Re: the new Bush ad : I don't see any morphing...
- Original Message - From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 10:28 PM Subject: Re: the new Bush ad : I don't see any morphing... > Dan wrote: > > > > Have you looked in the papers to see where the movie is playing in Bush > > states? I have, but then again I live in one. It didn't play in the > > Woodlands, but it did play in multi-plexes well into Bush country around > > Houston...not just the Third Ward. :-) > > It was playing in every real town I visited in Alaska; Sitka, Juneau and > Haines. I have to admit an error in my reporting. It is now playing in the Woodlands. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
Damon Agretto wrote: Nope. Ultimately the split in the churches were over other points of doctrine, but chiefly it was over who had primacy within the church; The Pope in Rome (whose claim was that he was a direct descendent from Paul, empowered from his original office as one of the Apostles), or the Patriarch of Constantinople (whose claim was that he was the patriarch of the greatest city in Christiandom, as well as, perhaps, serving under the reign of an Emperor that can trace his lineage or succession of authority from the original Roman emperors). Do you know where the Armenians fit into this? They were the first Christian country, long before the first Nicaean council, and had an established faith (with translated bibles etc) by 381 when the Nicene creed was finalised. They didn't split from the other churches until 451, which would imply their bishops should have been following one of the authorities you mentioned. I'm curious how it came down to just 2 possibilities for "God's representative on earth". Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: the new Bush ad : I don't see any morphing...
Dan wrote: Have you looked in the papers to see where the movie is playing in Bush states? I have, but then again I live in one. It didn't play in the Woodlands, but it did play in multi-plexes well into Bush country around Houston...not just the Third Ward. :-) It was playing in every real town I visited in Alaska; Sitka, Juneau and Haines. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
Damon Agretto wrote: What I mean by "follow your own voice" is to define for yourself what it means to be faithful and Christian. Obviously to be a Christian you would have to be a follower of the teachings and philosophy of Jesus. Alberto Monteiro responded: No, I think that's not enough, otherwise Muslims - who claim to follow the teachings and philosophy of Jesus, the penultimate Prophet - would be Christians. Don't the Muslims reject the concept of Jesus as the Son of God, also rejecting the crucifixion, the resurrection, etc. It's quite different to, frex, the Mormons who accept all that but also follow the teachings of a subsequent prophet. The Mormons, worshipping Jesus as the resurrected and ascended Son of God, remain Christians, but Moslems aren't. Well, that's my understanding of it... Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Horses
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 15:55:53 -0700 (PDT), Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > That other grazing animals have this same type of > color vision (assuming the first site cited above is > correct) would certainly point to an evolutionary > advantage -- after all, how else to describe the great > green-grey Limpopo River (IIRC)?. ;) You forgot "greasy". :) It was greasy. Great green grey greasy Limpopo River, all set about with fever trees. IIRC. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Spiritual development
Whoops - Original Message - From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 12:56 PM Subject: Spiritual development > was strong agreement on faith/works; and it was a "saved once saved forever ^^^ not > church." This was reflected by how well her grandfather and my uncle got > along. Indeed, the faith traditions of our families were very similar. > ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Spiritual development
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 16:34:56 -0700 (PDT), kerry miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I never intended to give a testimonial, but I guess I got myself into > > it, so here goes. > > Thank you for taking the time and care to write this. :) Yes, thanks Dan! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brothers of the Night Music.
In a message dated 8/9/2004 5:10:34 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here I had saved this post for a laugh, only to find a poetic comment on my last post's theme... Debbi More Weird List Synchronicity Maru My niece is too old to throw into the sink anymore. Vilyehm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
-- From: Horn, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you! (I presume you meant "immersion.") > > Now for the big question: are they Christians? They certainly don't consider themselves Christian or at least don't call themselves that. If you are referring to JW's here you are quite mistaken. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Spiritual development
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 04:39:12PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: > > William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Sounds like you've got a long hard path to atheism. Good luck. > > Sometimes you're really annoying, you know? It IS annoying when someone is continually right in pointing out one's foibles, isn't it? I'm actually surprised that Dan escaped the indoctrination he described with as little brainwashing as he has. Still, I think WTG is exactly right, the path forward is long and hard, and I would add, probably impossible. But it could have been much worse. Religion frequently does much worse. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Scouted: On the 59th anniversary...
