Pope Francis - Address to Congress

[Guest]

As I write this it's still ongoing...

 

I got excited when he said "we must protect human life in every stage of its development"... I thought he was going to make a call to end elective abortion or at least late-term abortion or even fetus parts harvest.  But he didn't.  Rather, he made a call to abolish the death penalty.

 

Did I miss it?

 

He moved on to fighting cyclical poverty and is now onto protecting nature...

 

I'm starting to feel really disappointed.

Edited September 24, 2015 by anatess

[Guest]

You are starting to feel really disappointed that the Pope hasn't spoken out clearly against elective abortion, right? But how much difference would it really make?

[Vort]

I have found myself in the position of respecting and even admiring Popes since I served in Italy 30+ years ago. But the Popes are leaders of a church that is not the Church of the Lord. I do not question their sincerity, and I understand that their leadership is important because it impacts a billion people around the world. But when they end up on the wrong side of things and argue from a position of "social justice", I figure that's par for the course.

[lonetree]

The fellow who heads the group that made the videos:David Daleiden, was invited to today's address:

 

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/09/22/man-behind-shocking-planned-parenthood-videos-invited-to-pope-francis-congressional-address/

 

I would be interested in his observations.

[Guest]

You are starting to feel really disappointed that the Pope hasn't spoken out clearly against elective abortion, right? But how much difference would it really make?

 

It will make as much difference to the Federal Government as Netanyahu speaking against the Iran Deal.  Nothing.

 

BUT... you have here Catholics who morally uphold that life begins at conception that has not gotten the moral support from their religious leader on this topic.  Ever since the incident with Notre Dame in the 80's where Catholic nuns actively promoted abortion rights, this issue has been a hot topic within the Church.  The magisterium is very clear on the matter:  Abortion is a mortal sin.

 

And so here we have Sister Simone meeting the Pope at the invitation of the President in the White House.  Okay.  We get it.  Sister Simone's beliefs on Life align with the Catholic Church's.  But, she is a pro-choice activist - that is, someone who will not choose abortion herself but encourages people not only to consider abortion as a viable choice but have the government pay for it.  The Pope has a pleasant visit with them.  Ok.

 

So then the Pope goes to Congress - the one and only time a Pope has ever addressed Congress... even Pope John Paul II who was a politically active Pope has not done that.  I mean, he has broken through the US Congress' aversion to anything that comes close to crossing the separation between Church and State with this super rare opportunity to speak out on moral issues to the leaders of the "greatest" country on the planet.  And so he makes an appeal for the people to preserve the sanctity of life... and he calls for the abolition of the death penalty but does not mention the word abortion at all?  What does that say to the vast American Catholic membership who has been inundated with pro-choice activists including Catholic nuns riding buses?  Changes to the death penalty is not even on the horizon of discussion in American society... but abortion has been on the top for decades... and he decides to emphasize death penalties and not abortion in his moral guidance?

 

Oh, and he goes on about the importance of families and love for people and did not mention anything about homosexual marriage either.  And no, he's not just avoiding hot button topics... because he had no problem going into immigration and refugees and environmentalists being quite specific about them.

 

I don't know.  I expected more from him.

Edited September 24, 2015 by anatess

[NeuroTypical]

My conservative Catholic buddy is very much not happy.  He quotes from a blog he reads:

I am not doubting His Holiness' sincerity, or his piety, or his true desire to see peace and love in our world. I think, though, the speech was tepid and if one expected the Holy Spirit to descend in Congress' chambers, it did not happen.

The old joke to convey a sense of surety is to ask, "Is the Pope Catholic?" Yes - but his speech today before Congress was not. It could have come from the Dalai Lama or Joel Osteen just as easily as it did from His Holiness.

[fatima]

I think it's fair to say that the entire nation knows darn well where the Catholic Church stands on human life.  She is, in fact, the only church who does not waiver on the sanctity of human life regardless of the circumstances of conception.  She is the only church whose doctrine will never, ever counsel a member to pray about an abortion and come to a decision. 

