Contraception is good for openers, but I'd really like to get into immigration at some point in time. My lunch is over, so it will have to wait until tonight, if the Lord permits.
Sounds good. Catholic teaching does go beyond your beliefs to include barrier methods as well, but you've definitely got the main gist of it, which is avoiding the destruction of human life. Beyond that, the idea of being open to life is central. This is a difficult teaching with which many, (if not most, if the statistics are accurate) Catholic couples have trouble. Anyway, I'm not sure where you want to take this, but I'm in agreement with you regarding how this affects us through the enactment of Obamacare.
Sounds good. Catholic teaching does go beyond your beliefs to include barrier methods as well, but you've definitely got the main gist of it, which is avoiding the destruction of human life. Beyond that, the idea of being open to life is central. This is a difficult teaching with which many, (if not most, if the statistics are accurate) Catholic couples have trouble. Anyway, I'm not sure where you want to take this, but I'm in agreement with you regarding how this affects us through the enactment of Obamacare.
There is one scripture in Genesis (Genesis 38:9 NASB) that the Lord condemned a man for spilling his seed on the ground (the ground being a sort of barrier). Now someone could read this as against masturbation, or one could read this as someone trying to prevent the seed from fertilizing the egg against God's wishes. In the first instance, although the man is not using a solid barrier, he is not willing allowing his seed to impregnate his wife (brother's wife) against God's plan. God put him to death. So what is the real sin here? In either case, it would seem like this scripture supports the RC position. Is that how you see it? Since this is before Moses, Mosaic Law wouldn't apply.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; Ephesians 2:9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. [NASB]
Slogan/motto:
Love all three trinities in my life.
Reputation:
September 18th, 2012, 06:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saved.One.by.Grace
There is one scripture in Genesis (Genesis 38:9 NASB) that the Lord condemned a man for spilling his seed on the ground (the ground being a sort of barrier). Now someone could read this as against masturbation, or one could read this as someone trying to prevent the seed from fertilizing the egg against God's wishes. In the first instance, although the man is not using a solid barrier, he is not willing allowing his seed to impregnate his wife (brother's wife) against God's plan. God put him to death. So what is the real sin here? In either case, it would seem like this scripture supports the RC position. Is that how you see it? Since this is before Moses, Mosaic Law wouldn't apply.
Everybody's favorite..sex.
I was a kid in Wisconsin and instead of going to school and learned stuff, I went to the Capital just down State Street.
There I watched debates over allowing contraceptives to be legalized. This was before the Supremes legalized everything.
The main thing I remember is that the Republicans warnings about what this would do to the morals of the country has been exceeded by far. No one could even conceive of a grandmother giving birth to her daughter's child. As it was they were ridiculed for thinking it might lead to artificial impregnation.
The Dems as is their want poohed all these warnings and said that basically it would do good by cutting down on the number of unwanted children.
It dawned on me years later that the Dems were either stupid or liars.
I've come to believe the latter. tWINs
The hair in the left nostril of the Body of Christ that feels the Spirit come in and the Spirit go out.
I was a kid in Wisconsin and instead of going to school and learned stuff, I went to the Capital just down State Street.
There I watched debates over allowing contraceptives to be legalized. This was before the Supremes legalized everything.
The main thing I remember is that the Republicans warnings about what this would do to the morals of the country has been exceeded by far. No one could even conceive of a grandmother giving birth to her daughter's child. As it was they were ridiculed for thinking it might lead to artificial impregnation.
The Dems as is their want poohed all these warnings and said that basically it would do good by cutting down on the number of unwanted children.
It dawned on me years later that the Dems were either stupid or liars.
I've come to believe the latter. tWINs
Perversity is the new N O R M A L.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; Ephesians 2:9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. [NASB]
Cardinal Dolan: is he playing politics with the contraception issue as the article ponders, using it against the Democrats and ObamaCare? I am asking because I expect you Roman Catholics to know a lot more about Cardinal Dolan than I do. Is he genuine?
