It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Priests Urge Nancy Pelosi to Condemn Abortion or Leave the Catholic Church

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The Catholic church is not a democracy.

Exactly, that is why it is indeed the synagogue of Satan.


So you are saying that a church with beliefs that are invented by popular demand is of God ??
Is that what you are saying? Or did I miss something?




posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 

The Catholic Church was well established before the bible came into being. It was a Catholic council that put the final bible together. No matter how much catholic-church-haters try to get around those facts, they can't. Sorry.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   
I don't think they should do that. The Catholic Church is losing more people every day, they can't afford urging people to leave.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Communion:
Ritual Sacrifice and Cannibalism

Jesus is the Sacrifice
You eat his flesh and drink his blood.

Through all cultures it is believed that by eating the flesh of someone you are empowered by their attributes and spirit.

This is how every religion works pretty much.
Spiritual Cannibalism essentially.

This aspect partially explains why all of these religions result in perpetuating doom and slavery to the tyrant.
If you want to really understand the practice of ritual sacrifice and cannibalism, I highly suggest people look up and study the Aztecs and Carthaginians / Canaanites.
Cannibal = Canaan + Baal
edit on 25-6-2013 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by muzzleflash
 

The Catholic Church was well established before the bible came into being. It was a Catholic council that put the final bible together. No matter how much catholic-church-haters try to get around those facts, they can't. Sorry.


What?

I am sorry but can you show me a single author of a single book of the Bible that came into being after 300AD?

Way to twist things around into "the final compilation came into being afterwards", when what I originally conferred was the idea that the Authors who Wrote the books Predate this establishment.

Nice try, no cigar.

LINK : When was the Bible written and who wrote it?

Cognitive dissonance is a weakness not a strength.
edit on 25-6-2013 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The Catholic church is not a democracy.

Exactly, that is why it is indeed the synagogue of Satan.


So you are saying that a church with beliefs that are invented by popular demand is of God ??
Is that what you are saying? Or did I miss something?


Where did I say anything like that?

I am afraid you must be so indoctrinated into some organized belief system you cannot even understand what I am saying.

Oh well. For the record I clearly stated ALL CHURCHES are bad. That includes all of the ones you think I failed to include. Capiche?



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by StoutBroux
 


I always thought there was a huge conflict of interest being ‘Christian’ AND ‘pro-Choice’. The two positions simply don’t jive IMO.

I do support the church’s right to exclude Pelosi because her actions go against the teachings of Christianity. I believe the religious leaders have every right to exclude her and to speak out on important issues of the day. The SCOTUS affirmed the protected speech of the church…..


The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects a church’s right to speak out on the moral issues affecting society. In addition, while the Internal Revenue Code prohibits churches from assessing the qualifications of specific candidates for public office, it does not infringe upon a church’s inherent right to speak out on the morality of specific political issues.

The Supreme Court has unequivocally found that religious speech is at the apex of protected speech under the First Amendment. Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995).
aclj.org...

On the flip side, I don’t advocate religions or religious leaders effectively strong-arming politicians. In this case the priests don’t seem to be trying to sway Pelosi to vote a certain way or create legislation. They’re simply putting her in her place.




That's right. If you don't want to follow the rules of the club, the club can kick you out. I really doubt Pelosi cares what the church says as she is one of the most corrupt thieves on capitol hill.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Where did I say anything like that?

I said the Catholic Church is not a democracy. You said 'that is why it is a church of Satan'.
So putting them together .. it looks like you said that because it's not a church with beliefs
that come from the bottom up .. a church of popular demand .. that it's of satan.
that's why I asked if that's what you were saying and put the



I am afraid you must be so indoctrinated into some organized belief system

MISS. You don't know me very well ....



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by muzzleflash
 

The Catholic Church was well established before the bible came into being. It was a Catholic council that put the final bible together. No matter how much catholic-church-haters try to get around those facts, they can't. Sorry.


You are quite correct.



