Wednesday, 18th March 2009
Hug her instead of excommunicating her
“Is the Church going crazy. I am totally against abortion but in the case of this girl her life and that of the twins themselves was in danger... And the church suggests to the judge to do a caesarean on a 9 year old!!! Crazy. U Alla jbierek dak li stupraha..kien ilu għaddej minn meta kellha 6 snin .. Ebda kelma dwar att faħxi bħal dak. Sorry ktibt hekk imma vera nirrabja meta l-Knisja li nħobb issir biss id-dispensur tal-liġijiet.”
A few days ago, I received this email from a friend of mine who is a very good Catholic. The story, which is briefly described in the email I received shocked Brazil and whoever read it wherever in the world. Doctors at a hospital in Recife, Brazil, performed an abortion March 4 on the girl who was made pregnant with twins from her step father. The girl’s family had given their consent for fear that the 80-pound girl would not survive a full-term pregnancy.
This is what the book says
After the abortion, Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of Olinda and Recife was quick to point out that the mother who authorised the operation and the doctors who performed the abortion were excommunicated in accordance with the Code of Canon Law, which stipulates the penalty of automatic excommunication for anyone complicit in abortion.
“God’s law is above any human law,” Archbishop Cardoso said. He told different media outlets that, while it was true the child ran health risks if she continued the pregnancy, "the end does not justify the means. The good aim of saving her life cannot justify the killing of two other lives."
The controversy that ensued was intense. The Vatican’s prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, joined the fray. He said excommunication against those responsible for the abortion was legitimate. In an interview with the Italian newspaper La Stampa March 7, the cardinal underlined that according to canon law anyone who procures an abortion incurs automatic excommunication.
Love more than the book
Fortunately, in the Church there are prelates who in such terrible circumstances do not throw the book at people but prefer to show them love. One of these is Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life. He criticized what he called a "hasty" public declaration of the excommunication of the girl's mother and the doctors who aborted the girl's twins. The girl "in the first place should have been defended, hugged and held tenderly to help her feel that we were all on her side" he wrote in the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, March 15.
"Before thinking about excommunication, it was necessary and urgent to protect her innocent life and bring her back to a level of humanity of which we men of the church should be expert witnesses and teachers," he said.
"Unfortunately, this is not what happened and it has impacted the credibility of our teaching, which appears in the eyes of many as insensitive, incomprehensible and devoid of mercy," he said.
Archbishop Fisichella criticized the way Archbishop Sobrinho handled the situation.
He said that because of the Brazilian girl's young age and her "precarious state of health her life was in serious danger" by continuing the pregnancy.
"How should one act in these cases?" he asked, underlining that the girl's case represented an "arduous decision for doctors and moral law itself."
Doctors deserve respect for the difficult decisions they must often grapple with, he said, adding that no one nonchalantly makes life-and-death decisions and to even suggest it "is unjust and offensive."
He said the Catholic principle that upholds the sanctity of life is unshakeable and "abortion has always been condemned by moral law as an intrinsically evil act." However, because excommunication is incurred automatically at the moment a direct abortion is carried out, "there was no need to declare with such urgency and publicity a fact that occurred automatically," he said.
Archbishop Fisichella said the church can still be firm with its moral principles and at the same time reach out and show mercy toward others.
“We are on your side.”
He told the young girl in his written article: "We are on your side. We feel your suffering and we would like to do everything that would help you restore the dignity that you have been deprived of and the love that you will still need.
"There are others who deserve excommunication and our forgiveness, not those who have allowed you to live and who will help you regain hope and trust despite the presence of evil and the wickedness of many people," he said.
I have only one comment to add: thank God for people such as Archbishop Fisichella!
Till next time I wish you all good-bye and good luck.
PS. In the writing of this blog I gathered information from a number of Catholic news agencies, mainly Catholic News Service, Catholic World News as well as from several secular agencies such as Agence France Press, Time magazine and BBC.
RSS
Comments
I too have stated facts - hard verifiable facts. Evidently they sit uncomfortably with you and so you try to dismiss what is plainly evident as "angry opinion". Just like the Church, anyone who shows it wrong is misguided and it is always right! Let the facts speak for themselves and let those who can still be objective and who have a social conscience with a genuine desire to help and ease the suffering of their fellow human beings, judge for themselves.
As for the Church's "reparations", it has indeed paid millions in compensation to victims of abuse by the clergy, but only when forced to, as a result of adverse publicity or litigation. Its policy has been and remains one of secrecy, sweeping things under the carpet and applying pressure on the victim, while appearing to be all sweetness.
The Church's main concern is to minimise damage to itself. Witness the efforts to publicise the Pope's meeting with victims of abuse during his recent visit to Australia. A handful of hand picked victims were chosen and the meeting took place without the media being present. But the parents of two daughters who had been abused by a priest, one of whom subsequently suicided, were not only refused, but dismissed by the coordinator, a bishop, as "dwelling crankily on old wounds". What charity! And this in a country where the media firmly believes in its investigative role. We have seen what happens in faithful Malta.
Words come cheap. Actions speak loudly. The Church stands condemned by its actions throughout its history.
What remarkable tangentiality. Galileo was right. The Church was wrong. Yet the church put him on trial, denounced him as a heretic, forced him to recant his teachings and placed him under house arrest for the rest of his life. Had he insisted on his findings, it would have cost him his life. Galileo, like a true scientist, was not resistant to changing his views but only in accordance with factual observations, not pompous dogma. The Church condemned him on the basis of its fallacious opinions. The same bully boy tactics are still applied by the church today as witness the above article.
The church may consider itself magnanimous in praying for the conversion of "sinners" (dissidents?). Prayer costs nothing and will achieve nothing. What is needed is for the church to stop dictating to the Almighty who He should punish, acknowledge its views may be wrong, look at evidence, work through its sexual hangups including its mesogenism and obsession with celibacy, and start doing something positive to help people find fulfillment here on earth! Maybe then the mass exodus from the church will slow down.
Just because you say so, it does not follow that it must be so. I have no time to reply in full to your many prejudices.
The “unrepentant” sinner rejects the “welcome” of the church. If he were to be “welcomed” whilst unrepentant you would be among the first to accuse the Church of using psychological force against him. The Church can only pray for his conversion – and it does so.
Galileo was not excommunicated, neither was the heliocentric theory condemned by the church of his time as an academic exercise. The theory was contested at the time, it did not originate with Galileo and it was held by prominent Catholic scientists who never incurred any church sanction. Galileo was aggressively confrontational in his attitude towards everyone he did not keep the promise he had made to the Inquisition and based his “proof” on an erroneous theory on the tides.
The Church unequivocally condemns abuse by everyone and especially by its clergy so much so that it has made its apologies and paid expensive reparations. Everyone knows that for a fact. But its enemies ignore this and mount a campaign of hate against it on the slightest pretext.
If the church only welcomes the "repentant" sinner, is that not ipso facto proof that it does not tolerate dissent even when it is in the wrong? Remember Galileo? The excommunication you mention was not the action of "some individual". It was sanctioned by the Vatican. And how does one reconcile the ideal of compassion, allegedly held by the church, with the official policy it dictates in cases of allegations of sexual abuse by the clergy, formulated by Cardinal Ratzinger and still in effect? A policy universally decried as "a blueprint for deception and concealment"! How does one reconcile with compassion the Pope's recent irresponsible and wrong assertions about contraception? And within our shores, the bishops' shielding of crimes committed by those close to their quarters while hastening to incite prosecution of much minor, albeit injudicious, misdemeanours. To drink deep you have to look objectively at both sides of the equation and rely on facts and reason, not poetry.
“A little learning is a dangerous thing,
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring
There shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain
But drinking largely sobers us again.”
Could not agree more with you. This debate should be about that poor girl though it has stirred issues of a more personal nature in some and they deserve some reaction. And you are also right that the Church's attitude is at odds with Christ's teachings. He defended the adulteress and forgave her, not excommunicated her. This is a generalised attitude reflected in the Church's impositions on a whole host of issues, including the irresponsible attitude towards contraception, restated recently by the Pope. The Church is far too busy imposing on people its views of what they should not do, always ready to punish those who dare disagree, without helping them go through life to find fulfillment. It controls minds with vague promises of eternal glory in the hereafter or damnation, claiming to be God's spokesman. No you cannot prove that anything exists. You can only prove a hypothesis wrong. The more it resists the more confident you can be. Apply it to God and the whole case falls apart like a house of cards. Envy those who are ruled by facts and reason not those that relinquish reason to fantasy.
"Who said that scientists are the most intelligent persons?" - Their accomplishments! Just look around you and realise that everything you have - electricity, telephone, cars, aeroplanes, the wonders of modern medicine, etc not to mention our knowledge of the world and the universe - is the accomplishment of science and scientists.
Alas there is no point in engaging in further exchanges with you. You have been pointed in the right direction by various people. It is now up to you to consider where you want your life and your knowledge to head.
Good luck.
I don't know if this is news to you, but christians hold the vast ruling majority in the States. Kent Hovind's case is very well documented and there is no doubt of his guilt. He felt he shouldn't pay tax on the numerous merchandise he was selling at a very inflated price. How that is not tax evation is beyond me.
And yes, I have read plenty of his stuff, as well as viewed several of his lectures and debates he participated in. Unfortunately I watch them to get a musing, due to the absurdity of the arguments.
Speciation has been observed and it is now a fact that evolution can lead to speciation. You repeating that there is no scientific evidence is pointless, as any evidence pointed at you is just ignored. Talkorigins.com is a perfect source to start from, as it initially explains the principles needed and backs it up fully with further links and references to scientific journals and texts. Find any Hovind argument with the same credentials and then we can talk.
Am quite sure that big brother government wanted Hovind out of the equation, in view of his belief structure. They use the tax authorities to hound these people down. I am glad that you used this argument, that he "avioded" taxes, when it highlights my argument, that for any standard deviation is met with some authorititave issues.
Just because you or other people discredited Hovind, I am sure that you have not read anything with what he has shown to the public, via his literature.
Two wrongs do not make a right, and many wrongs neither. So if you were in the Soviet Union, at any University degree you would have Marism as a subject, whether you like it or not.
Going to talkorigins.org we read: "Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists."
Common descent is based on the erroneaous hypothesis that closly related mammals, insects, fish etc, are thought to have transmuted into different spieces. In my view, there is not one iota of scientific evidence that even a black bettle can get red spots on its own, or via "evolution theory".
Grandest farce worldwide!
I can't believe of all possible people you could have quoted you choose Kent Hovind. Hovind is widely discredited and, fortunately for the scientific community, he is currently in jail for tax evasion.
No, carbon dating is far from the only way to date things. More than anything carbon dating is only valid for some 50'000 years or so. The age of the earth is based on accumulative evidence from biology, geology and astronomy.
An excellent place to start is talkorigins.org, which have taken to task refuting creationist claims and emphasizing the science used. In regards to the age of the earth, just read through http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html and you will get a brief summary. Obviously that's just a page but you will find plenty of further reading depending on how deep you want to go.
Again, my biggest problem with your argument is the value you put on evidence in regards to evolution, a value which is sound and good, but you are not prepared to use the same level of value on your own arguments, especially in relation to God.
Regarding the evolution question. Here is a guy from the US Kent Hovind see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind
He is a young earth evolutionist theorist. Whilst his arguments have strong scientific arguments, I do not have a fixed idea that the earth should be when Adam was born (some 6000 years ago). I disagree with the so called evolutionist scientists, when they claim that some eons, or in the period of dinasours there were millions of years. Why do I call these scientists "so called"? Because they have zero scientific base, yes ZERO.
I explained why if they base all thier assumptions on the carbon dating which they do.
Having a thousand books on evolution, and no page spared on the actual science on how they came up with the number of years, than that is no proof. If you do find me such proof, I would be most willing to view it.
Pictures and fossils mean nothing. I need scientific evidence showing how and why these evolutionists claim those millions of years. Between them, they have a great margin of error!
@ George M Said
Who said that scientists are the most intelligent persons?
Paedophile priests are but a symptom of much deeper ills within the church, albeit a huge problem in their own right. The Church needs to do a lot more than just "review its rules with regard to the sanctions". What it needs to reconsider is the appropriateness of its power-centric, authoritarian and proscriptive approach, devoid of compassion, in an age of enlightenment, reason and accountability. And it needs to work through its mesogenism and revise its whole attitude towards sexual morality, from birth control through homosexuality to celibacy, in the light of ever growing evidence that its teachings are wrong and damaging. Then maybe the current exodus away from formalised religion will be slowed down, maybe even halted.