 

Speaking on abortion or homosexuality in America causes the majority of people to shut down.  I suspect he is trying to meet those who have fallen away from the church where they are at.  Perhaps if their hearts are softened, they will hear the rest of the message.  Preaching to the choir isn't going to change the hearts of those now lost.

[Guest]

...I don't know.  I expected more from him.

Obviously, you are not alone. Interestingly, I've heard similar complaints about President Monson. Maybe it merely illustrates that leaders and the rest of us may have very different opinions about what they, the leaders themselves, ought to be doing in their stewardships. I wonder if [given that you and I and President Monson are part of a flock consisting of less than 0.5% (depending on how one wishes to count) of the entire number of God's children on Earth today] perhaps God feels that Pope Francis is still a profitable servant along with other leaders who speak out publicly concerning what they believe is important.

Edited September 27, 2015 by UT.starscoper

[Traveler]

I think it's fair to say that the entire nation knows darn well where the Catholic Church stands on human life.  She is, in fact, the only church who does not waiver on the sanctity of human life regardless of the circumstances of conception.  She is the only church whose doctrine will never, ever counsel a member to pray about an abortion and come to a decision. 

 

Speaking on abortion or homosexuality in America causes the majority of people to shut down.  I suspect he is trying to meet those who have fallen away from the church where they are at.  Perhaps if their hearts are softened, they will hear the rest of the message.  Preaching to the choir isn't going to change the hearts of those now lost.

 

I do not believe this to be a fair, honest or just representation of history.  I will give one example:  It is known as the Toleration Act of 1849.  It is the first time that Catholic or any other traditional (trinitarian) Christian society passed a law guaranteeing the sanctity of the lives of "non believers".  And even this act was specifically inclusive to protect only the sanctity of those that believe in the trinity and overt a war between Western Catholics and Protestants pretending to be Christians but in essence hating each other and rejecting even those of like faith and a different language.

 

We can say all kind of things and proudly pat ourselves on the back for thinking many things and declaring something doctrine when it makes us fill good at that particular moment - but I do not believe someone to hold life sacred when their actions are at any time otherwise.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Traveler

[Palerider]

I have found myself in the position of respecting and even admiring Popes since I served in Italy 30+ years ago. But the Popes are leaders of a church that is not the Church of the Lord. I do not question their sincerity, and I understand that their leadership is important because it impacts a billion people around the world. But when they end up on the wrong side of things and argue from a position of "social justice", I figure that's par for the course.

I agree with you .....

[blueskye]

As I write this it's still ongoing...

I got excited when he said "we must protect human life in every stage of its development"... I thought he was going to make a call to end elective abortion or at least late-term abortion or even fetus parts harvest. But he didn't. Rather, he made a call to abolish the death penalty.

Did I miss it?

He moved on to fighting cyclical poverty and is now onto protecting nature...

I'm starting to feel really disappointed.

A couple of thoughts.

The death penalty reinforces the false sense that human beings have the capacity to take anothers life on principle when it was only ever permitted by natural law and God to protect people from the problem of an unjust aggressor. It is that false sense that allows for the scourge of abortion. Everyone knows the CC stance on abortion. What Pooe Francis said about the death penalty is also applied to abortion.

And second, Pope Francis is a pastoral Pope. By that I mean he sees the person, with all their faults and sins, and doesn't condemn, but seeks to bring people to Christ. A good approach, IMO, as the world is full of people compndemning one another, which only divides. As Pope Francis said, paraphrasing, he seeks to build bridges. There are millions of women who have had abortions, some may feel guilty, some may not, but all need the healing touch of Christ, who came to save, not to condemn. Pope Francis, from what I see, brings the mercy of Christ to people.

As you may guess, I like our Pope's pastoral approach. Would that more leaders, particularly our political leaders, sought to build bridges.

