Now That’s Progress
— Posted by John (June 20, 2006 at 4:55 pm)
JivinJ gives an update:
Heh.
If this really were a game, the “Adult” team could be justifiably accused of running up the score.
Potentially life-saving research, however, isn’t a game. That’s why it’s so terribly important to pursue avenues that are most likely to yield positive results.
Embryonic stem cell research has been repeatedly shown to hold little scientific promise. Not to mention that it reduces small human beings to the level of disposable specimens.
On the other hand, adult stem cell research has been repeatedly proven to hold remarkable scientific promise. And the whole “disposable specimen” issue is a non-factor. (See here and here for a smattering of references.)
Yet we “far right anti-choicers” are not infrequently dismissed as a bunch of Galileo-condemning, evolution-denying, life-begins-at-conception-believing dupes.
Perhaps this helps explain why our world is still plagued by the ridiculous notion that Christianity and science are incompatible.
This entry is filed under Health Issues, Life Before Birth. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Lucy says:
The idea that Christianity and Science are incompatible was a rumor started by the Christians. The incompatibility isn’t the issue. The fact that Christianity still wants to control science is. Christianity makes it very clear that it would like to be the master of science. In the Humanae Vitae Science is called upon to operate as religion dicates. Science does not need Christianity. Science does not fear Christianity. For what it is worth, I too am not yet ready to let the whole Galileo thing go yet. The evolution denying thing is something I would simply not like imposed upon the rest of us, but the fact is, I don’t care if you want to believe that grass is made of jello. Blue Jello at that. What I am asking, no insisting upon, I’m not asking, I do not need to beg for my life. I insist that the church does not get to dictate to those of us who do not believe in the church, or reject the church, how we live our lives.
If embryonic research never cures anything it does not give the church the right to dictate to science regarding whether or not they should try.
Comment posted June 20th, 2006 at 11:13 pm
Michael-2 says:
Science and religion are not incompatable but they then to ask different questions. Science tends to center on the “how?” question and religion tends to center on the “why?” question. Both questions are legitimate questions.
I will never forget the clap-trap taught to me by my 3rd grade teacher that Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492 to prove the world was round. The truth is everyone knew the world was round, the Greeks measured the diameter on the earth back in BC. Oh Yeah, she said that when people saw a ship passing over the horizon they thought the ship was falling off the edge of the earth. I wonder what people thought when the ship returned.
Stories like this, along with miss-representation of the Galileo case (”however it moved”) and others things are all Enlightenment myths and lies.
We are now at the end of the Enlightenment and we are threatened by the Brave New World.
Embryonic stem cell research is probably the first con of the 21st century. Ultimately with cloning it may produce something, the Brave New World.
Comment posted June 21st, 2006 at 12:13 am
Michael-2 says:
Lucy wrote “Christianity makes it very clear that it would like to be the master of science. In the Humanae Vitae Science is called upon to operate as religion dicates. Science does not need Christianity. Science does not fear Christianity. ”
I think these assertions are off-the-wall. Humanae Vitae does not address anything that smacks of “dictating anything” at all but proposes that science and medicine work at generating better non-contraceptive methods of family planning by better understanding of physiology and reproductive anatomy. I think you would do yourself a big favor if you read “Humanae Vitae”.
As far as “Science” not needing or fearing Christianity, “Science” is not autonomous from mankind regardless of whether you want it to be or not.
BTW: The comment by Stephen Hawkings misrepresenting what Pope John Paul II said at a 1981 Vatican conference on cosmology has be refuted by others were at the conference. They heard no such thing. Seems like Hawkins has a flare for BS at times to be colorful; but then again I suppose that in his situation he needs something to smile about, even if it is a lie. Nonetheless Hawkins should not misrepresent the pope.
In 1988 Pope John Paul said ‘Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.’
Comment posted June 21st, 2006 at 1:30 am
Lucy says:
Michael 2-
I have read the Humanae Vitae, though I don’t know what kind of favors I have done myself. The entire thing is an instruction manual on how to live ones life, operating under the pretense of supporting free will. Of course, I guess that depends upon whether or not you believe that free will requires one to be able to think independantly.
If the Churchs many persecutions of those that do not share their beliefs, including Galileo are myths they are some great myths. If it is such a myth though, I do wonder why did the church apologize to Galileo posthumously? Appeasement of the masses? That the greeks measured anything does not indicate what the church did and did not accept. You’re threatened by the Brave New World. I don’t see a brave new world. This is still the Enlightenment. You got one thing right. Science asks How, but only because Philosophy asked Why. Religion doesn’t have a great history of asking questions.
If you believe that embryonic stem cell research is a con thats fine, though I am really not certain as to what they are trying to con us for.
Comment posted June 21st, 2006 at 9:50 am
John says:
Lucy said: “If the Churchs many persecutions of those that do not share their beliefs, including Galileo are myths they are some great myths. If it is such a myth though,If it is such a myth though, I do wonder why did the church apologize to Galileo posthumously? Appeasement of the masses?”
Lucy,
First, I’d suggest reading the article on Galileo I linked to in the post. It’s hardly the final word on Galileo, but feel free to vet it for historical accuracy. You’ll find the cartoonish Church vs. Science version of this episode most of us have been presented with in history books is wanting, to say the least.
Second, have you read the official Vatican text of the apology to which you refer?
Surely, prudential errors were made by churchmen in the course of the Galileo affair; my understanding is that the Vatican document on the matter acknowledged as much. (For the record, I haven’t read the document myself.)
Comment posted June 21st, 2006 at 10:33 am
John says:
Lucy said: “Religion doesn’t have a great history of asking questions.”
Huh?
St. Anselm defined theology as “fides quaerens intellectum” (= “faith seeking understanding”).
How, pray tell, could we mere mortals possibly hope to understand God, life, the universe, and everything, without asking questions?
Comment posted June 21st, 2006 at 10:36 am
John says:
Lucy said: “If you believe that embryonic stem cell research is a con thats fine, though I am really not certain as to what they are trying to con us for.”
Lucy,
The belief that ESCR is ethical is premised on the belief that the worth of human beings in the earliest stages of development is determined solely by their usefulness.
That’s the con.
Comment posted June 21st, 2006 at 10:50 am
Michael-2 says:
Lucy wrote “You’re threatened by the Brave New World. I don’t see a brave new world. This is still the Enlightenment.”
Concerning the Enlightenment, the deterministic model of science and philosophy of the early 19th century is gone. People no longer say “there are no ghosts”. Discipline in all areas has broken down and discourse has become a zoo. A perfect set up for a new totalitarianism that people will not really notice. The Abolition of Man internally is quite possible on many areas.
So as far as the Brave New World is concerned, no, you do not see it, and even if you did you would not care.