True. The girl herself was not excommunicated. But what difference does that make? She might as well have been. The church still portrayed itself as a bully, devoid of compassion, that will unhesitatingly retaliate against anyone who dares challenge its views. The poor girl had already been deeply traumatised by her horrible abuse, left feeling confused, loathing herself, viewing herself as deserving of abuse, as all victims invariably do. The Church's injudicious actions demonstrated to her, in a most dramatic and public fashion, that those who extend compassion to her, her own mother included, will be destroyed, and, in her eyes, the eyes of a child, all because of her. How capable will she be to form trusting relationships with anyone at all as she grows up? A life robbed of all hope of ever adjusting or healing, destroyed by an organisation purporting to serve a benevolent, loving and forgiving God.
The girl was NOT excommunicated. Her mother and the doctors incurred automatic excommunication for assenting to, and participating in, the act, but the girl herself is not even old enough to be deemed capable of taking a decision. It has now transpired that Archbishop Sobrino mentioned excommunication in a desperate bid to deter the doctors from carrying out the surgical intervention.- to no avail. That said, the Church should review its rules with regard to the sanctions envisaged for those who abuse minors - including, or especially, paedophile priests.
@ Mr. Grech
To deny known facts - and evolutions has been described by John Paul II as "more than a hypothesis" - is to deny oneself credibility. The evidence for evolution is very strong indeed, and, in terms of the derision it justly generates and if God can live with evolution - so should you.
Mr Grech, might I suggest you do some serious and credible reading on evolution and the method of science in general. Bear in mind that scientists are amongst the most intelligent people on this planet and rest assured they have no axe to grind and there is no conspiracy. Indeed you should understand that when a scientist conducts an experiment or a study he is actually trying to prove his hypothesis wrong. It is referred to as the Null Hypothesis and is based on Karl Popper's philosophy of science, which insists that one can never prove anything right but can only prove a hypothesis wrong. The more a hypothesis resists attempts to prove it wrong the more confident you can be it is right. This is a major difference between science and religion. Religion is backward looking, rigid and dogmatic insisting it is correct irrespective of evidence to the contrary. Science is objective, flexible, constantly questions itself and assumes it is wrong until proved otherwise.
As for healing, it is a biological process we understand well and which we can influence and control to a considerable extent though evidently not entirely.
My understanding of the Catholic Church's position on capital punishment is that it is equivocal. While it often expresses disapproval it does not condemn capital punishment outright. In Evangelium Vitae (1995),Pope John Paul II stated "the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity.." clearly indicating that according to the RCC, capital punishment is permissible under certain circumstances. Contrast this with the Church's attitude towards abortion and euthanasia, where the Church gives an unequivocal no and mercilessly imposes excommunication on their participants, as the above article shows. Yet the human cost of capital punishment is often far far worse than that of either abortion or euthanasia.
I must correct you. The Catholic Church strongly opposes Capital Punishment. That is one of the things where I am strongly in agreement with the Catholic Church.
"Me a descendent from the apes? Forget it, and you are neither. "
Exactly, neither one of us is, or ever have been, which is the evolutionary view. We share COMMON ANCESTORS with apes and monkeys, just as we share common ancestors with horses, fishes, birds, dung beetles and cucumbers. What is your problem with that? Look at how organisms are developed and structured and you will see that the similiarities are striking and undeniable. Your beef with evolution seems to be that you don't want it to be true, which makes reasoning with you impossible. Let go of your predispositions for a second and look at the actual evidence.
I find it amusing how you claim to be so evidence based in regards to evolution (which you are in complete error in - the evidence for evolution is overwhelming), but then goes to state:
"Regarding medicial cures, all I want to say is that it is truly God that heals. Medicine aids, yes, but the prime source is God."
Now that's something which there is absolutely no evidence for whatsoever. I'm sorry, but you are pushing an incredibly dishonest agenda and you are throwing assumptions around without the slightest effort to back them up.
Why don't you start from a blank mind for a second. Have a look at the evidence for evolution. Read at least a few of the thousands of good books on the subject. Look into carbon dating (even though this is not used to show the world is millions of years old - as this is not what they based that on - it's still enough to throw over the biblical timescale you're so fond of), then make conclusions.
You must have realised by now that no serious scientist takes you young earth creationists seriously. Why is that you think?
If you go to a biology lab I'm sure you'll see evolution in progress. Just take a look at bacteria mutating in response to antibiotic use.
Here are some abstracts (from reputable sources) which may interest you (I guess not, but they are interesting to the more inquisitive mind). There is the simple, the more complex, and links to some studies:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
http://artsci.wustl.edu/~landc/html/cann/
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v59/n2/abs/hdy1987113a.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/85/16/6002.abstract
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/abs/nature04000.html
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v32/n1/abs/ng947.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/295/5552/131
Me an animal, yes we have animal functions, but with a soul. Me a descendent from the apes? Forget it, and you are neither. There is not one iota of scientific proof of this evolution. Just by putting in a series of pictures from a cave man getting more upright is not convincing, and neither is the ape to humans. Even Darwin himself, had a doubt when it concerns human-kind!
Sure that there are lots of books about evolution, quoting millions of years and other theories, to allegedly prove that there is an evolution! Most authors have to write books in order to get thier PHDs, and to tow the "official" version, whether they are sensible or not.
I frankly state that there is no scientific basis on evolution, and to stick by it, unless somebody comes up with a proper scientific basis, other than the flawed carbon-dating mechanism.
On evolution, there is entirely no iota of scientific evidence. It is all based on carbon dating. The prime assumptions are that the level of "radiation" emitting from the carbons, would be able to accurately give a time-based reading. I have no doubt that it works quite well for perhaps a few centuries, but when it comes to millions of years that is another question.
Secondly, and very im portantly is the following. If you would put a piece of bread in a vaccum, and another piece of bread (from the same loaf, but immersed in water), then wait for a few years, you would get surprising reading. If you do a similar reading after say 50 years than the different should be exponentially different.
It takes time to prove this, I know, but this carbon dating mechanism is flawed, when the carbon is in contact with humidity/water. Evolution theory dating depends entirely on this "scientific" method.
Regarding medicial cures, all I want to say is that it is truly God that heals. Medicine aids, yes, but the prime source is God.
Quite right! How can it be surprising that more and more people are seeing formalised religion as irrelevant? What can one say about a Church that rushes to excommunicate a poor girl for having a life saving abortion but has nothing to say about capital punishment? What can one say about a Church that irresponsibly bans contraception even when it is going to save lives? And in our own country, the double standards shown by the bishops quite recently, inciting the police to act against merry makers, when a while earlier they stood to protect their own from much more serious crimes. What happened at the Nadur Carnival was in poor taste but ultimately all it did was to ruffle a few egos. It did not destroy lives.
It is true that big pharmaceutical companies have the resources and the wealth to fund new developments and will want returns on their investments. Nonetheless, once they come up with a new product, which they would already have tested in the laboratory, it will have to be subjected to further rigorous independent clinical testing before it is approved for clinical use. The trend is for large multi-centre, international studies, utilising a double blind technique, in which neither patient nor prescriber is aware of whether the drug or a placebo is being administered. Patients on placebo serve as controls so that the effects of the drug can be highlighted. All precautions are taken to ensure patient safety. All subjects have to give their informed consent. Studies must be approved by various ethical committees. The results are detailed in professional journals so that they come under the scrutiny of professional peers. No Federal Drug Authority will approve a drug before a number of such studies have been conducted. Members of the FDA board are not fools and would be very much aware of the constituents of any new drug, its potential benefits and its side effects.
"Can an organism change from a monkey to a human?"
No. And whoever says so has no idea on what evolution is all about.
However, a mere nine months later ( September 2007) the Italian tenor Luciano Pavarotti – a man known to have been unfaithful to his wife and actually divorced her to marry his mistress – was awarded a full Christian funeral at Modena cathedral. At the tenor’s grand funeral Archbishop Benito Cocchi read a message of condolence from Pope Benedict. In it, the pope said Pavarotti had “honored the divine gift of music through his extraordinary interpretative talent.”
Pavarotti’s white maple casket was covered in sunflowers and laid before the altar.
Now Pavarotti was definitely a mesmerizing singer and certainly honoured his divine gift of music. But are not adultery and divorce also against Roman Catholic doctrine?
Thank God for people such as Archbishop Fisichella. As far as I am concerned one needs more people like him in order to restore a measure of credibility towards Roman Catholicism.
Disgusted as I am by the Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho’s attitude I cannot really say that I am unduly surprised because similar anomalies have, unfortunately, occurred closer to our shores – in Italy in fact.
There (in December 2006) the Catholic Church denied a religious funeral for the paralyzed Italian author Piergiorgio Welby who died after a doctor disconnected his respirator at Welby’s request because Welby had - understandably in view of his particular health circumstances - repeatedly voiced his wish to end his life (or, more precisely, his wish to merely refuse to receive further futile, artificial life support treatment that would have merely prolonged his agony) which is against Church doctrine. Or rather, it is sometimes interpreted as being against God's will.
http://www.expert-reviews.com/doi/full/10.1586/14737175.8.2.177?cookieSet=1
As to the website, I repeat, it's completely unconvincing. As to the problem of the greed of certain pharmaceutical companies we are all to aware, and in fact never learn drugs as 'trade names' but rather as generics, which makes a complete difference, since there is no bias in favour of one product or another.
You need to inform yourself a bit by reading reputable information before commenting on this website if you want your arguments to be taken seriously.
The problem with people like you who interpret the Bible literally is that they are off putting to the reasoned mind who attempts to seek truth through logic. One must explain faith in a rational and logical sense, rather then simply spouting religious rhetoric to which the non-believer is completely nonchalant.
Oh, and by the way, you are an animal, as am I. You are the descendant of an ape, as am I. Evolution and religion are compatible. But I guess I'm up against the brick wall of a literalist.
Nikola Tesla's recovery a miracle!? Medicine has no difficulty explaining it away. It is a psychosomatic process. Stress suppresses the immune system, your primary defence against disease. Assuming your account is factual, Nikola would have been under enormous stress being pushed into a career he strongly objected to. Once that conflict was resolved and his stress dissipated, his immune system started to recover so that his body was able to fight and overcome whatever infection he suffered from. Modern medicine is well aware of the importance of psychological factors in health and illness and makes use of it in its present multidisciplinary approach to treatment, utilising a bio-psycho-social (or wholistic) approach.
But are we not digressing? Is this debate not supposed to be about a poor girl whose slim chance of reintegrating her life was sadistically shattered by a Church that proclaims to serve an infinitely benevolent God?
Chronology is generally measured using carbon dating, though a number of innovations have become available of recent that are very precise. Yes the world is millions of years old and yes evolution has taken hundreds of thousands of year. Proof does not only come from fossil records but also from studies of comparative anatomy and physiology, anthropology and most recently DNA analysis that is extremely precise.
Farmers have utilised evolution for centuries, breeding traits into and out of their stock and crops. It was a monk who, more than a century ago, worked out the mechanism by which evolution progresses and gave us the laws of genetics. Today our understanding of genes and DNA is encyclopaedic. We have reached a stage where we can directly manipulate the genetic code to produce new life forms. It is possible to clone organisms ("Dolly the sheep") and it is possible to grow human ears and human hearts in pigs. Both are likely to find tremendous applications in medicine (e.g. manufacturing organs for transplantation), at least until immunology and stem cell research advance sufficiently to offer other, perhaps more elegant, solutions.
"GOD is LOVE and MERCY". One wonders what the people of Chad, the Sudan, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Kosovo and Iraq, not to mention His homeland, Palestine, would have to say about that, to say nothing of the poor girl, the subject of the above article.
As for "slaves of hatred", history tells us that a lot more hatred and intolerance has been expressed by those who proclaim to serve God. Again, the above article corroborates that point of view.
The solar system did not appear out of nowhere. The universe Evolved and is still evolving. You may find Carl Sagan interesting to read and highly informative in relation to the origins of the universe and the scientific method in general.
What is matter? Is it eternal? Or, at the end of an aeon, will it be destroyed?'
And the Lord replied:
That which is born and that which is created within the elements of nature are woven within and related to one another. All that is composed shall be decomposed and will return to its origins. Matter returns to the principle that sent it forth, as everything returns to its roots.
Those who have ears, let them hear,'
Peter said, ' You have taught us of the elements of life and matter, and of how all the world is woven from them. Tell us, what is the sin of the world, that it should die?'
