If you believe that Heaven is real, and that the Pope is a gatekeeper thereof, then you must believe that this is no mere lobbying; it's attempted blackmail of our representatives.

Being raised Catholic I get so frustrated with just about everything the church does.

When I was in catechism, before confirmation you had to sit with your catholicism teacher, your sponsor, your priest, and the bishop of the dioceses and promise them that you would never have sex before marriage or have an abortion. I was like 14, and was totally freaked out of my mind to think I had to talk to some old guys about my "sex life." How mortifying! And of course being a good catholic girl I swore I would never do such a thing.

Fast forward to 2003 when I learn I am pregnant, and not married....oh the horror of it all! ;) Anyways, I decide the right the thing to do is at least have my daughter baptised in the Catholic church, but not after a stern talking to by the priest for my sins. On top of it, I was told I was going to have to sign a document swearing that in the future whom ever I marry must also promise to raise any of our future children catholic. I think I honestly laughed in the priest's face. I told him there was no way I was making a decision like that for someone I don't even know. He went along with the baptism regardless, but he did a poor job of it. I have not been back to a catholic mass since, except for a couple weddings.

Sorry for the long rant, but it just goes to show that Christianity teaches about how not to judge others and it is only for the Lord to decide, but the Pope and others are the first to judge everyone else. It's just absolute hypocrisy. And on top of it all these men don't have sex, and don't live a life like the rest of us, yet they think they are better because they chose that life, and they can decide what's best for the rest of us. UGH!!!! I could go on and on, but I will spare you all!

Janet, I'm sorry to hear about your negative experiences. Not every parish is like that, and not every part of the church so forcefully recreates your experience for others.

These threats of excommunication are meant to keep the faithful "in line" but they fail to do so. This is in part because many Catholics who believe in Christ and his teachings also believe in the dignity of women. In the U.S., the vast majority of Catholics ignore the church's teachings on family planning because they're based on bad science. One must respect women's lives to respect life, and many Catholics practice such respect.

Supporting choice is not the same as supporting abortion.

The Church's position is also anti-Iraq War, and anti-death penalty. Why no denial of sacraments for those politicians?

Grad03, you are right, not every parish is like that. In general the parishoners (sp??) are very understanding and do disregard some of the church's teachings. I would imagine that most of the women who went to my church used birth control, and I know plenty who had sex before marriage. It just bugs me that priests, bishops and so forth can stand up there, and act all high and mighty because they chose that life and are superior to the rest of us (but part of that is their job - to show us the way and to keep the pews full, and money coming in).

And I guess what does that say about Catholics faith? Or are we just putting on show? Are we truly Catholic? If the priest truly knew, would we all be excommunicated? Just because a public figure supports abortion rights, doesn't mean they themselves will have an abortion, so why should they be excommunicated? Because they gave the right to another? But really it all comes down to is God gives everyone a right?

oh, again I could go on and on!

A lot the confusion around the Pope's comments comes between the difference between true excommunication (the Church kicks you out) and "latae sententiae" excommunication, where you basically kick yourself out. The theory goes (not necessarily advocating it myself) that if you get an abortion, you're in effect saying, "I am no longer Catholic."

Basically, the Pope is conflating the support of abortion rights with *actually getting an abortion*, and saying that Catholics who support abortion rights aren't really Catholics.

From the way the Vatican edited the transcript later, I think it's pretty clear that the Pope was caught off guard, was pushed by the interviewer, and said more than he meant to/ought to.

Not that he's not a dick, I just don't think that, in this case at least, his dickishness is the Official Church Position. Yet.

Which is to say that the backpedal from "excommunication" to "denial of Eucharist" means that the Pope is saying that support abortion rights is a mortal sin, but not latae sententiae.

Do you think politicians who support the death penalty (also part of the "culture of death") or the Iraq War should be denied communion.

I would never presume to know the first thing about your relationship with God or the Church, so please don't assume anything about mine. Last I checked you are not in the position to be saying who is a "real" Catholic and who is not.

I don't know why I'm bothering.

And that link is all about *actually getting or performing an abortion* not supporting abortion rights. That shouldn't be a tough distinction. I'm pretty sure John Kerry's never had an abortion.

http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/peace/stm31903.htm

http://usccb.org/sdwp/national/criminal/catechism.htm

ZOMG YOU'RE NOT A REAL CATHOLIC

Yeah, it's between them and their pastors.

Funny how no Catholic politicians have actually been denied communion by their pastors.

In the interest of dnftt, which I should have engaged in long ago, I'm going to tell a story. The whole "abortion as metaphor" thing reminds me of the best/most hilarious argument I've heard against women priests.

You see, I was told by a friend in college, in the Mass mirrors a wedding ceremony (a la Song of Songs). The priest represents Christ (the groom) and the congregation represents the Holy Church (the bride).

