The End Is Nigh - Are You Prepared for 'The Rapture'?

quote:

Originally posted by Bruce Woodhouse:
...yet I see the Catholic Church failing to adapt to modern times and the needs of its flock by continuing to ban barrier contraception...

...I accept (as a non-believer) that adherence and interpretation of scripture is a crucial part...

I am not a Roman Catholic myself, so am not grinding a particular axe.

But you are certainly right about adherence to Scripture, which for Catholics and all other 'mainstream' (if I may use that word) Christians is not just a moral manual or collection of accumulated wisdom, but 'the Word of the Lord'.

There has never been a time when the teaching of Christ or the Christian Church has matched the prevailing 'secular' thinking of any period. And in most periods the teaching of Christ or the Christian Church has been downright unacceptable to the prevailing 'secular' view (that's one reason Christ was crucified, because his teaching - e.g. blessed are the peacemakers, the meek, etc, etc - is so unacceptable!)

Authentic Christianity has always sought to offer a radical critique of, and alternative to, a secular world view.

With regard to sex, it is crucial to remember that Christians believe God invented it, and that it is good and wonderful! But the Church also believes that - like all of God's gifts - God's gift of sex is to be used responsibly and within his original intention and purpose, to which Holy Scripture bears witness. And so the Church does not see sex as just another recreational activity between anyone who fancies a bit.

(Parallel with this is also the question of the gift of life, the sanctity of life, when life begins, etc.)

Thus, with regard to HIV (which is not a contrception issue as such) the Church recognises that, ultimately, the bottom line in preventing the sexual spread of HIV is not condoms, but fidelity.

(This applies equally to wicked people forcing themselves on others, as to consensual sex outside the faithful commitment to marriage.)

Actually, there is more discussion around this subject than many, or even most people think (they tend to get the sensationalist headlines of the media).

There is, for example, the moral principle of 'double effect' (a more sophisticated and subtle version of 'the lesser of two evils'). An undesired 'negative effect' may be tolerated when the 'positive effect' that would be lost if the 'negative effect' was not permitted would be worse. But - crucially - the 'negative effect' must not in itself be positively desired.

And in fact, on this principle of 'double effect', my understanding is that the Church does already allow condoms to be used by a married couple where one is already infected by HIV.

This can hardly be an exhaustive visitation to the land of Christian moral theology...!

James

REVISED POST - MISSED THE 'EDIT WINDOW' BY A MINUTE!

quote:

Originally posted by Bruce Woodhouse:
...yet I see the Catholic Church failing to adapt to modern times and the needs of its flock by continuing to ban barrier contraception...

...I accept (as a non-believer) that adherence and interpretation of scripture is a crucial part...

I am not a Roman Catholic myself, so am not grinding a particular axe.

But you are certainly right about adherence to Scripture, which for Catholics and all other 'mainstream' (if I may use that word) Christians is not just a moral manual or collection of accumulated wisdom, but 'the Word of the Lord'.

There has never been a time when the teaching of Christ or the Christian Church has matched the prevailing 'secular' thinking of any period. And in most periods the teaching of Christ or the Christian Church has been downright unacceptable to the prevailing 'secular' view (that's one reason Christ was crucified, because his teaching - e.g. blessed are the peacemakers, the meek, etc, etc - is so unacceptable!)

Authentic Christianity has always sought to offer a radical critique of, and alternative to, a secular world view.

With regard to sex, it is crucial to remember that Christians believe God invented it, and that it is good and wonderful! But the Church also believes that - like all of God's gifts - God's gift of sex is to be used responsibly and within his original intention and purpose, to which Holy Scripture bears witness, [amended] the committed, lifelong faithful bond.

And so the Church does not see sex as just another recreational activity between anyone who fancies a bit.

(Parallel with this is also the question of the gift of life, the sanctity of life, when life begins, etc.)

Thus, with regard to HIV (which is not a contrception issue as such) the Church recognises that, ultimately, the bottom line in preventing the sexual spread of HIV is not condoms, but fidelity.

(This applies equally to wicked people forcing themselves on others, as to consensual sex outside the [added] the committed, lifelong faithful bond.)

Actually, there is more discussion around this subject than many, or even most people think (they tend to get the sensationalist headlines of the media).

There is, for example, the moral principle of 'double effect' (a more sophisticated and subtle version of 'the lesser of two evils'). An undesired 'negative effect' may be tolerated when the 'positive effect' that would be lost if the 'negative effect' was not permitted would be worse. But - crucially - the 'negative effect' must not in itself be positively desired.

And in fact, on this principle of 'double effect', my understanding is that the Church does already allow condoms to be used by a married couple where one is already infected by HIV.

This can hardly be an exhaustive visitation to the land of Christian moral theology...!

James

The Rapture - bring it on!