The Lord answered,
'Matter has no sin. Sin has no real existence; it is you yourselves who create it when, as in the nature of adultery, you are unfaithful to your true nature and act within the habit of your corrupt nature. That is why the gift of the Christ Light was put into your heart, and why I came into your midst, to restore every soul to its Source.'
Continued..
"The only evolution that I accept is the survival of the fittest, that is some spieces may eliminate others, but that is all. "
I have nor the time or the pleasure to go through the tons of literature explaining evolution and dating methods. It seems that you seriously lack any good scientific knowledge.
Do you really think that people will even try to take you seriously on your MMR/autism claims after you have clearly admitted that you are a young earth creationist?
Wish to talk about evolution. Can an organism change from a monkey to a human?
Can a bettle migrate into having red spots? I believe in neither. The only evolution that I accept is the survival of the fittest, that is some spieces may eliminate others, but that is all.
Even Darwim acknowledged that for humans, it is NOT the same for animals. I disagree even with the animal argument. In my view there is NOT one iota of scientific evidence!
Only bones to show the varing animals along the times, are given by so called scientists.
And oh, that millions of years myth! Where on earth did they calculate that? It is only after the 1850s that any scientist mentioned evolution in millions of years ago, as though they had a magical calculator. Instead these scientists copyied without checking ANYTHING, and hence garbage in, garbage out.
I did not state that MMR vaccine might cause autism, but a vaccine nevertheless. At university, they push an agenda, in favour of the big pharma companies, and never to the contrary, of course!
The sites I showed you are convincing to me. Imagine the Amish children in the US, who do not by thier own religion take vaccines. No autism has ever been evidenced, and more than that, in ANY country in the world, where the children had NO vaccines, whatsoever. If you find me ONE child having autism WITHOUT having ever having a vaccine, let me know!
I know that in the US, they put some mercurial compounds into the vaccine. Do you know when even medicial consultants (the highest ranking medical officers) are asked IF the vaccines contain mercury, they usually DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER, AS TO WHY THEY PUT THEM INTO IT? Fortunately in Europe it is of a lessor issue, but I do not know enough details of who imports what and what preparations go into it.
Problem is toxicologists know of the harmful effects on the mind via mercurial compounds, but do the doctors/pharma people do?
Thanks for your comments. Whether you are a medical student or professor, God's laws and Will, are the same. Some people mix up being religious instead of being spiritual, and that is a grave error. In essense spirituality is the acknowledgement of Our Creator and His works.
God will put you in the adequate karmic position, that you deserve.
When an Isreali or Judihite king went to the Temple of God (when only Levities, were allowed to) the priests told the king that he was not allowed in. The king got angry at that, and after a while God sent him a pestilence, his face went white with leprecy. What timing!
Nikola Tesla, the greatest genius of all times, the inventor of electricity, had an interesting story. His father was an Orthodox Serb priest, and he wanted his son to be either a priest or a soldier, and Nikola wanted neither. He caught cholera (late 1800s) and in those days it was almost a death sentence. When his father told him that if he lives, he could go to the Swiss technical school where he wanted. He recovered fast after his father's declaration! Answer that medically!
And who made God?
"Thank God for.. Archbishop Fisichella!". At least he showed a modicum of compassion, even if he only objected to the excommunication being made so publicly. No problems if it was done hush hush! But who should we thank for the orthodoxy of the Church that saw fit to publicly humiliate and kick that girl when she was down? Who should we thank for the irresponsible dictates about the use of contraception in sufferers with AIDS that fly high in the face of established medical opinion and the recommendations of all health authorities? Would God, omnipotent, omniscent and infinitely benevolent, be really outraged if some poor wretch in a shanti town in Africa, with nothing in life other than the affection of his lawfully married wife, were to wear a piece of plastic to protect her from a life threatening illness? Who do we thank for ancient cultures destroyed by missionary zealots, the countless lives destroyed by sexual abuse by trusted clergy, for the multitude of lives and relationships stunted by unwarranted guilt and repression generated by religious proscriptions? Are religion and the Church a solution to life's problems or are they an integral part of it?
It seems that you have no problem in accepting that there is no eternal redemption for a cat that has just been run over by a car. You quickly acknowledge that the cat will decompose and cease to exist. Why should humans be treated differently? When was the soul injected in humanity anyway? Did the neanderthal man have a soul.
Living one fulfilling life is enough for me. The fact that this life is the only one I will ever get makes it more precious!
"So evolution is a series of chance events."
Not every random mutation survives. Natural selection is not Random and if you remove natural selection, evolution does not operate anymore.
"Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment. Whether or not an individual survives and reproduces depends on whether it has genes that produce traits that are well adapted to its environment."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html
People of faith obsess with the fact that there must be meaning in everything. People of faith try hard to see that there is a plan laid out infront of everything but the fact is that there is no evidence that points to a plan that centers around us.
"For me, a life without God would be an empty and lonely one"
On the contrary my friend, I feel so fulfilled and I am definitely not lonely.
There were two students who were great friends. One did not believe in God while the other one believed in God, our creator. The one that believed had to do a project of the solar system so after a lot of work he finished the models of the earth, the sun, the moon etc. His friend saw the models and he was astonished and asked him "Wow!! Did you really make them?!!" His friend replied "No. No one made them." And his friend did not believe him and understood that there is the Creator of all creatures including us human beings.
There is yet another truth, that God created us for himself.......and He let us free to love him. He loves us that much that He let us free to love him. So the real freedom is in loving God by doing what He wishes one to do. Once one is not free in loving him, he is the slave of hatred. Look at your heart and see what is in there. GOD is LOVE and MERCY. What are you waiting for?
"For me, a life without God would be an empty and lonely one"
Well, please rest assured that for me it isn't. Sorry to learn that you won't be on holiday...but I guess the seminar is much more important, and with the right attitude it could also be enjoyable. I hope this is the case.
I also wish to correct some inaccuracies in your reply to Robert Attard.
Evolution is NOT a random process. It is mutation that is. Evolution is the necessary (non-random, through natural selection) outcome of random mutations. Strictly speaking, not even mutations are "random", since everything that is material follows the laws of cause and effect. Scientists use "random" to mean that which we cannot predict.
@Robert Attard: If you think evolution is not a random process, then read up your evolution again. Mutations accumulate within the DNA strand (by chance); these can be silent or exert an effect. Such an effect (expressed as the phenotype) can be of absolutely no use to the organism, of some beneficial use (depending on an organisms environment) or harmful (depending on environment; else the mutation may be a lethal mutation). If the environment shifts in such a way that the mutation becomes beneficial to the organism, then the mutation is passed on to future generations. As mutations accumulate slowly, different subgroups of the species may seize to mate, for example, and form an new species to occupy a specific niche. So evolution is a series of chance events.
Atheism is a belief in unbelief. Being human goes with faith in one thing or another.
One final comment about the Russell's Teapot. The argument, I can't stress enough, is not intended to disprove God. How could it, when the argument itself says that you cannot disprove God?
It is only intended to show that the fact that one cannot disprove God does not automatically mean that therefore God must exist. You may replace the flying teapot with any imaginary creature or thing, and the same argument stands.
It is self-serving for one to add interpretations other than those intended, to show the added interpretations to be wrong, and therefore decide that the original argument is faulty.
Perhaps you have not missed the point (regarding Russell's Teapot). You are simply giving it more meaning than it actually does.
"Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
No more and no less.
But perhaps you'll have time to understand this when you return.
This is about extra cruelty inflicted on a little girl by an institution that thinks it has a monopoly on the rights of distribution of God’s love... (assuming God is what we think s/he is)
I am disgusted by the treatment of this case. So a 6 year old girl is raped for 3 years, She ends up with a life threatening double pregnancy and her mother and doctors intervene to save her life through abortion. The only person in the group that is spared excommunication is the Rapist!!!
I'm beginning to feel ashamed of being Roman Catholic at this point!
I hope that at least for once you are going to admit that you are wrong about your notion about evolution.
My faith is not chance!! Never said that. Belief in evolution is not a belief in total randomness. I just don't have faith in faith!!
Atheism is not a religion. It is not a belief, it is a lack of belief!
You're welcome. I take it that you wish that "some day reason will lead (me) to belief in God" because you believe that it is the truth and it would make me happier. I thank you for that. I will only reciprocate by saying that I wish that wherever your reason (and faith, if you want) leads you, it will help you live a happy and good life.
Regarding Hitchens and Dawkins being sometimes blunt and offensive (Dawkins only slightly, Hitchens much more), we all have our own methods and temperaments, and our beliefs in what works (to persuade). That I would agree with most of their arguments does not necessarily mean that I completely agree with their approach. But I am sure you know this already.
Regarding you being away for a few days, I hope that this means you will be on holiday ;)
You are so wrong! The argument of infinite regress has long since been refuted. Even if we were to assume a terminator to an infinite regress, why should such a terminator have the attributes of God - omnipotent, omniscent etc not to mention the more human attributes of being sufficiently flattered by prayer to suspend his own plans, takes delight in listening to innermost thoughts etc. If such a terminator exists it is just as likely to be an inanimate physical process akin to energy.
Darwin left us in no doubt that he was an unbeliever. As for "most other serious scientists", a survey of the members of the American National Academy of Sciences, whose membership includes the elite of the elite of American Scientists, indicated that only 7% believe in a personal God. A similar survey of the British equivalent, the Royal Society, showed only 3% believed in a personal God with 79% expressing strong disagreement. Mensa has carried numerous similar surveys of its members. The results are consistent. There is a negative correlation between intelligence, accomplishment, educational status and religious belief. But what distinguishes religion from "magic and superstition"?
Not, of course, that chance and the subatomic world are not wonderful in themselves of course. I believe denying theories like evolution to be complete nonsense; as does the Catholic Church, by the way, which operates on belief through reason (and vice versa). Evolution as a theory in itself I find much more wonderful in the presence of a God.
I pity your children. After all, in the same way that children can be influenced by religion, children can also be influenced by atheism. The difference between us is very simple. My faith is in God; your faith is in chance. But it is a faith nonetheless, since in no way can you be sure that God does not exist.
By the way, I see that you are still habitually failing to reply to inconvenient questions.
Cont...
"Both Darwin and Newton and most other serious scientists were strong believers in the existence of God"
The following quotations show the opposite in the case of Darwin:
"The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us, and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic."
"I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars."
Charles Darwin.
As for other serious scientists, here is a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_(science_and_technology)
I hope you won't say that none of them are serious scientists. Now, how about providing a list of "most serious scientists" who are not atheists or agnostics, so that we may compare them?
I am not pretending to be anything. I know that you are saying that evolution "necessitates" the the postulation of an outside "intelligent designer", but you have yet to explain why this is so.
Your claim that "The only alternative would be to postulate an infinite recurrence of accidental haphazard and chance phenomena that would stretch the imagination to ridiculously unacceptable levels" shows that you do not understand evolution at all. I would recommend you read Richard Dawkins' books on evolution, since it is impossible for me to explain evolution in less than 200 words.
Cont...
What I said was that I would go out and find my car (miraculously) turned into an aeroplane. I was not speaking metaphorically. It would also help if I saw the mutation happen before my very eyes ;)
Regarding quantum physics, I won't even attempt to go there. I don't believe many scientists even understand it themselves, let alone someone like me who reads science for pleasure, out of curiosity, and to gain knowledge.
Regarding Stephen Jay Gould's work, and chaos theory, well, my hypothetical computer would have to take that into account as well ;)
In any case, it was only a thought experiment. Best to keep our feet on the ground, I guess.
I know that you are only pretending to be obtuse. I am not saying that evolution and survival of the fittest are haphazard processes – quite the opposite in fact. What I am saying is that they necessitate the postulation of an outside intelligent designer and a Prime Mover to give them a sense of direction and to produce the marvel of creation as we know it today. The only alternative would be to postulate an infinite recurrence of accidental haphazard and chance phenomena that would stretch the imagination to ridiculously unacceptable levels.
Both Darwin and Newton and most other serious scientists were strong believers in the existence of God and they would be shocked at the misuse of their discoveries by subsequent generations to promote atheism and agnosticism. Their discoveries, advancing the frontiers of human knowledge away from magic and superstition, would promote the belief of constructive design by a Prime Mover not the negation of his existence.
You are substituting populist speculative theories for proven scientific facts.
You may give me a (virtual) handshake anyway. This is not a war after all - we're only having friendly conversation.
Ultimately, belief (or disbelief) is not something one chooses.