So what has religion and Christianity going to do to cope with all this? Well to not be assimilated, assuming the end times are not upon us, would require some reinforcements. In the “Return of the King” Tolkein sequence the heir king (forgot his name) ventured into an abode of the dead to induct an army of the dead to help stand-off the attack of arks, trolls, and other evil characters.
Bringing that to the time and present world and situation of our time, a powerful analogy would be a counter-attack by the full COMMUNION of SAINTS; the living and the dead with a deluge of Eucharistic miracles and other signs.
Comment posted June 21st, 2006 at 11:58 am
Pansy Moss says:
My father has had two stem cell replacements for his cancer in the past six months.
I have read horrific things about embryonic stem cell therapy. Not only does it not work, it has had ghastly side effects. I read that when it was attempted to use to treat Parkinson’s, they patients started flailing and losing control of their limbs. I read other stuff but I cannot find it right now. As always, fruits of the spirit. Nature cannot stand for this.
Comment posted June 21st, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Lucy says:
Michael 2
So as far as the Brave New World is concerned, no, you do not see it, and even if you did you would not care.
Once again, telling me what I think. No, I don’t see your fearsome brave new world. I see other things that I believe are wrong. Obviously I do care. That’s why I am here confronting the problem that I see.
Nobody is forcing anybody who doesn’t believe in anything to go along with anything. Not here anyway. Here you have the right to not go along with it.
This does not mean the right to dictate the lives of anybody else. This is where we get Tyrannies. Tyrannies do not come from the freedom of each individual to think for themselves and act on thier own conscience, it comes when that option is removed.
That you choose to follow Christianity is not a problem. It should not be a problem. I am sorry if I have given you any impression that I have a problem with your choosing to follow Christianity. I frankly disagree with Christianity, do not find it a representative of love or anything else that I hold dear. I do not wish to or believe that I should have the right to remove the Christian religion from anyone who does choose it. This does not mean that I cannot disagree with it. This does not mean that I have to accept an imposition of it into my life.
I don’t know what your talking about with the whole end of times thing.
Comment posted June 22nd, 2006 at 10:38 pm
Lucy says:
Pansy,
I’m sorry that your father has cancer. Have the stem cell treatments provided any results for him? I certainly hope that they do help. Actually, I just hope that anything helps. I am glad that medicine has so many options available in comparison to the past. I do know that some of the options have side effects that always have to be taken into consideration and all options have to be weighed very carefully. Of course they are still learning so much regarding so many things. There are still so many things to discover though.
None of these things work instantaneously. It is always a process. Generally the people that are having the new treatments tested on them are aware of possible side effects, and are even aware that there may be side effects that have not been witnessed in some cases. They voluntarily engage in the experiments in hopes of finding a solution for their personal problem and also contribute to possibilities that may be available in the future.
Comment posted June 22nd, 2006 at 10:44 pm
Lucy says:
John,
I find that when people consider people in terms of their usefulness it is usually because they are looking to use them for something. Socialism, Communism, and advocates of Welfare States are generally seeking to secure some benefit from the existance of the person. They essentially become a cog in the system that needs them to survive. Religion is of course looking for more followers of the faith. Either way the well being of the individual is secondary to the usefulness of the individual. The perception that the embryo is an individual is providing quite the short sell on the idea of what it means to be an individual.
An individuals usefulness is in their terms and to themselves. Of course there are special circumstances when one must extend their efforts to promote the well being of a child that they have chosen and were able to choose to have. Overall however, the usefulness, or uselessness of an individual is at their discretion as they will be the victim or benefactor of their exploitation of thier mind and body. Usually the idea that inspires the suggestion of usability is based on tribal notions. The idea of a place or position. Some are percieved as feudalistic ideas, others of choice, either way the judgement is based on the perception of contribution to the tribe rather than to the impact that made upon the life of the individual.
As has been indicated elsewhere, the ‘useless’ as you seem to wish, offer an opportunity to save someone and therefore are ‘useful’ as they provide a ‘use’ for another individual in the greater scheme of things. I don’t know quite how to phrase these things, I’m not terribly accustomed to speaking of people in terms that imply what I think I can or cannot get out of them. I firmly believe in the individual life and believe that each individual decides based on thier own desires and abilities how ‘useful’ they will be, and that the utilization of their lives is dedicated to whatever they choose. You can ‘use’ your life to collect bubblegum wrappers and thats not my concern.
Comment posted June 22nd, 2006 at 11:01 pm
Lucy says:
How, pray tell, could we mere mortals possibly hope to understand God, life, the universe, and everything, without asking questions?
John,
I’m sorry, I wrote my statement incorrectly. You are correct in this assessment of it. What I meant to say was that Religion does not have a history of providing a warm welcome to questions.
I must have missed the part where Anselm entertained questions with any degree of seriousness regarding the validity of religion. Aquinas would have been a much better support for your suggestion. I believe that Aquinas was considered a bit of an odd duck for taking the time to attempt to prove God by more scientific methods than had previously been explored.
Overall I am familiar with far more instances where Religion tries to denounce questions of its validity than I am of Religion or individual member attempting to entertain the idea. In modern times alone there is the whole ‘Intelligent Design’ concept versus Evolution. Thats always a good one. Religion has once again tried to package something in a more user friendly package and to anyone watching the show it looks like Creationism wearing a blue bow instead of a red bow. The recipe seems to never alter, the Orwellian name tag and the pursuit to discredit the competition. Theres the whole Da Vinci Code Panic. Which I would find amusing if it wasn’t for the higher ups expressing their disappointment in the lack of loyalty in the Catholic Church as was expressed by members of Islam regarding the cartoons. There were riots. People died. This is not good. Another concept I still don’t get. Do I even need to direct you to box 8 in this very thread? Galileo. Yeah, still clinging to Galileo, I don’t know what to tell you. Stores that don’t say Merry Christmas. Winter Break and Spring Break. No prayer in schools. Once again, The Humane Vitae does seem to leave much room for dissent.
Growth requires questioning the status quo. The status quo does not have to want to be questioned. It should be honest about it however and simply state that it does not wish to be questioned. Sometimes when the status quo is questioned we find out that the status quo was wrong. Just ask Zeus.
Comment posted June 22nd, 2006 at 11:21 pm
Sunnyday says:
I thought I had posted a comment yesterday, with a link to an article about an ethical alternative to embryonic stem cell research. Here it is:
http://notjustforsuperheroes.blogspot.com
Then go to the June 2006 archives and check out the June 13 post (”Newborns contribute to science w/o getting killed”).
Comment posted June 23rd, 2006 at 1:14 am
John says:
Lucy said: “An individuals usefulness is in their terms and to themselves. Of course there are special circumstances when one must extend their efforts to promote the well being of a child that they have chosen and were able to choose to have.”
Lucy,
You contradict yourself here.
