Men of the cloth

Full story: Chicago Tribune

C hild abuse. Sexual abuse. Women raised to be baby machines controlled by powerful older men in the name of God.

Comments (Page 16)

Showing posts 301 - 320 of522
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
John Langlois

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#335
May 7, 2008
 
In regards to "losing the debate". Debates are of limited value. Winning or losing a debate is a decision based on judgement of the arguments presented. The strength of the argument presented has a dependency on the participant's ability to access and process information relavent to the argument. It is therefore not necessarily the best method to get to the discovery of truth.
HPG

Wheaton, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#336
May 7, 2008
 
Jackie wrote:
The women are selfish card. Got it. Does this stuff ever get old?

Women are not in general selfish, no. But, as with their male counterparts, when they behave selfishly, then that is a fundamental characteristic of selfishness. Men who would kill to preserve their lifestyle are no better, but in either case it is an individual.

And it's rich of you, who have played a deck of cards, to complain if someone were to return the favor.
HPG

Wheaton, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#337
May 7, 2008
 
Jackie wrote:
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it would. But in order for you to see that you would have to have believe in the revolutionary idea that woman are human beings.

That's hilarious, Jackie. What would you like to know about rocket science?

That women are human beings equal to, but not the same as, men is an idea original to Christianity. If you study history (real history, not the stuff some people make up), you would learn that.

Anyway, as human beings women are individually responsible for their own behavior, even killing. It's YOU who wants to dehumanize woman by excusing them of responsibility.
JML

Pleasanton, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#338
May 7, 2008
 
John Langlois wrote:
In regards to "losing the debate". Debates are of limited value. Winning or losing a debate is a decision based on judgement of the arguments presented. The strength of the argument presented has a dependency on the participant's ability to access and process information relavent to the argument. It is therefore not necessarily the best method to get to the discovery of truth.
Agreed, and perhaps I should not have said 'debate.' However, I never said that you were winning or losing -- only that you and Pedro (to my amazement) were not losing your tempers in your posts. That was intended as a compliment. From a woman too. Imagine that.:-)
HPG

Wheaton, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#339
May 7, 2008
 
Jackie wrote:
Pro-choice is Pro-life, Pedro. It is clear you will never see it that way so it is useless to explain it to you. But the history of this issue has all the answers.

That's hilarious also. The choice you present is one of killing another person, whether you are willing to believe it or not. How is that pro-life?

Clearly it isn't.
HPG

Wheaton, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#340
May 7, 2008
 
Feminist wrote:
It is not up to "you' to make that decision for the female population.
I didn't say that I was making a choice for anybody. I was pointing out that women, and men, are presented with a false option: between artificial birth control and nothing. That's a false option. Natural Family Planning is as effective as artificial birth control, but it treats women as human beings instead of test tubes.
JML

Pleasanton, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#341
May 7, 2008
 
You practice rhythm ... you get a band.

Buh dum bump!
HPG

Wheaton, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#342
May 7, 2008
 
Jackie wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but the word I would like to highlight is "rational." Rational does not include:
5. Proposing laws that have no scientific evidence to support whatever it is- i.e. a fertilized egg is a person!
6. Trying to reclassify hormonal contraception as abortion- even though their is NO science to prove it.
Let's cut the crap.
While your other four points were merely wild exaggerations, these two are pure fiction. The science is all against you here. The zygote is the SAME biological entity as the later adult. There is no significant biological change from one to the other. If one is a person, the other is also; if one is not a person, the other also is not. To say otherwise isn't scientific.
HPG

Wheaton, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#343
May 7, 2008
 
Jackie wrote:
Its not murder.

That's what slaveowners said about slaves as well. I hope you like your company.
HPG

Wheaton, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#344
May 7, 2008
 
JML wrote:
You practice rhythm ... you get a band.
Buh dum bump!

Funny as that is, there is, of course, more to NFP than rhythm. It involves the woman being aware of what is going with her own body, which gives subtle but quite intelligible indications about what is happening, about whether it is a fertile time or not for instance. A Woman using artificial birth control will inevitably know less about her body than one practicing NFP.
John Langlois

Santa Clara, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#345
May 7, 2008
 
JML wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed, and perhaps I should not have said 'debate.' However, I never said that you were winning or losing -- only that you and Pedro (to my amazement) were not losing your tempers in your posts. That was intended as a compliment. From a woman too. Imagine that.:-)
Sorry - I wasn't replying to you, but to Feminist's comment about my losing the debate. Your comment prompted me to write something.
HPG

Wheaton, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#346
May 7, 2008
 
Pedro wrote:
It appears that you [Jackie] have a particular and narrow concept of what rationality is or can do--you keep on referring to science. Every now and then you refer to 'rights', but you give no grounding for 'rights' language. As others have pointed out on this post, science does not explain everything. If science is the only true knowledge, then why bother studying arts, literature, philosophy? Would you judge the truth that a piece of literature conveys through a scientific method? I would hope not. Your post shows an impoverishment of reason. The scope and breath of reason does not exclude but is larger than science.

