[OPEN] Humanism and the Church

Status
Not open for further replies.

Simon_Templar

Not all who wander are lost
Jun 29, 2004
7,692
1,040
49
Visit site
✟32,462.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Finella,

I would like to make one clarification in regard to your comments on mine and Rev. Smith's position. You made the comment "God only gives authority to the good guys". This is not actually my position. God gives authority to bad people all the time. There is no leader and no ruler in the world who is not in his position at God's sufferage and allowance.

The point I'm getting at is, even if a bad person has authority, the authority itself is a limit. Remember that there is a final judge who rules on right and wrong and will hold peolpe accountable for their actions.
Hitler had God ordained authority, but he virtually immediately stepped outside of that authority and in doing so became a tyrant. As a result his own people and the people of the nations he aflicted, and their allies had the right to use force to stop him and depose him. In doing so they were not opposing God's authority because he had already stepped outside of the limits of his authority.

Another example.. In my opinion Bill Clinton was an evil man. I'm sure many here might disagree, but thats my opinion. In his term in office he did a number of things which I feel were wrong and bad for the country, and some even came close to over stepping his authority.. but even his mistakes, were ultimately within the realm of his authority, and as a result, I had no right to oppose him with force or to try and depose him.

Authority allows a person to make mistakes and even do things the wrong way, as long as it remains within its limitations and bounds.

The issues of authority are what make laws just or unjust, even a bad law, a poorly thought out, or ineffective law can be just.. if it is within the authority of the government. Even a law that appears to be good, can be unjust if it is outside the authority of the government.

With authority we can say if something is just or unjust, right or wrong, without authority there is only can or can't.
 
Upvote 0

Fish and Bread

Dona nobis pacem
Jan 31, 2005
14,109
2,389
✟60,685.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Simon_Templar said:
In my opinion Bill Clinton was an evil man

I'm not sure how anyone can say Bill Clinton was an evil man, especially given who his successor is. I mean, sure, President Clinton did some things he shouldn't have, some of which he's admitted were wrong, but most were in the sphere of his personal life and didn't actually involve anyone dying or making public policy that restricted our freedoms unduly. Meanwhile, President Bush launched a war in Iraq that didn't need to be waged where many have died and has virtually eliminated our civil rights -- all of the sudden, thanks to President Bush, it's "okay" to monitor the phone calls of all Americans, to detain American citizens indefinitely without charging them with a crime, and not to mention the prision camps in Cuba, Iraq, and (the formerly secret ones in) Europe. Officials from his justice department have even informed news agencies that their phones are being monitored so that they can't have confidential sources, a huge blow to freedom of the press. Congress' will is thrawted thanks to improper use of executive orders. He's also lied repeatedly to the American people about a lot of things, WMDs in Iraq, the time he said when he knew who leaked Valarie Plume's identity, he'd fire that person, when in fact it came out later that he was the one who leaked it in the first place! This President is a criminal and there is groundwork being laid for eventual tyranny with a few more administrations like this. I'm not even getting into his bad policy choices, like what he's down to the federal budget, and his cuts in funding for anti-poverty programs while cutting taxes for the rich. Some Christian. Let them eat cake!

I was never President Clinton's biggest fan, but those look like the good old days by comparision now. I was an independent in 2000 who divided by vote about evenly between Democrats, Republicans, and third parties. Over the last six years, President Bush has made me a staunch Democrat.
 
Upvote 0

Finella

Veteran
Feb 27, 2004
1,590
199
50
PA
✟17,732.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
So much to address, so little time! There are little things in past posts I'd love to address, but I'm trying to stay on-topic, so those things will have to wait for another time. This post itself may wander a bit, so I hope it makes sense.

Fish and Bread, thank you for clarifying your question. If it were possible to have an idea of the values of Christians as a group and the values of humanists as a group (which I still think is debatable) then it seems the logical step would be to see if we could find where these values conflict to such a degree that one person could not simultaneously hold Christian and humanist values.

I guess my problem with this whole question is that, whether we like it or not, it is a fact that we all pick and choose our values to some degree. We may be predisposed to some values moreso than others due to our upbringing and experience. But I consider myself to be a bit of a philosophical mutt (as I’m sure most of us do) and, though I’m sure I don’t fully understand all of the ramifications of such a label, if I had to name my beliefs I would call myself an existential humanist Christian. Some would say it’s utterly impossible to have such a belief system, and I guess I am personally wrestling with the concepts myself (hence my great interest in this thread!). But this label doesn’t really say everything about what I believe, and the particulars do seem to matter. I doubt my values and beliefs would perfectly match another existential humanist Christian, and perhaps we would differ on the very points that would make or break a harmonious blending of these worldviews.
Rev. Smith has said that he thinks the origin of one’s morality is a particular point to examine when juxtaposing these views. If one’s morality originates from God, that is a very different thing than if it originates from (and one is answerable to) oneself. The only reason I can see so far why this would matter so much is because, if one is Christian, s/he would believe this would affect his/her ultimate unification with God in heaven. So, in the long-term, it’s an issue of salvation to the believer, and perhaps an issue of legacy for the non-believing humanist. I’m not sure salvation is what Fish and Bread is getting at, though.

But if there is some intangible other reason why the different origin of morality/values differs so much, I would like to explore that. Is it not possible that the values Christians believe they obtain from their relationship to God is simply idealized human values we have projected onto God? How do we know that these values did not emerge out of our own social background and development over millennia? And again, how does this appear differently in the virtuous humanist versus the virtuous Christian? An atheist humanist could very well have just as strong a belief in the value of human life as a Christian. Even more so, since the atheist believes that this life is our only chance at life, and therefore we must respect it and cherish it deeply, as there is no second chance or revival one day in heaven. Suffering, pain, killing, all of these must be abated now, not one moment should be wasted because we will never get this time back again. It could be argued that the Christian sees some virtue in suffering, seeing this as a means to reward in heaven (and I’m being broad with these atheist/Christian statements, bear with me). Are these values incompatible? Bwah… I have no idea.