There are many sides to the immigration issue. The RC supporters of immigration reform would like to see more some sort of path to citizenship for illegal aliens because it would increase Church membership (Mexico being prominently Catholic). But what about the other countries that do not border the USA. Should the same path to citizenship apply to them if they are Protestant, Hindi or Muslim? Wouldn't the RCC be acting in a prejudicial manner if they support only Mexican immigration reform? I am only asking questions here, not staking out my own position which is still forming.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; Ephesians 2:9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. [NASB]
Cardinal Dolan: is he playing politics with the contraception issue as the article ponders, using it against the Democrats and ObamaCare? I am asking because I expect you Roman Catholics to know a lot more about Cardinal Dolan than I do. Is he genuine?
Cardinal Dolan has been an outspoken and authoritative voice against the contraceptive mandate. A quick google search will bring up lots of info illustrating that.
Quote:
There are many sides to the immigration issue. The RC supporters of immigration reform would like to see more some sort of path to citizenship for illegal aliens because it would increase Church membership (Mexico being prominently Catholic).
By RC supporters of immigration reform: Are you talking about religious or laity, and can you support that contention?
Quote:
But what about the other countries that do not border the USA. Should the same path to citizenship apply to them if they are Protestant, Hindi or Muslim? Wouldn't the RCC be acting in a prejudicial manner if they support only Mexican immigration reform? I am only asking questions here, not staking out my own position which is still forming.
I think the only immigration reform under discussion in any circles is regarding Mexican immigration.
Cardinal Dolan has been an outspoken and authoritative voice against the contraceptive mandate. A quick google search will bring up lots of info illustrating that.
I will do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by annabenedetti
By RC supporters of immigration reform: Are you talking about religious or laity, and can you support that contention?
No I cannot and I would not try based on the information I now have. It was suggested to me by the article. I wanted your opinion and I thank you for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by annabenedetti
I think the only immigration reform under discussion in any circles is regarding Mexican immigration.
I'm not against Mexican immigration, but I would prefer it to be legal. I would like to see any policy change give preferential treatment to those immigrants who have come to this country legally. And it should go without saying that gang members and drug lords should be extradited permanently when apprehended. No second chances. But I'm open to the idea of allowing more Mexican immigration as long as our economy can support them. My experience with Mexicans in California and the Midwest has been all positive.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; Ephesians 2:9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. [NASB]
Slogan/motto:
“There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god.”
― J.B.S. Haldane, Daedalus
Reputation:
September 19th, 2012, 09:30 PM
Bring me up to speed if I am misunderstanding how the mandate works, but isn't it a set coverage amount which is used based on the needs of the customer/employee?
> TheologyOnline's resident Agnostic Pantheist and self-proclaimed Science Advocate. Defeating pseudoscience at locations near you.
Slogan/motto:
Love all three trinities in my life.
Reputation:
September 20th, 2012, 04:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daedalean's_Sun
Bring me up to speed if I am misunderstanding how the mandate works, but isn't it a set coverage amount which is used based on the needs of the customer/employee?
On pages 1253 thru 1327 if you'll look beneath sub-section zz-3d, you'll clearly see ...It's to complicated to explain. Have a lawyer look it up. I hear even they need jobs now. tWINs
The hair in the left nostril of the Body of Christ that feels the Spirit come in and the Spirit go out.
Bring me up to speed if I am misunderstanding how the mandate works, but isn't it a set coverage amount which is used based on the needs of the customer/employee?
No I cannot and I would not try based on the information I now have. It was suggested to me by the article. I wanted your opinion and I thank you for it.
I've never, ever looked at a Mexican Catholic immigrant and thought, "more money for the church coffers." Most immigrants are poor, many belong to poor parishes and while oftentimes those less fortunate are among the most generous with what they do have, they're not likely to be filling any church coffers in the way it's often intimated we're hoping (usually they're referencing the hierarchy, which is why I asked which you meant). Assuming the good first, as we should, our hierarchy has in mind the good of the human person, both soul and body, in a way that transcends nationality. Sometimes this works out to be problematical, if the priest/bishop is overly invested in a liberation theology mindset.
