quote:Originally posted by King of Men: True, but what reason does a corporation or army have to want to change it? A religion, on the other hand, is quite often in the position of being explicitly hypocritical when it supports an unjust status quo, as in the case of slavery. (I'm not so down on feudalism, mind you - it's not so obvious that there was any real alternative, given the technology of the time. Even so, calling it divinely appointed may be going a little far.)
Or you could call it the natural product of a lack of divine guidance within the religion. When you get a big chunk of divinly inspired wisdom, it can only last for so long before it starts to answer fewer and fewer questions, and you end up using it as an arguement for conservative ideas. But then again if you actually have somebody claiming to be the mouthpiece of God constantly, your religion either keeps prospering and remaining on a progressive vein, or you start to believe in some less savory ideas.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is not the Pope consider infallible, and as such the voice of God? I mean not perhaps in the "Jesus told me" sense, but certainly in the "his word shall be consider as if divine" sense.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, infallibility only applies to certain statements made by the Pope, and it's my understanding that he doesn't make those kinds of statements very often.
posted
I seem to recall Dag or kmbboots saying it has occurred exactly twice, in all the history of the Papacy. And I also seem to remember that both times it was on really obscure theological questions. Something about the literal ascendence in the flesh of Mary?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Ph and King of Men, I actually should have known that having been to a childhood of sunday school and a catholic high school.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Pope does not preport to speak for God on a frequent enough basis for me to be convinced its any different then the Protestants who say God no longer speaks to men.
posted
"Hey, the Pope might be infallible but that doesn't mean he can't be wrong from time to time." - Stephen Colbert
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I seem to recall Dag or kmbboots saying it has occurred exactly twice, in all the history of the Papacy. And I also seem to remember that both times it was on really obscure theological questions. Something about the literal ascendence in the flesh of Mary?
:not catholic, went to catholic school:
Doesn't stop theology teachers in Catholic schools from calling the bible's language "figurative" in this instance anyway. At least, my theology teacher had no problem saying that Mary didn't *really* ascend into heaven and all that.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I took several theology classes in college during which the professors (one was a priest) tried to get us to understand that "true story" then didn't have quite the same meaning as we think of now.
Then, something might not have literally happened, but a story about it that conveyed the important aspects of what happened and its meaning to the people was "true."
Now, we think of true stories as "Well of course that's literal truth, when you're sinning. When I do this other thing, that was a figurative story. Just your thing, that's the bad one, sinner." At least, that was my take. Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I seem to recall Dag or kmbboots saying it has occurred exactly twice, in all the history of the Papacy. And I also seem to remember that both times it was on really obscure theological questions. Something about the literal ascendence in the flesh of Mary?
:not catholic, went to catholic school:
Doesn't stop theology teachers in Catholic schools from calling the bible's language "figurative" in this instance anyway. At least, my theology teacher had no problem saying that Mary didn't *really* ascend into heaven and all that.
One of my Sunday School teachers informed me that the miracle in the feeding of the 5000 was that "Jesus got everyone to share with each other." That was the point I stopped having any respect for my church. Actually, ironically enough, that was probably the single most defining moment in my religious evolution.
I'm just curious, I don't mean to be rude, but this is the second time in 24 hours I've heard mention of Mary ascending into heaven. I've never heard of that before (wasn't raised Catholic). Would someone mind giving me a reference?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I seem to recall Dag or kmbboots saying it has occurred exactly twice, in all the history of the Papacy. And I also seem to remember that both times it was on really obscure theological questions. Something about the literal ascendence in the flesh of Mary?
Wow. King of Men, you actually read one of my posts. And understood and remembered it. I'm touched, no, overwhelmed. Thank you!
Also good to remember, the Doctrine of Infallibility is a relatively new doctrine. Although the idea was bandied about for centuries, it was only codified in 1870ish.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I took several theology classes in college during which the professors (one was a priest) tried to get us to understand that "true story" then didn't have quite the same meaning as we think of now.
Then, something might not have literally happened, but a story about it that conveyed the important aspects of what happened and its meaning to the people was "true."
Now, we think of true stories as "Well of course that's literal truth, when you're sinning. When I do this other thing, that was a figurative story. Just your thing, that's the bad one, sinner." At least, that was my take.
We learned about it more that the numbers in the Bible represent completeness, and so forth. And a lot about the historical context.
I go to a Jesuit school, but the only time I was taught by a priest was in history class.
posted
I can see how this might be the case in some of the stories of the Old Testament. But I am VERY careful when applying it because there are some cases where I think its more literally true than conceptually.
Abraham actually almost sacrificed Issac, Israel had 12 sons, I suppose them having names indicates literalness.
I think I can almost accept without question what the New Testament accounts say happened. I do not think they threw numbers in there to signify completeness, or made up stories to introduce gospel principles. For me at least its pretty obvious when Jesus is telling a story to teach a lesson, and when he is actually doing something.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
After days of restraining myself I have to admit that everytime I see "legislate sin" I envision how-to manuals with the "approved procedure".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I can see how this might be the case in some of the stories of the Old Testament. But I am VERY careful when applying it because there are some cases where I think its more literally true than conceptually.
Abraham actually almost sacrificed Issac, Israel had 12 sons, I suppose them having names indicates literalness.
I think I can almost accept without question what the New Testament accounts say happened. I do not think they threw numbers in there to signify completeness, or made up stories to introduce gospel principles. For me at least its pretty obvious when Jesus is telling a story to teach a lesson, and when he is actually doing something.
Not me. Many of those symbols and conventions(placement, position, day of the week, time of day etc.)are far too documented in other literature of the time.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Judaism supports abortion if the life of the mother is threatened.
quote:Originally posted by crescentsss: In the Orthodox movement, abortion is allowed (by all opinions) if the woman's life is in danger.
Not supported. Not allowed. REQUIRED. Even if the mother is willing to take the risk, and even if the threat is indirect.
As far as JO views on laws restricting abortion, they range widely, as cresc mentioned:
In favor of strong legal limitations on abortion
In favor of some limitations on abortion (especially those after the first trimester)
Believe abortion as a form of birth control is reprehensible, but oppose legislation restricting it (either because they don't believe they have aright to legislate morality, or because they are concerned about restrictions in cases where Jewish law would require an abortion)
posted
Like most matters of such great seriousness, CYLOR (consult your local Orthodox rabbi) applies.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Papal infallibility applies when the Pope speaks ex cathedra on matters of doctrine. I believe this requires that he say, essentially, "Look, everybody, I'm speaking ex cathedra now!" It's happened once, as mentioned above, to endorse the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
I'm curious to know if LDS Prophets are infallible.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm curious to know if LDS Prophets are infallible.
Do you mean "are they considered by their followers to be infallible, and if so under what circumstances?" Or, do you mean "have they ever been proven wrong?"
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
