Re: Objective Evil
JDG wrote: At 04:50 PM 8/9/2004 -0700 Deborah Harrell wrote: Please explain, then, how any war can be just, since it is inevitable that innocents will be killed, maimed and left bereft by. Deborah, I could say the same thing about automobiles. does that mean that driving automobiles is an evil act, since it is inevitable that driving automobiles leaves innocents killed, maimed, and left bereft? I use the same logic with a just war - intent matters. The difference between the two is in the intent. In a war you fully intent to kill people and usually end up also hitting innocents in the process, with a car the idea is that you avoid hitting other traffic participants as much as possible and refrain from actions that increase the likelyhood of hitting said traffic participants. Sonja :o) GCU: Have you been playing evil games again? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
The Fool wrote:
--
From: Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of The Fool
--
From: Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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.
According to my sisters-in-law (who are JW's), I'm not.
--
According to my entire extended family on both sides, you are wrong.
Also according to the 'literature' (propaganda) they try and pawn off on
me, they do indeed call themselves 'christians' and consider themselves
to be the only true 'christians' and that everyone else who calls
themselves a 'christian' are false 'christians'. Indeed they argue quite
vehemently about that whenever anyone tries to suggest that they aren't
'christian'. Indeed JW's are the most likely to believe the bible is the
literal Inerrant trvth [*].
from their site:
http://www.watchtower.org/library/jt/index.htm?article=article_03.htm
quote
*Do the Witnesses believe that their religion is the only right one?
Anyone who is serious about his religion should think that it is the
right one. Otherwise, why would he or she be involved in it? Christians
are admonished: Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine. (1
Thessalonians 5:21 javascript:showCitedScripture('1Th','5','21');) A
person should make sure that his beliefs can be supported by the
Scriptures, for there is only one true faith.snipped the rest
*
Do they believe that they are the only ones who will be saved?
No. Millions that have lived in centuries past and who were not
Jehovah's Witnesses will come back in a resurrection and have an
opportunity for life. Many now living may yet take a stand for truth and
righteousness before the great tribulation, and they will gain
salvation. Moreover, Jesus said that we should not be judging one
another. We look at the outward appearance; God looks at the heart. He
sees accurately and judges mercifully. He has committed judgment into
Jesus' hands, not ours.Matthew 7:1-5
javascript:showCitedScripture('Mt','7','1-5');; 24:21
javascript:showCitedScripture('Mt','24','21');; 25:31
javascript:showCitedScripture('Mt','25','31');.
/quote
Seen that they accept the teachings of Jesus and also accept the
judgement of Jesus as devine I'd say they can be seen as Christians.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
-- From: Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of The Fool -- From: Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. According to my sisters-in-law (who are JW's), I'm not. -- According to my entire extended family on both sides, you are wrong. Also according to the 'literature' (propaganda) they try and pawn off on me, they do indeed call themselves 'christians' and consider themselves to be the only true 'christians' and that everyone else who calls themselves a 'christian' are false 'christians'. Indeed they argue quite vehemently about that whenever anyone tries to suggest that they aren't 'christian'. Indeed JW's are the most likely to believe the bible is the literal Inerrant trvth [*]. * http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_jw.html -- To the religious mind, not being right in advance in all cases is a sign that the basic idea is incorrect. There have been many surprises as we have explored molecular biology - including the taxonomy of plants, the number of EPTs and so on. This is what makes science fundamentally different from religion - the religious world view wants a universe where understanding the principles makes the details merely a matter of explanation back to principles. The scientific world view sees the growth and change of principles in light of new observation and thinking to be the wonder of human discovery. -- Stirling Newberry ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 10:53 PM 8/8/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 10:14 PM 8/8/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: And dropping bombs on Saddam Hussein's armies was not evil. So, the action of killing conscripts of Hussein, many of whom are there because they had no choice, in inherently an acceptable action? You are changing the subject. Not once have I ever said that it was inherently acceptable, I merely said that it was *not* inherently evil. but you also said: The killing of innocent people is an objective evil. (True) So, the logical conclusion is that you believe that the soldiers in Hussein's army are not innocent because they accepted their conscription instead of death or torture. Is that it? Yes, I do not believe that they are innocent. I think that even you would describe them as having chosen the lesser evil, would you not? In which, case, they are still engaging in evil. As I would think of anyone who engages in killing. Killing another human being is an inherently evil act. You are arguing that the end justifies the means. War cannot be justified as an end in itself, it must be justified by another end. I disagree that killing anorther human being is an inherently evil act. Killing an innocent human being directly (murder) is an inherently evil act. If, however, killing another human being is an inherently evil act, then I would be guilty of a mortal sin by taking a vacation and ordering take-out-pizza instead of sending all of my consumption spending to assist refugees in Darfur or fund mosquito nets in Congo. Indeed isn't that what this false deity jebus you supposedly follow said his followers should do? Give away all possessions, feed the poor, help the week? Why do you disobey your so-called deity? Of course we all know JDG puts the Republican Party Above the Pope, and the Pope above the words of a half-deity no-one can prove lived, and the words of a half-deity no-one can prove lived above science. shepherds are predators who FOOL sheep into a false sense of security they fleece and slaughter sheep for their own benefit...even in sincerity -posted somewhere ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Objective Evil
Behalf Of The Fool -- According to my entire extended family on both sides, you are wrong. Also according to the 'literature' (propaganda) they try and pawn off on me, they do indeed call themselves 'christians' and consider themselves to be the only true 'christians' and that everyone else who calls themselves a 'christian' are false 'christians'. OK. I stand corrected. I've been fortunate that my in-laws have never tried to convert my wife or me so I'm not as intimately familiar with their beliefs. I must have misunderstood something they said in passing. Seeing the above, I am beginning to see why you hate religion so much... - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Objective Evil
Seeing the above, I am beginning to see why you hate religion so much... Yes, it explains a lot. I remember working with a JW and EVERY day she tried to convert me, etc. As much as I wanted to deconstruct her beliefs and illustrate false assumptions, I resisted. Still, if the Fool is defining ALL of religion based on JW, its still incorrect. I guess that would be like defining Germans based on the Nazis, or somesuch. Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ 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
AIDS (was: Objective Evil)
Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yeah, but if the Church encourages the use of condoms to check the spread of AIDS, it would also be encouraging the practice of pre- or extra-marital sex as well, which from a Catholic standpoint is bad... That might be a minor result; and I agree that is bad. But, the fact is that a very high percentage of the men have extra-marital sex, and then infect their wives. If the use of condoms is socially sectioned, then these wives have a much better chance to save their own lives. AIDs, in Africa, is horrid beyond belief. IIRC, the mean life expectancy in Zambia is now down to about 32 years, as a result of the AIDS epidemic. Horribly correct. Not only in Zambia, but in 6 other African countries, life expectancy has been reduced to under 40 years. http://www.unwire.org/UNWire/20040714/449_25824.asp The AIDS pandemic has reduced life expectancy in some African countries to below 35 years, undermining development gains made in the last decade, the United Nations said today at the 15th International AIDS Conference in Bangkok. Thirteen sub-Saharan African nations have recorded dramatic reversals in human development since 1990, largely due to the disease, the U.N. Development Program said in a statement. Seven of those countries now have life expectancies under 40 years, worst among them Zambia, where a child born today can expect to live just 32.7 years down from 47.4 in 1990. The country's HIV-infection rate among adults