Quote:
I'm not against Mexican immigration, but I would prefer it to be legal
Legal is going to happen only as a result of amnesty and work programs. That was a done deal from Reagan's administration on. I think we have to work forward from where we're at, because there's no going back. There are those who still see the U.S. as a nation of predominantly Western European ancestry, but it's not going to be that way forever.
Quote:
I would like to see any policy change give preferential treatment to those immigrants who have come to this country legally. And it should go without saying that gang members and drug lords should be extradited permanently when apprehended. No second chances. But I'm open to the idea of allowing more Mexican immigration as long as our economy can support them. My experience with Mexicans in California and the Midwest has been all positive.
There won't be any policy change, IMO, and yes, there should be better apprehension and deportation rates for criminals than there is currently. I doubt there will be any changes there, either, but there needs to be.
Last edited by annabenedetti; September 20th, 2012 at 01:57 PM.
I've never, ever looked at a Mexican Catholic immigrant and thought, "more money for the church coffers." Most immigrants are poor, many belong to poor parishes and while oftentimes those less fortunate are among the most generous with what they do have, they're not likely to be filling any church coffers in the way it's often intimated we're hoping (usually they're referencing the hierarchy, which is why I asked which you meant). Assuming the good first, as we should, our hierarchy has in mind the good of the human person, both soul and body, in a way that transcends nationality. Sometimes this works out to be problematical, if the priest/bishop is overly invested in a liberation theology mindset.
Legal is going to happen only as a result of amnesty and work programs. That was a done deal from Reagan's administration on. I think we have to work forward from where we're at, because there's no going back. There are those who still see the U.S. as a nation of predominantly Western European ancestry, but it's not going to be that way forever.
There won't be any policy change, IMO, and yes, there should be better apprehension and deportation rates for criminals than there is currently. I doubt there will be any changes there, either, but there needs to be.
Until Mexico rids itself of corruption and illegal activities, the USA will look to be a safe haven for some non-criminal Mexicans looking for a better life for their family. I don't want to see an open door policy, but for those who are here, or have family here, we should provide a means by which they can stay. The problem will be cost. The current administration is not creating jobs faster than we're loosing them to China. That's a big problem. In this economy, I cannot ever retire, not that I want to.
One other thing, I am against is sanctuary cities. This is a federal problem that needs a federal solution. I believe G. W. Bush had a plan for some type of guest worker arrangement. But his plans were sidelined by 9/11. Even when the 9/11 rhetoric died down, the Republicans in Congress were hesitant to revisit the idea. I think the climate has changed now, although most won't admit it until after the next election.
I think we're pretty close to agreement here, although we may express ourselves differently.
God Bless,
SObG
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; Ephesians 2:9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. [NASB]
Until Mexico rids itself of corruption and illegal activities, the USA will look to be a safe haven for some non-criminal Mexicans looking for a better life for their family. I don't want to see an open door policy, but for those who are here, or have family here, we should provide a means by which they can stay. The problem will be cost. The current administration is not creating jobs faster than we're loosing them to China. That's a big problem. In this economy, I cannot ever retire, not that I want to.
One other thing, I am against is sanctuary cities. This is a federal problem that needs a federal solution. I believe G. W. Bush had a plan for some type of guest worker arrangement. But his plans were sidelined by 9/11. Even when the 9/11 rhetoric died down, the Republicans in Congress were hesitant to revisit the idea. I think the climate has changed now, although most won't admit it until after the next election.
I think we're pretty close to agreement here, although we may express ourselves differently.
God Bless,
SObG
We well may be. I don't subscribe to the "ship 'em all back over the border!" that's all too commonly heard. People who've been here for decades, raised their children, worked productively, have roots in the community - anything that could have been done to control immigration should have been done back in the eighties. It's water under the bridge, part of our nation's history now. That's not to mean I condone the illegality of it, and I've heard legal immigrants express bitterness at how hard they worked to achieve citizenship and I can understand that too. And the cartel violence and political instability south of the border is another very big concern. Many who don't live in one of our border states have no idea what a serious problem the cartel incursions over our border onto U.S. land have become.
In so many ways today, one needs the wisdom of Solomon to even be able to formulate some sense of how to think about these really pressing problems.
September 18th, 2012, 06:56 PM
Linear Mode
