Home > Archive > Cobol > May 2005 > OT - "lie" vs "error"
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
OT - "lie" vs "error"
|
|
| Chuck Stevens 2005-04-14, 8:55 pm |
|
"SkippyPB" <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:5d0t511ce81u7hl35107mhcga673its0fg@
4ax.com...
> Meier is a Roman Catholic Bible scholar and often signs the Imprimatur
> himself. In the case of this book, the Imprimatur was signed in New
> York on June 25, 1991 by The Most Rev. Patrick J. Sheridan, V.G.
Just found Sheridan on the internet. Found this odd: *appointed* auxiliary
Bishop of New York and titular bishop of Cursola (Italy) on 30 October 1990;
*ordained* Bishop six w s later.
Retired 15 January 2001. Apparently never had a "real" diocese of his own.
-Chuck Stevens
| |
| James J. Gavan 2005-04-14, 8:55 pm |
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> I just read an article then looked it up on-line:
> [url]http://www.informationw.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=160503515[/url]
>
> IT Confidential by John Soat
>
> Includes:
>
> ... BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL BET ON ANYTHING. Speaking of online gambling, a
> colleague at our sister online publication, TechWeb, contacted gambling sites to
> find out the betting line on the new Pope. ("Online Gaming Sites May Have Inside
> Track On Next Pope"). Odds-on favorite to win when the College of Cardinals
> meets to pick a new leader for the Roman Catholic Church is Italy's Cardinal
> Dionigi Tettamanzi, at anywhere from odds of 9-2 to 11-4. Antonia Sharpe, a
> spokeswoman for Betfair.com, notes that Pope wagering on its site has been under
> way for 18 months. Betting was slow initially, but has picked up sharply, with
> some $70,000 wagered so far. The other Cardinals, in order of betting odds on
> Betfair: Francis Arinze of Nigeria, at 15-to-2; O. Rodiguez Maradiaga of
> Honduras, 8-to-1; Claudio Hummes of Brazil, also at 8-to-1; and J. Ratizinger of
> Germany, 29-to-1.
Granted human frailties come into it, but what the 'bookies' have
missed, is that, in theory at least, the conclave of cardinals is
*supposed* to be guided by the Holy Spirit.
OK so latter is translation from 'Sancte Spiritus' but in 'Anglo' I
still prefer Holy Ghost - no doubt from German Heilliger Geist. (If the
last bit is wrong - blame Babelfish !)
I had a time-out on my Server so couldn't post this earlier. So I see
Chuck is favouring Ratzinger and Arinze. Like JPII they are both 'worldly'.
Prior to priesthood JPII was into amateur dramatics, quite a nice
looking young man and always played the leading man opposite a rather
attractive Polish girl. A very good two-hour retrospective on him by CBC
illustrated this. According to his Jewish childhood friend they were
'close'. Then it broke up; discretely none of their group asked why. Nor
did the 'girl' offer any information, although on a subsequent visit to
the Vatican the TV showed them hugging - not just your usual peck on the
ch. He also did time breaking up stones in a quarry - then became a
seminarian.
Ratzinger - the Panzer Kardinal - that I think refers to the fact that
he did his conscription service in the post-war Wermacht. Appears he was
very close to JPII.
Arinze - son of a wealthy Nigerian business man. He converted to
catholicism.
Just got to wait for the white smoke guys - plus, for first time, the
peals of a joyful bell !
Jimmy
| |
|
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 13-Apr-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Which do you have funerals for?
I've heard of them for both.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
|
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <b97ce$425dd6f9$45491f85$3161@KNOLOGY.NET>,
> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> According to law (in some places) there is no such thing as an 'unborn
> child'; just as a teenager does not attain certain statuses until certain
> events are accomplished - say, the 14th or 16th or 18th birthdays - so
> does a fetus not attain the status of 'child' until a certain event -
> known as 'birth' - is accomplished.
>
> Try to remember that when you question something as 'a violation of law',
> as you did above.
I clarified, and you still refuse to understand what I said. Read the
first part of my quote, starting with the words "I'm not", and you'll
see that I was *not* making any sort of legal claim as to the status of
a child that has yet to be born.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
|
| Chuck Stevens wrote:
[huge snip]
>
> Based on your other posts, you don't seem to think that's the way it ought
> to be, and you would oppose efforts to ensure that that was the case. Am I
> right?
Yes. And, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not going to
change your mind, and you're not going to change mine. No one reading
this is going to have their mind changed either. As Mr. Brazee pointed
out, we are coming at this from two entirely different perspectives.
I've laid out my views, and you've laid out yours. At best, maybe some
folks have stopped and thought.
I still, for the life of me, don't understand how someone saying what
they feel "ought to" be amounts to "cramming their religion down our
throats". I guess to those folks, open debate only extends so far.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-04-15, 3:55 am |
| In article <6f638$425f13d6$45491f85$7644@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>I clarified, and you still refuse to understand what I said. Read the
>first part of my quote, starting with the words "I'm not", and you'll
>see that I was *not* making any sort of legal claim as to the status of
>a child that has yet to be born.
You constantly refer to a fetus as a child... to say that a fetus is a
child of any sort - unborn, yet to be born, pre-born or otherwise - is to
give the fetus a legal status, that of 'child', to which it is not by law
(in some places) entitled. I do not know how I can make this more clear.
DD
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-04-15, 8:55 am |
|
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:58999$425f14c0$45491f85$9259@KNOLOG
Y.NET...
> Chuck Stevens wrote:
>
> [huge snip]
>
ought[color=darkred]
Am I[color=darkred]
>
> Yes. And, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not going to
> change your mind, and you're not going to change mine. No one reading
> this is going to have their mind changed either. As Mr. Brazee pointed
> out, we are coming at this from two entirely different perspectives.
> I've laid out my views, and you've laid out yours. At best, maybe some
> folks have stopped and thought.
>
> I still, for the life of me, don't understand how someone saying what
> they feel "ought to" be amounts to "cramming their religion down our
> throats". I guess to those folks, open debate only extends so far.
