Belief vs. Reality?

[White Doors]

Right. But that's not so much false as confused, since penance, in the Catholic sense, includes repentance -- or at least attrition.

A bit too sweeping for my tastes. I certainly know plenty of protestants who hold the importance of works, and plenty of Catholics who seem content to go through the motions.

The Salvation Army comes to mind.

[M.Dancer]

Right. But that's not so much false as confused, since penance, in the Catholic sense, includes repentance -- or at least attrition.

A bit too sweeping for my tastes. I certainly know plenty of protestants who hold the importance of works, and plenty of Catholics who seem content to go through the motions.

Sweeping but true none the less doctrine wise. Whether individual catholics are lax is irrelevent. Also irrelevent is whether some protestants put their noses to the grind stone of charity. This matter of doctrine separates the catholic and protestant churches far more than celebacy or the communion of saints.

I. THE PROTESTANT DOCTRINE ON JUSTIFICATION

The ideas on which the Reformers built their system of justification, except perhaps fiduciary faith, were by no means really original. They had been conceived long before either by heretics of the earlier centuries or by isolated Catholic theologians and had been quietly scattered as the seed of future heresies. It was especially the representatives of Antinomianism during the Apostolic times who welcomed the idea that faith alone suffices for justification, and that consequently the observance of the moral law is not necessary either as a prerequisite for obtaining justification or as a means for preserving it.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm

[segnosaur]

He obviously did not see himself as a Christian prior to his being incarcerated, or else he would not have converted.

In an interview with Diane Sawyer he explained why he did the horrible things he did:

...

So Dahmer himself attributes his criminal activity to his atheism. He clearly states that he did not believe in God and that is usually a requirement of the religion I think. His father sent him some Christian science material or something in prison. And then he converted.

Ok, first of all, Diane Sawyer is a journalist. While there's nothing wrong about that, I doubt she has any experience with criminal profiling. I've read plenty of books on serial killers (most written by former FBI criminal profilers, such as Robert Ressler and John Douglas); getting accurate information out of them is NOT the same as interviewing celebrities or politicians. So making claims based on Diane Sawyer's interview should be suspect.

Secondly, why exactly are you taking the word of a serial killer as the truth? Any claims (such as "the devil made me do it") should be viewed as suspect, since they are ultimately self-serving and likely impossible to verify. And lets face it, being a psychopath does require the ability to be deceptive, and I doubt a few years in prison has changed is basic mental condition. This reminds me of the similarly false claim made by Bundy where he suggested that is desires were partly fueled by pr0n.

[Kitchener]

Sweeping but true none the less doctrine wise. Whether individual catholics are lax is irrelevent. Also irrelevent is whether some protestants put their noses to the grind stone of charity. This matter of doctrine separates the catholic and protestant churches far more than celebacy or the communion of saints.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm

I don't know that a paragraph from the Catholic Encyclopedia is the most reliable source for a sympathetic description of all the hundreds of non-Catholic Christian sects. From Quakers to Mennonites, millions of non-Catholics have insisted that their faith must inform their works -- indeed, must inform the way they live their lives.

But this is not really germane to the point under discussion.

[charter.rights]

Sweeping but true none the less doctrine wise. Whether individual catholics are lax is irrelevent. Also irrelevent is whether some protestants put their noses to the grind stone of charity. This matter of doctrine separates the catholic and protestant churches far more than celebacy or the communion of saints.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm

It isn't irrelevent according to Christ.

James 2

24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

If their works is idle then so is their faith. THAT represents the Catholic Church. And while the issue of penance was supposed to be in retribution for one's sins, it merely set up a cycle whereby Catholics would confess their sins, and receive absolution, only to go out and sin again, confess etc.

If a Church condemns homosexuality, yet fills the Church every Sunday with gay an lesbian people, it defines the church as a homosexual church. It is not only by one's faith that they are judged by by their works.

[Kitchener]

And charter.rights, seriously, now. kengs333's burbling about human sacrifice was sufficiently ignorant on its own terms. There's no need even for good examples of Christians who commit degenerate acts, never mind strained or bad examples like yours. Let it go.

