Re: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 10:46 PM Subject: Re: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion At 09:16 PM 5/24/2004 -0500 Robert Seeberger wrote: You believe that the Catholic Church is/was free to speak out against National Socialist and White Supremacist politicians, but should not be permitted to take any concrete steps against either - since that would be coercion? It depends on what you mean by concrete steps I would imagine. If the Church (or any instrument thereof) says We disagree with Politician X on issue ABC due to church doctrine and we urge you to write Politician X and lend your voice to our cause, then the Church is doing exactly what it should be doing, and that is making a contribution to our plurality. I think this would be true even if such a statement originated in the Vatican. O.k., and just to be clear, the above actions would be considered by you to be sufficient opposition by the Church to National Socialists and White Supremicists, correct? Yup. You think that religion is the Swiss army knife of reality? xponent God Helps Those Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
The Fool wrote: All discussions involving JDG morph into an abortion discussion. It's as if he had an agenda... I have my adamant differences with John, but I have to say I'm kind of sick of these personal attacks. Not only don't they do anything to advance your argument, they're counterproductive because anyone on the fence on a particular issue is more likely to ignore your logic due to your abrasive manner. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
At 01:11 AM 5/26/04, Doug Pensinger wrote: The Fool wrote: All discussions involving JDG morph into an abortion discussion. It's as if he had an agenda... I have my adamant differences with John, but I have to say I'm kind of sick of these personal attacks. Not only don't they do anything to advance your argument, they're counterproductive because anyone on the fence on a particular issue is more likely to ignore your logic due to your abrasive manner. Golly! You mean there's someone on this list with an abrasive manner? Who'da thunk it? 1600 Grit Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
I have my adamant differences with John, but I have to say I'm kind of sick of these personal attacks. Not only don't they do anything to advance your argument, they're counterproductive because anyone on the fence on a particular issue is more likely to ignore your logic due to your abrasive manner. In my own little way that's what I've been trying to tell the Fool, but he doesn't listen I guess... Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
-- From: Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do I turn every discussion into an anti-Palladium thread? No, you just show your agenda in other ways... Perhaps. http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/5/21/13392/6893 Christian Reconstructionism - The Foundation of Modern Conservatism (Politics) By revscat Sat May 22nd, 2004 at 03:47:58 PM EST He presses the crown rights of the Lord Jesus Christ in every sphere, expecting eventual triumph. Christian Reconstructionism is a little heard of religious philosophy that preaches that every aspect of society must come under biblical law. In their view, secular governments are in opposition to the word of God, and therefore they seek to eliminate all legal barriers between church and state. Founded in 1973 by R.J. Rushdoony, it has had wide influence in the modern Republican party. The overriding goal of Reconstructionism is the absolute control of the reigns of government so that the world may be properly prepared for Jesus's return, and that achieving this goal will demonstrate the fulfillment of God's will. (Link) There are five principles of Christian Reconstructionism, summarized here: First, Reconstructionists believe that God should be at the center of every activity, not just spiritual ones. Faith should be applied to art, education, and politics no less than to church, prayer, evangelism, and Bible study. Second, Reconstructionists are theonomists (theonomy: God's Law), meaning that laws are only righteous and just when they follow what the Bible -- primarily the Old Testament -- says. Law should serve three purposes: 1) To make other people Christian, 2) To provide a standard set of rules for all Christians, and 3) to maintain civil order. This has several frightening implications. Reconstructionists believe that non-Christian religions will be suppressed, that women will have their political rights stripped away, and that a return to slavery would be fulfilling God's will. Third, Reconstructionists do not try and rationally come to a conclusion about whether the Bible is true or not. They believe in its infallibility regardless of evidence or reason. The Bible, being (they believe) the word of God, is above questioning. Similar to fundamentalist Muslims who believe the only book of any import is the Koran, Reconstructionists believe the Bible is the ultimate arbiter in all disputes, minor or major. Fourth, Reconstructionists believe in the imminent return of Christ and a kingdom in his name will be established. The Left Behind series of books by Daniel LaHaye are a good summation of this belief. This ties into their literal interpretation and absolute belief in the Bible: some interpretations of the book of Revelation in the Bible purport to predict such a future. Due to their belief that the world must first be prepared for Jesus's return, they zealously pursue their political goals. Finally, Reconstructionists are Dominionists. In the context of modern America, this means [t]hat every area dominated by sin must be 'reconstructed' in terms of the Bible. This includes, first, the