>
I don't understand how people can get so worked up about Religious
arguments. (Not just you, Daniel). There is an old saying that friends
should never debate Religion or Politics.
I watched some of the funeral of the Pope on TV and they claimed around 2
billion people were affected by it. It made me  . Not for the death of a
kindly, idealistic, and well-intentioned old man, but for the fact that
Human Beings have still got a long way to go in shaking off the
superstitions of the Dark and Middle Ages.(Sorry, I'm not trying to offend;
that is honestly how I see organised Religions, including
Christianity...However, I have enough respect for Human Beings in general,
and the participants here in particular, that I would accept their right to
believe whatever they want, and hope they would accord me the same
courtesy.)
All of us are products of our environments and our genes. If we are
indoctrinated in something from early childhood (whether it is Christianity,
Islam, Rationalism, or any other system of belief...) it is VERY hard to
establish patterns of independent thought in later life, and especially wih
regard to morals and ethics. To question can be seen as offensive, yet these
same 'believers' have no compunction in pouring scorn and derision on those
who don't agree with them. (At least they have moved on from burning them at
the stake and applying hot irons to sensitive parts of their anatomy, so I
guess there has been SOME progress.)
It is highly likely that if I had been born 400 - 500 years ago, (and given
I held then the beliefs I do now), I would have been thumbscrew fodder
before I was 25 and would almost certainly have not seen 30...
I have been interested to see the debate here and the way in which
intelligent people have grappled with hard moral questions.
You are right that no minds will be changed, but that is pretty normal for
CLC. If minds are not changed about putting full stops in COBOL, they are
extremely unlikely to be changed about what constitutes a person, or the
ethics of dealing with victims of rape.
The WAY in which arguments are presented is also revealing.
I noticed that Chuck presented some impassioned arguments against your
position on rape victims, which had already been covered in this same thread
in a discussion between you and me. The difference was that Chuck felt a lot
more strongly about it than I do. I was content as long as you agree that
the victim has the final say (and you did). Others seem to want more. I
can't tell whether your stated position is seen as 'fair game' for a bit of
kicking, or whether others generally have missed your bottom line. I cannot
agree with your position on God, the Universe and Everything, but I see you
have a belief system that works well for you, and you defend it honourably
and fairly. That is good enough for me.
I have never felt I had anything rammed down my throat in this forum, with
the possible exception of "Windows Bad; Unix Good" :-)
A number of people here have professed to Roman Catholic education and that
also merits respect. Religion is so closely woven into the fabric of
people's lives, and is such a personal and intense thing for many people,
that freely admitting your persuasion and discussing points of it publicly
is courageous.
I can't help noticing a more dogmatic stand from some of these people, but
maybe that's just me...
In NZ we have all kinds of religions, cults, belief systems, from fringe
(and I mean WAY out... :-)) to mainstream. For the most part, we get along.
It is part of our diversity, and, personally, I think that is valuable.
(The cardinal rule has to be, of course: "You are free to practise your
beliefs as long as you do not harm others, or the property of others.")
If my neighbours decide to sacrifice a goat and dance naked around a
bonfire in their backyard, they will hear no complaints from me (as long as
the goat is killed humanely (and they don't go through too many goats...
maybe one a year is acceptable) and the drumming stops by 10 pm...OK, 11 on
a Saturday night...:-))
(I probably won't feel so liberal if a certain recently formed Church here
(born again Christianity with an overlay of Nazi-ism...no, really...right
down to the black shirts and clenched fist salutes... they staged a march
which was chillingly reminiscent of films I have seen of the Nuremburg
Rallies...Not everyone here appreciates diversity...) which is vying for
political power, actually attains it, but if that happens the country will
be finished, and I would have to move to Australia (which is almost as bad,
without Religious government :-)). So, far the said Church has failed in its
bid, but it has appeal to the disaffected, and they claim they will have
more support before the next elections.
I remember when I first came to the UK and found that people were killing
each other in Ireland, I was stunned on being told it was between Catholics
and Protestants. (They are all supposed to be Christian...so what happened
to Ecumenicism, anyway?)
The bottom line is that as long as we debate moral issues from a Religious
viewpoint, there will never be conclusions (other than religious dogma and
'Holy Writ') and minds will cetainly NOT be changed.
But why change the habits of a couple of Millenia... :-)
Pete.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-04-15, 3:55 pm |
|
On 11-Apr-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
> Morality *can* be black and white. And, it's not me making the
> decisions for other people - it's me, using the power I have a single
> citizen, to support those who believe the way I do about issues, whether
> life and death (such as this one), or those that aren't quite so important.
But it isn't absolute everywhere. Otherwise we wouldn't have theological
arguments.
> But, absolutes *have* to exist - they must! Why is math so precise?
> Did that happen by chance? Accidental accuracy? To say that everything
> is relative is to turn a blind eye to nature and science.
Sometimes. Relativity does exist. Grays exist. And so do Red, plaid, and
beige.
Just because some things are black or white, doesn't mean everything can or
should be shoehorned into those categories.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-04-15, 3:55 pm |
| In article <af76e$425af5f4$45491f85$16564@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>jce wrote:
>
>Morality *can* be black and white.
A torque-wrench *can* be used as a hammer... but it might not function
very well as a torque-wrench afterwards. Two plus two *can* be five...
for very small values of five. Two men *can* be providers of an
environment which proves to be better for raising a child than a man and a
women... and this has been demonstrated over and over again.
What '*can* be' (emphasis original) might serve to show the inventiveness
of people in a situation... nothing more, nothing less.
[snip]
>But, absolutes *have* to exist - they must! Why is math so precise?
>Did that happen by chance? Accidental accuracy?
This seems more a cry of desire than a statement of fact... it *must* be
so! Math is precise because the rules for that game were established as
such... and math fails miserably in areas many folks encounter every day.
Magnetism can be quantified, sure... and so can electricity... and I
remember when a professor in my junior-year college physics class took
Maxwells's equations, showed how they described physical phenomena by
adding units to them and then manipulated them according to the rules of
algebra many folks now take for granted...