If what you say in the first sentence is true, then there are no “special circumstances” that would change that.
Comment posted June 23rd, 2006 at 1:41 pm
John says:
Lucy said: “I firmly believe in the individual life and believe that each individual decides based on thier own desires and abilities how ‘useful’ they will be, and that the utilization of their lives is dedicated to whatever they choose. You can ‘use’ your life to collect bubblegum wrappers and thats not my concern.”
Lucy,
Consider, on the one hand, your hypothetical bubblegum wrapper collector.
Consider, on the other hand, Mother Teresa.
Objectively speaking, which individual made better “use” of his/her life?
Comment posted June 23rd, 2006 at 1:49 pm
John says:
Lucy said: “Overall I am familiar with far more instances where Religion tries to denounce questions of its validity than I am of Religion or individual member attempting to entertain the idea. In modern times alone there is the whole ‘Intelligent Design’ concept versus Evolution. Thats always a good one. Religion has once again tried to package something in a more user friendly package and to anyone watching the show it looks like Creationism wearing a blue bow instead of a red bow.”
Lucy,
Intelligent Design isn’t a religious concept. It’s a scientific concept.
Intelligent Design isn’t creationism.
In my post, my passing reference to evolution attempted to shed some light on the tendency on the part of the proponents of Darwinian evolution to portray all those who disagree with them as being opponents of evolution per se, which is ridiculous.
Surely you’re aware of the difference between micro-evolution (small-scale changes within a species over time), which no one that I’m aware of would deny, and macro-evolution (one species changing into another), which has scant support from the fossil record.
The article I linked to in the post parsed this very key distinction — one that I can’t ever recall being made in a news article in the mainstream media regarding the teaching of evolution.
The MSM’s common practice is to conflate macro-evolution with evolution, and to portray opponents of macro-evolution (which include both advocates of Intelligent Design and creationism, along with probably many others as well) as being anti-evolution.
Maybe Intelligent Design is an accurate theory. Maybe it isn’t.
Maybe man did evolve from a lower form of life. Maybe he didn’t. As a Catholic, I have no problem admitting that it’s possible — provided that I also believe that if God chose to create man in that way, that He intended to do so, and that He intended to give man a rational soul, thereby elevating man above animals and the rest of creation (cf. Pope John Paul II’s Letter to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 22 Oct. 1996).
Comment posted June 23rd, 2006 at 2:19 pm
John says:
Lucy said: “Growth requires questioning the status quo. The status quo does not have to want to be questioned. It should be honest about it however and simply state that it does not wish to be questioned. Sometimes when the status quo is questioned we find out that the status quo was wrong. Just ask Zeus.”
Lucy,
The Catholic Church teaches that she is semper reformata (always reforming).
One of the early Christian saints (Augustine?) once remarked, “If you’re not advancing, you’re retreating.” As I recall, he was speaking about one’s spiritual life, but this counsel could apply to other areas in the life of the individual and the life of the Church — which Vatican II rightly described as a “pilgrim”.
In essence, the Church can never be satisified with the status quo.
Comment posted June 23rd, 2006 at 2:23 pm
John says:
Sunnyday,
Thanks for the link to that article.
Comment posted June 23rd, 2006 at 2:26 pm
Lucy says:
John,
Number 18.
I’ll admit, the Catholic church has done wonders keeping up with the times. Whenever I doubt this I just think of Copernicus myself. Did I mention that Easter was a Pagan Goddess? That Christmas has Pagan roots? The Humanae Vitae is nothing if not a timely attempt to keep a step ahead of the advent of womens liberation. Not to mention an address of the advancement being made in the field of science. Always with their finger on the pulse of modern medicine and education. Democracy is easy, its a Constitutional Repbulic as was intended that would cause a problem for the attempts to keep up with modern politics as outlined.
Comment posted June 25th, 2006 at 7:14 pm
Lucy says:
John,
Number 17
Intelligent Design=Science? The very basis of it requires Religion. I don’t know how you can deny that there is a intelligent Designer, and if claiming that there is a supernatural architect, it is Religion; only to then attempt to prove that there is a supernatural architect; while calling it Intelligent Design. Outside of slipping it by because I’m trying to regain the balance I lost in that little twist I don’t really see this one happening. Intelligent Design is the idea that something had to intentionally create the universe. Creationism is the idea that something had to intentionally create the universe. That intelligent design is being promoted without the story isn’t really that relevant. Other than that, if they share a definition….
As far as the whole evolution thing. The idea is actually more of the micro-evolution. In fact they have found evidence for this. Actually, they have found another skeleton of a kind of primitive human that isn’t like us, but not like earlier primitive humans that they found either. The idea that our ancestors did not walk quite as upright as us and all of that. There is actually pretty compelling evidence that man was not always in the format that we are in today. They have also found evidence that ears may have been used for breathing once. It’s a new investigation that they are still examining…Sweden I believe if I recall accurately.
I think the idea that we morphed from chimps or whatever is essentially drifting to the wayside anyway. Though, that they share similar traits to what are concievably our ancestors is of interest.
Comment posted June 25th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
Lucy says:
John,
Number 16
Objectively speaking asking me to consider which of the two, The bubble gum wrapper collector or Mother Theresa has made better use of their lives is still asking me to be the one that finds use in thier lives. Of course if you would like to force me to choose which of the two has made better use of their lives I’ll be happy to.
The Bubble Gum Wrapper collecter, hands down. No questions asked. He has an honest objective that requires that others around him be successful, as opposed to Mother Theresas objective, which has a prerequisite of suffering and pain.
There must be Bubble Gum wrapped in wrappers at some point in order for him to be successful in his pursuit. It is arguable that our Collector could be picking up the wrappers off the ground, which is still going to prevent wrappers from littering the streets. Of course, if he is going to be truly successful he is going to need to buy gum. It won’t serve his purposes to steal gum, if he is caught he’ll go to jail, where he won’t be able to pursue his goal. So, he will seek gainful employment. The more money he makes the more gum he can buy, and the more wrappers he can collect. Therefore, while there he will work hard. This will get him noticed, and put him in line for promotions and raises, allowing his pursuit of an outstanding gum wrapper collection to be realized. As a valuable worker he will increase efficiency, therefore increasing output, increasing the amount of product that will make it to the shelves of stores. Because there is more product available, prices will be driven down. Making it so that more consumers will have access to the product, or enouraging the product to be made better, instead of in higher quantity, increasing quality of the product provided to the consumer. Money will be saved, allowing people invest savings. New businesses may open, existing ones may expand, creating more jobs. Therefore, lowering the amount of unemployeed in the world, increasing the amount of people able to provide food for themselves and families if they have them. The increased amount of businesses and expanded businesses create a natural influx in competition, causing lowering of prices and or raising of quality. The increase in productivity in society increases the number of tax payers, allowing taxes to be lowered, placing more money in the pockets of citizens. More people are able to provide higher education for children and themselves, allowing them to achieve higher positions at work. Increased pay, allows for increased savings and further investment.