You see, if we had women priests, there would be two brides. The Mass would be GAY.

ahahaha

My issue (which I've stated before) is that I don't think that the Pope gets a say in American politics - or Mexican politics or the politics of any sovereign nation that is independent from the Vatican.

Politicians should not be forced to fall into line with every Catholic belief before receiving Communion. If a politician supports sending condoms to Africa because it will help stop the spread of AIDS and, as a pro-lifer, he's all about saving lives, then he should not be denied Communion.

There is a large difference between upholding Catholic principles and voting in a precise manner on certain issues. Catholics believe in supporting the poor. Would you excommunicate a politician who also believes that private charity is more effectual than social welfare and, on that basis, vetoes a social welfare bill?

It is utter nonsense to require Catholic politicians - and only Catholic politicians, not the people who vote for them! - to be denied communion. Sensible people have always made a distinction between that which belongs to the Lord and that which belongs to Caesar.

If you'll read jaspar's first link, oenophile, one of the unique (read: logically inconsistent) contributions of the current Pope has been to raise the Church's opposition to abortion to an extremely high status.

To Ratzinger, getting an abortion is one of the ten worst sins a person can commit, regular ol' homicide isn't even on that list.

I seriously doubt that an anonymous internet poster who can't spell "Capitol" is actually a Congressperson.

On second thought, maybe I don't.

Oh, blucas, I don't know. I'm not convinced that a given current Republican official could pass a basic literacy test! Since he's already Gone There, can I be the one to point out that OMG Hitler was anti-choice too!? Can I? Can I? Please?

Abortion is a metaphor for satan; it is his coat of arms, his family crest, his logo, his brand, it belongs to him

Now that's a coat of arms I want to see: "You see here the inverted cross supported on either side by aborted fetuses rampant, against a background of flies, with a serpent couchant at the base of the cross!"

"....and we said we wouldn't stand for another holocaust"

The Catholic church sure as hell didn't do anything to stop the last one. Just stood around watching the boxcars get loaded up. Come to think of it, wasn't Ratzinger...oh, never mind.

Is Jasper the crazy man in my city that drives around with a huge poster of a supposed aborted fetus? Perhaps....
Of course when he goes on and on about Satan's coat of arms, I think about how my niece does her "devil" voice and we laugh and laugh. I'll see you in hell Jasper!

Does the radical anti-choice crowd just have like, the same two pics of aborted fetuses? Pshh, like I wasn't shown that shit Clockwork Orange stylez all through high school.

Jasper, I'm not asking anyone to leave himself on the Capitol's steps but AM asking them to do their sworn duty: to uphold the laws of our land and to recognise the difference between secular and religious law. Congress is forbidden to establish religion, and someone who finds a personal conflict between that and his own personality ought not to be a politician to begin with.

As for Hitler: he also pretended to be a vegetarian. So should all of the tofu-eaters here (myself included) apologise for vegetarians?

Blucas! ~

Jasper posted like ten links. To which are you referring?

"you are captive, not free. you are a lie."

the freedom to constantly fear getting pregnant and a remain slave to your reproductive functions (which of course, dont really belong to you). sure is something only a man would define as "freedom"!

"It is utter nonsense to require Catholic politicians - and only Catholic politicians, not the people who vote for them! - to be denied communion."

No it's not, especially on a matter of gave sin (like Abortion)

So, in your world, it's entirely sensible for abortionists, women who have had multiple abortions, and men who have encouraged or forced their girlfriends to abort to get Communion, but politicians who are not adamantly pro-life cannot?

Yeah, that's rational. (/ sarcasm)

are you sick? how can you compare murderers on death row or terrorists in Iraq with the most innocent -the unborn

That's called "avoiding the question" jasper. Where's your rhetoric when pressed? Oh. Out the window. Show some consistency.
I expect to see you declaring "The Catholic church's stance is anti-war. If a congressman (who has power)votes to support the war in Iraq they should not recieve communion. Find another church if you don't like it," soon, since the Church's official position is so damned important to you.

Besides, if you care so much about the innocent babies, you should be thanking people who get abortions, now that the Pope got rid of limbo.

I posted this on another blog, but, since you've brought it up:

I’ve been thinking about this whole thing since I read the news… if they decide that the original sin is gone, and that the little aborted fetuses go up to heaven…
Hrm…
Doesn’t that sort of mean that you’re doing the fetus a favor if you abort it? I mean, you’re ensuring that it makes it to heaven by not giving it a chance to sin, and end up in Hell.

In fact, I’m going to take this massive illogic a step further: I submit that women who get abortions are actually even more deserving of heaven than women who don’t.

A woman gets an abortion, ensuring her fetus goes to heaven, but sinning in the process, because abortion is a dirty, dirty sin. Thus, she should go to hell. But, that means that she was making the ultimate sacrifice for her unborn child- she was giving it the best possible future by making sure it went to heaven, at the greatest possible cost, her enternal soul.