[M.Dancer]

It isn't irrelevent according to Christ.

James 2

24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

If their works is idle then so is their faith. THAT represents the Catholic Church. And while the issue of penance was supposed to be in retribution for one's sins, it merely set up a cycle whereby Catholics would confess their sins, and receive absolution, only to go out and sin again, confess etc.

If a Church condemns homosexuality, yet fills the Church every Sunday with gay an lesbian people, it defines the church as a homosexual church. It is not only by one's faith that they are judged by by their works.

My comment was regarding that laxity of some catholics is irrelevant regarding catholic doctrine. In other words Catholic doctrine agrees with James even if some cathlics lives do not.

Catholic doctrine agree with James. Protestant does not.

[kengs333]

And charter.rights, seriously, now. kengs333's burbling about human sacrifice was sufficiently ignorant on its own terms. There's no need even for good examples of Christians who commit degenerate acts, never mind strained or bad examples like yours. Let it go.

Ignorant in what respect? Human sacrifices were performed by Indian societies--or for that matter, many pagan cultures. Is this really a matter of debate?

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/38374.html

Edited January 4, 2008 by kengs333

[Drea]

The operative word here is "were".

Christians "were" burning witches at the stake but they no longer do so -- thanks to non-believers, humanists and science for injecting logic and saving people from religious nuts.

But no need to discuss that as it happened way in the past, in the dark ages. So why continually bring it up regrading natives?

It's not as though they are still doing it.

[Kitchener]

Ignorant in what respect?

Ignorant of the standards of basic competent communication. According to which it is foolish and self-humiliating to introduce irrelevant material as an evasion, upon having your crass violations of logic and decency pointed out.

[kengs333]

I was also intrigued with the use of raw manure and raw fish as a base for some plants. This Elder told me that some strains of squash have been adapted over the years to resist the normal burning of raw compost, or fresh manures and that the process of decomposition actually warms the soil mounds, thereby allowing early crop planting while feeding the plants (after they fully compost) at a critical time. She also told me the fish is put under corn mounds (which are typically planted in circles) for a similar reason. As traditional farmers going back thousands of years it appears that the Iroquois still have one up over us- who can't resist pouring chemicals into our soil and water and failing to connect excessive pesticide use with failing crops.....

Organic and natural is ok.

Organic farming and gardening is hardly something that started with the Indians--this is the way it always used to be, everywhere where crops are grown. Unfortunately, despite the idealized manner in which organics are talked about nowadays, it is not as great as it seems. Growing foods organically is inefficient and labour intensive; crops grown without some sort of chemical in the form of fungicide, herbicide, pesticide are more prone to failure, and crop failure leads to shortages and higher prices. In the olden days there was something called famine, whereby people starved and sometimes died because they did not have enough food to eat because of widespread crop failures. Indians were certainly not immune to this, and often starved through winter because the "three sisters" came nowhere near providing enough to live off of. Personally, I don't like chemicals on my food, and I do buy organics when it's practicable, but this is often not the case.

Keep in mind, raw fish and raw manure are not the same thing. The use of raw manure as in animal waste is never a good idea since it can contain harmful bacteria, which is why the use of raw animal waste is strictly regulated. The fact of the matter is that this women still decided to dab some on her finger and then eat it. That's ignorant and irresponsible in my opinion.

[kengs333]

Ignorant of the standards of basic competent communication. According to which it is foolish and self-humiliating to introduce irrelevant material as an evasion, upon having your crass violations of logic and decency pointed out.

But you're not denying that North American Indian cultures practiced cannibalism, and that this practice stopped once Christian Europeans encouraged them to do so. What we're talking about here is simply historical fact. If people like "charter.rights" want to bring up issues about how Indians were (supposedly) treated by ("Christian") Europeans, it's only fair that the less impressive aspects of Indians cultures can be discussed as well. That's all there is to it. Nothing "anti-Native" or "foolish and self-humiliating" about it.