And Simon_Templar, while you may theologically argue that God has given authority to governments to wage war and kill in certain circumstances, I feel this is a cop-out on practical grounds. In democratic societies such as ours, the people have given the government its authority. And when our government does unjust things, it is the people’s responsibility to undo the injustices. To say that God has set up such a system and complaining that “we don’t like it” is fruitless because, well, that’s just the way it is, is like an ostrich putting its head in the sand. I don’t buy it, especially when the people elect leaders that I believe are evil. God-given authority to governments smacks of the divine right of kings, which I thought we gave up centuries ago.

(In regard to evil, I’m sure there are people in this world far beyond the realms of reason. I worked in psychiatric hospitals for years, I’ve met lots of such people. Rapists, murderers… I don’t know if it’s evil or an illness, but the source of it to me is the tragedy of the lack of love in early life. I don’t see it as a black Font of Evil, but a sad, unbroken chain of generations of neglect and pain. I think it is combatable, and I do think it’s worth our lives to combat it.)

Interesting point, however, Rev. Smith – about how scripture gives authority to certain people under certain circumstances to kill, but it is more virtuous not to do so (e.g., your example of early Christian martyrs). So there’s a gray area here? A spectrum of virtue?
Ben Franklin once wrote that the man who trades liberty for safety deserves neither, yet our conservative friends seem not only eager to give away their liberty, but angered at those of us who say we won't. Simple fact, I'd rather die a free man at the hands of a terroist then in ripe old age as a slave.
I agree with you wholeheartedly there, my friend.



I know there are many good, solely secualr arguments I've made them myself many times - but then and now I was making a point. That the secular world has no right to demand that I conform to their views, the very demand that I restrict my opinions and arguments to ones that do not rely on God is an assertion that I have no right to form my morals from God's revelation.
You have me confused here. How is it that using our God-given reason and logic, common sense, if you will, to make an argument taking away from your right to form morals from God’s revelation? Is not God inherent in this reasoning as well? If there’s perfectly good secular arguments against the death penalty, then that’s simply a reflection of God’s creation in the matter – demonstrating the natural reason to oppose it. It’s built into creation. It’s so obvious (e.g., it’s just wrong to kill another person, and vengeance doesn’t solve anything) that anyone can see it.

Thank you for the civilized debate... quite stimulating. I knew we could behave. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rev. Smith
Upvote 0

Simon_Templar

Not all who wander are lost
Jun 29, 2004
7,692
1,040
49
Visit site
✟32,462.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Fish and Bread said:
I'm not sure how anyone can say Bill Clinton was an evil man, especially given who his successor is. I mean, sure, President Clinton did some things he shouldn't have, some of which he's admitted were wrong, but most were in the sphere of his personal life and didn't actually involve anyone dying or making public policy that restricted our freedoms unduly. Meanwhile, President Bush launched a war in Iraq that didn't need to be waged where many have died and has virtually eliminated our civil rights -- all of the sudden, thanks to President Bush, it's "okay" to monitor the phone calls of all Americans, to detain American citizens indefinitely without charging them with a crime, and not to mention the prision camps in Cuba, Iraq, and (the formerly secret ones in) Europe. Officials from his justice department have even informed news agencies that their phones are being monitored so that they can't have confidential sources, a huge blow to freedom of the press. Congress' will is thrawted thanks to improper use of executive orders. He's also lied repeatedly to the American people about a lot of things, WMDs in Iraq, the time he said when he knew who leaked Valarie Plume's identity, he'd fire that person, when in fact it came out later that he was the one who leaked it in the first place! This President is a criminal and there is groundwork being laid for eventual tyranny with a few more administrations like this. I'm not even getting into his bad policy choices, like what he's down to the federal budget, and his cuts in funding for anti-poverty programs while cutting taxes for the rich. Some Christian. Let them eat cake!

I was never President Clinton's biggest fan, but those look like the good old days by comparision now. I was an independent in 2000 who divided by vote about evenly between Democrats, Republicans, and third parties. Over the last six years, President Bush has made me a staunch Democrat.


First off, my point was not to start a political discussion but merely to illustrate that even if a person is evil (in my opinion) doesn't give me the right to ignore their rightful authority. IE authority is not about the person, but about the actions taken.

However, I can't avoid taking the bait. Keeping in mind I have my share of disagreements with G.W.B.

President Bush has done very little that Clinton didn't do before him.

Bush expanded the US military response to terrorism to the level of war in Iraq. Clinton, not long before had launched bombing campaigns in iraq, and had bombed several targets suspected to be terrorist training camps in various locations around the world. He also involved us in a war in Bosnia, a place where the evil dictator was doing very similar things to what Sadam was doing. He also sent troops into Somalia. In most of those instances there was far less reason for us to be militarily involved than there was in Iraq. (except of course the bombing of Iraq, because he did that for the exact same reason that Bush later invaded).

the death toll in Iraq both from the bombings and from the years of sanctions Clinton supported is estimated to be around 1 million people.

In yugoslavia around 2000 including the chinese killed when we accidentally bombed their embassy. (keeping in mind we were actually accused of war crimes in this operation and a vocal group of protestors wanted the general in charge of our operations there put on trial in the world court).

As for freedoms.. well everyone has heard about the wire tapping under bush (which by the way was not monitering internal calls but international calls to numbers already suspected to have connections to terrorist groups). Not many know, however, that the US government has been monitering telecommunications through a couple of different round about (round about as in getting around the laws) ways since the 1970's.

Prison camps... like the ones that have existed every time we've ever faught a war in history and had to deal with prisoners of war? Perhaps you think we shouldn't take prisoners? or are you suggesting that we should send them all to internal civilian prison facilities?

Clinton, during his time in office turned large areas of our national parks over to the jurisdiction of the UN, and pretty much gave our national waterways to the UN. He also put in place executive orders allowing the president to declare a state of emergency and take emergency powers, including; Conscripting citizens into labor forces and relocating them to any area of the country, formation of prison camps on american soil to house citizens who are deemed criminals etc.