All of this will bounce around hitting every angle of the country, and potentially affect the globe. All so that our collecter can have more bubble gum wrappers than anyone else on the planet.
Mother Theresa…she gives some guy a meal one day right. Arguably it is his own responsibility to figure out how to get his meal instead.
But, this still requires that I look at this from an angle regarding how they make my life better. Objectively we each get one life. Our own. What we do with it is our business. Of course, if the people that Mother Theresa was helping should refuse her assistance they would be completly within the right to do so. If nobody wanted Mother Theresas help, then what did she do. That’s her business though.
Comment posted June 25th, 2006 at 8:05 pm
Pansy Moss says:
Intelligent Design=Science? The very basis of it requires Religion
The very basis of evolution requires religion (2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices ), a blind faith so to speak.
Evolution is a theory. Part of the scientific defintion of theory means it cannot be proven, and is basically a hypothesis. If it was proven, we would call it a law, such as The Law of Gravity. There is very little science about it. If you want to believe it, believe it, but it is a matter of blind faith, not true science. The theory though has holes in it large enough for Michael Moore to leap through.
It is not the best explanation, just the most popular among a lot of loud people who control the public school system.
If your Catholic, you can believe that God created the world and then used evolution to continue His creation (as long as you can account for the soul). You can believe in Intelligent Design. You can believe in Old World Creationism or New world Creationism. I think the most fun of them all is New World Creationism. Frankly, I don’t really “believe” it, but it is a lot of fun, so why not because all we have is a bunch of theories. But evolution scientifically holds no more water than other theory.
My biggest problem with evolution more so that the Catholic thing is it is the most racist bunch of clap trap I have ever heard, and I cannot believe anyone would accept that in today’s PC society. Keep that nonsense far away from my children.
Comment posted June 26th, 2006 at 12:33 am
Lucy says:
John,
Number 15.
Are you calling it a contradiction because ideally a couple who chooses to have a child does so because they feel it is in their best interests? If so you may have that argument only if all childbirths are chosen.
Comment posted June 26th, 2006 at 7:56 am
Lucy says:
John,
Number 5. I somehow missed that one before.
They banned the work of Galileo. Due to the fact that the thoughts offered by Galileo undermined the teachings of the church they silenced him. You are very attached….that’s not fair. I shouldn’t say that. Let me try this. The idea that I walk away with from the things that I have seen on this sight is that the idea of life and its value is directly linked to the body. The functionality of the toes and such seems to be a very vital arguement on here.
For those of us who are pro-choice…and yet not pro welfare state. I do love that one. Taking away Galileos ability to utilize his own mind in the way he saw fit was taking away his life. His ability to choose how to use his life. While arguably trees, racoons and tigers are alive without the ability to consciously determine the route of their own lives, if they did have the ability I’m relatively certain they would understand it to be a more valuable part of themselves than any of thier toes. The ability to choose to dedicate ones life to anything means having possession of ones life in the first place, and the right to choose. The life of Galileo was stolen.
On March 13, 2000 Pope John Paul II asked for a pardon for the church for past atrocities. It is my understanding that included on the list of oops was Galileo. The problem is that behaviors since would lead anyone to believe that there was merely a cleaning off of the shelves so that there could be a storage of further atrocities. The Humanae Vitae was not listed amongst the atrocities, though it is my opinion that it should have ranked high on the list. Now there is the promotion of hatred towards gay people. There is the attempt to assign the title of poison to Birth Control. To denounce anything that allows a woman a choice in when she will and will not become pregnant.
If issuing an apology one should do so under the impression that they understand what they are apologizing for. That they believe themselves to be wrong. That they are going to make all attempts not to do it in the future. Now, it is granted that one may mistakenly apologize operating under the impression that they have an understanding they do not have. That may very well be what is happening here. It is possible that it is not understood that the crimes against Galileo were to inhibit his ability to freely think and understand the world in the manner in which they saw fit. The church however, or its representives, should be cautious in what apologies they issue and why. The churches stances since demonstrate that they were either insincere or ignorant.
Comment posted June 26th, 2006 at 8:17 am
Lucy says:
Pansy,
The very basis of Evolution requires religion how? Evolution asks a question. There is actually no faith involved. There is curiosity, which requires no faith. The study of Evolution is a explorative endeavor. It is a Theory, this is correct. That it is theory does not mean that it Cannot be proven, it means that it Has Not been proven. It’s a relatively new theory, and there is a lot of ground to cover. I wouldn’t really count on either of us seeing it changed to a law. That it is a theory means that it has also not been disproven. There is enough evidence to keep it open as a plausible consideration for it to be maintained as a theory.
I do understand that there are people that do believe that evolution has been proven. Proven means that they have the pieces. They have enough tests to prove it consistant beyond a reasonable doubt. The holes you speak of are a prevention of this. They are still exploring however. That they don’t have all of the answers yet does not mean that they won’t, or can’t. Your skeptical reaction to it is actually a neccesary element. There is a requirement for a lack of ability to take it on faith. Someone always has a question that sends what looked like an answer into a tail spin. As a result we learn more.
There are people who explore biblical topics from scientific perspectives. They are attempting to determine whether or not there is a explanation for biblical studies and ideas. They find that for many of the stories in the bible there are natural explanations. Of course, this does not mean that you have to believe in their explanations. Science, true, legitimate science, demands that they not be entertained by faith. I know that there are scientists out there who do not wish to be questioned. This is defiant of the entire point.
I cannot for the life of me understand what about Evolution you find to be racist. Are you speaking of the idea that the different physical features, such as skin color, eye shape, hair texture and the like, are results of adaptation to different climates? I would think that this would only further promote your idea of a soul. That our bodies are nothing more than vehicles and every part of their format serves a purpose. That there is even further reason to understand that our superficial features do not and cannot indicate who we are as people. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood. Is there something else that would lead you to believe that the Theory of Evolution requires racism?
Comment posted June 26th, 2006 at 8:32 am
Pansy Moss says:
The very basis of Evolution requires religion how?
Because there is absolutely no proof more than any other explanation. In my last post I included a definition of religion (2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices). Believing in evolution falls under this. There is no reason to believe in it except a desire to do so. I find yacubian theory equally as valid.
It is racist because Darwin was trying to find an explanation to fit his beliefs that some people are closer to animals (primates) in development than others. If you read about where Darwin got his inspiration (people like Malthus), who some of his peers were, and the number of people that were inspired by the same sources as he (Margaret Sanger, Nazis), I am really slack jawed as to what politics conspired to make this the theory of the day so to speak.