Edited September 29, 2015 by blueskye

[Guest]

A couple of thoughts.

The death penalty reinforces the false sense that human beings have the capacity to take anothers life on principle when it was only ever permitted by natural law and God to protect people from the problem of an unjust aggressor. It is that false sense that allows for the scourge of abortion. Everyone knows the CC stance on abortion. What Pooe Francis said about the death penalty is also applied to abortion.

And second, Pope Francis is a pastoral Pope. By that I mean he sees the person, with all their faults and sins, and doesn't condemn, but seeks to bring people to Christ. A good approach, IMO, as the world is full of people compndemning one another, which only divides. As Pope Francis said, paraphrasing, he seeks to build bridges. There are millions of women who have had abortions, some may feel guilty, some may not, but all need the healing touch of Christ, who came to save, not to condemn. Pope Francis, from what I see, brings the mercy of Christ to people.

As you may guess, I like our Pope's pastoral approach. Would that more leaders, particularly our political leaders, sought to build bridges.

 

 

I see your point and I agree with it.

 

I just feel there is a gap.  This message was not given to Catholics only.  This was addressed to Americans through their Congressional representatives with a clear delineation between Church and State.  The gap I see is that people may know that Catholics are anti-abortion.  But, they may not know that Catholics see conception as the start of life.  Therefore, without this message, people will hear that the Pope's statement on "developmental stages" is life's stages outside of the womb which includes repentance from sin - hence, the clear stance on death penalty even as this particular political agenda rankles majority of Americans.  It will not impress upon them the need to protect life within the womb.

 

I'm not yet sure about Pope Francis' approach.  I'm a Pope John Paul II fan and I love Father Ratzinger's traditionalist approach - so it takes a little getting used to for Pope Francis' style.  Father Ratzinger impressed mercy but was very clear on the "go and sin no more" rider.

Edited September 29, 2015 by anatess

[blueskye]

I see your point and I agree with it.

I just feel there is a gap. This message was not given to Catholics only. This was addressed to Americans through their Congressional representatives with a clear delineation between Church and State. The gap I see is that people may know that Catholics are anti-abortion. But, they may not know that Catholics see conception as the start of life. Therefore, without this message, people will hear that the Pope's statement on "developmental stages" is life's stages outside of the womb which includes repentance from sin - hence, the clear stance on death penalty even as this particular political agenda rankles majority of Americans. It will not impress upon them the need to protect life within the womb.

I'm not yet sure about Pope Francis' approach. I'm a Pope John Paul II fan and I love Father Ratzinger's traditionalist approach - so it takes a little getting used to for Pope Francis' style. Father Ratzinger impressed mercy but was very clear on the "go and sin no more" rider.

It was the writings and teaching style of Pope Benedict XVI that helped draw me to Catholicism. Brilliant theologian and teacher. Pope JPIi was before I paid attention to anything Catholic. Of course I've read things by him. :) Pope Francis, is special. Good people like him, who teach mercy and peace, in a world that loves violence, are rare.

[fatima]

I do not believe this to be a fair, honest or just representation of history.  I will give one example:  It is known as the Toleration Act of 1849.  It is the first time that Catholic or any other traditional (trinitarian) Christian society passed a law guaranteeing the sanctity of the lives of "non believers".  And even this act was specifically inclusive to protect only the sanctity of those that believe in the trinity and overt a war between Western Catholics and Protestants pretending to be Christians but in essence hating each other and rejecting even those of like faith and a different language.

 

We can say all kind of things and proudly pat ourselves on the back for thinking many things and declaring something doctrine when it makes us fill good at that particular moment - but I do not believe someone to hold life sacred when their actions are at any time otherwise.

The Toleration Act was an act of the State of Maryland as it was being established.  It had nothing, whatsoever, to do with the Catholic Church proper.

What I am talking about is its doctrines, those unchangeable teachings that have remained fast for 2000+ years.  We are not discussing dissenters, personal opinions, or the errors that are committed by clergy and laity.  