I'll happily live in a world without Christians.

Any chance God might scoop up all the different faiths as well leaving sensible pragmatic reasoning folks to enjoy the world without guilt, judgement, wars, etc etc?

Might just be the sanest thing God does

Doug

The great news for Christians is all they have to do is say sorry and everything is all right.

Bollocks is what it is. Religion is just an excuse for men to fight, because when all is said and done, men fight.

quote:

Originally posted by garyi:
The great news for Christians is all they have to do is say sorry and everything is all right.

Grow up. And examine your own prejudices.

Prejudice - the greatest labour-saving device ever invented - saves having to think.

give it a rest, I couldn't give a shit either way.

JWM

Thanks for your reply, I'm aware of the arguments you use and respect them. My personal sadness is the sense of such a missed opportunity in HIV.

The promotion of fidelity is clearly the preferred Catholic model, but those who transgress are still welcomed within the Church; they still deserve protection. I therefore think that the Church should have considered a 'harm reduction' strategy in this exceptional situation.

I do not think that allowing condom usage would have sanctioned infidelity. I think the greater sin is to stand idly by, promoting a strategy that is practically useless.

Organised religion has immense power, it also has a duty to respect it's belief framework. My main point contributing to this thread was to highlight a current issue where I think a religious group has failed to use its power responsibly by failing to adapt its theology.

Enough now! Religious discussions rarely prosper even amongst friends. I suspect this one will go downhill very rapidly too.

Bruce

I agree - and certainly the point about all being welcomed within the Church.

And (as I said earlier) there is actually more discussion going on about this than is often realised from the public media coverage.

Practical theology is about responding to developing need (hence my point much earlier about St Paul sometimes seeming to be at variance with himself - because he is writing letters to address particular pastoral needs and not a systematic theology). And starting from where we are, rather than where we might prefer to be...

...if I wanted to get to Dublin, I wouldn't start from here...

James

JWM

For the most part I accept your response. Our views differ but for my part I am quite aware that I am prejudiced against christianity and would do well to be a little more open-minded about it all.

A couple of things:

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:

Reconciliation is not about corporate amnesia. It is, however, about recognising and admitting past mistakes, forgiveness and moving on.

Words are not enough when the harm is so great. No system of justice anywhere accepts a simple apology as atonement for serious crimes. I don't know what this would mean for the Roman church as I am no elder statesman - but massive reform at the very least would be a great start.

quote:

There are, of course, many examples. But, as one, I would have thought that news would get even as far as NZ about the late Pope JPII's very public acknowledgment of, and apology for (as far as it is possible to apologise for something done by someone else a long time ago) so many of the past wrongs done by the Catholic Church for example, such as the Inquisition, anti-Semitism, Slavery, Crusades, paedophilia, the split with the Eastern Orthodox and subsequent violence, etc, etc.

quote:

My experience with christians suggests not.

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:

YOUR experience. Thereby hangs a tail.

It's a pity that you quoted and answered these parts of my paragraph separately. Of course I am aware of the late Pope's acknowledgements and apologies. Perhaps I should have been more clear. By far the greatest part of my prejudice against christianity stems from my personal experience of christians throughout my life and it is that to which I referred. The religion seems to encourage a hatred of difference - and I am not suggesting it is any different from other religions in this respect - and this alone is reason enough to stick with my own prejudices rather than adopt collective ones.

FWIW, I think this is the sanest debate about religion that I have come across for quite some time.

Kindest regards
Deane

Deane F,

Well stereotyped.

HERE HERE!

Jim Lawson

The length of your post exceeds the contribution it makes to the thread. A pity.

Good discussion.

While not a huge fan of some current trends in U.S. evangelical Christianity, I feel compelled to make an observation that seems obvious on it's face: that even if you could ride a time machine back to the early centuries and magically eliminate Christianity as a cultural movement, people would simply come up with different reasons to dominate/oppress/torture/kill one another. The problem is not religion (or politics or race or nationalism or whatever); it is human nature. Christianity was the excuse for the Crusades, as Communism was the pretext for Mao and Stalin's oppression and murder of millions. but it was the dark side of our own human nature that really caused those things.

An aside: as a vaguely Lefty, agnostic sort of person, it pains me that so many in my basic position regard modern Christians generally as unsophisticated, credulous rubes living in the rural South; there are actually a few Christians who are starting to questioning the right-wing script about global warming, the environment generally, the war in Iraq, etc. However, the condescension and dismissal with which many in the media and the coastal intelligentsia treat the Evangelicals (and other principled conservatives) enables the Right to keep the wedges sharp. Whereas I'd like to open conversations and build bridges with anyone who's willing to make common cause to try and make this world a better place; which is what the vast majority of Christians want.