...of the bombing of Nagasaki... http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=1&id=308131 or http://makeashorterlink.com/?V20E41209 Tuesday, August 10, 2004 at 07:12 JST "TSUGURA Four workers were killed and seven others severely burned by a leak of super-heated non-radioactive steam at Mihama nuclear power plant in Fukui Prefecture on Monday, in the latest blow to the country's troubled nuclear industry. "No radioactive leak took place, according to the government's Nuclear and Industry Safety Agency and Kansai Electric Power Co, the owner of the plant. Doctors at a hospital in the Fukui city of Tsuruga said they did not know what caused the deaths of the four. Witnesses at the plant said the victims had severe burns with their skin and clothes on fire... "...Fukui prefectural police said they are investigating the incident as a case of professional negligence resulting in injury and death. They said they set up an investigation headquarters at Tsuruga Police Station and assigned 110 investigators to the case. "The latest incident is expected to deal a serious blow to the nuclear industry in Japan, which depends on nuclear power to supply 40% of its electricity. It is also expected to further heighten public distrust of the country's nuclear industry, which is reeling from past accidents and scandals, such as cover-ups by utility companies of safety violations at their reactors... "...no evacuation order was issued to residents nearby, unlike Japan's worst nuclear accident on Sept 30, 1999, at a uranium processing plant in Tokaimura, Ibaraki Prefecture, where two employees died from exposure to extremely high doses of radiation, and 663 others were injured from lower amounts of radiation. In the 1999 nuclear disaster, about 310,000 residents living within a 10-kilometer radius from the plant were ordered to stay indoors while evacuation orders were issued to residents within a 350-meter radius from the plant..." Article much longer; some interesting comments posted as well. Debbi Bit In Her Teeth Now Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brothers of the Night Music.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Brothers of the Night are prophesizing > Saying they are right > All else despising 'less they change their ways > Before they kill them dead. > > Something that they say was so convincing > Something in their smile makes you stop flinching. > Something in their arms > Pointed straight at your head. > > Brothers of the Night, the True Path seeking Here I had saved this post for a laugh, only to find a poetic comment on my last post's theme... Debbi More Weird List Synchronicity Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
> JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyhow, I don't think that anyone here seriously > intends to argue that the > killing of combatants is an objective moral evil. > Indeed, the concept of > a "just war" requires that the killing of > combatants, in at least some > circumstances, not be evil at all - but in fact be > "just." There is no _just_ war. Only war to prevent worse evil from occurring, a "necessary war." It is a lesser evil to avert the greater. > As for the killing of non-combatants, participants > in a "just war" are not > supposed to intend to kill combatants. Such > killing is unavoidable, of > course, but that's life. Nevertheless, there is no > intent to *murder* there. Well, for those innocent non-combatants killed, that's *not* life, that's _death_. For those not killed, there's mutilation, loss of home, loss of loved ones... > In reality, all the Catholic Church is saying here > is the simple moral > precept that "the ends do not justify the means." Please explain, then, how any war can be "just," since it is inevitable that innocents will be killed, maimed and left bereft by those means: bombs, landmines, mortars, machinegun fire, etc. etc. etc. Deborah Harrell __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Spiritual development
> William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sounds like you've got a long hard path to atheism. > Good luck. Sometimes you're really annoying, you know? Good luck on the long path to respectful tolerance. Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Spiritual development
--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I never intended to give a testimonial, but I guess I got myself into > it, so here goes. Thank you for taking the time and care to write this. :) __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3 ] Re: Jesus-anity and the status of women
> Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > A quick answer focusing on one point. > > Then what do you make of the 1 Timothy > > verses above? Was he having a bad day? > Seriously, it is well established among serious > scholars that Paul didn't > write Timothy. It was written by one of his > followers in his name > So, what do we have for practice by the new > followers of "The Way"? We > have both acceptance of women as legitemate leaders > and the statements that > they must not lead. We can reasonably conclude that > there was a variety of > opinions and practices in the early church > documented in the New Testiment. > Thus, it seems reasonable for us to reapply basic > principals of scripture > to discern what God is calling us to do now. The > statement that Paul > highlights as fundamental, by his choice of words, > guides me to understand > that women are called to be pastors. I agree with your conclusion WRT ordination, natch. :) > Another interesting point is that we see the > acceptance of more sociatal > norms as the church develops in time. Given that > Paul clearly acknowledged > leadership roles for women, and that the > understanding of later times in > scripture is mixed, and the understanding developed > after the writing of > scripture was less favorable to women; it makes > sense to argue that the > regulation of women to a secondary roll was not in > response to fundamental > principals preserved from the beginning, but a well > documented retreat from radical principals. Had Jesus truly been used as the role model, things might have been quite different in the ensuing centuries - for women, blacks, and others. Why some must set themselves higher by denigrating the rest is beyond me -- oh, it's part of our own 'pecking order' drive to dominate, I acknowledge, but - speaking as one who views herself as an alpha in many respects - it costs little to allow others their own views...and that tolerance pays off _big time_ when, as is inevitable, at least some of "their" views turn out to have merit! Then there are the incontrovertible lessons that it takes a team, every one of whom is necessary to accomplish the task well, for many endeavors. Without the proper work of stage and lighting crew, a prima donna will fall flat on her face, in the dark. ':) Debbi Arrogantly Humble Maru;) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Birds, was Horses
> Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have read that an owl's eyes are around 100 times > as sensitive to light > as the average human's (a cat's are 6 times as > sensitive), so I made up a > series of charts of the area around the > constellation Orion showing what it > would look like to each of those (based only on the > sensitivity) Since I > can't reproduce them here, let me just say that > while there are about 6,000 > stars over the entire celestial sphere which are > visible to the average > human, with a cat's sensitivity it could see over > 40,000 stars, and an owl > should be able to see in excess of 1 million stars. Wow! That would make the night sky spectacular! And just think of all the cool new constellations you'd get to name if you could see them... Debbi Running Mouse, Mouse Frozen In Fear, My Shadow Descends... Maru ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Horses
> "Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > Horses actually do have color vision: they see
> >blue and yellow (and grey).
