In memory of John Paul II by a Protestant
David
office of Pope didn't exist. A person, taking on the role of Pope, agrees to
be a successor to a long line of people whose misdeeds include the burnings,
excommunications and persecutions of huge numbers of Christians and others,
and who mainly folloed a blend of tradition and politics, rather than took
an interest in the word of God and the furtherance of the Gospel, at least,
we can say so for the majority of the history of the Roman Church, although
at first we were all one Church.
Nevertheless, since the office of Pope exists, and Karol Wojtyla was in that
office for 26 years, the third longest Papacy in history, it is fair to give
credit where credit is due. Obviously he inspired a movement in this country
that was ionstrumental in the victory over Communism. I don't want to
ascribe the victory over Communism to one person or group of people, because
millions of different people all worked for that victory, and we're still
not entirely victorious. Nevertheless, the person of Karol Wojtyla did at
least as much as people like Thatcher and Reagan in enabling the people of
this part of the world to achieve their freedom. It's possible that without
him we all wouldn't be where we are today. Poland certainly would not have
achieved the level of exposure and change and also self-respect that it has.
And that is the reason, not really a religious reason, why I've got a black
tie on today. I am sure that he was a human being of sterling worth and
sterling qualities, and he will be missed.
In addition, he kept his Church pure from liberalising tendencies, such as
the ordination of women, the acceptance of homosexuality, acceptanc eof
abortion, and numerous other ills that previous pontiffs had not resisted so
effectively. He also was humble towards the Jewish people, offering an
apology to them for the misdeeds of Christians. He encouraged ecumenism,
although no apology has yet been made for the tortures and killings of the
Inquisition against Protestants, and the decision of the Council of Trent,
that protestants are heretics, is still formally in force, despite the fact
that JPII was worshipping with Protestants. Of course, he worshipped with
Muslims too.
I can only hope that one day we will have a leader in the largest Church who
will focus back on the matters that all Christians have in common - the
Nicene Creed, the early Church Fathers, the authority of the Bible, the
person and work of Jesus Christ. I hope that the issues which divide us,
especially the use of human believers who are now in heaven in the context
of religious observances, however exemplary they might have been in their
lives, even Jesus' mother, as communicators between the believer and God,
and such ideas as supererogation, transsubstantiation, the celibacy of
priests, the doctrine of purgatory, the praying of rosaries and other
liturgical formalisations of religion, the use of special robes and titles,
and other ideas contrary to scripture which divide Catholics and
Protestants, I hope that the new Pope will help these matters to be put on
the back burner, so that Catholics don't feel they are bad Catholics if they
question these, and get back to a more fundamental, evangelical,
Christ-centered faith.
The recent reaction by all Churches to the Gibson film on the Passion of the
Christ underlined how much unity Catholics and Protestants can achieve when
we focus on the person of Christ. If we focus on Mary and saints, and
sacerdotalisms and politics - even perfectly valid political points as most
of JPII's politics were as sound as a bell - and traditions and the matters
that make Catholics and Protestants different, then things will continue as
ever they did.
By focusing on Christ, Catholics and Protestants can work together to bring
the Gospel to a world that is going to hell. By not doing that, we can focus
on many other good things, as JPII did, but in the end we will not be saving
souls, and any work which does not end up in the saving of souls will not
endure to eternity. I urge the Vatican to choose a successor who will
consolidate the successes of John Paul II by bringing the focus back on God,
Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and on the Bible, and on the salvation of the
soul by faith in what Jesus did on the Cross for us, and that you would
preach that truth, not just give us pictures of it and icons of it, whilst
talking mainly about earthly political affairs.
--
"Apology does not make sense to us, the biblical word is repentance" -
Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi of Kenya.
Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia
> By focusing on Christ, Catholics and Protestants can work together to
> bring the Gospel to a world that is going to hell.
What? They're going to work together on global warming?
--
"Please enjoy a fish anus." --Blood Waters of Dr. Z.
"There is no way out of here. There is no way out." -Manos IV: Torgo Goes
To Baghdad.
AC
David <nuga...@pension.com> wrote:
>
> I can only hope that one day we will have a leader in the largest Church who
> will focus back on the matters that all Christians have in common - the
> Nicene Creed, the early Church Fathers, the authority of the Bible, the
> person and work of Jesus Christ. I hope that the issues which divide us,
> especially the use of human believers who are now in heaven in the context
> of religious observances, however exemplary they might have been in their
> lives, even Jesus' mother, as communicators between the believer and God,
> and such ideas as supererogation, transsubstantiation, the celibacy of
> priests, the doctrine of purgatory, the praying of rosaries and other
> liturgical formalisations of religion, the use of special robes and titles,
> and other ideas contrary to scripture which divide Catholics and
> Protestants, I hope that the new Pope will help these matters to be put on
> the back burner, so that Catholics don't feel they are bad Catholics if they
> question these, and get back to a more fundamental, evangelical,
> Christ-centered faith.
In other words, if the Roman Catholic Church becomes Protestant you'll be
happy.
The Reformation and the bloody wars instigated by both sides were centuries
ago, Davey. Why must some of you guys insist on trying to keep the battle
going?
Ike
"David" <nuga...@pension.com> wrote in message
news:d2p2r0$lcc$0...@pita.alt.net...
> As a Reformed Protestant, obviously I would prefer that the unbiblical
> office of Pope didn't exist. A person, taking on the role of Pope, agrees
> to
> be a successor to a long line of people whose misdeeds include the
> burnings,
> excommunications and persecutions of huge numbers of Christians and
> others,
> and who mainly folloed a blend of tradition and politics, rather than took
> an interest in the word of God and the furtherance of the Gospel, at
> least,
> we can say so for the majority of the history of the Roman Church,
> although
> at first we were all one Church.
Where do you get this all one church shit?
>
> Nevertheless, since the office of Pope exists, and Karol Wojtyla was in
> that
> office for 26 years, the third longest Papacy in history, it is fair to
> give
> credit where credit is due. Obviously he inspired a movement in this
> country
> that was ionstrumental in the victory over Communism. I don't want to
> ascribe the victory over Communism to one person or group of people,
> because
> millions of different people all worked for that victory, and we're still
> not entirely victorious. Nevertheless, the person of Karol Wojtyla did at
> least as much as people like Thatcher and Reagan in enabling the people of
> this part of the world to achieve their freedom. It's possible that
> without
> him we all wouldn't be where we are today. Poland certainly would not have
> achieved the level of exposure and change and also self-respect that it
> has.
> And that is the reason, not really a religious reason, why I've got a
> black
> tie on today. I am sure that he was a human being of sterling worth and
> sterling qualities, and he will be missed.
The reason I don't give a shit what color tie you wear is that, although
many communist regimes ceased to exist, what Christians are trying to
replace them with is even worse.
>
> In addition, he kept his Church pure from liberalising tendencies, such as
> the ordination of women, the acceptance of homosexuality, acceptanc eof
> abortion, and numerous other ills that previous pontiffs had not resisted
> so
> effectively.
Those ills, as you call them, that you lump all together, have nothing to do
with your fake made-up religion. In fact I might argue that your irrational
beliefs create the climate friendly to various weird perversions, including
child abuse, racism, oppression of the poor, and other stress-caused and
stress -inducing enemies of individual self-realization.
He also was humble towards the Jewish people, offering an
> apology to them for the misdeeds of Christians. He encouraged ecumenism,
> although no apology has yet been made for the tortures and killings of the
> Inquisition against Protestants, and the decision of the Council of Trent,
> that protestants are heretics, is still formally in force, despite the
> fact
> that JPII was worshipping with Protestants. Of course, he worshipped with
> Muslims too.
Wow! What a guy.
>
> I can only hope that one day we will have a leader in the largest Church
> who
> will focus back on the matters that all Christians have in common - the
> Nicene Creed, the early Church Fathers, the authority of the Bible, the
> person and work of Jesus Christ.
You don't hope anything of the kind, since you are brainwashed. Your warped
mind doesn't have any idea what it wants.
I hope that the issues which divide us,
> especially the use of human believers who are now in heaven in the context
> of religious observances, however exemplary they might have been in their
> lives, even Jesus' mother, as communicators between the believer and God,
> and such ideas as supererogation, transsubstantiation, the celibacy of
> priests, the doctrine of purgatory, the praying of rosaries and other
> liturgical formalisations of religion, the use of special robes and
> titles,
> and other ideas contrary to scripture which divide Catholics and
> Protestants, I hope that the new Pope will help these matters to be put on
> the back burner, so that Catholics don't feel they are bad Catholics if
> they
> question these, and get back to a more fundamental, evangelical,
> Christ-centered faith.
Sure. Because now you expect to divide up the spoils of Christian fascism
run amok. Should be enough for all you wierdo swine without fighting amongst
yourselves.
>
> The recent reaction by all Churches to the Gibson film on the Passion of
> the
> Christ underlined how much unity Catholics and Protestants can achieve
> when
> we focus on the person of Christ.
And how much we can puke after seeing such a disgusting display.
If we focus on Mary and saints, and
> sacerdotalisms and politics - even perfectly valid political points as
> most
> of JPII's politics were as sound as a bell - and traditions and the
> matters
> that make Catholics and Protestants different, then things will continue
> as
> ever they did.
>
Church is a hospital for sinners not a museum for saints. Only if they are
cured who needs it any more?
> By focusing on Christ, Catholics and Protestants can work together to
> bring
> the Gospel to a world that is going to hell. By not doing that, we can
> focus
> on many other good things, as JPII did, but in the end we will not be
> saving
> souls, and any work which does not end up in the saving of souls will not
> endure to eternity. I urge the Vatican to choose a successor who will
> consolidate the successes of John Paul II by bringing the focus back on
> God,
> Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and on the Bible, and on the salvation of the
> soul by faith in what Jesus did on the Cross for us, and that you would
> preach that truth, not just give us pictures of it and icons of it, whilst
> talking mainly about earthly political affairs.
>
Can't resist whining about the practices of the Catholics in the middle of
your love-fest, eh?
David
AC:
What Protestantism was about was getting back to the source. Modern
Protestants have forgotten about this as much, if not more, than many
Catholics.
I would like both Protestants and Catholics, and the Eastern Church also, to
keep going back to the Source, and that source is the Bible. Only the
original written source is an objective benchmark of what the Church was
supposed to look like and what her mission is.
>
> The Reformation and the bloody wars instigated by both sides were
centuries
> ago, Davey. Why must some of you guys insist on trying to keep the battle
> going?
I'm not - I'm trying, as you can see, to reach a consensus around the
source.
Far be it from me to say that all Protestants are right and Catholics are
wrong. They have avoided many of the errors many of us have made.
Pithecanthropus Erectus
You really don't need to copy talk.origins into this.
--
"God Forbid we should actually test anything."
Creationism
"The curses of Deuteronomy 28 will plague America until we return to God
(Ps 9:17). Wealth and military might are not substitutes for God-given
character and blessing. Freedom comes, not from democracy, but Jesus
Christ. The outline below lists our wars & keys to victory. May God lead
us in the strategic and tactical prayers that are required!"
Capitol Hill Action Network, 2005
David
> David wrote:
>
> You really don't need to copy talk.origins into this.
>
Why do you have a capital letter for the species name?
That's not scientifically correct, that isn't.
David
Ike:
>
> "David" <nuga...@pension.com> wrote in message
> news:d2p2r0$lcc$0...@pita.alt.net...
> > As a Reformed Protestant, obviously I would prefer that the unbiblical
> > office of Pope didn't exist. A person, taking on the role of Pope,
agrees
> > to
> > be a successor to a long line of people whose misdeeds include the
> > burnings,
> > excommunications and persecutions of huge numbers of Christians and
> > others,
> > and who mainly folloed a blend of tradition and politics, rather than
took
> > an interest in the word of God and the furtherance of the Gospel, at
> > least,
> > we can say so for the majority of the history of the Roman Church,
> > although
> > at first we were all one Church.
>
> Where do you get this all one church shit?
One Lord, one Church, one Baptism.
We replaced them with freedom and democracy.
You cannot show me a single East European state which has unshackled itself
from Soviet Communism that would vote them back in.
