Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I don't know what he is at this point. I just know he says a lot of things that kind of stick in my craw. Maybe I should go to one of the fundamentalist Catholic sects that reject Vatican II.
First of all, I would suggest that you take a look at his exact words. I still would like to read the exact words that he said. Wording, especially in theology matters, can be very important. Simply look at the divergence between faith/works justification over the centuries over a matter or words, and the political fallout that resulted. I think context of one's statements is also very important. Second, I would suggest considering whether what he said was radical at all, or if it was simply another way of stating what the Catholic Church has already stated. For example, can salvation be possible for those who do not know Christ? What does the Church teach about those who, like the lost tribe in the Brazilian rainforest, do not know Christ because of no fault of their own but who otherwise lead relatively blameless lives? Third, I think that joining a sect is to ignore the plausible reality of the situation. Would a pope who has spend years/decades in authority under other orthodox popes really be a closet heretic who is changing doctrine? That seems preposterous. Papal history is filled with stories of popes who bring their own talents, areas of focus, skills, and even weaknesses into their papacies. Just because Pope Benedict XVI was a strong theologian does not mean that Pope Francis is wrong for focusing on different matters, such as the poor and apostolate to non-believers and homosexuals. In the end, I think that if Catholicism is meant to bring all to salvation then there is really no way that people like atheists or homosexuals can be ignored. While I recognize that the article at the beginning of this thread begs even more questions, I think that we should trust that what was said was not heretical.
I didn't see that in the article, although the headline kind of insinuated that. One thing I have learned is that the media reports of the pope's remarks are often filtered through a lens of distortion, so I would have to see the original statement.
I don't think this is revolutionary. He stated that conscience is king, and this has been taught for centuries. It is almost another way of saying that the the same standard applies to all regardless of religion. I think he is really trying to build bridges to the non-believing world.
You have a good point – no U.S. interests seem to be at stake in Syria, which made the case for a strike rather confusing.
The days of Euro-liberals wetting their pants at the mention of his name are over. Between the NSA revelations and the fumbling of Syria Obama is not seen as the savior over here anymore. I actually think the NSA scandal hurt him more because it is a clear violation of things he promised to put a stop to before his first election.
The sad thing about it is that the thing which should have been a bigger issue was the IRS-Tea Party scandal. That involved actual targeting of political opponents by the government, whereas the NSA scandal involved potential violation of privacy.While I hope Obama's support is eroding so he cannot do further damage to our country, I suspect that after a few weeks people will rally around his calls once he throws them policy bones which relate to socially liberal issues.
Following with what you are saying, the article also gave me second thought about the significance of such a find near Rome. The article suggests the significance was because of the following:
Dr. Terrenato noted that the findings appeared to contradict the image of early Roman culture, perpetuated by notables like Cato the Elder and Cicero, “as being very modest and inconspicuous.” It was said that this did not change until soldiers returned from the conquest of Greece in the second century B.C., their heads having been turned by Greek refinements and luxuries.
Adding to this, the Romans had already come across Greek artifacts/architecture when they conquered Syracuse around 211 B.C. (not sure why the archaeologist didn't mention that) and brought the stuff back to Rome. If we assume that scholarship had claimed that Roman architecture was simpler prior to the end of the third century B.C., and that it only became elaborate after exposure to the Greeks, then the excavation finds may be more noteworthy. However, I have to imagine that Republican-era figures like Cato and Cicero were probably waxing nostalgic when they praised their predecessors' "simpler" and more noble ways. I have heard that the Romans liked to appeal to what was done "back in the day" as a means of influencing contemporary action. Could it have been that our understanding of Roman buildings before 200 B.C. have been mislead by Roman propaganda? Perhaps.
Wow, the Germans pretty much rule the nation. Surprising that the French and Spanish did not have nearly as large an impact, despite their strength during the early modern age.
Yes, I think you are right. However, I think the forum can be explained as a reasonable public construction in any capital city.
If we were living in a world in which the morality of other nations was starkly different than our own, perhaps collective agreement would not be worthwhile. However, I can say that the U.S. is generally on the same page as Europe and elsewhere when it comes to things like self defense, so I assume that Europe will generally acknowledge (though not always) the interests of the U.S.If the U.S. simply acted unilaterally, it would alienate itself from other countries and make it harder to get military assistance when needed, economic development during times of peace, and overall cooperation.Also, we have to consider that Europe is much closer to the place where the fighting generally occurs. If we act unilaterally in the Middle East, there's a decent chance that retaliation could be made in European cities. In other words, even if the U.S. acts, other countries could suffer the repercussions, so it is important that we don't act solely with our own interests or concerns in mind.