I also still think that you have misunderstood the Russell's Teapot argument. Again, it does not even attempt to disprove the existance of God. In essence, all it says is that one cannot say that something exists just by saying that something cannot be disproven. Russell's Teapot does not rule out other arguments that indicate, evidence or prove the possibility or certainty of the existance of God.
Thanks for a very intelligent and respectful conversation. Ultimately I have no problem with non-literalist believers who use reason as a guide to proper conduct. I believe you are such a person. Have a good day.
"God is eternal by definition, and hence if he exists, he is, by necessity, out of time."
this is a faith based statement! You can't expect me to dogmatically accept that.
I strongly recommend that you review the genetical evidence for evolution. It will blow your mind!
" I hope that you are not suggesting that a unicellular amoeba could have evolved from non-living inorganic matter or that the amoeba has evolved into a complex human being by an infinite number of haphazard chance mutations and natural selection. "
1) evolution does not explain abiogenesis.
2) Yes, genetic mutations and natural selection has made it possible for unicellular organisms to evolve into humans. This process involved small but numerous evolutionary increments stretched over a timespan of around 2 billion years. That is a scientific fact!
That is why I have come to the conclusion that my children will not be exposed to religious indoctrination. Their brain is too susceptible.
"it is faith in Him that is needed to even begin understanding His mysteries."
that is what I wanted to hear! There can't be no rational basis for faith. It all ultimately boils down to faith, nothing more!
I think you (as well as the article you posted) misses the point with the teapot analogy. If something as absurd and seemingly tangible as a flying teapot can not be disproven, then God can not be disproven. That all there is to it. So anyone using "You can not disprove God" as an argument, uses an incredibly weak argument.
I have never seen any half decent argument for God, which is not based on faith. Faith is the pathway to belief in God and to find any rational and logical evidence pointing towards a God, faith is a required ingredient, unfortunately leading to baseless assumptions. When people try to argue for God claiming they are doing it from reason and not from faith (Dinesh D'Souza anyone?) they are deluding themself.
You didn't specify in which time it had to be your car. Your future car may have the capability of flight ;)
Earlier you argued that if you knew every notion of a mans life and every effect had upon him or by him, you could predict his future actions until he dies. This sounds plausible, but what about Heiselbergs uncertainty principle? By its dire judgment, all extrapolation of the past, as well as predictions of the future are bound to fail, as each quantum event always have a random outcome. Only by my own conceit I'd love to answer Einsten on his famous "God does not play dice" quote, that even if he doesn't play dice, he sure tosses a lot of coins.
Have you read Stephen Jay Gould and his excavations in the Burgess Shale? He predicted that if all life was reversed to the Cambrian and then set to play out again, then there is no way we could ever imagine the shape and form it would take today. Obviously no way to know that for sure, but according to chaos theory it would make complete sense. Funny thought :)
I still disagree with Russell's Teapot. My notion of God is a God who is a spirit. Within Russel's Teapot is the notion that if God existed, then he would be physical and provable, and this has nothing to do with what a theist like myself believes, and hence, does not really apply to my God.
I do not think God is provable scientifically. God is not detectable; rather I believe his effects to be visible (using the quark analogy, which is incidentally correct, since one cannot in any way sense a quark but rather infer its existence from its effects, which are measurable). I can argue with logic in favour of God, but ultimately it is faith in Him that is needed to even begin understanding His mysteries.
Very interesting...but still, that's not MY car ;)
"The problem with Russell's Teapot is that the argument is based on the presumption that there is no valid reason (beyond widespread belief) to believe that the teapot exists".
The Russell's Teapot argument does not seek to disprove the existance of God. It only goes to show (convincingly) that the onus of proof lies with people who claim the existance of something. It is a reply to anyone who demands proof of the non-existance of God.
If there are arguments in support of the existance of God (and I am not saying there are none) other than expecting someone to prove that God does not exist, then the Russell's Teapot argument would not apply.
"Evolution and natural selection are themselves proof of the existence of a purposeful architect supervising an infinitely complex process"
How are evolution and natural selection "proof" of a "purposeful architect" if they offer an explanation that does not require an architect?
"Today's human biology is far too complex and multifarious to be explained credibly by any haphazard undirected process"
Evolution and natural selection are not at all haphazard.
"I hope that you are not suggesting that a unicellular amoeba could have evolved from non-living inorganic matter"
That is the prevailing scientific view. Incidentally, that is also the Biblical view, although in the Biblical view, God directs the process.
"or that the amoeba has evolved into a complex human being by an infinite number of haphazard chance mutations and natural selection"
Again, evolution is not at all haphazard.
"And another thing. If you observed your car changing into an aeroplane it would be much safer to conclude that you are hallucinationg rather than witnessing a proof of the existence of God"
I see. This might explain reported miracles.
"One cannot measure the odds of God's existence, that's why belief in God is a leap of faith" - agreed.
"The problem with your argument is that there is no infinite time in the Universe. The universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old, and it is (generally) accepted by the scientific community that it began as a 'big bang'...."
And what preceded the "big bang"? There are several scientific theories about this (some of which you mention), and no concensus. Our universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old, but this does not say anything about other universes or what preceded our own universe. How can we say that there is no infinity (of time) if we cannot say for sure that existance started at a specific "point in time" or existance, so to speak, "always existed".
"God is not scientifically testable; but neither are many scientific theories or hypotheses which are postulated simply because 'things fit in that way'. The universe fits with a God in it; the Prime Mover, as it were".
Like I already said (if I recollect well), I have no problem with a belief in a Prime Mover.
More detail here:
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2008/11/russells-teapot-does-it-hold-water.html
Since God did or did not create the Universe and Time, and hence their creation is dependent upon him or not dependent on him; therefore logically, God does not exist as a probability whichever of these statements you think is correct. There are two logical conclusions: He exists, or He doesn't. Things which are probable are contingent; they do not necessarily have to be. God is eternal by definition, and hence if he exists, he is, by necessity, out of time.
In other words, one can have a definition of a non-existent object, such as a unicorn; but by necessity, to define the unicorn having a horn and being a horse must come together. In the same way, being eternal (out of time) and being God go together if examining whether or not God exists. One cannot ask 'What is the probability that God exists?', in the same way one cannot ask 'What is the probability a Unicorn has a horn?' (adapted from 'Answering the New Atheism' by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker, pg. 14).
Evolution and natural selection are themselves proof of the existence of a purposeful architect supervising an infinitely complex process through which the physiology and anatomy of living beings would have evolved from primitive forms of life not to mention an evolution from inorganic chemistry. Today's human biology is far too complex and multifarious to be explained credibly by any haphazard undirected process by whatever name you choose to call it - even if you grace that process by such terms as evolution or natural selection. I hope that you are not suggesting that a unicellular amoeba could have evolved from non-living inorganic matter or that the amoeba has evolved into a complex human being by an infinite number of haphazard chance mutations and natural selection.
And another thing. If you observed your car changing into an aeroplane it would be much safer to conclude that you are hallucinationg rather than witnessing a proof of the existence of God. My own conviction that God exists does not depend on such mental aberrations.
The problem with your argument is that there is no infinite time in the Universe. The universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old, and it is (generally) accepted by the scientific community that it began as a 'big bang' (incidentally, this idea was first proposed by a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaitre). There are also hypotheses that the universe expands and contracts over time, meaning that the universe is like a yo-yo, with the 'big bang' proceeding from a previous 'big crunch'. Studies on this hypothesis are still scanty; however, whether big bang or big yo-yo, the universe has to have a beginning somewhere (i.e. there must be someone who gave the yo-yo the first throw).
God is not scientifically testable; but neither are many scientific theories or hypotheses which are postulated simply because 'things fit in that way'. The universe fits with a God in it; the Prime Mover, as it were.
Cont...
As for being "robots", in a certain sense, we are. Our actions depend partly on our genes (neurons in our brains, etc) and partly on the effect of others' actions. If it were possible to construct a computer that would gather all the following information - my past history and its effects on me; my genes and the way they determine my behaviour; the genes and the way they effect the behaviour of all the people in the world; all the causes in my outside world that will effect my behaviour - then this machine would accurately predict all my actions until I die.
A disconcerting thought to some, but I believe it is basically true. The fact that we are both reading and participating in this blog is no mere coincidence. Our past histories have inevitably led us both here.
"Not really. If I go outside and my car turns into an aeroplane, I will see that as sufficient evidence of God. "
http://www.terrafugia.com/
Maybe won't be that far away :)
This is getting interesting. You say that "God knows what you will 'think in a few minutes time' because he Himself is outside of time", which is basically what I said would be the case if God existed and he were omniscient. But I think you fail to see that this actually proves my point.
If the above is all true, God would already know that I will do in 5 minutes time. This means that if I have absolute free will and choose to act otherwise, this would effectively be proof that God is not at all omniscient, since he would not have "guessed" correctly my actions. If God knows what I will do before I actually do it, what choice do I really have?
Cont...
"God knows what you will 'think in a few minutes time' because he Himself is outside of time (he is not dependent on time, as we are). "
How did you conclude that? What is the proof of that? How can God live outside time and still be in contact with rest of us that live along a timeline?
Part 3.
"I have not read his rebuttal of Thomas Aquinas, but I assume he uses 'petito principii' as he does in his other works".
Don't assume...check for yourself. In any case, I have already given you a very concise rebuttal of Aquinas's arguments.
As for Dawkins's being "condescending to believers", that says nothing about the merits of his case. I also think that you cannot reasonably claim that "he does not have any serious or compelling arguments" (in The God Delusion) when you admit that you have not even read the book (his rebuttal of Aquinas, which you say you have not read, is in that book).
"I am not an expert when it comes to argument, but I try".
Neither am I, and I appreciate your approach to rational debate. We may disagree but still respect each other.
"The odds are astronomically against this, in the same way that the odds are against Mars turning into a ball of chocolate."
The probability of winning the super five is 1 out of 102,080,160 (42 * 41 * 40 *39 * 38). The odds are against us but still, some people have actually guessed the five numbers with only one ticket. The event just mentioned just needed to happen once.
You assume that God does not need any event to come into existence and this is the main flaw to your argument. You exempt God from the natural laws whilst endowing him with the ability to change them.
In the end we cant really give a statistical prediction for Gods existence or his ability to make miracles. Therefore one can easily argue that we can never say if 2235197406895366368301559999 to 1 is more probable (or less probable) then the existence of a divine intelligent creator (that loves mankind, sent his son etc...)
Part 2.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If assuming that a miracle is impossible is a fallacy (unless a miracle is proven to be true), then people would be reasonable in believing in Russell's Teapot (I already provided link).
"What is more likely? That a God exists and has performed a miracle, or that there was an event which occurred at odds of 2235197406895366368301559999 to 1"
When speaking in terms of infinite number of years (we can only speak of time after the emergence of the first life form/s), those odds are not so great...even though they seem so because we cannot even start to comprehend infinity and timelessness.
In any case, how would one measure the odds on God's existance, not to mention an omnipresent, omnipotent, omnisapient and benevolent God?
Cont...
Part 1.
I immediately had the impression that you are a believer in evolution. The mistake you mention is not made by me. I would never claim that evolution is necessarily incompatible with religion or faith. Of course, this depends on the religion and the faith (you will, for instance, find various versions of Christianity, even on this blog...not to mention other religions). Unfortunately, the people who "forget" that the Bible is not to be taken literally, do so only because many believers actually claim that some (or many) parts are to be taken literally. Usually, believers choose the disproven parts among those parts that should not be taken literally. To an unbeliever, this is, at the very least, suspicious.
As for the anthropic principle, beautiful though it is, it is both inconclusive (unproven), and says nothing about the existence of God.
Cont...
As to the notion of free will, your statement (to me) implies free will: God leaves it up to us what to do, even if what we do is something wrong or evil. You could argue that if God existed and was good, he would not permit evil; but that's just it: if there was no evil, there would be no free will and we'd all be robots!
"An absence of proof, in their estimate, that God exists does not mean at all that He does not really exist. "
Yes you are completely right about that but keep in mind that the burden of proof is on the one who is making the claim. Also keep in mind that by using the above logic no one can technically disprove the existence of any imaginary creature. Anyone can make claims without providing proof and still gain the benefit of the doubt.
"The world we live in is such a marvellous manifestation of intricate design that it is most reasonable to assume that someone planned it that way and that it could never be the result of some chance occurrence. "
I recommend you spend more time understanding evolution and how it diversified all life on earth.
My main concern is the fact that Religions express a strong anthropomorphic element which is very suspicious to say the least. For me the claim that man is central to everything is completely false.