> >
> > In addition, he kept his Church pure from liberalising tendencies, such
as
> > the ordination of women, the acceptance of homosexuality, acceptanc eof
> > abortion, and numerous other ills that previous pontiffs had not
resisted
> > so
> > effectively.
>
> Those ills, as you call them, that you lump all together, have nothing to
do
> with your fake made-up religion. In fact I might argue that your
irrational
> beliefs create the climate friendly to various weird perversions,
including
> child abuse, racism, oppression of the poor, and other stress-caused and
> stress -inducing enemies of individual self-realization.
These things are not endemic to our religion. Since Roman catholicism has
celibacy of priests and other Church workers, a non-Biblical doctrine
dreamed up in the middle ages to protect Rome's money from the claims of
widows and orphans from priests, there are workers in that Church who have
no other outlet for their sexuality than to abuse those in their care. If I
were the next Pope, I would allow the marriage of Church workers as is the
case in Protestantism and Orthodoxy. In fact, I would require it, as it says
that a bishop shall be the husband of one wife. I would enforce marriage of
the priests to the nuns.
Firstly, I would set up a confidential registry where the nuns and the
preists could put their names in and then state if there were any of the
opposite group that they particularly liked (they could rank their favorites
from 1 to 5, say), then I would check and see if the same person on the
other side fancied marrying the one that liked them, attempting to match
people that had put each other at the highest level of preference. For those
who didn't match up in this first round, I would get a serious firm of
Industrial Psychologists to profile each group and match them with potential
partners from the other group, using things like Myers Briggs, etc.
If that didn't work, I would try the minute date approach, and then finally
bring in people who were not priests or nuns who wanted to marry a priest or
nun, starting with people who were widowed with children. Anyway, if I were
the next Pope, I'd have them all married off in a year.
>
> He also was humble towards the Jewish people, offering an
> > apology to them for the misdeeds of Christians. He encouraged ecumenism,
> > although no apology has yet been made for the tortures and killings of
the
> > Inquisition against Protestants, and the decision of the Council of
Trent,
> > that protestants are heretics, is still formally in force, despite the
> > fact
> > that JPII was worshipping with Protestants. Of course, he worshipped
with
> > Muslims too.
>
> Wow! What a guy.
>
> >
> > I can only hope that one day we will have a leader in the largest Church
> > who
> > will focus back on the matters that all Christians have in common - the
> > Nicene Creed, the early Church Fathers, the authority of the Bible, the
> > person and work of Jesus Christ.
>
> You don't hope anything of the kind, since you are brainwashed. Your
warped
> mind doesn't have any idea what it wants.
I am not brainwashed at all, and I know what I want.
You are brainwashed, so brainwashed that you even think we're the
brainwashed ones, but it's all part of your worldly brainwashing, that you
think that.
>
> I hope that the issues which divide us,
> > especially the use of human believers who are now in heaven in the
context
> > of religious observances, however exemplary they might have been in
their
> > lives, even Jesus' mother, as communicators between the believer and
God,
> > and such ideas as supererogation, transsubstantiation, the celibacy of
> > priests, the doctrine of purgatory, the praying of rosaries and other
> > liturgical formalisations of religion, the use of special robes and
> > titles,
> > and other ideas contrary to scripture which divide Catholics and
> > Protestants, I hope that the new Pope will help these matters to be put
on
> > the back burner, so that Catholics don't feel they are bad Catholics if
> > they
> > question these, and get back to a more fundamental, evangelical,
> > Christ-centered faith.
>
> Sure. Because now you expect to divide up the spoils of Christian fascism
> run amok. Should be enough for all you wierdo swine without fighting
amongst
> yourselves.
I don't care about their money, and their fine buildings. These things are
part of the cultural heritage of humanity, but they do not help our key
mission.
> >
> > The recent reaction by all Churches to the Gibson film on the Passion of
> > the
> > Christ underlined how much unity Catholics and Protestants can achieve
> > when
> > we focus on the person of Christ.
>
> And how much we can puke after seeing such a disgusting display.
That was the brutality of sin, you saw, and Christ taking its penalty, for
us.
>
> If we focus on Mary and saints, and
> > sacerdotalisms and politics - even perfectly valid political points as
> > most
> > of JPII's politics were as sound as a bell - and traditions and the
> > matters
> > that make Catholics and Protestants different, then things will continue
> > as
> > ever they did.
> >
> Church is a hospital for sinners not a museum for saints. Only if they are
> cured who needs it any more?
When cured, they can join the nurses and the doctors.
>
> > By focusing on Christ, Catholics and Protestants can work together to
> > bring
> > the Gospel to a world that is going to hell. By not doing that, we can
> > focus
> > on many other good things, as JPII did, but in the end we will not be
> > saving
> > souls, and any work which does not end up in the saving of souls will
not
> > endure to eternity. I urge the Vatican to choose a successor who will
> > consolidate the successes of John Paul II by bringing the focus back on
> > God,
> > Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and on the Bible, and on the salvation of
the
> > soul by faith in what Jesus did on the Cross for us, and that you would
> > preach that truth, not just give us pictures of it and icons of it,
whilst
> > talking mainly about earthly political affairs.
> >
> Can't resist whining about the practices of the Catholics in the middle of
> your love-fest, eh?
John Paul dies, but life goes on - and the differnces between our Churches
remain. Now is a chance to choose someone who can bring us together, or
someone who can drive us further apart.
This was just a list of things that they do based on post Biblical
traditions, which we scrapped in the Reformation. Catholics need to ask
themselves do they really need those other things, or don't they really need
to get back to the basics?
Jez
Snippage.......
>>
>>In other words, if the Roman Catholic Church becomes Protestant you'll be
>>happy.
>
>
> What Protestantism was about was getting back to the source. Modern
> Protestants have forgotten about this as much, if not more, than many
> Catholics.
>
> I would like both Protestants and Catholics, and the Eastern Church also, to
> keep going back to the Source, and that source is the Bible.
No, the 'source' is supposed to be Jesus, but as Jesus never wrote
anything, your cults have been
improvising a, 'variation on a theme of some dead guy.', for over 2,000
years now.
>Only the
> original written source is an objective benchmark of what the Church was
> supposed to look like and what her mission is.
As Jesus wrote nothing, all that has been written is pure speculation.
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
Iain
Who replaced them? Most regime changes in the last century have been by
secular governments.
~Iain
David
Jez:
> David wrote:
> > AC:
> >
> >>On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 17:39:14 +0200,
> >>David <nuga...@pension.com> wrote:
>
> Snippage.......
>
> >>
> >>In other words, if the Roman Catholic Church becomes Protestant you'll
be
> >>happy.
> >
> >
> > What Protestantism was about was getting back to the source. Modern
> > Protestants have forgotten about this as much, if not more, than many
> > Catholics.
> >
> > I would like both Protestants and Catholics, and the Eastern Church
also, to
> > keep going back to the Source, and that source is the Bible.
>
> No, the 'source' is supposed to be Jesus, but as Jesus never wrote
> anything, your cults have been
> improvising a, 'variation on a theme of some dead guy.', for over 2,000
> years now.
>
> >Only the
> > original written source is an objective benchmark of what the Church was
> > supposed to look like and what her mission is.
>
> As Jesus wrote nothing, all that has been written is pure speculation.
He may not have written the pages, but we believe that Jesus being God did
inspire the Bible, and in any event, the New Testament was at the outset the
benchmark we had, and everything that has gone wrong in Church history, on
all sides, Eastern, Roman and Protestant, has come of diverging from the
Scriptures.
Already the Catholic church has made movements to what we believe which
would have been unthinkable in the days of the early reformers. Then they
even burned Tyndale for making an English translation, whereas now they use
the local languages everywhere, and Latin is largely abandoned as a language
of public worship. Then they used to sell penances, whereas now they tend
not to. Then, they used to burn people, whereas now they don't do that. Then
they forbade the reading of the Bible, now they allow it.
All I ask is to keep going in the right direction.
AC
Well, the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox Church as well) consider
themselves that original church. As I see it, they have about a 1,400 year
lead on the Protestants.
>
>>
>> The Reformation and the bloody wars instigated by both sides were
> centuries
>> ago, Davey. Why must some of you guys insist on trying to keep the battle
>> going?
>
> I'm not - I'm trying, as you can see, to reach a consensus around the
> source.
Considering that your asking the Catholic Church to abandon those things
that make it Catholic, you're not asking for consensus. You're asking them
to abandon what they believe.
>
> Far be it from me to say that all Protestants are right and Catholics are
> wrong. They have avoided many of the errors many of us have made.
You know damn well that you're questioning basic doctrine. Quit trying to
sugar coat it now. We know very well what you think of the Roman Church.
David
AC:
They kicked us out for believing what was originally believed at the start
of that period. If you see it otherwise, then you are showing that you are
pretty much under their propaganda.
>
> >
> >>
> >> The Reformation and the bloody wars instigated by both sides were
> > centuries
> >> ago, Davey. Why must some of you guys insist on trying to keep the
battle
> >> going?
> >
> > I'm not - I'm trying, as you can see, to reach a consensus around the
> > source.
>
> Considering that your asking the Catholic Church to abandon those things
> that make it Catholic, you're not asking for consensus. You're asking
them
> to abandon what they believe.
>
I'm asking them to stop abandoning what they believed 1400 years before
Protestantism.
> >
> > Far be it from me to say that all Protestants are right and Catholics
are
> > wrong. They have avoided many of the errors many of us have made.
>
> You know damn well that you're questioning basic doctrine. Quit trying to
> sugar coat it now. We know very well what you think of the Roman Church.
I'm getting back to basics, not questioning basics. They say 'semper idem',
but throughout their history, they have never remained the same for over a
hundred years at a time. There has been a consistent slippage in theology.
Jez
There's the trouble, right there in your first sentence, 'We believe.',
well, your free to 'believe' whatever you want, doesn't make it true though.
Everything went wrong when Jesus failed to bring his so-called 'Kingdom
of heaven' within the lifetime of the disciples, which your so-called
bible said he said.
>
> Already the Catholic church has made movements to what we believe which
> would have been unthinkable in the days of the early reformers. Then they
> even burned Tyndale for making an English translation, whereas now they use
> the local languages everywhere, and Latin is largely abandoned as a language
> of public worship. Then they used to sell penances, whereas now they tend
> not to. Then, they used to burn people, whereas now they don't do that. Then
> they forbade the reading of the Bible, now they allow it.
They don't do that now because the PEOPLE wouldn't put up with their
vile reign, not because of changes within the Church !
>
> All I ask is to keep going in the right direction.
All I, as an atheist, ask, is that people stop following insane
superstitions that try to control every aspect of a persons life through
fear, hate and lies.
David
The voters changed them. Where I live, that means 95% believing Roman
Catholics changed them. I don't know how secular you call 95% Roman Catholic
voters, but it was done by democratic process.
AC
And now we see the true colors coming out. Your anti-Catholic bigotry is so
close to the surface that a few posts in, you're already spouting nonsense.
For the record, and I know you already know this of me, I think both you and
the Catholics believe in a lot of nonsense. I also know that, historically,
the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are the descendants of the early
Christian churches.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The Reformation and the bloody wars instigated by both sides were
>> > centuries
>> >> ago, Davey. Why must some of you guys insist on trying to keep the
> battle
>> >> going?
>> >
>> > I'm not - I'm trying, as you can see, to reach a consensus around the
>> > source.
>>
>> Considering that your asking the Catholic Church to abandon those things
>> that make it Catholic, you're not asking for consensus. You're asking
> them
>> to abandon what they believe.
>>
>
> I'm asking them to stop abandoning what they believed 1400 years before
> Protestantism.
You see, you want them to become Protestants. A lot of blood was shed over
this. If you don't like what they believe, bully for you.
>
>> >
>> > Far be it from me to say that all Protestants are right and Catholics
> are
>> > wrong. They have avoided many of the errors many of us have made.
>>
>> You know damn well that you're questioning basic doctrine. Quit trying to
>> sugar coat it now. We know very well what you think of the Roman Church.
>
> I'm getting back to basics, not questioning basics. They say 'semper idem',
> but throughout their history, they have never remained the same for over a
> hundred years at a time. There has been a consistent slippage in theology.