.... and my skin went cold when the speed of light (3.0 x 10(8) m/s) (where
'10(8)' is used to signify ten-to-the-eighth-power) just... *fell* right
out. Math is fine for that, sure...
.... but for 'beauty' or 'love' or 'honor' or 'duty' - things that some
call the 'highest human functions', beyond the... merely mechanical and
mathematical - it does not seem to do so well.
>To say that everything
>is relative is to turn a blind eye to nature and science.
To say 'everything is relative' is to posit an absolute... next?
>
>Those that *always* just said no.
I always thought that the 'doing' had more influence on the results than
the 'just saying'.
>Abstinence works 100% percent of the
>time it is practiced (practised, for our overseas friends).
Leaving aside incidents of force... you *do* realise that you are, with
that statement, denying the Immaculate Conception, don't you?
>
>
>No, and that is one reason I'm not in favor of certain methods of
>human-assisted conception. Fertilizing 40 embryos, taking the 7
>"strongest" and throwing the rest away kills (for sure) 33 people.
Only if embryo=person. Granted that every person I know of was once an
embryo... but the existence of miscarriage demonstrates that every embryo
will not necessarily develop into a human.
DD
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2005-04-15, 3:55 pm |
| Sorry about the empty message. What I was going to write was a correction:
In a prior message, for:
<<Do *you* truly feel the pain that a rapist endures, Daniel?>>
Please read
<< Do *you* truly feel the pain that a victim of rape endures, Daniel?>>
-Chuck Stevens
| |
|
| "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:58999$425f14c0$45491f85$9259@KNOLOG
Y.NET...
> Chuck Stevens wrote:
>
> [huge snip]
> I still, for the life of me, don't understand how someone saying what they
> feel "ought to" be amounts to "cramming their religion down our throats".
> I guess to those folks, open debate only extends so far.
If it makes you feel better, as much as I choose to disagree or agree with
you, I believe you made it clear that you are merely pursuing your right to
try and convince people of the validity of your position. Your position
being a question of *life* and therefore being *important* to you.
I think we can all learn from the debate that there is always going to have
to be a middle ground in the application of laws.
The simple - stating the obvious - fact is that both polarizing sides are
likely to be upset, or at least one
side will be most upset with whatever decision is made. At the current
time it appears that at least in CLC you are somewhat outnumbered which is,
in your eyes, an unfortunate reality, and in the eyes of everyone else, a
fortunate reality. The
middle ground you appear to have found is that in "general" the members of
CLC don't trivialize the decision of abortion or life, but recognize their
*own* ethical exceptions. I believe to you that doesn't represent any kind
of victory at all but to people like myself it does.
There does appear to be a lack of female input into the matter which perhaps
is not surprising in the old male dominated arena.
[This is not addressed to you in particular - just general statements]
The success of a nation, or people, or world even, is determined by the
variety of its peoples. Having
any group with a polarizing view dominating the landscape leads to more
issues than we will ever get through reasoned debate and a supposed
compromise for the masses.
As an example, I cannot think of a war that was based on a "middle ground"
argument. In my mind a faith system [scientology, atheism, christianity,
judaism etc] play a part in everyone's life: I do view atheism as a faith
system...I think agnosticism probably is the only -ism that doesn't fit my
criteria because it's point in being is a lack of faith.
It's an unfortunate side effect that *sometimes* [emphasis added] when that
faith system is shared by a
large group, the lives of many outside that group tends to end up worse of
where there is little gain for the group. I never saw the lives of people
get better because they forced because they refused two men to get married,
or two women adopt a child. A lot of the caustic arguments of faith systems
don't serve to improve anyone's life, just to make the lives of others more
difficult. I chose marriage because it's an ultra politicized debate over a
religious ceremony. This is where I have my major issues.
It's not all negative though. Some faith based programs I donate to because
they appear to be doing good things. I don't deny charity to a group that
helps only christians -which some do-because most charity is good charity.
I do not give to charities that I feel pay their executive levels too much
(the "to get the best executives we have to pay the going rate" argument
doesn't work with me), and I do not give where the use of the money is put
towards something that I disapprove of. So I don't like organized religion
in total, but there are aspects of organized religion that I do appreciate.
I don't base friendships on a religion so it doesn't really matter to me - I
rarely discuss the subject with friends and when I do I have a very distinct
line I draw - at the first sign of personal affront, the conversation ends.
[In the case of Daniel, I never got the feeling I offended him - apologies
if I did - it just seemed to be friendly dialogue (is that the correct
usage?! ;-))]
The problem with the application of laws in these situations is that there
is always a higher law argument. The Germans were not tried for crimes
against Germans, or crimes against Jews because it wasn't illegal. There
were no laws against genocide. They ultimately were tried for crimes
against "humanity." This would be a difficult result to justify in the US
today because it was applying a law retroactively......Laws have their
purpose but don't resolve all the issues - there is always a moral and
ethical consideration. This is unfortunately a "grey" area...and debating
the issues is interesting and educational. The theory is that this will
enable each of us to more accurately understand our own lines and those of
others.
I like to think that he moral victory is that everyone learns to widen their
scope of thinking.
JCE
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2005-04-15, 3:55 pm |
|
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:b73d7$425f138a$45491f85$7644@KNOLOG
Y.NET...
>
> I've heard of them for both.
That's not an answer that responds to the question; I've heard of funerals
for goldfish, too.
-Chuck Stevens
| |
| SkippyPB 2005-04-15, 8:55 pm |
| On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:43:32 -0700, "Chuck Stevens"
<charles.stevens@unisys.com> enlightened us:
>
>"SkippyPB" <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:5d0t511ce81u7hl35107mhcga673its0fg@
4ax.com...
>
>
>Aye, there's the rub. Although the Bishop found nothing objectionable
>(Imprimatur) the diocese's censor either didn't agree there was nothing
>doctrinally wrong with it or wasn't offered the opportunity to examine it.
>Where was Sheridan assigned?