[charter.rights]

Organic farming and gardening is hardly something that started with the Indians--this is the way it always used to be, everywhere where crops are grown. Unfortunately, despite the idealized manner in which organics are talked about nowadays, it is not as great as it seems. Growing foods organically is inefficient and labour intensive; crops grown without some sort of chemical in the form of fungicide, herbicide, pesticide are more prone to failure, and crop failure leads to shortages and higher prices. In the olden days there was something called famine, whereby people starved and sometimes died because they did not have enough food to eat because of widespread crop failures. Indians were certainly not immune to this, and often starved through winter because the "three sisters" came nowhere near providing enough to live off of. Personally, I don't like chemicals on my food, and I do buy organics when it's practicable, but this is often not the case.

Keep in mind, raw fish and raw manure are not the same thing. The use of raw manure as in animal waste is never a good idea since it can contain harmful bacteria, which is why the use of raw animal waste is strictly regulated. The fact of the matter is that this women still decided to dab some on her finger and then eat it. That's ignorant and irresponsible in my opinion.

Wrong! Of course you can spread as much manure as you want and it still doesn't help you.

I have been growing organically for more than 20 years and even though some yields are lower during the first couple of years of introduction to a new crop, they eventually adapt to the environment and the organic enrichment I provide. In a small garden (three strips of 50 feet and a 20x20 patch, we were able to bag, freeze, dry and store all the vegetables we need for a family of five, on top of giving a good part away to family and friends. Between composting, crop rotation and companion planting the garden not only gets what it needs but becomes more easily dug.

Corn and beans together make perfect protein and with squash it provides about 90% of the required daily nutrients. No wonder the Iroquois held it in high esteem. However, that is not all they grew. They were experienced and prolific farmers cultivating everything from fruits and nuts to even managing deer and elk for future consumption. They had (and many still do in my experience) an exceptional understanding of the land and agricultural practices.

The early texts suggest that European farmers were less experienced. Not only did they not have a wealth of vegetable variety, they also knew little about low impact farming. Even today when topsoil erosion is worsening and soil becomes dead from over planting certain crops, farmers are just beginning to rediscover many of those old practices. The conflict is that indeed organic and low-impact farming is labour intensive. However, it is no less "work" as a farmer must invest much more to maintain mass field-seeders, fertilizer spreaders, cultivators and harvesters. The "work" involved in paying for the equipment is about equal to the "work" required to plant corn under the sod, or to plant in compact companion arrangements. Small organic gardening such as my practice, is actually less work than using chemicals and pesticides as I am able to grow and produce what I have with no more than a 1/2 dozen week-ends from April to November. I don't need to worry about too much about bugs and weeds as they become a vital part of the gardening process, and the seeds build up resistance.

So really, what is ignorant and irresponsible in my opinion is to advance a topic you haven't a clue about. However, that is your M.O.D. isn't it...to inject and project into every discussion as if you were somehow an expert. You are as transparent as cellophane.

Edited January 7, 2008 by charter.rights

[Drea]

Keep in mind, raw fish and raw manure are not the same thing. The use of raw manure as in animal waste is never a good idea since it can contain harmful bacteria, which is why the use of raw animal waste is strictly regulated. The fact of the matter is that this women still decided to dab some on her finger and then eat it. That's ignorant and irresponsible in my opinion.

hope you don't eat food from the Fraser Valley... they spray pure manure right onto the fields... drive past Chilliwack anytime besides harvest time and you will smell it! Pure unprocessed poop. Yummmmmmmmmy.

[jefferiah]

Secondly, why exactly are you taking the word of a serial killer as the truth? Any claims (such as "the devil made me do it") should be viewed as suspect, since they are ultimately self-serving and likely impossible to verify. .

But he never said the devil made him do it. He was not defending his actions. And there is no benefit to lying about this. Someone made the claim Dahmer was a Christian. And I provided a quote straight from the horse's mouth with him saying he was no such thing until prison. Who would know better than he himself whether or not he believed in God?