Comment posted June 26th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Lucy says:
Pansy,
A belief that a Theory is worth exploring further does not make it a religion. That there are people who treat it as though it were a religion is a reflexion on them, not the theory. It would probably be worthwhile to note that there are members of a number of different professions who for various reasons study religions. This does not make them Religious themselves, it merely means that they find the nature of Religion interesting. It aids in the attempt to understand the history of mankind, when we progressed, how we progressed. What practices were used, for what, when, why were they left behind, if they were left behind. Do we have remnants of it with us today. It can be very interesting. Religion has had a considerable influence on people over the ages, and it depends on who you speak with as to whether the theory is that it has promoted the well being of humanity, or inhibited it.
The people who treat the idea of Evolution as a theory are the same people who will kick and scream against the discoveries that disprove portions in manner that expand our knowledge. Real Science introduces ideas for exploration with the understanding they might be proven wrong, and the understanding that even being proven wrong is the discovery of information that wasn’t possessed prior. In science, being wrong is still a victory. It is the pursuit of knowledge that counts.
Comment posted June 26th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
John says:
Lucy said: “Did I mention that Easter was a Pagan Goddess? That Christmas has Pagan roots? The Humanae Vitae is nothing if not a timely attempt to keep a step ahead of the advent of womens liberation. Not to mention an address of the advancement being made in the field of science. Always with their finger on the pulse of modern medicine and education.”
Lucy,
Many of the trappings surrounding the celebration of Easter (including the English word, Easter) are pagan in origin.
The celebration of the birth of Jesus was instituted by the Church to supplant the pagan celebration of the winter solstice with an aim toward Christianizing contemporary culture. This hardly merits the claim that Christmas “has pagan roots”.
Forgive me if I don’t see the point you’re making here.
As for your point about Humanae Vitae, it’s worth noting that when HV was issued in 1968, Pope Paul VI, of happy memory, didn’t introduce any new doctrine; he simply reiterated what the Church had always taught.
[Note: common practice is to refer to the document simply as Humanae Vitae, and not precede it with “the”. My understanding is that this common practice is applied to most (all?) Church documents known primarily by their Latin names.]
Comment posted June 26th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
Lucy says:
Pansy,
I think that overall the concept that we evolved from animals period has been scrapped. The idea is that the primitive man had behaviors and tendancies that are closer to modern primates than modern man. Obviously we know that the Primitive man does not exist amongst us today, despite everything Geiko would have us believe. I still don’t quite understand where the idea of rascism comes into play.
If the idea were to be entertained, the actions of the Nazis would have betrayed that they were indeed the ones closer to animals. Attempting to solve ones problems through brute force, whether by legislative agendas or with physical force, is a perfect demonstration of a lack of rational behavior.
Margaret Sanger was an important player in a movement that demonstrated that women were not simply animals. That are indeed mindful, consciencous beings capable of self determination. Animals demonstrate regularly that they will cease to procreate naturally due to a lack of food. People are supposed to behave as though our bodies introduce natural defense mechanisms against overpopulation, when no such thing is true. Humans must be thoughtful participants in their lives, Sanger simply played a role in making it known that women too were human. Sanger never insisted that women do anything. She simply insisted that whatever they did or didn’t do be by choice.
Once again, in regards to Malthus, it is the same idea as a scientific observation that must be examined for fact or fiction. Science must ask questions. That Malthus was wrong is fine to acknowledge. I simply would not choose to discard an entire branch of scientific exploration simply because we find its roots embarassing.
It might be worth noting that genetically we’re closer to mice. That’s why they use them in testing. It isn’t because we feel they are expendable…there are those who would argue that that is part of it, but there are more factual based reasons.
Comment posted June 26th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
John says:
Lucy said: ” Objectively speaking asking me to consider which of the two, The bubble gum wrapper collector or Mother Theresa has made better use of their lives is still asking me to be the one that finds use in thier lives. Of course if you would like to force me to choose which of the two has made better use of their lives I’ll be happy to.
The Bubble Gum Wrapper collecter, hands down. No questions asked. He has an honest objective that requires that others around him be successful, as opposed to Mother Theresas objective, which has a prerequisite of suffering and pain…
Mother Theresa…she gives some guy a meal one day right. Arguably it is his own responsibility to figure out how to get his meal instead.”
Lucy,
Mother Teresa’s greatness was rooted in her selflessness — a virtue that she attributed to her Christ-centered faith, hope, and love.
The impact of her life on her spiritual brothers and sisters could not possibly be reduced to that of a glorified soup kitchen volunteer, yet it seems as if that’s what you’ve done.
Comment posted June 26th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
John says:
Lucy said: “An individuals usefulness is in their terms and to themselves. Of course there are special circumstances when one must extend their efforts to promote the well being of a child that they have chosen and were able to choose to have.”
I said: “You contradict yourself here.”
Lucy said: “Are you calling it a contradiction because ideally a couple who chooses to have a child does so because they feel it is in their best interests? If so you may have that argument only if all childbirths are chosen.”
Lucy,
The answer to your question is no.
If an individual is the sole arbiter of the usefulness of his/her life, then there are no circumstances that can change that.
To say otherwise is logically untenable.
Herein lies the folly of relativism.
Comment posted June 26th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
John says:
Lucy said: “Number 5. I somehow missed that one before.
They banned the work of Galileo. Due to the fact that the thoughts offered by Galileo undermined the teachings of the church they silenced him.”
Lucy,
I scarcely know where to begin, as you still seem to be talking about the caricature of a series of historical events and not the events themselves.
Recall what I said in comment #5:
The Catholic Church is made up of imperfect sinners. Given our nature, we imperfect sinners will, from time to time, make mistakes. I have no problem admitting that imperfect sinners in the Church made prudential errors in the course of Galileo’s run-in with the Inquisition.
My point was to debunk some of the popular myths surrounding the Galileo affair that persist to this day — myths that attempt to portray the Catholic Church as an enemy of science.
That’s why I invited you to read the article I linked to, and to vet it for historical accuracy.
Comment posted June 26th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
John says:
Lucy said: “The ability to choose to dedicate ones life to anything means having possession of ones life in the first place, and the right to choose. The life of Galileo was stolen.”
Lucy,
If that’s true, why did Galileo remain a devout Catholic unti the end of his life? Was he the victim of something akin to the Stockholm syndrome?
Galileo’s real enemies were secular academics who had staked their reputations on geocentrism. They had everything to lose if heliocentrism were proven to be true, and it was they who used the Church to shut him up.
Comment posted June 26th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
John says:
Lucy said: “On March 13, 2000 Pope John Paul II asked for a pardon for the church for past atrocities. It is my understanding that included on the list of oops was Galileo. The problem is that behaviors since would lead anyone to believe that there was merely a cleaning off of the shelves so that there could be a storage of further atrocities. The Humanae Vitae was not listed amongst the atrocities, though it is my opinion that it should have ranked high on the list. Now there is the promotion of hatred towards gay people.”
