Concept of the Person

Originally posted by kirksey957
Ivanhoe, with all due respect, the Catholic Church needs to come up with different names for these encyclicals. It's like they're saying "OK, we got a real problem with molesting young boys so let's name this one "Centesimus Annus" in honor of Father Jones who made the one hundred mark.

Do we really have to put up with this sort of off-topic garbage on the forums time and time again ? Isn't it possible anymore to have a mature and informed discussion on the RHP Forums. Does the harrassing EVER stop ?

Could the mods please inform this debater to restrain himself ?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
What is it about B. Oscar Romero that most impresses you? (RW - this question is for you as well)

That a basically unassuming man (who apparently was regarded as a kind of acceptable, transitional bishop who wouldn’t cause anyone too much trouble) became filled with “prophetic” courage to denounce cruel oppression and murder in El Salvador. Apparently, he had a kind of “mystical” experience from which he felt compelled to stand—as a Bishop of the Church—with the poor, dispossessed, outcast and oppressed, in the name of Christ. For that he was, tragically, murdered (martyred?).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
What is it about B. Oscar Romero that most impresses you? (RW - this question is for you as well)

My answer is the same as Vistesd's. He said it very well. I will let his answer speak for me as well.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Could the mods please inform this debater to restrain himself ?

LOL.

How dramatic can you be.

Originally posted by vistesd
That a basically unassuming man (who apparently was regarded as a kind of acceptable, transitional bishop who wouldn’t cause anyone too much trouble) became filled with “prophetic” courage to denounce cruel oppression and murder in El Salvador. Apparently, he had a kind of “mystical” experience from which he felt compelled to stand—as a Bishop of the Church ...[text shortened]... utcast and oppressed, in the name of Christ. For that he was, tragically, murdered (martyred?).

Sounds not very different from another acceptable, transitional Bishop I know who wasn't supposed to cause anyone too much trouble. Only, Bishop Wojtyła had very different weapons in his arsenal.

Thank you for the answer.

Originally posted by rwingett
My answer is the same as Vistesd's. He said it very well. I will let his answer speak for me as well.

When you spoke of Bishop Romero advocating change, weren't you referring to political change?

Do you hold to the principle of the "separation of Church and State"? If so, then doesn't Bishop Romero violate this principle?

Peace,

LH

Originally posted by David C
meh...face it, your little enclave of psuedo-shamans was born from a culture that accepted pederastry as normal. Until Catholic priests stop abusing little children physically and mentally, it's all fodder for the cannon. None of these papal missives hold any real interest for me, and when you and The Hoe blather on as if these things are of any importance whatsoever, I like to point out the shortcomings of the source.

Problem with that?

face it, your little enclave of psuedo-shamans was born from a culture that accepted pederastry as normal.

Are you referring to the Romans? Or the Jews?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]face it, your little enclave of psuedo-shamans was born from a culture that accepted pederastry as normal.

Are you referring to the Romans? Or the Jews?[/b]

Romans. I'm not aware of any Jewish inclination toward that type of conduct. I could be wrong.

Originally posted by David C
Romans. I'm not aware of any Jewish inclination toward that type of conduct. I could be wrong.

Throw the Greeks in for good measure.

Originally posted by David C
Romans. I'm not aware of any Jewish inclination toward that type of conduct. I could be wrong.

Then that would be incorrect to say that Christianity descended from Roman culture.

For one thing, Christianity was already well-developed in the East long before it got a foothold in the West.

For another, Christian morals virtually overturned most Roman morals (like the one about pederasty that you mentioned). Indeed, I think the rise of abuse scandals in the 20th century Western Church has more to do with the influence of secular society (which was reverting back to Roman morals, to put it crudely) on churchmen than anything within the Church.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Then that would be incorrect to say that Christianity descended from Roman culture.

Then that would be incorrect to say that Christianity descended from Roman culture.

