Symptom or disease? Excommunicating injustice

[Tiassa]

Depends on how you read their rules

Do YOU believe they are going to go to Heaven for their actions?

I cannot draw a firm conclusion either way. To the one, I think people whose motive to do good is to fulfill their obligations in order to be saved run a risk of pissing off God. To the other, I also accept the proposition that, in fact, everybody goes to Heaven. That's a bit more complicated, but the basic point is that it is inevitable and necessary; everything that occurs is subject to God's will, so that even evil serves His plan. In the end, the only reason the Devil can't be redeemed is because it is his fundamental nature to refuse redemption. It is necessary that he be that way.

But when we see religion and politics intersect like this, one should not be surprised to find, somewhere in the mess, at least one person turning the religious expression into an absolute disaster.

Brazilian Catholics are not alone in this. In the United States, televangelism is a multibillion dollar industry thoroughly saturated with similar usurpation, vengeful cruelty, and strident hypocrisy.

Some of the Protestant missions in Africa are only making the problems worse.

You know, God would understand. That's the thing. No matter what else, it's between each of those people and God. And God would understand if they hadn't bothered with the excommunications; maybe even been impressed at some genuine compassion. And that's what gets me. This is cold, what the church has done. This is throwing people away. For that girl, her mother, those doctors, it's all between them and God. But that wasn't good enough for the Church. No. Having faith in God simply isn't in the realm of possibility. No, the Church must have satisfaction, the perverse satisfaction of throwing people away like so much trash.

So yes, should it be that not everyone goes to Heaven, I think the cruelty of Church officials, and the petty greed that motivates it, really will play against them come Judgment Day.

Do YOU believe Heaven exists?

No, actually, I don't. It's possible. So is reincarnation. Or a simple transfer of astral valences. Or any number of whacked possibilities, some of which I find entertaining.

But, sadly, it's more likely that death simply is what it is: the end of our experiences.

And, just because someone might think to ask, my answer to Pascal, as such, is that I refuse to pander for redemption. I mean, really, what pathetic excuse for a God would run such a stupid scheme? No. No serious proposition of God can be so tiny and ridiculous as judgment and redemption.

 

[Nasor]

Unless, of course, by "improve your situation" we mean "avert your death at the hands of said people."

Which is exactly what happened here. The 9 year old would have died without the abortion.

I believe even the catholics allow people to remove a fetus if it's definitely, immanently going to kill the mother. The article said the doctors feared that the pregnancy might kill her. It does not appear to have been a sure thing; in fact, the article doesn't give any indication at all what the actual odds were. The catholics would probably say that she should have at least tried to carry the pregnancy, and only ended it if it because absolutely necessary.

Like I said, I don't agree with them, but their position makes perfect sense if you accept their premise that abortion is murdering a child.

 

[wynn]

I cannot draw a firm conclusion either way.
/.../
No, actually, I don't. It's possible.

In that case, how can you relate to the Church's justification (even though in this case, it is your projection of what their justification is) of the excommunication of the mother?

Suppose that the Church's justification would actually be 'If we don't excommunicate the mother, we are going to go to hell. We want to go to heaven, therefore, we will excommunicate the mother.'
Perhaps they know that heaven is worth it.
But I don't know whether is worth it, and neither do you, as you confirmed that you do not believe in heaven.

Anyway, this is actually a formal problem of attempting to criticize an action on the grounds that it is not necessary to actually know the benefit or purpose of performing said action, in order to be able to validly criticize that action.
IOW, you seem to be operating on the basis of the premise that an action can be validly criticized without knowing said action's benefit or purpose.

I do not think that an action can be validly criticized without knowing said action's benefit or purpose.

To the one, I think people whose motive to do good is to fulfill their obligations in order to be saved run a risk of pissing off God. To the other, I also accept the proposition that, in fact, everybody goes to Heaven. That's a bit more complicated, but the basic point is that it is inevitable and necessary; everything that occurs is subject to God's will, so that even evil serves His plan. In the end, the only reason the Devil can't be redeemed is because it is his fundamental nature to refuse redemption. It is necessary that he be that way.

Well, you apparently have a different idea of heaven and what it takes to get there than some Catholics.

You know, God would understand. That's the thing. No matter what else, it's between each of those people and God. And God would understand if they hadn't bothered with the excommunications; maybe even been impressed at some genuine compassion. And that's what gets me. This is cold, what the church has done. This is throwing people away. For that girl, her mother, those doctors, it's all between them and God. But that wasn't good enough for the Church. No. Having faith in God simply isn't in the realm of possibility. No, the Church must have satisfaction, the perverse satisfaction of throwing people away like so much trash.

So yes, should it be that not everyone goes to Heaven, I think the cruelty of Church officials, and the petty greed that motivates it, really will play against them come Judgment Day.

Why not see the excommunication as an opportunity to investigate other possible doctrines about God, or theistic communities?