is 16.5 percent. Life expectancy in Zimbabwe, where 25 percent of people have the disease, has dropped from 56.6 years in 1990 to 33.9 years in 2002, and in Swaziland, which has an HIV-infection rate of 38.8 percent, from 55.3 to 35.7 years. The Central African Republic, Lesotho, Mozambique and Malawi were also among the countries with life expectancies below 40... As for the argument that 'a girl should just say no,' not only do most wives have little-to-no control over their own bodies, but as Dan has pointed out, it is culturally accepted in many parts of Africa that a man use prostitutes if he is away from his wife for an extended time (not sure if that's a week or a month or what). Worse, there is a myth that sex with a virgin can cure AIDS, and some men don't ask consent: ...Veronica, like many other girls, was infected by a man convinced that having sex with a virgin would cure him. This cruel myth is being perpetuated across Africa. In a bid either to avoid or to cure their HIV infection, men are targeting younger and younger girls as sexual partners, willing or not... http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/aids/stories/women.children/ (A variant on a very old and tired myth...the Greeks believed that gonorrhea could be cured by sex with a virgin. I'm sure that some idiots in the post-1492 world thought syphilis could be cured the same way.) The orphan crisis: ...More than 12 million children in sub-Saharan Africa - equivalent to the UK's entire child population - have been orphaned by Aids, the report says. By 2010, this number will have risen to 43 million... ...Youngsters are often orphaned two or three times as their parents die to be replaced by aunts, uncles and other relatives who also fall victim to the disease. Many are forced on to the streets and are growing up in an emotional and spiritual vacuum, Christian Aid said. The report states: Villages are becoming ghost towns, local economies are crumbling. The orphaned children, as adults, will not be equipped to drive the economic engine of Africa. This will make the struggle for development and growth on the continent even tougher... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1328886.stm WRT abstinence-only: ...Uganda, touted as a model of HIV/AIDS intervention, saw the infection rate among sexually active adults drop from 30 percent to 5 percent. The key, according to Uganda's Institute of Public Health Director, David Serwadda, was a multi-approach prevention campaign in which condoms played a substantial role. We must not forget that abstinence is not always possible for people at risk, especially (African) women, Serwadda said. Many women simply do not have the option to delay initiation of sex or limit their number of sexual partners. The $15 billion, five-year U.S. campaign to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean contains a provision inserted by conservative lawmakers requiring one-third of the prevention component to be spent on programs stressing abstinence until marriage. In Ethiopia, where 9 percent of the world's HIV cases exist, Tidwell wrote, DKT International has run a prevention program combining abstinence and fidelity messages with reduced-cost condom distribution. In May, Peter Piot, executive director of the Joint U.N. Program on HIV/AIDS, praised the decline of infection rates among teen-agers in Addis Ababa... http://www.unwire.org/UNWire/20030721/449_6757.asp What this next
Re: Objective Evil
JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: Please explain, then, how any war can be just, since it is inevitable that innocents will be killed, maimed and left bereft by. I could say the same thing about automobiles. does that mean that driving automobiles is an evil act, since it is inevitable that driving automobiles leaves innocents killed, maimed, and left bereft? Cars are not designed to kill or maim humans. Guns, bombs, and other ordnance - the means of war - are. To put it in other terms, aspirin saves many lives WRT heart disease, yet kills a few who are overly-sensitive to it. But cyanide tablets have one purpose: to kill. To give aspirin tablets to a person is not evil (unless you know that they've already had a bad reaction to it) -- to give cyanide tablets _is_. I use the same logic with a just war - intent matters. But disregard of unavoidable collateral damage does not? I fail to see how any war can be called just -- although it can be the lesser of two evils. The only purpose I can surmise for calling a war just is to convince young people that they are doing the right thing in killing the 'enemy,' and excused for whatever collateral non-coms happen to be in the way. Once I read that dividing sides into them and us is blunter, but more honest. I have no problem with saying that I will kill an intruder in my home, as it is extremely likely that er's intent to me is harm; I also know that I will have nightmares about _taking the life of another human being_ even so. My action would not be just before the Divine in my personal belief system - but it would be necessary and the lesser of evil outcomes -- at least as far as I, my friends, and family would be concerned. Deborah Harrell __ 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 Sun, 08 Aug 2004 19:20:04 -0500, Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: JDG wrote: At 05:56 PM 8/8/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: 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. But following it in a way that is not consistent with the way the Catholic Church is following it. Look, I am explicitly using Catholic with a capitol C, not a lowercase c. After all, isn't it a basic truism of all Christians that they believe that they are members of the true, universal, catholic Church? 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) Are there some groups of Christians that don't adhere to the Nicene creed? If so, what is their belief on this matter? Yes, but they are heretics. (Was the Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox split over the Nicene creed? Yes, among other things including what type of Wonder Bread to use. This is the filioque question - rather to add from the Father and the Son to strengthen the Trinity position. Was there some other split over the Nicene creed? What were the points of contention?) Nicene Creed was formulated in 325 to combat the more popular (me- and more correct!) Arianism as well as the more sensible Sabbellianism and the Creed was expanded and reaffirmed in 381. Other councils were held in 431and 451 to outlaw other politically incorrect positions. In 569 they added the filioque clause. The Easter Churchs, in a more biblical fundamentalist position, said the Bible says from the Father. Since I am a UU - formed from the merger of two creedless churchs this is a matter of great fun for me. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l -- #2 on google for liberal news I don't try harder ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 05:49:26 -0500, Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 19:20:04 -0500, Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: JDG wrote: At 05:56 PM 8/8/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: 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. But following it in a way that is not consistent with the way the Catholic Church is following it. Look, I am explicitly using Catholic with a capitol C, not a lowercase c. After all, isn't it a basic truism of all Christians that they believe that they are members of the true, universal, catholic Church? 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) Are there some groups of Christians that don't adhere to the Nicene creed? If so, what is their belief on this matter? Yes, but they are heretics. (Was the Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox split over the Nicene creed? Yes, among other things including what type of Wonder Bread to use. This is the filioque question - rather to add from the Father and the Son to strengthen the Trinity position. Was there some other split over the Nicene creed? What were the points of contention?) Nicene Creed was formulated in 325 to combat the more popular (me- and more correct!) Arianism as well as the more sensible Sabbellianism and the Creed was expanded and reaffirmed in 381. Other councils were held in 431and 451 to outlaw other politically incorrect positions. In 569 they added the filioque clause. The Easter Churchs, in a more ^Eastern biblical fundamentalist position, said the Bible says from the Father. Since I am a UU - formed from the merger of two creedless churchs this is a matter of great fun for me. Julia Gary -- Some kind of Freudian slip maru -- #2 on google for liberal news I don't try harder ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
