Disqus - Friends of Jaykul

Re: Substrings in Ruby

Pistos — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 09:20:07 -0000

manveru:

Your backslash got swallowed up by my Markdown plugin:

'this is a'.scan(/\w+/)[0,2]

But anyway: Thanks for pointing out this technique. However, I'm not sure it would let us grab arbitrary regexp groups, such as:

weekday, month, monthday, year =
"Monday, June 4, 2007"[
  /^(\w+), (\w+) (\d+), (\d+)/
]

Re: Check your bias blind spot

Pistos — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 09:58:03 -0000

frostbyte:

Thank you for visiting and contributing your thoughts. It is often brought up that the Bible has contradictions. I respond: Yes, but only at a surface level. Scripture often differs in some specific details when separate narratives describe the same event. However, they agree with respect to the key issues. It doesn't really matter to me when exactly Jesus ascended to heaven relative to his resurrection. It matters to me whether or not he ascended, period -- and Scripture and Tradition are unanimous in saying that he did.

We must also bear in mind the nature of a given text. Not all of Scripture is meant to be precise historical narrative.

A little bit of sincere websearching turns up sites like Bible Contradictions Answered and an indexed response to many of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible.

What is important to us as believers is to ask: What are the core truths and doctrines that we are to take away from Scripture as a whole? We must have the right interpretation of texts, and must draw meaning out of passages in their context, and together with other relevant passages as a cohesive organism. Catholics have the Magisterium of the Church to provide this right interpretation.

Re: Substrings in Ruby

Pistos — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 11:38:34 -0000

Hrm:

  test code
  right here.

Seems to work for me? The way I'm getting the highlighted code blocks is actually via the syntax highlight Wordpress plugin. Add code blocks on my blog with <pre lang="ruby">.

Re: Substrings in Ruby

Pistos — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:53:23 -0000

Oh, I see. Well... I guess we need to use <pre> and preview. :)

Re: Check your bias blind spot

Pistos — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 14:50:24 -0000

Why must a jet pack have been used? Under the assumption of his divinity, Jesus' ascension seems entirely plausible to me.

I always thought that undead meant "animated", as opposed to actually living. I don't believe what occurred was merely an animation of Jesus' corpse.

Why is intellectual suicide involved? Belief in Jesus as God and Christ is entirely rational, and in no way contradicts reason.

Re: Thousands of Protestant denominations?

Pistos — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:15:57 -0000

Lamont: Thank you for visiting my blog, and thank you for sharing your thoughts. As well, thank you for linking to my blog and my post on abortion from your blog.

30 was a ballpark figure, but I do think that anything in the area of 20-50 is the best number to give in the interest of ecumenism.

Thanks for your insight, though, in saying that you think that most people in such a group meeting would not consider themselves necessarily from the same denomination as others, even though they may fall under the same large umbrella grouping.

Re: Check your bias blind spot

Pistos — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:13:43 -0000

frostbyte: Your comment confuses me. :) I'm not sure which side or points you're trying to argue for or against.

It deserves to be mentioned that Catholics rely not just on Scripture, but Scripture, Magisterium and Tradition altogether as (among other things) their "moral compass", as you put it.

The Jewish people and the Law God gave them are a prototype of the new, full people of God of the new covenant (inaugurated by Jesus the Messiah). I try to understand the commands and punishments God gave and inflicted upon them in the Old Testament eras as prototypes of the spiritual life we are to lead in the new covenant.

Re: Check your bias blind spot

Pistos — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 18:24:32 -0000

The Catholic Church has always affirmed that God grants everyone free will, a will that interoperates with his sovereignty. I don't believe your assertion that we are puppets is true.

God himself does not and cannot turn against or contradict himself. A certain degree of sincerity and open-mindedness provides the deeper understanding needed to scratch past the surface and any apparent contradictions in Christianity. I have not yet found any significant contradiction in the doctrines taught by the Catholic Church.

Re: Justification - Are you Catholic or Protestant?