Why assume that a particular branch of the Catholic Church has the monopoly on the doctrine about what it takes to properly believe in God and to come to heaven?

Because from what you are saying above, you are actually implying that you think a particular branch of the Catholic Church has the monopoly on the doctrine about what it takes to properly believe in God and to come to heaven.

 

[quadraphonics]

I believe even the catholics allow people to remove a fetus if it's definitely, immanently going to kill the mother.

Nope. They do not make any exceptions to the prohibition on abortion, although they have said something to the effect that they do not consider procedures to save the life of a pregnant woman which result in the termination of pregnancy as a "secondary effect" to count as "abortion." But that refers to things like administering drugs that could harm the fetus as a side effect. An actual abortion, where the removal of the fetus is a "primary effect," is never allowed, under any circumstances, and any Catholic that undergoes or otherwise participates in one gets excommunicated.

And as this case makes perfectly clear, they are serious about imposing that penalty.

The article said the doctors feared that the pregnancy might kill her. It does not appear to have been a sure thing; in fact, the article doesn't give any indication at all what the actual odds were. The catholics would probably say that she should have at least tried to carry the pregnancy, and only ended it if it because absolutely necessary.

You're splitting ridiculous hairs here (and, again, it would not matter to Catholic doctrine if we were absolutely positive that the pregnancy would end in death). Medical experts thought the risk of death was sufficiently high to recommend abortion, and the girl's guardian agreed. That's all the process that is required to justify an abortion, under any defensible set of morals. The church has no place second-guessing medical advice from a doctor. They are literally ordering a girl to commit suicide (and so leave her offspring without parents, supposing they even survive to viability), under penalty of being tortured forever, in support of their insistence that life begins at conception.

 

[Nasor]

Nope. They do not make any exceptions to the prohibition on abortion, although they have said something to the effect that they do not consider procedures to save the life of a pregnant woman which result in the termination of pregnancy as a "secondary effect" to count as "abortion."

I could certainly be wrong, but as I recall they specifically do allow surgical intervention into ectopic pregnancies if the mother is about to die. Consult your local catholic, I guess...

You're splitting ridiculous hairs here (and, again, it would not matter to Catholic doctrine if we were absolutely positive that the pregnancy would end in death). Medical experts thought the risk of death was sufficiently high to recommend abortion, and the girl's guardian agreed. That's all the process that is required to justify an abortion, under any defensible set of morals. The church has no place second-guessing medical advice from a doctor. They are literally ordering a girl to commit suicide (and so leave her offspring without parents, supposing they even survive to viability), under penalty of being tortured forever, in support of their insistence that life begins at conception.

Again, if you're interested in understanding their motivations and reasoning, you have to remember their position that abortion is murder. If the doctors thought there was, say, a 10% chance that the pregnancy would result in her death, they would probably order the abortion since they don't think of abortion as equivalent to murdering a person; to them it's just a medical procedure that will make their patient safer. The catholics, on the other hand, would say that you shouldn't kill someone (the fetus) just because they might cause your death; you should probably wait until their causing your death is a near certainty.

 

[quadraphonics]

I could certainly be wrong, but as I recall they specifically do allow surgical intervention into ectopic pregnancies if the mother is about to die.

Ectopic pregnancy is a different matter entirely. There is no possibility of the fetus surviving in that case, and so no moral issue with destroying it. It's going to die no matter what you do, so you may as well try to save the mother. You are not making a choice between one life and another in this situation. You are making a choice between one life and no lives.

The catholics, on the other hand, would say that you shouldn't kill someone (the fetus) just because they might cause your death; you should probably wait until their causing your death is a near certainty.

No, they go even farther than that, and claim that it is unacceptable for any person, under any circumstances, to choose to end the life of an innocent person. It does not matter if not killing said person will inevitably result in your own death. You are only allowed to kill in response to "unjust aggression" (their term), which fetuses are considered to be categorically incapable of. The fetus doesn't intend to kill the mother, so the mother cannot - under any circumstances whatsoever - decide to kill the fetus. You can be 100% sure that continuing the pregnancy will kill the mother, and it's still not allowed, if there's any chance that the fetus will make it to viability.

The only circumstance in which abortion is allowed under Catholicism is when it is certain that the fetus will not survive regardless AND poses a health risk to the mother.

 

[swarm]

.

Part of the problem is the notion that the symptom and the cause are necessarily separable.

In complex systems the cause may be discrete or the symptom itself may become its cause due to feedback loops.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Really, if you sincerely believed that you would spend eternity suffering excruciating misery and pain if you didn't, would you rape and torture someone into confessing witchcraft, and then set them on fire?

No.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Their priority is their religion. And at no time can they back down from what their religion dictates, even when common sense would show that saving the girl's life is of equal if not more value..

