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
Fred
> 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.
That is rich. How many Christians in the world today have ever really even
read the source? How many do you think? Reading the bible in translation is
fairly worthless, and does not count as going to the source, but only to a
couple of BIG steps removed from the source.
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?
Fred
> > 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.
What is wrong with you? Why can't you just completely suspend your thinking
and accept their dogma at face value? This guy obviously agrees with the
pope that society reached perfection 2,000 years ago, and nothing cultural
should change this purity. Things like child abuse are a small price to pay,
and is a forgivable offense, for the wonderful benefit of prventing people
from thinking on their own, as some posters here have shown their ability to
abstain from.
TomS
<RsedneIEYp6...@comcast.com>, Fred stated..."
IMHO, this thing about "going back to the Source" is nothing
more than an example of narrowness of vision, as if one own's
particular variety of Christianity is supposed to be normative
for everyone.
I have no problem if a person says that this is their version
of something-or-other, but I do have a problem when the person
doesn't see that it is only their version. (It's like when some
Americans complain that everybody else in the world should agree
with the American point of view.)
I'm not going to argue the point of whether that "going back
to the Source" is the correct view. But I do have to point out
that other people have other views, and they are, from an
objective point of view, just as valid. For example, a person
*might* find that identifying a physical object, such as the
Bible, as "the Source" to be verging upon idolatry. Others
*might* say that "the Source" is the Savior.
It would be just as valid for a die-hard Roman Catholic
to say something like, "every Protestant and eastern Christian
should recognize the Pope as the designated respresentative of
Christ". How would you like that?
I'd like to stress that this post is *not* about a
religious point of view.
It is about having a bit of perspective, that maybe others
don't look at things the same way that you do.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It being as impossible that the Organized Body of a Chicken should by the Power
of any Mechanical Motions be formed out of the unorganized Matter of an Egg; as
that the Sun, Moon and Stars, should by mere Mechanism arise out of a Chaos."
Samuel Clarke (1675-1729) Second Defense...Immortality of the Soul
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.
Marc Carter
>
> 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.
Partly, for Luther. Partly it was about getting a divorce for Henry VIII
so he could have a male heir.
Also about that "source": Not to put too fine a point on it, but when I
was a child, well after the Reformation, reading the bible was pretty much
discouraged; when my mother was a child, they were pretty much forbidden
from reading it except in the presence of a priest.
Thing was, the bible was meant to be *interpreted*. Reading it in
ignorance, without an understanding of how God was revealed in it was
considered dangerous. It's too easy to read it and get confused, and
come away believing all manner of silliness.
Catholic teaching on this core issue has not changed. The bible still
requires interpretation.
[snipperolio]
>> 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.
I'd argue against this and suggest that it wasn't divergence from the
scriptures _per se_, but rather divergence from the spirit of the gospels
and descent into corruption.
The ills that befell (and continue to plague) the Church are, to my
thinking, largely the result of the corrupting influence of power. And it
isn't unique among religions to Catholicism: think Baker, Swaggart, and so
on.
Something that most people don't stop to think about: in the middle ages,
the Church was very close to being the supreme power, secular as well as
religious. As such, it presents history with all the examples of abuse of
power that one sees, oh, gee, say, *now* in secular governments such as
our own. Secrecy, greed, malfeasance, deceit, and the whimsical
application of authority. One must never forget that the Church is an
institution of *humans*.
> 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 do still, however, condemn people to everlasting hellfire. Bummer,
that.
But about reading the bible as a Catholic now: sure, bible
reading is encouraged rather than discouraged. But
there is a very old, long and solid body of interpretation behind the
bible, Catholic dogma, which interprets scripture and presents other
revealed truths that stand apart from scripture. In no wise does the
Catholic church even remotely propose that the bible is an inerrant
document. It is divinely *inspired*, but written by men.
>
> All I ask is to keep going in the right direction.
I guess I'd be curious about what "right" means, here. There are several
Catholic sects that have decided that mass in the vernacular and almost
anything consequent on Vatican II is heretical. What this pope has done
is move the Church in a very conservative direction, which many people
find reassuring in times of tribulation. But that is not to say that his
"reforms" are particularly welcome among (at least American) Catholics.