The Roman Catholic Church was formed by Romans, no? The true rise of Christianity as a world religion began at Nicaea, correct? How about this: The Roman Catholic Church (you know, the one with the well-publicized sex scandals) was formed by Romans.

For one thing, Christianity was already well-developed in the East long before it got a foothold in the West.

And?

Indeed, I think the rise of abuse scandals in the 20th century Western Church has more to do with the influence of secular society

I suppose you're entitled to your opinion. Are you going to categorically state that these priestly transgressions never occured before the 20th century? You're delusional.

Originally posted by David C
[b]Then that would be incorrect to say that Christianity descended from Roman culture.

The Roman Catholic Church was formed by Romans, no? The true rise of Christianity as a world religion began at Nicaea, correct? How about this: The Roman Catholic Church (you know, the one with the well-publicized sex scandals) was formed by Romans.

For one th ...[text shortened]... se priestly transgressions [b]never occured before the 20th century? You're delusional.[/b][/b]

The Roman Catholic Church was formed by Romans, no?

No - by Jews.

The true rise of Christianity as a world religion began at Nicaea, correct?

Shortly before Nicaea - with the conversion of Constantine.

How about this: The Roman Catholic Church (you know, the one with the well-publicized sex scandals) was formed by Romans.

You're just repeating yourself. Saying it twice does not make it correct.

And?

It's ahistorical to say that Christianity originated from Roman culture. It incorporated large elements of Roman culture into it in the West, but its origins are Jewish. The Eastern Churches incorporated elements of their culture - Greek, Persian, Indian etc. - into their form of Christianity.

Are you going to categorically state that these priestly transgressions [b]never occured before the 20th century?[/b]

Of course not. Pedophiles and ephebophiles exist in every age and culture. But the thought processes that prevented these transgressors from seeing their actions as sins (rather than just illegal crimes) and, hence, immoral would not have been implicitly encouraged in pre-20th century society.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It's ahistorical to say that Christianity originated from Roman culture. It incorporated large elements of Roman culture into it in the West, but its origins are Jewish.

And then we ask, how Jewish were these Jews? Considering the advanced state of Hellenisation that Judaea was in...that ordinary Jews didn't speak Hebrew...My two cents being that xtianity is a predominantly Greek set of ideas (viz, the Logos). Of course the Romans got all their metaphysical ideas from the Greeks.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
And then we ask, how Jewish were these Jews? Considering the advanced state of Hellenisation that Judaea was in...that ordinary Jews didn't speak Hebrew...My two cents being that xtianity is a predominantly Greek set of ideas (viz, the Logos). Of course the Romans got all their metaphysical ideas from the Greeks.

Were ideas from the Greeks incorporated into Christianity? Of course.

But the Logos of Christianity is very different from the Logos of the neo-Platinists (I think pseudo-Dionysus was one, but I'm not sure). But philosophy (as a purely rational human activity) is non-regional, non-national.

As to how "Jewish" the post-Exile and post-Ceaser Jews were, that's not easily answerable. How "non-Jewish" do you need to be before you're no longer recognisably "Jewish"?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Were ideas from the Greeks incorporated into Christianity? Of course.

But the Logos of Christianity is very different from the Logos of the neo-Platinists (I think pseudo-Dionysus was one, but I'm not sure). But philosophy (as a purely rational human activity) is non-regional, non-national.

As to how "Jewish" the post-Exile and post-Ceaser Je ...[text shortened]... swerable. How "non-Jewish" do you need to be before you're no longer recognisably "Jewish"?

I think you’re right. Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner speaks of “Judaisms” when talking about that period; rabbinical Judaism was one of the “Judaisms” that survived and developed—the other was Christianity (Alan Segal, in his book Rebecca’s Children, argues that the two religions are better viewed as siblings than as parent and child).

Even today, the question “how Jewish?” is one that various Jews cannot agree on.

NOTE: In some cases, the term "Jew" in the NT apparently refers simply to those who lived in Judea as opposed to the former "northern kingdom."