It shows that the Church is completely out of touch with the realities of human life and care fuck all for life in and of itself. To demand that a child be condemned to death because she was pregnant, a death that would have resulted because of that pregnancy, it shows a complete lack of compassion and understanding for the girl or her life. The only thing they care about is that their doctrines are upheld, even if doing so results in the deaths of children.

Such is the way of theism. Nasty repulsive "morals".

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Tiassa, I normally enjoy reading your posts and agree with you, but I'm not really sure what your point is here. They clearly acknowledge that the rape was a bad thing. But since they consider abortion to be murder, they are more upset about the abortion than the rape. Of course the abortion is the result of the rape, but it's generally accepted that you don't get to murder people in order to improve your situation, even if your situation is only unfortunate because someone else wronged you. To use a strained analogy, you don't get to murder someone by draining all his blood for your own use, even if you really need a transfusion because someone else stabbed you.I don't agree with them, but it's all consistent with their world view.

It's not that your analogy is strained. It's not an analogy at all.
Suppose someone kidnaps you & surgicly implants a fetus into you which seriously endangers your life.
Even if 1 believes all other abortion is murder, this is not.

 

[Tiassa]

The Catholic Church's lack of faith

In that case, how can you relate to the Church's justification (even though in this case, it is your projection of what their justification is) of the excommunication of the mother?

Spending half my life being indoctrinated by Christians, including Catholics.

Suppose that the Church's justification would actually be 'If we don't excommunicate the mother, we are going to go to hell. We want to go to heaven, therefore, we will excommunicate the mother.'
Perhaps they know that heaven is worth it.
But I don't know whether is worth it, and neither do you, as you confirmed that you do not believe in heaven.

Your proposition is essentially, "If we don't forsake our faith in God in order to usurp His judgment, we are going to go to Hell."

This is biblically untenable.

Anyway, this is actually a formal problem of attempting to criticize an action on the grounds that it is not necessary to actually know the benefit or purpose of performing said action, in order to be able to validly criticize that action.

Do you, then, intend to correct us with your intimate knowledge and wisdom of Catholicism?

Frankly, I'm curious as to why this is so puzzling to some people. If someone declares a moral principle, and if that person asserts an authoritative source for that moral principle, why should we need to reconcile the moral principle to the authoritative source after the fact? That is, why should there be any difference between the moral principle and its authoritative source?

Well, you apparently have a different idea of heaven and what it takes to get there than some Catholics.

Historically, the Bible has a different idea of Heaven and what it takes to get there than some Catholics. In and of itself, that's not particularly problematic. But when the Church presumes to act against its own people, and the justification doesn't match the authoritative source.

The Catholics, however, are not alone among Christians in this.

Why not see the excommunication as an opportunity to investigate other possible doctrines about God, or theistic communities?

I want to make sure I'm reading you correctly: Did you just propose to transfer the burden of the Church's actions to the excommunicated?

Because that's their own choice to make, and rather quite beside the point of the Church's betrayal of Christ.

Why assume that a particular branch of the Catholic Church has the monopoly on the doctrine about what it takes to properly believe in God and to come to heaven?

Why, indeed. The question examined here pertains to this particular branch of the Catholic Church, what it believes, what it has done for those beliefs, and what the Bible itself says.

Think of it this way: In a Church that reveres a man who walked among lepers, dined with society's most reviled, and challenged the justice proffered by the institutions of his day, the final outcome of this tragedy is that the Church will play Pilate, and wash its hands of people.

Somebody, please, show me the passage in the Bible where Jesus looks upon the leper and says, "Get the fuck out". Or turns to the prostitute and says, "Die, you skeezy wench."

Because from what you are saying above, you are actually implying that you think a particular branch of the Catholic Church has the monopoly on the doctrine about what it takes to properly believe in God and to come to heaven.

Nope. It's about integrity. The Church portrays itself in one manner, conducts itself in another. In this case, the result is astoundingly cruel.

My apologies, of course, if that's excessively complex.

 

[wynn]

In that case, how can you relate to the Church's justification (even though in this case, it is your projection of what their justification is) of the excommunication of the mother?

Spending half my life being indoctrinated by Christians, including Catholics.

I have spent more than 'half my life' being indoctrinated by Christians, also Catholics. I came away with the realization that I cannot relate to their justifications and ideas, even though I cognitively know what they are about.
I didn't have the positive experiences they say they have, so I cannot criticize them justly. I find it completely possible that heaven (or some Christian version of heaven) is worth or requires the sort of things that many Christians and Christian churches do - things that appear cruel to me.

Suppose that the Church's justification would actually be 'If we don't excommunicate the mother, we are going to go to hell. We want to go to heaven, therefore, we will excommunicate the mother.'
Perhaps they know that heaven is worth it.
But I don't know whether is worth it, and neither do you, as you confirmed that you do not believe in heaven.

Your proposition is essentially, "If we don't forsake our faith in God in order to usurp His judgment, we are going to go to Hell."