With all due respect to the LDS church, which I believe is certainly more pro-life than many so-called Christian churches, the LDS doctrine is not categorically pro-life.  There are circumstances in which an LDS woman, after recommended prayer and counseling, is 'allowed' (for lack of a better term) to seek an abortion.  I have followed the LDS church for years, and in every discussion I have read or been part of, that has been confirmed.  It is not always and absolutely considered a sin.

In the CC, it is always, always a grave evil, a mortal sin.

Let me finish by saying that a woman's guilt for that sin is an entirely separate discussion, and is God's alone to determine. Objectively, always a mortal sin.  Culpability depends and is for God alone.

[Leah]

The Toleration Act was an act of the State of Maryland as it was being established.  It had nothing, whatsoever, to do with the Catholic Church proper.

What I am talking about is its doctrines, those unchangeable teachings that have remained fast for 2000+ years.  We are not discussing dissenters, personal opinions, or the errors that are committed by clergy and laity.  

With all due respect to the LDS church, which I believe is certainly more pro-life than many so-called Christian churches, the LDS doctrine is not categorically pro-life.  There are circumstances in which an LDS woman, after recommended prayer and counseling, is 'allowed' (for lack of a better term) to seek an abortion.  I have followed the LDS church for years, and in every discussion I have read or been part of, that has been confirmed.  It is not always and absolutely considered a sin.

In the CC, it is always, always a grave evil, a mortal sin.

Let me finish by saying that a woman's guilt for that sin is an entirely separate discussion, and is God's alone to determine. Objectively, always a mortal sin.  Culpability depends and is for God alone.

So your definition of "pro-life" is narrowly defined by no abortion for any reason ever.

 

My understanding then is that the Catholic Church would oppose of an abortion even in a situation involving a young girl who is pregnant as a result of rape and whose life is endangered by the pregnancy.  The Church would forbid the abortion and condemn the girl for her "sin" and would rather she - and therefore the life she is carrying - die instead.  The Catholic Church would consider that a just punishment for her "sin" then?  How is allowing two lives to be lost considered "pro" life? How is that the Church has the authority to impose the death penalty on this young girl? Is that not a mortal sin?

[blueskye]

So your definition of "pro-life" is narrowly defined by no abortion for any reason ever.

My understanding then is that the Catholic Church would oppose of an abortion even in a situation involving a young girl who is pregnant as a result of rape and whose life is endangered by the pregnancy. The Church would forbid the abortion and condemn the girl for her "sin" and would rather she - and therefore the life she is carrying - die instead. The Catholic Church would consider that a just punishment for her "sin" then? How is allowing two lives to be lost considered "pro" life? How is that the Church has the authority to impose the death penalty on this young girl? Is that not a mortal sin?

I'm confused. In your scenario, what sin did the girl commit?

Other than that, the Catholic Church teaches that all human life is equal in value, to God. And equal in inherent dignity, by vitrue of our, us all, being made in the image of God. There is no view, from Catholicism, that one life had more value than another, or that one has less value. . Everything possible to preserve the lifves of the mother and the unborn child, is obviously preferred. There isn't a view that the unborn child's life is worth less than its mother's, therefore, being disposable. Both lives are valued. That is what is pro life.

Edited October 4, 2015 by blueskye

[Traveler]

The Toleration Act was an act of the State of Maryland as it was being established.  It had nothing, whatsoever, to do with the Catholic Church proper.

What I am talking about is its doctrines, those unchangeable teachings that have remained fast for 2000+ years.  We are not discussing dissenters, personal opinions, or the errors that are committed by clergy and laity.  

With all due respect to the LDS church, which I believe is certainly more pro-life than many so-called Christian churches, the LDS doctrine is not categorically pro-life.  There are circumstances in which an LDS woman, after recommended prayer and counseling, is 'allowed' (for lack of a better term) to seek an abortion.  I have followed the LDS church for years, and in every discussion I have read or been part of, that has been confirmed.  It is not always and absolutely considered a sin.