Catholic theology, so far as I can see, has been far more static over time
than the as the wind blows kind of theology cooked up by so many Protestant
groups. You ask a Catholic in Argentina or in Hong Kong about basic
doctrine and you're far more likely to get a consistent answer than from any
two Protestants. Not that consistency means anything at the end of the day,
but at least I can appreciate that the Roman Church's own sense of history.
Look, most Protestant churches have gone so far away from pre-Reformation
doctrine that there's no real healing the rift. Rome and the Orthodox
churches can't even get along terribly well, and they're are substantially
closer on doctrinal issues than most Protestant churches.
The Catholic Church is not going to become Protestant, Davey. The wars were
fought. The Protestants won some, the Catholics won some. There are still
a few battle grounds out there (Latin America), but all in all, it would be
nice to see you guys just say "live and let live" rather than trying to win
the old salvation pissing contest. Luther was an asshole, but do his heirs
have to continue in that vein?
Fatman
> As a Reformed Protestant, obviously I would prefer that the unbiblical
> office of Pope didn't exist.
snip for bandwidth.....
I am going to file this under "I don't give a flying fuck."
We now continue with our regularly scheduled program.
p.s. the Pope now is just "another dead guy". We all die. Some people
think the world stops when a certain person dies. It is a time for
sorrow for those care, oh hum for those who don't.
Fatman
--
No I am not an EAC Commando......There is no such thing.......I am a
temporary janitor filling in for Pete.
David
Fatman wobbled:
> I know a guy, who knows a guy who said David wrote:
>
> > As a Reformed Protestant, obviously I would prefer that the unbiblical
> > office of Pope didn't exist.
>
> snip for bandwidth.....
>
>
> I am going to file this under "I don't give a flying fuck."
I guess that's why you bothered to respond, to show how much you don't care.
>
>
> We now continue with our regularly scheduled program.
>
> p.s. the Pope now is just "another dead guy". We all die. Some people
> think the world stops when a certain person dies. It is a time for
> sorrow for those care, oh hum for those who don't.
I am surprised at the amount of sorrow shown by Catholics, actually. Anyone
would think they didn't believe he went to heaven.
Secular Fundamentalist
"David" <nuga...@pension.com>,who intoned thus:
And now, a word or two from the real leader of a real protestant
community, the reverend Dr Ian R K Paisley.
"We must remember that there is a great difference between winning an
argument with a Roman Catholic and winning that Roman Catholic for
Jesus Christ. Armed with argument you may be able to demolish all the
defences that that Roman Catholic may put up, but not in any way
demolish the refuge of lies in which he is hiding. Some people think
that it is only those who have an absolute and perfect knowledge of
Roman Catholicism who are fit to engage in this work. While it is
necessary for us to learn as much about the chains that bind the soul
and it is right for us to be able to diagnose the disease, we will
never see that disease healed except we have Divine authority. "
That's what the world's most devout protestants think.
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N.
aa #2208
Mistabit doesn't work in mysterious ways, people just don't pay attention.
David
Just a Sec:
In Northern Ireland there is a lot more baggage in the Protestant-Catholic
dialogue than we need to carry in other places.
In Ulster, I would never be able to keep the close personal relations with
catholics that I do here in Poland. They are conditioned to think of
Catholics as the enemy, but in fact it is only a political issue that the Ca
tholics are the enemy of the protestants in Northern Ireland, and the
history comes from militarism and imperialism practised by us English
against the Irish, which was a small part of the militarism and imperialism
that we did, and which has ramifications on us English people to this day.
I do not see Catholics as my political enemies. I see them in many ways as
political allies - who else is gonna keep the abortion holocaust down and
resist the onslaught of Islam, but I see them as people who have buried the
Gospel in amongest a great deal of sacerdotalism, which they need to strip
away and get to the core Gospel, which many of them have not really
appreciated or taken hold of, although they have that Gospel deep within
their symbols, and think that mindless observations of sacramental
observances is enough. They all have the Bible, but it is rare you will see
a Catholic taking one and reading it like a book. They seem to be as likely
to kiss it and clasp it to their breast as to read it, which is what
happened to the Bible I keep on my desk at my office when we were visited by
some nuns, but for all the touchingness of that gesture, I cannot see that
the concepts of God's word will get into their head that way. It is like the
mezuzah of Judaism, where the scroll is locked inside a silver case and
screwed to your doorframe. You can kiss your hand and place it on the
mezuzah, but you cannot easily unscrew the mezuzah, take the piece of vellum
out and read it. This is a sacerdotalist practice in Judaism, but contrast
that with the saying of David "thy word have I hid IN MINE HEART that I
might not sin against thee". God is interested in truth in the inward part,
and in the hidden part He shall make to know wisdom those who will early
seek Him to worship Him in spirit and in truth. Inwardly, not with outward
observances. "Bring no more vain oblations".
Tyndale, Luther, and many others, these were all Catholics in a day when the
Roman Church was further from the truth than it is today. Each of them
didn't chose to leave they had the choice made for them. That is why a
certain humility needs to be adopted, and not a blanket dismissal of all
Roman Catholics as non-Christians, when many of them are certainly believers
in salvation only by faith in the Blood of Christ, regardless of all the
saintly distractions and liturgical side-shows that they have going on
around them.
That having been said, Dr Paisley's contention that winning an argument does
not mean winning a soul is exactly right, however. But we do not win souls,
God does. "We plow the fields and scatter the good seed on the land, but it
is fed and watered by God's almighty hand", as the hymn goes.
Richard Clayton
That may well be the most offensive eulogy I've ever heard. Polite
society generally frowns on using the occasion of a man's death as an
excuse for political and theological grandstanding.
Davey, I'm losing respect for you. I used to think you were an
essentially decent person with some strange ideas-- but now I'm
beginning to wonder if the ideas aren't displacing the decent person.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
VoiceOfReason
> As a Reformed Protestant,
<snip>
An interesting post, although it seemed rather confused. You seemed
unable to decide if you wanted to trash Catholicism of praise one of
its recent leaders.
IMHO, there is one God. Different Christian denominations have
different customs, but we are all praying to the same God. Perhaps it
would be better to focus on our points of agreement and ignore the
minor differences. Saying the equivalent of "I hope those people see
the light of reason and start looking at things MY way" is more than
just a little arrogant, and is not likely to have a positive effect.
Steve Knight
wrote:
snip
>Nevertheless, since the office of Pope exists, and Karol Wojtyla was in that
>office for 26 years, the third longest Papacy in history, it is fair to give
>credit where credit is due.
Whatever he did (if anything) is clearly overshadowed by protecting
pedophiles. There is no deed that can excuse the horror he willingly
sheltered.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
AC
It's a terrible thing, but not something you can say is a Catholic problem.
It's a problem present in all organizations or groups; churches, police,
politics, teachers, doctors, etc. It stems from the notion that the
organization or group is too important to let the acts of bad individuals
screw it for everyone. Once the leadership in any group have made that
rationalization, it becomes for them much easier to sweep things under the
rug. Certainly this does not excuse the Vatican, which sat on its hands for
decades while this went on, but here in British Columbia we watched the
same thing with a number of churches (Anglican and United, mainly) and the
residential schools were Indian children were taken. The government and the
churches basically sat by and did nothing as children were molested for
decades, and molestation is a terrible disease that spreads from generation
to generation.
In short, pedophilia is a big problem for a number of churches, and though
my hunch is that the Catholic Church probably has a bigger problem than,
say, the Anglican Church, it's unfair to blame the VAtican alone.
John S. Wilkins
organisations. The difficulty seems to lie in the following criteria
being satisfied:
1. Young males aged around 8 to 16 being a part of the organisational
population
2. Figures of authority being regarded as beyond reproach
3. A hierarchical organisation in which attacks on members of the
hierarchy are received as attacks upon the hierarchy and organisation
itself.
4. An established social standing for the organisation (i.e., it is
regarded as being part of the social fabric).
Given these, the following will occur:
A. Pedophiles will be attracted to positions of authority within the
hierarchy
B. When accusations are made, the hierarchy will defend its members and
the organisation
C. Such accusations will be covered up for the social
good/organisational mission
D. Social pressure will be brought to bear on accusers, from both indie
and outside the organisation.
The solution? I think there are two kinds of approach, both of them
derived from the "checks and balances" idea of modern democracy. First,
make the hierarchy open and transparent, so that if accusations are made
they become public immediately. Second, make it an offense to hide
evidence of abuse (of any kind), so that anyone in the hierarchy who
orders a cover up, or fails to act on accusations, shall be deemed to
have failed in their duty of care to the young people under their
authority. If archbishops and seniro Scout office bearers were routinely
jailed for this, the abuses would stop pretty quickly.
My 2 cents.
--
John S. Wilkins
Postdoctoral Research Fellow
Biohumanities Project
School of History, Philosophy, Religion and Classics
The University of Queensland
Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
Tel +61 7 3365 6348
Mobile 0418 543 856
Jim Guillory
"VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
news:1112571351.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> David wrote:
> > As a Reformed Protestant,
>
> <snip>
>
> An interesting post, although it seemed rather confused. You seemed
> unable to decide if you wanted to trash Catholicism of praise one of
> its recent leaders.
You might read it again. It was definitely an excuse to trash Catholicism.
Regards,
Jim
AC
Of course it is. Davey's hatred of Catholicism is only exceeded by his
hatred of Islam. But, by that most cynical of doctrines, he tends to view
it as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". So he'll side with Catholics
and Muslims when there's some confluence of theology or morality, but the
rest of the time he'll wear his deep bigotry against these groups on his
sleeve.
If salvation means behaving like that, then I'll take hellfire. I think
I'll be in much better company.
Pithecanthropus Erectus
Of course not. But I am using it as a proper name rather than as my
species designation. I am actually a Homo sapiens sapiens, or S2
according to another thread.
It isn't my real name, anyway.
David
> David wrote:
>
> > "Pithecanthropus Erectus" <sic> made Linneaus spin in his grave:
> >
> >>David wrote:
> >>
> >>You really don't need to copy talk.origins into this.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Why do you have a capital letter for the species name?
> >
> > That's not scientifically correct, that isn't.
> >
> >
>
> Of course not. But I am using it as a proper name rather than as my
> species designation. I am actually a Homo sapiens sapiens, or S2
> according to another thread.
Getting all hoity toity about our lineage now, are we?
David
AC:
It's not that Catholics have a greater tendency to be pedophiles, they
don't, of course. It's just that forbidding marriage to priests is called a
'doctrine of demons' in the NT, but they appear to have missed it, and
enforce celibacy anyway, with disastrous results.
Celibacy was not from the start, it was introduced to save Rome's money. It
ought to be abolished.
David
AC:
> On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 21:46:44 -0500,
> Jim Guillory <jdg...@cox-internet.com> wrote:
> >
> > "VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
> > news:1112571351.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >> David wrote:
> >> > As a Reformed Protestant,
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> An interesting post, although it seemed rather confused. You seemed
> >> unable to decide if you wanted to trash Catholicism of praise one of
> >> its recent leaders.
> >
> > You might read it again. It was definitely an excuse to trash
Catholicism.
>
> Of course it is. Davey's hatred of Catholicism is only exceeded by his
> hatred of Islam. But, by that most cynical of doctrines, he tends to view
> it as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". So he'll side with Catholics
> and Muslims when there's some confluence of theology or morality, but the
> rest of the time he'll wear his deep bigotry against these groups on his
> sleeve.
All groups are willing to work together over issues such as abortion. It's
not just my idea to side with them when we have a common interest and not
side when we don't.
I don't hate the people, by the way, I only hate the errors that are
stopping the people from knowing and practising the truth.
> If salvation means behaving like that, then I'll take hellfire. I think
> I'll be in much better company.
It's up to you, Aaron. I cannot make your decision for you.
David
I tried to give credit where credit was due.
Wojtyla was a great human being.
I still take issue with the doctrines of Rome, but Wojtyla was a great human
being.
David
Clayton:
At the end of the day giving an honest assessment is of greater consequence
than lying in order to have good manners.
If you don't respect that, expect people to lie to you.