Clinton also was proven to have illegally accessed hundreds of FBI files on political opponents etc.

Here we get a little more "conspiritorial" but since the liberal crowd today doesn't mind tossing out conspiracy theories about Bush, I figure turn about is fair play...
Clinton has had numerous people close to him both while governer of Arkansas and while president die under suspicious circumstances.

THe most famous, and the most obviously a cover up was Vince Foster. Foster supposedly committed suicide by shooting himself in the head in a washington park where his body was found. After having looked at the case, there is no way this was suicide.

There is plenty of evidence of a cover up but one of the more interesting is that while the park police were still investigating the scene, having barely responded to the reports from witnesses, the clinton's were already ransacking Foster's office and removing files and papers.


In addition to Foster some 25 other people either closely connected and involved in Bill's political and business dealings, or investigators and witnesses in legal actions agaisnt Bill, all died during the time of his presidency.

In addition to those there were approximately 12 of his body guards over his years as governor and president who turned up dead. One I remember being on the news was found shot execution style in the back of the head in an ally in New Orleans when the president was there for a visit.

An additional 7 people involved in the "ives/ henry" case, against clinton, back in the late 80's early 90's ended up dead during the case.


Actually.. here is a link about the "clinton body count" if your interested
http://www.etherzone.com/body.html

So yea.. G.W. may not be the best president we've ever had, but I still think Clinton was an evil man. Also, much of the liberal Bush bashing that goes on today is just a little incredible because they had no problem with this stuff when they were the ones doing it. Where was the liberal outrage when Clinton bombed and starved iraqis, where was it when we intervened in Bosnia? etc
 
Upvote 0

Fish and Bread

Dona nobis pacem
Jan 31, 2005
14,109
2,389
✟60,685.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Simon_Templar said:
Not many know, however, that the US government has been monitering telecommunications through a couple of different round about (round about as in getting around the laws) ways since the 1970's.

I'd never heard that claim, so I'd need a citation to back it up before I could address it.

Prison camps... like the ones that have existed every time we've ever faught a war in history and had to deal with prisoners of war? Perhaps you think we shouldn't take prisoners? or are you suggesting that we should send them all to internal civilian prison facilities?

I guess my problem isn't so much with prision camps, so much as that some of them are *secret* prision camps, and that even amongst the openly acknowledged ones, the Geneva convention isn't being acknowledged as binding on them and, in some cases, isn't even being adhered to. We ought to respect basic human rights, even of enemy combatants, and we ought to live up to our treaty obligations. And if they're not enemy combatants, then they belong in civilian facilities and should be judged according to civilian law. I don't really care how they're categorized for the most part, though I do think US citizens captured in the US have a right to a trial by jury before a normal judge, but they have to be categorized and treated according to the rules and protections that our system puts in place -- and that's not always happening.

Clinton, during his time in office turned large areas of our national parks over to the jurisdiction of the UN, and pretty much gave our national waterways to the UN. He also put in place executive orders allowing the president to declare a state of emergency and take emergency powers, including; Conscripting citizens into labor forces and relocating them to any area of the country, formation of prison camps on american soil to house citizens who are deemed criminals etc.

Again, this is stuff that I've never heard of, so I'd need a citation before commenting. If this is accurate, I'm surprised it didn't get more attention from people.

Also, much of the liberal Bush bashing that goes on today is just a little incredible because they had no problem with this stuff when they were the ones doing it. Where was the liberal outrage when Clinton bombed and starved iraqis, where was it when we intervened in Bosnia? etc

I was adamantly opposed to all of the US military actions under the Clinton adminstration's watch, though I will say that in retrospect he was right to try to take out that al-queda factory that turned out to be an asprin plant, bad intelligence aside. I also opposed his signing of NAFTA and several other significant projects of his. On the other hand, he did manage to balance the federal budget, which is an important accomplishment, and he did play a key part in drafting the Kyoto Accords, which I think subsequently have been shown to be a very good, even though his signing wasn't ratified by the Senate and GWB later pulled out of them.

So, I think there is a mixed record there. He's not my favorite President to ever live by any stretch of the imagination, and I was fairly critical of him when he was in office, but it seems that when he and President Bush agree on bad things, President Bush has almost always taken it one step further, and where President Clinton did good things, President Bush has undone them. For me, the best thing to happen to the Clinton legacy was his successor's legacy, because, although Clinton's legacy initially might have been poor, because by comparision Clinton now looks much better.
 
Upvote 0

Rev. Smith

Old Catholic Priest
Jun 29, 2004
1,114
139
67
Tucson, AZ
Visit site
✟9,505.00
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Finella said:
I guess my problem with this whole question is that, whether we like it or not, it is a fact that we all pick and choose our values to some degree. We may be predisposed to some values moreso than others due to our upbringing and experience. But I consider myself to be a bit of a philosophical mutt (as I’m sure most of us do) and, though I’m sure I don’t fully understand all of the ramifications of such a label, if I had to name my beliefs I would call myself an existential humanist Christian. Some would say it’s utterly impossible to have such a belief system, and I guess I am personally wrestling with the concepts myself (hence my great interest in this thread!). But this label doesn’t really say everything about what I believe, and the particulars do seem to matter. I doubt my values and beliefs would perfectly match another existential humanist Christian, and perhaps we would differ on the very points that would make or break a harmonious blending of these worldviews.

You are, of courese largly correct as to how we aquire a moral philosophy. I choose to be a Christian (with all due repsect to our Calvinist brothers who would insist that I did no such thing, that God choose me and all other Christians). The divergence comes not in the initial choice, but thereafter thoose of us who give fealty to an external ideal abdicate the authority to make certain decsions to the font of that ideal.

In many areas, social policy, abortion and the death penalty to name a few, my natural inclination as a rational man and the directions of God often conflict. Were I a humanist I would likely be pro death penalty, pro abortion amd pro low taxes and minimal social welfare.

Before I embraced God I was a political libertarian (still am , with the exception of those areas where God's will overwrites my own).