>
>Apparently Imprimatur doesn't mean what it used to. See
>http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/imprimatur.html .
>
> -Chuck Stevens
>
No, I think it has always meant, "Let it be printed". What the
web-site implies is that the document in quesiton have the Nihil
Obstat (nothing stands in the way) which is obtained from the censor,
before it gets the Imprimatur. Yet I've seen many Catholic books and
documents than only have the Imprimatur.
According to:
http://www.americancatholic.org/New.../Imprimatur.asp
it says, "When a Roman Catholic bishop grants his imprimatur to a
printed work, he assures the reader that nothing therein is contrary
to Catholic faith or morals. This imprimatur is not given lightly;
only after a thorough review process."
No mention of Nihil Obstat.
Another reference, http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/ncd01811.htm
also seems to imply that the Nihil Obstat needs to be given before the
Imprimatur.
However, I think the best explanation can be found at:
http://www.answers.com/topic/imprimatur
under the Wikipedia entry.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"When you look at Prince Charles, don't you think that
someone in the Royal family knew someone in the Royal family?"
--Robin Williams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| SkippyPB 2005-04-15, 8:55 pm |
| On 15 Apr 2005 01:16:03 -0400, docdwarf@panix.com enlightened us:
>In article <6f638$425f13d6$45491f85$7644@KNOLOGY.NET>,
>LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>You constantly refer to a fetus as a child... to say that a fetus is a
>child of any sort - unborn, yet to be born, pre-born or otherwise - is to
>give the fetus a legal status, that of 'child', to which it is not by law
>(in some places) entitled. I do not know how I can make this more clear.
>
>DD
Under Federal Law, it appears the rules are constant. Refer to:
http://www.detnews.com/2002/politic...tics-404824.htm
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"When you look at Prince Charles, don't you think that
someone in the Royal family knew someone in the Royal family?"
--Robin Williams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2005-04-15, 8:55 pm |
| What I was reacting to was that he seems to have been *acting* as a bishop
before he was *ordained* a bishop.
"SkippyPB" <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:gr00619r1bnhs5urfcusc15ioo2oq9g4p8@
4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:36:52 -0700, "Chuck Stevens"
> <charles.stevens@unisys.com> enlightened us:
>
auxiliary[color=darkred]
1990;[color=darkred]
own.[color=darkred]
>
> That is odd. So in effect, he was a bishop when he acted as
> Imprimatur for Meier's book.
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> ////
> (o o)
> -oOO--(_)--OOo-
>
>
> "When you look at Prince Charles, don't you think that
> someone in the Royal family knew someone in the Royal family?"
> --Robin Williams
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Remove nospam to email me.
>
> Steve
| |
|
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> I don't understand how people can get so worked up about Religious
> arguments. (Not just you, Daniel). There is an old saying that friends
> should never debate Religion or Politics.
In this case, though, it's not about religion or politics - it's about
science. (The fact that these views coincide with my religious views
seems to be a handicap in this group - it's easy to write off what I say
as "theology" instead of refuting it with another scientific claim.)
The free-love me-me-me sixties produced a problem - the "make love" part
of "make love not war" has this nasty side effect called pregnancy.
Well, we can figure out a way to make that baby die and come out early
(it's not really a baby then, is it?). It couldn't survive outside my
body, so it must *be* my body - and there aren't any laws against
self-mutilation.
Enter the early 70's - civil rights for black folks in this country were
really taking off, and abortion was spun as a civil right for women.
The Supreme Court was convinced, somehow finding something in our
Constitution that simply isn't there, and said that our individual
states do not have the right to prohibit this practice.
Thirty years later, an entire generation of people have been killed by
this practice. Recent talks about social security bemoan the fact that
it twenty-whenever our recipients will outnumber those who are paying
into the system. Wonder why?
The Democrat party, the ones who pushed for this, is seeing its
registered voters decline in comparison to the Republican party, who is
pushing for (among other things, of course) a reevaluation of Roe v.
Wade. You are more likely to get your beliefs from your immediate
family than from anywhere else. Democrat's children think abortion is
okay, "my right", while Republican's children do not, and carry their
offspring to term. Could this be a reason?
However, 30 years later, we also have a window to the womb that we did
not have when Roe v. Wade was decided. But, so many folks have drunk
the kool-aid of "it's my body, it's my right" that they cannot look at
the scientific evidence with an open mind. The words "embryo" and
"fetus", which used to just be used a delimiters of age of the unborn,
have somehow been devalued and is now used as a slur - "it's *just* a
fetus".
We now know that those who said it is a child were right, and those that
said it was nothing more valuable than a tumor were wrong. But,
evidently, I can't be the one to say that, since it also coincides with
my religious beliefs.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-04-15, 8:55 pm |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:d3omm4$dkl$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> On 15-Apr-2005, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> There are some people who believe that the majority of the world will be
> tortured beyond all understanding forever and ever without hope of parole.
If
> I believed there was even one person likely to suffer such a terrible
fate, I
> would be very miserable and I would do everything I possibly could to
change
> this.
So would I. Fortunately, I hold no such belief.
> Although many of them believe in an all loving, omnipotent God, which
> doesn't fit, so I'd be  as well.
>
> What would you do to stop a child from burning up in a house fire next
door?
> Most of us would risk our lives to save that child a couple of minutes of
> misery. How much more would any decent person do to save someone from a
much
> more terrible pain that lasts forever and ever?
>
The fire next door is real. Hell is not.
One reason I am atheist is because to admit the existence of God would
require admitting the existence of Satan and I find that just ludicrous.
There is evil in the world. It is caused by Humans, who invariably will not
take responsibility for it and fix it, not by some frightening invention of
a darker time when Men had no ideas about the Universe and ascribed events
beyond their control to Magical forces that must be appeased (often by human
sacrifice). I live in the 21st century (whatever that means). We are
supposed to know better.