In the CC, it is always, always a grave evil, a mortal sin.

Let me finish by saying that a woman's guilt for that sin is an entirely separate discussion, and is God's alone to determine. Objectively, always a mortal sin.  Culpability depends and is for God alone.

 

You missed the point - prior to 1649 why did not the Catholic church attempt to influence any law to protect anyone that was not of their faith prior to that date?  In this case those put to death were English speaking Catholics - that were not only rejected by the Protestants but by Catholics as well because they were English speaking.  But if you want another example - consider Charlemagne - one of the world's worse mass murders in the name of Catholicism and Christianity went through northern Europe with a slash and burn policy killing all the inhabitants (including women and children) of any town or region harboring any individual pagan or pagan doctrine - And for that forcing of Christian conversions - he was given the title of "Defender of the Faith" by the Pope and the institution of the Catholic church.  Jesus specifically warned concerning those that worship with their mouths (doctrine) but without their heart involved.  I would submit that Buddhism has been far more historically consistent with doctrine and actions preventing war and protecting life than Catholicism - in fact there were Buddhist that preserved Christian scripture (a place known as the cave of 1000 Buddhas) of more ancient date than the first Catholics - this was done at the expense of their own lives.

 

As a student of LDS history you may be aware of one of man very interesting bright spots of modern history of Catholics helping others not of their faith.  It was a Catholic priest that provided money to the Mormons aiding their leaving Nauvoo Illinois and in essence saving many Mormons.  The Catholics are the only Christian detonation that officially aided the Mormons.  Without question Catholic charities are today one of the most gracious in helping peoples of all faiths in need.  But such actions do not appear to be historically consistent - especially during the age know as the Dark Ages.

[Guest]

You missed the point - prior to 1649 why did not the Catholic church attempt to influence any law to protect anyone that was not of their faith prior to that date?  In this case those put to death were English speaking Catholics - that were not only rejected by the Protestants but by Catholics as well because they were English speaking.  But if you want another example - consider Charlemagne - one of the world's worse mass murders in the name of Catholicism and Christianity went through northern Europe with a slash and burn policy killing all the inhabitants (including women and children) of any town or region harboring any individual pagan or pagan doctrine - And for that forcing of Christian conversions - he was given the title of "Defender of the Faith" by the Pope and the institution of the Catholic church.  Jesus specifically warned concerning those that worship with their mouths (doctrine) but without their heart involved.  I would submit that Buddhism has been far more historically consistent with doctrine and actions preventing war and protecting life than Catholicism - in fact there were Buddhist that preserved Christian scripture (a place known as the cave of 1000 Buddhas) of more ancient date than the first Catholics - this was done at the expense of their own lives.

 

As a student of LDS history you may be aware of one of man very interesting bright spots of modern history of Catholics helping others not of their faith.  It was a Catholic priest that provided money to the Mormons aiding their leaving Nauvoo Illinois and in essence saving many Mormons.  The Catholics are the only Christian detonation that officially aided the Mormons.  Without question Catholic charities are today one of the most gracious in helping peoples of all faiths in need.  But such actions do not appear to be historically consistent - especially during the age know as the Dark Ages.

 

Traveler, you missed blueskye's point too.

 

Charlemagne is considered the Defender of the Faith because without Charlemagne, there wouldn't be Catholics today - nor would there be Christians for that matter.  They would all have died then.

 

Charlemagne, of course, is not a prophet.  So, it will be kinda like saying the ancient Church promoted adultery because King David committed adultery.

 

And, furthermore, it is disingenuous to say that Catholics are not always defenders of life because they did not make some political move or other.  That would also be like saying the LDS is not always pro-traditional-marriage because they only tried to stop Prop 8 and not anything else before or after that. 