I have not read his rebuttal of Thomas Aquinas, but I assume he uses 'petito principii' as he does in his other works. He is also condescending to believers to the point of being extreme, as though he is intelligent and believers are deluded - he does not have any serious or compelling arguments.
I am not an expert when it comes to argument, but I try. Here's something else for you to read (sorry it's from the same website as before, but the thing has some pretty good articles):
http://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20080118_7.htm
Richard Dawkins' arguments are inherently flawed. First of all, he sets out 'petito principii', the fallacy of assuming in the premise of an argument that which one wishes to prove in the conclusion. He immediately assumes that a miracle, for example is impossible.
To arrive at those claims, he states that anything is possible, even if it is highly improbable. All atoms are in a constant state of motion; hence, there is the extreme improbability (but probable nonetheless) that all atoms in the arm of a statue of the Virgin Mary will move in one direction at the same time.
What is more likely? That a God exists and has performed a miracle, or that there was an event which occurred at odds of 2235197406895366368301559999 to 1 (these figures are found in Richard Dawkins, 'The Blind Watchmaker pg 161).The odds are astronomically against this, in the same way that the odds are against Mars turning into a ball of chocolate. But by Dawkins' own arguments, these are more probable then a miracle. What is more miraculous, the miracle, or the miracle it seeks to disprove?
Not really. If I go outside and my car turns into an aeroplane, I will see that as sufficient evidence of God.
"I can only point out that those who would deny the existence of God never pretend that they have any proof that God does not exist"
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. One cannot prove non-existance. May I remind you of Russell's Teapot ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot ).
"We do not have any proof that there is life on some distant planet in our galaxy but that is no proof that such life does not exist at all".
Lack of proof means that we cannot claim with any certainty that there is life on some distant planet.
"The world we live in is such a marvellous manifestation of intricate design"
No it isn't. Evolution and natural selection is the rational and proven explanation of the apparent "design".
Evolution, in itself, shows the glory of creation, in my opinion. Here, I refer not only to biological evolution, but also evolution as regards the development of the universe. The 'multiverse' hypothesis was proposed as a counter argument to the anthropic principle - we happen to be 'lucky' that by 'chance' we inhabit a universe in which all the ideal mathematical and physical constants are such that life could have occurred. The multiverse hypothesis is completely untestable and unprovable; the anthropic principle is, on the other hand, beautiful.
Here's an interesting article:
http://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20081007_1.htm
I repeat, the MMR vaccine can, in no way, be linked to autism, except in people's minds.
@ Robert Attard
If I had a definite answer to the question you asked Dr. Saliba, "Why won't God heal amputees?" I would give it to you myself.
I did not study medicine and therefore stands to be corrected but maybe the following may be a possibility.
Having experienced the power of the mind and body working together firsthand, the medical science wanted to know if there was a physiological and scientific explanation for “mind over matter,” People had actually experienced spontaneous remission or healing from a recurrent and unresponsive illness Science looked for similarities. After investigating in more depth how subjects, most of whom had been given diagnoses from doctors and were considered foolhardy, had recovered or revitalized their health, they found a distinct set of personal beliefs among these subjects. (An adaptation from original)
Read more: "Self-Healing and the Mind: Beliefs and Habits of People Who Think Themselves Well" - http://cognitivepsychology.suite101.com/article.cfm/mind_over_matter#ixzz0AkWhBXV6
I am inclined to think that most cases of reported miracles are just the result of a self healing process and the fact that brain hasn’t any power to reinstate body parts might answer your question.
"...so why should I believe a quark exists? Due to their effects one can postulate (or believe) in their existence. In the same way, while I cannot detect God using my senses, I can infer his existence through his works".
True, but when one has scientific explanations about "his works" that are testable and provable, why postulate a different explanation? No atheist would ridicule a believer in a prime-mover "God", since this hypothesis, with our current knowledge, can neither be proved nor disproved. But after that (the emergence of existance, if matter did not always exist), there are/will be testable non-supernatural scientific explanations.
Prayer is just believers' way of finding solace in the thought that God might help.
If there is a God, and He is omnipotent, omnisapient and omnipresent, He would know our thoughts before we even think of them.
And come to think of it, this would certainly seem to contradict any notion of free will, for if God knows what I will think in a few minutes' time, and God does not err, what choice do I really have?
Argument of the Unmoved Mover, Argument of the First Cause, Argument for Contingency:
All three arguments are actually an elaboration of the same argument. However, while it can be argued that every effect or thing has a cause, Aquinas fails to explain how he comes to the conclusion that God is naturally exempted from the same argument. The question remains: If there's a God, what caused God? And we're back to square one - therefore the first three arguments are no evidence at all since they take for granted the existance of an unmoved mover and first cause - not to mention that a prime mover and first cause need not be omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent.
Argument from Degree:
This argument, again, fails to prove the existance of God. It simply claims the existance of an ultimate standard of perfection, and claims that this perfection must be God.
Teleological Argument:
This argument fails miserably, considering all the evidence in support of evolution. Evolution shows that complexity is attained by the slow and gradual process of mutation and natural selection, and needs no intelligent design.
"A scientific theory may sound 'bananas'...one of the biggest being the concept of a multiverse, which in no way can ever be verified...take quarks...No one will ever be able to see them, touch them or detect them in any way using the senses - so why should I believe a quark exists?".
But that's the difference between science and religion. Science provides theories which can be tested. If the theories do not stand the test of time, the theories that are discarded. Good science always stands to be corrected or revised according to new knowledge. That is why no scientist will tell you that you should unquestioningly believe in a multiverse, for instance, since there isn't sufficient evidence of it yet. However, it IS unscientific to say a multiverse can NEVER be verified, or that no one will EVER detect quarks. After all, a few centuries ago, belief in genes and DNA, would have sounded crazy.
Religion (the organised type), on the otherhand, depends on dogmas for its existence.
The other obvious difference is that no one will tell you that you will go to hell for eternity if you disbelieve in a multiverse and quarks.
Actually, Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion (along with other philosophers/scientists, selections of which are reproduced in Christopher Hitchins's "The Portable Atheist" - a misleading title for a book of 528 pages) shows that Aquinas's five arguments are no proof at all. If you wish to discuss each of them, its up to you.
I might look up the book you mention, though. I'm a reading addict.
To the man who has faith, no proof of the existence of God is necessary; to the man without faith no proof is possible. I can only point out that those who would deny the existence of God never pretend that they have any proof that God does not exist, they claim truthfully that many phenomena formerly attributed to divine intervention have a simple scientific explanation – but that is very different from saying that they have any proof that God does not exist at all. An absence of proof, in their estimate, that God exists does not mean at all that He does not really exist. We do not have any proof that there is life on some distant planet in our galaxy but that is no proof that such life does not exist at all. The world we live in is such a marvellous manifestation of intricate design that it is most reasonable to assume that someone planned it that way and that it could never be the result of some chance occurrence.
Multiverse as you correctly state is a hypothesis. And scientists treat it as such. Nobody is going to hold it as being true any time soon.
No scientist has ever proved the existence of God so I will treat the concept of God as a mere hypothesis (with no scientific basis). I wont gamble the way I live around something which is purely hypothetical.
scientically infering the exitence of a quark requires the implimentation of the scientific method and extensive peer reviews. Can you do that with God?
We also know the overall mass of the three quarks found in a proton (938MeV/c2). Can we find the mass of God?
Let us assume that nature is a divine work. Which God was responsible for that? The christian God? The moslim God? The Hindu God Shiva?
The concept of God does not solve anything because it spawns numerous questions regarding His/hers/its origins and his/Hers/its intentions.
The attitude of hopeless despair about the efficacy of prayer is a necessary sequel to the denial of the existence of a God and of a final settlement of accounts in the afterlife. A true Christian does not restrict the measure his success or failure by what happens during the brief span of our earthly existence. He believes that this life is only a brief and difficult prelude to an eternity beyond death as promised by Christ. He accepts with resignation the inevitable tribulations of this earthly existence, such as disease, death and natural calamities. When he prays he does not demand exemption from them – he only prays for divine help to face them. Without belief in God’s mercy in this world, AND his final justice the next, the outlook for humanity would be bleak indeed.
In your daily life there are many things that we neither see nor hear but whose existence we do not dream of denying. Faith is just as important as reason to accept the existence of God but the quest must be approached with humility and prayer, not arrogance.
A scientific theory may sound 'bananas', for example (one of the biggest being the concept of a multiverse, which in no way can ever be verified). As another example, take quarks (found within protons). No one will ever be able to see them, touch them or detect them in any way using the senses - so why should I believe a quark exists? Due to their effects one can postulate (or believe) in their existence. In the same way, while I cannot detect God using my senses, I can infer his existence through his works.
I do not believe God punishes with sickness for sin, or anything of the sort. For those arguments, look to Christopher Grech. I myself challenged him about this.
If I ask you to help me in something wouldnt that put you in a position to decide whether you are going to help me or not? am i not asking you to intervene? would you have to postpone some of your plans to actually help me? and what if you are not planning to help me? wouldn't that make my 'request' futile?
"As regards your query "Why won't God heal amputees?" I can only advise you "Saqsi int lill-Imghallem!". That may not be so easy for someone who, in his own abundant wisdom, will not admit that He exists."
I'd really like to but the fact is that I can't see him nor hear his voice. It is not my fault that your God has decided to shroud his existence in complete mystery. I am debating so that people like you would care to provide clear answers to my questions because I do not have 'abundant wisdom'. I cannot admit to something without evidence. If you have any, please don't hesitate to pass it on.
Best Regards
I'm hardly likely to agree with you on this point, especially considering the fact that I'm a medical student.
Thinking rationally (no religion or quoting from the Bible involved here), St. Thomas Aquinas , borrowing from the Ancient Greeks (Plato and Aristotle), has five arguments which (rationally) lead to proof of God; I personally think they are very compelling
1. Argument of the Unmoved Mover
2. Argument of the First Cause
3. Argument for Contingency
4. Argument from Degree
5. Theological Argument
They are too detailed for me to go into here, and I'm actually reading an explanation about them from 'Reasons to Believe: How to Understand, Explain and Defend the Catholic Faith', by Scott Hahn. It's a very compelling read, if you're interested. And you, Robert.
"You see God gave us true liberty, to love Him or not, otherwise it would not be free love, would it? I am sure that He wants us to love Him, out of our free will."
Ok, Lets assume I told my wife that she is free to love me or not but if she didn't, she would end up dead or lost! I don't think I've left her too much of a free will?
That is exactly what your God demands.
...and if you had to falter in your love, He'll send you some 'pleasant' (sic) disease".
What a real nice guy!
I can never love something that (as you said) is the source of disease and pain. It seems you can't understand the FACT that disease does not discriminate between those who are faithful to God and those who are not. I think most theologians would agree with me on that.
"and we left God out of every equation. "
We left God out of the equation because it is becoming more increasingly clear that God does not factor in the equation. Your claim that disease is a curse from God originates from a mind that had no concept of Physiology, pathology or microbiology.
"Help me God" can never be reasonably twisted to mean a demand that God in his infinite wisdom should suspend His will to please mine. It is a clear request (not a demand) that He helps me in his own way in His own time.
As regards your query "Why won't God heal amputees?" I can only advise you "Saqsi int lill-Imghallem!". That may not be so easy for someone who, in his own abundant wisdom, will not admit that He exists.
Yes it is clear that I misunderstood you! My apologies.
This blog seems to have attracted some curious cases (probably yours truly included).
Missing the sensible and witty contributions of the likes of Ms Victoria Grech.
@ Kurt Mifsud You wrote: "euthanasia if the case involves a person who is 100% relying (not living) on machines?"
Firstly, if God wanted that person in that condition, and there were no machines, and would die because of it, than that is His will. Switching off the machine, if he were in it, is not euthanasia, because God wanted the condition, in the first place!
Everyone seems to be afraid of death, and meeting Our Creator, God.
@ Andrew Camilleri You have misunderstood me. Spiritual sickness begats physical sickness. It is that simple, and breaking the Commandments ruins your health!
@ Robert Attard. Praying to Father (God) is good, and for others who are sick. The best prayer that I like to do, is to pray for the souls to acknowledge God more.
You see God gave us true liberty, to love Him or not, otherwise it would not be free love, would it? I am sure that He wants us to love Him, out of our free will. Today we adore more mammon than anything else, and distracted by soap operas, football etc, and we left God out of every equation.