individual; second, the family; third, the church; and fourth, the wider society, including the state. The Christian Reconstructionist therefore believes fervently in Christian civilization (Link).This belief has its origins in Genesis 1:6: Let [humankind] have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth. The overriding goal of dominionism is the absolute control of the government and environment, and that achieving this goal is the fulfillment of God's will. Political Conflicts Explained Much of the modern conservative agenda ties in closely with Reconstructionist beliefs, and are frequently in lock-step with them. Some examples: Welfare - Reconstructionists believe that the state has undermined the church by many of its duties, specifically aid to the poor, indigent, and those unable to provide for themselves. Tom Albrecht, an avowed Reconstructionist, summarized this belief in a Usenet posting as follows: The purpose of the state, on the other hand, is to be a minister of justice (Rom 13:1ff). It alone is given the sword of power to inflict vengeance on those who would violate the law of God as expressed in the laws of the state. In our society the state has, to a large extent, usurped the gracious role of the church by involving itself in areas that are the exclusive domain of the church or family; ministries to the poor and needy, education of children, etc. This is a form of paganism in which the state becomes god to many people under its ever expanding sphere of influence. Environmentalism - Obviously if you believe that a divine entity has given the Earth to you for you to use as you will, you will be angered at those who seek to stand in your way. Further, environmentalists have a view of the
Re: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
Robert Seeberger wrote: But to use sacraments as a stick to punish anyone for any reason, or to coerce others into doing their will is just plain immoral in my book. The church is called to distance itself from sin but never keep sinners at a distance, in the words of Brennan Manning. Unconditional love seems scary because it says I can do anything and still be loved. Can't have that, the fear says, it's license to misbehave... and there comes the temptation to take a self-righteous stand against this or that thing that I perceive as sin. The Bible isn't a lesson on how to be good, tempting though it is to treat it that way. It's about how to be real. Nick -- Nick Arnett Director, Business Intelligence Services LiveWorld Inc. Phone/fax: (408) 551-0427 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
The Fool (quoting someone going by the handle of revscat) wrote: Fourth, Reconstructionists believe in the imminent return of Christ and a kingdom in his name will be established. The Left Behind series of books by Daniel LaHaye Actually, it's Tim LaHaye, and if that detail has been got wrong, are any other details wrong? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
-- From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 04:34 PM 5/23/2004 -0700 Deborah Harrell wrote: It is my understanding that part of the tax-exempt status of religions is tied to the avoidance of direct political action. Is that at all correct? If so, there is a bit of a tempest brewing locally. Bishop Sheridan has stated that not only politicians, but those who vote for them, should be refused Communion if they support/do not oppose certain issues: Let me begin by saying that I believe that Bishop Sheridan is wrong. I believe his pastoral letter is both theologically incorrect, and as a practical matter is counter-productive to his own goals. With that being said, for those who do not believe that the Catholic Church should be permitted to speak out against pro-choice politicians: - I'm _Still_ waiting for the Vatican to deny communion or threaten to deny communion to ONE single pro-choice republican, like the have for 1. Kerry, 2. Pelosi, 3. Gov of NJ and many others. - -If yes, can you explain why the Caholic Church is permitted and morally obligated to speak out against politicans who abuse the rights of one class of persons but not politicians who abuse the rights of another class of persons? - A cell is not a person. A cell has no rights. A cell does not and should not have rights. -The Vatican, Despotic Tyranny for more than a Millennium. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
-- From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 04:34 PM 5/23/2004 -0700 Deborah Harrell wrote: It is my understanding that part of the tax-exempt status of religions is tied to the avoidance of direct political action. Is that at all correct? If so, there is a bit of a tempest brewing locally. Bishop Sheridan has stated that not only politicians, but those who vote for them, should be refused Communion if they support/do not oppose certain issues: Let me begin by saying that I believe that Bishop Sheridan is wrong. I believe his pastoral letter is both theologically incorrect, and as a practical matter is counter-productive to his own goals. With that being said, for those who do not believe that the Catholic Church should be permitted to speak out against pro-choice politicians: -Do you believe that the Catholic Church is permitted to speak out against White Supremacist politicians? -Do you believe that the Catholic Church should have spoken out against National Socialist polticians in Germany?Do you believe that the Catholic Church did speak out enough against those politicians? -If yes, can you explain why the Caholic Church is permitted and morally obligated to speak out against politicans who abuse the rights of one class of persons but not politicians who abuse the rights of another class of persons? The Catholic Church should be able (and is) to speak out on any subject it desires. But threatening to refuse communion and/or excommunication goes far beyond free speech. It is coercion. Nobody expects the Catholic Inquisition. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Catholic Church should be able (and is) to speak out on any subject it desires. But threatening to refuse communion and/or excommunication goes far beyond free speech. It is coercion. O.k., let me make sure that I am not misunderstanding your position. You believe that the Catholic Church is/was free to speak out against National Socialist and White Supremacist politicians, but should not be permitted to take any concrete steps against either - since that would be coercion? Thanks. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 04:34 PM 5/23/2004 -0700 Deborah Harrell wrote: It is my understanding that part of the tax-exempt status of religions is tied to the avoidance of direct political action. Is that at all correct? If so, there is a bit of a tempest brewing locally. Bishop Sheridan has stated that not only politicians, but those who vote for them, should be refused Communion if they support/do not oppose certain issues: Let me begin by saying that I believe that Bishop Sheridan is wrong. I believe his pastoral letter is both theologically incorrect, and as a practical matter is counter-productive to his own goals. With that being said, for those who do not believe that the Catholic Church should be permitted to speak out against pro-choice politicians: snip I have no problem with anybody speaking their opinion, but what Sheridan wants to do is refuse Holy Communion to those who disagree with his position. Doctors are allowed to speak out against frex using heroin; they are not permitted to refuse care for a heroin addict who frex was in a car accident. Speech is free; action is not. Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
Rob said: But threatening to refuse communion and/or excommunication goes far beyond free speech. It is coercion. How is it coercion? Would my refusing to give someone money or to say I like thembe equivalent to coercion? If not, how is that any different? And why can't someone whose denied communion or excommunicated join some other church if they consider it such a big deal? Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
The Fool said: A cell is not a person. A cell has no rights. A cell does not and should not have rights. So if I were to destroy exactly one cell in your body at a time until none were left then that would be okay? If not, at what stage would it become other than okay? Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
Richard Baker wrote: A cell is not a person. A cell has no rights. A cell does not and should not have rights. So if I were to destroy exactly one cell in your body at a time until none were left then that would be okay? If not, at what stage would it become other than okay? Rich must understand The Fool's post very differently than I do... The phrase ... one cell in your body ... presupposes a (reasonably) complete body. The question ... [would] that ... be okay? presupposes sentience, the ability to care one way or another. I think that The Fool was making the point that a fertilized egg is not yet a body, not yet a person, and therefore not entitled (yet) to the rights of a person. Dave (who may not agree with The Fool, but at least is following the argument) PS: If The Fool or is a sentient single-celled entity, then I suspect it might very well object to Richard's destroying that one cell. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
But threatening to refuse communion and/or excommunication goes far beyond free speech. It is coercion. How is it coercion? Would my refusing to give someone money or to say I like them be equivalent to coercion? If not, how is that any different? And why can't someone whose denied communion or excommunicated join some other church if they consider it such a big deal? Rich You're not religious, I can tell. : ) Forgive me if I mangle Catholic doctrine, but they do claim to have a monopoly on real communion, don't they? That last step may be iffy, but if the holder of a monopoly on an important item threatens to cut you off, isn't that coercive? ---David Hoist by their own petard? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
Richard Baker wrote: The Fool said: A cell is not a person. A cell has no rights. A cell does not and should not have rights. So if I were to destroy exactly one cell in your body at a time until none were left then that would be okay? If not, at what stage would it become other than okay? Rich I can resolve this. The Fool has around 10^11 cells in his body. So a cell has 10^(-11) of the rights that the whole Fool has. ---David Tempted to round down... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
At 04:40 PM 5/24/04, Dave Land wrote: Richard Baker wrote: A cell is not a person. A cell has no rights. A cell does not and should not have rights. So if I were to destroy exactly one cell in your body at a time until none were left then that would be okay? If not, at what stage would it become other than okay? Rich must understand The Fool's post very differently than I do... The phrase ... one cell in your body ... presupposes a (reasonably) complete body. The question ... [would] that ... be okay? presupposes sentience, the ability to care one way or another. I think that The Fool was making the point that a fertilized egg is not yet a body, not yet a person, and therefore not entitled (yet) to the rights of a person. OTOH, by the time it is possible to know that an egg has been fertilized and implanted (and thus an abortion is needed in order to insure that it does not develop further) it is no longer just a single cell . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