Yes, I have realized that Europe is essentially lost due to birth rate. The underlying reason why so many immigrants are allowed to enter Europe is because there is a demand for bodies to work there, as the population would otherwise not increase enough to support the general welfare. It is the scourge of modern “family planning” that has come back to bite civilization, and which the West does not seem to understand (or want to understand). The West is content to live with smaller, yet wealthier families. The Third World is content to live with larger, yet poorer families. In the end, the latter wins out since civilization is based upon people rather than things. The reason why America is not as bad off as Europe just yet is because we have our own ready source of immigrants from our southern border. The reason why I question forced repatriation is because it could potentially violate fundamental human rights. Although we have to seriously examine the cultural and political impact of Muslims imparting Islamic beliefs into our government and culture, I think it's a step too far to take it out on Muslims per se. I may disagree with Islam and the cultural choices that they make, but I have to accept their right to live in a free society and to worship or dress or do what they do. However, once they cross the line and try to enforce their religious choices on others, I have a problem.
Sooner or later, the West is going to have to demand fairness from those in Muslim countries. Why Islamic centers can be built in the West, but Christian churches cannot be built in certain countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia), is a glaring inconsistency which should be raised by the international community and the U.S. President at international meetings. It is almost embarrassing to see how spineless the West has become in dealing with some of these issues, and I think it has to do with fear. While I do not think I would be in favor of forced repatriation, I think that nations should be more prudent in their immigration policies across the board so they can avoid problems later on. Absent refugee status, as immigrant groups become larger, the danger increases of having factions built within their host countries because those immigrants cannot easily be assimilated into larger society. Seems to me that immigration policies should reflect a nation's desire to assimilate those which it allows to enter.An interesting side - on my last trip to Europe (now about 11 years ago) I went to the Hofbräuhaus while passing through Munich on three occasions. My impression was that the place had become a big tourist destination, occupied by quite a few Asian tourists. So perhaps Muslim tourists are displacing Asian ones? Anyway, I thought that Muslims were not allowed to drink alcohol, but I could be wrong.
I think any chance at legitimacy in the international eye has to be done through the U.N. While U.S. presidents may not have to do so under law, the appearance of legitimate authority occurs only when there is a collection of agreement among them. Otherwise, it appears (and may in fact be true) that one nation is acting as an independent aggressor apart from the collective good will of the nations. It amazes me that Obama, who is apparently adored by Europeans, would forgo the European “way” and start sabre rattling rather quickly.
Yeah, I noticed that as well. But did you see the comments at the bottom from the people wondering about the SUVs being used in ancient times which caused the snow to have receded back then? Funny.
What I don't get is this:
The Whydah was built as a slave ship in 1716 and captured in February 1717 by pirate captain "Black Sam" Bellamy. Just two months later, it sank in a ferocious storm a quarter mile off Wellfleet, Mass., killing Bellamy and all but two of the 145 other men on board and taking down the plunder from 50 vessels Bellamy raided.
At first I thought that the "50 vessels Bellamy raided" referred to all those done by the Whydah under Bellamy's control, but it is inconceivable that he could have raided 50 in a mere two months. So now I assume that those "50 vessels" were raided while Bellamy was captaining other ships, and he simply brought the treasure on board the Whydah.Still leaves the question - what kind of pirate stores his treasure on board a ship rather than in an old piratey treasure cove?? 😉
Cultural Resource NetworkUSA Jobs - Find history-related jobs here within the federal government
Funny, but I came across this posting for an expedition which recently took place. URI was one of the sponsoring institutions:
The field school will be conducted in the three-week period from July 15 to August 8, 2013. Advanced scuba training, leading to the American Academy of Underwater Sciences’ (AAUS) Scientific Diver certification, and classroom work related to maritime history and maritime archaeological field methods will comprise week one of the field school. Underwater research and documentation of 16th and 17th century shipwrecks will be conducted in Bermuda during the remaining weeks.
http://shovelbums.net/index.php/view-field-schools?sobi2Task=sobi2Details&catid=86&sobi2Id=934