For one, I didn't propose anything, other than that I don't know whether heaven is worth the actions some Christians perform in the name of attaining it, or whether is not worth of that.
And as you confirmed that you don't believe in heaven, you also cannot know whether heaven is worth the actions some Christians perform in the name of attaining it, or whether is not worth of that.

Anyway, this is actually a formal problem of attempting to criticize an action on the grounds that it is not necessary to actually know the benefit or purpose of performing said action, in order to be able to validly criticize that action.

Do you, then, intend to correct us with your intimate knowledge and wisdom of Catholicism?

Frankly, I'm curious as to why this is so puzzling to some people. If someone declares a moral principle, and if that person asserts an authoritative source for that moral principle, why should we need to reconcile the moral principle to the authoritative source after the fact? That is, why should there be any difference between the moral principle and its authoritative source?

I don't understand your questions.

Historically, the Bible has a different idea of Heaven and what it takes to get there than some Catholics. In and of itself, that's not particularly problematic. But when the Church presumes to act against its own people, and the justification doesn't match the authoritative source.

So? Why should this matter to any other person than the one who is trying to mold Catholicism to his or her own idea of how Catholicism should be?

Why not see the excommunication as an opportunity to investigate other possible doctrines about God, or theistic communities?

I want to make sure I'm reading you correctly: Did you just propose to transfer the burden of the Church's actions to the excommunicated?

We are responsible for our beliefs.
Every organization, institution or group, religious or not, has the right to excommunicate people.
When we take to a religion, we are also responsible to know and accept their reasons for why someone can be excommunicated.

If you truly accept the Catholic church as the one and only true path to God, then you would also accept this church's reasons for excommunicating someone. And in the case that those reasons would apply to you, you would accept those reasons without objections.
But if you thought those reasons were unfair, then you had not truly accepted the Catholic church as the one and only true path to God to begin with, and so there is problem - other than your potential anger and frustration, born out of unbased expectations or from being poorly informed about the institution you had joined.

Because that's their own choice to make, and rather quite beside the point of the Church's betrayal of Christ.

You wish to criticize a Christian church about its presumed 'betrayal of Christ'?

You, who doesn't even believe in heaven??

Because from what you are saying above, you are actually implying that you think a particular branch of the Catholic Church has the monopoly on the doctrine about what it takes to properly believe in God and to come to heaven.

Nope. It's about integrity. The Church portrays itself in one manner, conducts itself in another. In this case, the result is astoundingly cruel.

Perhaps heaven is worth that cruelty.

But you do not believe in heaven: so you cannot know whether it is worth that cruelty or not.


I can relate to your frustration with Christianity and its various churches and schools. Often on first impression, their actions and the way they justify them strike me as reprehensible.
However, as I don't know or cannot relate to the benefit or purpose of their actions, it would not be fair of me to criticize them, and it would be a waste of time.

 

[swarm]

Aquinus allowed for abortions up until the "quickening."

Until then the fetus doesn't have a human soul.

 

[Tiassa]

Fly west, model airplane

I have spent more than 'half my life' being indoctrinated by Christians, also Catholics. I came away with the realization that I cannot relate to their justifications and ideas, even though I cognitively know what they are about.
I didn't have the positive experiences they say they have, so I cannot criticize them justly. I find it completely possible that heaven (or some Christian version of heaven) is worth or requires the sort of things that many Christians and Christian churches do - things that appear cruel to me.

This is not something I would dispute. However, it seems you're overlooking a certain, vital aspect.

In this case, the more important Heaven is, the greater the need to get it right, wouldn't you think?

The underlying conflict I'm pointing after is simple enough: If it's that important, shouldn't the practice match the doctrine?

That is, if redemption and a ticket to Heaven are what I'm after, should I make a point of showing my Christian faith by being judgmental, petty, and cruel? If the Book tells me how to get to Heaven, why would I throw that away and do whatever I want?

Turn the other cheek? Only pussies do that, and Christians aren't pussies, right? Render unto Caesar? Well, Jesus doesn't really want me to defy God's law by recognizing the legitimacy of a state, does He? Love thine enemies? What, are Christians supposed to be a bunch of flowery granola tree-huggers? Be perfect as the Father in Heaven is perfect? Hell, didn't you read the bumper sticker? Christians aren't perfect. They're just forgiven.

More simply: If my object is to build a model airplane, would it not make sense to follow the instructions? Or should my first act be to look over the arranged parts, pick up a hammer, and smash them to bits? One of these courses leads me closer to the goal. One leads me farther away from the goal. The question of whether it is worth the time and effort to build a model airplane doesn't really enter into it.

For one, I didn't propose anything ...

The proposition contained in your supposition:

"Suppose that the Church's justification would actually be 'If we don't excommunicate the mother, we are going to go to hell. We want to go to heaven, therefore, we will excommunicate the mother.'"​

... other than that I don't know whether heaven is worth the actions some Christians perform in the name of attaining it, or whether is not worth of that.