As a libertarian I had no trouble with the idea that murderers, pedophiles, rapeists and others forfeit their lives by ther acts. (Even them I was troubled by the fact that drug "kingpins" and cop killers got the death penalty, but rapists and most murderers didn't).

As a libertarian I believed that government had no business in our private lives, and had the burden of proof when it sought to invade our lives. So I felt that a woman's right to choose was absolute until the government could prove that the fetus was a person with its own rights.

As a libertarian I believed that re-distributing the wealth was not a proper power of government, and opposed most welfare programs as an abuse of power. I believed in, and donated to, charity regulalry becasue the libertarian attitude is not "let em starve", it is that government ought not use its power to force us to be "moral".

Once I embraced God, not as the religion of my forefathers - but as my real and living faith I was compelled to listen to God, and my options narrowed.

The death penalty came to be an act of man that forclosed redemption and repentance. Abortion became not the right of a woman but a conspiracy of death, social welfare became not an abuse of power - but an essetial function of all society.

Finella said:
Rev. Smith has said that he thinks the origin of one’s morality is a particular point to examine when juxtaposing these views. If one’s morality originates from God, that is a very different thing than if it originates from (and one is answerable to) oneself. The only reason I can see so far why this would matter so much is because, if one is Christian, s/he would believe this would affect his/her ultimate unification with God in heaven. So, in the long-term, it’s an issue of salvation to the believer, and perhaps an issue of legacy for the non-believing humanist. I’m not sure salvation is what Fish and Bread is getting at, though.

Salvation is certainly important - but the essentil differance is imutabilty. Becasue I take God as a higher authority them myself I am, by definition, unreasonable, I can not be reasoned with in essentials of my faith. No matter how well throught out and structured the argument brought to me is, I will reject it if it conflicts with the commandments of God. There are many rational arguments in favor of abortion on demand (I get them shouted at me regularly at county Democratic Party meetings). None of them make a dent - in fact I agree with most of them. I simply assert that I am not the arbitor of moral rightness, God is - show me that God desires that we abort babies, kill malefactors and starve the poor to provide tax cuts for the comfortable and I'll sign right up.

A humanist is a rational person, reason is the essential tool for resolving moral problems. For the most part so are Christians, since most political and social issues have no spiritual implications. (I can form my own opinions freely on zoning, school boards, immagration and so on ). Where the dictates of God overrule my opinions then I abdicate to God. This remains true for each Christian. We may disagree on what God is saying, but we all agree that once we know God's will we must submit to it.

Finella said:
But if there is some intangible other reason why the different origin of morality/values differs so much, I would like to explore that. Is it not possible that the values Christians believe they obtain from their relationship to God is simply idealized human values we have projected onto God?

That is certainly possable, and I know that that is the theory that most atheist social scientists promote, that religion is the collective desire for moral order. However, much of the revelation of God goes against the desires of many (most people). God demands that we be chaste, yet most of us desire to be able to make love without restriction to those we truly love (hence the gay mariage debate, amongst others). God demands that we be generious with our wealth, feed the poor and hungry - most of us prefer to lavish our wealth on ourselves and our family. Indeed secular morals make this a virtue, one of our cultural icons is the mom or dad who slaves away at a job they despise in order to put ther child through school. Society lauds this, God says it is easy to love your friends and family and to care for them - what have you done for the homeless guy living under the bridge?


Finella said:
How do we know that these values did not emerge out of our own social background and development over millennia? And again, how does this appear differently in the virtuous humanist versus the virtuous Christian? An atheist humanist could very well have just as strong a belief in the value of human life as a Christian. Even more so, since the atheist believes that this life is our only chance at life, and therefore we must respect it and cherish it deeply, as there is no second chance or revival one day in heaven. Suffering, pain, killing, all of these must be abated now, not one moment should be wasted because we will never get this time back again. It could be argued that the Christian sees some virtue in suffering, seeing this as a means to reward in heaven (and I’m being broad with these atheist/Christian statements, bear with me). Are these values incompatible? Bwah… I have no idea.

Your right of course, the results will often be the same - becasue most virtue is fairly obvious. Again, I can only say that the differance is only rarely in the result, it is more often in the process - that and us Christians can be madingly irrational to the humanist (which is fair, becasue they are madingly relativeistic to us):yum:


Finella said:
(In regard to evil, I’m sure there are people in this world far beyond the realms of reason. I worked in psychiatric hospitals for years, I’ve met lots of such people. Rapists, murderers… I don’t know if it’s evil or an illness, but the source of it to me is the tragedy of the lack of love in early life. I don’t see it as a black Font of Evil, but a sad, unbroken chain of generations of neglect and pain. I think it is combatable, and I do think it’s worth our lives to combat it.)

Perfect example, we agree and disagree - I agree whole heartedly that we must do all we can to relieve suffering and redeem lives and combat evil. I also know that evil has a source, the source has a terrable purpose, and that to we must oppose it with courage and resolve. Freewill - some, few, people choose to serve that purpose, but they can be redeemed.

I
Finella said:
nteresting point, however, Rev. Smith – about how scripture gives authority to certain people under certain circumstances to kill, but it is more virtuous not to do so (e.g., your example of early Christian martyrs). So there’s a gray area here? A spectrum of virtue?
I agree with you wholeheartedly there, my friend.

There must be a spectrum of virtue, the church has recognised this since the beginning - what are Saints? Ordinary men and women who lived lives (or commited a single act) of such extrordinary virtue that they are worthy of emulation, so we commmorate them and tell our children the stories of ther lives.

A policeman who shoots down a mad killer on a rampage has properly used his authority, the same policeman who risks his own safety to subdue the killer and bring him to jail, and possable redemption along with his punishment has both used his authority and upheld the sanctity of life. Both are morally correct, one is a Saint.

Finella said:
You have me confused here. How is it that using our God-given reason and logic, common sense, if you will, to make an argument taking away from your right to form morals from God’s revelation? Is not God inherent in this reasoning as well? If there’s perfectly good secular arguments against the death penalty, then that’s simply a reflection of God’s creation in the matter – demonstrating the natural reason to oppose it. It’s built into creation. It’s so obvious (e.g., it’s just wrong to kill another person, and vengeance doesn’t solve anything) that anyone can see it.