Pistos — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 18:30:05 -0000

So does that mean you rather think you'd be predominantly Catholic? ;) (Assuming you must be pigeonholed into one of the two for the sake of this "exercise".)

Re: Feminists for Life

Pistos — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 18:37:23 -0000

I think you are right in identifying a major hinge of the issue being the humanity (or inhumanity) of all stages of the child, from freshly-fertilized ovum to freshly-spanked infant at delivery. The Catholic Church maintains that the child is a human being right at the point of fusion of sperm and egg.

So you at least agree that killing a human (even within the womb) is wrong?

Re: Feminists for Life

Pistos — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:09:42 -0000

Jaykul raised the point just a few days ago in IRC that it doesn't seem quite right to consider that something human (a human person) can grow from something that isn't human (the allegedly inhuman two- or four-celled organism in the womb). At first blush, I'd be inclined to agree.

For me personally, my sole grounds for classifying the fertilised egg as fully human is the declaration of the Catholic Church that it is so. At the same time, I am willing to hear other opinions, viewpoints and arguments. So far, I've never heard anything other than mere conjecture regarding the inhumanity of the fertilised egg.

Re: Justification - Are you Catholic or Protestant?

Pistos — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:15:38 -0000

I don't think it's possible to have full moral relativism (since that itself would be an absolute). I think everyone's got some idea about something that applies to everyone absolutely.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe the Protestant view is more "God does all/most of the work, so you don't have to do much/any work", whereas the Catholic view is "God wants you to be perfect, and empowers you to be so".

Re: Justification - Are you Catholic or Protestant?

Pistos — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:59:57 -0000

"everyone should" and "everyone should or else" are two different things, so I don't think you have a conundrum. ;)

As for perfection, here is the Catholic angle. I hope it sheds some light on the matter.

You are supposed to work at becoming perfect, but there are various aspects of this battle which are either very difficult, or impossible for our human nature to accomplish unassisted. For these things, God sends all the necessary graces; we need only avail of them with appropriate frequency and from efficacious conduits. I think everyone's got something that they know they ought to do (or stop doing), yet have not done the right thing, or don't yet consistently do the right thing. I accept God's grace to help me.

There must be drawn a distinction between (a) how a person is affected by sin he or she commits, and (b) forgiveness of the sin. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church's sections on sin and reconciliation for further reference. Sin actually changes the sinner. This change can be outwardly seen in subsequent behaviour, in proclivities. To illustrate: Suppose that it were a sin to throw blue paint into the air over your head. Through the appropriate channels, you can receive the forgiveness and absolution of this sin, and indeed you would be forgiven. But you'd still be covered in blue paint, and God doesn't admit blue-painted people into heaven.

However, he does offer a number of ways to wash away blue paint, namely the Sacraments, and Purgatory.

And so, turning to our repentant murderer and our harmless unbeliever: There are two things we need to consider:

<ol>
<li>The gravity of unbelief</li>
<li>The infinite mercy of God</li>
</ol>

If heaven is a place of acceptance and love, but the unbeliever by sheer force of will utterly rejects and does not love God, is it proper for such a person to be admitted into heaven? I would say that justice demands that he must not be. To be clear, however, the teaching of the Church tells us that it is possible for those to be saved who strive to do good to the best of their knowledge and ability, but out of ignorance which is not in any way their fault are never presented with the choice to accept or reject God's love.

Now, I think you are right that it would not be just for someone that commits terrible sins to be admitted to heaven. However, this is merely a testament to the great and wondrous mercy of God. If you were indebted to me 50 million dollars, it would only be fair that you pay me back. If I forgave you the entire debt, that would be a great thing, but my act of forgiveness does not alter the magnitude of what you owed me.

In the same way, the acts of the murderer are indeed much worse than those of the harmless fellow; but the offering of reconciliation is made freely to both of them. The difference between the two is that the murderer has accepted God's 50-million-dollar gift, whereas the harmless unbeliever has rejected the $5000 gift presented to him -- and so his debt remains, whereas the murderer's account is in good standing. Neither of them deserve it, but the murderer recognized the tremendous value of what is freely being given away.

