someone was born a pedophile, that wouldn't make pedophilia ok. Which behaviors are good for us and which are bad is not determined by the desires that are innate to us.
Do you not think it strange that a group that has a high percentage of homosexuals should codemn it. Well, you say they don't practice it. How do you know? Also maybe a bit of hypocrisy here?
Is it strange that a group that has a high percentage of alcoholics, Alcoholics Anonymous, condemns alcoholism? I would think that having a high percentage of homosexuals in the priesthood would give the Church a lot of motivation to change the doctrine on the topic. The fact that they don't change the doctrine seems to me more evidence that the Holy Spirit is indeed protecting Catholic doctrine from error. And I didn't say that no priests practice homosexuality. I said that, for those that have the urge and don't practice it, there is no hypocrisy involved. For those that do practice it, they are sinning. Do you really believe that a majority of priests regularly have homosexual sex? Would you believe it of your own priests?
But that was the point of the discussion in many ways;to see our differences.
Eh. The point of this discussion, from my point of view, is to convince you of the truth of the Church's position. :) I think our differences were pretty clear already. *chuckle*
God bless,
Anna
Anna, I always take your arguments seriously, but, as you know we disagree on some.
ReplyDeleteYou are right that "Southern" church leaders take a more conservative view on some issues than Western European catholics. I fell into the error of following B16's belief that Westerm covilization is the heart of Roman Catholicism. And, of course, you are aware that the Church is very upset over the growth of pentecostal/charismatic at the expense of Catholicism.
BTW, on "cafeteria catholicism" to me this term applies most directly to those who oppose all catholic social teachings accept pro-life. And also to the many who viciously attack vatican 2 teachings.
Anna, you seem to be falling back on the "ensoulment" argument. To my knowledge, the Church no longer uses this as a primary argument against abortion. Assuming, for your sake, that the sould is in the single cell, what if it splits to twins. Is a new soul added?
Anna, with all respect, I am mystified by "animals have brain waves, but they are not humans". What is your point?
Let me try to deal with "stages" of life and acorns together. When did the 'life' of the acorn begin? Would it be there if there had not been a live oak that 'produced' it? And when did that kive oak begin? and on and on. So sperm and egg are alive and come from live which comes from life and on and on. But in order to think we MUST make differences. Is all life not from very primitive forms or to I misread science. Your argument rests on nothing but "ensoulment."
Again, Anna, your comments on homosexuals are most confusion. The law and Catholic morals, I would think, are both based on intent. If we could show, and eventually we may well be able to, that a murderer was genetically wired to killing and could not control himself is he guilty of murder. Is insanity not a legal defense?
Well, I believe that a majority of priest have had sexual physical experiences during their priesthood? At least sexual thoughts which are sins.
The 12 year old raped. I am the Overwhelming number of Catholics agree with me. Just as an aside but I think an important one: If as the medieval church belived torture was allowable to in some cases save a person's soul which you favor torture of the girl to keep her from committing murder? Was not the church logical? With your logic such torture to prevent murder would be justifiable.
On the Danforth example you are completely illogical. It's NOT WHAT I WOULD DO but what is right. Your argument, of course. Under your logic would it not be moral to kill a million Iraqui's to savve one American---after all I have a far greater chance of knowing the American. Anna, you are logical. But in my opinion you can be at times captured by the "demon of the absolute."
And finally Anna you continue to defy the church which clearly says celibacy is superior to the married state. Quote from Catholic Answers and the Bible. Marriage is good, but celibacy is better.
Jack,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I'd characterize Pope Benedict as believing that Western civilization is the “heart” of Roman Catholicism. The Catholic problems that he's personally encountered all his life naturally take a more dominant position for him than other problems, but I think he makes an effort to see the problems of the whole Church and deal with them pastorally. (As evidenced, for example, by his visiting with victims of sex abuse when he came to America).