> That is very interesting. Keith should be able to
> tell us what the evolutionary advantages are.
I couldn't find the nicely detailed article from
before (had lots of charts and graphics), but this one
reports "research [as of 1999] on color vision in farm
animals shows that they are dichromats with cones
(color sensitive retina cells) most sensitive to
yellowish-green (552-555 nm) and blue purple light
(444-445 nm)..."
http://www.grandin.com/references/new.corral.html
It also notes that pigs and cows have ~300 degree
field-of vision, so I wasn't that off when I said
horses have ~that. There is a diagram showing a cow's
blind spot behind (they apparently don't have one in
front, unlike horses), in a discussion of 'flight
zones.'
However, I did find a site that says horses have
red-green vision, so perhaps we don't know as much as
we think we do -- although they mention something
about their method of testing for red/green
discrimination as "estimated indirectly using the
flicker photometric electroretinogram (ERG)," which
could skew results.
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/153/2/919
> In a `just so story' mode, I can tell you that
> yellow the color of the
> direct sun and therefore useful for determining
> whether you are in
> shade or not. Blue predominates in shade.
>
> Moreover, I presume that blue in association with
> yellow enables you,
> as a horse, to distingish among different shades of
> green and
> therefore among different qualities of grass. Both
> sensor capabilities would cause those horses, or
> proto-horses, that possessed
> yellow/blue vision to reproduce better than those
> which lacked them.
Horses can definitely recognize a patch of their
favorite grass from a distance of at least 20 yards -
I can see a color difference (type of blue fescue), so
I'd guess that they can too, although it could smell
different as well.
> Is there any evidence that this `just so story' is
> true? What are the alternative possibilities?
That other grazing animals have this same type of
color vision (assuming the first site cited above is
correct) would certainly point to an evolutionary
advantage -- after all, how else to describe the great
green-grey Limpopo River (IIRC)?. ;)
This speaks about predator vs. prey animals' reactions
to novel or moving things:
"...In research on the brain, theyve shown that the
emotion center is hooked up in such a way that rapid
movement can still activate a fear response in a prey
species animal. What does it make a predator do? It
makes a dog chase. They do just the opposite. This
little dog here (on the slide), she chased anything
that moves. And the horses, they are going to want to
move away from things that move rapidly, unless they
get habituated. Its possible to habituate a horse to
specific things they havent seen before that moves
rapidly. That is much more likely to spook them than
something that makes a steady movement like this that
doesnt tend to activate the nervous system..."
http://www.horsemensvoice.com/grandin/
And I'll add that while horses are poor at generalized
thinking ("My dark fuzzy blanket isn't scary. This
shiny crinkley thing...is a blanket. So it is not
scary." Actual reaction: "This Thing Has Trapped
Parts Of Horses! (reflections) Run for Your
Life"), they are able to do a limited amount of
it, if they have been carefully exposed to many new
situations. Really scary or painful things/situations
can unfortunately be generalized very quickly
(trailers, people in white lab coats, and so forth).