Who deserves heaven more than someone who would make the greatest sacrifice that it’s possible to make, while ensuring that her baby has the greatest possible future?

Okay, maybe that’s just me being irreverent.

Jasper, in case you missed the memo, no politician can outlaw abortion. The Supreme Court prevented them from doing so in 1973.

Furthermore, a politician could reasonably decide that pro-life legislation in front of him does not advance pro-life goal. It could, for example, have loopholes that would allow doctors to force women into C-sections (which are more dangerous); prevent abortions when the mother's life is in danger; have no corresponding provisions for increasing adoption, pre-natal care, post-birth care for the birth mother; or it could simply be written badly, not be in line with one's constituency, or be lousy policy.

The Pope is not an American politician nor an American voter - nor even a citizen. As such, he ought to butt out.

(Does anyone else see the irony of me debating Jasper on this one? Anyone else want to help out before this gets really freakin absurd?)

http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

The link that Jasper posted. Ratzinger pretty clearly states that, on matters like the death penalty and the war, Catholics can have honest disagreements, but abortion and euthanasia are so serious that you can't disagree.

I mean, it's stupid and entirely inconsistent, but that's his position.

roymac, your going to make jasper's head explode

"Abortion makes that which is good, the birth of human life, into that which is evil, the death of human life, and then calls it good, the very definition of blasphemy."

Well rape makes sex, which is good, into that which is evil and causes about 30,000 pregnancies each year in the US.

Also, for your information Jasper, over 100,000 victims of priest molestation have come forward in the US alone (some male, some female, the youngest I know of that were molested were 5 months old) and the entire church, up to the pope covered up for these child molestors and your hero George W. granted the pope immunity from persecution, so I don't see how you are acting like either of these men care at all about harming the innocent. Watch "Deliver Us From Evil," and then reevaluate your position on the Catholic Church.

RoyMac: From a theological standpoint, no person can change the ultimate destiny of another: that would undermine God's authority to reign on Judgment Day. (That is why there is really no baptism requirement in Protestant religions, because what your parents do for you does not change whether or not your sins will be forgiven.)

There is the question of original sin: we are all "born" will sin, but in a larger sense, we are all created with sin, being humans and therefore part of the Fall. Ergo, your fetus has sin, but, being of a young age, is not responsible for such. A child who would never have accepted Christ most likely would not go to heaven anyway - being someone who does not accept Christ, he is a sinner and, being a sinner, cannot be in a perfect Heaven.

You are right in that the Catholic Church does not follow the Bible and is therefore entirely illogical in how it proceeds as a Christian faith.

Anyone want to help out this atheist?

jasper, I'm not asking this to be cynical or sarcastic or anything. But, are you serious? Or are you just messing with us?

Jasper--

Jesus says himself in regards to Judas "It would have been better for that one not to have been born." Mark 14:21

The Bible never directly condemns abortion. The Catholic Church didn't even have a problem with early abortions until the 19th century.

Do some research and try to think for yourself instead of letting the religious right think for you.

"From a theological standpoint, no person can change the ultimate destiny of another: that would undermine God's authority to reign on Judgment Day."

This is predestination, a Calvinist belief and most def. not a Catholic one.

The Catholic Church doesn't always follow the Bible because the Catholic Church doesn't recognize the Bible as the sole source of revelation (as most Protestants do).

It's not really "illogical," since the Church traces its authority to Peter ie to before the Bible was put together.

Blu,

It makes sense though. The Bible does allow us to wage war to seek just ends, and does allow earthly justice against criminals. (As one of my friends said: your soul belongs to God, but your a-- still belongs to the State.) There are also pro-life/anti-crime reasons to wage war or to use the death penalty (i.e. preventing the perpetrator from harming another person, acting as a deterrent, or, for example, waging war against Germany in the 1940s to save the lives of millions of people).

Although some of those reasons are debatable (i.e. if there is a deterrent effect), they are not irrational. The Church allows death if it saves the lives of others - which is why sacrificial death is different from suicide, and, of course, death to a wrongdoer to save an innocent is a different thing from killing an innocent.

Even though you're an atheist, you're looking at this from a decidedly Protestant viewpoint. Given the hierarchical nature of the Catholic Church, there's always a place where the buck stops, and there's always tension on how much one can disagree with Catholic teachings (particularly when it comes to moral, non-theological matters).

What Benedict's done has granted the abortion issue special status. Abortion and physically attacking the Pope are the only two non-theological causes of latae sententiae excommunication.

RoyMac: From a theological standpoint, no person can change the ultimate destiny of another: that would undermine God's authority to reign on Judgment Day.

Assuming that you're part of a faith that believes in predestination, which, you know, Catholics don't.

(That is why there is really no baptism requirement in Protestant religions, because what your parents do for you does not change whether or not your sins will be forgiven.)

