Catholic Cardinal calls the election of Obama "Apocalyptic"

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Hope you aren't including me in that. I have great respect for Catholics. They pay no attention to the church that commands them to squirt out a new Catholic every nine months and teaches this violence toward women. It is a broken religion caught in the horror of absolutism, but the faithful aren't faithful. It's great. Every religion should have people as smart as Catholics.
No, I wasn't including you. I think that you have moved beyond hating everyone. I do feel that it's unfortunate that you favor relativism over absolutism, but that's another discussion entirely. And no, I'm not saying that the Church's absolute standards would be my absolute standards.
 

microbial

Senior member
Oct 10, 2008
350
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: microbial
Very simply, Cardinal James Francis Stafford, head of the Apostolic Penitentiary of the Holy See, has no credible argument or critique (or whatever) on the next administration, if it is based on his religious beliefs in God and jesus Christ.

Now you may ask yourself why--a very legitimate question.

Read my posts for your answer.
Your tack wasn't working, so I guess it was time to try a new one. Or did you already forget your original statement - that the Bible is just a book of mythology?

My original statement (first time I quote myself in this forum):

You know, Judaism was a pretty reasonable set of didactic concepts codified into myths, legends and stories for their time.

It's too bad that all derivative religions stemming from Judaism. like Catholicism, and Islam, and of course all the protestant sub-sub derivatives have taken the tactic of saying that all these stories and myths weren't just vehicles and mechanisms for teaching (and also for controlling social behavior), but beyond that that these things really happened.

At some point you have to do the courageous thing, look at the absolute lack of objective evidence (100% lack of any evidence) and say God and other myths were/are only social teaching tools, constructed by humans. Nothing else.

All my subsequent posts to this thread have been consistent with my first posting.
 

Mani

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2001
4,808
1
0
Just another example of theocratic idiocy. I don't expect him to represent all catholics.
 

Madwand1

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2006
3,309
0
76
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I don't think anyone will argue that the Church has had its problems with corruption and hypocrisy over the years. However, that doesn't tell us anything about the validity of the message. The core message of human dignity has been championed by many of the greatest philosophers in history, some of whom happened to be Catholic and some of whom weren't. That's the great thing about philosophy: even though every human is a hypocrite, philosophy still allows us to reach for the Platonic form which is perfect. We are simply frustrated because we will never reach it, but that doesn't diminish its value.

Yes, but this is all the more reason to detect and avoid hypocrisy, particularly when it comes from a mostly self-appointed position of divine height.

The cardinal's taking of the religious right's position in Catholic terms is punctured by its fundamental hypocrisy of decrying the state's oppressive power over the individual exactly in such cases, where the state is not expressing its power over the individual and his or her own choice of interpretation of spirituality and the good life, but rather asserting the individual's right to a freedom of oppression from the government of a church.
 

LumbergTech

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2005
3,622
1
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Hope you aren't including me in that. I have great respect for Catholics. They pay no attention to the church that commands them to squirt out a new Catholic every nine months and teaches this violence toward women. It is a broken religion caught in the horror of absolutism, but the faithful aren't faithful. It's great. Every religion should have people as smart as Catholics.
No, I wasn't including you. I think that you have moved beyond hating everyone. I do feel that it's unfortunate that you favor relativism over absolutism, but that's another discussion entirely. And no, I'm not saying that the Church's absolute standards would be my absolute standards.

its absolutely relative
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Are you surprised he said this? Do you think he's being overdramatic from his perspective? If you answer yes to either of these questions, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

That Obama campaigned aggressively regarding the "right to choose" is pretty much indisputable. That's the one talking point from his campaign that he was crystal clear about. That the dignity of human life is important to Catholic theology is no surprise - it has been one of the cornerstones for well over 1500 years. I'll also point out that the Catholic view of something that is "apocalyptic" is not the same as what a fundamentalist thinks is apocalyptic. For a fundamentalist, the apocalypse is the end of the world. For Catholics, it's more of a game-changer or a paradigm shift. That said, I don't think anyone would disagree that the election of Obama is certainly a paradigm shift in the history of the US and probably the world.

except for a few million native americans, and european heretics, oh and a few million jews, gypsies, and gays exterminated by the axis powers..

plrase show me examples of contemporary catholic theological outrage over the practice of economic slavery practiced in the 15th-19th centuries ?