I don't need a crutch; I have had severe trauma and faced death in my life
and have NEVER turned to 'God' to save me or promised to be 'good' if I
survived. I can deal with the grave being the end; it encourages me to do
the best I can in the time my window of awareness is open. I LIKE the idea
that when I die the atoms of my body will return to the Universe where they
were created, aeons ago in a star factory. That is the 'nature of things'
and I have no problem with it.
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-04-15, 8:55 pm |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:d3omop$dp5$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> On 15-Apr-2005, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
2[color=darkred]
>
> What does "affected by it" mean? People were affected by JFK's death as
well,
> not to mention Joe DiMagio's divorce.
>
I simply relayed what the reporter said. I have no opinion about it. I don't
know whether it was meant to imply there are 2 billion Catholics in the
world or just 2 billion people who get upset by funerals.
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-04-15, 8:55 pm |
|
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:56dae$426034f0$45491f85$21582@KNOLO
GY.NET...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> In this case, though, it's not about religion or politics - it's about
> science. (The fact that these views coincide with my religious views
> seems to be a handicap in this group - it's easy to write off what I say
> as "theology" instead of refuting it with another scientific claim.)
> The free-love me-me-me sixties produced a problem - the "make love" part
> of "make love not war" has this nasty side effect called pregnancy.
> Well, we can figure out a way to make that baby die and come out early
> (it's not really a baby then, is it?). It couldn't survive outside my
> body, so it must *be* my body - and there aren't any laws against
> self-mutilation.
It's funny how our beliefs colour our memory. I recall the 60s as the decade
which produced the birth control pill.
>
> Enter the early 70's - civil rights for black folks in this country were
> really taking off, and abortion was spun as a civil right for women.
I believe it is.
> The Supreme Court was convinced, somehow finding something in our
> Constitution that simply isn't there, and said that our individual
> states do not have the right to prohibit this practice.
>
> Thirty years later, an entire generation of people have been killed by
> this practice. Recent talks about social security bemoan the fact that
> it twenty-whenever our recipients will outnumber those who are paying
> into the system. Wonder why?
>
> The Democrat party, the ones who pushed for this, is seeing its
> registered voters decline in comparison to the Republican party, who is
> pushing for (among other things, of course) a reevaluation of Roe v.
> Wade. You are more likely to get your beliefs from your immediate
> family than from anywhere else. Democrat's children think abortion is
> okay, "my right", while Republican's children do not, and carry their
> offspring to term. Could this be a reason?
>
As the last above are sweeping statements, they have no credence and I
cannot comment.
> However, 30 years later, we also have a window to the womb that we did
> not have when Roe v. Wade was decided. But, so many folks have drunk
> the kool-aid of "it's my body, it's my right" that they cannot look at
> the scientific evidence with an open mind. The words "embryo" and
> "fetus", which used to just be used a delimiters of age of the unborn,
> have somehow been devalued and is now used as a slur - "it's *just* a
> fetus".
>
> We now know that those who said it is a child were right, and those that
> said it was nothing more valuable than a tumor were wrong. But,
> evidently, I can't be the one to say that, since it also coincides with
> my religious beliefs.
>
Well, I have yet to see Scientific evidence that supports your view. I
believe it is axiomatic that there is a difference between a child and a
foetus. Nevertheless, because of the potential a foetus has to become a
child, we certainly should consider its rights and protect it where possible
and reasonable. The rights of the mother have preference where these two
things come into conflict. I really don't see it as a mjor problem that
warrants threatening doctors and burning abortion clinics. There is far too
much religious based emotion on this subject.
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-04-15, 8:55 pm |
| Excellent post from JCE.
Some very quick comments below...
"jce" <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kzQ7e.6$716.0@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:58999$425f14c0$45491f85$9259@KNOLOG
Y.NET...
they[color=darkred]
throats".[color=darkred]
>
> If it makes you feel better, as much as I choose to disagree or agree with
> you, I believe you made it clear that you are merely pursuing your right
to
> try and convince people of the validity of your position. Your position
> being a question of *life* and therefore being *important* to you.
>
> I think we can all learn from the debate that there is always going to
have
> to be a middle ground in the application of laws.
>
I completely agree.
In a Democracy, where one group achieves ascendancy, it isn't always easy.
> The simple - stating the obvious - fact is that both polarizing sides are
> likely to be upset, or at least one
> side will be most upset with whatever decision is made. At the current
> time it appears that at least in CLC you are somewhat outnumbered which
is,
> in your eyes, an unfortunate reality, and in the eyes of everyone else, a
> fortunate reality. The
> middle ground you appear to have found is that in "general" the members of
> CLC don't trivialize the decision of abortion or life, but recognize their
> *own* ethical exceptions. I believe to you that doesn't represent any
kind
> of victory at all but to people like myself it does.
>
> There does appear to be a lack of female input into the matter which
perhaps
> is not surprising in the old male dominated arena.
>
> [This is not addressed to you in particular - just general statements]
>
> The success of a nation, or people, or world even, is determined by the
> variety of its peoples.
Diversity.
We should value, cherish, and protect it. "I may not agree with what you
say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Does free speech open the floodgates for hate?
Can/should we tolerate ravings and incitement in the name of free speech?
Yes. But only if we're grown up. If we have the maturity to make our own
judgements, not carried away by the emotion of the crowd, equipped to think
for ourselves and draw our own conclusions, there is no danger in permitting
free speech. The lunatic ravings will simply be refuted by people of more
balanced opinion.
So what about those who WILL be affected by the oratory of a Hitler (for
instance)?
I have given much thought to this. There is no easy answer, but I am
persuaded that the right to free speech is so precious we simply have to
take the chance. It is also an encouragement to instil in our young people a
capacity to make value judgements and to understand argument and rhetoric.
What happens, of course, is that the basis for these value judgements is all
too often rooted in their religious persuasion, so instead of logic we
simply get dogma and the 'party line'.
Before too long there is a jihad or crue against the unbelievers...
Mao Tse Tung observed that power grows from the barrel of a gun; that may be
true, but I still cling to the belief that the pen is mightier than the
sword.
Differences are best resolved around a table than around a battlefield.