I would argue, and I think others might find this reasonable, that this
pope has set the Church back 30 years. It once again finds itself beset
by the world (in the late 60's and 70's there was an openness and emphasis
on _vox populi, vox dei_ that has been completely squashed), and is
reacting to that.
Historically, there has always been a tension between progressive and
conservative elements in the Church. Pretty much since this pope got
started, all I've seen is a reluctance to look forward, to listen to
people, to move the church in a direction that makes it relevant for
today. And so we see Catholics leaving, no priests, and those that do
choose the life are all under automatic suspicion. The pope dealt very
poorly with the sexual abuse scandal. Very poorly indeed.
And for all his talk about "life," I don't know if John Paul's tenure has
been a net gain for the Church or for the cause of peace and justice at
all. Perhaps viewed through a very conservative lense, but I would like
to know what my old Jesuit brothers think about it. My sense is that
they're hoping the next pope is more progressive, and more faithful to the
teachings of Jesus about things that matter, like oppression of the poor,
and will not shirk from pushing that as the *real* Christian cause.
But, we shall see.
m
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?
Marc Carter
>
> 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.
Partly, for Luther. Partly it was about getting a divorce for Henry VIII
so he could have a male heir.
[snipperolio]
>> 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.
I'd argue against this and suggest that it wasn't divergence from the
scriptures _per se_, but rather divergence from the spirit of the gospels
and descent into corruption.
The ills that befell (and continue to plague) the Church are, to my
thinking, largely the result of the corrupting influence of power. And it
isn't unique among religions to Catholicism: think Baker, Swaggart, and so
on.
Something that most people don't stop to think about: in the middle ages,
the Church was very close to being the supreme power, secular as well as
religious. As such, it presents history with all the examples of abuse of
power that one sees, oh, gee, say, *now* in secular governments such as
our own. Secrecy, greed, malfeasance, deceit, and the whimsical
application of authority. One must never forget that the Church is an
institution of *humans*.
> 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 do still, however, condemn people to everlasting hellfire. Bummer,
that.
Also about that "source": Not to put too fine a point on it, but when I
was a child, well after the Reformation, reading the bible was pretty much
discouraged; when my mother was a child, they were pretty much forbidden
from reading it except in the presence of a priest.
Thing was, the bible was meant to be *interpreted*. Reading it in
ignorance, without an understanding of how God was revealed in it was
considered dangerous. It's too easy to read it and get confused, and
come away believing all manner of silliness.
Catholic teaching on this core issue has not changed. The bible still
requires interpretation. There is a very old, long and solid body of interpretation behind the
bible, Catholic dogma, which interprets scripture and presents other
revealed truths that stand apart from scripture. In no wise does the
Catholic church even remotely propose that the bible is an inerrant
document. It is divinely *inspired*, but written by men. Still.
>
> All I ask is to keep going in the right direction.
I guess I'd be curious about what "right" means, here. There are several
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.
Fred
> 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.
So, mankind achieved perfection in understanding god's view 2,000 years ago,
and that perfection, poorly translated into lots of languages, somehow
reflects that view?
Fred
news:d2p9t...@drn.newsguy.com...
> "On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 09:51:22 -0700, in article
Excellent post.
Marc Carter
> 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 need to read some Augustine.
Matt Zellman
Amen, Amen, Amen, and Amen...
Secular Fundamentalist
"David" <nuga...@pension.com>,who intoned thus:
>As a Reformed Protestant, obviously I would prefer that the unbiblical
>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.
>
>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 ordination of women, the acceptance of homosexuality, acceptanc eof
>abortion, and numerous other ills that previous pontiffs had not resisted so
>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.
>
>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
>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.
>
>Christ underlined how much unity Catholics and Protestants can achieve when
>sacerdotalisms and politics - even perfectly valid political points as most
>that make Catholics and Protestants different, then things will continue as
>ever they did.
>
>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.
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.
VoiceOfReason
Terrific post, Tom. You hit the nail right on the head.
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
Fred
news:slrnd5152h.4ed....@ministry.of.silly.walks...
> It's a terrible thing, but not something you can say is a Catholic
problem.
OK.
> 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.