The Old Testament canon entered into Christian use in the Greek Septuagint translations and original books, and their differing lists of texts. In addition to the Septuagint, Christianity subsequently added various writings that would become the New Testament. Somewhat different lists of accepted works continued to develop in antiquity. In the 4th century a series of synods produced a list of texts equal to the 39, 46(51),54, or 57 book canon of the Old Testament and to the 27-book canon of the New Testament that would be subsequently used to today, most notably the Synod of Hippo in AD 393. Also c. 400, Jerome produced a definitive Latin edition of the Bible (see Vulgate), the canon of which, at the insistence of the Pope, was in accord with the earlier Synods. With the benefit of hindsight it can be said that this process effectively set the New Testament canon, although there are examples of other canonical lists in use after this time. A definitive list did not come from an Ecumenical Council until the Council of Trent (1545–63).[74]

en.wikipedia.org...-74



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by windword

Where does he teach the murder of innocents?


What makes you think that Jesus thought the unborn were innocent?


John 9
And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. 2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

Wow, talk about taking something out of context! Not only does that have nothing to do with the unborn, but his answer, which you conveniently left off, was "neither."


Right. Jesus said that man was born blind so that Jesus could be glorified by healing him. But Jesus doesn't/didn't heal everyone, did he? Plenty of people were born with congenital disorders. And, the disciples weren't corrected by Jesus in their thinking that the unborn are not always innocent.




What that doctor did was illegal. Late term abortions are only given in cases where the fetus is so unhealthy that it's survival is compromised and it's life would be more painful than it's death, or when the life of the mother is at risk. However, what happens to babies that survive late term abortions is awful. They are left to die. Euthanasia is something that needs more looking into.

Again, what is the "magic" that happens that makes killing a baby in the womb moral, and killing the exact same baby outside of the womb immoral? Just because you can see one and not the other, so one can pretend that it isn't really a baby?

I'm not asking from a legal standpoint, but from a moral one -- it is only legal by virtue of the court having redefined what "life" is -- a fetus that is desired is "a life", one that is not desired is not.


Late term abortions are only used to save the life of the mother or if the fetus is severely in trouble. Sometimes those babies survive and are left to die. That's when euthanasia should be considered. I don't think that these incidents are morally wrong. The Talmud gives instructions on how to perform late term abortions when the mother's life is in danger. This is old, old medicine.



edit on 24-6-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)


Interesting. I'd like to see a cite for that last sentence.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by adjensen

Yes, the theology of "me and my Bible". Which ignores the fact that the Bible was written by members of a church, was selected by the church, and has been translated and maintained for 2,000 years by a church.


Which Church?

If by Catholic which is the subject of the thread, than I must say you are entirely wrong.
Catholicism did not exist until after these texts were written.

Of course it did -- "catholic" simply means "universal". The institution called the "Roman Catholic Church" is named such simply to differentiate it from other Catholic churches, but can point to an unbroken line of leadership all the way back to the Apostles. It is, therefore, the church that Christ established through Peter.

That is not to say that it is a church that Peter would recognize, or agree 100% with, but it is the same church.


Constantine and the Councils decided how to butcher these texts and which ones to remove or include, and how to rewrite them.

Historically, that is completely inaccurate. We know how Biblical canon came to be determined, and when, and contrary to popular belief, Constantine and the Council of Nicaea had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Those are historical facts -- as I said, you are welcome to your own beliefs and theology, but you are not welcome to your own facts which are contrary to history.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by buster2010
These groups need to learn their religion does not say what is law in this nation.


The priests are telling a Catholic to either follow church teaching or get out.
That's what they are supposed to do. It's their job.
That doesn't effect the laws in this country. It effects Pelosi's personal situation in the church.


Then why aren't they treating all the members the same? That's the issue I am questioning. They can disfellowship one member for not publicly denouncing it but offer forgiveness for the others violating the church teachings. Figuring an average or so of 1 million abortions performed each year, about 20,000 per state in the US, enough for each state's Catholic congregations to have many violators of the faith to work with. No one here is going to change anyone's stand on abortion and it isn't the intent here to discuss the morality on abortion. Again, how can the church single out one person and overlook the rest? The hypocrisy is astounding to say the least.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by StoutBroux
Again, how can the church single out one person and overlook the rest? The hypocrisy is astounding to say the least.

