The Enlightenment Culture and Creative Reason

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I can't say I know too much about sanity.

I thought you lived in the UK.

I do.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Mit Brenneder Sorge

That didn't answer the question.

I ask for one that was excommunicated and you gave me none.
Words meant very little to the people that the Nazi's were murdering.

Millions of men and women were putting their lives on the line to put an end to hitlers crimes, not just talking

Isnt it a disgrace that Stalin did far more to save Western Europe than the Pope, who did nothing.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]its a matter of when the fetus becomes fully human and capable of surviving birth . until then it's no more human than the woman's tonsils.

A fetus is a very different organism (it is one!) from the woman's tonsils. A fetus is not genetically identical to its mother; the tonsils are. A fetus will, in the natural course of things, develop into an autonomous human being; tonsils will not.[/b]

Read my post again and answer it without that distortion.
It says Until viability it's not a human...and since the semantic environment of the post was Roe v Wade I was giving the concept behind the decision.

You might think your answer was a cute display of the obvious , but in fact is was a cuter display of avoiding the central issue , which is: outside of religious reasons , nothing had or has been presented as reasons to use State Power to stop abortions.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Read my post again and answer it without that distortion.
It says Until viability it's not a human...and since the semantic environment of the post was Roe v Wade I was giving the concept behind the decision.

You might think your answer was a cute display of the obvious , but in fact is was ...[text shortened]... , nothing had or has been presented as reasons to use State Power to stop abortions.

outside of religious reasons , nothing had or has been presented as reasons to use State Power to stop abortions.

Read back over my posts - none of them use the "God/Church says so" argument against abortion. All of my arguments have been based purely on scientific and philosophical considerations.

If anyone is avoiding the issue, it's you.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Read my post again and answer it without that distortion.
It says Until viability it's not a human...and since the semantic environment of the post was Roe v Wade I was giving the concept behind the decision.

You might think your answer was a cute display of the obvious , but in fact is was ...[text shortened]... , nothing had or has been presented as reasons to use State Power to stop abortions.

It says Until viability it's not a human...and since the semantic environment of the post was Roe v Wade I was giving the concept behind the decision.

Actually, Roe v Wade does not say that 'until viability it's not a human'. It sidesteps the issue of when human life begins altogether. What the SC judged was that, after the point of viability, the State has a "compelling interest" in the life of the child.

Which leads to the question - if viability is what restricts the "right" of the mother to terminate the life of the fetus, then can she choose to "expunge" herself of it? Can she force a premature birth (through medical means) or have a Ceasarian at (say) 25 weeks? Why or why not?

Originally posted by frogstomp
That didn't answer the question.

I ask for one that was excommunicated and you gave me none.
Words meant very little to the people that the Nazi's were murdering.

Millions of men and women were putting their lives on the line to put an end to hitlers crimes, not just talking

Isnt it a disgrace that Stalin did far more to save Western Europe than the Pope, who did nothing.

I ask for one that was excommunicated and you gave me none.
Words meant very little to the people that the Nazi's were murdering.

If words mean little to the people being murdered, then why do you ask for an edict of excommunication, which is just a collection of words after all?

Pope Pius XII realised that excommunication would have little or no positive effect (and, based on the treatment of the Dutch Church, would very likely have a negative effect) on the treatment of Jews. It is a well-documented fact that the Pope was responsible for the saving of at least half a million Jews during WWII by harbouring them in churches and other Church institutions.

EDIT: There is also evidence that the German Bishops excommunicated all Nazis in 1937 (I could be wrong about the year). Under Canon Law, that would mean excommunication throughout the Church.

Originally posted by frogstomp
That didn't answer the question.

I ask for one that was excommunicated and you gave me none.
Words meant very little to the people that the Nazi's were murdering.

Millions of men and women were putting their lives on the line to put an end to hitlers crimes, not just talking

Isnt it a disgrace that Stalin did far more to save Western Europe than the Pope, who did nothing.

FS: " ... the Pope, who did nothing. "

Simply not true ..... the usual anti- RC Church propaganda.

"860,000 lives saved - The Truth About Pius XII and the Jews"


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/piusdtoc.html

Originally posted by frogstomp
BS ... there are decent people in the RCC that helped Jews
Pius however , was NOT one of them.
His A$$holiness only squatted on the golden throne hoping for the return of the Holy Roman Empire.

BS ... there are decent people in the RCC that helped Jews

And there were despicable people in the Church who were Nazis / aided them (you like to cite Hitler in the former).

If you cannot credit the Church with the actions of those who helped Jews then, logically, you cannot blame it for the actions of those who did not - especially when the latter were violating the pastoral instructions of the Pope.

EDIT: Although MBS was issued by Pope Pius XI, Cardinal Pacelli (later Pope Pius XII) was the main drafter of the encyclical.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]BS ... there are decent people in the RCC that helped Jews

And there were despicable people in the Church who were Nazis / aided them (you like to cite Hitler in the former).

If you cannot credit the Church with the actions of those who helped Jews then, logically, you cannot blame it for the actions of those who did not - especially when the latter were violating the pastoral teaching of the Church.[/b]

That I do not do anyway.
I blame the Pope for doing nothing.
There is no excuse for his non-action, none whatsoever.
Pastoral letters are only words. The Interdict is an action , remember that .
That mere threat of which , from a Pope that had been stoned out of Rome had freed Islanders from being forced into Spanish slavery.

Originally posted by frogstomp
That I do not do anyway.
I blame the Pope for doing nothing.
There is no excuse for his non-action, none whatsoever.
Pastoral letters are only words. The Interdict is an action , remember that .
That mere threat of which , from a Pope that had been stoned out of Rome had freed Islanders from being forced into Spanish slavery.

First, you cannot accuse the Pope of inaction. Read the link ivanhoe provided.

Second, as I pointed out, he judged that excommunication would have more adverse effects than favourable. Would you rather he enraged the Nazis into killing half of Europe (including those Jews who received refuge in churches)?

EDIT: The purpose of Excommunication is to put pressure on an erring Catholic to return to the Church. Since Hitler had clearly repudiated the faith anyway, his excommunication would've served no positive purpose.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
First, you cannot accuse the Pope of inaction. Read the link ivanhoe provided.

Second, as I pointed out, he judged that excommunication would have more adverse effects than favourable. Would you rather he enraged the Nazis into killing half of Europe (including those Jews who received refuge in churches)?

You forget Who the pope is supposed to speak for , and so did Pius!

Originally posted by frogstomp
You forget Who the pope is supposed to speak for , and so did Pius!

What's that supposed to mean?

EDIT: Are you an ex-Catholic, by any chance?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
What's that supposed to mean?

EDIT: Are you an ex-Catholic, by any chance?

"Let us end this war between brothers and unite our forces against the common enemy of atheism" Pius
"Dear friend, do not forget that millions of Catholics are serving in the German armies. Am I to involve them in a conflict of conscience?" Pius

DUH

Originally posted by frogstomp
"Let us end this war between brothers and unite our forces against the common enemy of atheism" Pius
"Dear friend, do not forget that millions of Catholics are serving in the German armies. Am I to involve them in a conflict of conscience?" Pius

DUH

Provide references, please.