Debbi
Furry Happy Monsters Feeling Glad Maru ;)
__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Horses
Nick wrote: "I certainly observed this in a small herd of wild mustangs near Virginia City, NV a few weeks ago. The stallion stayed higher than the rest, keeping an eye on everything. And as we approached them, we kept a close eye on him! I've almost been kicked and never want to experience it." The one time I was privileged to see a wild horse herd (near Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota), even though I was nearly a quarter-mile away, the stallion stepped between the mares&foals and myself. While all the adults watched me, even across that distance his body stance cried "I am guardian! Come too close and I will challenge you!" Magnificent. It was a decent-sized herd, about 8 mares and 5 foals standing (it would be easy to miss any lying down in the scrub); lots of different colors from the stallion's dark bay through various duns, greys and a pinto. Even though it was April (i.e. spring grass only just up), they looked in good condition, with shiny coats and no protruding hipbones that I could see. If I'd known that child's tune, I'd've had to hum it... :) And being kicked in the back is quite painful: trust me, when 4 o' your ribs is cracked, you ain't gonna be chasin' no hosses! (That was a domestic horse, BTW.) Debbi All The Pretty Horses Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
- Original Message - From: "Ronn!Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 11:16 PM Subject: Re: Objective Evil > At 10:44 PM 8/8/04, Dan Minette wrote: > > >- Original Message - > >From: "Ronn!Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 8:25 PM > >Subject: Re: Objective Evil > > > >...snip > > > >There is also the Eastern Orthadox, which split earlier. Protestant > >usually refers to those Christian churches that split from Rome from Luther > >and Henry VIII on. > > > > So am I correct in interpreting that as saying that all Christians are > either Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox? > > > > > > (I am not attempting to provoke argument or sound stupid here, but simply > > > to rigorously clarify what you are actually saying before making any > > > comments.) > > > > I'm still looking for a rigorous definition of the term "Christian" as it > is being used in this discussion, i.e., a definition such that, if person > "A" matches all parts of the definition, he or she is a "Christian" for > purposes of this discussion, whereas if person "B" fails to match any part > of the definition, he or she is a "non-Christian". > > > > >...snip... > > > >One could become a member of the Presbyterian church by publicly declaring > >faith in Jesus. > > > > So one does not need to be baptized or sprinkled in order to become a > Presbyterian? Presbyterians accept baptisms by other Christian denominations as valid, as do Catholics. There might be some borderline denominations that are not given the benefit of the doubt, but I don't know of any. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Objective Evil
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you! (I presume you meant "immersion.") > > Now for the big question: are they Christians? They certainly don't consider themselves Christian or at least don't call themselves that. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
Ronn said: > So am I correct in interpreting that as saying that all Christians > are either Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox? Nestorians are Christians but not a subset of any of the above, aren't they? There are 170,000 or so of them, so they aren't negligible. Rich GCU Two Natures In One Person (Or Something Like That) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
Damon Agretto wrote: > > What I mean by "follow your own voice" is to define > for yourself what it means to be faithful and > Christian. Obviously to be a Christian you would have > to be a follower of the teachings and philosophy of > Jesus. > No, I think that's not enough, otherwise Muslims - who claim to follow the teachings and philosophy of Jesus, the penultimate Prophet - would be Christians. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
Ronn Blankenship wrote: > > I'm still looking for a rigorous definition of the term "Christian" as it > is being used in this discussion, i.e., a definition such that, if person > "A" matches all parts of the definition, he or she is a "Christian" for > purposes of this discussion, whereas if person "B" fails to match any part > of the definition, he or she is a "non-Christian". > It can't be done. Lots of people call themselves "Christians", even when they have beliefs that are radically different from other Christians. For example, Spiritists [followers of Allan Kardec] call themselves Christians, and even claim to follow the Bible, with a different interpretation of almost everything Jesus said. Even Umbandists - a mixup of Catholicism, Islamism, Spiristism, African religions that seem similar to the "Santeria", and Native Brazilian cults, call themselves "Christians" - some of their clerics even talk in the name of Jesus, when they incorporate the spirit of "Oxala'" [spelt like Oshallah - maybe it's an arab word] Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Every Single Sperm
Steve Sloan wrote: > > Because in my (and many other people's) opinion, opposing > contraception is a bad idea that would drastically lower the > quality of life for almost everyone. If God opposes all > contraception, then that suggests a God with very little > understanding, compassion, or empathy for the human condition. > If that's true, then we're all thoroughly screwed. So, > "inconceivable" wouldn't be the right word, but "terrifying" might. > But the Catholic church is _not_ against contraception [ok: maybe it's time to cut some of many negatives in this sentence!]. They fiercely propose one 100% effective way of contraception: sexual abstinence! Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Spiritual development