I already knew that, but thanks. You do realize that it was me being irreverent, right? You know, by the way that I pointed out it was "illogic"?

There is the question of original sin: we are all "born" will sin, but in a larger sense, we are all created with sin, being humans and therefore part of the Fall.

Why do you assume I don't know about these things? My comment was written in light of the Pope declaring that Purgatory no longer exists, and that fetuses and infants that die prior to Baptism go to heaven, instead of Hell.

A child who would never have accepted Christ most likely would not go to heaven anyway - being someone who does not accept Christ, he is a sinner and, being a sinner, cannot be in a perfect Heaven.

Again, assuming you're part of a faith that believes in predistination. Catholics don't have predestination- you can't know whether a child will accept Christ or not, because we have Free Will.

You are right in that the Catholic Church does not follow the Bible and is therefore entirely illogical in how it proceeds as a Christian faith.

Heh. I'm not touching this.

Anyone want to help out this atheist?

Huh.
I can read this two ways, and I'm not sure which you intend- are you saying that you are an atheist seeking help in explaining these concepts?

Or, are you saying that I'm an atheist, and asking for help in explaining these things to me?

RoyMac,

Yes, I did realise that you were being irreverent, but I still find your response to be a little on the unreasonable side.

I grew up Catholic. I'm now an atheist because I find Catholicism to be logically inconsistent.

Free will and predestination are NOT mutually exclusive. "Ultimate destiny" means heaven v. hell, not some sort of cosmic thing. In any Christian religion, God, not humans, decides who goes where.

A hypothetical: a few minutes ago, I left work to get lunch. I was trying to decide between a Thai tofu burrito and Panda Express. If a psychic knew that I ultimately went for the eggplant and chow mein, was she undermining my free will to make that choice? Or, was she merely noting that I would make that choice and not another, much as a reporter who writes a story about Falwell's passing did nothing to influence it?

In short: aren't you presuming a deity that knows only four dimensions (linear time being the fourth)?

Just wanted to point out that Jasper's first post "Abortion is...etc etc" is something I've seen other forced-pregnancy proponents post in threads on other websites. It's obviously a cut and paste job, or else Jasper sure gets around.

Naturegirl, I'm glad you brought up the molestation issue -- the first thing I thought of when I saw this was, "but they didn't excommunicate any of the priests who raped children." So as far as I can tell, the church is just fine with rape, otherwise they would've excommunicated their rapist priests long ago.

I also found an article about a priest who got excommunicated about two years ago, and at the end is a list of priests who've been excommunicated. The types of things they got excommunicated for include ordaining female priests, blessing same-sex unions and starting a breakaway church aimed at better serving African-American Catholics. I've also searched Google high and low, and can't find any evidence that the Catholic Church has ever excommunicated anybody for rape -- although in that search I did find a quite interesting article on how the church excommunicated a medical team who performed an abortion for an 11-year-old girl whose stepfather raped her (and admitted to it). They didn't excommunicate her rapist. So according to the Vatican, if you're pro-choice you're even worse than a rapist. Having grown up Catholic, I understand full well that most Catholics are normal, good people who ignore the Vatican lunatics, but I just with they'd get more up in arms about the fact that their leaders couldn't give two damns about rapists and go around swinging at windmills instead.

Guys, I think he's messing us around.

"Jasper" might really be pro-life, but he ain't Catholic. A Catholic would NEVER refer to 'pastors'. It's always 'priests'.

I say ignore!

jasper do you know what I think is a sin? I think it's a sin to have more children than you can afford to feed and care for. I think it's a sin to spend $10,000 on fertility treatments rather than adopt a deserving child who needs a home. I think it's a sin for the church to protect those who harmed LIVING BREATHING CHILDREN while condemning women for aborting fetuses the size of my thumb. I think it's a sin to give the decision to terminate babies in ICU after 10 days to a doctor and not the parents, something your beloved George W did. I think it's a sin for someone to condemn someone else for a BELIEF.

Love the sinner, hate the sin.

Christ is about love, He is about acceptanace, He is about understanding. Anyone who uses religion as tool of hate and condemnation is not a true Catholic or a true Christian. Even though I think all of the above are sins, it is not my place to make those decisions for someone else, nor can I judge the one who makes those decisions. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Judgement is reserved for God alone.

Take your hate rhetoric somewhere else, this Catholic isn't buying.

I did find a quite interesting article on how the church excommunicated a medical team who performed an abortion for an 11-year-old girl whose stepfather raped her (and admitted to it). They didn't excommunicate her rapist. So according to the Vatican, if you're pro-choice you're even worse than a rapist.

I think that is the crux of the issue. The Vatican doesn't condemn the rapist whose fault the pregnancy is because THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT WOMEN OR RAPE.

They just see women as sperm/baby holders.

Mary as a silent, exploited body which "God" implanted his "son" into is a perfect example of that.