Having said I'd contribute no more I note a news item this morning, the Pope is apparently about to state that the concept of 'limbo' (wherein un-baptised children do not go to heaven but instead to a curious state of...ahem...limbo) should be abandoned by the RC Church.

So the theology does adapt. Not with spectacular alacrity or relevance mind you!

DEar All,

would somebody please explain the difference between:

contraception and the prevention of the conception and birth of a child.

And allowing the death of that child through starvation disease and even genocide.

Surley it is preferable to prevent the conception than to allow a child to die very soon after its birth.

regards David

quote:

Originally posted by bhazen:
Good discussion.

While not a huge fan of some current trends in U.S. evangelical Christianity, I feel compelled to make an observation that seems obvious on it's face: that even if you could ride a time machine back to the early centuries and magically eliminate Christianity as a cultural movement, people would simply come up with different reasons to dominate/oppress/torture/kill one another. The problem is not religion (or politics or race or nationalism or whatever); it is human nature. Christianity was the excuse for the Crusades, as Communism was the pretext for Mao and Stalin's oppression and murder of millions. but it was the dark side of our own human nature that really caused those things.

I agree entirely and believe it goes to show how there really isn't anything special about Christianity.

As far as The Rapture is concerned - well, if I am left behind and end up spending eternity suffering in hell it will be at the hands of a psychopathic, sadistic god.

But then perhaps I'd deserve it for not believing in Jesus...

quote:

Originally posted by Bruce Woodhouse:
...the Pope is apparently about to state that the concept of 'limbo'... should be abandoned by the RC Church.

So the theology does adapt. Not with spectacular alacrity or relevance mind you!(my emboldening)

Bruce,
to you it may not seem to be with 'spectacular alacrity or relevance', but there are those for whom this will be an exceptionally relevant, significant and timely.

Significance and Timing.
It has to be said that the current concept of limbo as it has come to be in the 'popular mind' does not accurately reflect the original theology (St Augustine, I think). It was, essentially, a pastoral response to the question 'if baptism is necessary to salvation, what happens to infants dying before baptism? - 'Limbo' (still within the love of God) was the very positive alternative to being lost in eternity ('hell').

Ditching 'limbo' does ditch something that has been around for 1,700 years albeit somewhat distorted from the original theology.

Significance: theological revision can happen!

Immediate relevance : to families who, sadly, experience the death of a child in infancy. And to those who seek to minister to them pastorally.

James

quote:

Originally posted by DAVOhorn:
DEar All,

would somebody please explain the difference between:

contraception and the prevention of the conception and birth of a child.

And allowing the death of that child through starvation disease and even genocide.

Surley it is preferable to prevent the conception than to allow a child to die very soon after its birth.

regards David

"Contraception and the prevention of the conception and birth of a child."

A 'barrier' method (condom and cap) physically prevents conception (which in the mainstream Christian view is the moment of egg and sperm joining).

Whereas other methods (pill, coil) either prevent the joined egg and sperm from embedding in the womb, or cause, effectively, a miscarriage.

"And allowing the death of that child through starvation disease and even genocide."

These are both man-made scandals, neither of which need exist. No one in this world need starve, there's plenty for everyone. The other is depraved murder.

James

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:
Ditching 'limbo' does ditch something that has been around for 1,700 years albeit somewhat distorted from the original theology.

What's happening in the modern age is that people are thinking for themselves and choosing a religion that suits their beliefs, not believing what suits their religion as previous generations. It would make no difference to me what the church considers the outcome of a child dying before baptism because my God would never, ever, make that innocent baby suffer the consequences of something out of his/her control. As far as I'm concerned, God is unconditional love.

I thought we all had to hang around in Limbo, and couldn't you just pay someone to reduce the stay?
Perhaps living in a spiritual void is in fact Limbo.
I think we do best to choose a Higher Power of our own understanding. Unfortunately, choosing Hi-Fi is rarely the path to prolonged enlightenment.

Purgatory.

quote:

Originally posted by Rockingdoc:
Unfortunately, choosing Hi-Fi is rarely the path to prolonged enlightenment.

Oh I dunno...not my recent experience.

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:

quote:

Originally posted by Rockingdoc:
Unfortunately, choosing Hi-Fi is rarely the path to prolonged enlightenment.

Oh I dunno...not my recent experience.

Wait 'til you get your Hi-Line...
('Get thee behind me, Satan...')

James;

I thought you coped very well with Satan at BS&V.

Offering him the hand of friendship, truly was turning the other cheek.

John.

quote:

Originally posted by J.N.:
James;

I thought you coped very well with Satan at BS&V.

Offering him the hand of friendship, truly was turning the other cheek.

John.

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:
Purgatory.

Oops, you're right, of course. We Prods don't have much of a grip on this as we don't have to go thre.