On 9 Aug 2004, at 6:56 pm, Dan Minette wrote: Sounds like you've got a long hard path to atheism. Good luck. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ 'The true sausage buff will sooner or later want his own meat grinder.' -- Jack Schmidling ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Horses
On Aug 6, 2004, at 6:35 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 10:06 AM 8/6/04, Robert J. Chassell wrote: Even though horses may not see colors as such, individual horses have a desire for certain colors. Perhaps they really do see colors And as anyone who lives with one can attest, it is not always possible to tell with certainty what a dog is trying to tell you, and the only thing cats say is "Feed me!") I don't know about that... First of all, it's not always possible to tell with certainty what a cat is trying to tell you, but it is almost always some form of either "pay proper attention to me!" or "get the hell away from me." Dave To a dog, we are family. To a cat, we are the help. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Horses
On Aug 6, 2004, at 10:45 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: Horses have magnifying lenses in eyes. People and things look bigger than they are. That doesn't make sense to me -- they wouldn't have a frame of reference. Bigger that what, in other words? Reminds me of a line in a song by Steve Forbert: "It's often said that life is strange. Ahh, yes, but compared to what?" Dave Fortunately, horses have text engraved in their retinas that says "Objects in eye may be smaller than they appear." Unfortunately, horses cannot read. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Democrats
On Aug 8, 2004, at 11:45 AM, JDG wrote: From an Economist/YouGov poll: Only 36% of Democrats agree that life is better now for Iraqis than under Saddam Hussein. 51% of Democrats believe that US forces should be withdrawn from Iraq "within the next few months." This last result makes me very nervous as to what pressure John Kerry, if elected, will be under from within his own part to surrender to the terrorists. And so you gain some inkling of how it has been for the rest of us for the past four years of Shrub and his no-bid contracts to destroy and "rebuild" Iraq. Regime change begins at home. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Spiritual development
- Original Message - From: "Bryon Daly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 10:51 PM Subject: Re: Objective Evil > On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 17:56:08 -0500, Dan Minette > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > At 03:25 PM 8/8/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: > > > >> >I went to the web site, and I am embarassed as a Catholic by the lack > > of > > > >> >consistant logic. > > > >> > > > >> At what point does your embarassment cause you to become a member of > > the > > > >> Protestant Church at which you an elder, and you stop calling yourself > > a > > > >> Catholic? > > > > > > > >When and if I am called to do that by the Spirit. :-) > > > > > > In the meantime, it is a bit grating for an office-holder of another > > > Church, a Church whose raison d'etre is opposition to Catholicism, > > > > no, the raison d'etre is following Jesus, the Christ, the son of the > > living God. The church Jesus divided. You may fully believe that God only > > speaks through a hierarchy, and when people were thrown out of the church > > for the horrid sin of objecting to the selling of grace, that God was > > behind this. Well, I don't. > > > > I see the one church as broken, not whole within the Catholic church, and > > then a bunch of heritics. I realize that we differ. I don't see > > denominational differences as critical; we differ there too. I know that > > denominations are becomming far less important. > > Dan, what led you to your current situation of affiliating yourself > with both Catholic and Methodist churches? Presuming you have > migrated away from Catholic towards Methodist, why not go "all the > way"? What do the Methodists think about your continuing to consider > yourself Catholic, particularly if you are an elder there as John > says? I never intended to give a testimonial, but I guess I got myself into it, so here goes. My wife came from a Methodist tradition; I came from a Catholic tradition. Both traditions were very strong; with her grandfather and uncle being ministers, and my dad's twin brother a priest, my aunt a hermit; and three of my mom's uncles priests. My spiritual development was stronger than hers when we got married, so she had no problem with us going to the Catholic church. We found two parishes in Houston where we could both grow. As my wife grew, she became more in touch with her roots; asking herself why she was just going to a Catholic church. But, the parish we went to was extremely good; and we still found ways to grow. We moved, and in the new area, the potential within the Catholic church was far less. When we were married; we had two basis for looking at religion. First, we had mutual respect for each other's traditions. While I had differences with the Methodist church; I also had a great deal of respect. The theological differences were not in areas I consider critical: there was strong agreement on faith/works; and it was a "saved once saved forever church." This was reflected by how well her grandfather and my uncle got along. Indeed, the faith traditions of our families were very similar. The second basis was that the smallest and most important religious community was the family. While I consider being a member of an extended church critical; it is not as critical as practicing religion together as a family. So, we agreed we would not have Mommy's faith and Daddy's faith, we would have our faith. Part of that was worshiping together as a family. With the difficulties at the local Catholic church, Teri in particular felt