Model airplane. Hammer.

And as you confirmed that you don't believe in heaven, you also cannot know whether heaven is worth the actions some Christians perform in the name of attaining it, or whether is not worth of that.

Three times so far in your post. I can only reiterate that the question is, at this time, beside the point.

If the actions reflected the doctrine, the question would be valid. What undermines the question is the standing proposition, that the Church's actions constitute a deviation from what the Bible teaches.

Model airplane. Hammer.

I don't understand your questions.

If I say that this is a moral principle according to God as explained in the Bible, should not the principle reflect the contents of the Bible?

So? Why should this matter to any other person than the one who is trying to mold Catholicism to his or her own idea of how Catholicism should be?

Integrity?

We are responsible for our beliefs.
Every organization, institution or group, religious or not, has the right to excommunicate people.
When we take to a religion, we are also responsible to know and accept their reasons for why someone can be excommunicated.

If you truly accept the Catholic church as the one and only true path to God, then you would also accept this church's reasons for excommunicating someone. And in the case that those reasons would apply to you, you would accept those reasons without objections.
But if you thought those reasons were unfair, then you had not truly accepted the Catholic church as the one and only true path to God to begin with, and so there is problem - other than your potential anger and frustration, born out of unbased expectations or from being poorly informed about the institution you had joined.

Should we nitpick what it means to "truly accept" a church?

Actually, there are a number of problems to address. Most Catholics don't "take" their religion. It is endowed unto them. Still, though, if the Church believes itself the true path to God, has it not some obligation to promulgate truth, even when doing so is politically inconvenient? And if one is poorly informed about a given institution, what role has that institution? After all, if getting people to Heaven is an act of love, why lie to them?

Historically, the church has been academically wrong many times in its history. The only reason it was right was because it had the power to enforce itself. These days, we see a different story. The Church is no longer able to hide away its pedophiles, or dump them into poor communities ripe for exploitation. It can no longer expect every absurdity from a pope's lips to become binding law among nations. And in the twenty-first century, with so much information available to people, it is getting harder and harder for the Church to justify primarily partisan political assertions dressed up as divine doctrine.

Their answer to a problem is to cast out people it is unsatisfied with. And the Church will accept them back only if it gains satisfaction. This is almost exactly the opposite of what Christ taught. That is, unless someone would like to show me the part where Jesus says, "That's unfortunate. Help her, but not until she begs and pleads enough."

In the abstract, this is its right. However, when we apply the specifics of the Bible, not so much.

You wish to criticize a Christian church about its presumed 'betrayal of Christ'?

You, who doesn't even believe in heaven??

You know, that kind of smacks of the idiotic declaration that if one does not thoroughly believe something from the outset, they have no right to consider its merits. What an interesting policy: "Believe first. Figure out what you believe later ... maybe."

Heaven forbid anyone actually compare the Church's actions to its alleged source, inspiration, and empowerment—e.g., the Bible.

Perhaps heaven is worth that cruelty.

Maybe to the greedy. But not to the Bible.

But you do not believe in heaven: so you cannot know whether it is worth that cruelty or not.

Model airplane. Hammer.

Explain to me, please, how you accomplish a goal by doing the exact opposite of what is needed to complete the necessary task.

I can relate to your frustration with Christianity and its various churches and schools. Often on first impression, their actions and the way they justify them strike me as reprehensible.
However, as I don't know or cannot relate to the benefit or purpose of their actions, it would not be fair of me to criticize them, and it would be a waste of time.

Look ... so we're going to start in Seattle and drive to Canada. The driving directions from AAA say go north. The driving directions from Ordo Templi Orientis say go south. The driving directions from the Catholic Church say drive due west until you hit the Pacific Ocean, and then thank God for getting you to Canada.

Whether or not it's worth it to drive to Canada is immaterial to one who might wonder why you're driving due west.

 

[wynn]

In this case, the more important Heaven is, the greater the need to get it right, wouldn't you think?

Sure.

The underlying conflict I'm pointing after is simple enough: If it's that important, shouldn't the practice match the doctrine?

Does the practice not match the doctrine?

That is, if redemption and a ticket to Heaven are what I'm after, should I make a point of showing my Christian faith by being judgmental, petty, and cruel?

Or should you not make a point by being selective whom you associate with, and whom you encourage others to associate with?

Sure, it can feel cruel to be rejected, and petty, and judgmental.
Why should people, in this case the Catholics, not be selective?

If the Book tells me how to get to Heaven, why would I throw that away and do whatever I want?

What exactly does the Bible say about how to get to heaven ...

I would not dare to turn to the Bible for any scriptural reference to either support or oppose any position - simply because the Bible is a text so full of problems, inconsistencies, contradictions, and has been interpreted by Christians in so many ways that basically, anything goes.
I find the Bible to be way too problematic to serve as any kind of scriptural basis for any argument.