I generally try to avoid using the term “cafeteria Catholic”, because it's too likely to be taken as offensive. I quoted the person despite his use of the term, because he was making the point I wanted to show you, about the majority of Catholics being in line with the Church's teaching on abortion, once the Southern-Hemisphere Catholics are taken into account. In general, I would say that, if a person were going to use the term “cafeteria Catholic”, it would be unjust to use it against those who disagree with the Church's pro-life stance without also using it against those who disagree with the Church on any other doctrinal stance, such as social teachings or Vatican II's ecumenism or such. To that degree, I agree with you. However, I'm not trying to argue you into going against the Church's social teachings. I'm just trying to argue you into believing the Church's teaching against abortion.
I'm not really sure what you mean by the “ensoulment” argument that you think I am making. How exactly would you characterize this argument? If you think it is a bad argument, what objection do you have to it?
Assuming, for your sake, that the sould is in the single cell, what if it splits to twins. Is a new soul added?
I would guess that, whenever there first exists one body, that God grants one soul for that body. At whatever point in time there first exists a second body, I would guess that God then grants that second body a human soul. But this is just what personally makes sense to me. In terms of abortion, I would argue that, unless we receive some divine proof that a particular human body is NOT a human person, then we have no right to assume it is not and kill it.
I am mystified by "animals have brain waves, but they are not humans". What is your point?
My point is that brain waves are not what make the difference between person and non-person (as evidenced by the fact that animals – non-people – have brain waves). Therefore, brain waves are not a good indicator to decide when the unborn go from being non-people that we can kill to people that we ought not kill.
When did the 'life' of the acorn begin? Would it be there if there had not been a live oak that 'produced' it? And when did that kive oak begin? and on and on. So sperm and egg are alive and come from live which comes from life and on and on. But in order to think we MUST make differences. Is all life not from very primitive forms or to I misread science.
I think you misread science. Yes, there is a continuity of generic aliveness. But the distinction that science makes between one organism and another is not a purely semantic difference that makes it more useful for us to think. It is a recognition that a dog is not its mother; that a lizard is not its great-great grandson. Let me go more into this.
You've heard, I'm sure, the “how many grains can I remove from a pile of sand before it is a different pile?” question before. It's a philosophical question about the identity or lack thereof of a pile of sand. Some might say that even one grain difference makes the whole pile a “new” or “different” pile. Others might argue that such a change is too insignificant to change the nature of the sand pile. When it comes to inanimate matter, I would take a view that is very much like how you described life going on and on, but we make differences in order to think. That is, we can draw the line wherever we find useful, because there is no sharp line built into nature itself; inanimate objects do not have inherent identities as such. This, too, is the attitude that I think science takes towards inanimate matter: defining “objects” however useful, and rearranging those definitions whenever useful.
Living objects, on the other hand, are different. There is a sharp line built into nature itself that defines the boundaries of a living object: death. “Organism” is not merely a useful description of something that really changes continually, the way that a pile of sand being eroded changes continually. An organism is something which can die. A sunflower may generate a hundred seeds which continue the existence of sunflower life on the planet; but that sunflower ceases to live when it individually dies. Living things come in bodies, bodies that live or die as a whole, (although some may be able to live as a whole despite the loss of certain parts). Science recognizes this by calling those living things, those bodies, “organisms”.
People, too, are organisms. We come with bodies. Although your body was generated from your parents' bodies, it is a fundamentally different body than theirs, which lives or dies as a whole that is separate from the life or death of their whole, even when it is dependent on them. And science tells us that that organism, that body that is yours, exists from conception.
Again, Anna, your comments on homosexuals are most confusion. The law and Catholic morals, I would think, are both based on intent. If we could show, and eventually we may well be able to, that a murderer was genetically wired to killing and could not control himself is he guilty of murder.