that we were not in a place that allowed our full spiritual growth. So, we explored other churches, and started going to two churches; one Methodist, and one Catholic. Then we moved to the Woodlands, and the local Catholic church was not in good shape. The pastor stated that he didn't like children. People went to church to "get their obligation in." There were two significant signs of this. First, the Catholic church was identifiable in the parking lot because most people backed in to facilitate a quick exit. Second, the quick exit was enhanced by leaving before church was over. My wife, Teri's experience of this was singing the last hymn with her face in the hymnal because it was a new song to her, looking up after the hymn and finding that we were alone. The pack pews around us had cleared during the second verse because it was no longer a sin to leave once the priest had processed into the narthex. The local Methodist churches were Baptist churches in disguise; particularly the larger one. So, we went to the Presbyterian church and found a place were we could all serve and grow. My wife joined the AIDs care team; and I was involved in adult education. I was encouraged to give adult courses based on Catholic writers, such as Raymond Brown. There was little opportunity for either service or nurture at the local Catholic ch
Creed (was Re: Objective Evil)
Julia Thompson wrote:
It's in the Nicene creed. ("Holy, catholic and apostolic church" is
what is said in the Episcopal church in the US. I suppose I could go
upstairs and see what it is they say in New Zealand; I was given a New
Zealand prayerbook as a present)
Lutherans, too, here and in NZ. I happen to be acquainted with a
Lutheran pastor who is serving an Episcopal congregation in NZ. Our
churches (I'm Lutheran) have "full communion," meaning that our pastors
can serve in either church.
Are there some groups of Christians that don't adhere to the Nicene
creed? If so, what is their belief on this matter?
Kind of begs the question, as the mainstream Christian church would take
rejection of the Nicene Creed as evidence that a church is not Christian.
Those who accept and use it include all mainstream Protestants, Roman
Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox (who leave out
the "Filioque phrase" (regarding the Spirit proceeding from the Father
and Son).
Having said that, some large groups who reject it include the Mormons,
Jehovah's Witnesses (who accept some of it), Unitarians, some Church of
God groups (on the basis that it doesn't appear in the Bible).
(Was the Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox split over the Nicene creed?
Was there some other split over the Nicene creed? What were the points
of contention?)
That would be the "Filioque phrase" bit. A Google search on it will
give lots of background.
Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Every Single Sperm
> From: Julia Randolph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 05:20:12 -0500, The Fool wrote: > > > From: Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > Russell Chapman wrote: > > > > > > > JDG wrote: > > > > > > > >> At 10:32 AM 8/7/2004 +0200 Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> When it threatened to decrease the number of flock considerably or > > > >>> more to the point when contraception started interfering with the > > > >>> power base of the holy church. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Is it so inconceivable that maybe - just maybe - they sincerely > > believe > > > >> that God does not want us to engage in contraception? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, yes - if there's no basis for it. > > > > No scriptures, no tablets handed down from on high. > > > > > > > > Do they sincerely believe we shouldn't take vitamins? That we > > > > shouldn't have remedial surgery. Why is some meddling with the body > > to > > > > improve quality of life OK but other meddling not OK? > > > > > > Enter 'Jehova's witnesses'. NO MEDDLING with the body. Not even to save > > > > > a childs life or to prevent serious and detrimental health problems > > > (even in babies and little children) by as simple a thing as > > vaccination > > > by oral injestion of vaccin. > > > > They really still teach that in Europe? I know they have backed down on > > most of those here in the U.S. with the exception of blood transfusions. > > I'm guessing they backed down on those because of the pressure of > > lawsuits. > > There's also the issue of immunizations being required by law if > children are going to public school. If you don't immunize your child > without good medical reason, the child cannot enroll in public school. > And it's not as easy to home-school children in some states as it is > in others. As far as I know, they ended the vaccination nonsense in the U.S. in the late forties / early fifties. I also think they adopted a policy in the 1960's equating organ transplantation as cannibalism, which they slowly abandoned, in the U.S. anyway. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Every Single Sperm
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 05:20:12 -0500, The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Russell Chapman wrote: > > > > > JDG wrote: > > > > > >> At 10:32 AM 8/7/2004 +0200 Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote: > > >> > > >>> When it threatened to decrease the number of flock considerably or > > >>> more to the point when contraception started interfering with the > > >>> power base of the holy church. > > >> > > >> > > >> Is it so inconceivable that maybe - just maybe - they sincerely > believe > > >> that God does not want us to engage in contraception? > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, yes - if there's no basis for it. > > > No scriptures, no tablets handed down from on high. > > > > > > Do they sincerely believe we shouldn't take vitamins? That we > > > shouldn't have remedial surgery. Why is some meddling with the body > to > > > improve quality of life OK but other meddling not OK? > > > > Enter 'Jehova's witnesses'. NO MEDDLING with the body. Not even to save > > > a childs life or to prevent serious and detrimental health problems > > (even in babies and little children) by as simple a thing as > vaccination > > by oral injestion of vaccin. > > They really still teach that in Europe? I know they have backed down on > most of those here in the U.S. with the exception of blood transfusions. > I'm guessing they backed down on those because of the pressure of > lawsuits. There's also the issue of immunizations being required by law if children are going to public school. If you don't immunize your child without good medical reason, the child cannot enroll in public school. And it's not as easy to home-school children in some states as it is in others. