But anyway, there is no "side" to this debate. Every one of us has approached the discussion from a different point of view - some a little more... umm... unusual than others.
Biographer John Toland explains Hitler's reason for exterminating the Jews:
"Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, 'I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so,' he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of God. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of God - so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty."[Toland, p. 703]
"If anyone can lay claim to God's help, then it is Hitler, for without God's benevolent fatherly hand, without his blessing, the nation would not be where it stands today. It is an unbelievable miracle that God has bestowed on our people."
-Minister Rust, in a speech to a mass meeting of German Chrisitans on June 29, 1933 [Helmreich, p. 138]
Most dictator thinks that they are gods or hand of the god since written time (Egypt...). Its kind of logical to believe like that, if you have that amount of power over other people.
Hitler's quote is essentially meaningless. All Catholics are always Catholic whether they believe in the teachings of the Church or not. To be confirmed in the Catholic church is to have a mark placed on your soul which can't be erased. That doesn't mean a person will forever be a faithful Catholic... Hitler was essentially insane for thinking he was the "hand of God." There are many crazies throughout history who lay to this claim, or claim to be God Himself, or the reincarnation of Christ. Doesn't make it true, and it doesn't make them faithful Christians.
Minister Rust was not a church pastor. He was one of Hitler's henchmen. All you accomplish with this quote is the emphasis that Hitler tried to use religion to sway the German people to his cause.
I don't think it's any shocker that Hitler made regular use of lies and half-truths to help him rise to and maintain his power.
All I'm saying is that if someone says "I believe in God" and then goes about murdering people, one must wonder what God he professes belief in, whether that belief is true, or whether his idea of God is completely different from normal, sane people.
Hitler's regime murdered priests, nuns, monks, pretty much anyone that defied the State. The tendency for any dictator is to try and stamp out religion because it is a competitive source of power - especially when that dictator considers himself a deity of sorts. Hitler was no exception. The image you posted is an example of Hitler attempting to twist religion to support his regime. Any band of criminals can make a symbol that says "God With Us" to try and gain support.
I see. Well, when people say "abortion is murder," that doesn't necessarily mean they're being ignorant. The argument stems from the idea that personhood exists from conception. Murder is when one human person maliciously ends the life of another, so when you consider an unborn child a person, considering abortion to be murder is only a short logical step from there. Granted, some may not be able to express the connection with so much clarity.
In response to the rest of your post, I must stand firm in my opinion. While it is tragic for women to injure themselves as you describe, it does not justify ending another human life. The fact that women might resort to these measures makes no commentary on whether the unborn child is a human person, and therefore bears no significance in deciding the fundamental issue.
It is impossible to control every action of individuals within a population, whether that's self-induced abortions or other criminal acts like shoplifting or carjacking. There will always be people who are absolutely convinced that they want to do something and nothing in the world can or should stop them. However, this does not mean we should give in to despair and simply make these things legal. I think education might be the best tool society has for stopping undesirable behavior... as well as positive environmental reinforcement from parents, famous persons, teachers, and entertainment media.
The basic premise here is that a righteous course of action is always superior to an unrighteous one, even if the unrighteous course of action is easier or seems to produce better results. It is anti-Machiavellian in that it states "the end does not necessarily justify the means."
I am against pre-marital sex, "pulling out," masturbation, condom usage, artificial insemination, and stem cell research. It's a "seamless garment," as the saying goes. So yes, each of these actions cheapens unborn life in its own way.
The millions of zygotes in storage right now presents a big problem for moralists. I'm not sure what the answer is for them, especially since sinful acts have already been committed to put them in that position. They are still alive so it would not be acceptable to kill them and give them a funeral, and both of the other two options are unsuitable. I haven't done enough research into the topic to come up with a good opinion about it, but I do know it's a contentious issue being debated right now within Catholic circles.
I'm not sure what you mean by your last comment. Do you mean that babies outside the womb are murdered every day? This I know is true, and quite tragic. Obviously I oppose these kinds of acts too.
Rodrigo, let me ask you: If you knew someone was about to commit murder, would you not feel compelled to try to stop them, call the police, or warn the victim? For those who believe the unborn are human persons, that's exactly what abortion is. It isn't about censorship or denying rights or anything like that - it's about defending a life unable to defend itself.