"They just see women as sperm/baby holders."

Except when the women are nuns, I guess. As far as the Vatican line goes, some other customs out there take it even further. o_O

No, Jasper, men (including priests of your precious Catholic Church) "don't see the true beauty of women." and they are the ones who "take what is great about women and turn it in to something bad," when they RAPE women and children, many times which results in pregnancy. I guess it doesn't matter to you if they have a "choice" in being raped or pregnant though, huh?

Do you really not care about little girls being raped and molested by Catholic priests? Is that not a grave sin? When a man sticks his penis in a 5 mo. old baby girl's vagina, you don't see that as grounds for excommunication? And if you do, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DOESN'T, so why are they your moral compass? If you don't think raping babies, young girls, women is worthy of excommunication, that you are just as bad as a rapist or child molestor yourself.

“you people don't know anything about the Catholic church.�

Neither do you. You cut and pasted a passage from the Catholic Education website defending Pope Pius XII as being a good man who has been slandered.

What you missed in your google-fueled cut-and-paste frenzy to throw up some snappy response is that in 1998 Pope John Paul II issued a formal apology on behalf of the Roman Catholic church, apologizing for its silence and inaction during the Holocaust.

Why would John Paul II go to the rare extreme of issuing an apology if Pius was a “good man who had been slandered�? He wouldn’t.

Pius may have made muted statements discouraging racism, but he did nothing brave, held no rallies, made no stirring speeches, did nothing that history hails as an inspiring act. What he did was leave a legacy that John Paul II had to apologize for 50 years later.

I have a recording of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream� speech. Do you have a copy of Pius XII’s “Let’s Save the World From Racist Genocide� speech? Because I can’t find a copy of it anywhere.

You can read the BBC’s account of the papal apology for Catholic indifference here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/65889.stm

"Do you think politicians who support the death penalty (also part of the "culture of death") or the Iraq War should be denied communion."

"are you sick? how can you compare murderers on death row or terrorists in Iraq with the most innocent -the unborn"

Well, Jasper, over 500,000 innocent civilians (WHO WERE NOT TERRORISTS) have died in Iraq (including pregnant women and fetuses), so your argument doesn't really hold any water.

And not everyone on death row is guilty, some are wrongly convicted.

Exactly, ccall, he hasn't a clue what he's talking about and I really, really think he's just trying to wind us up.

But since I'm not very good at following my own advice: it IS the case that the Catholic Church did not always disapprove of abortion. St Augustine said abortion was acceptable prior to quickening. So ha. You don't know what you're talking about, please piss off.

Not to dispute your main point, Tilda, but the Iraq Body Count website is listing just under 70,000 casualties right now. Is 500,000 including like deaths from poor sanitation resulting from destroyed infrastructure, etc. or something?

Sort of off-topic (but, perhaps less so than jasper's insanity):
Yes, I did realise that you were being irreverent, but I still find your response to be a little on the unreasonable side.

Heh.
That was sort of the point, though. I mean, I think it's a tad unreasonable that it took until 2007 for the Pope to say "Um. Yeah, so, infants don't automatically go to hell if they die."

Free will and predestination are NOT mutually exclusive.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "free will," but, generally speaking, they're practically the dictionary definitions of opposites. Free will is generally the idea that our actions are not caused by outside forces- that is, that we control our own actions and paths. Predestination is the idea that none of our actions are in our control, and that we're more or less running along a scripted path. Any definition of "free will" that has any weight is going to exclude the idea of predestination, otherwise, it's such a watered down version of "free will" as to be sort of useless.

"Ultimate destiny" means heaven v. hell, not some sort of cosmic thing. In any Christian religion, God, not humans, decides who goes where.

Right. And on what basis does God decide who goes to heaven versus hell? According to the bible, it's not a random, arbitrary choice of His, is it?

A hypothetical:...If a psychic knew that I ultimately went for the eggplant and chow mein, was she undermining my free will to make that choice?

If she knew and wasn't just guessing, then it suggests that you didn't, in fact, have free will.

At best, you had the illusion of free will. You may not have known what choice you were going to make yet, but if the choice was such that it was impossible for you not to choose what the psychic guessed and what you ended up with, you didn't really have a choice.

Any time you're making a choice, if it's impossible for you to choose other than what you end up choosing, you don't really have a choice- you're playing out a script.

Let's say that your psychic knows what the future is. God has granted that psychic the ability to see the future, and the psychic is never wrong. If the psychic knows what you're going to do before you've made your choice, then, in what significant way is the choice "free?"

If you can't do other than what the psychic claims you're going to do... are you really making a choice?

The psychic may as well write you out a script, because if that view is correct, you're on tracks like a movie. In order for a choice to be free in any significant sense of the word, it would have to be the case that you could have done something other than what you did. Predestination says "No. It has to be this."