Lucy,
As I’ve already address the Galileo affair and HV, my concern here is primarily with the last sentence I quoted.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Please explain how anything in these three paragraphs constitutes “the promotion of hatred towards gay people.”
Comment posted June 26th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Pansy Moss says:
Margaret Sanger was an important player in a movement that demonstrated that women were not simply animals.
Margaret Sanger was a racist and eugenist.
Comment posted June 26th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
Lucy says:
John,
Number 35.
Which part of that will not promote hatred of gay people?
Comment posted June 27th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Lucy says:
John,
Number 34,
It’s not that I don’t trust the Catholic church to be honest about the details of their bloody past…actually that’s it. I don’t trust the Catholic church. Therefore, taking a document educating the Public regarding the Catholic Churches version of the events regarding Galileo seriously is just not going to happen.
Why did Galileo remain a devout Catholic. For one, it could be asked why anyone remains in an abusive relationship.
For two, perhaps it was to save his neck. You can’t actually believe…secular acedemics…who used the church…right, the poor, poor Catholic Church. Whatever was I thinking.
Comment posted June 27th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Lucy says:
John,
Number 33.
I hate to change the subject, but since the Catholic Church is made up of imperfect sinners who make mistakes every once in awhile. Do you suppose that there is any chance that errors have been made regarding the policies regarding a womans right to her own body. Perhaps an oops in regard to the fight to legalize the discrimination against gays? I mean all things considered.
Comment posted June 27th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Lucy says:
John,
Regarding Number 32.
Please forgive me, I’m really just stopping in and must go in a moment, so I’m going to try to make this clear and concise.
Each and every individual is responsible for their own lives. We must, as individuals maintain our own existance. If we choose to have children, then we must, with the end objective that they will be able to maintain their lives in the future, maintain their lives. It is a willful arrangement that we make. By we, I do mean those of us who believe in the freedom of choice. I don’t know what you’re doing. We agree to direct some of our earnings to another source until they are ready and able to take care of themselves. Our goal is to take make every effort to ensure that they will be self sufficient individuals. We do not wish to bring children into our lives at times when we are not able to fulfill this agreement that we make with them when we bring them here. In exchange, they will demonstrate the effectiveness of our efforts in the extent of their successes. Our reward will be to enjoy knowing that they have a life that they can enjoy. We will enjoy the pride that comes with a job well done. Presuming of course that we do the job right.
This to you is Relativism? Relative to what?
Comment posted June 27th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
Lucy says:
John,
Number 31.
If reducing Mother Theresa to the status of Glorified Soup Kitchen Worker cannot be done, then how is that I’ve done it? What precisely is that makes you wish to elevate her above such a position? I don’t understand, are there people where Mother Theresa went that are in better positions than they were before she got there? Can they maintain improved positions on their own?
Please investigate the Grameen Bank, begun by a man by the name of Muhammed Yunus. He selfishly wanted to sleep one night, so he sent one of his students out with 27 dollars to be divided amongst 40 people. Due to his efforts there are people in the world that can say that their lives have been improved drastically, and that they can maintain the improvements. In fact, while Yunus goes about his work, they create further improvements for themselves. The improvements in their lives trickle up, as my friend puts it, and infect others who were worse off.
Yunus too went amongst the poorest of the poor. Yet, when he left they were no longer the poorest of the poor. He left their spiritual situation to them, it is true. However, from all accounts that I have read these people are quite capable of taking care of that themselves at the moment. In fact, considering the impact of his project, and others of the nature that have spun off due to the success, the future will more than likely know no need for Mother Theresas.
Comment posted June 27th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
Lucy says:
Pansy,
People drudge up horrible things to say about Martin Luther King Jr. When Rosa Parks died there seemed to be a movement taking on a life of its own to find cause to discredit her. If Margaret Sanger was not perfect then so be it. What she did do was liberate women from the restrictions placed on their rights to understand and control their bodies. Do you understand that there were women in the world who would find themselves pregnant and have no idea how it happened. Honestly…don’t know how it happened. They had no idea what was happening when they had their period. They were supposed to be ashamed of their bodies. You guys like to say that if you don’t want to get pregnant don’t have sex. They didn’t know that was why they were getting pregnant in certain cases. Margaret Sanger found and supplied women information regarding what was happening to their own bodies. She was persecuted on a regular basis for her efforts, and just three centuries earlier they probably would have burned her at the stake.
Comment posted June 27th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
John says:
Lucy said: “John,
Number 35.
Which part of that will not promote hatred of gay people?”
Exactly none of it promotes hatred of gay people. Quite the contrary, in fact.
For purposes of clarity, I just want to make sure that I understand what you’re saying.
You believe that everything in the three paragraphs I cited from the Catechism of the Catholic Church constitutes “the promotion of hatred towards gay people.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this means that you:
- believe that when the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual persons “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity,” she is promoting hatred toward them?
- believe that when the Catholic Church teaches that “[e]very sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided,” she is promoting hatred toward homosexual persons?
- believe that when the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual persons “are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition,” she is promoting hatred toward them?
- believe that when the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual persons “can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection,” she is promoting hatred toward them?
Comment posted June 28th, 2006 at 8:58 am
John says:
Lucy said: :It’s not that I don’t trust the Catholic church to be honest about the details of their bloody past…actually that’s it. I don’t trust the Catholic church. Therefore, taking a document educating the Public regarding the Catholic Churches version of the events regarding Galileo seriously is just not going to happen.”
Lucy,
Recall that I have twice previously invited you to read the article I linked to and to vet it for historical accuracy. If there is evidence that contradicts anything contained therein, do tell.
Until such time as you produce contradictory evidence, I repeat my earlier claim that your view of Galileo’s run-in with the Inquisition is based on a caricature of a series of historical events and not the actual events themselves.
Your steadfast refusal to even consider an alternative historical analysis of said events is not a little close-minded.
Interestingly, your close-mindedness on this matter calls to mind a fine irony noted in the article to which I linked:
Comment posted June 28th, 2006 at 9:13 am
John says:
Lucy said: ” Why did Galileo remain a devout Catholic. For one, it could be asked why anyone remains in an abusive relationship.
For two, perhaps it was to save his neck. You can’t actually believe…secular acedemics…who used the church…right, the poor, poor Catholic Church. Whatever was I thinking.”
Lucy,
Again, let me see if I understand where you’re coming from here.
Nearly half a millennium after his death, and without a shred of documentation, you’re attempting to hypothesize as to why Galileo remained a devout Catholic until the end of his life.
I think I’ll stick to the historical evidence on this one.