Gary Denton wrote: Since I am a UU - formed from the merger of two creedless churchs this is a matter of great fun for me. Then you get should the joke... A Unitarian dies and finds himself facing a sign that says Heaven, with an arrow pointing to the right, and Discussion of Heaven, with an arrow pointing to the left. The Unitarian goes to the left, of course. I'll add that my family went to a Unitarian church till I was 12 or so, and my parents resumed going to one in North Carolina (where Unitarians are generally viewed with great suspicion, I'm sure). My sister was married a couple of years ago in the one we attended as kids (which now has one Nobel Laureate among its membership). And then there's the one about radical Unitarians burning question marks on peoples' lawns... Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 07:46:24 -0700, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gary Denton wrote: Since I am a UU - formed from the merger of two creedless churchs this is a matter of great fun for me. Then you get should the joke... A Unitarian dies and finds himself facing a sign that says Heaven, with an arrow pointing to the right, and Discussion of Heaven, with an arrow pointing to the left. The Unitarian goes to the left, of course. Of course, I'm with Samuel Clemens on Heaven. A discussion of heaven with coffee would be a lot more fun. Ahhh, coffee - the UU holy sacrament. http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Mark_Twain/Captain_Stormfields_Visit_to_Heaven/ I'll add that my family went to a Unitarian church till I was 12 or so, and my parents resumed going to one in North Carolina (where Unitarians are generally viewed with great suspicion, I'm sure). My sister was married a couple of years ago in the one we attended as kids (which now has one Nobel Laureate among its membership). And then there's the one about radical Unitarians burning question marks on peoples' lawns... Only with proper permits and following the community fire codes. Nick Gary -- #2 on google for liberal news I don't try harder ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 07:46:24 -0700, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gary Denton wrote: Since I am a UU - formed from the merger of two creedless churchs this is a matter of great fun for me. Then you get should the joke... A Unitarian dies and finds himself facing a sign that says Heaven, with an arrow pointing to the right, and Discussion of Heaven, with an arrow pointing to the left. The Unitarian goes to the left, of course. Q: What do you get when you cross a Unitarian with a Jehovah's Witness? A: Someone who goes door to door for no particular reason. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
At 09:46 AM Tuesday 8/10/04, Nick Arnett wrote: And then there's the one about radical Unitarians burning question marks on peoples' lawns... Golden ones? -- Ronn! :) Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever. -- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Objective Evil
Behalf Of The Fool -- From: Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. According to my sisters-in-law (who are JW's), I'm not. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Objective Evil
Behalf Of Nick Arnett And then there's the one about radical Unitarians burning question marks on peoples' lawns... And there's the one about how when Unitarians die they go to the Great Whatever. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
At 04:50 PM 8/9/2004 -0700 Deborah Harrell wrote: Please explain, then, how any war can be just, since it is inevitable that innocents will be killed, maimed and left bereft by. Deborah, I could say the same thing about automobiles. does that mean that driving automobiles is an evil act, since it is inevitable that driving automobiles leaves innocents killed, maimed, and left bereft? I use the same logic with a just war - intent matters. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
At 10:53 PM 8/8/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 10:31 PM Subject: Re: Objective Evil At 10:14 PM 8/8/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: And dropping bombs on Saddam Hussein's armies was not evil. So, the action of killing conscripts of Hussein, many of whom are there because they had no choice, in inherently an acceptable action? You are changing the subject. Not once have I ever said that it was inherently acceptable, I merely said that it was *not* inherently evil. but you also said: The killing of innocent people is an objective evil. (True) So, the logical conclusion is that you believe that the soldiers in Hussein's army are not innocent because they accepted their conscription instead of death or torture. Is that it? Yes, I do not believe that they are innocent. I think that even you would describe them as having chosen the lesser evil, would you not? In which, case, they are still engaging in evil. As I would think of anyone who engages in killing. Killing another human being is an inherently evil act. You are arguing that the end justifies the means. War cannot be justified as an end in itself, it must be justified by another end. I disagree that killing anorther human being is an inherently evil act. Killing an innocent human being directly (murder) is an inherently evil act. If, however, killing another human being is an inherently evil act, then I would be guilty of a mortal sin by taking a vacation and ordering take-out-pizza instead of sending all of my consumption spending to assist refugees in Darfur or fund mosquito nets in Congo. As an aside; do you agree with the bishops that our nuclear deterrent was inherently evil and should not have existed? My personal opinion - No. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Objective Evil Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 13:12:10 +0100 snip even Velikovsky Don't you just love it when someone scientifically explains 'manna from heaven'? -Travis it's a bird...it's a plane...it's Mars!!! Edmunds _ Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen Technology http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 5:56 PM Subject: Re: Objective Evil As an aside; do you agree with the bishops that our nuclear deterrent was inherently evil and should not have existed? My personal opinion - No. When we launch those weapons, what is the intent? It is to kill tens if not hundreds of millions of people...most of whom are innocent. The deterrent, by definition, holds hundreds of millions of people hostage to the acts of a few. It hopes to influence those few to make decisions that are in the best interest of the United States. If this is all right, and using condoms to stop the spread of AIDs can be considered wrong, then it is all about playing games with boxes. When one wants to do something-- one calls the good part of the equation the intent. When you think others shouldn't, it is separated from the intent and called the ends. Since the intent justifies the action and the ends doesn't, then all is good. I realize that you didn't come up with this logic chopping...so I'm not faulting you. For example, I have reluctantly concluded that with the nuclear deterrent, the end justified the means. We are together in dissenting from the teachings of the American bishops here. :-) I'm just trying to promote honest, consistent labeling...not to point you out as wrong and me right on morality. I'm arguing that we all do this. How about this, look at it as if it were a speech by a Democrat; I'm sure would be able to find the inconsistencies then. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
On 11 Aug 2004, at 12:43 am, Dan Minette wrote: I realize that you didn't come up with this logic chopping...so I'm not faulting you. For example, I have reluctantly concluded that with the nuclear deterrent, the end justified the means. We are together in dissenting from the teachings of the American bishops here. :-) I'm just trying to promote honest, consistent labeling...not to point you out as wrong and me right on morality. I'm arguing that we all do this. How about this, look at it as if it were a speech by a Democrat; I'm sure would be able to find the inconsistencies then. :-) But if God's plan is inscrutable and beyond human comprehension at times then applying human logic to it is pointless. Best to shut up and do as you're told by those appointed to pass the word down... -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Invest in a company any idiot can run because sooner or later any idiot is going to run it. - Warren Buffet ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
At 05:42 AM Tuesday 8/10/04, William T Goodall wrote: On 9 Aug 2004, at 6:05 pm, Alberto Monteiro wrote: 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. That could be resolved if Christians are those who believe that Jesus was the last prophet. Since Muslims believe Muhammad superseded Jesus they are not Christians. This does mean that the LDS are not Christians...maybe Smithians :) Latter-day Saints do not worship Joseph Smith or believe that he atoned for our sins as Christ did. -- Ronn! :) Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever. -- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
On 11 Aug 2004, at 1:25 am, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 05:42 AM Tuesday 8/10/04, William T Goodall wrote: On 9 Aug 2004, at 6:05 pm, Alberto Monteiro wrote: 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. That could be resolved if Christians are those who believe that Jesus was the last prophet. Since Muslims believe Muhammad superseded Jesus they are not Christians. This does mean that the LDS are not Christians...maybe Smithians :) Latter-day Saints do not worship Joseph Smith or believe that he atoned for our sins as Christ did. Muslims don't worship Muhammad or believe that he atoned for anyone's sins. They just believe that the angel Gabriel gave him the info for the Koran. Like Moroni gave Joseph Smith some stuff. The ambiguity is inherent in the situation. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