I think Jessica DeBattista meant "@ Christopher Grech in reply to Robert Attard". It does look like she is replying to you both, but I don't believe she meant it that way ;)
“You are quoting Christopher Grech. I never said that!”
Yes Robert. I was quoting Christopher Grech, but I just wanted to be clearer in identifying from where I lifted the quote since there was another comment by the latter which was addressed to Andrew Camilleri.
I will try to be more careful next time because I understand that it could be misunderstood.
Sorry! : ((
If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. [Matthew 21:21]
If you ask anything in my name, I will do it. [John 14:14]
Ask, and it will be given you. [Matthew 7:7]
Nothing will be impossible to you. [Matthew 17:20]
So I reiterate my proposition that those with faith pray so that before midnight today all patients in Mater Dei are cured. If your prayers are answered I will become the most fervent of all christians!!!
"Thy will be done". It should not be a presumptious demand that God, in his infinite wisdom, should change his will so as to accomodate a comparatively ignorant humanity."
Your "Help me God!.." also demands that He suspends his will so as to please yours! Why cry for help when it is obvious for you that he will only listen to his will.
I don't pray and it clearly seems to me that I am not getting anything less then those who do!
Another question:
Why Won't God Heal Amputees?
"If you believe in god, have you ever considered that he provided men with a brain to work on science and medicine and improve our health & well-being? If it hasn't been for science the average death age would be much lower, like in the past."
What about those billions who lived and died without ever having the opportunity to enjoy our modern medical technology? God has clearly forsaken them!
"Genesis is a spiritual text with spiritual teachings, but cannot be taken literally"
The Genesis symbolically explains that the pain that is inflicted upon man has come from his actions. So the dogmatically infallible pope John the second has drawn upon him the wrath of God in the form of parkinsonism?
Sorry but this sounds abit bananas!
@Jessica DeBattista
You are quoting Christopher Grech. I never said that!
I hope you don't take this badly, but I wish to point out that quoting Bible verses to an atheist is like quoting Richard Dawkins to a fervent Christian - it won't work.
For Bible quotes to work as proof of the veracity of a statement, one would have to believe that the Bible is unerring. Quoting the Bible is no evidence at all.
I only wished to point this out because most probably this would not even occur to most believers.
Just out of curiosity, I'd beg you to read Psalm 139, John 3:16, Romans 8: 38-39 and 1 John 4: 9-10. God is crazy about us, whether we know it or not, whether we acknowledge it or not, because we are all his creatures. Whatever we do, God will chase after us because he loves us, and because we are the image of his son, whom he loves. Can you imagine anything more wonderful then that God would be crazy about us?
I know you do not believe. That does not matter. God loves you just as you are, and desperately loves you (Lk 15: 11-32).
The only sin that cannot be forgiven is that against the Holy Spirit (Mt 12:31)- i.e. one does not believe he can be forgiven and refuses to be forgiven. This is not because God does not want to forgive, but because the person is refusing forgiveness by denying it!
Heaven is not the place with the pearly gates with some nubile female fanning us for all eternity while we sip a chilled vodka martini (lol) - it is much much more then that. If you go to heaven, and I sincerely hope you do, I hardly think that you will be looking at things in the same way as you do here - in the sense that in heaven, we literally become one with God, in the same way as experienced in the Eucharist. You don't 'have' to do anything; you will be praising God because you love him completely and utterly.
You have every right to think heaven is boring if you want - after all, we have free will (as an aside, we could not commit sins if we had no free will). I beg to differ from that belief - you will be too consumed within God's love! I hardly look on that as a punishment!
Even if you do not love God, God loves you for who you are, with all your problems, all your defects. You do not need to believe in God for him to love you!
With reference to your quotes on the sick, I believe the text refers to a spiritual sickness, rather then physical. Not that one shouldn't pray for the sick; but I do not think that simply praying and doing nothing about a disease is adequate. One also has to look at the context in which it was written. At the time in which it was written, treatment for disease was hardly as advanced as nowadays, so praying for the sick was probably more effective then a treatment which did more harm then good.
As an aside, I believe that we are all sinners, and only through Christ are we saved. We don't do any saving ourselves. It is Christ who saves - he works through us, but change occurs through no power of our own, but rather through the Holy Spirit.
Hence, the successors of the apostles, and the successor of Peter, the Pope are to be obeyed (with reference to your quote on the elders of the Church). I quote Mt 16: 19, which in my opinion is an amazing verse: Jesus is giving absolute power over spiritual matters to Peter. I know we differ on a lot of points, but after all I assume we are both Christian, and both attempt to do what is right.
If your conscience tells you that the RCC is mistaken, and that blind faith without reason is correct, then it is your decision and you have every right to hold to that belief. I, on the other hand, differ and believe that the Pope is the successor of Peter and has absolute authority on matters spiritual. I also believe that faith without reason is not justified, since both go hand in hand. The Bible is a spiritual text, and has to be interpreted by looking at the context in which it was written and what the author intended by writing it (for example, Genesis is a spiritual text with spiritual teachings, but cannot be taken literally).
Are you serious? Do you really believe that? It is the most absurd thing I have heard in this blog.
If you believe in god, have you ever considered that he provided men with a brain to work on science and medicine and improve our health & well-being? If it hasn't been for science the average death age would be much lower, like in the past.
Anyway, just a personal question? So you're in favour of euthanasia if the case involves a person who is 100% relying (not living) on machines? Personally I am, just wanted to hear your views.
“The reason that the hospital is full, to me it means that they have rejected God.” A good excuse for Dr.Gonzi however John Dalli would’nt agree. lol
"The reason that the hospital is full, to me it means that they have rejected God. "
I dare you to personally go to mater dei and tell the sick those very words. It might probably be a good idea to get a police escort just in case they try to lynch you.
"The reason that the hospital is full, to me it means that they have rejected God. "
Last week a 3 year old child died from leukemia. Are you suggesting that his fate was decided because he rejected God? Are you still believing the myth that disease is God's wrath?
The hospital is full because first and foremost we are biological beings that are subject to the endless pathologies that exist. Our claim to life is no higher then that of some meningococcal bacteria that can cause a fatal infection.
I once saw a nun hospitalised in Boffa suffering from an ovarian cancer. Her abdomen was so swollen that you'd think she was pregnant. She died three days later amidst all the prayers of her peers. Was it (as you said) just a matter of 'bad karma'?
Pope John the second suffered from parkinsons. Did he reject God at one point in his life?
As you can clearly see, faith brings no impunity. None whatsoever.
"The reason that the hospital is full, to me it means that they have rejected God".
Not very kind of you, is it? I would reply to the rest of your comments, if it were not for the futility of the exercise in view of the above quoted prejudiced statement.
Proof that vaccines can cause autism: http://www.whale.to/vaccines/autism.html
Read what the former UK science chief had to say as the above. He has no axe to grind, unlike some so called independant researchers who work with the pharmaceutical industry.
Check out this site too: http://www.autismobserved.net/
It says:
"World wide observational research has failed to find any autistic individuals who were never vaccinated or exposed to vaccine materials. In short vaccination or exposure to vaccine materials causes autism and is the only cause of autism.
Your child can therefore be protected from autism only by never being exposed to vaccination or to vaccine materials. "
Strong statements.
Suppose God sent an illness so that they would acknowledge God for Who He Is, then why would He want to retract it please? Illness, is simply a question of a communication with God. The reason that the hospital is full, to me it means that they have rejected God.
The world is God's, first and formost, and the earth has been leased to us, although we have done a bad job of it. Similarly, our human flesh is also temporary too. If we misuse it, then its effects would be upon us. Although I can pray for other to be healed, and to have mercy upon the sick, what if it is God's intention to make them sick for His specific purpose? Ever thought about what God wants, rather than what we want?
Why should I intervene if the person themselves do not want to pray to God themselves? What if I gave them an alternative and they refuse? It is then not entirely upon my faith for others, but the patients themselves are bound by thier own karma, and its effect.
" Bible: Proof that by faith in God, there is true healing"
Let me show you what real proof is. I take it that you are a person of great faith. What I propose is that you pray to your God asking him that everyone currently hospitalised in Mater Dei Hospital is cured before midnight. If what you say is true I don't see any reason why a loving God should not answer your prayers.
Thanks for mentioning James in the bible: Proof that by faith in God, there is true healing:
5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church (the Apostles); and let them pray over him [their gospels], anointing him (his head/mind) with "oil" (understanding) in the name of the Lord:
5:15 And the prayer of faith by the sick shall save him, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him [and he will be made well].
5:16 Confess [your] faults ONE TO ANOTHER, and pray one for another (in private - Matt. 6:6), that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
....
5:19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the Truth, and one convert him;
5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the ERROR of his way (not to a different wrong way but to The Way) shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.
So you're saying that if I go to heaven I ll end up having to listen to the prayers of the living and try to intercede for them? Should heaven be somewhere were we can all enjoy ourselves after a life of do's and don'ts. It seems Christianity rewards a good life with a job that lasts for eternity! Does free will exist in heaven? An Eternal life seems so boring! Think about it!
Re your ‘an aside’ my point about ministers and canvassers was a mere comparison and it has nothing to do with mixing spiritual matters with politics.
‘Whose is this image and superscription?’ They answer: ‘Caesar’, upon which Jesus replies ‘Then pay Caesar what is due to Caesar and God what is due to God.’
(Matthew 22:20): Was Jesus mixing politics with spiritual matters with that example?
@ Dr Francis Saliba
. You do not analyse, you merely twist and play with words. When I say ‘The colour is purple’ you corrupt my statement to make it look as if I said ‘The colour is yellow’ and then you proceed to state that the colour is purple. That is not agreeing with you that is exposing your agenda to make your opponents look bad. God blessed you with intelligence, what’s lacking in you is respect for other people’s astuteness.
No, I don't personally believe in vows, but I never mentioned vows.
The saints do actively pray for us; I believe what the Bible says, anyway: Revelations 5:8 states that 'the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints'.
I also believe that one can ask the saints to pray for him/her in the same way is one can ask, another person to pray for oneself (read 1 Tim 2: 1-4), because after all, both us and the Saints belong to the same Communion, which does not end after death. The saints are, we believe, in heaven and have hence been justified. Looking at it logically, James 5: 16 clarifies why one asks a saint for his prayers.
As an aside, I don't think one should mention politics when discussing spirituality (as opposed to the religious establishment itself), so please leave politics out of it.
“..............one asks for a saint to intercede for him/her before God, or to pray for them.” Do you mean like in Maltese parochial politics, going to the the Minister through his canvasser to obtain a favour? To me that what it sounds like. To me it sounds like going to one’s favourite Saint to use pressure on God- surely God is not adamant and would listen to our prayers directly without an intermediary. Incidentally, you are incorrect with regards to prayers; Christians do pray to Saints but adore only God.
Andrew, do you believe in vows? As a child I got very sick and my life was in danger, my parents got desperate and my mother made a vow to the Madonna Tal Vitoria in that, if I get well she will regale her wedding ring to the Titular Statue, Do you think that I got better because of the wedding ring? Doesn’t this sound as corruption?
I do not put words into your mouth and I do not assume anything as can be proven by checking your written comments. The trouble is that when I analyse for your benefit what you yourself wrote you frequently come round to agree with me.
This is the essence of this sad story.
I Corinthians 13:13
There are three things that remain - faith, hope and love - and the greatest of these is love.
I do not restrict the existing spirituality of today's Catholicism only to monasticism and the members of the M.U.S.E.U.M. to the exclusion of everyone from Bishops to Pope.
I said that the structure of the Catholic Church is built on material values and seriously lacks spirituality, but I never said that Spirituality is not existent outside the quoted genre. What you assume is your business but please do not put it in my mouth.
I am also convinced that the spirituality of today's "High Prelates" is, generally speaking, palpably superior to that of the historical "Mitred Lords" and "Crowned Prelates" of long time ago and I made that statement before, however, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God
Since I have been following this blog, I have become aware of a lot of things (mostly negative) that before, I had hardly ever given them a thought. It is not without its risk of giving disturbing messages to its readers.
I am a firm believer in God and I also have great respect for the clergy, even more so when I witness the animosity that is so often directed at it.
However very often I find myself at odds with certain teachings of the church which, I find, no longer make sense, seeing as to how society has changed in the last fifty years or so.
Excommunication, (or our perception of it) for one thing, seems to be too severe a punishment especially since we no longer regard God as the ‘Stern Judge’ (of the Middle Ages) but rather as the ‘Loving Father’ who is always ready to embrace sinners.