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 05:54:39 -0700 (PDT), Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Could you please define "Trinity" for this purpose? > > Being baptized in the Trinity is being baptized in the > name of the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." IIRC > without looking (I'm at work now and supposed to be > working!), its in the Nicene Creed. Yes. Googling gave some useful pages on the creed. Here are translations from three different pages: http://www.mit.edu/~tb/anglican/intro/lr-nicene-creed.html We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen." http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm (Three versions given on this page; one is identical to the first one posted, the other two are below.) We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father; through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became truly human. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day
Re: Objective Evil
On 9 Aug 2004, at 5:40 am, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 08:53 PM 8/8/04, Damon Agretto wrote: Of course, with Protestantism, you can follow your own voice Are you sure? I would say that you can follow your own voice with atheism, if by "follow your own voice" you mean "do as you damned¹ well please." Is that a correct understanding of what you mean by "follow your own voice"? Are there no constraints on what a Protestant should follow? I would say that religion is about doing as "you damned well please." After all, people choose which brand of crazy nonsense to invest their faith in, and there are thousands to choose from. And if all else fails one can always make up a new one, as happens regularly. Scientology, Jim Jones' Peoples' Temple... So I see religion as a license to believe any crazy nonsense at all, and thereby to justify committing absolutely any heinous evil act whatsoever. On the other hand as a rational man I am very much more constrained in what I can believe or justify. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "Our products just aren't engineered for security." - Brian Valentine, senior vice president in charge of Microsoft's Windows development team. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
> Could you please define "Trinity" for this purpose? Being baptized in the Trinity is being baptized in the name of the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." IIRC without looking (I'm at work now and supposed to be working!), its in the Nicene Creed. Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
> Are you sure? I would say that you can follow your > own voice with atheism, > if by "follow your own voice" you mean "do as you > damned¹ well please." Is > that a correct understanding of what you mean by > "follow your own > voice"? Are there no constraints on what a > Protestant should follow? What I mean by "follow your own voice" is to define for yourself what it means to be faithful and Christian. Obviously to be a Christian you would have to be a follower of the teachings and philosophy of Jesus. > If you reject the leadership of ANY church, can you > still be a > Christian? By whose definition? Will you be > "saved"² and "earn the same > reward"² in the next life? Yes, I think you can still be a christian. IMHO it requires an expression of faith in Jesus. Whether or not you will be "saved" os ultimately unknowable; one cannot truely know or even understand God's will (even though some claim to be able to). I know that the Catholic church has liberalized its stance on this, by declaring that essentially good people, even if they are not Catholic, can and will still go to Heaven in the next life. Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 01:12:10PM +0100, William T Goodall wrote: > What epistemological basis could agnosticism have that wouldn't > also require (for consistency) that one be 'agnostic' about alien > abduction, bigfoot, the second shooter in the JFK assassination, > Creationism and even Velikovsky and von Daniken? Don't forget the invisible pink unicorns. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
On 8 Aug 2004, at 11:17 pm, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 04:51 PM 8/8/04, William T Goodall wrote: LOL. I'm surprised you're surprised. The only logical outcome of thinking about religion is atheism Not necessarily. Yes, necessarily. No. I will agree with the assertion that the only justifiable outcome of thinking about religion in accord with the principles of logical argument is (genuine) agnosticism, i.e., by applying such methods it is genuinely impossible to determine whether or not God exists to a logical certainty. What epistemological basis could agnosticism have that wouldn't also require (for consistency) that one be 'agnostic' about alien abduction, bigfoot, the second shooter in the JFK assassination, Creationism and even Velikovsky and von Daniken? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ How long a minute is depends on which side of the bathroom door you're on. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Every Single Sperm