At 08:22 PM Tuesday 8/10/04, William T Goodall wrote: On 11 Aug 2004, at 1:25 am, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 05:42 AM Tuesday 8/10/04, William T Goodall wrote: On 9 Aug 2004, at 6:05 pm, Alberto Monteiro wrote: 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. That could be resolved if Christians are those who believe that Jesus was the last prophet. Since Muslims believe Muhammad superseded Jesus they are not Christians. This does mean that the LDS are not Christians...maybe Smithians :) Latter-day Saints do not worship Joseph Smith or believe that he atoned for our sins as Christ did. Muslims don't worship Muhammad or believe that he atoned for anyone's sins. They just believe that the angel Gabriel gave him the info for the Koran. Like Moroni gave Joseph Smith some stuff. The ambiguity is inherent in the situation. The difference is that, while Muslims and Latter-day Saints both believe that the founders of their respective churches were men who were prophets who brought additional knowledge directly from God, Latter-day Saints believe that Christ did atone for our sins, while Muslims see Him as only another prophet. -- Ronn! :) Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever. -- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
On 11 Aug 2004, at 2:31 am, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 08:22 PM Tuesday 8/10/04, William T Goodall wrote: On 11 Aug 2004, at 1:25 am, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 05:42 AM Tuesday 8/10/04, William T Goodall wrote: On 9 Aug 2004, at 6:05 pm, Alberto Monteiro wrote: 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. That could be resolved if Christians are those who believe that Jesus was the last prophet. Since Muslims believe Muhammad superseded Jesus they are not Christians. This does mean that the LDS are not Christians...maybe Smithians :) Latter-day Saints do not worship Joseph Smith or believe that he atoned for our sins as Christ did. Muslims don't worship Muhammad or believe that he atoned for anyone's sins. They just believe that the angel Gabriel gave him the info for the Koran. Like Moroni gave Joseph Smith some stuff. The ambiguity is inherent in the situation. The difference is that, while Muslims and Latter-day Saints both believe that the founders of their respective churches were men who were prophets who brought additional knowledge directly from God, Latter-day Saints believe that Christ did atone for our sins, while Muslims see Him as only another prophet. LOL. Religion is just so funny :) But sad too. So much wasted time. So many wasted lives. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ If you listen to a UNIX shell, can you hear the C? ___ 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: 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
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: 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
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 saved² and earn the same reward² 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
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
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
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 he rose again
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: 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: 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
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
- 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
JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip 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. biting tongue hard 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: 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: 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: 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
Objective Evil
Dan: I think that your difficulty here is not registering the concept of objective evil. An objective evil is one that cannot be justified by circumstance. Maybe this will sound tautological to you, but obviously if there is a concept of just war, than war cannot be an objective evil. Another difficulty, and I am stretching my memory back to my elementary theology lessons back in the day, is that an evil action requires intent and knowledge. In regards to intent, this can be thought of as being the difference between manslaughter and homicide. Manslaughter is a sin, but it isn't quite an objective evil (so far as I know.)In regards to knowledge, you can't commit an objective evil if you don't know that it is wrong. For example, doctors who perform abortions are automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church - but only if they know that performing an abortion carries such a penalty.(I probably won't let myself be dragged into a discussion as to whether or not this is sensible or not - I am simply decribing how it is.) 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. 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. Finally, to close with another example of Catholic teaching that an objectively evil act cannot be justified to prevent another objectively evil act - Would one participate in a rape to save a life?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've just thought to do something that I should have done in the first place, which is to provide original source material from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm#1751 This should explain the principles at work much better than my amateurish attempts above. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 2:10 PM Subject: Objective Evil Dan: I think that your difficulty here is not registering the concept of objective evil. An objective evil is one that cannot be justified by circumstance. Maybe this will sound tautological to you, but obviously if there is a concept of just war, than war cannot be an objective evil. I went to the web site, and I am embarassed as a Catholic by the lack of consistant logic. Let me ask a very simple question. Is the deliberate killing of innocence people an objective evil or not? If it is not, than why would the raping of innocnent people be an objective evil? Why would anything be an objective evil? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
- 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. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
At 02:31 PM 8/8/2004 -0500 Dan M. 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? Let me ask a very simple question. Is the deliberate killing of innocence people an objective evil or not? The linked text quite explicitly declares murder to be an objective evil. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
On 8 Aug 2004, at 8:31 pm, Dan M. wrote: I went to the web site, and I am embarassed as a Catholic by the lack of consistant logic. LOL. I'm surprised you're surprised. The only logical outcome of thinking about religion is atheism, and they're hardly likely to promote that... -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Invest in a company any idiot can run because sooner or later any idiot is going to run it. - Warren Buffet ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
At 02:38 PM 8/8/04, JDG wrote: At 02:31 PM 8/8/2004 -0500 Dan M. 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? Let me ask a very simple question. Is the deliberate killing of innocence people an objective evil or not? The linked text quite explicitly declares murder to be an objective evil. How does it define the word murder? (Serious question. And I have a point, other than the one on top of my pointy little head . . . ;-) ) -- Ronn! :) Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever. -- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 2:38 PM Subject: Re: Objective Evil At 02:31 PM 8/8/2004 -0500 Dan M. 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. :-) Let me ask a very simple question. Is the deliberate killing of innocence people an objective evil or not? The linked text quite explicitly declares murder to be an objective evil. 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. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
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 . . . ;-) ) -- Ronn! :) Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever. -- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy ___ 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 3:24 PM Subject: Re: Objective Evil 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? We do. We need to balance the wrong we do by not stopping something and the wrong we do when we do stop it and try to understand which action would better fit love thy neighbor as oneself. This is one reason honest people can differ on war. IMHO, dishonest people deny that they are making that tradeoff. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
At 02:51 PM 8/8/04, William T Goodall wrote: On 8 Aug 2004, at 8:31 pm, Dan M. wrote: I went to the web site, and I am embarassed as a Catholic by the lack of consistant logic. LOL. I'm surprised you're surprised. The only logical outcome of thinking about religion is atheism Not necessarily. Is the logical outcome of thinking about geometry Euclidean or non-Euclidean geometry? (Still serious. Still have a point.) -- Ronn! :) Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever. -- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
