Kevin's Watch

Damelon wrote:All in all I think all this over the Pope's statement is much ado about nothing.

yup. um hmm. *bobs head up and down*

the entire thing, as i intimated earlier in the thread, seems nothing more than another way to polarize and spread dissention.
again, i have to wonder why the anti-defamation league wants to stir this up.

I thought I'd chime in on this aspect.

I think a better question is "What is Benedict trying to do?"

First, he insults the Muslims. Then he 'corrects interpretations' of Vatican II that basically makes a 180 on the church's efforts at a more ecumenical approach, obliquely slighting large numbers of Jews in the process (sorry, Menolly, but the kind of argument of 'nobody at my synagogue is offended' is a fallacy known as an argument from incredulity. When dealing with matters of faith, I find it self-defeating to ask if people really mean it).

To me, as well as many others, this looks like the Pope is trying to make Catholicism a better sell (really needing an image boost after all the pedophilia scandals). Rigorous fundamentalism is on the upswing, be it Christian (including Mormonism) or Muslim. So how can the catholic church compete? They could try to be all encompassing, but there are other churches (much less other faiths) that can do that better. But the one edge catholicism has is that it's the old man of christianity, and as such, replete with ritual and ceremony. So they roll back the doctrine a little bit. It's like taking down some of the renovations in your house to make it a little retro without sacrificing modern necessities.

So I don't think the slight is intentional; it just happens to be a byproduct of the decision to move in the direction that wordly religion (in the structured sense) is moving. So the Pope's people say he's upset that people are offended, but explicitly say he's not sorry.

*shrug* And that's their choice to make. Doesn't mean people have to be happy about it, though.

Syl wrote:To me, as well as many others, this looks like the Pope is trying to make Catholicism a better sell (really needing an image boost after all the pedophilia scandals). Rigorous fundamentalism is on the upswing, be it Christian (including Mormonism) or Muslim. So how can the catholic church compete? They could try to be all encompassing, but there are other churches (much less other faiths) that can do that better. But the one edge catholicism has is that it's the old man of christianity, and as such, replete with ritual and ceremony. So they roll back the doctrine a little bit. It's like taking down some of the renovations in your house to make it a little retro without sacrificing modern necessities.

So I don't think the slight is intentional; it just happens to be a byproduct of the decision to move in the direction that wordly religion (in the structured sense) is moving.

um hmm. *bobs head up and down* i agree here too.

Syl wrote:(sorry, Menolly, but the kind of argument of 'nobody at my synagogue is offended' is a fallacy known as an argument from incredulity. When dealing with matters of faith, I find it self-defeating to ask if people really mean it).

:shrug:

Which is why I basically don't take part in these discussions. I don't like debate and am obviously not good at it.

But, I spoke truly. Maybe "vocal Jews" are stating that they are offended. I doubt "large numbers of Jews" are...

Menolly wrote:

Syl wrote:(sorry, Menolly, but the kind of argument of 'nobody at my synagogue is offended' is a fallacy known as an argument from incredulity. When dealing with matters of faith, I find it self-defeating to ask if people really mean it).

:shrug:

Which is why I basically don't take part in these discussions. I don't like debate and am obviously not good at it.

But, I spoke truly. Maybe "vocal Jews" are stating that they are offended. I doubt "large numbers of Jews" are...

I'm digging up the Bull and reading it. I seem to recall that the ADL released their protestation too quickly, before actually reading what the were protesting against.

Yeah. Let's see. Some people who didn't even know what it was about denounced it before it was published, and some other people liked it because it didn't delvove to the old form, if I'm understanding this correctly.

People are too bloody sensitive. Does this mean from now on that the next time some Fundamentalist preacher is standing outside a Goth Club calling us devilworshipers and pagans, I can kill him before his rhetoric brings back Christian Persecution of the Greco-Roman religion, in which many were killed and murdered?