I hope this helps you understand Catholic teaching. I will try to do a bit more research to ensure I am not telling you something theologically erroneous. :)

Re: Feminists for Life

Pistos — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:12:26 -0000

I can follow your cake analogy (though it does not convince me that the few-celled organism is not human).

Whether or not people should accept the teaching of the Catholic Church is a WHOLE new topic which I think I'd like to keep out of this current discussion. :) Suffice to say, some people accept Church teaching, and others do not, and others pick which teachings they like.

My understanding is that the Catholic Church has been against contraception from day one. Can you cite any references to the contrary? Perhaps I am just not picking up the gist of your second paragraph. Could you rephrase?

I can agree that we each have reasons for defining the humanity or inhumanity of various stages of the fetus which are not good enough for the other person. :)

For me, I believe ultimately that it is divine declaration, though the mouthpiece of the Church. I of course understand that you do not believe this.

Re: Justification - Are you Catholic or Protestant?

Pistos — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:37:10 -0000

A meaty comment. :) I feel honoured that you've cared to spend this much time in my little corner of cyberspace. :)

It is good for you to pursue truth. I do the same -- and my pursuit has led me to Christ. I hope the same for you, even though you yourself do not. :) Not out of a desire to caress some insecurity by means of a bandwagon effect, but rather because I believe I've found something true, significant and exhilirating.

Obedience is not bad -- obedience to the wrong person is bad. You are right to be cautious about whom to obey, and to what extent to obey them. However, I am satisfied in knowing that it is entirely acceptable to give full obedience to someone who is all-wise and all-knowing. I further acknowledge the possibility that a perfect God can operate in an imperfect world with imperfect creatures; indeed I believe this to be the case with the Catholic Church. This is not because of random choice on my part, but rather, the evidence I have seen does not work against this statement.

Surely that would include the sin of picking the wrong side of the "God", "No God", "other god/s" argument?

One must freely accept God's extended forgiveness. He gave us free will, and does not impinge upon that. You can't get the money without cashing the cheque. And, as I said, if you do not outright reject God with sufficient consent and knowledge about what and whom you are rejecting, your culpability is diminished or even removed.

It is a monolithic collection of contradictory arguments and people.

Can you give specific examples? So far as my research has taken me, I have not encountered significant contradiction in doctrine. As for people: weeds among the wheat, as they say. God uses dirty vessels to pour forth the purest living water. The imperfection of Christians or the clergy of God's Church has no weight to me as an argument against the validity of his Church. As I told you in the past: The failure of a student does not necessarily diminish the value of the course.

There is a difference between the doctrine that is taught and the actual practice of Christians. The former is inerrant, whereas the latter is entirely subject to error, abysmal failure and even downright antipodal actions.

[the Bible]'s been altered through the ages to further support the Church itself.

Your references? As far as I know, any textual differences are slight and editorial in nature. Indeed, some of the books of the Bible are collections of writings which were themselves individually authored not in one sitting, or even by one person. But my understanding is that diachronic examination of extant manuscripts clearly demonstrate a stunning uniformity and consistency over centuries, certainly with no significant change since the determination of the canon of Scripture in the late 4th century.

Here is a Google search which provides many links to sites arguing for the accuracy of the Scriptural texts we have today. It seems to me that a whole lot of people believe it's been preserved rather well, and they also seem to have some arguments in favour of this. (I haven't read them all.) On what basis do you believe the Bible has undergone significant changes in content?

Under the assumption that the Church is God's appointed organization on earth, it is entirely reasonable for it to follow that the Church is infallible in declaring doctrine (i.e. interpretation of Scripture on crucial matters), as well as teaching on what is or is not sin.