On Mon, 24 May 2004 18:53:23 -0500, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip OTOH, by the time it is possible to know that an egg has been fertilized and implanted (and thus an abortion is needed in order to insure that it does not develop further) it is no longer just a single cell . . . -- Ronn! :) I am not clear what stage you mean: A single sperm penetrates the mother's egg cell (ovum) and the developing child gets half of its genetic information (in the form of DNA) from the mother (this is contained in the egg), and half from the father (from the sperm). The resulting single cell is called a zygote. The zygote spends the next few days traveling down the Fallopian tube and divides to form many attached cells. A ball of cells is produced, each cell including a copy of the genes that will guide the development of the baby. Once there are about 32 cells, the developing baby is called a morula. With additional cell division, the morula becomes an outer shell of cells with an attached inner group of cells. Now the developing baby is in the blastocyst stage. The outer group of cells will become the membranes that nourish and protect the inner group of cells, which will become the embryo (the next stage for the future baby). The blastocyst reaches the uterus at roughly the fifth day, and implants into the uterine wall on about day six. At this point in the mother's menstrual cycle, the endometrium (lining of the uterus) has grown and is ready to support a fetus. The blastocyst adheres tightly to the endometrium where it receives nourishment via the mother's bloodstream. During the time between implantation and the eighth week, the cells of what is now called the embryo not only multiply, but begin to take on specific functions. This process is called differentiation, and is necessary to produce the varied cell types that make up a human being (such as blood cells, kidney cells, nerve cells, etc.). http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm Day 6? If this is morphing into an abortion/pro-life discussion.,, Actually I'll go with what Jesus believed about when human life began. Jews and early Christians believed a soul entered the body with the first breath. Perhaps that should be modified now to be human life begins with a viable, capable of breathing, human. Before that time, after day 6, it is part of the mother. Until day 6 after fertilization it is a microscopic free-floater, from then until third trimester it is part of the mother, at third trimester, or shortly after, he or she is human. :-( Did I really want to assist in morphing this conversation? Gary first religion and then abortion, isn't the next step politics, followed by =Hitler, explosion, implosion, and then we try another topic? #1 on Google for liberal news ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
-- From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 04:40 PM 5/24/04, Dave Land wrote: Richard Baker wrote: A cell is not a person. A cell has no rights. A cell does not and should not have rights. So if I were to destroy exactly one cell in your body at a time until none were left then that would be okay? If not, at what stage would it become other than okay? Rich must understand The Fool's post very differently than I do... The phrase ... one cell in your body ... presupposes a (reasonably) complete body. The question ... [would] that ... be okay? presupposes sentience, the ability to care one way or another. I think that The Fool was making the point that a fertilized egg is not yet a body, not yet a person, and therefore not entitled (yet) to the rights of a person. OTOH, by the time it is possible to know that an egg has been fertilized and implanted (and thus an abortion is needed in order to insure that it does not develop further) it is no longer just a single cell . . . --- 1/3 of all pregnancies self terminate in natural abortion or stillbirth (of course a stillbirth is now murder in some states...). It's still not a person. And neither is cancer, even though they both meet JDG's criteria of having unique DNA. Most Sperm and Eggs would also meet JDG's criteria, having mutated on average in 64 different places. Perhaps Jacking Off and menstruating should be a crime too (murder of millions of unique DNA strands). ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
-- From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] If this is morphing into an abortion/pro-life discussion.,, All discussions involving JDG morph into an abortion discussion. It's as if he had an agenda... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
It's still not a person. And neither is cancer, even though they both meet JDG's criteria of having unique DNA. And what, exactly, is the difference between a fertilized egg and a clump of cancer cells? And why are you dragging John into this? Are you trying to start a flame war? Looks like it... Damon. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
All discussions involving JDG morph into an abortion discussion. It's as if he had an agenda... And you don't? Damon. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
-- From: Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] All discussions involving JDG morph into an abortion discussion. It's as if he had an agenda... And you don't? Do I turn every discussion into an anti-Palladium thread? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
Do I turn every discussion into an anti-Palladium thread? No, you just show your agenda in other ways... Damon. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
