HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Cal33 » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »

Cal33

Profile Information

Member since: Sat Jun 13, 2009, 06:39 PM
Number of posts: 4,775

Journal Archives

Why not do them a favor and spell it out for them? Below is what I learned in catechism class

as a kid in school:

The pope is infallible only when he officially announces as Head of the Church
some doctrine concerning faith or morals for all Catholics to believe in. Those
who don't accept it are no longer Catholics (automatically excommunicated,
even when no official excommunication has ever been issued by church
authorities). The doctrines are mostly something that the Church has been
following for centuries anyway. The pronouncement, usually already accepted
by Catholics in general, and recommended by the pope's advisers in particular,
makes it formal. Needless to say, new pronouncements are something very
rare.

Examples to allay some common misconceptions:

1. Let's suppose the pope is teaching religion to a group of adults, or of
children. He could make mistakes. He isn't making any official pronouncements
for the whole Church to follow.

2. A doctrine concerning faith: There are three Persons in one God - the Father
the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Those who don't believe it are no longer Catholics.
It is an article of faith.

Jesus ascended body and soul into heaven. This, too, is an article of faith.

3. About morality: The Inquisition was practiced by the Church for six centuries.
It certainly was immoral. But the popes never made any official pronouncements
about all Catholics having to believe in it as a doctrine. The Catholic Church
simply practiced the Inquisition for six hundred years. This has nothing to do with
the popes' infallibility whatsoever.

Some popes did keep mistresses and have fathered children. This, too, was immoral,
but it, too, has nothing to do with the popes' infallibility whatsoever. It was the
personal immorality of the popes concerned.

I personally think that many of the doctrines are about matters that are
important in the eyes of the Church, but are of not much value to people, or
perhaps not important to God Himself. Does He really care much one way or
another if you believed He is made up of three persons (Father, Son and Holy
Spirit), and would He condemn you to hell for all eternity if you did not believe
this?

I think it's much more important to Him that human beings treated one another
with kindness and respect. Jesus Himself said of the Commandments: The
greatest of these is: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, thy
strength ...... and the second is equal to this, thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself.

The Inquisition certainly was not an example of acts of kindness and love! Jesus
would have condemned it, if He had been on earth at that time. These Church
clerics had become mad with power, and their sadism showed through.

As with politics, it was often the ambitious and sick ones lusting after power, who
got into the top positions within the Church. Things became better when the
people rebelled, and Church clerics have far less worldly power today than they
used to have in the past. Their behavior improved correspondingly. "Power
corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely." This adage applies to all
humans, whether in politics or in religion.


I agree that term limits for the Curia would be a great idea, but it's unlikely to happen. It

looks as though Francis I will make a good pope -- perhaps a great one.
Remember John XXIII? I think of him as a great pope, the best one of
the 20th Century. It's unfortunate that he had only 4-1/2 years. Just
imagine how much he would have accomplished if he had had 20 years!

For those who feel racialy superior, know this: there is little to feel superior about.

How many of us would readily admit that we've practiced genocide against
Native Americans? In 1800 the estimated population of Native Americans
in North America was 20 million. Today, more than 2 centuries later, Native
Americans in North America number less than 5 million. And during these
2 centuries, the population of every other racial and ethnic group has
increased by at least 10 to 20 times.

Guns vs. bows and arrows -- How fair a fight was that? It was sheer
slaughter! The Native Americans were defending their own land, the Europeans
were the aggressors. It was a question of might is right. This, too, is human
nature. Throughout history bigger and stronger nations have always conquered
and colonized weaker and more "primitive" ones. What percentage of our schools teach the truth as it really was?

England had been a colony of ancient Rome for 400 years. Today, northern
Europeans (the English in particular) feel superior to the southern Europeans
(and to everybody else), when it was the Romans and the Greeks who gave them
their written language. Some people have never noticed that all the languages
in Western Europe use the same Roman alphabet, and in Eastern Europe the same Greek alphabet -- with some additions and variations. Central and northern Europeans had never developed a written language of their own.

If we looked at history, over the millenia, nations do rise to the top and
fall to the bottom. Each one has its turn at being Numero Uno. Then they
fall and rise again. The position of Numero Uno is a very temporary one!

The Germany of today tells its school children all about what Hitler had done:
how he had connived and succeeded in grabbing power, his wars of aggression,
concentration camps, mass murder, genocide, the likelihood of Hitler himself
having been one-eighth Jewish ..... the whole ugly works ..... no hideous
details spared.

On the other hand, many Americans don't even know that the American Indians
had come close to becoming extinct. During the Frontier Days, local frontier
governments were paying $25 for every Indian scalp (man, woman and child)
brought in. It was barbarous! Nothing to be proud about, is there? Perhaps the Indians learned about scalping from us? Nobody wants to even think about this -- let alone admit anything. We are all too eager to point our finger at the other guy. I think I'll stop right here.

How long will it take us humans to evolve into something less greedy and vicious still remains to be seen -- if we don't self-destruct first, that is.


































This shows that the Catholic Church officials are all too human, when it comes to

admitting their own faults and weaknesses. Are we Americans any different?

How many of us would readily admit that we've practiced genocide against
Native Americans? In 1800 the estimated population of Native Americans
in North America was 20 million. Today, more than 2 centuries later, Native
Americans in North America number less than 5 million. And during
these 2 centuries, the population of every other racial and ethnic group has
gone up at least 10 to 20 times.