 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,237
6,338
126
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Hope you aren't including me in that. I have great respect for Catholics. They pay no attention to the church that commands them to squirt out a new Catholic every nine months and teaches this violence toward women. It is a broken religion caught in the horror of absolutism, but the faithful aren't faithful. It's great. Every religion should have people as smart as Catholics.
No, I wasn't including you. I think that you have moved beyond hating everyone. I do feel that it's unfortunate that you favor relativism over absolutism, but that's another discussion entirely. And no, I'm not saying that the Church's absolute standards would be my absolute standards.

Well, it's a difficult problem. I favor relativism when it's somebody else's absolutes and absolutes when they are mine.

I set out to find the absolute truth when I was young and read everything about it I could find, but I discovered that all the wise men were liars and fools, that there is no truth at all. In the process, of course, I destroyed all hope I had for my life. In that black and hopeless place I found that Zen Masters were saying the same thing. "Not a tile above or a place to put your foot, but to my enormous rage they said it while smiling. They spoke of a man chased over a cliff by a tiger clinging to a root and looking down to the jaws of another tiger. Hanging there weakening, he espied a strawberry which he plucked and it tasted so good. There is no truth but there is the infinite joy of being. The absolute is what is left when everything that can be taken is taken.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Madwand1
Yes, but this is all the more reason to detect and avoid hypocrisy, particularly when it comes from a mostly self-appointed position of divine height.

The cardinal's taking of the religious right's position in Catholic terms is punctured by its fundamental hypocrisy of decrying the state's oppressive power over the individual exactly in such cases, where the state is not expressing its power over the individual and his or her own choice of interpretation of spirituality and the good life, but rather asserting the individual's right to a freedom of oppression from the government of a church.
This is only ironic or hypocrisy if you don't understand their position - that the zygote/embryo/fetus has the same right to self-determination as the one who would abort it. To those who understand this position, his statements are entirely consistent.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,237
6,338
126
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Madwand1
Yes, but this is all the more reason to detect and avoid hypocrisy, particularly when it comes from a mostly self-appointed position of divine height.

The cardinal's taking of the religious right's position in Catholic terms is punctured by its fundamental hypocrisy of decrying the state's oppressive power over the individual exactly in such cases, where the state is not expressing its power over the individual and his or her own choice of interpretation of spirituality and the good life, but rather asserting the individual's right to a freedom of oppression from the government of a church.
This is only ironic or hypocrisy if you don't understand their position - that the zygote/embryo/fetus has the same right to self-determination as the one who would abort it. To those who understand this position, his statements are entirely consistent.

Not so, because an absolute of that magnitude leads inevitably to the notion that a women is a slave. This is why their position is wrong, it leads to the violation of another absolute, that we are free. They just deny the conflict because they are moral cowards and refuse to bend.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
I wonder if it is possible to be relativism bound given our own bias that clouds what we observe using our own senses..

ergo, given that monism is true and I've stated my opinion which is, indeed, universalism in context which leads to absolutism because of my obvious objectivism...
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,237
6,338
126
Originally posted by: LunarRay
I wonder if it is possible to be relativism bound given our own bias that clouds what we observe using our own senses..

ergo, given that monism is true and I've stated my opinion which is, indeed, universalism in context which leads to absolutism because of my obvious objectivism...

When one monkey gets a big reward for doing something and another gets a small one, if that continues the low reward monkey won't play. I think we are hard wired for justice. How we interpret what we feel, and especially how we block what we feel is where relativity comes into play, in my opinion.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: LunarRay
I wonder if it is possible to be relativism bound given our own bias that clouds what we observe using our own senses..

ergo, given that monism is true and I've stated my opinion which is, indeed, universalism in context which leads to absolutism because of my obvious objectivism...