At 02:41 PM 8/8/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: 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. If I follow your logic correctly, you seem to be saying that: The killing of innocent people is an objective evil. (True) War kills innocent peoplle. (Mostly True) Therefore, War is Objectively Evil. This conclusion, however, is a Syllogism, and is False. It is not the intent of someone undertaking a just War to kill innocent people.This intent is important. Using your logic, however, one would conclude that driving automobiles kills innocent people, therfore driving automobiles is objectively evil - which is, of course, ridiculous. It is worth noting that the ends justify the means is what brought us Manzanar and Minidoka (et al.)I feel much more comfortable in saying that the internment camps were objectively immoral than merely saying that the payoff wasn't high enough for us to have gone that far. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
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, to speak of his embarassment as a Catholic. Indeed, to do so, denies the word Catholic of any practical meaning. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
On 8 Aug 2004, at 9:27 pm, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 02:51 PM 8/8/04, William T Goodall wrote: On 8 Aug 2004, at 8:31 pm, Dan M. wrote: I went to the web site, and I am embarassed as a Catholic by the lack of consistant logic. LOL. I'm surprised you're surprised. The only logical outcome of thinking about religion is atheism Not necessarily. Yes, necessarily. Is the logical outcome of thinking about geometry Euclidean or non-Euclidean geometry? Both. -- 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
At 04:51 PM 8/8/04, William T Goodall wrote: On 8 Aug 2004, at 9:27 pm, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 02:51 PM 8/8/04, William T Goodall wrote: On 8 Aug 2004, at 8:31 pm, Dan M. wrote: I went to the web site, and I am embarassed as a Catholic by the lack of consistant logic. 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. Is the logical outcome of thinking about geometry Euclidean or non-Euclidean geometry? Both. Exactly. One must determine by actual observation whether the sum of the angles of a triangle is less than, equal to, or greater than 180° in order to determine what kind of space one is in. Similarly, one must determine whether God exists or does not exist to determine if reality is theistic or atheistic. Otherwise, it is impossible to distinguish between the two possibilities by simple logical argument alone. -- Ronn! :) Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever. -- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 4:15 PM Subject: Re: Objective Evil At 02:41 PM 8/8/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: 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. If I follow your logic correctly, you seem to be saying that: The killing of innocent people is an objective evil. (True) War kills innocent peoplle. (Mostly True) Therefore, War is Objectively Evil. This conclusion, however, is a Syllogism, and is False. It is not the intent of someone undertaking a just War to kill innocent people.This intent is important. And I quote from the website. One may not do evil so that good may result from it. Thus, the church opposes the use of condoms in Africa to decrease the spread of AIDs because birth control is an objective evil. Even thought the outcome is the saving of numerous lives, which is a good. Dropping bombs on people is evil; there is no way around it. When we do it in a war, we definitely do evil to do good. One way the American bishops were self-consistent with this argument is when they said nuclear deterrent was inherently evil. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 4:18 PM Subject: Re: Objective Evil 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. I'll give one last example. My two younger children have two sets of baptismal papers from one baptism. They were formally enrolled into the Methodist church and the Catholic church when they were baptised because the priest and minister who performed the ceremony both signed both sets of papers. to speak of his embarassment as a Catholic. Indeed, to do so, denies the word Catholic of any practical meaning. No, it doesn't. Its meaning is outside of the box you wish to remain in. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
Thus, the church opposes the use of condoms in Africa to decrease the spread of AIDs because birth control is an objective evil. Even thought the outcome is the saving of numerous lives, which is a good. Yeah, but if the Church encourages the use of condoms to check the spread of AIDS, it would also be encouraging the practice of pre- or extra-marital sex as well, which from a Catholic standpoint is bad... Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ 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: Objective Evil
At 05:56 PM 8/8/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: 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. But following it in a way that is not consistent with the way the Catholic Church is following it. Look, I am explicitly using Catholic with a capitol C, not a lowercase c. After all, isn't it a basic truism of all Christians that they believe that they are members of the true, universal, catholic Church? to speak of his embarassment as a Catholic. Indeed, to do so, denies the word Catholic of any practical meaning. No, it doesn't. Its meaning is outside of the box you wish to remain in. :-) O.k., given your proposed definition of Catholic, how do you define Protestant?Are Protestants just simply a sect within the Catholic Church? And does the Catholic Church have any power or authority to regulate its membership, or can *anyone* justly claim to speak as a Catholic? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
At 05:46 PM 8/8/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: Dropping bombs on people is evil; there is no way around it. When we do it in a war, we definitely do evil to do good. Well, there we differ. I do not believe that dropping bombs on combatants is evil.Dropping bombs on the Taliban was not evil.Dropping bombs on Al Qaeda training camps was not evil. And dropping bombs on Saddam Hussein's armies was not evil. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised to learn that you disagree with the above. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 6:34 PM Subject: Re: Objective Evil And dropping bombs on Saddam Hussein's armies was not evil. So, the action of killing conscripts of Hussein, many of whom are there because they had no choice, in inherently an acceptable action? If we killed them just for the sake of killing them, and not as a action that was necessary to prevent a greater evil, that would be OK? You can't get around the question of whether the end justifies the means by trying to sneak the end in as part of the means. BTW, the Augustine justification does not do this and I quote: Because God judges the soul, the ultimate question is not what the man does . but with what mind and will he does it. The appropriate motive in all cases, Augustine rules, is love. What is done from love of God must be good. I'd substitute the second great commandment for the first, personally, when I focus on just actions with my fellow humans, but I pretty well agree with the last line. (I think it is safer with regards to self righteous evil actions.) Dan M. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
At 06:32 PM 8/8/04, JDG wrote: Look, I am explicitly using Catholic with a capitol C, not a lowercase c. After all, isn't it a basic truism of all Christians that they believe that they are members of the true, universal, catholic Church? No. -- Ronn! :) Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever. -- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
JDG wrote: At 05:56 PM 8/8/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: 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. But following it in a way that is not consistent with the way the Catholic Church is following it. Look, I am explicitly using Catholic with a capitol C, not a lowercase c. After all, isn't it a basic truism of all Christians that they believe that they are members of the true, universal, catholic Church? 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) Are there some groups of Christians that don't adhere to the Nicene creed? If so, what is their belief on this matter? (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?) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 02:38 PM 8/8/04, JDG wrote: At 02:31 PM 8/8/2004 -0500 Dan M. 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? Let me ask a very simple question. Is the deliberate killing of innocence people an objective evil or not? The linked text quite explicitly declares murder to be an objective evil. How does it define the word murder? (Serious question. And I have a point, other than the one on top of my pointy little head . . . ;-) ) That's something I would like to know, as well. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
- Original Message - From: Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 6:35 PM Subject: Re: Objective Evil Thus, the church opposes the use of condoms in Africa to decrease the spread of AIDs because birth control is an objective evil. Even thought the outcome is the saving of numerous lives, which is a good. Yeah, but if the Church encourages the use of condoms to check the spread of AIDS, it would also be encouraging the practice of pre- or extra-marital sex as well, which from a Catholic standpoint is bad... That might be a minor result; and I agree that is bad. But, the fact is that a very high percentage of the men have extra-marital sex, and then infect their wives. If the use of condoms is socially sectioned, then these wives have a much better chance to save their own lives. AIDs, in Africa, is horrid beyond belief. IIRC, the mean life expectancy in Zambia is now down to about 32 years, as a result of the AIDS epidemic. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