>Having
> any group with a polarizing view dominating the landscape leads to more
> issues than we will ever get through reasoned debate and a supposed
> compromise for the masses.
> As an example, I cannot think of a war that was based on a "middle ground"
> argument. In my mind a faith system [scientology, atheism,
christianity,
> judaism etc] play a part in everyone's life: I do view atheism as a faith
> system...I think agnosticism probably is the only -ism that doesn't fit my
> criteria because it's point in being is a lack of faith.
Interesting observation. I don't consider myself one of the 'faithful'
atheists; I hold my belief because a long term investigation led me to it,
but I accept that others will have different experiences.
>
> It's an unfortunate side effect that *sometimes* [emphasis added] when
that
> faith system is shared by a
> large group, the lives of many outside that group tends to end up worse of
> where there is little gain for the group. I never saw the lives of
people
> get better because they forced because they refused two men to get
married,
> or two women adopt a child. A lot of the caustic arguments of faith
systems
> don't serve to improve anyone's life, just to make the lives of others
more
> difficult. I chose marriage because it's an ultra politicized debate over
a
> religious ceremony. This is where I have my major issues.
>
> It's not all negative though. Some faith based programs I donate to
because
> they appear to be doing good things. I don't deny charity to a group that
> helps only christians -which some do-because most charity is good charity.
Yes, I wouldn't let the fact that a charity group was based in any
particular religion stop me contributing, either. Charity is based on need
and need is greater than belief.
Having said that, (and without giving details of my own charitable
donations) I tend to support groups that will show exactly what percentage
of my money actually gets to the needy, and have publicly accessible
accounts. Oxfam are good in this regard, around 83% of your cash gets to the
people who need it. In some charities it is less than 50%, the rest being
absorbed by fund raisers and overheads. Charity is actually a good business
for some organisations. And I see exactly the same arguments being
applicable to organized religions. (I'm not suggesting that churches must
all be poor; funds are needed to help the faithful. It is when these funds
are used to build edifices to the glory of God while the peasants are
starving, that I have some problem with it...)
> I do not give to charities that I feel pay their executive levels too much
> (the "to get the best executives we have to pay the going rate" argument
> doesn't work with me), and I do not give where the use of the money is put
> towards something that I disapprove of. So I don't like organized
religion
> in total, but there are aspects of organized religion that I do
appreciate.
> I don't base friendships on a religion so it doesn't really matter to me -
I
> rarely discuss the subject with friends and when I do I have a very
distinct
> line I draw - at the first sign of personal affront, the conversation
ends.
> [In the case of Daniel, I never got the feeling I offended him - apologies
> if I did - it just seemed to be friendly dialogue (is that the correct
> usage?! ;-))]
>
> The problem with the application of laws in these situations is that there
> is always a higher law argument. The Germans were not tried for crimes
> against Germans, or crimes against Jews because it wasn't illegal. There
> were no laws against genocide. They ultimately were tried for crimes
> against "humanity." This would be a difficult result to justify in the
US
> today because it was applying a law retroactively......Laws have their
> purpose but don't resolve all the issues - there is always a moral and
> ethical consideration. This is unfortunately a "grey" area...and
debating
> the issues is interesting and educational. The theory is that this will
> enable each of us to more accurately understand our own lines and those of
> others.
>
> I like to think that he moral victory is that everyone learns to widen
their
> scope of thinking.
>
Man! I wish that were true... :-)
Interesting and thoughtful post. Thanks for that.
Pete.
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2005-04-15, 8:55 pm |
|
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3catjgF6m1i1aU1@individual.net...
> One reason I am atheist is because to admit the existence of God would
> require admitting the existence of Satan and I find that just ludicrous.
Not necessarily. Christian Science, Religious Science, Divine Science and
Unity Church are very much theistic (although arguably nontrinitarian) and
focus on the teachings of Jesus Christ. They deny the idea of intrinsic
evil, and even more so the idea of a personification of it. .
> There is evil in the world. It is caused by Humans, who invariably will
not
> take responsibility for it and fix it,
Again, these groups focus on alignment with that which is universally
harmonious, and they also believe that's what Jesus Christ taught.
Maybe you're just not looking in the right places!
-Chuck Stevens
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-04-15, 8:55 pm |
|
"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:d3onp0$1jp0$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
>
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:58999$425f14c0$45491f85$9259@KNOLOG
Y.NET...
>
>
> If someone works to get what "ought to" be, on the basis of their
particular
> theology/religion (in contrast to other patterns of theology) passed as
the
> Law of the Land, they work to establish a particular theology/religion as
> state-approved, and to denigrate other theologies/religions as inferior in
> the eyes of the state. I'm *really* uncomfortable with that.
Yep. Me too. (And you expressed it succinctly and elegantly.)
>
> As another example, the current President of the United States has on
> several occasions (including the 2004 State of the Union address and the
> Bush/Kerry debate) made it clear that he supports a constitutional
> amendment defending the "sanctity" of marriage. I have heard various folks
> declare this desire as a matter of *theological* perspective, but to have
a
> government official propose that the government involve itself with
> preserving *sanctity* (sacredness) as the term is viewed from a particular
> theological/religous perspective strikes me as an absolutely appalling
> violation of the principles behind the Bill of Rights.
>
Exactly. Is it the thin edge of the wedge? Where does it end?
> I think any law that favors one theological perspective over another
> represents such a violation, even when I agree with the theological
> perspective for which support is being proposed as law.
>
I wish more of the faithful were as fair minded as you, Chuck.
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-04-16, 3:55 am |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:d3oqp3$h85$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> On 15-Apr-2005, "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>
particular[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]
as[color=darkred]
in[color=darkred]
>
> But we all do this. Murder is illegal because we believe it is wrong.
We believe it is wrong because it is counter productive to go around killing
people. Common sense, not necessarily based in religious belief. It is
self-evidently not good to have some people killing others. Hence a law.
>Our
> problem is in determining which "sins" we can agree should be the state's
job to
> regulate. It is not as straightforward as we would like.