More simply: If my object is to build a model airplane, would it not make sense to follow the instructions? Or should my first act be to look over the arranged parts, pick up a hammer, and smash them to bits? One of these courses leads me closer to the goal. One leads me farther away from the goal. The question of whether it is worth the time and effort to build a model airplane doesn't really enter into it.

On the other hand, I can think of at least one sound reason why that church excommunicated the mother: it assessed that it would be the lesser harm for all involved. Perhaps the church authorities thought if the mother had been allowed back into the church, the congregation would ostracize her - and that would bring terrible pain for all.
I know of similar situations in other organizations.
Of course, those in charge are not likely to declare that their reason for expelling someone was as sketched out above, it is a difficult situation for all.

If the actions reflected the doctrine, the question would be valid. What undermines the question is the standing proposition, that the Church's actions constitute a deviation from what the Bible teaches.

Do they?

You know, that kind of smacks of the idiotic declaration that if one does not thoroughly believe something from the outset, they have no right to consider its merits.

It is not about rights. It is about qualifications.
And since you do not believe in heaven, you are not qualified to consider its merits, or demerits.

Heaven forbid anyone actually compare the Church's actions to its alleged source, inspiration, and empowerment—e.g., the Bible.

Maybe to the greedy. But not to the Bible.

Explain to me, please, how you accomplish a goal by doing the exact opposite of what is needed to complete the necessary task.

Oh, come on. Your position would stand if the Bible would be a straightforward, clear, logical, consistent, coherent text, easily understood even to the most simple-minded and uneducated person, widely celebrated and acknowledged for its wisdom and clarity of thought, without there existing any text-critical issues whatsoever.
You know that the Bible does not fit that description.

 

[Tiassa]

Sympathy for the Devil?

Does the practice not match the doctrine?

That is the underlying assertion.

Or should you not make a point by being selective whom you associate with, and whom you encourage others to associate with?

And what point would that fail to make? Your context has evaded me. Or I it. But something is lost in translation.

Sure, it can feel cruel to be rejected, and petty, and judgmental.
Why should people, in this case the Catholics, not be selective?

Are you familiar with the story of Jesus? More than half your life? What of the lepers, the tax collectors, and prostitutes? You know, the people Jesus hung around? The sick and reviled are the original source of Jesus' ministry.

Many Christians advocate "walking in Jesus' footsteps". And it's not some sectarian obscurity. The Lutherans taught it in confirmation, the Catholics taught it in school, and sundry televangelists can be witnessed making such appeals. It's a fairly common notion among Christians.

Like I said a couple of posts ago, somebody, please, show me the passage in the Bible where Jesus looks upon the leper and says, "Get the fuck out". Or turns to the prostitute and says, "Die, you skeezy wench."

It doesn't happen. That part comes later, as a political consideration on par and of common era with such brilliant assertions as there are only four real Gospels because there are four "zones of the world", four principal winds, and four pillars supporting the Church.

Yes, that latter really is an argument from the early Church, from St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon, ca. 180 CE.

The Church established its justifications for excommunication, and then looked to the Bible for affirmation, using dubiously-interpreted, selectively quoted snippets from the Bible in order to assert for Man the right of judgment reserved to God.

Indeed, you could have taken part of your argument straight from the Catholic institutions, although I would suspect it has more to do with the Church assembling abstract philosophy and then trying to bend the Bible to institutional will. You wrote, "Every organization, institution or group, religious or not, has the right to excommunicate people."

The Church, likewise, feels that,

The right to excommunicate is an immediate and necessary consequence of the fact that the Church is a society. Every society has the right to exclude and deprive of their rights and social advantages its unworthy or grievously culpable members, either temporarily or permanently. This right is necessary to every society in order that it may be well administered and survive. The fundamental proof, therefore, of the Church's right to excommunicate is based on her status as a spiritual society, whose members, governed by legitimate authority, seek one and the same end through suitable means.

(Boudinhon)​

They find their Biblical "confirmation" in a number of distortions:

• Ezra 10.8 — A tale of Hebrew exiles; the Catholic justification transforms a political story into ecclesiastical authority. It's an obscure verse of questionable context in the Catholic application.

• John 9.21 — An interesting assertion, since the parents of a blind man feared the Jews, who would essentially excommunicate anyone who confessed faith in Christ. This theme is repeated in John 12.42 and also chapters 15 and 16, culminating in 16.2. What is recognized as oppressive and wrong is suddenly right? Why? Oh, because the Catholics were suddenly the ones in charge.

• Luke 6.22 — I'm not sure the Catholics want to break this one out right now: "Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you ...." At best, this makes a completely irrelevant argument, that evil men are redeemed because they serve God's purpose. After all, verse 23 reads, "Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in Heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets."