Ooh goody, the debate has shifted to contraception/abortion/stem cell research. Things have gotten interesting once again!
Contraception (the prevention of conception) does not include abortion (the murder of the unborn child.) This is because abortions necessarily take place after conception has already occurred.
I don't think stem cell research directly supports abortion. It certainly cheapens unborn life and thus paves the way for abortion, but this effect is indirect. For the person who considers a human being to be a person post-conception, it matters little where that person is or how it was created. It is still a person deserving dignity and life, therefore any violent acts against it are unjust.
The most fundamental issue in the abortion debate is whether human beings are persons post-conception. Nothing else really matters, because if a pro-abortion person were forced to acknowledge that they were intentionally killing human persons, they would have to acknowledge that they were committing the evil act of murder. The popularity of the movement would plummet to only a few stubborn/crazy activists.
Interpretation with even finding a 'correct' bible is still a serious problem. To illustrate the example, I'll haul in Machiavelli's Il principe; just a couple of weeks ago I learned that his "The end justifies the means" is written as "Si guarda al fine" in Italian, which can better be translated by "One must consider the end", which has a different meaning entirely.
This is one of the reasons why the Catholic church relies on both Sacred Scripture and Tradition when formulating its stances on social issues. It doesn't rely on the currently fashionable translation of the bible or the dictates of a single person, but on the analyses of countless theologians and scholars throughout history, going all the way back to the institution of the religion by Christ Himself.
I agree with you. Don't misunderstand: I am fully aware that my set of beliefs cannot be "proven true" any more than another person's set of beliefs - at least until after death ;)
This awareness prevents me from judging those other people harshly. Everyone is in a different place in their beliefs. Even those who share my faith have their own unique take own it. Don't confuse this with relativism. I firmly believe that there is one ultimate Truth containing the fullness of reality. The disconnect is in how we, as individuals, understand that Truth.
The reason I believe in the religion that I've chosen is because of faith, which is the hardest thing to explain to someone who hasn't experienced it. The best I've been able to do in explaining faith is to relate it to falling in love. You can't say exactly what falling in love is, but you know when it's happening to you. When I say faith, I don't mean following the rules of a religion because it's what your family does. I mean actually believing that God is the master of the universe and that He has an infinitely deep and personal love for every human person. I like to call this genuine belief "owning the religion." It is not merely an aspect of a person's culture, but a fully integrated component of a person's identity.
Faith is not unreasonable in that I cannot allow myself to have faith in something which contradicts observable natural law. For example, I am unable to hold the belief that gravity does not exist when I can clearly observe that it does. Now, there is certainly the possibility for me to rationalize that what I perceive to be gravity is, in reality, an illusion... yet this possibility exists for any human person, regardless of whether he has faith. It's by faith, however, that I accept the image of Reality which God, and by extension of God the Catholic church, delineates.
I think the Catechism does a much better job of explaining it than I do, though it goes into much greater detail. I'll just link it since it's quite a complex topic: Catechism
In fact, most of my Christian beliefs come straight out of the Catechism. If you don't understand something that I'm talking about you could honestly just look it up in the Catechism for an explanation. It's basically a break-down of the beliefs of the Catholic church.
You are welcome to have your own opinion about what you think sin and evil means. I'm just giving you my (and the Catholic Church's) understanding of these two concepts to help you understand why we hold the positions that we do.
I think it's important to have, as a rule of thumb, the assumption that all people who have strong opinions hold them for what they think are good reasons. For example, while I disagree with people who are pro-abortion, I recognize that they think it's a good thing and I don't assume they're idiotic barbarians. This is not about me trying to jam my version of truth down everyone's throat, but to explain how I perceive things and remove prejudices, stereotypes, and misconceptions from the minds of others.
I don't really think Christianity is special, except that I believe it is the most accurate representation of Reality in existence. Other religions and beliefs can represent parts of Reality, but to me only Christianity represents the "fullness" of that Reality. My reasons are intensely philosophical and probably quite boring to most people, actually... Meh :P
In order to understand the Catholic perception on sexuality you have to first understand the Catholic perception of evil. Evil is not merely "something bad." Evil essentially represents anything that damages or strains the relationship between a person and God.
The next part of the quote I supplied explains why rendering procreation impossible is intrinsically evil:
'Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of the husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving one-self totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.... The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle... involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.'