It is, if the 'sins' are assessed based on logic and not on dogma. The legal
system is SUPPOSED to be built that way.
>
>
> Someone's gay marriage doesn't threaten mine. And gay marriages in
general do
> not have nearly the impact on the "sanctity of marriage" as divorce does.
Not
> even close.
>
> IMHO, the state should get out of the business of caring about whether we
are
> married or not. Leave that to the churches. Contracts such as marriage
can
> be legally binding - but Palimony and Child Support work without
traditional
> marriages. And if I want to make my social security partner my disabled
> brother, mother, or neighbor, I shouldn't have to have a sexual
relationship
> with him to do so.
>
Excellent, Howard. You have pointed out that there are secular consequences
when people get together and the State has to ensure the protection of
children. However, your idea of being able to nominate who your Social
Security should benefit, kind of negates the idea of Social Security. If
everyone just took care of their own, you could argue there would be no need
for Social Security. The fact is that some people have no-one, others
actually need a hand, and Humanity (over and above any religious conviction)
requires us to do somethng about it. If you live in an affluent country, and
you see people who have 'fallen through the cracks' do you need religious
convictions in order to want to do something about it? I don't think so.
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-04-16, 3:55 am |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:d3orij$i1u$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> On 15-Apr-2005, "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>
>
> Not quite. A theology that's in favor of human sacrifice doesn't get my
> support the same as one that that's in favor of making murder illegal.
>
I don't think that is what he's saying, Howard.
If Chuck happened to ascribe to a cult that sacrified maidens at the new
moon, but another religion said: "No, we can't countenance that...", and the
law decided it must rule on this, Chuck would want both opinions to be
judged with equal seriousness by the law makers, rather than favouring his
own position. It is not about what an individual supports, it is about
ensuring that the PROCESS is equitable.
I agree with him. (Not about the sacrifice, about the process... :-))
Pete.
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2005-04-16, 3:55 am |
|
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3cauo4F6jtsqaU1@individual.net...
> Well, I have yet to see Scientific evidence that supports your view. I
> believe it is axiomatic that there is a difference between a child and a
> foetus. Nevertheless, because of the potential a foetus has to become a
> child, we certainly should consider its rights and protect it where
possible
> and reasonable. The rights of the mother have preference where these two
> things come into conflict. I really don't see it as a mjor problem that
> warrants threatening doctors and burning abortion clinics. There is far
too
> much religious based emotion on this subject.
I agree, Pete; and my concern here is that there's so much sentiment about
encoding a *particular* religious view on the subject as Law.
There are, as I've stated before, some generally-considered-conservative
religious groups that would agree with your summary.
From http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm :
"The Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 69b states that: "the embryo is considered to
be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterwards, it is considered subhuman
until it is born."
and
"Conservative, Reconstructionist and Reform Judaism are formally opposed to
government regulation of abortion. They feel that the decision should rest
with the woman, her husband, doctor and clergyperson. Some Orthodox
authorities agree with this stance. All recognize that the decision to have
an abortion is a difficult one, and is not to be undertaken without
considerable thought."
From http://www.cbctrust.com/abortion.html (a Canadian source, if it
matters), about Judaism:
"Abortion for therapeutic reasons, when the woman's life is clearly in
danger, is mandatory in Judaism. Her life takes absolute precedence over the
potential life of the fetus, which is not regarded as full life until late
in the process of birth.
"Otherwise, there is no unified Jewish position on abortion. Conservative
rabbis do not follow a single view. Most hold that mental distress is
sufficient for the woman to obtain an abortion. Neither do the Orthodox
authorities agree, and Orthodox women must consult their rabbis. Rabbis in
Reform Judaism generally take a pro-choice stance toward a woman's decision
for abortion.
"No one group officially speaks for all of Judaism, but the Central
Conference of American Rabbis, as well as the Union of American Hebrew
Congregations, which represents the Reform movement, formally support the
woman's right to moral and responsible choice."
That same source says, about Islam:
"The majority of Muslim scholars permit abortion, although they differ on
the stage of fetal development beyond which it becomes prohibited.
"Scholars agree that abortion at or after the ensoulment stage is
prohibited, except to save the woman's life. One group permits abortion up
to 120 days after conception. Another prohibits it as early as eighty or
even forty days after conception. In either case, many take the view that
abortion does not abruptly become prohibited at a certain stage, but becomes
increasingly disfavoured as the fetus develops, until it becomes finally
prohibited.
"On the other hand, a minority of scholars hold a very strict view which
prohibits abortion the minute the semen attaches to the uterus, on the
theory that it is already on its way to being ensouled. These scholars also
view abortions performed at later stages of pregnancy as more serious than
those performed at the earlier stages."
-Chuck Stevens
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-04-16, 3:55 am |
| Thanks Chuck, I found that fascinating.
I'm kind of relieved to see that in at least some religions there is still a
place for common sense.
Pete.
TOP POST no more below (but read it anyway... it's good :-))
"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:d3pjh7$24g6$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
>
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:3cauo4F6jtsqaU1@individual.net...
>
> possible
> too
>
> I agree, Pete; and my concern here is that there's so much sentiment about
> encoding a *particular* religious view on the subject as Law.
>
> There are, as I've stated before, some generally-considered-conservative
> religious groups that would agree with your summary.
>
> From http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm :
>
> "The Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 69b states that: "the embryo is considered
to
> be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterwards, it is considered
subhuman
> until it is born."
>
> and
>
> "Conservative, Reconstructionist and Reform Judaism are formally opposed
to
> government regulation of abortion. They feel that the decision should rest
> with the woman, her husband, doctor and clergyperson. Some Orthodox
> authorities agree with this stance. All recognize that the decision to
have
> an abortion is a difficult one, and is not to be undertaken without
> considerable thought."
>
> From http://www.cbctrust.com/abortion.html (a Canadian source, if it
> matters), about Judaism:
>
> "Abortion for therapeutic reasons, when the woman's life is clearly in
> danger, is mandatory in Judaism. Her life takes absolute precedence over
the
> potential life of the fetus, which is not regarded as full life until late
> in the process of birth.