At 07:20 PM 8/8/04, Julia Thompson wrote: JDG wrote: At 05:56 PM 8/8/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: 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. But following it in a way that is not consistent with the way the Catholic Church is following it. Look, I am explicitly using Catholic with a capitol C, not a lowercase c. After all, isn't it a basic truism of all Christians that they believe that they are members of the true, universal, catholic Church? 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) Are there some groups of Christians that don't adhere to the Nicene creed? Yes. -- Ronn! :) Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever. -- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
At 07:21 PM 8/8/04, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 02:51 PM 8/8/04, William T Goodall wrote: On 8 Aug 2004, at 8:31 pm, Dan M. wrote: I went to the web site, and I am embarassed as a Catholic by the lack of consistant logic. LOL. I'm surprised you're surprised. The only logical outcome of thinking about religion is atheism Not necessarily. Is the logical outcome of thinking about geometry Euclidean or non-Euclidean geometry? Yes. And both sorts of non-Euclidean. ;-) I recognized that it is not a perfect analogy. But then, analogies seldom are perfect. -- Ronn! :) Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever. -- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
At 07:27 PM 8/8/04, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 6:35 PM Subject: Re: Objective Evil Thus, the church opposes the use of condoms in Africa to decrease the spread of AIDs because birth control is an objective evil. Even thought the outcome is the saving of numerous lives, which is a good. Yeah, but if the Church encourages the use of condoms to check the spread of AIDS, it would also be encouraging the practice of pre- or extra-marital sex as well, which from a Catholic standpoint is bad... That might be a minor result; and I agree that is bad. But, the fact is that a very high percentage of the men have extra-marital sex, and then infect their wives. If the use of condoms is socially sectioned, sanctioned? then these wives have a much better chance to save their own lives. Of course, the same result could also be achieved if the men learned to keep it in their pants. AIDs, in Africa, is horrid beyond belief. IIRC, the mean life expectancy in Zambia is now down to about 32 years, as a result of the AIDS epidemic. -- Ronn! :) Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever. -- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
JDG wrote: 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, it's not. It's reason is the opposition to a man declaring himself the sole representative of Jesus on Earth, and giving orders as if he had a high-speed link to God all the time. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 07:21 PM 8/8/04, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 02:51 PM 8/8/04, William T Goodall wrote: On 8 Aug 2004, at 8:31 pm, Dan M. wrote: I went to the web site, and I am embarassed as a Catholic by the lack of consistant logic. LOL. I'm surprised you're surprised. The only logical outcome of thinking about religion is atheism Not necessarily. Is the logical outcome of thinking about geometry Euclidean or non-Euclidean geometry? Yes. And both sorts of non-Euclidean. ;-) I recognized that it is not a perfect analogy. But then, analogies seldom are perfect. Nor are questions. Yours wasn't absolutely clear as to what you were asking. :) I think you were looking for a choice to be made, while I was pointing out the options covered the bases. (Dan's not here right now, and I've got to get the geek humor out of my system *somehow*.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
At 07:33 PM 8/8/04, Alberto Monteiro wrote: JDG wrote: 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, it's not. It's reason is the opposition to a man declaring himself the sole representative of Jesus on Earth, and giving orders as if he had a high-speed link to God all the time. Yes. Sometimes it seems more like dial-up on a noisy line with a flakey network card . . . ;-) -- Ronn! :) Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever. -- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
At 07:35 PM 8/8/04, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 07:21 PM 8/8/04, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 02:51 PM 8/8/04, William T Goodall wrote: On 8 Aug 2004, at 8:31 pm, Dan M. wrote: I went to the web site, and I am embarassed as a Catholic by the lack of consistant logic. LOL. I'm surprised you're surprised. The only logical outcome of thinking about religion is atheism Not necessarily. Is the logical outcome of thinking about geometry Euclidean or non-Euclidean geometry? Yes. And both sorts of non-Euclidean. ;-) I recognized that it is not a perfect analogy. But then, analogies seldom are perfect. Nor are questions. Yours wasn't absolutely clear as to what you were asking. :) I think you were looking for a choice to be made, while I was pointing out the options covered the bases. I think I made it clear in an later post than the one to which you were initially replying. (Dan's not here right now, and I've got to get the geek humor out of my system *somehow*.) As do we all. The results are nasty when it builds up inside until it explodes. Go right ahead. -- Ronn! :) Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever. -- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy ___ 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 7:31 PM Subject: Re: Objective Evil At 07:27 PM 8/8/04, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 6:35 PM Subject: Re: Objective Evil Thus, the church opposes the use of condoms in Africa to decrease the spread of AIDs because birth control is an objective evil. Even thought the outcome is the saving of numerous lives, which is a good. Yeah, but if the Church encourages the use of condoms to check the spread of AIDS, it would also be encouraging the practice of pre- or extra-marital sex as well, which from a Catholic standpoint is bad... That might be a minor result; and I agree that is bad. But, the fact is that a very high percentage of the men have extra-marital sex, and then infect their wives. If the use of condoms is socially sectioned, sanctioned? yup, quick typing. then these wives have a much better chance to save their own lives. Of course, the same result could also be achieved if the men learned to keep it in their pants. But, the wives can't control that. They can insist on condoms when the husbands have sex with them. Its traditional for men, who have to work far from home for months, to see prostitutes where they work. While I don't agree with this, morally, it is a reality that the wives cannot change. They might be able to change how they have sex with their husbands, but that's about it. So, given that we will not stop the long standing sexual practices of the men (its moral to try, but its stupid to rely on sucess), do we say that the natural result is the death for both the man and his wife, and that its wrong to stop it, or that life is so important that saving the wife is more important than the possiblity of encouraging more affairs? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 6:32 PM Subject: Re: Objective Evil O.k., given your proposed definition of Catholic, how do you define Protestant?Are Protestants just simply a sect within the Catholic Church? Sure, that's easy. Protestants are those folks who willingly and deliberately maintain a separation from the Catholic church. I, for example, make a point of the fact that I use a Catholic bible. I strongly disagree with double predestination. I tend towards the Catholic view of prayers for the dead. I chide my Presbyterian friends for minimizing the importance of the Communion of Saints. As best I can discern, the Spirit is working from the ground up to bring the church into closer union. I do not feel the desire or the need to renounce my Catholic tradition of faith in order to be a member of a church that is not Catholic. Indeed, talking to one of the priests at St. Anthony, I found the rule is that I can be members of a Catholic parish and a Protestant church; I just cannot be an active officer of both at the same time. So, while I served as an elder, I couldn't also be a lector at the Catholic church. I could still be a member, though. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
(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?) 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). Ultimately it was the result of the two churches moving apart as the Eastern church was much more influenced by Oriental ideals of religion, while the Western continued in its own direction. The Nicene creed was set down at the Council of Nicaea, 425, when there was no split in the church. Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ 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: Objective Evil
At 08:16 PM 8/8/04, Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: Objective Evil
O.k., given your proposed definition of Catholic, how do you define
Protestant?Are Protestants just simply a sect within the Catholic
Church?