Edited January 7, 2008 by jefferiah

[Drea]

straight from the horse's mouth with him saying he was no such thing until prison.

So a man such as this attains "forgiveness" (and therefore entry into heaven) by asking for forgiveness and "giving himself over to Jesus/God".

Yet a person who has lived a good, honest life (without the belief in Jesus/God) does not get into heaven?

So, anyone anywhere can do whatever they please throughout their lives (even killing people and eating them) -- all they have to do is ask for forgiveness and hand their pitiful lives over to a "God" and they are "forgiven". Frig, I have never heard anything so pathetic in my life.

Dahlmer goes to heaven! Whoo hoo -- religion!

[Oleg Bach]

So a man such as this attains "forgiveness" (and therefore entry into heaven) by asking for forgiveness and "giving himself over to Jesus/God".

Yet a person who has lived a good, honest life (without the belief in Jesus/God) does not get into heaven?

So, anyone anywhere can do whatever they please throughout their lives (even killing people and eating them) -- all they have to do is ask for forgiveness and hand their pitiful lives over to a "God" and they are "forgiven". Frig, I have never heard anything so pathetic in my life.

Dahlmer goes to heaven! Whoo hoo -- religion!

God does not bother forgiving - people forgive - God does not bless - people bless each other. Nothing more pathetic than some one who does not give a damn saying "God bless" - God is a cold and distant companion who leaves justice and kindness in the hands of humans - also - the devil concept is silly - people keep that alive and give it power - as far as Caladonia - IF you borrow some land and promise to give it back or and compensate and you do not ...someone is going to get pissed off - the doctrine of GOOD FAITH - seems dead - you should be able to win a court case in Canada if the other side showed bad faith...not so..Good faith is for suckers it seems and the Indians (sorry) "First Nations" being a little mafia don't like getting robbed by the bigger mafia - so maybe there is no honour on either side - Casino anyone?

[charter.rights]

But he never said the devil made him do it. He was not defending his actions. And there is no benefit to lying about this. Someone made the claim Dahmer was a Christian. And I provided a quote straight from the horse's mouth with him saying he was no such thing until prison. Who would know better than he himself whether or not he believed in God?

It was me. But I didn't say he was a Christian when he committed the cannibalism.

Actually he was born and brought up a Christian. And the conflict that caused him to kill was between his gay preferences and his strict upbringing.

Jeffrey Dahmer is the son of a Born Again Fundamentalist (Church of Christ) father.

From the article. Christianity cause him to kill and cannibalize his victims.

So your quote is irrelevent.

[jefferiah]

It was me. But I didn't say he was a Christian when he committed the cannibalism.

So your quote is irrelevent.

And yet that was not the reason he himself gave at all in his interview. Straight from the horses mouth. And such a reason (the one you give) would be a more suitable example of what Segnosaurus was saying. That would be "the devil made me do it".

[jefferiah]

So a man such as this attains "forgiveness" (and therefore entry into heaven) by asking for forgiveness and "giving himself over to Jesus/God".

Yet a person who has lived a good, honest life (without the belief in Jesus/God) does not get into heaven?

So, anyone anywhere can do whatever they please throughout their lives (even killing people and eating them) -- all they have to do is ask for forgiveness and hand their pitiful lives over to a "God" and they are "forgiven". Frig, I have never heard anything so pathetic in my life.

Dahlmer goes to heaven! Whoo hoo -- religion!

Well first off, Christianity says there is no such thing as these good people. Even Paul called himself wicked through and through. But it is made clear in the New Testament that one's heart has to be into the repentance. Because if you see it as I can say sorry everytime I do something and continue doing as I please, you are not truly repentant. Only God knows a contrite heart.

[charter.rights]

Well first off, Christianity says there is no such thing as these good people. Even Paul called himself wicked through and through. But it is made clear in the New Testament that one's heart has to be into the repentance. Because if you see it as I can say sorry everytime I do something and continue doing as I please, you are not truly repentant. Only God knows a contrite heart.

Ah, the Ecclesiastical Excuse: We are ALL Sinners so therefore we have no need to be Perfect and are forgiven the for all the Sins we commit against others....