> From: Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Russell Chapman wrote: > > > JDG wrote: > > > >> At 10:32 AM 8/7/2004 +0200 Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote: > >> > >>> When it threatened to decrease the number of flock considerably or > >>> more to the point when contraception started interfering with the > >>> power base of the holy church. > >> > >> > >> Is it so inconceivable that maybe - just maybe - they sincerely believe > >> that God does not want us to engage in contraception? > > > > > > > > Well, yes - if there's no basis for it. > > No scriptures, no tablets handed down from on high. > > > > Do they sincerely believe we shouldn't take vitamins? That we > > shouldn't have remedial surgery. Why is some meddling with the body to > > improve quality of life OK but other meddling not OK? > > Enter 'Jehova's witnesses'. NO MEDDLING with the body. Not even to save > a childs life or to prevent serious and detrimental health problems > (even in babies and little children) by as simple a thing as vaccination > by oral injestion of vaccin. They really still teach that in Europe? I know they have backed down on most of those here in the U.S. with the exception of blood transfusions. I'm guessing they backed down on those because of the pressure of lawsuits. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
Dan Minette wrote: OK, but not all actions that deliberately kill innocent people is called murder. Sometimes the very name used implies that the end justifies the means. Like in ... execution? Sonja :o) ROU: just ends no means ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 02:41 PM 8/8/04, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 2:10 PM Subject: Objective Evil > The Catholic Church would argue that no, one should not... evil to prevent evil is still > evil. > > In reality, all the Catholic Church is saying here is the simple moral > precept that "the ends do not justify the means." I may not have been as clear to others as I was to myself in the last post. What I am saying is that the just war argument is very much a "ends justifies the means" argument. Maybe so. Who decides if the ends justify the means? (And again, this is a serious question. And I still have a point, other than the one on top of my pointy little head . . . ;-) ) In the end it's history that decides. How a decision is portraid in general to the world after it's been analyzed, evaluated, told, retold, summarized, trimmed to size, altered, told again and finally the essence that's left over after the whole process is written down and generally accepted as such. The one general opinion that is left after that is the judgement that either a majority or the vocal majority holds over which choice and how it was made. So unlike Dan I don't believe that it is an objective or fair process, it's merely a process that results in a generally held opinion. Sonja :o) ROU: All is fair in love and war ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Every Single Sperm
Russell Chapman wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: I am asking the very specific question: "Why it is inconceivable that if it is the case that God exists, then He has told Catholics that He does not approve of contraception?" Please address all responses to answering that question. And yes, I'm still serious, and still have a point here.) I think my position is that it is inconceivable that the Catholics got told, but no-one else did... That was the thrust of my original question. Since I suspect this is gonne end up in one of these did - did not discussions I'll first point to this site. It might be of interest in the discussion. Contraception and religion in light of history and across different religions. http://www.mum.org/contrace.htm Sonja :o) GCU: Haven't read it all but going to ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Every Single Sperm
Russell Chapman wrote: JDG wrote: At 10:32 AM 8/7/2004 +0200 Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote: When it threatened to decrease the number of flock considerably or more to the point when contraception started interfering with the power base of the holy church. Is it so inconceivable that maybe - just maybe - they sincerely believe that God does not want us to engage in contraception? Well, yes - if there's no basis for it. No scriptures, no tablets handed down from on high. Do they sincerely believe we shouldn't take vitamins? That we shouldn't have remedial surgery. Why is some meddling with the body to improve quality of life OK but other meddling not OK? Enter 'Jehova's witnesses'. NO MEDDLING with the body. Not even to save a childs life or to prevent serious and detrimental health problems (even in babies and little children) by as simple a thing as vaccination by oral injestion of vaccin. Sonja GCU: It takes all kinds ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Every Single Sperm
JDG wrote: At 10:32 AM 8/7/2004 +0200 Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote: When it threatened to decrease the number of flock considerably or more to the point when contraception started interfering with the power base of the holy church. Is it so inconceivable that maybe - just maybe - they sincerely believe that God does not want us to engage in contraception? Well we have to do *something* to get us to the promised final judgement day. A serious amount of over population created in a short time span might just do the trick. Seen in that light it is indeed plausible that God doesn't want us to engage in contraception. As for the folk of the cloth... imo they are not known for their benovolence in matters concerning their amount of worldly powers. But maybe that is just the way Gods will works. :o) Who knows. But untill there is more tangible evidence other then simply believing in the existance of a spiritual being I'm not willing to opress others with my points of view. Sonja GCU: Conceptive ;o) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