[Guest]

So your definition of "pro-life" is narrowly defined by no abortion for any reason ever.

 

My understanding then is that the Catholic Church would oppose of an abortion even in a situation involving a young girl who is pregnant as a result of rape and whose life is endangered by the pregnancy.  The Church would forbid the abortion and condemn the girl for her "sin" and would rather she - and therefore the life she is carrying - die instead.  The Catholic Church would consider that a just punishment for her "sin" then?  How is allowing two lives to be lost considered "pro" life? How is that the Church has the authority to impose the death penalty on this young girl? Is that not a mortal sin?

 

Hi Leah.  This is always the gap between Catholics and non-Catholic Christians.  The Catholic view is that Life Has Value.  The non-Catholic view is that Life Has Value... except when it doesn't (which, in my opinion, doesn't make sense).  The LDS view is different because they do not believe in ex nihilo, therefore, the definition of When Life Begins is different between LDS and any other Christian denomination including Catholics.  Unfortunately, you can't legislate "The discernment of the Bishop" into law, so the LDS stance is not viable in Congress.

 

Question for you:  So, the girl got raped... or the mother is dying.  So, you would say that the baby's life has value until it doesn't.  And you get to choose when it doesn't.  So if a girl gets raped, then the baby's life has no value?  Or if a mother is dying, then the baby's life has no value?  Or is it that Life Begins at Conception except when the baby is conceived through rape or puts the mother's life in danger, then Life actually did not Begin?

 

 

Here is a better way of looking at that from the Pro-Life stance instead of the Pro-Life Except When... stance:

http://lds.net/forums/topic/57634-pro-life-with-exceptions/

Edited October 5, 2015 by anatess

[Traveler]

Traveler, you missed blueskye's point too.

 

Charlemagne is considered the Defender of the Faith because without Charlemagne, there wouldn't be Catholics today - nor would there be Christians for that matter.  They would all have died then.

 

Charlemagne, of course, is not a prophet.  So, it will be kinda like saying the ancient Church promoted adultery because King David committed adultery.

 

And, furthermore, it is disingenuous to say that Catholics are not always defenders of life because they did not make some political move or other.  That would also be like saying the LDS is not always pro-traditional-marriage because they only tried to stop Prop 8 and not anything else before or after that. 

 

Interesting how we define history to suit our ideas.  To be honest I see hardly a difference between Charlemagne and Hitler.  One established the second era of the Holy Roman Empire and the other failed to do so for the 3rd - which was the actual meaning of Hitler's Third Reich.  If it was necessary to murder more northern Europeans than died from the Black Plague in order for Catholicism to survive - maybe it should not have survived.  But then if it had not survived their might not have been such a need to come to the America's for religious freedom.

[Guest]

Interesting how we define history to suit our ideas.  To be honest I see hardly a difference between Charlemagne and Hitler.  One established the second era of the Holy Roman Empire and the other failed to do so for the 3rd - which was the actual meaning of Hitler's Third Reich.  If it was necessary to murder more northern Europeans than died from the Black Plague in order for Catholicism to survive - maybe it should not have survived.  But then if it had not survived their might not have been such a need to come to the America's for religious freedom.

 

Uhm... we don't define history to suit our ideas.  We try to understand history through the lens of the people living at the time.  I really don't understand what you're getting at.  Growing up Catholic, I've had this thrown at me from every corner from anti-Catholics.  Same way an LDS person has to field these same contortions of history from an anti-LDS guy.  The only way you can figure out which attack is worth addressing is by the intentions of the people throwing the attack.  I don't know what your intentions are, so I don't really know where all this is coming from.

 

There is a very vast difference between Charlemagne and Hitler.  The first of which is - one is in the medieval times, the 2nd is in the 20th century.  Again - medieval times, 20th century - a big, ginormous, 19 century difference.  Among others.