In the case under discussion excommunication was made public and it triggered off a controversy, but there must be, God knows, how many people who have been automatically excommunicated but through the sacrament of Reconciliation are back into the fold of the church.
"Matthew 6:7-7 And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words. “Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him."
There you go again!! Matthew just dumped the rosary down the gutter!! To this very day I still can't understand whats the deal of endlessly repeating the same prayer. Although I am not a believer I still admire the fact that at least you decided to question the practices of your faith.
I have no idea what you mean, when you say that the Catholic Church has ignored Exodus 20: 4-5. A Catholic adores and loves God, who is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. A Catholic does not adore saints, and does not adore images and statues. They are used as an aid in prayer, something on which a person can fix his gaze. One does not pray to a statue, one prays to God. And one does not adore a saint; rather, one asks for a saint to intercede for him/her before God, or to pray for them.
I cannot deny that many Catholics may have forgotten spirituality. However, this does not mean that the Catholic faith is not, within itself, a spiritual experience. I invite you to read the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius, for example.
You think Jesus condemns repetitive forms of prayer? In Matthew 6:9-13 Jesus provides us with a formal prayer that we naturally repeat on a frequent basis. Jesus also took part in formal prayers and rituals that were the norm in Jewish culture at the time. The prayers of the rosary are not empty, but scriptural; they are a form of meditation. During the rosary, one meditates the life of Christ one significant episode at a time. The rosary does not take long simply for the sake of Catholics having nothing better to say - it provides more time to meditate on the life of Christ.
As to Isaiah 42:8, I quote Mt 16: 18-19. You can't more clear then that, and spending any more time arguing on this point is pretty pointless I think. Go on, read it, you know you want to!
@A.M. Lombardi: I agree with you. We are one in the Holy Spirit. I never said the Bible contradicts itself, read what I wrote well. I asked you: 'unless you believe the Bible contradicts itself?'. I do not believe it does so, and I also believe you pick and choose what verses you like and discard others. You need no clearer answers then the verses I quoted back at you.
I have been made one with Christ through baptism, and hence have died with Him and risen with Him. I was born again through baptism once and for always. I have received the Holy Spirit by my Confirmation. I hardly think those are pertinent questions.
I am not so wise as to know what gifts God has seen fit to give me. Discovering what these gifts are and how best to use them is a process of discernment and searching; I do not presume that it will be I who discovers what gifts I have; rather it will be God who reveals to me what these gifts will be.
I differ radically from you in that I do not restrict the high spirituality of today's Catholicism only to monastics and the members of the M.U.S.E.U.M. to the exclusion of those whom you call Catholicism's "High Prelates" - which I would take you to mean everyone from Bishops to Pope. You said exactly " ... the modern Catholic Church lacked spiritualism" and also " ... the structure of the Catholic Church is built on material values and seriously lacks spirituality"
I am convinced that the spirituality of today's "High Prelates" is, generally speaking, palpably superior to that of the historical "Mitred Lords" and "Crowned Prelates" of long time ago.
I don't agree. When I say religion is manmade, I mean everything is, because in my opinion there is no god. Human beings have looked for the meaning of life ever since they were capable of thought, they invented stories and deities. To me,religion, the Bible (or whichever holy book) and the concept of God is one other attempt. People in Malta and religious people often find this opinion quasi-blasphemous, but history of humanity is only one small piece of the evidence (in my opinion!) that shows that religion and spiritual beings are manmade.
I have no problem with people who practise their faith but such cases as presented in this blog (and endess other episodes) only go to show how these manmade concepts result in rash judgements towards others, sometimes with awful consequences.
Yes it is men made all religions are, BUT GOD is not a religion GOD is a Spirit so it is all about Spirituality and not religion, the Bible is not a religion either....
We should all walk in the spirit and not in the flesh.....
At long last there’s some ground for understanding.
A. Clairvoyance (the art of 'seeing' beyond the five senses), spiritualism (the belief that the spirits of dead people can communicate with the living, especially through mediums), and séances (the belief that the dead manifest their presence to people, usually through a clairvoyant or medium) are eschewed by Christianity. I have no problem to accept that principle. They are also denied by science. Clairvoyance, however, if translated beyond its vulgar meaning, may encompass ‘Holy Visions’ which I am sceptical about.
B. After 313 AD, when Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, legalizing Christian worship, Christianity was at its all time high in terms of physical wellbeing rather than emotional or spiritual wellbeing. Not even a radical would dare to compare the Church’s spiritual standards then with today’s. Very true, since then the positive strides were enormous however it is also true that the military\political power has transformed itself into a different power, i.e. wealth, materialism and regal statuses. Monks in monasteries, Missioners and Lay Orders like tal-Muzew, live a more spiritual life than the high profile Christian Prelates.
Ephesians 4:11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,
Have you been born again?
Have you received the Holy Spirit?
If you have ...what are the fruits? are you any of the above?
we must walk and pray in the Spirit, catholics are religious people NOT spiritual, Jesus said do not pray in repetitive prayers, where is the spirit in repeating all those same prayers over and over again saying the rosary?
Matthew 6:7-7 And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words. “Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him.
Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD, that is My name;And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images(the RCC gave glory to men of the earth and graven images)
Exodus20:4,5 the RCC taught the complete opposite!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"You've just shown compelling evidence from the bible that all the churches in malta are religiously useless!!!"
Yes indeed there is no spirituality whatsoever in God does not dwell there either God dwells in us we are his Temples and this goes for you to Andrew Camilleri, and also you are wrong the Bible does not contradict itself BUT it contradicts the Catholicism.
Tell us Mr.Camilleri which on of the gifts you have?
Are you an apostle? do you have the gifts of tongues? and the understanding? gift of healing? gift of prophesy? or the gift of an evangelist? are you a teacher, are you a Pastor?
Unless a community church lets say for example 50 people unless there are all these elements that means that community does not form a church of Christ, and in the roman catholic churches you do not find all these elements Ephesians 4
The church I make part (not the building i REPEAT) but the church made out of saints you will find all of these element, I am an evangelist and have the gift for it, and have the gifts of tongues,prophecy.....
I do not associate spirituality with, or confine spirituality to any one particular religion. On the other hand I insist that Christianity eschews "spiritualism" i.e. clairvoyance, seances and all other attempts to communicate and receive communications from the dead through a medium.
I am also convinced that today's Catholicism exhibits a much higher degree of spirituality than at any other time since it received official recognition at the time of Constantine. And that is something admirable.
http://www.generationrescue.org/pdf/wakefield2.pdf
If you notice, in Findings (page 1), it states that 'onset of symptoms was associated, BY THE PARENTS [not by the scientists], with measles, mumps and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 chlidren'.
You will also notice, the sample consisted of 12 children, when a scientific study requires hundreds if not thousands of participants in order to be scientifically accurate. The larger the sample the better. As you will notice in the studies quoted previously, the samples were much larger.
If you scroll down to the section entitled 'Discussion', on page 5 you will notice that the authors themselves state there is no provable link between MMR and autism.
This is simply a case of poorly done and misinterpreted science which panders to the notion of 'scientists out to get you'.
By the way, autism is not connected to the MMR vaccine in any way. That link has been debunked by a number of studies. Here are a few:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2526159&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=65532&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2287222&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=524574&tool=pmcentrez
In the original article outlining a putative link between autism and MMR, there was no rigorous scientific method applied, the sample of individuals was not large enough, and the authors themselves stated, 'We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella [MMR] vaccine and the syndrome described' (Lancet 1998;351: 637)
By the way, it's 'penicllin' not 'penecillian'.
Spiritualism, spirituality or whatever, Religion and spirituality are not interchangeable terms, even though they are often used together. Where religion is typically more strict and organized, spirituality tends to be defined by each individual on a more personal level. It can mean an appreciation for and understanding of various religions.
@ John Scicluna:
Part 2
Regarding your second question, “And what about all that expense in furnishing churches (Basilicas, B'Kara, etc....)? Can you explain that as well?”
“Once again, you do not specify so you can only expect a vague answer.
As an example - St Helen’s Basilica in B’Kara, which was built during the first half of the 18th century, is one of the finest Baroque parish churches in Malta.
Baroque is a Counter Reformation art, the characteristics of which were to have an orchestration of architecture, painting and sculpture working together to create harmony. The sensual effect was meant to attract people back to the church’s fold.
You have to see the richness of a Baroque church in its historical context; otherwise you would be tempted to regard it as a waste of money which could have been put to better use.
Part1.
Yes, in general, modern churches are more modest in size and less ostentatious.
I would have liked you to mention the modern churches you are alluding to, (where “all that gilding (painting using real gold-leaf)” is going on), because I cannot give you an answer unless I know which churches you mean.
Obviously, I would expect some embellishment in the house of God. We go to such lengths to furnish our own homes, why shouldn’t we do the same for our churches, especially if some benefactor is willing to pay for the expenses?
Continued……
And what about bishop Fisichella's statement, "there was no need to declare with such urgency and publicity a fact that occurred automatically"? Fisichella said that the excommunication of the mother and doctors was automatic, and did not say anything against this policy of automatic excommunication. He is only against publicizing it; which I take to mean that he is only defending the church's stance on abortion. I believe Fisichella is only trying to limit the damage being done to the anti-abortion lobby.
@Dr_Francis_Saliba_Part_One
First you admit that without knowing all the details it’s difficult to be so dogmatic about the absolute necessity of an abortion, then you tell us that on the evidence available a caesarean section would in all probability have saved all the lives, finally you intimated that the abortion was performed because it was an easy way out to get rid of the unwanted babies. (Vide your verbatim comment)
If I had an 8 year old daughter who had been sexually abused for 3 years, gets pregnant and her life becomes threatened due to her physical immaturity, I would not opt for a ‘probable’ solution if one existed but go for a more definite one. I would have been prepared to burn in hell to save my daughter but God is too kind to punish me for that.
Now read what your antiquated protégées in the Vatican are being criticized for.
Vatican backtracks over doctors involved in providing abortion to a raped nine-year-old
The case of the Brazilian child impregnated by her stepfather has divided the Catholic Church
Richard Owen in Rome
The Vatican has backtracked over the excommunication of doctors in Brazil who performed an abortion on........
Anyway I think we may be digressing a tiny bit from the subject.
If you want to know more about how autism is caused by injections, just google it, dont take my word for it, do your own research. Most people do not read, nor reseach, on the medicial profession. When I graduated, the first thing I subscribed to was "What Doctors dont want you to know!" By other American doctors. Of course there are other doctors in the world, that have a different perspective, as well.
I have seen cures, with my own eyes. I once worked with a diabetic, that had blood oozing out of his legs. Usually they are not cured at all, but amputated. Within a month of 5 mins hand inverventions (by God really), the problem was cured.
Time and time again, people usually do not believe in these methods, as this is usually in direct relationship to how close they are to Our Father, God. Wisdom is key.
So with your same reasoning, doesn't your god ever get it wrong? Again, with your same reasoning... ask the Tsunami victims for example!
Ask that question to your church in the first place!
And re the medicines issue, I wish you luck in your journey into immunity. Maybe some people actually do need them to go on. Otherwise how do you explain that hundreds of years ago the average death age was 2/3 or less than today?!
It is you who is trying to create a confusion to hide your mistake. When I said that the modern Catholic Church lacked "spiritualism” I meant just that. No more no less.
The phrases ‘spiritualism’ and ‘spirituality’ are interchangeable.
@ Dr Francis Saliba.
No you were not misunderstood, you were not questioning the use of the word "spiritualism" as a synonym for "spirituality”, your statement was that I misused the word ‘Spiritualism’ and I proved to you that it was used in the right context. Why do you find it so difficult to admit a mistake?
Thank God there exist millions on end of Catholics that are very spiritual and I certainly have no qualms about that, yet I do insist that the very structure of the Catholic Church is built on material values and seriously lacks spirituality. It is a symbol of wealth and power.
"Spiritual matters are thus those matters regarding humankind's ultimate nature and meaning, not only as material biological organisms, but as beings with a unique relationship to that which is perceived to be beyond the bodily senses, time and the material world."
If something is beyond bodily senses, time and the material world, how can it be percieved? Perception is the awareness and understanding of sensory information so how can one percieve something that is beyond?
Confusion worse confounded! You said that the modern Catholic Church lacked "spiritualism" when you wanted to allege that it lacked "spirituality". Stop being evasive and deviating into irrelevancies.
(Most modern churches are more modest in size and less ostentatious).
Are you serius? What about all that gilding (painting using real gold-leaf) going on in modern churches today? How can you explain that, please?