John S. Wilkins
person, of pre-Adamite ancestral descent. You will understand this when
I tell you that I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal
primordial atomic globule. Consequently, my family pride is something
inconceivable. I can't help it. I was born sneering.
David
> David wrote:
> > Pithy commented:
> >
> >>David wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Pithecanthropus Erectus" <sic> made Linneaus spin in his grave:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>David wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>You really don't need to copy talk.origins into this.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Why do you have a capital letter for the species name?
> >>>
> >>>That's not scientifically correct, that isn't.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Of course not. But I am using it as a proper name rather than as my
> >>species designation. I am actually a Homo sapiens sapiens, or S2
> >>according to another thread.
> >
> >
> > Getting all hoity toity about our lineage now, are we?
> >
> >
> Pooh-Bah: I am, in point of fact, a particularly haughty and exclusive
> person, of pre-Adamite ancestral descent. You will understand this when
> I tell you that I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal
> primordial atomic globule. Consequently, my family pride is something
> inconceivable. I can't help it. I was born sneering.
You ancient families are all hopelessly inbred.
VoiceOfReason
Yeah, now that I've read his other responses in this thread, that's
pretty obvious.
shane
You present only two alternatives
Manners, which means you lie
Truth, which means you can be impolite.
There is at least one other option,
Silence, which does not require you to lie, and may also be considered
polite. Given the biblical as well as philosophical support for holding
our tongues at times where offence can be given, I am surprised you did
not go for this option.
I certainly agree with your point that honest assessment is of greater
consequence than lying for the sake of manners, but only if an
assessment is required or requested, which in this case, it was not.
--
shane
And the truth shall set you free.
David
Shane shone:
> David wrote:
>
> > Clayton:
<snip my first post>
> >>That may well be the most offensive eulogy I've ever heard. Polite
> >>society generally frowns on using the occasion of a man's death as an
> >>excuse for political and theological grandstanding.
> >>Davey, I'm losing respect for you. I used to think you were an
> >>essentially decent person with some strange ideas-- but now I'm
> >>beginning to wonder if the ideas aren't displacing the decent person.
> >
> >
> > At the end of the day giving an honest assessment is of greater
consequence
> > than lying in order to have good manners.
> >
> > If you don't respect that, expect people to lie to you.
> >
> >
> You present only two alternatives
> Manners, which means you lie
> Truth, which means you can be impolite.
>
> There is at least one other option,
> Silence, which does not require you to lie, and may also be considered
> polite. Given the biblical as well as philosophical support for holding
> our tongues at times where offence can be given, I am surprised you did
> not go for this option.
The reason not to is that now we have a chance to make a difference. The
cardinals of the Vatican are all lurking on Usenet to find out what the
characters of the next Pope should be, and if we don't speak before the
white smoke flies we can hold our peace for another 26 years.
>
> I certainly agree with your point that honest assessment is of greater
> consequence than lying for the sake of manners, but only if an
> assessment is required or requested, which in this case, it was not.
>
Well, I don't know what news groups are for, if they're not for discussing
things which are in the news, and which are topical.
And I thought I had gone out of my way to say as much as I fairly could that
was positive.
If you want to read a more hard-hitting critique of Wojtyla's term, at this
early stage after his death, then try this one, in a serious British daily:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,12272,1451750,00.html?79%3A+International+news+%2D+guardian
This is harsher than I would endorse, and yet it is in a national daily.
But this is from a lefty, rather than a Conservative Protestant, so most
people here will not think it in 'bad taste'.
Pithecanthropus Erectus
When one has a legacy of which to be proud, one strives for humility
though it prove elusive.
shane
Fair enough point, with a small rider about 'on topic' considerations, I
stand corrected.
AC
David <nuga...@pension.com> wrote:
>
> Sienna Guillory's brother (one imagines) wrote:
>>
>> "VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
>> news:1112571351.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> > David wrote:
>> > > As a Reformed Protestant,
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> > An interesting post, although it seemed rather confused. You seemed
>> > unable to decide if you wanted to trash Catholicism of praise one of
>> > its recent leaders.
>>
>> You might read it again. It was definitely an excuse to trash
> Catholicism.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jim
>>
>
> I tried to give credit where credit was due.
What are you, Archie Bunker?
>
> Wojtyla was a great human being.
There we disagree. I don't think he was a great man. I think he directly
attacked Vatican II and the reform movement that had been taking hold of the
Church. He betrayed his flock in Latin America, and continued the ludicrous
doctrine against birth control.
>
> I still take issue with the doctrines of Rome, but Wojtyla was a great human
> being.
Take issue with the doctrines, but don't use the man's death as yet another
attempt at some tired Protestant pissing contest.
Dona...@gmail.com
There is a huge difference though. I am not aware of any examples of
the Boy Scouts hearing about paedophiles in their organisation, and
then keeping the matter away from the police and moving the scout
leader in question to a new troop where he will be able to abuse more
children. I dont think the Boy Scouts then promoted a lead figure in
the cover ups to a plum position in the Vatican, errrr... I mean Boy
Scout headquarters.
Iain
David wrote:
> Iain:
> > David wrote:
> > > Ike:
> > > >
> > > > "David" <nuga...@pension.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:d2p2r0$lcc$0...@pita.alt.net...
> > >
> > > One Lord, one Church, one Baptism.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Nevertheless, since the office of Pope exists, and Karol
Wojtyla
> > was in
> > > > > that
> > > > > office for 26 years, the third longest Papacy in history, it
is
> > fair to
> > > > > give
> > although
> > > > many communist regimes ceased to exist, what Christians are
trying
> > to
> > > > replace them with is even worse.
> > >
> > > We replaced them with freedom and democracy.
> >
> > Who replaced them? Most regime changes in the last century have
been by
> > secular governments.
> >
> > ~Iain
>
> The voters changed them. Where I live, that means 95% believing Roman
> Catholics changed them. I don't know how secular you call 95% Roman
Catholic
> voters, but it was done by democratic process.
I suggest you think again about what "95% believing Roman Catholics"
actually entails. Britain is supposed to be overwhelmingly Church of
England\Scotland but only 5% think Jesus is divine. Even then, I doubt
most of them normally think about it when not answering a questionaire.
Remember, such statistics make the mistake of thinking there are such
things as Catholic four year-olds, etc.
So "we"[The Catholic church] overthrew a communist regime? You are
aware it's hardly the wierdest thing in the world for a western nation
to vote against a communist government, especially when surrounded by
capitalist countries by which to make comparisons. In fact, less
Catholic nations such as Britain and Japan never even got involved with
communism. One of the few nations that did was one of the few that were
overwhelmingly Catholic. Your statement: "Catholicism replaced
communism with freedom and democracy" sounds banal.
Catholicism doesn't mix well with self-styled communism, but such
communism was ideologically atheistic, so it's only natural that the
RCC opposed it.
Although why didn't it oppose theistic dictatorships? The theocratic
monarchies of the past three centuries? They could have been improved
with some freedom and democracy.
The RCC only started to oppose dictatorship after dictatorship became
possible secular domain. Do you still think it was freedom and
democracy they were trying to protect?
~Iain
Scott
"AC" <mightym...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd5152h.4ed....@ministry.of.silly.walks...
>>
>> Whatever he did (if anything) is clearly overshadowed by protecting
>> pedophiles. There is no deed that can excuse the horror he willingly
>> sheltered.
>
> It's a terrible thing,
materialistic atheists proclaiming a moral truth? <the irony>
I thought such things was all relative
http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/sbn90.htm
AC
Well pedophilia certainly hasn't been taboo in all times and places, but as
our culture puts a good deal of weight on to the rights of the individual,
and particularly on the protection of those less able of protecting
themselves, pedophilia is considered in this time and place to be a bad
thing.
It's not as if religions have all banded together to give us a nice clear
and static moral code. HEck, not even Christianity has been able to deliver
that.
Scott
Since the likelihood of pedophilia not going extinct anytime soon, maybe the
culture should takes NAMBLA's lead to liberalize the behavior and make it
socially acceptable....as it once was in ancient Greece? End the stigmatism
rather than police the behavior.....like homosexuality.
Paul J Gans
>David wrote:
>> Pithy commented:
>>
>>>David wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Pithecanthropus Erectus" <sic> made Linneaus spin in his grave:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>David wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>You really don't need to copy talk.origins into this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why do you have a capital letter for the species name?
>>>>
>>>>That's not scientifically correct, that isn't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Of course not. But I am using it as a proper name rather than as my
>>>species designation. I am actually a Homo sapiens sapiens, or S2
>>>according to another thread.
>>
>>
>> Getting all hoity toity about our lineage now, are we?
>>
>>
>Pooh-Bah: I am, in point of fact, a particularly haughty and exclusive
>person, of pre-Adamite ancestral descent. You will understand this when
>I tell you that I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal
>primordial atomic globule. Consequently, my family pride is something
>inconceivable. I can't help it. I was born sneering.
Yeah? My globule was bigger than your globule.
---- Paul J. Gans
Ninure Saunders
Paul II, as transcribed by CQ Transcripts:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laura and I join people across the earth in mourning the passing of Pope
John Paul II. The Catholic Church has lost its shepherd, the world has
lost a champion of human freedom, and a good and faithful servant of God
has been called home.
Pope John Paul II left the throne of St. Peter in the same way he ascended
to it, as a witness to the dignity of human life.
In his native Poland, that witness launched a democratic revolution that
swept eastern Europe and changed the course of history.
Throughout the West, John Paul's witness reminded us of our obligation to
build a culture of life in which the strong protect the weak. And during
the pope's final years, his witness was made even more powerful by his
daily courage in the face of illness and great suffering.
All popes belong to the world but Americans had special reason to love the
man from Krakow. In his visits to our country, the pope spoke of our
providential Constitution, the self-evident truths about human dignity in
our Declaration and the blessings of liberty that follow from them. It is
these truths, he said, that have led people all over the world to look to
America with hope and respect.
Pope John Paul II was himself an inspiration to millions of Americans and
to so many more throughout the world. We will always remember the humble,
wise and fearless priest who became one of history's great moral leaders.
We're grateful to God for sending such a man, a son of Poland who became
the bishop of Rome and a hero for the ages.
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://Ninure-Saunders.tk
Take my polls
http://ninure.100megsfree5.com
My Yahoo Group
http://Ninure.tk
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.MCCchurch.org
The Bible Site - help provide free scripture
http://www.thebiblesite.org
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
Ninure Saunders
Robertson, Falwell praise pope
Associated Press
Saturday, April 2, 2005
RELATED
Robertson, Falwell praise pope
A life well-lived, albeit too briefly, comes to an end on Pope Avenue
Clerics laud pontiff's legacy
Photo gallery
RICHMOND, Va. - Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson expressed his remorse
Saturday at the death of Pope John Paul II, calling the leader of the
Roman Catholic Church "the most beloved religious leader" of his time.
"He has been a man of great warmth, profound understanding, deep
spirituality and indefatigable vigor," Robertson said in a statement
released by his Christian Broadcasting Network in Virginia Beach.
Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition, said he had met John Paul
in New York City and was on hand when the pope conducted Mass in Central
Park.
"I told him at the time how much the American people loved him, and he
merely smiled," Robertson said. "That love was shared not only in America
but by millions all over the globe."
Robertson said he was "deeply grieved" at the death of the pope.
"John Paul II has been the most beloved religious leader of our age _ far
surpassing in popular admiration the leader of any faith," Robertson said.
The Rev. Jerry Falwell, who has been hospitalized since Monday because of
respiratory and heart problems, issued a statement through his son
Jonathan, saying "the world has lost a great moral leader and we will
certainly feel his loss."
Falwell, who is listed in fair condition at Lynchburg General Hospital,
said John Paul offered "unparalleled pro-life and pro-family leadership"
during his 26 years in Rome. Falwell, 71, is the founder of the Moral
Majority.
The younger Falwell did not know if his father had ever met the pope.
While the pope never made a public appearance in Virginia, he appealed
twice to governors to spare the lives of death row inmates. He was
unsuccessful in both appeals.
Derek R. Barnabei, who was 33, was executed Sept. 14, 2000, for the rape
and slaying in 1993 of a 17-year-old student. His execution was closely
followed in Italy because of his Italian heritage and that country's
opposition to the death penalty.