Sure, that's easy. Protestants are those folks who willingly and
deliberately maintain a separation from the Catholic church.
So am I correct in interpreting that as saying that {x|x is a Protestant}
.union. {y|y is a Catholic} is equivalent to the set of all Christians, or,
IOW, anyone who belongs to a church which worships Christ is either a
Protestant or a Catholic?
(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, for
example, make a point of the fact that I use a Catholic bible. I strongly
disagree with double predestination. I tend towards the Catholic view of
prayers for the dead. I chide my Presbyterian friends for minimizing the
importance of the Communion of Saints.
As best I can discern, the Spirit is working from the ground up to bring
the church into closer union. I do not feel the desire or the need to
renounce my Catholic tradition of faith in order to be a member of a church
that is not Catholic. Indeed, talking to one of the priests at St.
Anthony, I found the rule is that I can be members of a Catholic parish and
a Protestant church; I just cannot be an active officer of both at the same
time. So, while I served as an elder, I couldn't also be a lector at the
Catholic church. I could still be a member, though.
If one were solely a member of the Presbyterian church, could one become a
member of the Catholic church (either dual membership or a switch of
membership) without being re-baptized? Conversely, if one were solely a
member of the Catholic church, could one become a member of the
Presbyterian church (either dual membership or a switch of membership)
without being re-baptized?
-- Ronn! :)
Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever.
-- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
So, given that we will not stop the long standing sexual practices of the men (its moral to try, but its stupid to rely on sucess), do we say that the natural result is the death for both the man and his wife, and that its wrong to stop it, or that life is so important that saving the wife is more important than the possiblity of encouraging more affairs? While on an intellectual level I completely agree with this, I would also argue that this is ultimately the purview of the local governments, not the Church. Part of religion's role in society is to teach, encourage, and sometimes uphold morality (and there's a number of ways that can be done, from witholding perks within the congregation to having religious Moral Hygene squads to see that its enforced). To take the stance that using codoms to prevent the spread of AIDS is OK, and compromise accepted morality leads to moral laziness. Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ 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: Objective Evil
At 08:19 PM 8/8/04, Damon Agretto wrote: (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?) 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). Ultimately it was the result of the two churches moving apart as the Eastern church was much more influenced by Oriental ideals of religion, while the Western continued in its own direction. Logically are those two options the only ones possible? -- Ronn! :) Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever. -- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
If one were solely a member of the Presbyterian church, could one become a member of the Catholic church (either dual membership or a switch of membership) without being re-baptized? Conversely, if one were solely a member of the Catholic church, could one become a member of the Presbyterian church (either dual membership or a switch of membership) without being re-baptized? IIRC as long as one is baptized in the name of the Trinity, if one were to go Catholic it is unneccesary to be re-baptized, only confirmed. However, if one was not baptized in this way (such as a Jehova Witness), you will need to be baptized. 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
At 08:16 PM 8/8/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: O.k., given your proposed definition of Catholic, how do you define Protestant?Are Protestants just simply a sect within the Catholic Church? Sure, that's easy. Protestants are those folks who willingly and deliberately maintain a separation from the Catholic church. And what word would you use to describe those folks who willingly and deliberately maintain communion with the Catholic Church? I do not feel the desire or the need to renounce my Catholic tradition of faith in order to be a member of a church that is not Catholic. I can't imagine that any Catholic would ever ask you to do that. I can see nothing wrong with you being a Protestant who is heavily influenced by his history as a Catholic, and the current Catholic tradition and faith. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 8:48 PM Subject: Re: Objective Evil At 08:16 PM 8/8/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: O.k., given your proposed definition of Catholic, how do you define Protestant?Are Protestants just simply a sect within the Catholic Church? Sure, that's easy. Protestants are those folks who willingly and deliberately maintain a separation from the Catholic church. And what word would you use to describe those folks who willingly and deliberately maintain communion with the Catholic Church? Catholics. But, the trick is, whether the Vatican bureaucracy is empowered by the spirit to decide which decents from their views breaks communion. I feel I maintain communion. I do not feel the desire or the need to renounce my Catholic tradition of faith in order to be a member of a church that is not Catholic. I can't imagine that any Catholic would ever ask you to do that. I can see nothing wrong with you being a Protestant who is heavily influenced by his history as a Catholic, and the current Catholic tradition and faith. Why can't I be a member of two churches? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
At 07:23 PM 8/8/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: And dropping bombs on Saddam Hussein's armies was not evil. So, the action of killing conscripts of Hussein, many of whom are there because they had no choice, in inherently an acceptable action? You are changing the subject. Not once have I ever said that it was inherently acceptable, I merely said that it was *not* inherently evil. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 9:40 PM Subject: Re: Objective Evil At 07:23 PM 8/8/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: And dropping bombs on Saddam Hussein's armies was not evil. So, the action of killing conscripts of Hussein, many of whom are there because they had no choice, in inherently an acceptable action? You are changing the subject. Not once have I ever said that it was inherently acceptable, I merely said that it was *not* inherently evil. but you also said: The killing of innocent people is an objective evil. (True) So, the logical conclusion is that you believe that the soldiers in Hussein's army are not innocent because they accepted their conscription instead of death or torture. Is that it? You don't consider them victims of Hussein too? Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
At 10:14 PM 8/8/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: And dropping bombs on Saddam Hussein's armies was not evil. So, the action of killing conscripts of Hussein, many of whom are there because they had no choice, in inherently an acceptable action? You are changing the subject. Not once have I ever said that it was inherently acceptable, I merely said that it was *not* inherently evil. but you also said: The killing of innocent people is an objective evil. (True) So, the logical conclusion is that you believe that the soldiers in Hussein's army are not innocent because they accepted their conscription instead of death or torture. Is that it? Yes, I do not believe that they are innocent. I think that even you would describe them as having chosen the lesser evil, would you not? In which, case, they are still engaging in evil. You don't consider them victims of Hussein too? I think that I would also consider them victims. Without fully thinking through the implications of this just yet, this would suggest to me that conscription in in a totalitarian state is a particularly insidious form of evil, as it corrupts the innocent into becoming agents of oppression. JDG ___ 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 8:25 PM
Subject: Re: Objective Evil
At 08:16 PM 8/8/04, Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: Objective Evil
O.k., given your proposed definition of Catholic, how do you define
Protestant?Are Protestants just simply a sect within the
Catholic
Church?
Sure, that's easy. Protestants are those folks who willingly and
deliberately maintain a separation from the Catholic church.
So am I correct in interpreting that as saying that {x|x is a Protestant}
.union. {y|y is a Catholic} is equivalent to the set of all Christians,
or,
IOW, anyone who belongs to a church which worships Christ is either a
Protestant or a Catholic?
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.
(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.)