• Matthew 18.17 — A distillation that changes the context of what Jesus taught, the verse reads, "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." Or as the Douay-Rhiems translation, offered by the Catholics to support their position, reads, "let him be to thee as a heathen and publican". Indeed, the next verse (18) reads, "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The Church celebrates this affirmation of its authority. But the key here is righteousness. This is the power of the righteous. Furthermore, the verse is distilled from a teaching that begins, "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses." This lesson echoes the famous Sermon on the Mount; see Matthew 5.20-24, Luke 6.41-42. The verse offered in defense of excommunication—Matthew 18.17—is presented in a distorted context, twisted and fashioned to suit the ambitions of men.

• John 21.15-17 — I find it interesting that one cites Jesus' instruction to Simon Peter ("Feed my lambs"; "Tend my sheep"; "Feed my sheep") as a justification for "starving" people until they give you satisfaction.

• 1 Corinthians 5.5 — Perhaps the major conflict between two of the most prominent ministries in the Bible—that of Jesus, and that of Paul—is that the latter takes a view that seems very nearly the opposite of the former. The verse pertains to reports that among the Corinthians there are men who shack up with their mothers-in-law. The verse instructs the church to deliver people "to Satan for the destruction of the flesh", in order that their "spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus". And here we might be witnessing the seeds of men's usurpation of God's authority.

• 1 Timothy 1.20 — Paul calls Timothy to "wage the good warfare", and boasts of delivering two men to Satan "that they may learn not to blaspheme". Again, we see God's judgment claimed by Paul. And, again, we see that what Jesus said just isn't good enough. It doesn't provide enough opportunity for satisfaction.​

Boudinhon explains that "the Church, from the very earliest ages, was wont to excommunicate heretics and contumacious persons; since the fourth century numerous conciliary canons pronounce excommunication against those who are guilty of certain offences." On the one hand, he is referring to a complicated, ugly political history that spanned centuries. To the other, apparently raping children is not among those offenses. And, of course, what Jesus said doesn't really seem to matter: "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 18.5-6)

Catholics should not be so selective because that is how they are instructed by their Savior. Twisting scripture to meet the political ambitions of men was not, by any means, a central theme of Christ's ministry.

What exactly does the Bible say about how to get to heaven ...

A good many things, as you note. But perhaps the strongest key is found in Matthew 25.31-ff.

I would not dare to turn to the Bible for any scriptural reference to either support or oppose any position - simply because the Bible is a text so full of problems, inconsistencies, contradictions, and has been interpreted by Christians in so many ways that basically, anything goes.
I find the Bible to be way too problematic to serve as any kind of scriptural basis for any argument.

What an interesting assertion. The idea that Christians should ignore the Bible because it's too tough to figure out is a fairly unique justification for a controversial action undertaken in the name of Christian faith.

On the other hand, I can think of at least one sound reason why that church excommunicated the mother: it assessed that it would be the lesser harm for all involved. Perhaps the church authorities thought if the mother had been allowed back into the church, the congregation would ostracize her - and that would bring terrible pain for all.

So because others might treat the people involved poorly, the solution is for the Church to officially instruct the faithful to consider them persona non grata? That is, because others might treat the people involved poorly, the solution is to instruct the faithful to treat them poorly?

That's absolutely absurd.

And it ducks the question it responds to. You might as well say that because a bully might break the model airplane, you should just smash the parts to tiny bits. Because by doing so, you will come one step closer to the goal of assembling the model airplane.

I know of similar situations in other organizations.
Of course, those in charge are not likely to declare that their reason for expelling someone was as sketched out above, it is a difficult situation for all.

Ah. So because other people do it that way, it's the right thing to do?

Do they?

Yes.

It is not about rights. It is about qualifications.
And since you do not believe in heaven, you are not qualified to consider its merits, or demerits.

There are few adjectives suitably crude enough to describe that sort of rhetorical cowardice. The idea that one should accept a proposition before they are qualified to assess whether it is valid is ... well, it's stupid.

Then again, the proposition does have good company. I believe it was St. Aquinas who wrote that the sacrifice of the intellect is that in which God most delights.

Oh, come on. Your position would stand if the Bible would be a straightforward, clear, logical, consistent, coherent text, easily understood even to the most simple-minded and uneducated person, widely celebrated and acknowledged for its wisdom and clarity of thought, without there existing any text-critical issues whatsoever.
You know that the Bible does not fit that description.

I see. So those who believe that the Bible is the perfect word of God, accessible to anyone who seeks, are bound to adhere to that standard?

It's not really all that complicated. But, since you want to make it complicated, have you ever received advice you didn't trust because the person giving it to you was the direct beneficiary if you followed the course he advised? Most people are familiar with that quandary. Every once in a while, people expect the product sold to live up to the promises advertised. Christians are taught all sorts of things about forgiveness and compassion, but in the end, it's just too much effort.