You missed my point - there is nothng wrong with using reason, the image of God in which we were made. I was making a larger point. That the humanist has no right to impose his morality on me. It always struck me as ironic that so many atheists assert that Christians have no right to impose their religious morals on them, then go on to demand that in discussions we must prove a point only by recourse to reason and science. I have the right to make moral conclusions, and to the method I arrive at.

In the instance I was discussing that is exactly what had happended, I asserted that I thought the death penalty was immoral becasue there were too many holes in it how we did it, that government ignored and overlooked to many times that prosecutors who surpressed evidence, cops who hid exculpitory witnesses and so on - that government was murdering people to close cases. That too often we, collectivly (government is US after all) are guilty of murder in the name of justice. After much back and forth my friend demanded (veins now bugeing at his neck) that I prove it, without all the "God talk" - becasue if I could not prove a point by reason then I had no right to impose the view - WRONG. one man one vote.

Whenever I can, I vote for aid to the poor, against capitol punishment and abortion and for peace. All becasue that is part of what I believe God wants from us.

Finella said:
Thank you for the civilized debate... quite stimulating. I knew we could behave. :D

You're welcome.
 
Upvote 0

Fish and Bread

Dona nobis pacem
Jan 31, 2005
14,109
2,389
✟60,685.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Rev. Smith said:
show me that God desires that we abort babies, kill malefactors and starve the poor to provide tax cuts for the comfortable and I'll sign right up.

Why would you be willing to accept evil like starving people just because a powerful being might tell you to? I'm just not able to relate to that as moral behavior. Morality isn't doing whatever the most powerful being around happens to tell one to do, it's acting with love and respecting the worth and dignity of every human being.
 
Upvote 0

Rev. Smith

Old Catholic Priest
Jun 29, 2004
1,114
139
67
Tucson, AZ
Visit site
✟9,505.00
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Fish and Bread said:
Why would you be willing to accept evil like starving people just because a powerful being might tell you to? I'm just not able to relate to that as moral behavior. Morality isn't doing whatever the most powerful being around happens to tell one to do, it's acting with love and respecting the worth and dignity of every human being.

a powerful being who desires all those things, and more - and many are in it sway, he's called the Bright Angel.

I thin maybe your irony meter is broken, since it seems impossable that God would ever favor such things, its pretty safe to agree to them.
 
Upvote 0

Fish and Bread

Dona nobis pacem
Jan 31, 2005
14,109
2,389
✟60,685.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Rev. Smith said:
a powerful being who desires all those things, and more - and many are in it sway, he's called the Bright Angel.

I thin maybe your irony meter is broken, since it seems impossable that God would ever favor such things, its pretty safe to agree to them.

What if God did favor such things, or something else that was equally morally repugnant, though? Would you feel obliged to follow him? The issue I describe is potentially real to many of us, who believe that hell and other things are immoral concepts. There's something about following someone no matter what they say that seems a little dangerous to me, no matter how great that someone may seem.
 
Upvote 0

Simon_Templar

Not all who wander are lost
Jun 29, 2004
7,692
1,040
49
Visit site
✟32,462.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
On the monitoring of communications look up information on "ECHELON"

here is the wikipedia entry on it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

This program has been used to monitor virtually every form of electronic communications from phone calls to emails to text messages etc, and virtually everywhere int he world including the US. It has frequently been used without court orders etc.
Much of the system's assests are located outside the US and since there are several nations which are partners in the system, it is relatively easy to monitor domestic communications without having to bother with constitutionality or other legal concerns. After all its not unconstitutional for the UK or NZ to monitor communications within the US.

60 minutes even did a show on this back in 2000 talking about how ECHELON was being used to monitor almost everything world wide. In the EU the governments even issued warnings to people that they should make use of cryptology if they wanted to make sure their communications were private.


As for the national parks..

This has been going on since before Clinton, but he played a role in significantly advancing it. The UN has an sub-organization known as UNESCO which has had a long history of controversy because it has been seen as a puppet of communist ideologues to push communist ideology on the world and to stifle freedom of the press etc. Because of those reasons the US and UK both widrew from UNESCO in the 80's (if memory serves) but later rejoined.

One of the programs UNESCO runs is the World heretiges sites list. This is a list of locations around the world which are seen as "world heretige treasures" and as such belonging to all people. Technically the sites on the list remain the "property" of what ever nation they are in, but once on the list the UN has the right to monitor and control the sites.

One such example was under the clinton administration there was a mine operating near or in the yellowstone area. The mine had been approved by the US government and checked out by the EPA, but UNESCO didn't like it so they got Clinton to declare yellowstone part of the world heretige project and immediately shut down the mine.

The house of representatives passed a bill requiring that any further additions to the list must be passed through congress first, but the senate would not even let the bill come to a vote.


Here is a short list of executive orders (by their number) issued by Clinton and basicly what they enable the executive office to do "in a state of emergency".

10995: Right to seize all communications media in the United States.

10997: Right to seize all electric power, fuels and minerals, both public and private.

10999: Right to seize all means of transportation, including personal vehicles of any
kind and total control of highways, seaports and waterways.

11000: Right to seize any and all American people and divide up families in order to create work forces to be transferred to any place the government sees fit.

11001: Right to seize all health, education and welfare facilities, both public and private.

11002: Right to force registration of all men, women and children in the United States.

11003: Right to seize all air space, airports and aircraft.

11004: Right to seize all housing and finance authorities in order to establish "Relocation Designated Areas" and to force abandonment of areas classified as "unsafe".

11005: Right to seize all railroads, inland waterways, and storage facilities, both public and private.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Fish and Bread

Dona nobis pacem
Jan 31, 2005
14,109
2,389
✟60,685.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Simon, respectfully, I'm going to need something more official than what you're providing before I'm going to believe such serious allegations. If this executive orders are legitimate, why haven't they been challenged in the courts, or publicized in the media?
 