If one were solely a member of the Presbyterian church, could one become
a
member of the Catholic church (either dual membership or a switch of
membership) without being re-baptized? Conversely, if one were solely a
member of the Catholic church, could one become a member of the
Presbyterian church (either dual membership or a switch of membership)
without being re-baptized?
One could become a member of the Presbyterian church by publicly declaring
faith in Jesus. In order to join a Catholic church, a Christian of another
denomination needs to go through a fairly long process of study. It was
one year for other Christians, and it may be more now.
Dan M.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 10:31 PM Subject: Re: Objective Evil At 10:14 PM 8/8/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: And dropping bombs on Saddam Hussein's armies was not evil. So, the action of killing conscripts of Hussein, many of whom are there because they had no choice, in inherently an acceptable action? You are changing the subject. Not once have I ever said that it was inherently acceptable, I merely said that it was *not* inherently evil. but you also said: The killing of innocent people is an objective evil. (True) So, the logical conclusion is that you believe that the soldiers in Hussein's army are not innocent because they accepted their conscription instead of death or torture. Is that it? Yes, I do not believe that they are innocent. I think that even you would describe them as having chosen the lesser evil, would you not? In which, case, they are still engaging in evil. As I would think of anyone who engages in killing. Killing another human being is an inherently evil act. You are arguing that the end justifies the means. War cannot be justified as an end in itself, it must be justified by another end. You don't consider them victims of Hussein too? I think that I would also consider them victims. Without fully thinking through the implications of this just yet, this would suggest to me that conscription in in a totalitarian state is a particularly insidious form of evil, as it corrupts the innocent into becoming agents of oppression. But, these soldiers were not agents of oppression. They manned the self-defense forces. Hussein trusted an elite for the oppression. Even if you were to declare every Iraqi soldier as guilty, you would also have to admit that we bombed in such a manner that we knew that civilian casualties would take place. When we fight now; we know we kill civilians. The only thing that can justify this is the ends. As an aside; do you agree with the bishops that our nuclear deterrent was inherently evil and should not have existed? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
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? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
At 09:28 PM 8/8/04, JDG wrote: At 09:01 PM 8/8/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: At 08:16 PM 8/8/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: O.k., given your proposed definition of Catholic, how do you define Protestant?Are Protestants just simply a sect within the Catholic Church? Sure, that's easy. Protestants are those folks who willingly and deliberately maintain a separation from the Catholic church. And what word would you use to describe those folks who willingly and deliberately maintain communion with the Catholic Church? Catholics. But, the trick is, whether the Vatican bureaucracy is empowered by the spirit to decide which decents from their views breaks communion. I feel I maintain communion. And that is the heart of my objection. When most people read the term Catholic they interpret the term as meaning those folks who willingly and deliberately maintain communion with the Catholic Church. To me, it seems a little disingenuous for someone who has such strong disagreements with the Catholic Church that he became an official in a Protestant Church, and whom I suspect attends Protestant services far more often than he attends Catholic Mass on Sunday to lob a criticism of the Church with the preface as a Catholic. I do not feel the desire or the need to renounce my Catholic tradition of faith in order to be a member of a church that is not Catholic. I can't imagine that any Catholic would ever ask you to do that. I can see nothing wrong with you being a Protestant who is heavily influenced by his history as a Catholic, and the current Catholic tradition and faith. Why can't I be a member of two churches? Didn't Christ say something about serving two Masters? ;-) Are you suggesting that Catholics and Protestants serve different masters? (Faithful ones, that is. Probably lots of members in name of every church serve some other master than the one they should . . .) Seriously, I have no problem with you attending Catholic Mass as often as you want, nor any problem with you attending many of the events at St. Anthony's. Who if anyone would have a problem, and why? -- Ronn! :) Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever. -- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
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? In order to join a Catholic church, a Christian of another denomination needs to go through a fairly long process of study. It was one year for other Christians, and it may be more now. I am aware of the study requirement. Do you know the answer to my specific question: Does the Catholic church accept Presbyterians without requiring that they be baptized by a Catholic priest in a Catholic ceremony? -- Ronn! :) Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever. -- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
At 08:53 PM 8/8/04, Damon Agretto wrote: Logically are those two options the only ones possible? To the Pope or the Patriarch they are! True. But how about to God? 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? (correct me if I get this wrong of course; my experience is mainly with Catholicism, through friends, historical study, and of course my own past), and reject the leadership of ANY church. If you reject the leadership of ANY church, can you still be a Christian? By whose definition? Will you be saved² and earn the same reward² in the next life? _ ¹Not used as an expletive here. ²However these terms are defined. -- Ronn! :) Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever. -- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
At 08:46 PM 8/8/04, Damon Agretto wrote: If one were solely a member of the Presbyterian church, could one become a member of the Catholic church (either dual membership or a switch of membership) without being re-baptized? Conversely, if one were solely a member of the Catholic church, could one become a member of the Presbyterian church (either dual membership or a switch of membership) without being re-baptized? IIRC as long as one is baptized in the name of the Trinity, Could you please define Trinity for this purpose? if one were to go Catholic it is unneccesary to be re-baptized, only confirmed. However, if one was not baptized in this way (such as a Jehova Witness), you will need to be baptized. I am not familiar with how Jehovah's Witnesses are baptized (if indeed they are baptized). Can anyone enlighten me, or point me to a web page describing it? Thanks! -- Ronn! :) Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever. -- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
-- From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 08:46 PM 8/8/04, Damon Agretto wrote: If one were solely a member of the Presbyterian church, could one become a member of the Catholic church (either dual membership or a switch of membership) without being re-baptized? Conversely, if one were solely a member of the Catholic church, could one become a member of the Presbyterian church (either dual membership or a switch of membership) without being re-baptized? IIRC as long as one is baptized in the name of the Trinity, Could you please define Trinity for this purpose? if one were to go Catholic it is unneccesary to be re-baptized, only confirmed. However, if one was not baptized in this way (such as a Jehova Witness), you will need to be baptized. I am not familiar with how Jehovah's Witnesses are baptized (if indeed they are baptized). Can anyone enlighten me, or point me to a web page describing it? Thanks! JW's are non 3=1. They do full emersion. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Objective Evil
At 12:05 AM 8/9/04, The Fool wrote: -- From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 08:46 PM 8/8/04, Damon Agretto wrote: If one were solely a member of the Presbyterian church, could one become a member of the Catholic church (either dual membership or a switch of membership) without being re-baptized? Conversely, if one were solely a member of the Catholic church, could one become a member of the Presbyterian church (either dual membership or a switch of membership) without being re-baptized? IIRC as long as one is baptized in the name of the Trinity, Could you please define Trinity for this purpose? if one were to go Catholic it is unneccesary to be re-baptized, only confirmed. However, if one was not baptized in this way (such as a Jehova Witness), you will need to be baptized. I am not familiar with how Jehovah's Witnesses are baptized (if indeed they are baptized). Can anyone enlighten me, or point me to a web page describing it? Thanks! JW's are non 3=1. They do full emersion. Thank you! (I presume you meant immersion.) Now for the big question: are they Christians? -- Ronn! :) Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever. -- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