While I do not want to single out the Vatican alone, as you say, there is
still absolutely no valid excuse. Any orgranization that tells a billion
people to follow their way or go to hell cannot, in my opinion, hide behind
your statement. They encourage this type of behavior, as they have for
centuries, by their strict rules that are against human nature, they tell
peope to dogmatically listen to their priests, they then shelter their
priests when caught in this behavior. To me, this is complete moral
bankruptcy. If you engaged in this type of behavior, I would be quicker to
forgive you, as you don't, to the best of my knowledge, tell large numbers
of people that to question you is to be headed to eternal hell.
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
> "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.
It isn't my real name, anyway.
--
"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:
>
> > "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
> 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>
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
Walter Bushell
Marc Carter <marcMUN...@speakMUNGEeasy.net> wrote:
<snip>
> Thing was, the bible was meant to be *interpreted*. Reading it in
> ignorance, without an understanding of how God was revealed in it was
> considered dangerous. It's too easy to read it and get confused, and
> come away believing all manner of silliness.
<snip>
True. As the googleplex +1 Protestant sect prove, with a dozen or so
more or less reasonable ones.
Wether the Roman Church's interpretation was more or less sound than J.
Random Believe, is an exercise left to the student.
In any event what you get out of the Bible is determined by what you put
in, and it is my opinion that the return is usually less than the input.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
Walter Bushell
"Fred" <he...@there.com> wrote:
> "Ike" <accord...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:fLU3e.1653
>
> > > 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.
>
> What is wrong with you? Why can't you just completely suspend your thinking
> and accept their dogma at face value? This guy obviously agrees with the
> pope that society reached perfection 2,000 years ago, and nothing cultural
> should change this purity. Things like child abuse are a small price to pay,
> and is a forgivable offense, for the wonderful benefit of prventing people
> from thinking on their own, as some posters here have shown their ability to
> abstain from.
Thinking on one's own is the definition of heresy.
Walter Bushell
"Fred" <he...@there.com> wrote:
> "David" <nuga...@pension.com> wrote in message
> news:d2p5uj$r9b$0...@pita.alt.net...
>
> > I would like both Protestants and Catholics, and the Eastern Church also,
> to
> > keep going back to the Source, and that source is the Bible. Only the
> > original written source is an objective benchmark of what the Church was
> > supposed to look like and what her mission is.
>
> That is rich. How many Christians in the world today have ever really even
> read the source? How many do you think? Reading the bible in translation is
> fairly worthless, and does not count as going to the source, but only to a
> couple of BIG steps removed from the source.
Ok, you learn Hebrew and Greek, and then the cultural background of the
various eras, then how good is your understanding compared to a team of
scholars who can spend professional amounts of time on the details of
same?
macaddicted
> macad...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net (macaddicted) wrote in
> news:1gui5me.1xb6eocaepbv0N%macad...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net:
>
> > TCS <The-Central...@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 14:27:23 -0400, Aedrian <a...@rbellsouth.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia" <ne...@newb.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:Xns962D5A85DA...@68.12.19.6...
> >> >> "David" <nuga...@pension.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:d2p2r0$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.
macaddicted
What we are always taught is that any translation will carry with it
some of the bias of the translator, no matter how true the translation
is to the original text. As an example the New Jerusalem Bible is good
at showing themes, but poor at literal translation. The New American
Bible (or alternately the New Revised Standard) remain closer to the
original text but are less readable and it is sometimes more difficult
to catch the underlying themes. Whenever I do work based on biblical
texts for coursework (and often when I post references here) I will
refer to two or three translations to see if there are any differences.
It is in the differences that a lot can be learned.
John S. Wilkins
Incidentally, Cambridge UP has just published a new book on the KJV,
showing how it was modified between 1611 and 1769 (our present "edition":
http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521771005
Walter Bushell
macad...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net (macaddicted) wrote:
Exactly, one needs several translations, just as one needs several flat
maps of the world due to the limitation of a plane to represent a
sphere.
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.
It's a Miracle
"Martian Chronicles" and the turtle aliens on "The Lathe of Heaven". The
next pope will slide across mars on sand ships with cheap FX and start a
church on mars. Wonder where I can find some of those hats they might
work for mardi gras also. There is a party store near me but no pope
hats.
--
My kaleidoscope art webpage:
http://community-2.webtv.net/Amused_2_Death_/Kaleidoscope/
Keep spam illegitimate, Report spam to:
http://spamcop.net/