In short: aren't you presuming a deity that knows only four dimensions (linear time being the fourth)?

No, actually, I'm not.
1. I haven't mentioned my personal religious beliefs at all.
2. I'm saying that "free will" and predestination are mutually exclusive, nothing more. You've selected one possible reason for that, but I can think of others.

Roy, you make me giggle. But I'm really curious as to why you (and everyone else on this thread) even bother. Jasper is either fucking with us or certifiably insane. Either way, he very clearly hates women and everything about them (since the only "beautiful" thing about us is the fact that we can pop tiny humans out of our otherwise dirty, sinful genitals and feminists have corrupted that one and only "beautiful" thing). He's really not worth the effort.

Seriously, where the fuck are the mods? I'm really sick of seeing potentially meaningful discussion on this blog being destroyed by idiotic trolls.

I'm with Cara.

"Is 500,000 including like deaths from poor sanitation resulting from destroyed infrastructure, etc. or something?"

Yeah, it actually is an estimated 655,000 (500,000 since 2004) according to this study:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

I'll ignore him, too, although I wish he would stop posting.

This sounds exactly like a "shoelimpy" who was pretending to be a girl named Megan in feministe, I think, down to the same confusion of Protestant and Catholic doctrine and terminology. So, I call shenanigans and say he's a troll.

I don't know if that link works, but the title is

"Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000"

I don't know if that link works, but the title is

"Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000"

Yeah, I think the 500,000 thing is unfortunately pretty accurate. (Obviously off-topic)I also remember hearing that American casualties are much lower than in previous wars because of advances in medical science, which means people who would otherwise have died are able to be saved, but are often horrifically scared/mutilated, but still alive.

I agree that any forced-pregnancy supporter must be pro-peace, anti-death penalty, anti-war before I would start to respect their views.
In fact I do respect their views, and firmly believe that no woman that doesn't want an abortion should ever have one. Or man for that matter.
I don't believe in forcing men to have abortions at all.
That would be wrong.

I would even go to far as to say abortions for men should be illegal. Pregnant men should carry to term. That is my belief.

"I don't believe in forcing men to have abortions at all."

I just laughed out loud. :)

Thanks Tilda, I'm glad you liked it!

"Naturegirl, I'm glad you brought up the molestation issue -- the first thing I thought of when I saw this was, "but they didn't excommunicate any of the priests who raped children." So as far as I can tell, the church is just fine with rape, otherwise they would've excommunicated their rapist priests long ago."

ponies and rainbows, you are 100% right. It's not surprising that the Church won't excommunicate rapists and child molesters, since Thomas Aquinas wrote that it's better to rape a woman than to masturbate, since rape can result in preganancy while sperm is wasted when a man jerks off.

Abortion has always been a heated subject in this country. But personally I feel that this subject should be decided ONLY by the women it effects. This is a personal choice, not one that should be decided by my politicians or my pastor. I alone live with the consequences of this heavily weighted moral choice-no one else.
If the church and state are against abortion then they should be more supportive of single mothers or better yet REAL education in safe sex-not just absetince.

“Aquinas wrote that it's better to rape a woman than to masturbate, since rape can result in pregnancy while sperm is wasted when a man jerks off.�

Good point, Jelperman.

As I said earlier:
“They just see women as sperm/baby holders� and “The Vatican doesn't condemn the rapist whose fault the pregnancy is because THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT WOMEN OR RAPE.�

It is sickening. They'd probably rather a priest rape an 11 year old girl more than masturbate (since she *could* get pregnant).

They care more about sperm then women/children. That's what you get I guess, in a religion that is built on giving men (and masters) authority, which they say was set in place by a masculine "God," and coercing women (and slaves) to submit to said authority.

Roy,

COMPLETELY with you about the insanity of the whole Purgatory thing.

I disagree on the philosophical issue. If you are into girl books, read "The Time Traveler's Wife," which is not just a good book, but touches upon (inadvertently) the interplay between free will and knowing the future.

I think you are missing a possible mechanism by which people can have free will but a deity can know the future. It's pretty simple: they know HOW you will choose to make your decision, as if it were already made. Basically, think of time as being multi-dimensional and it makes sense: the future and the past are the same. The fact that a reporter may have noted Jerry Falwell's death does not mean that she caused it or influenced it; it means that she is merely noting that such an event did occur. Likewise, I have free will to choose to eat chow mein and spicy eggplant tofu, but the person who knows how I will resolve that choice is not making it for me. I can guess how my friends will decide whether to eat at CPK or Bertucci's, but that doesn't mean that they lack free will - it is just that I know them well enough to know how the choice will be made.

In the Christian religion, God knows each of us better than we know ourselves and, in that sense, is like a friend who knows that certain choices will be made in a certain way. In the multi-dimensional sense (and, by the way, string theory people think that we have either 11 or 28 dimensions), the future and the past are the same thing - someone who knows how a choice WILL be made is actually just noting that such a choice HAD BEEN made. Ultimately, a choice will have to be made, and, at some time, the choice will have been made. A person who notes such a choice does not influence it, per se.