That was the premise behind Penance. You're not Perfect. Tell me your juicy sins, let me recommend a suitable punishment (that you will take upon yourself) and all is forgotten. It is the scourge of Christian hypocrisy. Do unto others....before they do it to you....and if you get away with it, then all is right...('cause no one else knows). That is why the Church is losing followers. There is no honour in Repentance. It is just a useless exercise without any real consequences.

[jefferiah]

Ah, the Ecclesiastical Excuse: We are ALL Sinners so therefore we have no need to be Perfect and are forgiven the for all the Sins we commit against others....

That was the premise behind Penance. You're not Perfect. Tell me your juicy sins, let me recommend a suitable punishment (that you will take upon yourself) and all is forgotten. It is the scourge of Christian hypocrisy. Do unto others....before they do it to you....and if you get away with it, then all is right...('cause no one else knows). That is why the Church is losing followers. There is no honour in Repentance. It is just a useless exercise without any real consequences.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. No where did I say we have no need to be forgiven. I said that we do. And that according to Christianity this applies to everyone. And I made it clear that repentance does not mean you can sin and say you are sorry without meaning it. That is not really repentance. And Paul makes that clear. I did say there is no such thing as sinless person. If you will remember the story about the Pharisee and the tax collector. The Pharisee had the attitude of "Thank God I am not like the tax collector." While the sinful tax-collector was truly humble before God. He had honest remorse over his sinfulness. The validity of Dahmer's conversion is not something I can prove. I have no idea. That's an individual matter between Dahmer and God. But what I do know is that Dahmer himself never said Christianity had anything to do with his crime. And that he was not Christian until prison. What he did say was that his sick desires had a lot to do with his crime and that atheism did nothing to stop him.

Penance is not biblical. This would be one of the theological differences the protestants had when the Bible became readily available to the public. People saw that nowhere in this book does it say that saying Hail Mary a certain number of times is of some benefit. And the fact that it was Mary they were hailing is also not Biblical. And there is a place where Jesus says mindless repititions of a mantra are meaningless.

Repentance, however, is biblical. Repentance means not only that you say "Im sorry". Anyone can do that. Repentance means a sorrowful feeling over your sin. It is intensely individual. When you are truly contrite you feel a sense of remorse and resolve that you will not do it again. It has nothing to do with the church itself. The church cannot decide the validity of one's repentance. That is between a man and God.

Edited January 8, 2008 by jefferiah

[msj]

Repentance, however, is biblical. Repentance means not only that you say "Im sorry". Anyone can do that. Repentance means a sorrowful feeling over your sin. It is intensely individual. When you are truly contrite you feel a sense of remorse and resolve that you will not do it again. It has nothing to do with the church itself. The church cannot decide the validity of one's repentance. That is between a man and God.

Are you saying that an agnostic or atheist is unable to feel "sorrowful" when he/she does something they may later regret?

Cannot repentance be between one's conscience and oneself rather than between a woman and her God(s)?

If one is not an agnostic or atheist how would one know how they react with respect to being repentant?

[charter.rights]

Are you saying that an agnostic or atheist is unable to feel "sorrowful" when he/she does something they may later regret?

Cannot repentance be between one's conscience and oneself rather than between a woman and her God(s)?

If one is not an agnostic or atheist how would one know how they react with respect to being repentant?

That's just it. Repentance in the Catholic Church is superficial. It has no meaning except to make someone feel good about sinning against another. Yet there was no doctrine that said the thing wouldn't happen again. And if it did there wasn't any corrective measure. Just confess your sins (again and again) say your Penance and carry on the way you always had.

If you aren't Christian, then you are considered Godless and heathen. There is no room for tolerance and acceptance in the Christian Church. There is only perpetual judgment and condemnation and from a Christian's perspective, if you aren't one of them you are a heathen sinner.

[jefferiah]

Are you saying that an agnostic or atheist is unable to feel "sorrowful" when he/she does something they may later regret?

I never said any such thing.