Edited October 6, 2015 by anatess

[Traveler]

Uhm... we don't define history to suit our ideas.  We try to understand history through the lens of the people living at the time.  I really don't understand what you're getting at.  Growing up Catholic, I've had this thrown at me from every corner from anti-Catholics.  Same way an LDS person has to field these same contortions of history from an anti-LDS guy.  The only way you can figure out which attack is worth addressing is by the intentions of the people throwing the attack.  I don't know what your intentions are, so I don't really know where all this is coming from.

 

There is a very vast difference between Charlemagne and Hitler.  The first of which is - one is in the medieval times, the 2nd is in the 20th century.  Again - medieval times, 20th century - a big, ginormous, 19 century difference.  Among others.

 

I believe the similarity is in how they treat those with different ideas.  Something I believe to be at the heart of the parable of the good Samaritan.  Jesus lived 2,000 years ago but I believe that what he did applies today as well.  You are right - There were good thing accomplished by Charlemagne but it also applies as well to Hitler.  But one of the points involved in this thread is about the sacredness of human life and it is on that specific point that I find Charlemagne and Hitler so similar in respect to human life - that human life is not sacred unless it support their particular agenda.

 

I am grateful and honor the Pope for his words and deeds concerning the sacredness of life today - including those that do not agree with him.  What I am objecting to is the insertion that Catholics are the only insertion to consistently maintain the sacredness of all life over the last 2000 years.  I object to this insertion on the grounds that history just does not support that as an institution the Catholic church as been consistent in respecting lives (including the lives of the heretic or infidel) regardless of the times.  I also suggested that Buddhism has been far more consistent and that the Catholics have not influenced laws to preserve all human life any more than other institutions in their time and place.

[Guest]

I believe the similarity is in how they treat those with different ideas.  Something I believe to be at the heart of the parable of the good Samaritan.  Jesus lived 2,000 years ago but I believe that what he did applies today as well.  You are right - There were good thing accomplished by Charlemagne but it also applies as well to Hitler.  But one of the points involved in this thread is about the sacredness of human life and it is on that specific point that I find Charlemagne and Hitler so similar in respect to human life - that human life is not sacred unless it support their particular agenda.

 

I am grateful and honor the Pope for his words and deeds concerning the sacredness of life today - including those that do not agree with him.  What I am objecting to is the insertion that Catholics are the only insertion to consistently maintain the sacredness of all life over the last 2000 years.  I object to this insertion on the grounds that history just does not support that as an institution the Catholic church as been consistent in respecting lives (including the lives of the heretic or infidel) regardless of the times.  I also suggested that Buddhism has been far more consistent and that the Catholics have not influenced laws to preserve all human life any more than other institutions in their time and place.

 

 

So, using your way of interpreting history, God must not be consistent in maintaining the sacredness of all life when He instructed the Israelites to kill the Canaanites?

Edited October 7, 2015 by anatess

[Traveler]

So, using your way of interpreting history, God must not be consistent in maintaining the sacredness of all life when He instructed the Israelites to kill the Canaanites?

 

yes - this is one (of many) of the conundrums of ancient scripture that has convinced me that truths have been altered and changed - perhaps a misunderstanding of symbolism over literal interpretations.  Since you brought this up - do you believe that G-d commanded that the Canaanite infants be slaughtered?

[Guest]

yes - this is one (of many) of the conundrums of ancient scripture that has convinced me that truths have been altered and changed - perhaps a misunderstanding of symbolism over literal interpretations.  Since you brought this up - do you believe that G-d commanded that the Canaanite infants be slaughtered?

 

Yep.

 

As a Catholic, it was difficult to understand.  As an LDS it made this very clear.  In LDS teaching, death is not the end of works such that we can only be saved by grace with no regard for "all we can do".  Therefore, it does not change God's Plan of Salvation for Him to forge the path of the Good News as better served when certain people are sent to work their salvation from the other side of the veil so that they can be saved by grace after all they can do.

 

So, you don't believe that Nephi was commanded by God to kill Laban either?