I did not say that someone who engages in homosexual sex was still guilty even if they could be proved to have had no control over their actions. I said that someone who engages in homosexual sex is still guilty even if they can be proved to have had no choice in the object of their DESIRE. Because a man desires to have sex with another man, does not mean he has no control over whether he actually does so or not. Because a man desires to have sex with a child, does not mean he has no control over whether he actually does so or not. If either man chooses to give in to those sinful desires, then he sins, because he chose to, even if the desire itself was built into him from birth.
Well, I believe that a majority of priest have had sexual physical experiences during their priesthood? At least sexual thoughts which are sins.
A majority? I don't know. I'm strongly inclined to doubt that over 50% of priests have had sex after their ordination, although obviously some percentage have. And, no, Jack, it is not true that every sexual thought is a sin. “Lust” is not the same thing as “a sexual thought”. Remember, something cannot be a sin unless it is chosen. Most sexual thoughts come to people unbidden. A priest could cross the line into lust only by becoming aware of those thoughts and still choosing to dwell on them. Choosing to indulge in sexual fantasies is different from being attracted to someone or having sexual thoughts about them. As for the percentage of priests that have engaged in lust, I think speculating on that is about as useful as speculating on the percentage of priests that have engaged in greed. That is, not useful at all, unless you can come up with some good reason why I should care what percentage of priests commit any other internal sin.
The 12 year old raped. I am the Overwhelming number of Catholics agree with me.
The majority argument? Again? It's a weak argument, especially when I'm not at all convinced that Southern Catholics would agree with you, even on this.
If as the medieval church belived torture was allowable to in some cases save a person's soul which you favor torture of the girl to keep her from committing murder? Was not the church logical? With your logic such torture to prevent murder would be justifiable.
We are not allowed to commit evil, even to do good or to prevent what we think is a greater evil. Torture is evil. It doesn't just happen to be evil, it's evil because of the violence it does against the image of God in the person tortured. It may seem logical to use torture to try to save someone's soul – physical pain for a higher spiritual gain – but it doesn't work because it is based on a flawed understanding of what it means to be human. We may not do evil that good may come of it. And that's assuming that torture is a milder evil than a 12-year-old committing murder, something that I'm not particularly convinced of.
On the Danforth example you are completely illogical. It's NOT WHAT I WOULD DO but what is right. Your argument, of course. Under your logic would it not be moral to kill a million Iraqui's to savve one American---after all I have a far greater chance of knowing the American. Anna, you are logical. But in my opinion you can be at times captured by the "demon of the absolute."
If a million Iraqi's came, one by one, to kill one innocent American, then it would be moral to kill them, one by one, to defend that innocent. (And to kill a million attacking Americans to defend one innocent Iraqi.) If the million Iraqi's or the million Americans are not attacking, if they are innocent themselves, then no amount of numbers or affection can justify murdering them. The difference between that situation and the Danforth example is that no murders are committed. You didn't start the fire; you are not responsible for the deaths of those who you cannot save from it. Your choice about who to save is not a choice between right and wrong; it is a choice between one good thing and another good thing. This is why I talked about what you WOULD do; because I don't believe there is any one right answer to what you SHOULD do. I don't believe you are morally obligated to save your neighbor's two kids from the fire instead of your own, just because there are more of them. For the same reason, I don't really believe that you are morally obligated to save 50 kids you don't have affection for instead of the one you do, although it might be nobler to do so.
And finally Anna you continue to defy the church which clearly says celibacy is superior to the married state.
If you think that, then I think you didn't read what I wrote clearly enough. To repeat what I said, with emphasis:
“Saying that giving up marriage or riches is a nobler thing than not doing so is like saying that sacrificing your life to save someone is the greatest thing you can do. It doesn't mean that dying is better than living. It means that the greater the sacrifice you are willing to make, the more love you have. Whether you live or die, whether you marry or are celibate, whether you live poor or rich – you do best if you ask God and make what sacrifices he asks and not those that he doesn't. But you don't pretend that those who are sacrificing more, purely for love of him, aren't serving him in a higher way than those who sacrifice less, purely for love of him.”