- Original Message - From: iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 8:31 AM Subject: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Catholic Church should be able (and is) to speak out on any subject it desires. But threatening to refuse communion and/or excommunication goes far beyond free speech. It is coercion. O.k., let me make sure that I am not misunderstanding your position. You believe that the Catholic Church is/was free to speak out against National Socialist and White Supremacist politicians, but should not be permitted to take any concrete steps against either - since that would be coercion? It depends on what you mean by concrete steps I would imagine. If the Church (or any instrument thereof) says We disagree with Politician X on issue ABC due to church doctrine and we urge you to write Politician X and lend your voice to our cause, then the Church is doing exactly what it should be doing, and that is making a contribution to our plurality. I think this would be true even if such a statement originated in the Vatican. A parish priest or a cardinal can state their personal opinion on any subject under the sun, and that is fine with me. It seems to me that that is the way things are supposed to work. But when church officials threaten to withhold what they claim is a gift from God over secular issues, that I cannot agree with. But then I suppose that depends on whether one believes that God needs Popes and Priests as intermediaries when dealing with the common riffraff and deciding who gets which sacraments. In that sense the question is whether one has a personal relationship with ones God or an impersonal managed relationship. (I believe this argument echoes other arguments that have occurred since the Reformation.) The God of the New Testament must surely love the Atheist as much as the Saintly. As I understand it, this is unconditional love, and is unbounded, even though it will not keep one from being hellbound. ( The sinners in hell must really be irked knowing they are loved in spite of their condition. No wonder Satan is such an asshole.) IMHO, God does not grant privileged frames of reference. God does not make one holy, we make ourselves holy by consecrating ourselves with the gifts we were given access to at the moment of our creation. In other words, one is a saint by ones own actions and beliefs, not because one is favored by acclaim or providence. Because of this while Popes and Priests should be honored for having dedicated their lives to God, the promotion of goodness, and to the welfare of the flock, they are still human and subject to the temptations of the flesh and the world. Having said all this, servants of God should never refuse to give sacraments even to people they find despicable. They *should* speak about morality and injustice and follow their conscience, and should act to help those in need. But to use sacraments as a stick to punish anyone for any reason, or to coerce others into doing their will is just plain immoral in my book. xponent Have You Read My Book? Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
On Mon, 24 May 2004 21:16:26 -0500, Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 8:31 AM Subject: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Catholic Church should be able (and is) to speak out on any subject it desires. But threatening to refuse communion and/or excommunication goes far beyond free speech. It is coercion. O.k., let me make sure that I am not misunderstanding your position. You believe that the Catholic Church is/was free to speak out against National Socialist and White Supremacist politicians, but should not be permitted to take any concrete steps against either - since that would be coercion? It depends on what you mean by concrete steps I would imagine. If the Church (or any instrument thereof) says We disagree with Politician X on issue ABC due to church doctrine and we urge you to write Politician X and lend your voice to our cause, then the Church is doing exactly what it should be doing, and that is making a contribution to our plurality. I think this would be true even if such a statement originated in the Vatican. A parish priest or a cardinal can state their personal opinion on any subject under the sun, and that is fine with me. It seems to me that that is the way things are supposed to work. But when church officials threaten to withhold what they claim is a gift from God over secular issues, that I cannot agree with. But then I suppose that depends on whether one believes that God needs Popes and Priests as intermediaries when dealing with the common riffraff and deciding who gets which sacraments. In that sense the question is whether one has a personal relationship with ones God or an impersonal managed relationship. (I believe this argument echoes other arguments that have occurred since the Reformation.) The God of the New Testament must surely love the Atheist as much as the Saintly. As I understand it, this is unconditional love, and is unbounded, even though it will not keep one from being hellbound. ( The sinners in hell must really be irked knowing they are loved in spite of their condition. No wonder Satan is such an asshole.) IMHO, God does not grant privileged frames of reference. God does not make one holy, we make ourselves holy by consecrating ourselves with the gifts we were given access to at the moment of our creation. In other words, one is a saint by ones own actions and beliefs, not because one is favored by acclaim or providence. Because of this while Popes and Priests should be honored for having dedicated their lives to God, the promotion of goodness, and to the welfare of the flock, they are still human and subject to the temptations of the flesh and the world. Having said all this, servants of God should never refuse to give sacraments even to people they find despicable. They *should* speak about morality and injustice and follow their conscience, and should act to help those in need. But to use sacraments as a stick to punish anyone for any reason, or to coerce others into doing their will is just plain immoral in my book. xponent Have You Read My Book? Maru rob I don't go that far. (But I also think that what religions claim to do for moral reasons is often immorality or hypocrisy in my book.) I am wondering about the emphasis on this issue when the Church has other officially stated positions it has repeatedly condemned, such as against the death penalty, that he is not pushing. That smacks of politics Gary imagine, churches being political #1 on Google for liberal news ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