Kill, no. But you could denounce him as loud as you want. And then you could get your friends to, and then they get their friends, and so on. Pretty soon you have a whole organization, the GRAPL (Greco-Roman Anti-Persecution League). Then, because you have an organization, you feel you have to speak up when some prominent figure compares all Goths to Azrael at Cinnabon, because otherwise it might be implied that they have your tacit assent, that it's no big deal that the world slides closer to burning witches and cutting down groves. *shrug*

Syl wrote:Kill, no. But you could denounce him as loud as you want. And then you could get your friends to, and then they get their friends, and so on. Pretty soon you have a whole organization, the GRAPL (Greco-Roman Anti-Persecution League). Then, because you have an organization, you feel you have to speak up when some prominent figure compares all Goths to Azrael at Cinnabon, because otherwise it might be implied that they have your tacit assent, that it's no big deal that the world slides closer to burning witches and cutting down groves. *shrug*

What what if I honestly fear that this is the start down the slide to our Nypmhs and Saytrs being thrown out of their sacred groves, the frolickers at the festivals of Bacchus being murdered, etc, etc. After all, it happened before, adn the first step is always hateful rhetoric! It must be nipped in the bud! He shouldn't even be allowed to tell us we're going to hell because that could be construed as a threat!

What if worms had machine guns?

Spoiler

Birds wouldn't f*** with 'em, that's what.

Meaning I don't see the relevance, and I'm not sure what you're advocating. Outside of stripping people of freedom of religion and speech... As long as people can have differing religions and as long as they can talk about it, people are going to be offended.

Syl wrote:What if worms had machine guns?

Spoiler

Birds wouldn't f*** with 'em, that's what.

Meaning I don't see the relevance, and I'm not sure what you're advocating. Outside of stripping people of freedom of religion and speech... As long as people can have differing religions and as long as they can talk about it, people are going to be offended.

That's the entire point. No one has a right to not be offended. They're offended. Big deal. Last time I checked, there wasn't a huge problem with Fundamentalist Ministers standing outside of Synagoges and hurling insults at worshippers. People wouldn't allow it.

The big deal is that a religious organization in the 21st century should curb this kind of behavior, rather than reverting to outdated and medieval practices.

Menolly wrote:

Lord Mhoram wrote:Prebe,
If anyone is aware of a religion that says that all faiths are capable of leading to salvation, and that conversion is therefore completely unnecessary, I would be very interested in seeing that.

Uhm...is it Bhuddism or Taoism...or did I imagine such is in either doctrine...

Pheh...I am uneducated. I was thinking of Sikhism...

Lord Mhoram wrote:The big deal is that a religious organization in the 21st century should curb this kind of behavior, rather than reverting to outdated and medieval practices.

So they should ignore their faith and what their Bible says to be Politically Correct?

Isn't it up to them how they should interpert their faith? Judaism is still around as a religion. In fact, many groups of Fundamentalist Christians in the United States, at least, have a vested interest in seeing Judaism and Israel survive -- they think it's neccesary to bring about the End Times. Lots of other religions aren't, and haven't been, so fortunate.

People today are too worried about hurting someone's feelings. There is no constitutional right in the United States to not be offended. If you do not like what someone is saying, you do not have to listen. If you do not like part of a religion's message, you do not have to practice it.

And my point isn't that there is a right to not be offended but that freedom of religion and freedom of speech not only create a de facto right to be offended (despite how often people use the phrase "Don't take it personally, but..."), it pretty much ensures that someone will be.

Emotional Leper,

I think it is possible to be a Christian and not pray for the conversion of non-Christians. I think it's possible to be a Christian and be able to see the merits of other faiths. And it's more about political correctness, even though that's a convenient cop-out for debate on issues like this. I think that interfaith dialogue supersedes political correctness.

Menolly wrote:Keep in mind, the law of the land always supercedes Jewish Law, if after all attempts to get exemptions fail. Same goes with the sanctity of Life. If a Jew is starving, literally starving to death, and the only food available is non-kosher, it is no sin in the eyes of HaShem for him to partake of it. One thing that always comes into the ruling of rabbinical religious exemptions are matters of prolonging life itself.

Really? I had absolutely no idea that that was the case.

Thank you!