Upvote 0

Simon_Templar

Not all who wander are lost
Jun 29, 2004
7,692
1,040
49
Visit site
✟32,462.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Well this is embarassing.. I must confess an error. I attributed the previous list of executive orders to Bill Clinton.. in fact, I misread my source and that particular list is all from JFK.. in any case, you can read the actuall executive orders by going to google and searching for "EO10995" (for example).

The text I was reading was talking about how Clinton issued more executive orders than any other president (averaging one a week, for most of his terms, and at the end of his terms breaking the record for last minute orders previously set by Jimmy Carter). I saw the list of orders here and assumed that they were from clinton. It was infact just showing how the US government has been set up for along time to take control in an emergency situation and basicly revoke individual freedoms and essentially, the constitution.

I'll see if I can dig up some ones specific to Clinton
 
Upvote 0

Rev. Smith

Old Catholic Priest
Jun 29, 2004
1,114
139
67
Tucson, AZ
Visit site
✟9,505.00
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Fish and Bread said:
What if God did favor such things, or something else that was equally morally repugnant, though? Would you feel obliged to follow him? The issue I describe is potentially real to many of us, who believe that hell and other things are immoral concepts. There's something about following someone no matter what they say that seems a little dangerous to me, no matter how great that someone may seem.

You make several different points here, all valid - but many are conceptual. I'll try to take each question in its turn..

Question: Is God immoral for allowing some souls to reside in hell? Is it just that offenses here on earth during our short lives merit eternal punishment?

Answer: Yes to both. St. Paul teaches that the very purpose of our lives (not just Chrisitians, but all mankind) is to seek God, to feel our way to God and come to know and serve him. We are here on earth to be refined as an insturment for his use. Those insturments that don't work are discarded.

Now, how many will fall into that category - not many and only those who choose. St. Peter promised us that during the three days between the passion and easter Jesus preached to the souls in hell. This is no longer a matter of faith, the belief in things unseen - these are folks who lived, died and came to awarenes of the eternal nature of the soul. Jesus appearing to them required no leap of faith - it was proof that he was the incarnation, an avater of God.

Jesus promised, again and again that his purpose was to redeem mankind. Is it then possable that Jesus preaching to the dead was some pointless excercise? That he was simply killing a little time between appearences? I think the conclusion that Jesus preached to the damned was for one purpose only, to allow them to be redeemed.

Those who stayed in hell, who refused repentance in the very face of God probably belong there. This leaves only one question - was it a one shot? If you read in Revelation this is hard to conclude, God clealry traffics with all the souls there are, both bound to earth and not. If repentance is available to the dead, that we in the next life are able to turn away from the choices we made in life and be refashioned into God's insturment then hell is populated only by those souls that choose to remain.

There seems to be a lot of agreement on this truth. The Jehovah religions (ours, Judaism, Islam) all see life as a one shot, with eternty to follow. The Buddhist, Tao and Hindu see earth as "hell", you keep coming back here until you are perfected and then move on. Both say the same thing (if you understand the implications of Jesus decending into hell to preach to the damned) - That we are crafted until perfect, that only those who are so given over to evil that it consumes their souls and is their soul's only delight will remain forever in the realm of evil. Will the last demon to leave please turn out the light.

Question: If God were immorral or cruel would it be moral to follow God?

Answer: Some propose that Yahweh and Satan are but single faces of the same being. To the Hindus there is only one God (not triune or divided), who has 999 million names and avatars.

Ying nad Yang: duality. This is possable, but a far simpler answer strikes me as true:

If God were evil he would not be God. So the aswer to your question is, no I would not serve a creture who demanded evil of me. But I would not be rejecting God, I would be rejecting one of the dark Angels deceiving me into thinking it was a Lord of Light. This does not mean that I understand all that God has revealed, some of it seems profoundly weird - but you know what, look at Revelation again - ignore the prophetic stuff, its pointless anyway (no man shall know the hour) -just read and absorb the descriptions of the Kingdom, it is a profoundly weird place. It is an eteranal place.

And that leads to the final thought. Many rail at the cruelty of God becasue children die young, disasters kill thousands and so on. To us, living the full sweetness of life on this lovly orb it seems tragic. Yet if the next stop is eternity in a place of magic, wonder, delight and divine purpose just how tragic is it?

I believe that a lot of the angst people feel over the cruelty of God has more to do with point of view - we don't understand that the next stop is a place of wonder and joy and important work of eaons duration.

Hope it helps.
 
Upvote 0

Fish and Bread

Dona nobis pacem
Jan 31, 2005
14,109
2,389
✟60,685.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Simon_Templar said:
Well this is embarassing.. I must confess an error. I attributed the previous list of executive orders to Bill Clinton.. in fact, I misread my source and that particular list is all from JFK.. in any case, you can read the actuall executive orders by going to google and searching for "EO10995" (for example).

http://www.uhuh.com/laws/donncoll/eo/1962/EO10995.TXT is one URL that claims to include the text of EO10995. I'm not sure I trust the link because it is from a conspiracy website rather than an official source, but even so I don't see where it does what you claim. Could you please cite the section number you believe contains the authorization that you have cited as objectionable?

The text I was reading was talking about how Clinton issued more executive orders than any other president

This was true for a while, however, President Bush (II) has surpassed Clinton's record for number of executive orders by a significant margin already, less than halfway through his second term. Laws rarely get signed these days without an "executive interpretation" attached by President Bush.
 
Upvote 0

Fish and Bread

Dona nobis pacem
Jan 31, 2005
14,109
2,389
✟60,685.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Rev. Smith said:
Question: Is God immoral for allowing some souls to reside in hell? Is it just that offenses here on earth during our short lives merit eternal punishment?

Answer: Yes to both. St. Paul teaches that the very purpose of our lives (not just Chrisitians, but all mankind) is to seek God, to feel our way to God and come to know and serve him. We are here on earth to be refined as an insturment for his use. Those insturments that don't work are discarded.