Comment posted June 28th, 2006 at 9:18 am
John says:
Lucy said: “I hate to change the subject, but since the Catholic Church is made up of imperfect sinners who make mistakes every once in awhile. Do you suppose that there is any chance that errors have been made regarding the policies regarding a womans right to her own body.”
Lucy,
Would that I only made mistakes “every once in a while”. For that matter, would that all Catholics only made mistakes “every once in a while”.
Like all human beings, we Catholics make mistakes a lot. Mistakes in matters of morality we call sins; for this reason, Holy Mother Church encourages us to go to confession — and frequently, at that.
That the Church is composed of imperfect sinners is in no way contradicted by the fact that the Church’s Magisterium, or teaching authority (the pope and the bishops in communion with him) is preserved from error by the Holy Spirit when speaking on matters of faith or morals.
The question you’re asking is, essentially, this: Is it possible that the Catholic Church has been wrong for 2,000 years for teaching that the intentional killing of an innocent human person is wrong?
The answer is no.
It’s also worth noting that the Church has no authority to change her teaching on abortion.
Comment posted June 28th, 2006 at 9:33 am
John says:
Lucy said: “Each and every individual is responsible for their own lives. We must, as individuals maintain our own existance. If we choose to have children, then we must, with the end objective that they will be able to maintain their lives in the future, maintain their lives.”
Lucy,
Says who?
What you’re saying here only makes sense in the context of a natural order.
In comment #12, you said, “An individuals usefulness is in their terms and to themselves.” You immediately proceeded to make an exception when you said:
If I, as an individual, am responsible for determining the “usefulness” of my own life, you’re saying that an arbitrary exception is the only thing preventing me from abandoning my newborn child on a garbage heap?
Comment posted June 28th, 2006 at 10:11 am
John says:
Lucy said: ” If reducing Mother Theresa to the status of Glorified Soup Kitchen Worker cannot be done, then how is that I’ve done it? What precisely is that makes you wish to elevate her above such a position? I don’t understand, are there people where Mother Theresa went that are in better positions than they were before she got there? Can they maintain improved positions on their own?
Lucy,
I’m probably not the best person to answer that question.
Why don’ t you ask some of the refugees, ex-prostitutes, mentally ill, sick children, abandoned children, AIDS victims, and aged — to name a few — that are cared for by the 4,500 Missionaries of Charity sisters (the religious order she founded) in 133 countries?
Your point about Muhammed Yunus is a red herring, especially since it’s premised on the unfounded view that there isn’t really much to show for Mother Teresa’s efforts.
More importantly, however, you’re still missing the point about Mother Teresa’s life. She lived a life of service to others, but her actions were a means to an end. Or, rather, an End — Jesus Christ.
Her corporal works of mercy were done out of love for Him, and out of obedience to his command to love and serve one another.
To fail to grasp this is to fail to understand Mother Teresa’s life entirely.
By the way, do you stand by your comment, “…the future will more than likely know no need for Mother Theresas”?
Comment posted June 28th, 2006 at 10:40 am
Pansy Moss says:
People drudge up horrible things to say about Martin Luther King Jr. When Rosa Parks died there seemed to be a movement taking on a life of its own to find cause to discredit her. If Margaret Sanger was not perfect then so be it.
MLK had some major character flaws-he was an adulterer. He was no saint (literally). But his public life, and his vocation so-to-speak was the Civil Rights Movement and to promote integration. This was a very noble cause. While MLK should not be regarded as a saint, that does not change the fact his cause was a good one.
Rosa Parks was no heroine. The woman was just tired and wanted to sit her behind down. However, the dialogue that started as a result was much needed despite who Rosa Parks was.
Margaret Sanger’s cause was the extermination of the poor, of blacks and whomever else she saw unfit through birth control. Her propaganda, such as explanations like the one you just gave, that people were too stupid to equate sex with babies nine months later, is why the black community was able to embrace her nonsense, and now today 80% of black children are born without fathers, white woman have 184 abortions for every 1000 live births compared to black women who have 534 abortions for every 1000 live births.
The fruits of the Civil Rights Movement have been positive. The fruits of Margaret Sanger’s movement have been death and destruction to the black community. I cannot look around the black community and point to one thing that was Margaret Sanger’s legacy, and say “that was a good thing”.
Comment posted June 28th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Pansy Moss says:
Why don’ t you ask some of the refugees, ex-prostitutes, mentally ill, sick children, abandoned children, AIDS victims, and aged — to name a few — that are cared for by the 4,500 Missionaries of Charity sisters (the religious order she founded) in 133 countries?
Thanks John. Mother Theresa was a living saint. If you reduce her great deeds, then there is not a person in history who performed great deeds (except for the One who claimed to be God, and His Mother…and maybe His stepdad….)
Comment posted June 28th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
John says:
Pansy said: “Mother Theresa was a living saint. If you reduce her great deeds, then there is not a person in history who performed great deeds (except for the One who claimed to be God, and His Mother…and maybe His stepdad….)”
Pansy,
Indeed. For some time, Mother Teresa has had a special place in my heart, likely stemming from my great fortune at being part of the crowd at a papal audience at Castel Gandolfo with John Paul II, of happy memory, two days after she died, and at which he paid tribute to his dear diminutive friend.
We named our first daughter after her. It’s especially fitting that we did so, since Teresa was born on January 21, 2003 (January 21 is the feast of St. Agnes; and Agnes was Mother Teresa’s baptismal name), and 2003 was the year she was beatified.
Comment posted June 28th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
Pansy Moss says:
John,
I got to see her once. The date was June 18, 1995. I remember because it was my 1-year-wedding anniversary. She came to Trenton NJ and I think she left a small contingent of her nuns. Anyway, there was a huge crowd, and I was of course pregnant. We were there early, but not early enough that all the seats on the Cathedral were about filled by the time we entered. But since I was pregnant, the ushers found a seat for me at the end of a pew and my husband and mother stood next to me.
When she came in, she was sooooo tiny. I swear she was like 4′ something, but commanded a huge presence. They had the microphone on the lowest setting, and when she crept up on the altar, they had to scramble around for an extra milk carton for her to stand on. I mostly remember her speaking about our need to minister to the “poorest of the poor”.
Comment posted June 28th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
Lucy says:
John,
It didn’t work before.
Muhammed Yunus went out armed with the understanding that people were generally good and capable. He went out to learn why people were suffering. He set out to change it. He did. He started with a quarter.
I’m highly amused by the whole panic that seems to have arised from the donation of funds from Buffett to Gates. The left is cheering maddly, you guys are panic stricken and those of us that get what is going on are grimacing over the second loudest flush in history. The first having been provided by Carnegie of course. I’m appalled, where does Gates get off not knowing better. Certainly he knows what happens to money when you put in the hands of people who don’t know what it is. Put as much money as possible in the hands of the fool and it makes no difference. Put a quarter in the hands of a woman who makes chairs out of bamboo, and it will change a life forever. As Ayn Rand said, Nobody has faith in money like those that are socially minded.