I know this is completely off-topic, but there is the theological issue.

It's pretty simple: they know HOW you will choose to make your decision, as if it were already made.

I didn't miss that, I just reject that as being free will. If a deity knows what I'm going to do before I've done it, then I'm not making a free choice. The deity might not be making the choice for me, but my choice is no more free than a computer's choice when I hit "submit" on this post. If my choices were free in any strong sense of the word, there would be any number of potential outcomes.

Basically, think of time as being multi-dimensional and it makes sense: the future and the past are the same.

Which is fine, but I think that negates the possibility of any significant version of free will. If your choices are already set before you're even born, I don't know what you mean by saying that you have free will. According to what you're saying, everything that was going to happen you was already set in stone before you were even born- so how are any of your choices really free? Is it possible for you to choose other than what you've chosen? Was it possible for you not to have submitted that last post? Was it possible for me to have choosen not to go to work today?

Consider: You're saying that God already knows what I'm going to do, before I actually do it. God already exists in the future and knows what I've done there. Let's say that I buy a pizza for dinner tonight. From my perspective right now, that's just a potentiality. I may or may not actually buy a pizza. God knows whether I do or not, though, yeah? So, God says "Yeah, you're going to buy a pizza tonight." Can I not buy a pizza tonight, now?
No.
If I don't buy the pizza, then God is wrong, and the Christian God can't be wrong, right? So, if I don't buy the pizza, I'm negating the possibility of a perfect God, which means that I have to buy the pizza. It's impossible for me not to buy the pizza if God says that I'm going to buy the pizza. If that's the case, how is my choice free? God may not have made me buy the pizza, but if I'm destined to buy it, the choice isn't free.

The fact that a reporter may have noted Jerry Falwell's death does not mean that she caused it or influenced it; it means that she is merely noting that such an event did occur.

I'm not suggesting that God is necessarily causing my choices. When I turn on the television and watch a movie, the broadcasting station isn't causing the scenes to happen, either, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a script.

I can guess how my friends will decide whether to eat at CPK or Bertucci's, but that doesn't mean that they lack free will - it is just that I know them well enough to know how the choice will be made.

1. I think that there's a difference between guessing and knowing. If I have a die that has "5" on five sides and "6" on one, and ask you to guess what comes up, you'd be best off guessing "5". You won't know what came up until I show you, but it's a smart guess.
2. That you're able to make educated guesses about people's behavior shouldn't be taken as evidence of free will, it should be taken as evidence against free will.

What does free will mean to you, exactly? How are your choices free? What does it mean to you to say that you have free will?

In the Christian religion, God knows each of us better than we know ourselves and, in that sense, is like a friend who knows that certain choices will be made in a certain way... ...someone who knows how a choice WILL be made is actually just noting that such a choice HAD BEEN made.

Right. Like watching a movie in either direction? Nothing actually changes, you just haven't seen the ending yet. But God, one assumes, has.

Ultimately, a choice will have to be made, and, at some time, the choice will have been made. A person who notes such a choice does not influence it, per se.

I think you're making a mistaken assumption: predestination does not necessarily assume that our lives are scripted by any particular force. Lack of free will does not imply that God itself is directly controlling your actions. Consider, again, a computer. The computer is originally programmed to react in certain ways to 1s and 0s. The computer has no free will. It reacts in a logical fashion. It doesn't make free choices- it makes calculated results based on programming. The person who made the computer doesn't directly control what happens to the computer once the computer has been made. The guy who made the computer (well, if we assume that one guy made the computer and programs I'm using right now) isn't directly involved in the processes that are taking place right now. That doesn't mean that they're a matter of free will, though. The computer is going to react in a set fashion to what is happening. God doesn't have to be directly influencing our choices for us to lack free will. We just can't have the ability to make choices other than the ones we've made. When I rewatch a DVD, I know the ending. I didn't do anything to cause the ending, nor am I influencing the ending, but I know it all the same, and it's predestined. The actors on the screen give the illusion of making free choices, but they're nothing more than actors playing out a script.

RoyMac,

Yeah, you can choose to not get the pizza tonight, but, fact is, you didn't so choose. You freely made the choice to get the pizza (looking backwards); looking forwards, you are going to choose to get the pizza. Not that you ARE going to get it.

You're setting up a situation that removes what I'm saying as a possibility and then refutes what I'm saying as something that can't exist. My position is that they are not necessarily incompatible; your position is that they are, and you're trying to prove it by ignoring the situations in which they are compatible.

You do presume linear time; you just don't know it.