When one monkey gets a big reward for doing something and another gets a small one, if that continues the low reward monkey won't play. I think we are hard wired for justice. How we interpret what we feel, and especially how we block what we feel is where relativity comes into play, in my opinion.


All Monkeys are created equal and are imbued with the same fundamental rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.. Why should a monkey expect to be treated in a less beneficial manner than the next monkey? They see that as injustice and it is that notion of justice which can only be diminished by the reward giver that creates the resulting notion of "the only way to win is not to play". Monkeys know the extent of their ability to control a situation to equality... Humans are a bit sharper and know that too... but battery is an illegal event so they resort to other means to insure their rewards are greater thus indicating to the other Human monkeys their status among the un-evolved..
 

Madwand1

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2006
3,309
0
76
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
This is only ironic or hypocrisy if you don't understand their position - that the zygote/embryo/fetus has the same right to self-determination as the one who would abort it. To those who understand this position, his statements are entirely consistent.

His statements are not consistent, despite the recognition of that tenuous claim. It is fundamentally hypocritical and intellectually dishonest to claim that the state is exceeding its bounds in this context of separation of church and state while engaging in a political contest to impose the will of a church on the entire population to deny them the ability to choose and to even deny them the ability to use birth control.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: XMan
So essentially, if a religious persion of a right-leaning political persuasion says something contrary to your beliefs, then it's "another example of the nuttiness of the extremely religious", but if Louis Farrakhan proclaims Obama the Messiah, you have no comment?

Show me 1 person who defends or has defended Farrakhan on this forum.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,237
6,338
126
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: XMan
So essentially, if a religious persion of a right-leaning political persuasion says something contrary to your beliefs, then it's "another example of the nuttiness of the extremely religious", but if Louis Farrakhan proclaims Obama the Messiah, you have no comment?

Show me 1 person who defends or has defended Farrakhan on this forum.

Hell, I'll take just one here who'd recognize the Savior if He bit him on the ass. The Savior is always hidden by concealed prejudice. The Savior is always a monster and the maximum evil because he comes to destroy the your ego.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Not so, because an absolute of that magnitude leads inevitably to the notion that a women is a slave. This is why their position is wrong, it leads to the violation of another absolute, that we are free. They just deny the conflict because they are moral cowards and refuse to bend.
This is only true if a hierarchy of goods is not established. Thankfully, our own nation has just such a hierarchy: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, in that order. Thus, if I say that I am free to kill a person, I am violating the hierarchy since life is a greater good than freedom. The hierarchy itself may be debated, as I am sure that you will argue that freedom is a greater good than life, but without life none of the other measures exist in this context.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Madwand1
His statements are not consistent, despite the recognition of that tenuous claim. It is fundamentally hypocritical and intellectually dishonest to claim that the state is exceeding its bounds in this context of separation of church and state while engaging in a political contest to impose the will of a church on the entire population to deny them the ability to choose and to even deny them the ability to use birth control.
Of course what you say is true in a relativist environment. Which once again serves to demonstrate that you don't understand the context of the statements. The Catholic viewpoint is that moral absolutes exist and are well-established. In that context, he states that it is unacceptable that this nation moves to secure a "right" to something which is absolutely wrong. Since the role of government is, above all else, to protect the life of its citizens, his statement is consistent because he sees that the government is neglecting the lives of some of its citizens for the convenience of others. Thus, there is no grounds for a claim of intellectual dishonesty, especially stemming from one as yourself who doesn't understand the fundamental tenets of his intellectual worldview.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,237
6,338
126
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Not so, because an absolute of that magnitude leads inevitably to the notion that a women is a slave. This is why their position is wrong, it leads to the violation of another absolute, that we are free. They just deny the conflict because they are moral cowards and refuse to bend.
This is only true if a hierarchy of goods is not established. Thankfully, our own nation has just such a hierarchy: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, in that order. Thus, if I say that I am free to kill a person, I am violating the hierarchy since life is a greater good than freedom. The hierarchy itself may be debated, as I am sure that you will argue that freedom is a greater good than life, but without life none of the other measures exist in this context.