At 08:52 PM 5/24/04, The Fool wrote: --===0740875161== -- From: Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] All discussions involving JDG morph into an abortion discussion. It's as if he had an agenda... And you don't? Do I turn every discussion into an anti-Palladium thread? So what do you expect us to use in our cold fusion generators? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
At 09:16 PM 5/24/2004 -0500 Robert Seeberger wrote: You believe that the Catholic Church is/was free to speak out against National Socialist and White Supremacist politicians, but should not be permitted to take any concrete steps against either - since that would be coercion? It depends on what you mean by concrete steps I would imagine. If the Church (or any instrument thereof) says We disagree with Politician X on issue ABC due to church doctrine and we urge you to write Politician X and lend your voice to our cause, then the Church is doing exactly what it should be doing, and that is making a contribution to our plurality. I think this would be true even if such a statement originated in the Vatican. O.k., and just to be clear, the above actions would be considered by you to be sufficient opposition by the Church to National Socialists and White Supremicists, correct? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
At 09:04 PM 5/24/2004 -0400 Damon Agretto wrote: It's still not a person. And neither is cancer, even though they both meet JDG's criteria of having unique DNA. And what, exactly, is the difference between a fertilized egg and a clump of cancer cells? And why are you dragging John into this? Are you trying to start a flame war? Looks like it... Perhaps we should try and find The Fool's posts that are NOTintended to start a flame war... it would probably be a shorter list. And just for the record,it doesn't take a cell biologist to determine the difference betwen cancer and a fertilized egg. JDG - It doesn't take a Fool either, for that matter. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
At 04:34 PM 5/23/2004 -0700 Deborah Harrell wrote: It is my understanding that part of the tax-exempt status of religions is tied to the avoidance of direct political action. Is that at all correct? If so, there is a bit of a tempest brewing locally. Bishop Sheridan has stated that not only politicians, but those who vote for them, should be refused Communion if they support/do not oppose certain issues: Let me begin by saying that I believe that Bishop Sheridan is wrong. I believe his pastoral letter is both theologically incorrect, and as a practical matter is counter-productive to his own goals. With that being said, for those who do not believe that the Catholic Church should be permitted to speak out against pro-choice politicians: -Do you believe that the Catholic Church is permitted to speak out against White Supremacist politicians? -Do you believe that the Catholic Church should have spoken out against National Socialist polticians in Germany?Do you believe that the Catholic Church did speak out enough against those politicians? -If yes, can you explain why the Caholic Church is permitted and morally obligated to speak out against politicans who abuse the rights of one class of persons but not politicians who abuse the rights of another class of persons? JDG - Tough Questions, Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 10:46 PM Subject: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion At 04:34 PM 5/23/2004 -0700 Deborah Harrell wrote: It is my understanding that part of the tax-exempt status of religions is tied to the avoidance of direct political action. Is that at all correct? If so, there is a bit of a tempest brewing locally. Bishop Sheridan has stated that not only politicians, but those who vote for them, should be refused Communion if they support/do not oppose certain issues: Let me begin by saying that I believe that Bishop Sheridan is wrong. I believe his pastoral letter is both theologically incorrect, and as a practical matter is counter-productive to his own goals. With that being said, for those who do not believe that the Catholic Church should be permitted to speak out against pro-choice politicians: -Do you believe that the Catholic Church is permitted to speak out against White Supremacist politicians? -Do you believe that the Catholic Church should have spoken out against National Socialist polticians in Germany?Do you believe that the Catholic Church did speak out enough against those politicians? -If yes, can you explain why the Caholic Church is permitted and morally obligated to speak out against politicans who abuse the rights of one class of persons but not politicians who abuse the rights of another class of persons? The Catholic Church should be able (and is) to speak out on any subject it desires. But threatening to refuse communion and/or excommunication goes far beyond free speech. It is coercion. xponent Axis Deer Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