The pope also appealed for clemency for Joseph Roger O'Dell III, who was
convicted for the 1985 rape and murder of a Virginia Beach woman. He was
executed in 1997.
As news of John Paul's death spread, the faithful began trickling into the
Cathedral of the Sacred Heart in Richmond to pay their respects.
"He had an extreme impact," said 55-year-old Rose Morrisette, wiping tears
from her eyes as she walked into the church. "He set a really good example
for us all _ he lived what he talked."
As he sat in a pew, clutching his rosary beads and waiting to make
Confession, 65-year-old Patrick Giprall reflected on John Paul's life.
"When you stop and think of it ... it's really amazing," Giprall said.
"When you see what happened to Communism _ he had a great role in that."
Giprall also said the pope had a talent for bringing people of different
backgrounds and opinions together.
"I think he showed how we are all brothers," Giprall said. "We may have
our differences, but we are all family."
AC
This is rather like saying "since the likelihood of murder not going extinct
anytime soon..." It's a ludicrous position. Our society has basic
standards of conduct. That those standards are not universal over all time
and space does not mean that we should abandon those standards. In a
secular society it does mean you have to come up with a justification that
doesn't simply boil down to "Because God said so". The problem with that
justification is that history shows how arbitrarily it can be applied, and
how it in turn can be used to justify various harmful conduct.
Pedophilia causes very clear harm to children, which can extend throughout
their lives. It is frequently an abuse by a figure of authority (adult) on
someone incapable of defending themselves or even at times fully able to
comprehend the act. It is the same reasoning used when we don't charge a
six year old with murder, or allow nine year olds to vote. It is part of an
overarching notion that children are not capable of making or understanding
decisions, whether it be about sexual relations or commiting serious crimes.
What you are attempting to do is to railroad atheists like myself with a
fallacious appeal to consequences, where in fact no such consequences exist.
Atheists are as varied in their moral and ethical behavior as any group, and
being an atheist does not mean that one is forced philosophically to abandon
morality.
Aedrian
"Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia" <ne...@newb.com> wrote in message
news:Xns962D5A85DA...@68.12.19.6...
> "David" <nuga...@pension.com> wrote in news:d2p2r0$lcc$0...@pita.alt.net:
>
>> By focusing on Christ, Catholics and Protestants can work together to
>> bring the Gospel to a world that is going to hell.
>
>
Human endeavors have only a minute effect upon world climate.
A single volcanic eruption puts more carbon dixode into the
atmosphere than Humans since the industrial revolution.
>
> --
> "Please enjoy a fish anus." --Blood Waters of Dr. Z.
> "There is no way out of here. There is no way out." -Manos IV: Torgo Goes
> To Baghdad.
>
Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia
news:jMe4e.21832$wo1....@bignews6.bellsouth.net:
>
> "Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia" <ne...@newb.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns962D5A85DA...@68.12.19.6...
>> "David" <nuga...@pension.com> wrote in
>> news:d2p2r0$lcc$0...@pita.alt.net:
>>
>>> By focusing on Christ, Catholics and Protestants can work together
>>> to bring the Gospel to a world that is going to hell.
>>
>> What? They're going to work together on global warming?
>>
> Human endeavors have only a minute effect upon world climate.
> A single volcanic eruption puts more carbon dixode into the
> atmosphere than Humans since the industrial revolution.
>>
Another myth spread by LIEbrul atheists who also want us to believe the
oil supply is finite. Only God makes oil.
TCS
>"Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia" <ne...@newb.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns962D5A85DA...@68.12.19.6...
>> "David" <nuga...@pension.com> wrote in news:d2p2r0$lcc$0...@pita.alt.net:
>>
>>> By focusing on Christ, Catholics and Protestants can work together to
>>> bring the Gospel to a world that is going to hell.
>>
>> What? They're going to work together on global warming?
>>
>Human endeavors have only a minute effect upon world climate.
>A single volcanic eruption puts more carbon dixode into the
>atmosphere than Humans since the industrial revolution.
If that were true, nobody would notice the smog around cities like LA.
Aedrian
"TCS" <The-Central...@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd52v60.sbv.The-...@linux.client.comcast.net...
global scale.
>
Alan Morgan
Aedrian <a...@rbellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>"Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia" <ne...@newb.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns962D5A85DA...@68.12.19.6...
>> "David" <nuga...@pension.com> wrote in news:d2p2r0$lcc$0...@pita.alt.net:
>>
>>> By focusing on Christ, Catholics and Protestants can work together to
>>> bring the Gospel to a world that is going to hell.
>>
>> What? They're going to work together on global warming?
>>
>Human endeavors have only a minute effect upon world climate.
>A single volcanic eruption puts more carbon dixode into the
>atmosphere than Humans since the industrial revolution.
Not true.
Volcanos release about 100 million tons of CO2 per year. Human
activity releases 100 times that amount. It might be the case
that while a big volcano is errupting it is emitting more CO2
than all human activity at that time, but that's a very different
matter.
Ash in the stratosphere due to volcanic erruptions actually contributes
to global cooling.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
Grinder
>> Human endeavors have only a minute effect upon world
>> climate. A single volcanic eruption puts more carbon
>> dixode into the atmosphere than Humans since the
>> industrial revolution.
That sounds like yet another morph of Rush Limbaugh's
claims about Mount Pinatubo.
Scott
One of which I didn't make. If you haven't noticed, I'm playing the devil's
advocate.
Our society has basic
> standards of conduct. That those standards are not universal over all
> time
> and space does not mean that we should abandon those standards.
doesn't give a reason for why we should keep them, either.
In a
> secular society it does mean you have to come up with a justification that
> doesn't simply boil down to "Because God said so".
justification or rationalization? Is there a difference between moral
justifying and rationalizing?
The problem with that
> justification is that history shows how arbitrarily it can be applied, and
> how it in turn can be used to justify various harmful conduct.
...as arbitrary as subjective justificaions can be.
>
> Pedophilia causes very clear harm to children, which can extend throughout
> their lives.
But is that harm caused by the *act* itself or by the social stigmatism
placed upon the act by the society? You could argue the same for stigmatism
on homosexuals prior to broader social acceptance. Homosexuality was once a
sexual disorder in psychiatry.
It is frequently an abuse by a figure of authority (adult) on
> someone incapable of defending themselves or even at times fully able to
> comprehend the act.
<quoting. underline added by me> "Even nowadays, man-boy relationships are
not uncommon. As in homosexuality, man-boy sexuality occurs and __not
seldom__ in a context in which __both partners__ consent,..."
Is the age of reason subjective? What of 13 and 14 year olds having sex with
each other? Is that pathological? A dominate figure doesn't have to be an
adult. Is an adult and 16 year old harmful harmful? It's not recognized as
so in the Netherlands since 16 is considered sexually mature.
It is the same reasoning used when we don't charge a
> six year old with murder, or allow nine year olds to vote. It is part of
> an
> overarching notion that children are not capable of making or
> understanding
> decisions, whether it be about sexual relations or commiting serious
> crimes.
What is the age of reason? Technically, IIRC, pedophilia is defined as being
12 and under. Most of the so-called priest pedophilias were with teenagers.
Courts convict teens for muder in adult courts.
>
> What you are attempting to do is to railroad atheists like myself with a
> fallacious appeal to consequences, where in fact no such consequences
> exist.
> Atheists are as varied in their moral and ethical behavior as any group,
> and
> being an atheist does not mean that one is forced philosophically to
> abandon
> morality.
AYK, morality falls into one of two groups, realism or anti-realism. The
first one is based upon objective principles, "This *is* (pedophilia) 'a
terrible thing'/deed". And prompted me to play the devil's advocate and beg
the question: Why is it terrible and what is the objectivity in it being so?
The second(anti-) is subjective and subject to changing opinions, and
therefore, subject to social change. The Netherlands has (or at least those
profs. have) a much more liberal perspective than you and consider(s) your
view of this subject as being "narrowed" and "rather difficult to look
at....in an objective way." Are those profs. wrong?
Aedrian
"Alan Morgan" <amo...@xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:d2rvsq$som$1...@xenon.Stanford.EDU...
> In article <jMe4e.21832$wo1....@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
> Aedrian <a...@rbellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>"Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia" <ne...@newb.com> wrote in message
>>news:Xns962D5A85DA...@68.12.19.6...
>>> "David" <nuga...@pension.com> wrote in news:d2p2r0$lcc$0...@pita.alt.net:
>>>
>>>> By focusing on Christ, Catholics and Protestants can work together to
>>>> bring the Gospel to a world that is going to hell.
>>>
>>> What? They're going to work together on global warming?
>>>
>>Human endeavors have only a minute effect upon world climate.
>>A single volcanic eruption puts more carbon dixode into the
>>atmosphere than Humans since the industrial revolution.
>
> Not true.
>
This was my only source.
>
> Volcanos release about 100 million tons of CO2 per year. Human
> activity releases 100 times that amount. It might be the case
> that while a big volcano is errupting it is emitting more CO2
> than all human activity at that time, but that's a very different
> matter.
>
>
> Ash in the stratosphere due to volcanic erruptions actually contributes
> to global cooling.
>
age was brought about by a eruption in the Indian ocean. Also a
supervolcano 74,000 years ago may have come close to wiping out
the human race. This became a *bottle neck* in which only a few
hundred humans survived.
>
>
> Alan
> --
> Defendit numerus
>
Aedrian
"Grinder" <gri...@no.spam.maam.net> wrote in message
news:CPf4e.12457$Vx1.7222@attbi_s01...
> Aedrian <a...@rbellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>> Human endeavors have only a minute effect upon world
>>> climate. A single volcanic eruption puts more carbon
>>> dixode into the atmosphere than Humans since the
>>> industrial revolution.
>
> That sounds like yet another morph of Rush Limbaugh's
> claims about Mount Pinatubo.
>
>
> http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895
>
Grinder
> "Alan Morgan" <amo...@xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
> news:d2rvsq$som$1...@xenon.Stanford.EDU...
>
>>In article <jMe4e.21832$wo1....@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
>>Aedrian <a...@rbellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia" <ne...@newb.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns962D5A85DA...@68.12.19.6...
>>>
>>>>"David" <nuga...@pension.com> wrote in news:d2p2r0$lcc$0...@pita.alt.net:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>By focusing on Christ, Catholics and Protestants can work together to
>>>>>bring the Gospel to a world that is going to hell.
>>>>
>>>>What? They're going to work together on global warming?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Human endeavors have only a minute effect upon world climate.
>>>A single volcanic eruption puts more carbon dixode into the
>>>atmosphere than Humans since the industrial revolution.
>>
>>Not true.
>>
>
> I heard this on a recent *science channel* program about volcanoes
> This was my only source.
>
>>Volcanos release about 100 million tons of CO2 per year. Human
>>activity releases 100 times that amount. It might be the case
>>that while a big volcano is errupting it is emitting more CO2
>>than all human activity at that time, but that's a very different
>>matter.
>>
>
> I would be interested in knowing where you got your information.
Here is someone who is addressing that question. I can say that I've
confirmed their contentions, but they do provide sources that you could
check out.
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
John S. Wilkins
> John Wilkins wrote:
>
>>David wrote:
>>
>>>Pithy commented:
>>>
>>>
>>>>David wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Pithecanthropus Erectus" <sic> made Linneaus spin in his grave:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>David wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You really don't need to copy talk.origins into this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Why do you have a capital letter for the species name?
>>>>>
>>>>>That's not scientifically correct, that isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Of course not. But I am using it as a proper name rather than as my
>>>>species designation. I am actually a Homo sapiens sapiens, or S2
>>>>according to another thread.
>>>
>>>
>>>Getting all hoity toity about our lineage now, are we?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Pooh-Bah: I am, in point of fact, a particularly haughty and exclusive
>>person, of pre-Adamite ancestral descent. You will understand this when
>>I tell you that I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal
>>primordial atomic globule. Consequently, my family pride is something
>>inconceivable. I can't help it. I was born sneering.
>
>
>
>
>
I confess... I married a cousin.