There are a couple of issues there. Firstly, St. Paul's writings are treated as authorative, even though you've said in the past that you don't believe that they are. What if one simply disagrees with St. Paul on that issue, as you do with him on other issues?

Secondly, don't you feel that life and souls are more meaningful than simple instruments that can be disgarded? And even if they are simply instruments and tools that can be disgarded, is that any reason for torture? Why not simply destory the instrument? I see what you're getting at, but I just feel like in my heart it's something I can't agree with.

Now, how many will fall into that category - not many and only those who choose.

How do you know that the answer is not many? Didn't Jesus himself say that the road is narrow and that many don't enter the gates?

St. Peter promised us that during the three days between the passion and easter Jesus preached to the souls in hell. This is no longer a matter of faith, the belief in things unseen - these are folks who lived, died and came to awarenes of the eternal nature of the soul. Jesus appearing to them required no leap of faith - it was proof that he was the incarnation, an avater of God.

Jesus promised, again and again that his purpose was to redeem mankind. Is it then possable that Jesus preaching to the dead was some pointless excercise? That he was simply killing a little time between appearences? I think the conclusion that Jesus preached to the damned was for one purpose only, to allow them to be redeemed.

Those who stayed in hell, who refused repentance in the very face of God probably belong there. This leaves only one question - was it a one shot? If you read in Revelation this is hard to conclude, God clealry traffics with all the souls there are, both bound to earth and not. If repentance is available to the dead, that we in the next life are able to turn away from the choices we made in life and be refashioned into God's insturment then hell is populated only by those souls that choose to remain.

Has the church as a whole ever believed that people are given a chance to change after death, though? Hasn't the Catholic teachings always been that with the end of life comes an irrevocable judgement? There is some notion of purgatory, but I was always taught that was simply a refining of people who were already guaranteed to be in heaven eventually. What you're saying is interesting, and logical, but I am wondering where it fits in with the faith as a whole and the whole continuity with history issue. I know you're a deep thinker and it would be interesting to learn how you reconcile it.

If God were evil he would not be God. So the aswer to your question is, no I would not serve a creture who demanded evil of me. But I would not be rejecting God, I would be rejecting one of the dark Angels deceiving me into thinking it was a Lord of Light.

Hypothetically, let's say there was no good God and instead an evil or morally ambigious being had created the universe and this being alone was all powerful. What would be your response to him?

And that leads to the final thought. Many rail at the cruelty of God becasue children die young, disasters kill thousands and so on. To us, living the full sweetness of life on this lovly orb it seems tragic. Yet if the next stop is eternity in a place of magic, wonder, delight and divine purpose just how tragic is it?

That's a good point, but if some wind up in a place of eternal torture, then for them the tragedies of this life are but a prelude to worse. Anyhow, I'm not really discussing the problems of this life so much as the traditional model of the hereafter -- that's what really bothers me.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Rev. Smith

Old Catholic Priest
Jun 29, 2004
1,114
139
67
Tucson, AZ
Visit site
✟9,505.00
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Fish and Bread said:
There are a couple of issues there. Firstly, St. Paul's writings are treated as authorative, even though you've said in the past that you don't believe that they are. What if one simply disagrees with St. Paul on that issue, as you do with him on other issues?

I consider the entire canon to have authority. The differance between our group and others is how we do theology, not what we consider to be athorotative. We proceed from the assumption that Jesus, as the incarnation of God on earth, is the highest authority - therefore we conform our understanding of any passage of scripture to conform to the teachings of Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels.

Thus if Paul appears to teach that faith alone is required, but Jesus teaches that we must feed his sheep to have eternal life then we conform our understanding of Paul to Jesus. I agree with Paul on every issue, so long as it is understiood as supporting and upholding the teachings of Jesus.

Fish and Bread said:
Secondly, don't you feel that life and souls are more meaningful than simple instruments that can be disgarded? And even if they are simply instruments and tools that can be disgarded, is that any reason for torture? Why not simply destory the instrument? I see what you're getting at, but I just feel like in my heart it's something I can't agree with.

Life, no - it is transitory. I value my life, and enjoy most of it. I am glad that God put my soul into a baby that my mother refrained from aborting. But if I die tomorrow I will acord it no great loss.

Souls, they are infinatly valuable. God has taught us that, we were worth enough to him to live our lives, to bind himself to space and time so that he could suffer, die and rise again - giving miraculous witness to his teachings. He gives us this life to learn and choose God, he gives us repentence in the next.



Fish and Bread said:
How do you know that the answer is not many? Didn't Jesus himself say that the road is narrow and that many don't enter the gates?

I don't KNOW - but it takes little imagination to surmise, standing before the face of God, being offered forgivenss, love and renewal how many do we expect will say "no"?



Fish and Bread said:
Has the church as a whole ever believed that people are given a chance to change after death, though? Hasn't the Catholic teachings always been that with the end of life comes an irrevocable judgement? There is some notion of purgatory, but I was always taught that was simply a refining of people who were already guaranteed to be in heaven eventually. What you're saying is interesting, and logical, but I am wondering where it fits in with the faith as a whole and the whole continuity with history issue. I know you're a deep thinker and it would be interesting to learn how you reconcile it.

Reconcile the Catholic teacings on purgatory, it is the exact same concept with a little punishment thrown in. I suspect this doctrne, even if untrue is wise - it would be too easy for a believer to decide that I can have my fun in life and then repent in purgatory later, so we present it as a place of suffering that we should avoide - it comes to the same thing, only the most reprobate of souls are denied salvation.

The simple answer is that only some of the more alarming of Protestant cults deny the majesty of God, to teach that God may not offer mercy and repentence after death is to limit God.



Fish and Bread said:
Hypothetically, let's say there was no good God and instead an evil or morally ambigious being had created the universe and this being alone was all powerful. What would be your response to him?

Can't say - what does he want?
 
Upvote 0

Fish and Bread

Dona nobis pacem
Jan 31, 2005
14,109
2,389
✟60,685.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Rev. Smith said:
I consider the entire canon to have authority. The differance between our group and others is how we do theology, not what we consider to be athorotative. We proceed from the assumption that Jesus, as the incarnation of God on earth, is the highest authority - therefore we conform our understanding of any passage of scripture to conform to the teachings of Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels.