A refusal to be open to life is essentially saying "no" to God, which creates distance between the person and God and is therefore an evil act. It also is a rejection of self-giving love and the true purpose of matrimony, which also strains the relationship between the person and God (any rejection of love will do this.)
I reject slavery and the oppression of women (though I don't consider abortion and contraception to be women's rights,) and I feel that homosexual acts are sinful but don't consider deep-seated homosexual attractions to be sinful (in line with the beliefs of my Catholic faith.)
Additionally, it was the Protestants that removed books from the bible during the Reformation (which was really a revolt but let's not split hairs.) The Catholic bible still contains the same books that the ancient church Father's decided to put in there in the 300's (more or less.) Barring a few translation hiccups here and there, the Catholic bible is pretty much unchanged from its conception.
Catholic social teaching is insulated from short-term shifts in common social ethics because of it's reverence for dogma - which is what the Church recognizes as Truth. Any social ethic which contradicts dogma is rejected - such as abortion and contraception.
The bible can only be properly understood by reading and studying it in its entirety. The the laws present in Leviticus and other books of the Old Testament represent what is called the "Old Law," most of which have been made obsolete by the "New Law" instituted by Christ when He was crucified. In other words, Christians are no longer bound by the laws of the Old Testament (except those that Christ did not change, like the 10 Commandments.) The Old Law was the ancient Israelite attempt to keep themselves from offending God and basically ended up being a whole list of technicalities that they tried to follow through rote adherence. The essence of the New Law is for mankind to act out of love toward God and each other, whereas the Old Law was created out of fear for calling down God's wrath. The dichotomy between the two sets of laws represents a maturation in mankind's understanding of the relationship between God and His people.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, article 2370:
"Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, 'every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible' is intrinsically evil: 'Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of the husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving one-self totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.... The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle... involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.'"
It goes on to say, in article 2371:
"'Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understod only in reference to man's eternal destiny.'"
Also I wouldn't call the pope stupid... at least not Benedict. Conservative is not the same thing as stupid, thank you very much.
"Women's rights" may have an effect on poverty (in the short run) but it could never be a cure for it. Poverty is an insurmountable fact of human society. Marxism sought the elimination of poverty, but merely resulted in class-based favoritism. Another proven "cure" for poverty is philanthropy. Imagine that. Actually taking care of the poor.
An evil act can never accomplish a good end... the end will always be tied to the evil means by which it was achieved.
Wasn't this thread a part of some ancient civilization at one time?
@Eiviyn: Go
Misquoted me on the first block.
But anyway, there is no "side" to this debate. Every one of us has approached the discussion from a different point of view - some a little more... umm... unusual than others.
@Taintedwisp: Go
lolwut
Hitler's quote is essentially meaningless. All Catholics are always Catholic whether they believe in the teachings of the Church or not. To be confirmed in the Catholic church is to have a mark placed on your soul which can't be erased. That doesn't mean a person will forever be a faithful Catholic... Hitler was essentially insane for thinking he was the "hand of God." There are many crazies throughout history who lay to this claim, or claim to be God Himself, or the reincarnation of Christ. Doesn't make it true, and it doesn't make them faithful Christians.
Minister Rust was not a church pastor. He was one of Hitler's henchmen. All you accomplish with this quote is the emphasis that Hitler tried to use religion to sway the German people to his cause.
I don't think it's any shocker that Hitler made regular use of lies and half-truths to help him rise to and maintain his power.
@Eiviyn: Go
All I'm saying is that if someone says "I believe in God" and then goes about murdering people, one must wonder what God he professes belief in, whether that belief is true, or whether his idea of God is completely different from normal, sane people.
Last time I checked, genocide was a sin...
@Eiviyn: Go
Hitler's regime murdered priests, nuns, monks, pretty much anyone that defied the State. The tendency for any dictator is to try and stamp out religion because it is a competitive source of power - especially when that dictator considers himself a deity of sorts. Hitler was no exception. The image you posted is an example of Hitler attempting to twist religion to support his regime. Any band of criminals can make a symbol that says "God With Us" to try and gain support.
@SoulFilcher: Go
I see. Well, when people say "abortion is murder," that doesn't necessarily mean they're being ignorant. The argument stems from the idea that personhood exists from conception. Murder is when one human person maliciously ends the life of another, so when you consider an unborn child a person, considering abortion to be murder is only a short logical step from there. Granted, some may not be able to express the connection with so much clarity.