--
John S. Wilkins
Postdoctoral Research Fellow
Biohumanities Project
School of History, Philosophy, Religion and Classics
The University of Queensland
Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
Tel +61 7 3365 6348
Mobile 0418 543 856
Mark Stahl
"Aedrian" <a...@rbellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:jMe4e.21832$wo1....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia" <ne...@newb.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns962D5A85DA...@68.12.19.6...
>> "David" <nuga...@pension.com> wrote in news:d2p2r0$lcc$0...@pita.alt.net:
>>
>>> By focusing on Christ, Catholics and Protestants can work together to
>>> bring the Gospel to a world that is going to hell.
>>
>> What? They're going to work together on global warming?
>>
> Human endeavors have only a minute effect upon world climate.
> A single volcanic eruption puts more carbon dixode into the
> atmosphere than Humans since the industrial revolution.
Please provide a reference for this claim.
Grinder
> confirmed their contentions, but they do provide sources that you could
> check out.
Sorry, that should be I *can't* say that I've confirmed their contentions...
macaddicted
SSSSHHHHH The AQMD is listening. They've already banned everything else.
--
macaddicted
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
macaddicted
> AC:
> > On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 17:39:14 +0200,
> > David <nuga...@pension.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I can only hope that one day we will have a leader in the largest Church
> who
> > > will focus back on the matters that all Christians have in common - the
> > > Nicene Creed, the early Church Fathers, the authority of the Bible, the
> > > person and work of Jesus Christ. I hope that the issues which divide us,
> > > especially the use of human believers who are now in heaven in the
> context
> > > of religious observances, however exemplary they might have been in
> their
> > > lives, even Jesus' mother, as communicators between the believer and
> God,
> > > and such ideas as supererogation, transsubstantiation, the celibacy of
> > > priests, the doctrine of purgatory, the praying of rosaries and other
> > > liturgical formalisations of religion, the use of special robes and
> titles,
> > > and other ideas contrary to scripture which divide Catholics and
> > > Protestants, I hope that the new Pope will help these matters to be put
> on
> > > the back burner, so that Catholics don't feel they are bad Catholics if
> they
> > > question these, and get back to a more fundamental, evangelical,
> > > Christ-centered faith.
> >
> > In other words, if the Roman Catholic Church becomes Protestant you'll be
> > happy.
>
> What Protestantism was about was getting back to the source. Modern
> Protestants have forgotten about this as much, if not more, than many
> Catholics.
>
> I would like both Protestants and Catholics, and the Eastern Church also, to
> keep going back to the Source, and that source is the Bible. Only the
> original written source is an objective benchmark of what the Church was
> supposed to look like and what her mission is.
>
Just out of curiosity, do you believe that Jesus was, in part, divine?
If so, then can you show, from purely biblical sources, how the Nicene
model of christology can be shown? And can you explain why the Arians,
who used the same "original written source" were wrong?
> >
> > The Reformation and the bloody wars instigated by both sides were
> centuries
> > ago, Davey. Why must some of you guys insist on trying to keep the battle
> > going?
>
> I'm not - I'm trying, as you can see, to reach a consensus around the
> source.
>
> Far be it from me to say that all Protestants are right and Catholics are
> wrong. They have avoided many of the errors many of us have made.
macaddicted
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 09:06:33 +0200,
> David <nuga...@pension.com> wrote:
> >
> > Sienna Guillory's brother (one imagines) wrote:
> >>
> >> "VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1112571351.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >> > David wrote:
> >> > > As a Reformed Protestant,
> >> >
> >> > <snip>
> >> >
> >> > An interesting post, although it seemed rather confused. You seemed
> >> > unable to decide if you wanted to trash Catholicism of praise one of
> >> > its recent leaders.
> >>
> >> You might read it again. It was definitely an excuse to trash
> > Catholicism.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Jim
> >>
> >
> > I tried to give credit where credit was due.
>
> What are you, Archie Bunker?
>
> >
> > Wojtyla was a great human being.
>
> There we disagree. I don't think he was a great man. I think he directly
> attacked Vatican II and the reform movement that had been taking hold of the
> Church. He betrayed his flock in Latin America, and continued the ludicrous
> doctrine against birth control.
>
Actually it is typical after a council for the Church to go through a
period of adjustment, swinging from a phase of accepting to one of
correcting until the implications of the council are fully understood
and are woven into the fabric of the Church. JPII just happened to
arrive soon after Vatican II and started the "corrective" phase earlier
than was usual. Since he held the papacy for longer than most this phase
also lasted longer than is usual.
> >
> > I still take issue with the doctrines of Rome, but Wojtyla was a great human
> > being.
>
> Take issue with the doctrines, but don't use the man's death as yet another
> attempt at some tired Protestant pissing contest.
--
Alan Morgan
Aedrian <a...@rbellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>"Alan Morgan" <amo...@xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
>news:d2rvsq$som$1...@xenon.Stanford.EDU...
>> In article <jMe4e.21832$wo1....@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
>> Aedrian <a...@rbellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>Human endeavors have only a minute effect upon world climate.
>>>A single volcanic eruption puts more carbon dixode into the
>>>atmosphere than Humans since the industrial revolution.
>>
>> Not true.
>>
>I heard this on a recent *science channel* program about volcanoes
>This was my only source.
Which show?
>> Volcanos release about 100 million tons of CO2 per year. Human
>> activity releases 100 times that amount. It might be the case
>> that while a big volcano is errupting it is emitting more CO2
>> than all human activity at that time, but that's a very different
>> matter.
>>
>I would be interested in knowing where you got your information.
See
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
for an example. The main reference for volcano emissions seems
to be a 1991/1992 paper by T.M Gerlach. There are plenty of sites
that say the opposite, but I was unable to find one that documented
their sources. I suspect Rush Limbaugh, but that's just me.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
VoiceOfReason
Unless it's a member of my family involved. Then there will be a news
story about justifiable homicide.
Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia
news:VdmdnbpP5ux...@giganews.com:
>
> "Aedrian" <a...@rbellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:jMe4e.21832$wo1....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia" <ne...@newb.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns962D5A85DA...@68.12.19.6...
>>> "David" <nuga...@pension.com> wrote in news:d2p2r0$lcc$0
@pita.alt.net:
>>>
>>>> By focusing on Christ, Catholics and Protestants can work together
to
>>>> bring the Gospel to a world that is going to hell.
>>>
>>> What? They're going to work together on global warming?
>>>
>> Human endeavors have only a minute effect upon world climate.
>> A single volcanic eruption puts more carbon dixode into the
>> atmosphere than Humans since the industrial revolution.
>
> Please provide a reference for this claim.
>
>
The New Testament, Genesis, or maybe the scientists at Christian
Broadcasting Network.
Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia
news:1gui5me.1xb6eocaepbv0N%macad...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net:
Except for SUVs, Diesel buses, trucks, ships, trains...yeah, they've
banned everything, except for everything they haven't banned, moron.
David
macaddicted:
I do believe it, and I think that various scriptures show that Christ is
God. I won't give an exhaustive catalogue as they can quickly be found on
search engines, although I'll mention a few below in a moment...
How Arians did and do to this day argue against it you can see whenever
Bible Bob runs through hoops trying to justify alternative readings to
things like John Chapter 1, for instance, or where doubting Thomas calls the
risen Christ "my Lord and my God" and receives a blessing for it.
Arianism is one of a number of errors which exist when people try to force
the Bible to say what they think it should. Unfortunately what tghey think
it should is often shaped by the whispers of the devil in their ear. Had
Christ been but a creature, and not God, then the devil would have won once
he was crucified, and so even the devil managed to fool himself into
believing that. Prior to the death of Christ it was kept as a mystery that
He is God, but you can see hints of it in the OT even, even in obscure books
like Zechariah, Micah, etc.
Once he is risen, then, matters become much clearer, and Christ even talks
about baptising all nations in the NAME (not names - it's one Name, one
Hashem) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
But some people are still stuck in the previous period, and usually these
are people like the JWs who are in works religions, since a creature cannot
exactly do something as powerful as die for the sins of the whole world and
then apply that work to others by their simple faith in it.
I hope that answers your question. If not, please refine the question.
Steve Knight
>
>"AC" <mightym...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:slrnd5152h.4ed....@ministry.of.silly.walks...
>> On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 00:41:29 GMT,
>> Steve Knight <wo...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Whatever he did (if anything) is clearly overshadowed by protecting
>>> pedophiles. There is no deed that can excuse the horror he willingly
>>> sheltered.
>>
>> It's a terrible thing,
>
>materialistic atheists proclaiming a moral truth? <the irony>
Shows what little you know about atheism.
We know right from wrong without putting a label on it.
That Pope should be vilified and denounced. Instead, he gets
honored. It's your superstition. Please justify his actions if you
think he's 'a great guy'.
I know you're an idiot, so I won't lose any sleep waiting for
reply.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
Steve Knight
snip
>
>Since the likelihood of pedophilia not going extinct anytime soon, maybe the
>culture should takes NAMBLA's lead to liberalize the behavior and make it
>socially acceptable....as it once was in ancient Greece? End the stigmatism
>rather than police the behavior.....like homosexuality.
That's well thought out. While we're at it, lets make it socially
acceptable to stone the little fuckers to death. Lets have game shows
where we can see them bleed after some priest butt fuck's them.
I've seen some shit posted over the years but yours is the sickest
shit yet. To even suggest such a thing clearly marks you as a
pedophile.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
macaddicted
> macad...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net (macaddicted) wrote in
> news:1gui5me.1xb6eocaepbv0N%macad...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net:
>
> > TCS <The-Central...@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 14:27:23 -0400, Aedrian <a...@rbellsouth.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia" <ne...@newb.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:Xns962D5A85DA...@68.12.19.6...
> >> >> "David" <nuga...@pension.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:d2p2r0$lcc$0...@pita.alt.net:
> >> >>
> >> >>> By focusing on Christ, Catholics and Protestants can work
> >> >>> together to bring the Gospel to a world that is going to hell.
> >> >>
> >> >> What? They're going to work together on global warming?
> >> >>
> >> >Human endeavors have only a minute effect upon world climate.
> >> >A single volcanic eruption puts more carbon dixode into the
> >> >atmosphere than Humans since the industrial revolution.
> >>
> >> If that were true, nobody would notice the smog around cities like
> >> LA.
> >
> > SSSSHHHHH The AQMD is listening. They've already banned everything
> > else.
>
> Except for SUVs, Diesel buses, trucks, ships, trains...yeah, they've
> banned everything, except for everything they haven't banned, moron.
<whoosh>
The sound of sarcasm flying over your head. Do you really think the AQMD
is going to ban _volcanoes_?
macaddicted
Such as
Genesis 1:26 Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness (note the plural)
Proverbs 8:22 The LORD begot me, the first-born of his ways, the
forerunner of his prodigies of long ago;
John 14:28 you would rejoice that I am going to the Father; for the
Father is greater than I.
> Unfortunately what tghey think
> it should is often shaped by the whispers of the devil in their ear. Had
> Christ been but a creature, and not God, then the devil would have won once
> he was crucified, and so even the devil managed to fool himself into
> believing that. Prior to the death of Christ it was kept as a mystery that
> He is God, but you can see hints of it in the OT even, even in obscure books
> like Zechariah, Micah, etc.
>
> Once he is risen, then, matters become much clearer, and Christ even talks
> about baptising all nations in the NAME (not names - it's one Name, one
> Hashem) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Yes, but the Cappadocian theology, which is based on a melding of that
which existed in Alexandria and Antioch, came later, and only after the
divinity of Jesus had been defined.
>
> But some people are still stuck in the previous period, and usually these
> are people like the JWs who are in works religions, since a creature cannot
> exactly do something as powerful as die for the sins of the whole world and
> then apply that work to others by their simple faith in it.
>
> I hope that answers your question. If not, please refine the question.
David
Użytkownik "macaddicted" <macad...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> napisał w
wiadomości news:1guichu.sa7k1hqt724oN%macad...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net...
Yes, plural and singular at once - OUR (plural) LIKENESS (singular). I don't
have a problem with this I think it supports the trinity doctrine.