The Church's excursions into the domain of science are not asserted to be infallible. The Church's members are as mortal and unknowing as secular scientists. The Church was not intended to be inerrant in scientific understanding.

(two contradictions in two pages of skim reading is not a good start)

I missed these. Could you cite them precisely?

meekly accept whatever the one marked as your superior deems to be correct- even if they happen to be incorrect or they appear to be giving advice that goes against your conscience. Do such thoughts not concern you about this system?

A Catholic is obliged to heed his conscience. Furthermore, if a clerical superior orders me to do something which I know with clear thinking is against the teachings of God, or is an obvious sin, I am bound NOT to obey him. Sorry to disappoint your thirst for Hollywood stereotypes, but we Catholics are not mindless drones, nor are our clergy megalomaniacal tyrants. ;)

That someone who goes directly against right conscience by murdering someone but then converts fully and repents should be considered above someone who would otherwise be a saint but for their lack of belief?

The murderer is not "considered above", but rather is welcomed in a supreme act of love. And, for the third time: one can be saved by cooperating with what graces one has been granted, despite ignorance of the Gospel. But God would never force himself upon someone who deliberately rejects him with full knowledge, full consent and free action of the will.

Re: Some arguments in favour of life

Pistos — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:51:06 -0000

eikonos: Thanks for stopping by. My apologies for the much-delayed responses to follow.

Catholic apologists have constantly stressed that only dogma and doctrine are not subject to change. What can change are disciplines and practices, as well as theological opinions and theories about topics upon which there have not been formal pronouncements.

Although biased jeerers might get a tickle about such things as recent announcements about limbo, Catholic apologists are quick to point out the non-dogmatic character of these. In the very article you cited (emphasis mine):

The Vatican commission stressed that there is no mention of limbo in the Bible and that it was never a part of church dogma. Nor, by the way, is the commission's own advisory opinion. But there is little doubt that Pope Benedict XVI agrees with its conclusion. In a 1985 book-length interview, "The Ratzinger Report," then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said limbo was "never a defined truth of faith," and "personally . . . I would abandon it, since it was only a theological hypothesis."

As I mentioned in my comments elsewhere, the Church was not intended to be inerrant in scientific understanding. Neither does it declare itself to be so. Scientific blunders on the part of clergy or devoted laity have no bearing on the authority and infallibility of the Church in matters of faith and morals.

The Church was never intended to have omniscience from start to finish. Truths are revealed over time, and the Church's understanding of various things also matures.

So, yes, doctrine and dogma are absolute and unchanging once formally defined. Other churches and religions might reverse decisions or go back on themselves in dogmatic contradiction, but the Catholic Church never has, and I believe it never will.

Re: Some arguments in favour of life

Pistos — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:04:43 -0000

Arguments against abortion tend to focus solely on the rights of the newly-conceived and ignore the rights and needs of the woman. Really, if you're going to say an argument is one-sided then be sure to consider both sides.

I completely agree. That's why there are such things as crisis pregnancy centres. Such centres are there to help BOTH the mother and the child. Mothers are given love, support, and in some cases even money, lodging and employment search education and assistance.

Re: Some arguments in favour of life

Pistos — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:18:50 -0000

Abortion is a medical procedure. Medicine is based on Science. Medicine affects all citizens of a country regardless of Religion and so should not be based on the teachings of one Religion.

Since medicine deals with life, health and death, it will have occasion to set foot into the domains of morality and ethics. The Church is not justified in making declarations purely for scientific argumentation, backed by purely scientific reasons. It can only address the ethicality of scientific endeavours made by people.

Whatever the religion or beliefs of each individual, I think it is only fitting for the citizens of a country to enter into peaceful dialogue about crucial issues that affect society, so that everyone interested can make maximally-informed decisions on what legislation and government initiatives to support.

Re: Some arguments in favour of life

Pistos — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:24:55 -0000

Your argument about laws for and laws against being an imposition or not on the aborters or non-aborters is logical. However, the fetuses have a right to life, and laws allowing abortion brazenly strip these children of that right. I do not have any more right to abort my unborn child than I do to kill my young daughter.

