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.
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 automobil
> 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 automo
> 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 standpoi
> 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 defi
> 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 everyo
t; >> 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:
> >> >
> >
--
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
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
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 wh
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
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 t
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 Amer
- 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
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
even Velikovsky
Don't you just love it when someone scientifical
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 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
> 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/l
> 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
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
__
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
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
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
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 a
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,
> >
On 10 Aug 2004, at 2:08 am, The Fool wrote:
--
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 tha
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
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
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, otherwis
--
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 J
> JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyhow, I don't think that anyone here seriously
> intends to argue that the
> killing of combatants is an objective moral evil.
> Indeed, the concept of
> a "just war" requires that the killing of
> combatants, in at least some
> circumstances, not be evil a
- 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:
>
> >- Origi
> 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/
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 I
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 - wh
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 perso
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
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
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 plea
> 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.
=
> 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
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 Velikov
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 o
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.
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..
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 sw
--
> 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
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
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 chur
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 Easte
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?
>> >
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
- 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 drop
- 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 Me
le 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. (Tru
- 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 b
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 e
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. Protes
> From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> 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 i
- 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 p
> Logically are those two options the only ones
> possible?
To the Pope or the Patriarch they are!
Of course, with Protestantism, you can follow your own
voice (correct me if I get this wrong of course; my
experience is mainly with Catholicism, through
friends, historical study, and of course my
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
> 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 th
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
> 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
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 defin
> (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 th
- 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 yo
- 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 Me
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 emba
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 Je
"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
> > >
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 ha
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
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 surp
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,
At 07:23 PM 8/8/04, Dan Minette wrote:
"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.
Is it possible in all cases for fallible humans working with limited mortal
"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 think
- 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
> > Af
our 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?
> >
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.
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, b
- 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 o
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
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
> 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 c
- 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
- 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 wo
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
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
thin
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
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 kil
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
- 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 Me
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 evi
- 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 a
u 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 ha
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 Good
> 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
- 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 r
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