In response to the rest of your post, I must stand firm in my opinion. While it is tragic for women to injure themselves as you describe, it does not justify ending another human life. The fact that women might resort to these measures makes no commentary on whether the unborn child is a human person, and therefore bears no significance in deciding the fundamental issue.
It is impossible to control every action of individuals within a population, whether that's self-induced abortions or other criminal acts like shoplifting or carjacking. There will always be people who are absolutely convinced that they want to do something and nothing in the world can or should stop them. However, this does not mean we should give in to despair and simply make these things legal. I think education might be the best tool society has for stopping undesirable behavior... as well as positive environmental reinforcement from parents, famous persons, teachers, and entertainment media.
The basic premise here is that a righteous course of action is always superior to an unrighteous one, even if the unrighteous course of action is easier or seems to produce better results. It is anti-Machiavellian in that it states "the end does not necessarily justify the means."
@SoulFilcher: Go
I am against pre-marital sex, "pulling out," masturbation, condom usage, artificial insemination, and stem cell research. It's a "seamless garment," as the saying goes. So yes, each of these actions cheapens unborn life in its own way.
The millions of zygotes in storage right now presents a big problem for moralists. I'm not sure what the answer is for them, especially since sinful acts have already been committed to put them in that position. They are still alive so it would not be acceptable to kill them and give them a funeral, and both of the other two options are unsuitable. I haven't done enough research into the topic to come up with a good opinion about it, but I do know it's a contentious issue being debated right now within Catholic circles.
I'm not sure what you mean by your last comment. Do you mean that babies outside the womb are murdered every day? This I know is true, and quite tragic. Obviously I oppose these kinds of acts too.
Rodrigo, let me ask you: If you knew someone was about to commit murder, would you not feel compelled to try to stop them, call the police, or warn the victim? For those who believe the unborn are human persons, that's exactly what abortion is. It isn't about censorship or denying rights or anything like that - it's about defending a life unable to defend itself.
@SoulFilcher: Go
Ooh goody, the debate has shifted to contraception/abortion/stem cell research. Things have gotten interesting once again!
Contraception (the prevention of conception) does not include abortion (the murder of the unborn child.) This is because abortions necessarily take place after conception has already occurred.
I don't think stem cell research directly supports abortion. It certainly cheapens unborn life and thus paves the way for abortion, but this effect is indirect. For the person who considers a human being to be a person post-conception, it matters little where that person is or how it was created. It is still a person deserving dignity and life, therefore any violent acts against it are unjust.
The most fundamental issue in the abortion debate is whether human beings are persons post-conception. Nothing else really matters, because if a pro-abortion person were forced to acknowledge that they were intentionally killing human persons, they would have to acknowledge that they were committing the evil act of murder. The popularity of the movement would plummet to only a few stubborn/crazy activists.
This is one of the reasons why the Catholic church relies on both Sacred Scripture and Tradition when formulating its stances on social issues. It doesn't rely on the currently fashionable translation of the bible or the dictates of a single person, but on the analyses of countless theologians and scholars throughout history, going all the way back to the institution of the religion by Christ Himself.
@Nebuli2: Go
I agree with you. Don't misunderstand: I am fully aware that my set of beliefs cannot be "proven true" any more than another person's set of beliefs - at least until after death ;)
This awareness prevents me from judging those other people harshly. Everyone is in a different place in their beliefs. Even those who share my faith have their own unique take own it. Don't confuse this with relativism. I firmly believe that there is one ultimate Truth containing the fullness of reality. The disconnect is in how we, as individuals, understand that Truth.
The reason I believe in the religion that I've chosen is because of faith, which is the hardest thing to explain to someone who hasn't experienced it. The best I've been able to do in explaining faith is to relate it to falling in love. You can't say exactly what falling in love is, but you know when it's happening to you. When I say faith, I don't mean following the rules of a religion because it's what your family does. I mean actually believing that God is the master of the universe and that He has an infinitely deep and personal love for every human person. I like to call this genuine belief "owning the religion." It is not merely an aspect of a person's culture, but a fully integrated component of a person's identity.