Cail wrote:

Menolly wrote:Keep in mind, the law of the land always supercedes Jewish Law, if after all attempts to get exemptions fail. Same goes with the sanctity of Life. If a Jew is starving, literally starving to death, and the only food available is non-kosher, it is no sin in the eyes of HaShem for him to partake of it. One thing that always comes into the ruling of rabbinical religious exemptions are matters of prolonging life itself.

Really? I had absolutely no idea that that was the case.

Thank you!

Welcome. :)The law of the land stance is why Joseph Lieberman can be pro-abortion politically, and still be an Orthodox Jew who follows the injunction against such religiously.

:::hoping that makes sense:::

Not to mention that in Judaism, a baby is not considerd viable until after birth for a girl and after eight days (bris milah) for a boy...

The most common rabbinical exemption given is on fast days. We Jews always do a complete fast. Meaning no food, beverage, or even water from sunset until an hour past sunset the following night (there are a few fast days that do not start until sunrise, but the complete fast is the same). This causes dilemnas for those who must eat to take medication for life threatening situations, or for severe diabetics. If presented before a Bet Din (tribunal of three rabbis trained in matters of legal interpretation of Mishna), an exemption for the individual may be given, and no spiritual sin is accrued.

This does not mean the individual can eat with abandon. There are prescribed amounts of food and drink dictated in the Talmud (I believe it is actually worded as a "thimbleful" for each) and how often it can be consumed, unless the medication dictates what must be consumed in order to be safely taken. Then the Bet Din will usually allow the amount dictated by the medication.

Exemptions such as these are fairly common. I guess they're just not talked about much.

:::and I must admit, I never heard of the Catholic teaching that Jews attain heaven without being baptised or accepting JC as the son of G-d. We both learned something new today:::

Yep. The "new and everlasting Covenant" is what we celebrate with Eucharist, but the original Covenant that is detailed in the Old Testament (which I believe is the same as the Torah, correct me if I'm wrong) isn't voided by it.

Unless you believe that God goes back on His word, and there's no way I'm gonna accuse The Big Guy of that.

Edit-And this isn't just me talking, that's directly from my Priest.

Cail wrote:Yep. The "new and everlasting Covenant" is what we celebrate with Eucharist, but the original Covenant that is detailed in the Old Testament (which I believe is the same as the Torah, correct me if I'm wrong) isn't voided by it.

Unless you believe that God goes back on His word, and there's no way I'm gonna accuse The Big Guy of that.

No but...

:::puzzled:::

It is my understanding that the concept of "Heaven" as an afterlife reward is very different between Judaism and Catholicism. It's not usually even taught to the congregations in rabbinical Judaism, which is the version of Judaism pretty much practiced today. Kabbalah and Talmud get into some aspects of it, but it is not generally accepted. This is why I had no idea there is such a teaching in the Catholic Church. I would have to ask you for links as to what exactly this teaching says regarding heaven and the Covenant of Abraham. All I remember off the top of my head is HaShem's promise to make Abraham's descendents as numerous as the sands and the stars. I recall no mention of heaven or an afterlife at all in the original covenant.

Hmmm...

I guess the concept of Gan Eden, or Olam Ha-Ba would qualify as such, but again, I do not remember it being a part of the original covenant. I do not have my Tanach handy though, so I am most likely mistaken.

No links, just a conversation or two with my Priest. Now it may well be that he meant that.....how can I put this delicately......that Jews aren't damned or condemned because they don't accept Christ as their Savior, due to their Covenant, and that due to Catholic beliefs (regardless of Jewish beliefs for the sake of discussion), they (Jews) would not be denied entry into Heaven (as a matter of Catholic dogma).

I really need to learn more about Judaism, especially since both my brother and cousin have converted.

Lord Mhoram wrote:Damelon, the fact that Benedict is restating Church doctrines doesn't make it any more defensible. As I said, John Paul II was tacitly recanting some old Church teachings, such as this one.

Mhoram, John Paul II never went so far as that. The big issue between Catholicism and the other Christian churches revloves around the Popes role. John Paul II wanted unity among the churches, but he never would relinquish what he believed the Pope's central guiding role.