God bless,
Anna
Anna, a few comments.
ReplyDeleteEnsoulment was the main argument most catholics gave against abortion for most of my years. It refered to a soul being "placed" by God in the unborn or at conception. Since this argument is not compelling to many it is almost never mentioned by catholic apologists. On the twins, since that occurs after conception which has the original soul?
On brain waves, I was not arguing dogs versus people. The best we can do to determine death is absence of brain function, to be more exact. A human body that has no brain wave or function is not consider a person. Neither does a group of cells or ONE cell have any of the bove, but you say thatone cell is just as much a person as one of your children. The Church says that ONE cell is a person. Few buy that, even catholics including many catholic clergy. You know my view: the church says such to protect its sex, all sex, must have consequences. More on that later.
Organisms. This word has many definitions most practically assuming more than one cell. Does a cell have a body? As a pro-lifer you have to make this case, and you can't use "potential" because the church says that one cell is a person as much as your children. BTW God must be very cruel because millions of fertilized eggs die all the time; and remember each was a full person.
Anna, I think you missed my point on homosexuals. The law recognizes insanity as a defense. An uncontrolable impulse may be insanity but the person with it is not responsible for his actions. Today the legal equation is: uncontrolable impulse=insanity=innocent. At law school we were taught that the equation should be: uncontrolable impulse=not guilty, which most courts use anyway. Also, Anna, your first sentence on homosexuals is completely contradicted by the rest of your paragraph. Maybe I misread it.
On the Danforth example: Anna, you are a most fair debater. But here I think you twisted what I said or intended to say a bit. Let's leave out 'familiarity'. Let's say the laboratory was on fire and 150 fertilized eggs, you say full persons, were in the building along with a lab assistant I had never seen. I could only save the 40 year old assistant or the 150 other persons. Are you saying that I have no obligation to save the 150 persons at the expense of one person. Run that by again:) Or let's assume that 151 persons, all in their twenties, are in a room. The fire breaks out. I can open one door which saves one person, or I could open another door which would save 150 people. You say there is no difference? Can we apply this to war? But later.
Anna, on the priest and sex, I can't cite the exact place so you can disregard but I believe a survey of catholic priest said of the priest they knew almost all had perform some sex act since being a priest. Throw this out if you want to--can't find cite.
On sexual desire. The catechism book I use, approved by Cardinal Schonborn, says any unmarried person must refrain from "any thought that would arouse sexual passion." Anna, please don't kill me, but can a priest have an erect...? Anna, I'm finding it hard to follow having a naughty thought and dwelling on it. Could you give time limits in minutes or seconds to show difference? Jack
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. Check in when you get a chance.
Jack,
ReplyDeleteSo much to write, so little time to write it. :)
Your only objection to the “ensoulment” argument is that it is not compelling to many: the majority argument again. Do you have any more substantial reason to believe that God couldn't or wouldn't give the unborn a soul at conception? Do you admit that you don't KNOW when God gives a baby a soul, and therefore he MIGHT give it at conception?
On the twins, since that occurs after conception which has the original soul?
I would assume whoever has the original body has the original soul. But I'm not sure there's a point to asking the question, since it makes absolutely no difference to us what the answer is.
A human body that has no brain wave or function is not consider a person.
There have been times and places when a lack of heartbeat has been considered proof of death: a human body without a heart beat was not considered a person. Brain waves is merely a next closest approximation to something that cannot be scientifically determined, because it is not primarily a scientific process. You are suggesting that science can measure whether or not someone is a person, Jack. How can you think that personhood is something inherent in our bodies, rather than something spiritual about us?
For the record, it is MY opinion that one cell is a person. It is not official Catholic doctrine that one cell is a person, despite the many many Catholics who will tell you it is. What IS Catholic doctrine is that that one cell must be TREATED as a person, because we have not been given to know that it is not a person.