Thus if Paul appears to teach that faith alone is required, but Jesus teaches that we must feed his sheep to have eternal life then we conform our understanding of Paul to Jesus. I agree with Paul on every issue, so long as it is understiood as supporting and upholding the teachings of Jesus.

Interesting. Thanks for clarification. Does your approach lead you to any doctrinal conclusions that are different from mainstream Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or Anglo-Catholicism on any key issue? When I heard a briefer summary, it sounded kind of radical, but the way it's explained above, it almost just seems like a new method used to explanation and further justify traditional assumptions, on the surface of things.

Souls, they are infinatly valuable. God has taught us that, we were worth enough to him to live our lives, to bind himself to space and time so that he could suffer, die and rise again - giving miraculous witness to his teachings. He gives us this life to learn and choose God, he gives us repentence in the next.

That's a beautiful way of phrasing things. It's in it's own way wonderful imagery, which is part of what draws me to Christianity, but it's when I stop to really think it through that the ethics of it become questionable to me, oddly enough. I get the feeling that for most people, it's the other way around.

I don't KNOW - but it takes little imagination to surmise, standing before the face of God, being offered forgivenss, love and renewal how many do we expect will say "no"?

Reconcile the Catholic teacings on purgatory, it is the exact same concept with a little punishment thrown in. I suspect this doctrne, even if untrue is wise - it would be too easy for a believer to decide that I can have my fun in life and then repent in purgatory later, so we present it as a place of suffering that we should avoide - it comes to the same thing, only the most reprobate of souls are denied salvation.

How do you reconcile this view that repentence after death is possible with the parable about Lazarous and the unbridgeable chasm? I've always understood the Roman Catholic doctrine on purgatory to be that it's a place for those who embrace God or would have embraced him had they known the gospel, to be purified of their sins -- which would mean that people who are apostate would not be given one last chance, but go straight to hell.

Hypothetically, let's say there was no good God and instead an evil or morally ambigious being had created the universe and this being alone was all powerful. What would be your response to him?

Can't say - what does he want?

Let's say his goal was to have a cadre of loyal servants that he'd reward and then to punish all of his enemies brutally and watch them suffer, having determined who fits into which category based on arbitrary whims and assumptions. How would you feel about such a being?
 
Upvote 0

Simon_Templar

Not all who wander are lost
Jun 29, 2004
7,692
1,040
49
Visit site
✟32,462.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
EO10995 created a new position in the "office of emergency planning" which was one of the for runners of FEMA. The new position was "director of telecommunications". (sec 1)

Sec 3 delegates to this director the authority to assign to the control of government agencies for their usage, any radio frequency. It also gives him authority to ammend, mofify or revoke any frequency assignment.

Sec 3 appears at first blush to be merely talking about management of government agencies and their telecommunications, however..

sec 6 lays out the purposes for which the order is intended and the director is supposed to operate.

Sub sec. a - Full employment of telecommunication resources for implementation of national policies

Sub sec. b - Development of plans and policies for the development of Telecommunications resources for the nation AND for users of telecommunications, in the interests of national security, and world trade and commerce

Sub c - utilization of "the radio spectrum" (meaning all freuqencies) in the manner most beneficial for the public interests

Sub d - implementation of national policy on the development and use of satalites for international telecommunications.

The only caveat on this order is section 7 which states that the order does not "impair" the jurisdiction of the FCC.

However in sec. 10 all executive and federal government agencies are authorized and ordered to cooperate and assist the Director (this of course includes the FCC).

In looking at Clinton, the worst of his orders is EO13083 (which was then replaced with 13132 by clinton). this order on federalism essentially revokes the 10th amendment and redefines the balance of power and jurisdiction between states and the federal government.
Bush has not revoked this order and several attempts to revoke it by congress have either been stalled or are pending.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Simon_Templar

Not all who wander are lost
Jun 29, 2004
7,692
1,040
49
Visit site
✟32,462.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Fish and Bread said:
So, in other words, the government holds the airways in trust for the people. Hasn't that been the case ever since the dawn of radio transmission?

no its only been the case since the government said it was the case.

Executive orders are problematic because in principle (for the last 50 years or so) they have been a violation of the constitutional seperation of powers. They are, in effect, laws promulgated by decree from the executive branch.

The government has legitimate power to regulate telecommunications etc, the problem is when that legitimate authority is able to be exercised without the due process demanded by the constitution.

Since Herbert Hoover, executive orders have been used to vastly increase the power of the executive branch. Since at least the 1970's the Executive branch has actively drilled troops for detainment and management of the US civilian population, "in emergency drills" Many of the executive orders I listed were specificly put into effect for "emergency" situations or through the emergency planning office (Which powers FEMA now holds). This has gone on under both Republican and Democratic administrations. One of the more well known of these operations was in 1984, under Reagan, and was overseen and run by Oliver North. (it was actually addressed during the Iran Contra hearings).

I end up defending Bush sometimes because of two reasons, #1 he's done some things that I agree with. For example, I think we had every right (legal and moral) to go to war in Iraq. My only objections to the war are that I thought even back when it started we should have gone after Iran or maybe Syria, because I believed they were bigger terrorism threats. Also I think the war was framed on the wrong terms, which is why we are having the difficulties we now are.
#2 Most liberals I've encountered hate Bush for all the wrong reasons, and mainly because they are towing the party line that the talking heads dished out to them. Or they hate him because they think he's a conservative (when he's really not that conservative at all).

Personally I've never trusted Bush, I have always opposed such things as the patriot act and the department of homeland security etc. The government doesn't need more expansive powers to fight the war on terror.. The only thing that has ever hampered our efforts to make war on terrorism, or held us back, etc, has been politics and lack of resolve, not lack of power or lack of infrastructure.



I appologize for getting this tangent started :) I didn't mean to derail the thread, but I, by nature, will blather on about any tanget practically, if you get me going.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.