What you say is true; however, she may REFER to science, Pedro, but what she has said isn't science, it's politics. Indeed, it's power politics: those with the power get to make the rules. She gets to choose who is alive; she gets to choose who gets to live. That's power.
Pedro

Cambridge, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#347
May 7, 2008
 
John Langlois and HPG,

Regarding my patience, here's a quote from Nicholas Healy in an article from Communio from Spring 2006:

"Catholic patience is the opposite of militant triumphalism. It is a eucharistic love that is willing to wait for the other as long as is needed."

(You're probably familiar with Communio, but just in case you're not, it's the journal started by de Lubac, Ratzinger, and von Balthasar)
HPG

Wheaton, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#348
May 7, 2008
 
I hadn't commended you on your patience, Pedro,(it was JML), but I would concur with those comments.

I'm afraid I haven't much patience with those who abuse science as some here have done.
Pedro

Cambridge, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#349
May 7, 2008
 
John, HPG, and JML

As I said in one of my earlier posts, I got interested in this forum, because I saw B-16's name attached to it. I have been quite intrigued by his writings lately, especially his writings concerning faith and reason. I was shocked (but I should not be) at how people kept on appealing to science as the basis for truth, ethics, etc.

Here's a revealing quote from B-16's Regensburg Address that illustrates the damaged done to the human person when science becomes the sole source of knowledge.

"If science as a whole is this and this alone, then it is man himself who ends up reduced, for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by 'sceince', so understood, AND MUST BE RELEGATED TO THE REALM OF THE SUBJECTIVE. THE SUBJECT THEN DECIDES, ON THE BASIS OF HIS EXPERIENCES... AND THE SUBJECTIVE CONSCIENCE BECOMES THE SOLE ARBITER OF WHAT IS ETHICAL."

Has our culture lost its grips on the full scope and breath of reason, which includes the true, the good, and the beautiful?
Pedro

Cambridge, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#350
May 7, 2008
 
HPG wrote:
<quoted text>
What you say is true; however, she may REFER to science, Pedro, but what she has said isn't science, it's politics. Indeed, it's power politics: those with the power get to make the rules. She gets to choose who is alive; she gets to choose who gets to live. That's power.
HPG,

You're right. Thanks.

Then the problem for faith and reason on some on thi forum is not necessarily reduction of reason into science, but the divorce of the will from reason. A worldview which bases itself on a voluntaristic proposition (will to power) can only resort to rhetoric and blind obedience of its followers. There can be no room for rational inquiry.
Pedro

Cambridge, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#351
May 7, 2008
 
HPG,

Here's a good quote from an atheist pro-lifer:

Still, I tried to defend abortion somehow. I didn't want to be called a "right-to-lifer". I fell back on the "choice" slogans about child abuse, rape, women's rights... but could not find any real evidence to back up their assumptions. I even contacted "pro-choice" groups to ask questions. It was made very clear to me that my support of the abortion industry was supposed to be "no questions asked!" They had no answers.

As an atheist, one of the most ironic discoveries I made when I became pro-life was the cultist nature of the followers of choice. To a skeptic like myself, the "pro-choice" movement started to look frighteningly fundamentalist. I started asking questions and was "answered" with slogans. Dissatisfied with slogans, I continued asking questions and was accused of being "anti-choice". To question was taboo; information from pro-lifers was "heresy", and I had become a "heretic".

Her site is:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliame...
Pedro

Cambridge, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#352
May 7, 2008
 
HPG wrote:
I hadn't commended you on your patience, Pedro,(it was JML), but I would concur with those comments.
I'm afraid I haven't much patience with those who abuse science as some here have done.
JML,

thanks for the compliments.
John Langlois

Santa Clara, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#353
May 8, 2008
 
Pedro wrote:
John Langlois and HPG,
Regarding my patience, here's a quote from Nicholas Healy in an article from Communio from Spring 2006:
"Catholic patience is the opposite of militant triumphalism. It is a eucharistic love that is willing to wait for the other as long as is needed."
(You're probably familiar with Communio, but just in case you're not, it's the journal started by de Lubac, Ratzinger, and von Balthasar)
I'm not familiar with Communio, but may look into it. I've read Ratzinger's "Truth and Tolerance" and "Introduction to Christianity. Ratzinger is very elegant and precise in his writings. I was introduced to Chesterton by Dale Ahlquist's "Common Sense 101". There is great logic and reason behind the faith, it is definitely not blind.
Feminist

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#354
May 8, 2008
 
HPG wrote:
<quoted text>
Oops, I meant to point out that women are generally weaker (less strong) and shorter than men. That is TWO ways they are inferior.(That's what it means.)
I found your response. What happens when a man is shorter than a woman? Is he then inferior? What happens when a man is weaker, I have known a few? You did not address "soul"? A women brings life, apparently this did not rate high with the religious writers for men were not considered inferior to women on any realm they only lacked "qualities. You also made the statement that birth control pills are not theraputic, you were quite wrong they have helped many women/girls with difficult menstraul cycles, just to name one.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 301 - 320 of522
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

42 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Obama and Hillary's Just Dessert? 3 min Buckeye 4
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min John Galt 1,034,539
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 6 min Mister Tonka 96,148
Abby 4-20 23 min NWmoon 8
IL Who do you support for Governor in Illinois in ... (Oct '10) 26 min jimtownhounddogsniffing 3,784
Amy 4-20 32 min RACE 4
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 47 min former res 65,173
•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••