Because a) you can't say anything about how the church treats someone who has had an abortion, because that's between the priest and her and b) Pelosi is not having an abortion, she is advocating laws which permit others to have abortions.

There is no hypocrisy (well, actually there is -- the church should have excommunicated her long ago, that's the error being made,) in that -- if Pelosi abandoned her stance and sought forgiveness, as a woman who goes to confess having had an abortion would do, Pelosi would be welcomed back into the church.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by windword
 

Dear windword,

I'm curious about a couple of small points. You put a lot of trust in that example from the Old Testament. Do you give the same respect and agreement to the rest of the Old and New Testament?


I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do I believe in "magic water", magical trees and talking snakes? Nope. Do I believe that the "Sotah" ritual described in Numbers 5 was actually executed on women who's husbands didn't trust them? Yes.


And if viability is your ethical compass, may I assume that you are in favor of a law banning abortions after 21 weeks? (Except for life, or serious physical damage to the mother.)


In the USA, the legal cut off for elective abortion is already between 20 - 24 weeks, depending on the state. Late term abortions are only done in the most extreme cases. I'm fine with that.

There are problems where the church is allowed to dictate religious doctrine into secular law.


Pregnant El Salvador woman denied life-saving abortion

The country's Supreme Court prohibited an abortion for Beatriz, who suffers from lupus and kidney failure and whose lawyers said the pregnancy was threatening her life.

Three separate sonograms carried out by the National Maternity Hospital, where Beatriz is being treated in the country's capital, have shown that she is pregnant with an anencephalic fetus.
www.cbsnews.com...


The above scenario could be a reality here in the US if the church is allowed to dictate their doctrine into secular law. The far religious right is in an all out war on woman's rights to choice. They are lobbying to defund Planned Parenthood, They're on a mission to close down women's health clinics, making it difficult, if not impossible, for poor woman to access safe, affordable and legal abortion services. They're imposing waiting periods, forcing unnecessary, demeaning and expensive vaginal probes.

They've succeeded in halting sexual education in at risk communities. They are fighting against affordable access to birth control and there is a movement to ban most types of birth control altogether.

In countries with high incidents of AIDS, the Pope still decrees that the use of condoms is a grave and mortal sin. I applaud Ms Pelosi for standing up against those who would deny women reproductive health benefits and their right to choice. The church is attempting to manipulate and blackmail Ms Pelosi, trying to force her to get in line with church think or go to hell. There is "separation of church and state" for a very good reason.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 



In mainstream rabbinic Judaism, the Biblical verse is one of several key texts that substantiate the later rabbinic prohibition on abortion, albeit not as murder. Owing partly to this verse, rabbinic law or halakhah sanctions abortion under some circumstances, namely for medical reason. In principle, Judaism does not regard the fetus as a full human being. While deliberately killing a day old baby is murder, according to the Mishnah, a fetus is not covered by this strict homicide rule. In reading of Biblical homicide laws, rabbinic sages argue that homicide concerns an animate human being (nefesh adam from Lev. 24:17) alone, not an embryo... because the embryo is not a person

----------------

A core text in rabbinic law crystallizes the status of the fetus. The Mishna explicitly indicates that one must abort a fetus if the continuation of pregnancy might imperil the life of the woman.

If a woman is in hard travail, one cuts up the offspring in her womb and brings it forth member by member, because her life comes before the life of her foetus. But if the greater part has proceeded forth, one may not set aside one person for the sake of saving another.

---------------

In Talmudic law, an embryo is not deemed a fully viable person (bar kayyama), but rather a being of "doubtful viability" (Niddah 44b). Hence, for instance, Jewish mourning rites do not apply to an unborn child. The status of the embryo is also indicated by its treatment as "an appendage of its mother" (ubar yerekh 'imo Hullin 58a) for such matters as ownership, maternal conversion and purity law. In even more evocative language, the Talmud states in a passage on priestly rules that the fetus "is considered to be mere water" until its 40th day. In another passage the Talmud speaks of a "moment of determination" and a "moment of creation" in regard to different stages of the fetus. Rashi explains that the moment of creation is when bones and arteries begin to form and in other places he says that the "moment of creation" is at the 40th day.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by StoutBroux
Then why aren't they treating all the members the same?