And what about all that expense in furnishing churches (Basilicas, B'Kara, etc....)? Can you explain that as well?
In the end one either believes in God or one doesn’t. Personally I regard the Holy Mass not as a ritual but in celebration of my believe in God. I also believe that the Mass has to be administered by a Priest to represent Jesus Christ. Sorry but there are limits to where we can drive a debate.
Indeed garlic contains allicin, a compound with antibacterial properties and other health benefits. So do not discount the real benefits of garlic just because someone tries to use them in a misguided argument against medicine and doctors.
Part 2
You mention St. John’s Co-cathedral and use it to contrast with the preaching of poverty by St. Francis of Assisi and Mother Theresa of Calcutta. Fair enough, but you have to keep in mind that St. John’s was practically the Religious headquarters of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, who all came from very rich and aristocratic families, and they spent huge sums of money to enrich it with the finest works of art.
Thank God for such a jewel to enrich our country!
In the 20th century church architecture changed drastically mainly because of the liturgical reform but also because of the development of new construction possibilities, and the fact that almost all architects had been trained in the secular field. (Most modern churches are more modest in size and less ostentatious).
Part1
If you trace the development of the church you will find that the actual structure of the church made a lot of sense for the people of the time. During the middle age when the common people did not know how to read or write, the images (mainly sculpture around this time) helped to keep the story of Christ and the saints alive. The lavish adornment of the church had a scope too, for it helped the people, to relate to the beauty of heaven and it also gave them a welcome change from their humdrum existence. It was elevating to their spirits in more ways than one.
It continued to develop according to the needs of the time.
continued....
How is it that the Church hasn't ex-communicated the monster step-father?
I may have been misunderstood. I was questioning the use of the word "spiritualism" as a synonym for "spirituality" by anyone who would have us believe that modern Catholicism lack spirituality.
You need to try a little harder.
The meaning of Spiritualism is: -
1 a. The belief that the dead communicate with the living, as through a medium.
1 b. The practices or doctrines of those holding such a belief.
2. A philosophy, doctrine, or religion emphasizing the spiritual aspect of being.
Maybe spiritual or spirituality is used more in that context. Wikiwiki told me that sspirituality, in a narrow sense, concerns itself with matters of the spirit, a concept closely tied to religious belief and faith, a transcendent reality, or one or more deities. Spiritual matters are thus those matters regarding humankind's ultimate nature and meaning, not only as material biological organisms, but as beings with a unique relationship to that which is perceived to be beyond the bodily senses, time and the material world. Spirituality in this sense implies the mind-body dichotomy, which indicates a separation between the body and soul. But spirituality may also be about the development of the individual's inner life through specific practices...........
I think your argument is based on the fact that for you faith is a personal journey and not an institutionalised dictat imposed on the impressionable mass.
The church must be more vociferous about that so as to protect its followers. They are the most gullible members of our society (with regards to the supernatural of course).
I agree but then again I guess there is no biblical text stopping anyone from celebrating mass at home without the need of a priest. The christian church has completely forgotten its humble beginings and my guess is that this is the same reason why many christians can no longer identify themselves with the edifices in the vatican.
The church has grown old and weary. It is incapable of updating itself to the shifting morals of our modern society. Its only way out is to submit a judgement which describes our society as decadent.
The incongruent rationality of the church speaks loud and clear. A 9 year old girl defending her life is excommunicated but real murderers are not! I hope people in general can aptly appreciate the dangers of dogmaticaly accepting any form of subjective truth.
Reason will remain the great enemy of faith. Reason will bring down faith.
Living in the wilds of Mato Grasso, in the middle of the Sahara Desert or in the Vatican City is immaterial for anybody who wants to live the life of a good Christian. The Christ, St. Francis of Assisi and Mother Theresa of Calcutta did not preach religion at St. John’s Co-Cathedral or the Grand Mosta Rotunda and they saved souls. I don’t care if nobody agrees with me but I see a lot of Religious scope in our Churches but spiritually they are practically worthless, if anything they represent the antonym of Spiritualism. They are too materialistic to convey the true massage of Christ. But are churches therefore “necessary”? Yes, they are required by God to administer His Sacraments and communicate clearly to His people. They also give us a sense of belonging and are necessary to protect the Truth, but there is absolutely no spiritual need for the genre of what they evolved into.
"Acts 17:24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands."
You've just shown compelling evidence from the bible that all the churches in malta are religiously useless!!!
I'd also read Mt 16: 13-19; I don't think anything can be more clear than verse 18
I'd read Mt 26: 26-29, Mk 14: 22-26, Lk 22: 15-20, Jn 6: 51-58
Also, read Mt 28:16-20, Mk 16: 14-18, Lk 24:36-49, John 20: 19-23
There's 1 Kor 12: 12-31
Unless, of course, you think the Bible contradicts itself in matters spiritual, I think you'll agree your types enjoy taking things out of context, and forgetting bits of the Bible they don't like. I suggest reading Scott Hahn.
I have been trying to pint it out to you so many times, that the church changes by time and it compromises so that it can be loved by all nations BUT the word of GOD never does,it is always the Same
"The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever."Isaiah 40:8
Jesus Christ did not want us to be part of a religious sect or a denomination but to have a personal relationship with Him and yes we are His church we are His temples individually God does not dwell in temples made by hands but He dwells in us
Acts7:48 However, the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands, as the prophet says:
Acts 17:24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.
come out of her "the Vatican"
And I heard another voice from heaven saying,“Come out of her, my people,lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues. Revelation 18:4
The question remains. Could someone explain why saving the life of a nine year old child is a matter for excommunication for the mother and the doctors but the abuser of the child is not excommunicated.
The Church says that the foetuses had a right to live but doesn't the girl have a right to live as well since the pregnancy was risking the child's life?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7930380.stm
Happy Feast!!!
Jessica
I dont think that murderers are excommunicated. This is in stark contrast with what the church has in store for those christians who resort to abortion. I am pro-choice and I am happy that the girl chose her life instead of the life of two zygotic cells that have not yet developed a nervous system yet alone a true conscienceness (which ultimately defines us as human beings).
No, there are no vaccines that causes autism. This has been proven over and over and is unfortunately a lie spread by overzealous people willing to put their own agenda over other peoples' wellfare. It's a dangerous lie to spread, as the rejection of mmr vaccines, to take the example you are probably referring to, has led to a dramatic increase of measles and even to multiple deaths of children and infants.
I know it's sidetracking a bit, but the seriousness of the topic is worth it.
In relation to the story, I'm sure both the mother and the doctors acted out of their hearts content and did what they truly believed was right. Whether this is worthy of excommunication is not for me to decide or meddle in. I just wish her all the best to recover from these horendous acts. She is going to need all the support she can and I'll gladly join in the example set by Archbishop Fisichella.
Very well said!
“Pope Pius XII added his approval to this rationale when he said:
Deliberately we have always used the expression 'direct attempt on the life of an innocent person,' 'direct killing.' Because if, for example, the saving of the life of the future mother, independently of her pregnant condition, should urgently require a surgical act or other therapeutic treatment which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired or intended, but inevitable, the death of the foetus, such an act could no longer be called a direct attempt on an innocent life. Under these conditions the operation can be lawful, like other similar medical interventions—granted always that a good of high worth is concerned, such as life, and that it is not possible to postpone the operation until after the birth of the child, or to have recourse to other efficacious remedies.”
The church teaches us to allow nature to take its course but then it accepts an act of self defence which includes killing if a life threatening situation presents itself.
Besides going through the trauma of the worst kind of rape, this innocent victim’s life was threatened due to the pregnancy and her poor state of health. Her pregnancy became her enemy, so to speak, and terminating it tantamount to a legitimate act of self defence. Maybe legally I would be wrong but spiritually I would feel justified as saving my life is a God given right.
I have it from a very spiritual gynaecologist that when they were faced with similar sad situation, to choose between mother and child, the confessor left them at liberty to act on what their conscience dictated and they always saved the mother. And I’m speaking about Malta where abortion is illegal.
Canon law or no Canon law abortion is a sinful act as much as murder; whether cross the board excommunication is justified I would allow the church to be the judge of that and finally God. I do not think that rape carries the automatic penalty of excommunication, probably it doesn’t.
Having said that and notwithstanding the fact that I am a pro-life militant, in the girls precarious situation I would have done exactly the same and then would allow only God to judge me.
Fair enough. I obviously disagree with you, but at least you are being consistent with what you preach.
I would only ask you to consider this (assuming God exists, something you obviously believe). Suppose that God wants to cure people, and wants to do it by helping scientists create effective medicine? Do you even deny this possibility?
This reminds me of a joke I once heard, which in short goes as follows:
A ship sinks, leaving only one survivor hanging on a plank in the open sea. A speedboat passes by, but the survivor refuses help, saying "God will save me". Then a ship passes by, but again, the survivor says "move along, God will save me". Then a helicopter...with the same outcome.
The man drowns, and reaches the gates of heaven. He asks God: "I have been a good Christian all my life. Why did you not save me in my hour of need". God replies: You cannot say I did not try. I sent a speedboat, a ship and a helicopter, just for you!"
Thanks for your question. I do not indulge into any medicine. Not even panadols. Just use ordinary food. Onions and garlic are my antibiotics. All you need is within nature, that God has given us.
@Ramon Since you stated that you are an atheist, there is not much scope in these type of arguments, right? God is All we need. Think that we are put on earth, for His purpose, not your own (human-flesh cross that we wear). Ever heard of vaccines that cause autism, and more problems with health, than solving them? This is certainly, not mainstream news, and if you email the medical board on the dangers of flouride or aspertame, well, do you not get a reply!
Sometimes, medical doctors, get things so wrong, bordering at times on the criminal. Why did Ronald Reagan go to Germany for his cancer treatment? The US medics are so bad? Because he did not think in a box. When George Bush was asked, Would you vaccinate yourself, he said no!
Ever heard of reiki? Well I know of something even better to heal yourself! (You would have to research this yourself, too long to write about).
We tamper with nature every time we wear clothes instead of relying on our bare skin to protect us from the elements, every time we cook our food rather than eating everything raw, every time we use medicine to defeat a disease. We tamper with nature when we harness electrons and use it to power computers and the internet and this website.
This attitude of trusting in God to make things right can be dangerous. Abroad, there are horror stories of parents who let their children die because they thought praying for them to get better would be sufficient.
So... this girl was not going to become unpregnant just by wishing it. Continuing the pregnancy was a threat to her life, yet there is a church law that demands automatic excommunication for abortions. This is, I think, what Jesus was talking about. Such strict and blind adherence to the letter rather than the spirit of the law serves nobody.
Thank you for sharing Cardinal Fisichella's views with us.
He is a true ambassador of the church, and your endorsement off him does you credit.
Unfortunately, many times we only hear views such as Cardinal Sabrosa's which make me feel pretty much like your friend.
From a lapsed catholic.
"Regarding the girl, that is more complicated. I would leave doctors out of it, as they are tempering with nature. Should God want the girl to have children, it would be, if He thinks to terminate the pregnancy, then He would".
Just a question...do you ever use any medicine when you are ill? Do you reason that "if God wants to cure me, he will cure me without the medicine"?
The law in which the bible states is ONLY meant for God's law and certainly not human's laws. I know for sure that according to God's law, the step-father should be killed for such perversity. Read the judgments in the Torah.
Regarding the girl, that is more complicated. I would leave doctors out of it, as they are tempering with nature. Should God want the girl to have children, it would be, if He thinks to terminate the pregnancy, then He would.
When are we to finally think, of what God wants, rather than the contrary?
When are we to believe that it is God, that brings good weather to feed us, or the contrary when we dont deserve to. So many stories in the bible, about this. But then we do not beleive in anything the bible says, and nor accept them, and doctors and lawyers and priests, overrule God's word. As usual. Most people reading this think, Oh this guy should go with the times! Well God's word is evergreen, FOR-EVER! We humans, think that we know better.
"The Law was made for man and not man for the Law"
I must say that I am pleasantly surprised by this article - not that I do not believe there are several priests who share your views, but because most are not as outspoken about them.
Regarding the excommunication business, I suppose you would predict that my views about this is that people who do not follow the Catholic Church to the letter in matters that the same Catholic Church deems of utmost importance, perhaps they do not belong in the Catholic Church in the first place (which is not to say that they should renounce Christianity, which is a very different thing). You would be correct in predicting this about my views on this.
However, I do agree with you that the Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho should have dealt with the matter with more compassion. The poor girl has been through enough already.