That's what this lesson reminds. It is easier to simply discard what one perceives as a problem than to resolve it. Unfortunately for the Catholics, that's not what the Bible teaches.
____________________

Notes:

St. Irenaeus. Against Heresies. NewAdvent.org. Accessed March 23, 2009. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103311.htm

Boudinhon, Auguste. "Excommunication". The Catholic Encyclopedia, v. 5. 1909. NewAdvent.org. Accessed March 23, 2009. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

Bible: Revised Standard Version. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/

 

[wynn]

What an interesting assertion. The idea that Christians should ignore the Bible because it's too tough to figure out is a fairly unique justification for a controversial action undertaken in the name of Christian faith.

...
That's what this lesson reminds. It is easier to simply discard what one perceives as a problem than to resolve it. Unfortunately for the Catholics, that's not what the Bible teaches.

'The idea that Christians should ignore the Bible because it's too tough to figure out' ...
'justification for a controversial action undertaken in the name of Christian faith' ...



I am talking about you and anyone else who criticizes the actions of people who call themselves Christians.

You seem to think you have 'figured out the Bible', that you know what it really means, what heaven is, what heaven is worth sacrificing for, and what it would really be like to behave in accord with the Bible.

Wow.



Anyway, I don't think this forum is the right place to present your criticism of Christianity or the actions done by the people who call themselves Christians.
Actual people who call themselves Christians are the right address for your criticism.

Unless, of course, your underlying motive is to get other people (like me, for instance), to do something about Christianity or the actions done by the people who call themselves Christians.

 

[Bells]

S
On the other hand, I can think of at least one sound reason why that church excommunicated the mother: it assessed that it would be the lesser harm for all involved. Perhaps the church authorities thought if the mother had been allowed back into the church, the congregation would ostracize her - and that would bring terrible pain for all.
I know of similar situations in other organizations.
Of course, those in charge are not likely to declare that their reason for expelling someone was as sketched out above, it is a difficult situation for all.

So the congregation would have been more welcoming and friendly if she had allowed her daughter to die because of the pregnancy? The Church would have welcomed her with open arms if she had consigned her daughter to a veritable death sentence instead of saving said daughter's life?

You know of other situations where a parent(s) were ostracised by a religious organisation for taking actions which saved the lives of their children?

 

[Tiassa]

Rational and honest consideration shouldn't be too much to ask

I am talking about you and anyone else who criticizes the actions of people who call themselves Christians

Yes, we're aware of your position. To recap: If you do not believe in only one answer before you consider the question, you have no right to consider the question.

You seem to think you have 'figured out the Bible', that you know what it really means, what heaven is, what heaven is worth sacrificing for, and what it would really be like to behave in accord with the Bible.

Wow.

Oh, spare us the histrionics.

Really, it's not that tough. Some things, such as, "Judge not, lest ye be judged", are pretty simple to figure out. And if a "believer" wants to spend his or her efforts looking for some way to get around that in order to feel better about themselves by diminishing other people, that's theirs to answer before God.

In the meantime, the rest of us have to live with them. You know, the rest of the world? The rest of humanity? The people you've overlooked in your rush to empower liars and hypocrites?

Anyway, I don't think this forum is the right place to present your criticism of Christianity or the actions done by the people who call themselves Christians.
Actual people who call themselves Christians are the right address for your criticism.

You're about ten years too late. Unless, of course, you're proposing that there are no Christians at this board. Some days I might agree, but that doesn't stop people from thinking they're Christians.

Unless, of course, your underlying motive is to get other people (like me, for instance), to do something about Christianity or the actions done by the people who call themselves Christians.

All I want people to do is to think rationally and honestly about propositions put before them. You know, the opposite of claiming one must accept and believe a proposition before considering its merits?

 

[wynn]

So the congregation would have been more welcoming and friendly if she had allowed her daughter to die because of the pregnancy?

Not necessarily. And besides, that wasn't what I suggested or implied.

If the mother, after the daughter had aborted, would be allowed back into the church, it is likely that the congregational members (or at least some of them) would ostracize both the mother and the girl. I suspect that this might have been a possible reason for why the church excommunicated the mother.

I think that on the whole, it was a no-win situation for the mother, though: whether she would have her daughter abort, or not, in both cases, it would be bad for her (or both of them) to remain in the church.
I suspect that in the case that she would have her daughter give birth, some congregational members would then ostracize the mother for permitting such cruelty or something like that.

I don't think that the Catholic church has the philosophical and practical means to deal with this sort of problems, hence it tries to distance itself from them as much as possible altogether.

The Church would have welcomed her with open arms if she had consigned her daughter to a veritable death sentence instead of saving said daughter's life?

You know of other situations where a parent(s) were ostracised by a religious organisation for taking actions which saved the lives of their children?

What constitutes 'saving the life of a child' can vary greatly among people.