I'm not assuming that God makes the choices; I'm actually presuming that NO ONE but the person is making the choices! He is just noting, as would a reporter, the results of those choices. If you'll recall, God transcends time. :)

If that concept is beyond you, you'll never understand what I'm saying.

Yeah, you can choose to not get the pizza tonight, but, fact is, you didn't so choose. You freely made the choice to get the pizza (looking backwards); looking forwards, you are going to choose to get the pizza. Not that you ARE going to get it.

The how is the choice free?

I agree that a choice like that would be predetermined. If God knew, the moment that things were set into motion, what all of us would do, how are our choices free, though? What does a free choice mean to you?

You're setting up a situation that removes what I'm saying as a possibility and then refutes what I'm saying as something that can't exist.

I disagree with you. I've attempted to explain why. You aren't defining your terms, so I'm forced to make an assumption about what you mean. I've attempted to illustrate my points. I don't think that predestination and free will are compatible. I think that predestination and the illusion of free will are compatible.

My position is that they are not necessarily incompatible; your position is that they are, and you're trying to prove it by ignoring the situations in which they are compatible.

I'm not ignoring any situations- I disagree with your interpretations. I don't see that those situations exist. I've asked several clarifying questions, and presented alternate examples, and you haven't answered the questions or commented on the examples, so it's sort of hard to know what to think, because I still don't even know what you mean by "free will."

You do presume linear time; you just don't know it.

No, I don't. (and are you intentionally choosing loaded language? Contrary to what you may think, I do have reasons for the things I believe, and I'm not sure that I appreciate the implication that I believe things without cause). I experience time in a linear fashion, but that certainly doesn't preclude a hypothetical deity from experiencing time in some other fashion. If you want to know what I believe, you can ask.

I'm not assuming that God makes the choices; I'm actually presuming that NO ONE but the person is making the choices! He is just noting, as would a reporter, the results of those choices. If you'll recall, God transcends time. :)

What I meant was that lack of free will does not mean that God is in control of our choices- poor wording on my part, I got ahead of myself.

If that concept is beyond you, you'll never understand what I'm saying.

Honestly, you're being really condescending here. You've assumed things about my beliefs, and you're implying that the fact that I disagree with you means that I'm incapable of giving this matter thought (i.e. I'm too stupid to understand what you're saying), when, in fact, I've given this matter a tremendous amount of thought. I disagree with you, I'm not too stupid to understand the concept.The concept is not "beyond me," thanks.

In fact, that's precisely why I asked you (multiple times) to define the terms you're using- which you ignored. I'm forced guess what you mean by "free will" because you haven't told me. Maybe your definition of free will is different from the one I'm used to, and maybe there really isn't a conflict. How would I know, since you won't say what you mean when you say something is chosen freely?

If someone holds a gun to mey head and tells me to give him my wallet, is that a free choice, even though there's a gun influencing my choice?

If I'm psychotic, and on meds to control behaviors, are my choices free?

If there were a million identical universes, and I was exactly the same on all of them up until this point, would I continue to act the same way in all of them?

It's pretty obvious to me that our choices are strongly influenced by tons of things in our lives- from our biology to our upbringing, to the socio-political forces in our lives, to our experiences leading up to a choice. I think that our choices are, ultimately, pretty heavily influenced by any number of things, which seems to conflict with the notion that our choices are "free."

I agree with Genny, in fact, I think that anyone who is anti choice should never have infertility treatments or get IVF, either.

If abortion is against God's will, then He must mean for those conceptions to be gestated to birth. Using medical means to end pregnancy is a sin.

Conversely, if a woman/couple fails to conceive, then God's will is for them to be barren and circumventing His will by using medical intervention is just as much a sin.

That's the way I see it, anyway. Anything else is having it both ways.

Last time I checked, Twincats, "Thou Shalt Not Use IVF" is not the 11th Commandment. "Thou Shalt Not Kill," however, is pretty explicit.

It's not about "subverting God's will;" it's about ending a human life.

"Thou Shalt Not Kill," however, is pretty explicit.

Actually, a more accurate interpretation is "Thou Shalt Not Murder," which is different from other forms of killing (in a state of war, or the death penalty are examples -- which the Old Testament obviously encourages).

My "The New Oxford Annotated Bible" which was a textbook of mine in college says:

"You shall not murder." -Exodus 20.13, with a footnote saying "This commandment forbids murder, not the forms of killing authorized for Israel, such as war and capital punishment." The italics are theirs.

I'm not saying there isn't an argument that abortion is murder (or that it was a form of killing "authorized by Israel"), only that the ten commandments prohibit murder specifically not killing in general.

Whether or not someone considers abortion as murder depends on their definition of murder.
It could be broad, like oenophile’s “ending a human life,� which abortion would fall under, or more narrow.

If we take murder to be “the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of a person�
securityproducts.tripod.com/Glossary.html, most abortions would not be “murder� because they are not “unlawful� or done for “malicious� reasons.