The clash of absolutes was alleviated by practical people by adjusting the notion of WHEN life begins. The hierarchy is thus preserved just as it was by ancient Jews with the concept of life as breath.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,237
6,338
126
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Madwand1
His statements are not consistent, despite the recognition of that tenuous claim. It is fundamentally hypocritical and intellectually dishonest to claim that the state is exceeding its bounds in this context of separation of church and state while engaging in a political contest to impose the will of a church on the entire population to deny them the ability to choose and to even deny them the ability to use birth control.
Of course what you say is true in a relativist environment. Which once again serves to demonstrate that you don't understand the context of the statements. The Catholic viewpoint is that moral absolutes exist and are well-established. In that context, he states that it is unacceptable that this nation moves to secure a "right" to something which is absolutely wrong. Since the role of government is, above all else, to protect the life of its citizens, his statement is consistent because he sees that the government is neglecting the lives of some of its citizens for the convenience of others. Thus, there is no grounds for a claim of intellectual dishonesty, especially stemming from one as yourself who doesn't understand the fundamental tenets of his intellectual worldview.

How relative of you. What you call another person's convenience, they call being freed from a living hell.

Like all bigots, you are blinded by the good, the correct certainty that life is precious slopped over onto areas where other truths are trampled. The exercise of truth requires judgment, not inflexibility or fanaticism to a subset of principles.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,134
223
106
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Red Dawn

I didn't know the Vatican had a Prison.

In some ways, many religions ARE prisons... of the mind.

I like the term... Mind Virus. Sadly the cure is death and it keeps spreading like wild fire.

Only a few have been known to make it out alive.
 

Madwand1

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2006
3,309
0
76
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Of course what you say is true in a relativist environment. Which once again serves to demonstrate that you don't understand the context of the statements. The Catholic viewpoint is that moral absolutes exist and are well-established. In that context, he states that it is unacceptable that this nation moves to secure a "right" to something which is absolutely wrong. Since the role of government is, above all else, to protect the life of its citizens, his statement is consistent because he sees that the government is neglecting the lives of some of its citizens for the convenience of others. Thus, there is no grounds for a claim of intellectual dishonesty, especially stemming from one as yourself who doesn't understand the fundamental tenets of his intellectual worldview.

It is very intellectually convenient to hold that moral absolutes exist and to impose them on others based on your faith and then to claim that you're insulated from others' objections because they're not based on a full understanding of your faith. It is intellectually dishonest and hypocritical to base opinions on faith, posit them as absolutes, and then impose them on others with disregard for other beliefs.

The separation of church and state exists precisely to prevent self-justifying theocratic positions such as this from corrupting the nation.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,237
6,338
126
Originally posted by: ericlp
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Red Dawn

I didn't know the Vatican had a Prison.

In some ways, many religions ARE prisons... of the mind.

I like the term... Mind Virus. Sadly the cure is death and it keeps spreading like wild fire.

Only a few have been known to make it out alive.

You still haven't figured out, I see, that the stupidity people have made of religion has nothing to do with real religion. Like most enlightened fools, you threw the baby out with the bath water. Your ego is inflated, but you don't know a damn thing.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: ericlp
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Red Dawn

I didn't know the Vatican had a Prison.

In some ways, many religions ARE prisons... of the mind.

I like the term... Mind Virus. Sadly the cure is death and it keeps spreading like wild fire.

Only a few have been known to make it out alive.

You still haven't figured out, I see, that the stupidity people have made of religion has nothing to do with real religion. Like most enlightened fools, you threw the baby out with the bath water. Your ego is inflated, but you don't know a damn thing.

Totally agree, there's plenty of people who remember what religion is supposed to be about, like this pleasant woman.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: ericlp
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Red Dawn

I didn't know the Vatican had a Prison.

In some ways, many religions ARE prisons... of the mind.

I like the term... Mind Virus. Sadly the cure is death and it keeps spreading like wild fire.

Only a few have been known to make it out alive.

You still haven't figured out, I see, that the stupidity people have made of religion has nothing to do with real religion. Like most enlightened fools, you threw the baby out with the bath water. Your ego is inflated, but you don't know a damn thing.