>
> Proverbs 8:22 The LORD begot me, the first-born of his ways, the
> forerunner of his prodigies of long ago;
We speak of Christ being "eternally begotten" of the Father. That is part of
the doctrine of the Trinity. Remember, everything begets after its Kind,
that is the great lesson of Creation, one still undisproven by objective
science. The Father begets the Son, and that makes Him "Very God, begotten,
not created" in the words of the famous Christmas Carol.
>
> John 14:28 you would rejoice that I am going to the Father; for the
> Father is greater than I.
There is within the triune Godhead a certain willing subordinance of the son
to the father. Read Paul in Philippians 2 v 5 - 11:
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant,
and was made in the likeness of men:
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient
unto death, even the death of the cross.
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is
above every name:
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and
[things] in earth, and [things] under the earth;
And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the
glory of God the Father.
> > Unfortunately what tghey think
> > it should is often shaped by the whispers of the devil in their ear. Had
> > Christ been but a creature, and not God, then the devil would have won
once
> > he was crucified, and so even the devil managed to fool himself into
> > believing that. Prior to the death of Christ it was kept as a mystery
that
> > He is God, but you can see hints of it in the OT even, even in obscure
books
> > like Zechariah, Micah, etc.
> >
> > Once he is risen, then, matters become much clearer, and Christ even
talks
> > about baptising all nations in the NAME (not names - it's one Name, one
> > Hashem) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
>
> Yes, but the Cappadocian theology, which is based on a melding of that
> which existed in Alexandria and Antioch, came later, and only after the
> divinity of Jesus had been defined.
>
What is your point about that, then?
Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia
news:1guibxv.7st4231vrm75rN%macad...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net:
They should ban trees--nature's the biggest polluter.
Well don't I have egg on my face...hmmm, tastes pretty good...
Scott
"Steve Knight" <wo...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:opn351pgdbmkak64g...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 16:33:40 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"AC" <mightym...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:slrnd5152h.4ed....@ministry.of.silly.walks...
>>> On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 00:41:29 GMT,
>>> Steve Knight <wo...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Whatever he did (if anything) is clearly overshadowed by protecting
>>>> pedophiles. There is no deed that can excuse the horror he willingly
>>>> sheltered.
>>>
>>> It's a terrible thing,
>>
>>materialistic atheists proclaiming a moral truth? <the irony>
>
> Shows what little you know about atheism.
>
> We know right from wrong without putting a label on it.
You do, and is that "right from wrong" universal or pan-cultural??? Just how
do you come to know such a *thing*? Do you rely upon intuition, revalation,
natural law, natural rights, subjectivism, cultural relativism? Only the
last two are compitible with materialism with the results being no actual
moral progress. What grounding can materialism's amoral nature give you to
know such a thing?
>
> That Pope should be vilified and denounced.
Is that a fact?
Instead, he gets
> honored. It's your superstition. Please justify his actions if you
> think he's 'a great guy'.
Humanism is your suberstition since materialism has no grounding for that,
either.
Scott
> On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 17:01:45 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> snip
>>
>>Since the likelihood of pedophilia not going extinct anytime soon, maybe
>>the
>>culture should takes NAMBLA's lead to liberalize the behavior and make it
>>socially acceptable....as it once was in ancient Greece? End the
>>stigmatism
>>rather than police the behavior.....like homosexuality.
>
> That's well thought out. While we're at it, lets make it socially
> acceptable to stone the little fuckers to death. Lets have game shows
> where we can see them bleed after some priest butt fuck's them.
my, my a slippery slop from a rationalist to a theist. that's a switch.
>
> I've seen some shit posted over the years but yours is the sickest
> shit yet. To even suggest such a thing clearly marks you as a
> pedophile.
Hey! I'm only feeding back to you materialistism consequences on moral
truth....ain't any of it real.
Christopher A. Lee
>
>"Steve Knight" <wo...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:opn351pgdbmkak64g...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 16:33:40 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"AC" <mightym...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:slrnd5152h.4ed....@ministry.of.silly.walks...
>>>> On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 00:41:29 GMT,
>>>> Steve Knight <wo...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Whatever he did (if anything) is clearly overshadowed by protecting
>>>>> pedophiles. There is no deed that can excuse the horror he willingly
>>>>> sheltered.
>>>>
>>>> It's a terrible thing,
>>>
>>>materialistic atheists proclaiming a moral truth? <the irony>
>>
>> Shows what little you know about atheism.
>>
>> We know right from wrong without putting a label on it.
>
>
>You do, and is that "right from wrong" universal or pan-cultural??? Just how
>do you come to know such a *thing*? Do you rely upon intuition, revalation,
>natural law, natural rights, subjectivism, cultural relativism? Only the
>last two are compitible with materialism with the results being no actual
>moral progress. What grounding can materialism's amoral nature give you to
>know such a thing?
Why do these idiots invent a philosophy of materialism that they
attribute to people outside their religion?
We know right from wrong, by the effect of our actions on others. We
don't need an imaginary alpha male to tell us what to do, like you do.
If that and the book you imagine it wrote, are the only reasons you
don't do the things you imagine we would do, then I hope you live
nowhere near my loved ones. Because I know just how fragile your
belief in it is.
>> That Pope should be vilified and denounced.
>
>Is that a fact?
He is responsible for plenty of third world deaths from AIDS, and for
poverty because of his line on family planning.
He interfered in the democratic governmental process in both the EU
and the USA. When he had no standing for either. His crap about the EU
constitution and his threats to Catholic politicians and candidates in
the US.
> Instead, he gets
>> honored. It's your superstition. Please justify his actions if you
>> think he's 'a great guy'.
>
>Humanism is your suberstition since materialism has no grounding for that,
>either.
The idiots are crawling out of the woodwork these days.
How the heck can humanism be a superstition? Hint: there is real world
evidence for people.
Secular Fundamentalist
"Scott" <sc...@nospam.net>,who intoned thus:
>
>"Steve Knight" <wo...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:opn351pgdbmkak64g...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 16:33:40 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"AC" <mightym...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:slrnd5152h.4ed....@ministry.of.silly.walks...
>>>> On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 00:41:29 GMT,
>>>> Steve Knight <wo...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Whatever he did (if anything) is clearly overshadowed by protecting
>>>>> pedophiles. There is no deed that can excuse the horror he willingly
>>>>> sheltered.
>>>>
>>>> It's a terrible thing,
>>>
>>>materialistic atheists proclaiming a moral truth? <the irony>
>>
>> Shows what little you know about atheism.
>>
>> We know right from wrong without putting a label on it.
>
>
>You do, and is that "right from wrong" universal or pan-cultural??? Just how
>do you come to know such a *thing*? Do you rely upon intuition, revalation,
>natural law, natural rights, subjectivism, cultural relativism? Only the
>last two are compitible with materialism with the results being no actual
>moral progress. What grounding can materialism's amoral nature give you to
>know such a thing?
>
that question.
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N.
aa #2208
Mistabit doesn't work in mysterious ways, people just don't pay attention.
Mark Stahl
> "Mark Stahl" <st...@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in
> news:VdmdnbpP5ux...@giganews.com:
>
>>
>> "Aedrian" <a...@rbellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:jMe4e.21832$wo1....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>>
>>> "Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia" <ne...@newb.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns962D5A85DA...@68.12.19.6...
>>>> "David" <nuga...@pension.com> wrote in news:d2p2r0$lcc$0
> @pita.alt.net:
>>>>
>>>>> By focusing on Christ, Catholics and Protestants can work together
> to
>>>>> bring the Gospel to a world that is going to hell.
>>>>
>>>> What? They're going to work together on global warming?
>>>>
>>> Human endeavors have only a minute effect upon world climate.
>>> A single volcanic eruption puts more carbon dixode into the
>>> atmosphere than Humans since the industrial revolution.
>>
>> Please provide a reference for this claim.
>>
>>
> The New Testament, Genesis, or maybe the scientists at Christian
> Broadcasting Network.
sounds about right.
macaddicted
> Użytkownik "macaddicted" <macad...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> napisa" w
Ah, yes, but you touch upon the single greatest critique the Arians had
of Nicea: that the word chosen, by the emperor no less, was not
biblical. "Homoousious" is the word used to explain that God and Christ
are of the same substance, that Christ was "begotten, not made." The
point that I am trying to make is that the word that forms the basis for
your faith and mine (though doctrinally different) is not found in the
plain text of the bible or the Arian crisis would have been solved, as
several in the past had been, by simply referring back _to_ the bible.
Both sides turned to scripture to prove their point. Actually Nicea is
probably not the best example of this. Chalcedon is somewhat better, as
shown through the Tome of Leo.
That the Arians were trying to preserve the divinity of God and the
ultimate theological solution didn't come about for over 50 years after
Nicea. When we review the positions taken by the "heretics" we must keep
in mind that for the most part they were not heretics when they were
presenting their ultimate "heresy." And that the solutions that came to
be happpened through a great deal of work and prayer.
Steve Knight
>On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 16:28:58 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Steve Knight" <wo...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>news:opn351pgdbmkak64g...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 16:33:40 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"AC" <mightym...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:slrnd5152h.4ed....@ministry.of.silly.walks...
>>>>> On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 00:41:29 GMT,
>>>>> Steve Knight <wo...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whatever he did (if anything) is clearly overshadowed by protecting
>>>>>> pedophiles. There is no deed that can excuse the horror he willingly
>>>>>> sheltered.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a terrible thing,
>>>>
>>>>materialistic atheists proclaiming a moral truth? <the irony>
>>>
>>> Shows what little you know about atheism.
>>>
>>> We know right from wrong without putting a label on it.
>>
>>
>>You do, and is that "right from wrong" universal or pan-cultural??? Just how
>>do you come to know such a *thing*? Do you rely upon intuition, revalation,
>>natural law, natural rights, subjectivism, cultural relativism? Only the
>>last two are compitible with materialism with the results being no actual
>>moral progress. What grounding can materialism's amoral nature give you to
>>know such a thing?
I have to giggle at all the intellectual 'wordsoupmasturbation' you
seem to attribute to a Magic Pixie instead the natural instinct of a
social animal.
My evolutionary genetics guides me as does social pressure. I'm not
a whore to what superstition says is right or wrong. It's more than
obvious that path is a dead end for anyone that wants to better
themselves.
You make a lot of erroneous assumption about atheists. Not all of
us are stereotyped materialists, amoral, relativistic or subjective.
By saying this, you only emphasize how pathetically little you know
about atheism.
Find your chicken, get back on the bus and get the fuck out of a.a.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
Scott
why do so many so-called materialist not comprehend philosophical
materialsim?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_vitzthum/materialism.html
"[14] An evolutionary account of the origin of moral judgment in human
beings does not tell us what (if anything) makes a specific action moral. On
a materialist view, all codes of conduct must ultimately be man-made or
socially constructed; there are no objective moral laws existing
independently of sentient beings in the way that laws of nature do. Thus
there are no objective criteria for determining if human actions are right
or wrong. The objectivity of laws of nature is clear--our approximations to
them (laws of physics) are publicly falsifiable and can be corroborated by
empirical evidence. Moreover, unlike natural laws, moral laws can be
violated. But if what we call moral laws are really man-made inventions, our
ethical rules are arbitrary and thus individuals are not obligated to follow
them. Nothing makes an action objectively moral or immoral; individual and
social codes vary because ethics, like beauty, is in the eye of the
beholder. But then there are no compelling grounds for arguing that Aztec
human sacrifice, Nazi or Serbian genocide, or infanticide is really wrong.
Core ethical rules are no doubt determined by intersubjective consensus
across cultures--for example, incest and murder are universally prohibited.
But such consensus does not demonstrate the objectivity of ethics; it merely
demonstrates that human beings or societies are largely 'built' the same way
and react similarly to certain types of behavior. Suppose we have inherited
an aversion to committing murder. That such a genetic disposition would be
widespread makes evolutionary sense. A known murderer's neighbors will fear
that the murderer might kill them. Out of mutual self-interest they would be
wise to band together and eliminate the murderer before he could eliminate
them. Since murderers would tend to be eliminated before they could
reproduce, individuals with a genetic inclination to commit murder would
tend to dwindle. But this is merely an accident of natural selection, and
trying to base morality on the fact that adhering to certain ethical norms
will make you more "fit" to stay alive and reproduce is insufficient. The
origin of behavior is irrelevant to whether a behavior is right or wrong;
what makes an individual evolutionarily 'fit' (e.g. infidelity) is not
necessarily moral. There will no doubt still be some individuals who are
genetically inclined to commit murder; but we do not conclude that the are
exempt from moral prohibitions on murder because of this. Furthermore, the
fitness of certain evolutionary traits changes when the environment changes.