You say that the Church only teaches that one cell is a person because it wants to protect its teaching that all sex must have consequences. I ask you – why the heck would anyone want to teach that or protect that teaching? I can understand someone saying that if they really believe it. But no one in their right mind would WANT sex to be off-limits.
There are many single-celled organisms around. Bacteria generally are single-celled organisms, for example.
I would like a reference to the fact that millions of fertilized eggs die all the same time. I hear this every now and then, but I don't know that it's true. At any rate, I can't see how it makes God cruel because all those one-celled persons die. After all, millions of multicellular people die all the time, too. The death rate is 100%, eventually. Is it crueler of God to allow a child to die as a baby than as an 80 year old? I can't think of any reason to say so.
On homosexuals. I completely agree that if it is proved that homosexuals are incapable of controlling their homosexual desires, then they should be held as innocent, same as any insane person. But that only applies if they are incapable of not ACTING on their homosexual desires, not if they are incapable of not HAVING those desires. A pedophile is not held as insane on the grounds that he can't keep himself from wanting to have sex with children; he is only held insane if for some reason he can't keep that wanting from leading to him doing it. Do you see the distinction? I'm arguing that even if homosexuality is genetic, even if someone is born disposed to have those desires, they can still control them, and are therefore still responsible for how they act. (At least in general – I'm sure there are some insane homosexuals, like there are insane heterosexuals).
Are you saying that I have no obligation to save the 150 persons at the expense of one person.
That was exactly what I was saying. If you are at a hotel, and vaguely aware that some sort of convention with 150 people is going on in another room, and also that there is a hotel employee (whom you don't know) somewhere else, and the hotel catches on fire, I cannot think of any reason why you would be OBLIGATED to save the 150 people at the expense of the one. Most people would save the 150, and I am not saying there is for sure no difference between the two. It might be better to save the 150, but it is still good to save the life of the 1, even if it means you cannot save the 150.
This logic might possibly be applied if war happens to be the threat instead of fire; but most of the time it does not apply to war situations. In war situations, it is almost never a choice between who can be saved from some threat not caused by you, but rather a choice between saving some and causing a threat to others. That's a very important difference.
Anna, please don't kill me, but can a priest have an erect...? Anna, I'm finding it hard to follow having a naughty thought and dwelling on it. Could you give time limits in minutes or seconds to show difference?
I can't see the sin if a priest happens to get an erection; it is my understanding that this often happens to guys whether they want it to or not. I think it would be a sin for a priest to try to get one, though.
There is no acceptable amount of time for dwelling on naughty thoughts. As soon as a person becomes aware that they are having thoughts that step outside the bounds of decency, they have an obligation to try to turn away from them. Have you never examined your own thoughts? It doesn't matter what topic – greed, lust, pride, depression, self-recrimination, anything. If you pay attention to the flow of your thoughts sometime, you will see that thoughts come to us unbidden, but that we can turn towards or away from those thoughts that enter our head. If we begin to resist a particular thought or kind of thought, it will usually get worse for awhile and then eventually it will occur to us less often. If you make no attempt to control what you dwell on, then your thoughts will probably take the path of least resistance, whatever that may be.
God bless,
Anna
Anna, could not the soul be in the sperm? Could be, I guess. It could come from the parents. So what is your point?
ReplyDeleteOn the hotel. I'm afraid you lost me. If Hitler had killed one Jew not millions are you arguing there is no difference? You seem to be.
O course, nothing is absolutely certain. But one cell with no brain waves is a person? How would you susject we determine death. Just keep the body forever.
On the acorn and the oak tree. The acorn is the beginning of the oak tree, a previous oak tree is the beginning of the acorn,the acorn is from an earlier oak tree, which cames from an acorn ad infinitum.So all life began billions of years ago.
Your priest answer is so vague. It could be a few seconds or years? Is that your point?
I will explain later what the hierarchy of the church has invested in these unusual teachings. Jack