Totally agree, there's plenty of people who remember what religion is supposed to be about, like this pleasant woman.

Everybody has this image of "crazy Christians" based on what they hear in the media, but it's just not true. Most Christians are normal, decent folks. We don't all blindly follow a bunch of outdated biblical tenets or go all fanatical about every bit of dogma. What I'm trying to say is, don't let the actions of a vocal few color your perceptions about what the majority of us are like.

Like me. I may be a Christian, but it's not like I'm one of those wacko "love your neighbor as yourself " types.

God forbid!

I'm here to tell you there are lots of Christians who aren't anything like the preconceived notions you may have. We're not all into "turning the other cheek." We don't spend our days committing random acts of kindness for no credit. And although we believe that the moral precepts in the Book of Leviticus are the infallible word of God, it doesn't mean we're all obsessed with extremist notions like "righteousness" and "justice."

My faith in the Lord is about the pure, simple values: raising children right, saying grace at the table, strictly forbidding those who are Methodists or Presbyterians from receiving communion because their beliefs are heresies, and curing homosexuals. That's all. Just the core beliefs. You won't see me going on some frothy-mouthed tirade about being a comfort to the downtrodden.

I'm a normal Midwestern housewife. I believe in the basic teachings of the Bible and the church. Divorce is forbidden. A woman is to be an obedient subordinate to the male head of the household. If a man lieth down with another man, they shall be taken out and killed. Things everybody can agree on, like the miracle of glossolalia that occurred during Pentecost, when the Apostles were visited by the Holy Spirit, who took the form of cloven tongues of fire hovering just above their heads. You know, basic common sense stuff.

But that doesn't mean I think people should, like, forgive the sins of those who trespass against them or anything weird like that.

We're not all "Jesus Freaks" who run around screaming about how everyone should "Judge not lest ye be judged," whine "Blessed are the meek" all the time, or drone on and on about how we're all equal in the eyes of God! Some of us are just trying to be good, honest folks who believe the unbaptized will roam the Earth for ages without the comfort of God's love when Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior returns on Judgment Day to whisk the righteous off to heaven.

Now, granted, there are some Christians on the lunatic fringe who take their beliefs a little too far. Take my coworker Karen, for example. She's way off the deep end when it comes to religion: going down to the homeless shelter to volunteer once a month, donating money to the poor, visiting elderly shut-ins with the Meals on Wheels program?you name it!

But believe me, we're not all that way. The people in my church, for the most part, are perfectly ordinary Americans like you and me. They believe in the simple old-fashioned traditions?Christmas, Easter, the slow and deliberate takeover of more and more county school boards to get the political power necessary to ban evolution from textbooks statewide. That sort of thing.

We oppose gay marriage as an abomination against the laws of God and America, we're against gun control, and we fervently and unwaveringly believe that the Jews, Muslims, and all on earth who are not born-again Pentecostalists are possessed by Satan and should be treated as such.

When it comes down to it, all we want is to see every single member of the human race convert to our religion or else be condemned by a jealous and wrathful God to suffer an eternity of agony and torture in the Lake of Fire
!

I hope I've helped set the record straight, and I wish you all a very nice day! God bless you!

I don't know why I bolded anything. The whole thing is :shocked:

Of course, it is The Onion. :p
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The clash of absolutes was alleviated by practical people by adjusting the notion of WHEN life begins. The hierarchy is thus preserved just as it was by ancient Jews with the concept of life as breath.
Correct. Thus, the truth was hidden in favor of convenience, turning the hierarchy on its ear.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
How relative of you. What you call another person's convenience, they call being freed from a living hell.

Like all bigots, you are blinded by the good, the correct certainty that life is precious slopped over onto areas where other truths are trampled. The exercise of truth requires judgment, not inflexibility or fanaticism to a subset of principles.
The living hell that you might free one person from is simply pushed onto another: the mother to the fetus. Truth is what it is, regardless of whether we see it, acknowledge it, or understand it. We can only attempt to understand the form, but that does not diminish its truth. You have decided that truth is relative, but I disagree. Truth is absolute, while our perception of truth is imperfect and, therefore, relative.