Re: Some arguments in favour of life

Pistos — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:43:48 -0000

The Catholic Church states that
“the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

Pistos: “Meaning to say, it cannot be argued that the Catholic Church is even slightly in favour of capital punishment.”

If you wish to argue about shades of grey, I will not resist. I rephrase myself to:

The Catholic Church is so against capital punishment in this modern age that the cases in which it would favour it would be microscopic in number compared to those in which it would oppose it.

Re: Some arguments in favour of life

Pistos — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:47:42 -0000

The energy you spend fighting against abortion would be far better spent creating a world of loving capable parents. I would support such actions warmly, and would even consider giving my own money to help.

I think the two are advances in the same direction.

Re: Some arguments in favour of life

Pistos — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:58:58 -0000

if you could stop looking at the mother as a simple vessel for the bearing of children and start looking at her as a woman who is allowed to control her own life then you would see how awful it is to compound the horror of rape by forcing her to bear her rapist’s child.

The rape is indeed a horror, and I would even agree that being reminded about being raped is terrible too, but that horrific action is not the child's fault. If the lady would like to give the child up for adoption, that's also an option for her. That way, she wouldn't have to "be reminded" after delivery.

If two parents are fighting about something, neither one has a right to take it out on their child (yelling, beating), because the child has had no hand in the problem.

The child is in need of love from the instant it is alive (conception), and if anyone has a responsibility to love the child, it's the parents. It would be an act of love at least to carry the child to term, if not also to continue to care for it beyond that.

Re: Some arguments in favour of life

Pistos — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:01:56 -0000

I’m sure you got the same impression [that she is pro-choice at heart] and that you responded accordingly, but I wonder why you stopped short of saying you don’t believe she is pro-choice?

Well, to be perfectly honest, I simply took her words at face value. If she says that she isn't, then that's what I believe. I believe people until I find reason to begin to diminish my trust.

The simple solution would be to straight out ask her. :)

Re: Weewar - An addictive online strategy game

Pistos — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 09:18:34 -0000

Hi, Joel. Thanks for visiting. [goes to check joelodom's rating] Ha! I think I'll wait until I crack at least 1630 before challenging someone with a rating of 1679. ;) I'd be glad to watch a replay of one or two of your games, though, to learn tactics? :)

Re: Some arguments in favour of life

Pistos — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:49:51 -0000

As we have discussed in IRC, the crux of the matter between us is just when is a person a person. I do not see how "a purely medical and scientific point of view" can show me that a recently conceived fetus is not a person. Can you walk me through the line of reasoning there? I have actually begun researching a bit more on this matter, and will be making another blog post in the near future on scientific reasons for the humanity of the embryo.

I've done some brief research, but have been unable to determine what the official teaching of the Church is on the point of ensoulment. However, the Catechism of the Catholic Church has a number of clear statements to make in its section on the fifth commandment, "Thou shall not kill" (emphasis mine):

(from p 2270)

Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

(from p 2274)

Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

We may be able to conclude by implication that the Church teaches that ensoulment occurs at conception.

I am in no position to make a definitive moral judgement on the nature of the actions of the parties involved in the case of Sanju Bhagat's brother. However, my own personal musings are thus: If the brother's presence in Sanju's body were life threatening to Sanju, I might guess that it is morally licit for them to have excised the brother or whatever parts of him were threatening Sanju's life. This probably falls under the same principle of double effect which permits the side effect of the death of the fetus in the case of an ectopic pregnancy which endangers the mother's life.

If, however, the brother's presence were not life threatening, and did not pose a serious threat to the health of Sanju, then we might suppose that the surgeon is responsible for the death of the brother. If Sanju were conscious, fully informed of the nature of the situation, and had given consent to the excision, then he too would be guilty.

Certainly, a bizarre case. I'd be interested to hear what Catholic ethicists would have to say about it.