Yunus wanted to sleep at night. That’s all. He couldn’t. The thing is it was probably less to do with guilt than it was intrigue. It’s hard to say though. Find a puzzle and you must put it together. The program Yunus started has improved lives globally. Others have come to him to learn how to start similar programs. It’s changing the world. Even in our own backyard.
If Mother Theresa is half the woman that you think her to have been she would not have dismissed Yunus as a ‘red herring.’ If she was truly out to eleviate poverty in the world she would have been glad to know of Yunus. People who called two walls a house before Yunus are building nice houses to protect themselves from the elements now. They are happy to be alive. They have plans for their futures…they have hope.
I don’t know how much Jesus is worth to a man who is starving. I know that Yunus taught men to fish if you will. I know that the people that Yunus helped first are now helping others. I don’t think that Yunus taught them much about Jesus, but they are now interested in education. Which means they’ll become literate if they weren’t before. If you want to send them Bibles so that they can see what they think about the idea I’m sure that is fine.
The thing is, I have really little reason to believe anything other than that Mother Theresa would have been happy to know of Yunus. The Grameen Bank seems to be this well kept secret. There’s no fanfair, its just people taking out loans, working, earning a living and paying back the loan slowly but surely, in the end their life is better than it was previously. Yunus wasn’t following orders by anyone. In fact, pretty much anybody who is anyone in the whose who of world affairs has tried to stop him at some point. They keep telling him that the poor can’t be given loans. The poor can’t run a business. He keeps asking the same thing. Then why is it being done? Why is it being done with success? They try to interfere and turned it into another failed mission of altruism. Fortunately, Yunus is to tough, and he has a belief that human beings are good and capable.
Yes, if the success of the Grameen Bank, and other variations of what is essentially grassroots versions of Capitalism persist. If people begin to have the same faith in themselves as Yunus had in them across the globe, it is true, there will be no further need for Mother Theresas. Not if she was attempting to alleviate poverty.
If the point of Mother Theresas life was to spread religion, then you’re right, I don’t get it. You say that I don’t consider the aids patients, but there is no cure for aids. Current policy is causing the spread to worsen.
Comment posted July 6th, 2006 at 10:31 pm
Lucy says:
Lucy said: “Each and every individual is responsible for their own lives. We must, as individuals maintain our own existance. If we choose to have children, then we must, with the end objective that they will be able to maintain their lives in the future, maintain their lives.”
Lucy,
Says who?
I understand that there are those who believe that everyone else in the world is responsible for them. That ‘God’ has ordered that we all count ourselves enslaved to one another. Can you say early Communism? That children are to be counted as servants in the system. That we have no obligation to them but to hatch and indoctrinate. The current public school system is a perfect example of that. If they can make it great, if not oh well.
I however, hold myself to a bit of a higher moral code. I do not believe that anyone else should be responsible for me. All I ask in return is that noone force me to be responsible for them. If I choose to voluntarily take responsibility for someone such as a child this is different.
The difference is the choice.
Comment posted July 6th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
Lucy says:
John,
Why does this only make sense with what you are calling natural order. A natural order that comes with exceptions itself. Arbitrary rulings of when man can and cannot use his mind as defined by….
Perhaps I am not clear regarding what you are calling natural order.
Comment posted July 6th, 2006 at 10:54 pm
Lucy says:
John,
If I clarified what I was trying to say why are you still on something else? Is there something that you would like clarified?
Comment posted July 6th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
Lucy says:
John,
Once again, how is that you understand self determination to be inseperable from crime? Do you know that overall most people are good. Most people want to live happy lives, they want to be successful, and when they have children they want the children to be happy and successful. They want good lives. They want to work and earn good lives.
There is nothing arbitrary separating people from placing an infant in the garbage. Once again, who do you think is responsible for your life.
Do you understand to those of us who believe in self determination. Those of us who do not subscribe to the Religions of the world as it were. Those of us who do not subscribe to Socialism, or Communism, or Welfarism. Overall, the idea is not that the world is crawling with people just waiting to pull one over. There is no jungle of crime being held back by your God.
We determine how we will use our bodies, our minds. How hard we will work. What goals we will pursue. If we will follow a religion…which in most cases tends to get rid of that whole self determinism thing.
Criminals aren’t self determing. They are others determining. Get robbed at gunpoint and figure out whose life is being determined by their actions.
Comment posted July 6th, 2006 at 11:05 pm
Lucy says:
John,
Considering the source does not make me Close minded. It’s a component of critical thinking. I never said that I was open minded on the topic of abortion. It is immoral to take rights away from women. It is a violation of human rights. It might be in obedience with the will of your God, who I don’t believe in so you can immagine how that sounds to me. It is a violation of human rights though. I refuse to follow a God that would be so cruel as to tell women that they aren’t worthy of rights to control their own minds and bodies.
To Paraphrase Thomas Paine, I don’t think that is a God you are worshipping.
I don’t really care about the Catholic Churches position on anything to be honest. For all I care you can regal the masses with stories regarding how the Catholic Church sainted Galileo for his demonstration of intellectual curiosity.
My beef is with the idea that you guys are not content to keep things in the confines of the Catholic Church. I know that its bigger than the Catholic Church these days, however, for those of us who don’t believe what you believe there is a problem when it invades our home.
How can I possilby believe that life is a gift from God if I don’t believe in your God?
Comment posted July 8th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
John says:
Lucy,
You’ve raised quite a few points in your last few comments, and unfortunately I don’t have the time to address them now, and with this coming week being occupied with the Face the Truth Tour, I probably won’t be able to respond with anything substantive until the following week.
Comment posted July 9th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
John says:
Lucy said: “If Mother Theresa is half the woman that you think her to have been she would not have dismissed Yunus as a ‘red herring.’ If she was truly out to eleviate poverty in the world she would have been glad to know of Yunus.”
Lucy,
I dismissed Yunus as a red herring because your bringing him up wasn’t pertinent to any points I had raised in this thread.
Based on what you’ve said about him, I would agree with you that Mother Teresa would have been glad to know of him.
Also, to clarify: Mother Teresa never set out to alleviate poverty in the world.
She set out to love and to serve, out of faithful obedience to Jesus Christ’s commandments to do so. And as I said in an earlier comment, to fail to understand this is to fail to understand her life entirely.
In so doing, Mother Teresa exemplified the teaching of the Second Vatican Council that “[man] cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself” (Gaudium et Spes, #24).
Comment posted July 17th, 2006 at 11:22 am
Generations for Life » Blog Archive » Getting It Right on Stem Cells says:
[…] Now That’s Progress […]
Comment posted December 20th, 2006 at 10:40 am