Faith is not unreasonable in that I cannot allow myself to have faith in something which contradicts observable natural law. For example, I am unable to hold the belief that gravity does not exist when I can clearly observe that it does. Now, there is certainly the possibility for me to rationalize that what I perceive to be gravity is, in reality, an illusion... yet this possibility exists for any human person, regardless of whether he has faith. It's by faith, however, that I accept the image of Reality which God, and by extension of God the Catholic church, delineates.
I think the Catechism does a much better job of explaining it than I do, though it goes into much greater detail. I'll just link it since it's quite a complex topic: Catechism
In fact, most of my Christian beliefs come straight out of the Catechism. If you don't understand something that I'm talking about you could honestly just look it up in the Catechism for an explanation. It's basically a break-down of the beliefs of the Catholic church.
@Nebuli2: Go
You are welcome to have your own opinion about what you think sin and evil means. I'm just giving you my (and the Catholic Church's) understanding of these two concepts to help you understand why we hold the positions that we do.
I think it's important to have, as a rule of thumb, the assumption that all people who have strong opinions hold them for what they think are good reasons. For example, while I disagree with people who are pro-abortion, I recognize that they think it's a good thing and I don't assume they're idiotic barbarians. This is not about me trying to jam my version of truth down everyone's throat, but to explain how I perceive things and remove prejudices, stereotypes, and misconceptions from the minds of others.
I don't really think Christianity is special, except that I believe it is the most accurate representation of Reality in existence. Other religions and beliefs can represent parts of Reality, but to me only Christianity represents the "fullness" of that Reality. My reasons are intensely philosophical and probably quite boring to most people, actually... Meh :P
@Nebuli2: Go
In order to understand the Catholic perception on sexuality you have to first understand the Catholic perception of evil. Evil is not merely "something bad." Evil essentially represents anything that damages or strains the relationship between a person and God.
The next part of the quote I supplied explains why rendering procreation impossible is intrinsically evil:
'Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of the husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving one-self totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.... The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle... involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.'
A refusal to be open to life is essentially saying "no" to God, which creates distance between the person and God and is therefore an evil act. It also is a rejection of self-giving love and the true purpose of matrimony, which also strains the relationship between the person and God (any rejection of love will do this.)
@Eiviyn: Go
I reject slavery and the oppression of women (though I don't consider abortion and contraception to be women's rights,) and I feel that homosexual acts are sinful but don't consider deep-seated homosexual attractions to be sinful (in line with the beliefs of my Catholic faith.)
Additionally, it was the Protestants that removed books from the bible during the Reformation (which was really a revolt but let's not split hairs.) The Catholic bible still contains the same books that the ancient church Father's decided to put in there in the 300's (more or less.) Barring a few translation hiccups here and there, the Catholic bible is pretty much unchanged from its conception.
Catholic social teaching is insulated from short-term shifts in common social ethics because of it's reverence for dogma - which is what the Church recognizes as Truth. Any social ethic which contradicts dogma is rejected - such as abortion and contraception.
@Eiviyn: Go
The bible can only be properly understood by reading and studying it in its entirety. The the laws present in Leviticus and other books of the Old Testament represent what is called the "Old Law," most of which have been made obsolete by the "New Law" instituted by Christ when He was crucified. In other words, Christians are no longer bound by the laws of the Old Testament (except those that Christ did not change, like the 10 Commandments.) The Old Law was the ancient Israelite attempt to keep themselves from offending God and basically ended up being a whole list of technicalities that they tried to follow through rote adherence. The essence of the New Law is for mankind to act out of love toward God and each other, whereas the Old Law was created out of fear for calling down God's wrath. The dichotomy between the two sets of laws represents a maturation in mankind's understanding of the relationship between God and His people.
@Nebuli2: Go
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, article 2370:
"Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, 'every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible' is intrinsically evil: 'Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of the husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving one-self totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.... The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle... involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.'"
It goes on to say, in article 2371:
"'Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understod only in reference to man's eternal destiny.'"
Also I wouldn't call the pope stupid... at least not Benedict. Conservative is not the same thing as stupid, thank you very much.
"Women's rights" may have an effect on poverty (in the short run) but it could never be a cure for it. Poverty is an insurmountable fact of human society. Marxism sought the elimination of poverty, but merely resulted in class-based favoritism. Another proven "cure" for poverty is philanthropy. Imagine that. Actually taking care of the poor.
An evil act can never accomplish a good end... the end will always be tied to the evil means by which it was achieved.