Actually .. they do. It is stated clearly in the Church that anyone who promotes abortions has excommunicated themselves. The thing is that Pelosi is promoting abortions and is very vocal about it. Regular church goers usually don't promote abortions and if they do, they aren't standing on a soap box shouting like Pelosi is .. ya' know??



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
I applaud Ms Pelosi for standing up against those who would deny women reproductive health benefits and their right to choice.

Do you applaud her for being a hypocrite? Claiming the "Catholic' title, and yet not following the church teachings or beliefs at all?? I don't think hypocrisy is anything to applaud.


The church is attempting to manipulate and blackmail Ms Pelosi, trying to force her to get in line with church think or go to hell.

The Church isn't blackmailing Pelosi. It simply told her .. use your free will and choose ... either be a Catholic or get out. It's the churches right to do so. And no one took away Pelosi's free will. It's her choice. She can't have it both ways.


There is "separation of church and state" for a very good reason.

Actually, there is no 'separation of church and state'. What you are trying to reference is that the government can't have an official state religion. That being said, the Church telling Pelosi to choose between the Church and her pro-Abortion statements in no way interferes with the US Government. It is the Church telling Pelosi to stop riding the fence and pick one .. of her own free will.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   
I have a few words for this whole concept.


Separation of Church and State, I'm for the right to keep it between the damn people it concerns. Who's right is it to even get involved and look over another's shoulder in the 1st place, you're half the reason we live in the beginnings of a police state.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



Originally posted by FlyersFan
It's kind of funny ... you are always ragg'n on the Catholic church but then when people complain about Islam, you rag on those complaining about Islam.


I don't rag on the Catholic religion. Whatever they want to believe is fine with me. The Catholic Church, however, is always trying to force their beliefs in law and trying to make everyone else live according to their morals, and yes, I have a problem with that.

I don't rag on the Islamic religion. Whatever they want to believe is fine with me. And when people do rag on the Islamic religion, I defend their right to believe as they want to. I don't see the church of Islam trying to force their beliefs in law and trying to make everyone else live according to their morals. If I did, I would "rag on" them, too.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 




No, that is completely invalid -- the Apostles were talking about whether someone would eventually sin, and therefore be guilty (see Psalm 51, 139)


I disagree.


Nowadays, there is little doubt that early Christians gave more credence to the concept of rebirth than was later the case. The main figure responsible for this change was no churchman but an ambitious, worldly and powerful figure Emperor Justinius. In the year 553, quite independently of the Pope, Justinius had the teachings of the church father Origen (185-253) banned by a synod. Origen had spoken out in unmistakable terms on the question of the repeated incarnations of the soul:

"Each soul enters the world strengthened by the victories or weakened by the defects of its past lives. Its place in this world is determined by past virtues and shortcomings." De Principalis.

"Is it not more in accordance with common sense that every soul for reasons unknown — I speak in accordance with the opinions of Pythagoras, Plato and Empedokles — enters the body influenced by its past deeds? The soul has a body at its disposal for a certain period of time which, due to its changeable condition, eventually is no longer suitable for the soul, whereupon it changes that body for another." Contra Celsum."



But up to now it has been accepted tacitly that the following is the official ban of the Council: "Whosoever teaches the doctrine of a supposed pre-birth existence of the soul, and speaks of a monstrous restoration of this, is cursed.""How did this come about? No-one can say with certainty, but there are strong indications that by some ploy the Emperor Justinius was able to insist on the convocation of a Council, which was delayed, however, by opposition from the Pope


www.share-international.org...

Reincarnation was an acceptable church doctrine, up until the year 553 when Emperor Justinius, not the Pope, banned it.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join