Would murder suddenly become morally acceptable--even obligatory--if it
provided us a selective advantage? On a materialist account, the only
foundations for behavioral codes are preserving self-interest and satisfying
one's conscience--there are no additional 'moral facts' which motivate
behavior."
that cultural relativism is the only real compatible philosophy with it. And
just what the consiquences of that ultimately means:
http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~b-everman/victor/moral/Relativism_handout.pdf
Scott
"Secular Fundamentalist" <Peter....@answersinPotter.org> wrote in message
news:gug551dlca97jufor...@4ax.com...
Your faith is a fantasy.
I get assumed at seeing materialists make moral proclamations as though
their position were grounded in moral realism.
Christopher A. Lee
Why do so many theists imagine that atheists should be a priori
philosophical materialists?
Any materialism the might have is consequential, not philosophical.
Scott
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4jf551t0doqoonjh0...@4ax.com...
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/law/hrlc/hrnews/feb97/french.htm
Sometimes I play the devil's advocate just to see where a person's liberal,
moral comfort zone ends.
That Neatherlands link was as rational an agument as any.
David
Macaddicted:
It is obviously an interesting point that the actual doctrine of the
Trinity, the word Trinity and the terms like homoousious are not in the
plain text of scripture, but if you take the plain text of scripture you
find things that apparently contradict, such as one God on the one hand, but
Christ as God as well as the Father ebing God on the other, and how do you
reconcile these apparent contradictions?
Well, here are some of the ways in which you can deal with them:
1. Stick to the scriptures that talk of one God, and the Father as God, and
gloss over and reinterpret the ones showing Christ as God and the Holy
Spirit as God. (This gives us Arianism.)
2. have one God, in three persons, but have them in three different forms
exiting at different times, and not co-existent, and gloss over where Christ
prays to the Father (Modalism)
3. Say that as far as God is concerned, the apparent contradiction that He
is both One and Three at once is not actually a contradiction, as God is
bigger than mathematics (Trinity)
4. Say that the matter is irreconcilable, therefore we will abandon the
Bible, and maybe the Faith altogether, since they do not have integrity.
(Apostacy)
5. Say that there is not really one God, that there is one state of being a
God, but that many beings can achieve that state (Mormonism, Hinduism,
various form of polytheism)
The point about the doctrine of the Trinity is that it may not refer to the
plain text of the Bible, but it is the most God-honouring and Bible
preserving option of the 5 main ways around the inherent contradiction I
framed above that I can arrive at by logic and lateral thought.
The Trinity may rest on explanations that I cannot pull out of scripture,
but they rest on assumptions about a truly almighty God and only the Trinity
doctrine of all these doctrines can give some internally coherent response
to all the conflicting verses about the Godhead.
Arians and modalists prefer the set of verses which support their respective
views, and are uncomfortable dealing with the others. Only the Trinity
doctrine reconciles both, and therefore is a reasonable response by the
faithful to the whole witness of scripture.
I am far from sure that modalists are unsaved - they may be saved, if at
least they believe the key doctrines and know that Christ is God, but they
take a dangerous line, as they ignore numerous scriptures.
For those who think that Christ is a creature and not God, I don't
understand how they can truly put their trust in Him to have entirely borne
the sins of the world. That's why again and again where you get a form of
Arianism, you get a very works-based religion. Watchtower in my view is the
prime example.
Pleasant talking with you.
Steve Knight
>On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 14:41:59 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Steve Knight" <wo...@sonic.net> wrote in message
snip
>>> You make a lot of erroneous assumption about atheists. Not all of
>>> us are stereotyped materialists, amoral, relativistic or subjective.
>>> By saying this, you only emphasize how pathetically little you know
>>> about atheism.
>>>
>>> Find your chicken, get back on the bus and get the fuck out of a.a.
>>
>>why do so many so-called materialist not comprehend philosophical
>>materialsim?
Why do all the superstitious have the uncontrollable seizure to
label something they can't understand?
As usual, your theist mind is trying to fly a kite in a cave.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
Scott
My "theist" position has nothing to do with any of this argument. I never
brought in the "G" word. Wasn't it you who did?
Morality is either real or it isn't. That is, it is either moral realism or
moral anti-realism. <period> All moral philosophies flows from one or the
other's foundation. No god need be invoked, The first, realism, assumes
there is some objective moral principle that is independent of societies by
which all culture's morality is weighted (call it judged to IFW). MR assumes
a Natural Law, Natural Rights, Human Rights (a rose by any other name...), a
dignity inherent to humanity with individuals entitled to Rights. Since
objective moral principles - moral realism - has no evidential support in
nature, materialism rejects all notions as being the stuff of metaphysics -
a myth - irrespective of whether you do or not.
Naturalism/materialism is not only a-theistic it is equally a-moral.
Morality in this world view is *relative* to whatever the rules a culture
sets for itself in human interaction as being right from wrong; One
(sub-)culture's virtue can be another's vice. There'd be "6. No way to
resolve intercultural moral conflicts: two cultures that disagreed over a
moral issue could not reasonably resolve their conflict because there would
be no culturally independent standard by which disputes would be settled.
Both cultures would simply be right." -
http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~b-everman/victor/moral/Relativism_handout.pdf The
best you can do is say you know right within your culture. How is that not
ultimately arbitrary? Just make sure you rationalize whatever moral position
you take so you can convince yourself that your position is reasonable. BTW
that is something both you and AC did not do when I confronted you with
http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/sbn90.htm . Neither of you made any
attempt to refute their argument. Instead, you attacked me! I had a hunch
that I could find a limit to your progressive high mindedness. thanks for
playing.
I see it so regularly...a materialist will say morality is relativism but go
on to argue as though moral truth (objectivism) is a real *thing*. You guys
seem to confuse Absolutism with Objectivism and Objectivism with Relativism.
When you say something like "I don't need a god (bully for you) to know
right from wrong" or that "pedophilia is a terrible *thing*". I never said
you did need a god, and I have never made such as assertion. You do,
however, need some metaphysical grounding to profess such a "thing" as being
fact.....something for which materialism inherently rejects. That
metaphysical grounding seems to be your Liberalism. You guys rely on
Liberalism to inform you, to direct you, to *progress* your moral sense to
the correct morality (to the truer/real/better right from wrong). Isn't that
why so many so-called liberal materialists post into religious ngs? They are
trying to correct the moral sense of those misguided theists - to *convert*
them. (You, yourself, are trying to flying your own kite in a cave.) From
the POV of materialism, that is flagrantly inconsistent since materialism
rejects all notions of moral progress as it also does with IDer directed
evolution. Both cultures, in this case so-called progressive materialists
and conservative theists, "morality is simply right".
AC
Scott <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
<snip>
Being that we are social animals, this certainly seems adequate to explain
the need for moral conduct. Do you also take the same position on
chimpanzee tribes?
Secular Fundamentalist
Scott
"Secular Fundamentalist" <Peter....@answersinPotter.org> wrote in message
An observation based on a non-entity from the POV of materialism. You're
into fantasy.
Scott
which society of human social conduct? Pre-civil war America? Communist
Russia? Islamic states? Nazi Germany? Ancient Greece with its "Greek love"?
The Netherlands with its progressive tolerance (sexual tolerance for which
you have demonstrated won't go)? Or the one that imbues you with your moral
sense? Which society created by these social animals has the better
morality? What objective evidence in your materialism do you have that'd
allow you to make any objective principled assessment? You have nothing. You
are welcome to refute that Netherlands's link, using whatever empirical
evidence you can come up with, that it's the social stigmatism of pedophilia
that causes the actual harm and not the act. And that de-stigmatizing the
behavior would be beneficial to easing the psychological guilt caused by
that stigma. <hmmm> I wonder if you'd think it were a terrible thing for a
15-16 year old heterosexual male to seek out and willing consent to the
opportunity to have sex with a hot 25 year old super model? What if it were
a homosexual male seeking the same from a hot 25 gay model? What would be
the difference since they are both simply exploring their own sexuality?
Should these 15-16 year olds have a right to privacy from their parent's
knowing? Or are they not mature enough to make their own decision on such a
matter? What about a teen's maturity to getting an abortion without parental
knowledge/consent? Planed Parenthood's agenda has succeeded in some states
old as a teen's right....but in those same states a dentist can't pull that
same teen's tooth or do cosmetic work with parental consent. It's all
arbitrary...isn't it? Just make sure you rationalize your position to
convience yourself that your position is *reasonable*....is based in some
moral realism.
AC
Let's just say this. If you want to get it on with a 25 year old gay model,
I won't try to stop you, or even call you evil. I probably won't care
enough to even remember tomorrow.
Steve Knight
>
>"Steve Knight" <wo...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> As usual, your theist mind is trying to fly a kite in a cave.
>
>My "theist" position has nothing to do with any of this argument. I never
>brought in the "G" word. Wasn't it you who did?
>
>Morality is either real or it isn't. That is, it is either moral realism or
>moral anti-realism. <period>ed progressive materialists
>and conservative theists, "morality is simply right".
>
snip snip snip
What is this fetish you have about labeling natural instinct and
societal mores?
Of course societies are different. So why take some higher than
mighty ethnocentric position comparing societies to prove a worthless
point?
Nothing is relativism or subjective. Humans are hard wired to
follow instinctual behavior coupled with environmental pressure.
That's us.
BTW, this is Usenet and I'm not going to wade through 80 lines of
word soup trying to figure out what you're wanking about.
Thank YOU for playing.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
Scott
I have no interest in homosexuality. I can't even grasp the behavior,
empathetically, of either homosexuality or pedophilia. But that's beside the
point.
How about if I be a little more forthcoming with you, AC? You can relate to
a person taking an atheistic position and demanding evidence from a theists
for his god that'd compatible with your materialism.
If you haven't notice.....I have take NO moral position in this argument! My
position has been that of an a-moralist. What I'm doing is asking you
so-called materialists to give me your evidence that your moral position is
the morally *righteous* (the right-minded, the wiser) one compatible with
materialism. So far you have failed to do so. Is it your experiences that
informs you of wise position? Your intuition? *Your* morally *progressive*
society? What?
On the one hand, you guys say there is no moral Truth but then
inconsistently go on to take a moral stand on issues as though you have a
closer grasp to that truth,....as though Moral Objectivism (not to be
confused with Absolutism) is the nature of morality. You guys are frauds or
ignorant. Humanistic materialists are oxymorons IMO since Humanism assume an
objective morality while materialism rejects that objectivity. If there is
no such thing as moral truth and I've taken an amoral position why have you
guys gotten your panties in a wad?
Scott
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:40:51 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Steve Knight" <wo...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>
>>> As usual, your theist mind is trying to fly a kite in a cave.
>>
>>My "theist" position has nothing to do with any of this argument. I never
>>brought in the "G" word. Wasn't it you who did?
>>
>>Morality is either real or it isn't. That is, it is either moral realism
>>or
>>moral anti-realism. <period>ed progressive materialists
>>and conservative theists, "morality is simply right".
>>
> snip snip snip
>
> What is this fetish you have about labeling natural instinct and
> societal mores?
I'd have to have taken a moral stand. I haven't.
>
> Of course societies are different. So why take some higher than
> mighty ethnocentric position comparing societies to prove a worthless
> point?
YOU TELL ME? I haven't but you damn sure did, and that's what prompted me to
respond in the first place.
>
> Nothing is relativism or subjective. Humans are hard wired to
> follow instinctual behavior coupled with environmental pressure.
>
> That's us.
What is "us"? Is some of the *us* pedophials? Is pedophial natural
(controlled by, what?, their genes), not unlike homosexuality?
>
> BTW, this is Usenet and I'm not going to wade through 80 lines of
> word soup trying to figure out what you're wanking about.
>
> Thank YOU for playing.
Oh it's been fun.
got to go though
Scott