Guns vs. bows and arrows -- How fair a fight was that? It was sheer
slaughter! The Native Americans were defending their own land, the Europeans
were the aggressors.. It was a question of might is right. This, too, is human
nature. Throughout history bigger and stronger nations have always conquered
and colonized weaker and more "primitive" ones. What percentage of our schools
teach the truth as it really is?

The Germany of today, on the other hand, tells its school kids all about what
Hitler had done: how he grabbed power, his wars of aggression, concentration
camps, mass murder, genocide, the likelihood of Hitler himself having been
one-eighth Jewish ..... the whole ugly works ..... no hideous details spared.

Pope Francis started his job only some 3 weeks ago. Like you, I'd recommend
giving him more time. Nazism lasted some 20 years. The Catholic Church has
a much longer history than that -- something like 2,000 years.

How long will it take us humans to evolve into something less greedy and vicious
still remains to be seen -- if we do not self-destruct first, that is.

To begin with (1) The patient also described what s/he had heard the doctors

and nurses were saying.

(2) People born blind can compensate to an appreciable degree with
their other senses,: hearing, touch. Helen Keller became blind and deaf at
the age of 18 months. And look at her accomplishments! Of course, she was
fortunate enough to have parents wealthy enough to have her taught by specialists
in people with such handicaps. And the patients I was referring could hear. Sight and
hearing are the two main senses of learning for us. The others help, too. You'd
be surprised how much can still be learned through inference with the other
senses, even when one can't see.

(3) The patients couldn't see with their physical eyes. But the part that came out
of their physical body during their clinical death was not their physical eyes. This
is the main point: They could "see " and "understand" with their spirit, which was
temporarily out of body. Eyes, noses, ears....are different names given to the
different parts of the physical body. You are thinking in terms of the physical
body only. I don't blame you for thinking in this way. It is the only way one can
possibly think, when one doesn't believe there is anything else to a person
besides the physical.

The paragraph immediately above is what this discussion is mainly about. Spirits
are not bodies. Spirits have no bodies. Have you ever had the thought "Then
how do they communicate with one another?" Very likely not, since you don't
believe they even exist.

Here's another point for you to ponder: The average person when asked "What's
the opposite of life?" would answer "Death." In my opinion the opposite of death
is "birth." One is born and one dies. "Life" has no opposite. Life is an energy
force. And spirit is this energy force. Life = spirit. We know from physics that
energy is permanent. It may change form, but it cannot cease to exist. "Physical
life" exists for as long as this "energy force" is present in it, and the body dies
when this "energy force" leaves.

Sounds like you've come across too many rigidly fundamentalist type of people. Are you

living in such an area?

I had a long-time neighbor whose mother passed away. A few days later while (I'll call her Mary)

was at home, her mother appeared to her in the late afternoon and said "I'm okay," and was gone.
I asked Mary if she saw her mother "as clearly as you see me now?" Yes. "And did you hear
her as clearly as you hear me now?" Yes, again. This happened during the daytime, too. It
wasn't at night in a dream.

Mary is the honest, straightforward type. She wasn't religious, either. In fact, she had been
a Catholic, was divorced, and had remarried.

A friend of mine died some 10 years ago. He appeared to his long-time-neighbor family
next door, and asked them to tell his wife that he "was okay." His wife had a heart condition,
and he didn't want to shock her by appearing to her directly. That was why he appeared to
his neighbors instead.

The same identical "I'm okay." Not much else. This friend and his wife were very religious.

I have joined a near-death experience forum on the Internet. You don't need to have had
a near-death experience in order to become a member. I have never met any of them
in person. But I have written them, of course, and also spoken over the phone to a few.

Like I said in a previous post, Taverner, if you're not willing to put in the effort to go into
this matter in depth, you're only wasting your time -- unless, of course, passing away time
is your purpose in bringing up this subject.

Am sorry to hear of your condition. I am open to most ideas about the hereafter. But, don't be

surprised if, when you're on the other side, you find yourself still conscious, when you know
that your physical body is dead. How come I am still aware, still conscious when I'm dead?

Eventually, it will occur to you that there is an afterlife, after all. Just be glad, think of
those you love. Think pleasant, loving thoughts. And then see what happens.

I've read quite a bit about those who've been clinically dead (from minutes to days) but have
somehow been resuscitated and are alive today. This is becoming quite common nowadays
because of the improved methods of resuscitation. If you're curious enough about the
experiences these people have had when they were clinically dead, you can try reading:

http://near-death.com
http://iands.com
http://nderf.org

These are some of the sites where opinions, scientific studies, all pros and cons can also be
read. I'm an old guy who probably hasn't got much time left either. I was afraid of death at
one time -- but no longer.

Good luck!

Most of the 10 Poorest States are Repblican. What does it say about the Republicans?

It says that the Republican Big Business corporations are screwing the people
blind, and these poor suckers don't even know it. They probably believe the
Republican lies that the Democrats are screwing them.

http://egbertowillies.com/2011/10/18/what-does-it-say-that-most-of-the-10-poorest-states-are-republican-you-tell-me/

What you are implying is that the human brain (or at least the brightest ones) is capable of

understanding everything. I happen to think that the human mind is quite limited in its
capabilities. There are things in nature that we simply don't understand.

One example: a scientist in one area can make changes in a sub-atomic particle. The
same changes will also be observed in all sub-atomic particles of the same type by
scientists in any other part of the world. At the present time, all they can say is that
sub-atomic particles don't seem to obey the laws of macro-particle nature in regard to
space and time. But they don't understand why.

Of course, it's possible we may get to understand this problem sometime in the future.
And there is no end to the number of things we don't understand. But they do exist.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »