Original Sin?

Quote: FrGamble

Since, there is a God you are left with trying to say illogical things that don't follow.

Which one? I mean, there are so many gods.

Quote:

However, it also meant that the targeting of innocent civilians, torturing the enemy or prisoners, or killing them was immoral.

Let's see:

1) A bomber group is ordered to drop bombs on an industrial area in Germany where weapons are produced. There are many civilians working there, many of them will be killed in the bombing raid. Are they innocent civilians, or collaborators with the Wehrmacht?

2) A small squad of Allied soldiers captures three Germans. there aren't men to spare to take the prisoners to the back of the lines. What do you do? Disarm them and let them go and hope for the best? War is an ugly affair.

Quote:

If you "love" conditionally it is not love in the sense that Christ speaks of.

I know. I've no use for meaningless, "love."

Quote:

True unconditional love is not based on what you can do, what you do, it is based on who you are.

Should I love Stalin? Should I love the man who robbed me at gun point? If someone tries to kill me, should I love them? None of their actions affect who they are.

Quote:

Should we not be able to bear our warts and all to someone and still be assured of their love for us?

That's a very shallow idea of love.

Quote: Nareed

War is an ugly affair.

Truer words cannot be said.

Quote:

Should I love Stalin? Should I love the man who robbed me at gun point? If someone tries to kill me, should I love them? None of their actions affect who they are.

I still have no idea of how you are defining love? I believe the answer is yes, we should still love them. In all of the above instances you would obviously want nothing to do with these people. However, I would think we would hope for their conversion and that they would change their lives. They don't lose their humanity through their sin.

Quote:

That's a very shallow idea of love.

What could be deeper?

Quote: FrGamble

I still have no idea of how you are defining love?

I don't know whether you have any idea, either. It seems an odd question to ask of me :)

Quote:

I believe the answer is yes, we should still love them.

I call this a perversion. And in short it explains why unconditional "love" is not love.

Quote:

In all of the above instances you would obviously want nothing to do with these people.

See? You're not all wrong.

Quote:

However, I would think we would hope for their conversion and that they would change their lives.

In the case of a robber, I might agree. But I would never care to see such a person ever again, much less "love" them. As for Stalin and his ilk, there is room for debate, but there is nothing they can possibly do to atone for what they did. they cannot and should not be redeemed. Ever.

Quote:

They don't lose their humanity through their sin.

A beast like Stalin loses his humanity through the killing of millions, through cruelty, through the launching of aggressive wars, and other depraved actions.

Quote: Evenbob

LOL! Of course it is, I'm not quoting from
Church authorized sources. Some things
never change. The Churches reaction to
critics is one of them. At least they can't
kill them anymore, or have them
excommunicated. Heretics have to be
tolerated now..

"Galileo Galilei was brought before the Inquisition for heresy, but abjured his views and was sentenced to house arrest, under which he spent the rest of his life. Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions."

The wascally holy spirit at work again,
those pesky heretics..

I get it, you skip right over my posts now
and give lonnnng answers to Nareed.

No need to explain.

I'm sorry Bob. I hate to do this again but your one instance of Galileo doesn't do much to somehow paint the Church as against science, especially because it has always been known and shows itself as a great supporter of science. Can you point to any other instance where the Church had acted this way to a scientist?

No, what I think we have going on here is a clash of personalities. Galileo who throughout his life was a faithful Catholic, was an intelligent scientist who was very passionate and strong towards his views. He was also close friends to Pope Urban VIII. There obviously was some kind of rift in their friendship, maybe after the book Galileo wrote putting the established argument of the scientific community and the Pope in the mind of simpleton. Anyway, the reaction to Galileo was very different to many other scientists supported and encouraged by the Church who did hold heliocentrism. We should also point out that at this time it wasn't possible to conclusively prove Galileo's theory. As someone who is always clamoring for proof I shudder to think what you would have done to poor Galileo.

Quote: FrGamble

We should also point out that at this time it wasn't possible to conclusively prove Galileo's theory.

With observations made by astronomers around 2,000 BCE, one could prove Galileo's theories about the Solar System.

Mars, Jupiter and Saturn were known, and their peculiar movements were known, too. Galileo and Copernicus could explain exactly why they moved as they did. Add Galileo's telescopic observations, and it would take willful blindness to say it cannot be proved.

Quote: FrGamble

Can you point to any other instance where the Church had acted this way to a scientist? .

Giordano Bruno. Burned at the stake by the Catholic Church. I thought his name had been mentioned here before.

Tommaso Campanella. Imprisoned for over 25 years until his death.

It's interesting you chose two Dominican Friars who were both charged and convicted with heresy. Their science was not the big problem, it was their theology.

Quote: FrGamble

It's interesting you chose two Dominican Friars who were both charged and convicted with heresy. Their science was not the big problem, it was their theology.

Yes, indeed. They should have known how that particular god dealt with disagreement. Those who seek to be more like their god, would imitate him in this regard.

Jesus is infinitely kind, merciful, understanding, and forgiving in regards to our own moral faults and mistakes. However, when you a wolf dress up in sheep's clothing and attempt to lead other people astray look out! Read some of what Jesus tells to the Pharisees of His day or how about this quote, "It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble." (Lk. 17:2) Yeah, I guess it is fair to say that they should have known better.