>
> "Otherwise, there is no unified Jewish position on abortion. Conservative
> rabbis do not follow a single view. Most hold that mental distress is
> sufficient for the woman to obtain an abortion. Neither do the Orthodox
> authorities agree, and Orthodox women must consult their rabbis. Rabbis in
> Reform Judaism generally take a pro-choice stance toward a woman's
decision
> for abortion.
> "No one group officially speaks for all of Judaism, but the Central
> Conference of American Rabbis, as well as the Union of American Hebrew
> Congregations, which represents the Reform movement, formally support the
> woman's right to moral and responsible choice."
>
> That same source says, about Islam:
>
> "The majority of Muslim scholars permit abortion, although they differ on
> the stage of fetal development beyond which it becomes prohibited.
>
> "Scholars agree that abortion at or after the ensoulment stage is
> prohibited, except to save the woman's life. One group permits abortion up
> to 120 days after conception. Another prohibits it as early as eighty or
> even forty days after conception. In either case, many take the view that
> abortion does not abruptly become prohibited at a certain stage, but
becomes
> increasingly disfavoured as the fetus develops, until it becomes finally
> prohibited.
>
> "On the other hand, a minority of scholars hold a very strict view which
> prohibits abortion the minute the semen attaches to the uterus, on the
> theory that it is already on its way to being ensouled. These scholars
also
> view abortions performed at later stages of pregnancy as more serious than
> those performed at the earlier stages."
>
>
>
> -Chuck Stevens
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-04-16, 3:55 am |
|
"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:d3pi4n$23nh$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
>
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:3catjgF6m1i1aU1@individual.net...
>
>
> Not necessarily. Christian Science, Religious Science, Divine Science and
> Unity Church are very much theistic (although arguably nontrinitarian) and
> focus on the teachings of Jesus Christ. They deny the idea of intrinsic
> evil, and even more so the idea of a personification of it. .
>
> not
>
> Again, these groups focus on alignment with that which is universally
> harmonious, and they also believe that's what Jesus Christ taught.
>
> Maybe you're just not looking in the right places!
>
Well, I have to confess (appropriate, that :-)) that in 25 years of
intensively searching for answers to some fundamental questions, followed by
casual research that continues to this day, I did not look at the
organisations you mentioned.
I reached a point where I decided that the concept of a Supreme Being is
really not necessary to explain what we see around us, and it has caused
more trouble than it has ever sorted out. So, as I said initially above, the
requirement for Satan to be part of any theology I embraced was just ONE
reason for not embracing such belief system.(There are many, but I'm not
going into them here...)
Of all the religions I DID look at, I found Buddhism to have the most appeal
for me. They preach personal responsibility. I like that. The Buddha never
claimed to be God, he just said: "Look, about this suffering you're going
through, I've given it some serious thought and I think it can be sorted.
Here's 8 basic rules that should improve your life." (A free translation
into modern English; no offense to any Buddhists reading this... and no, I
am NOT a Buddhist (before Mr. Gavan paints black and white over my
grey...:-) )
Pete.
| |
| James J. Gavan 2005-04-16, 3:55 am |
| LX-i wrote:
A note of encouragement Daniel. I think you are doing pretty good in
flogging this one by yourself. This whole question of life/death is so
complex, plus it is very much tied into beliefs, religious or otherwise.
Just so you know your position or your Baptist tradition is not one iota
out of step with the Catholic Church. My tendency was to accept *most* -
although I felt that with 'Terri', perhaps there was justification for
removing tubes which just allowed her to live.
Now I'm not so sure, and am reaching a stage of being more 'faithful' to
catholic doctrine. It's largely based on reading an article in last
Saturday's Calgary Herald on Religion. Very well done and I've no idea
of the page editor's religion - he may or may not be a catholic, I just
don't know. But he is an excellent writer across the religious spectrum,
Judaism, Islam, Sikhism and of course Christianity, all denominations.
I wish I could neatly summarize his article succinctly, but I can't, so
you'll have to take the following as a limp attempt. He interviewed many
people, local Catholic bishop, other theologians, medical professors and
the outgoing president of the local chapter of the Society of Secular
Humanists. (It's a whole damn page - otherwise I would have attempted to
type and just quote it here and be done with it). The secularist did
have concern about the notion that life in itself is valueless
encourages despair and nihilism in some youth, even 'spasmodic violence'.
In essence, the Editor is illustrating there are two schools of thought;
those derived from a religious conviction, and the secularists, the
free-wheelers who arrive at their own moral stance. Certainly a lot of
the latter in this group and I'm sure, like me, even if you don't agree,
you can understand where they are coming from.
To religionists they query has the 'quality of life' changed, citing a
series of recent crimes, including that kid Jeff Wise in Red Lake Minn.
It asks, "Has life become cheap ?". and goes on to quote "In the
mid-'60s the American Medical Association Journal warned that if we ever
allowed widespread abortion, we would loose our commitment to the value
of the individual human life, and that has come true".
As regards Terri, the catholic position is quite clear from the local
bishop and quotes from John Paul II. The Bishop, (and this guy with a
snazzy mustache and a somewhat liberal activist, particularly as regards
the have-nots) mocked the idea that starving Terri Schiavo somehow
showed her greater respect: "We wouldn't starve a condemned criminal. We
wouldn't starve an animal. But we starved her for the sole reason that
she was incapable of feeding herself"
He went on to say that Catholic teaching has been completely clear -
most recently in a letter from JP II last year - that food and water
"always represent natural means of preserving life and not some dramatic
medical intervention". People can in good conscience remove someone from
truly artificial life support, letting them have a natural death, "but
it is always morally obligatory to provide food and water. Reflect, in
the Pope's very last days, as quoted, this was the attitude he took to
his own death.
A Psychology Professor at Vancouver's Cartey College, and a Baptist, and
having worked in the judicial system - "I don't think life has become
cheap. so much as life has become elite. We devalue human life itself by
ranking lives according to their worth". He goes on, "I think that's why
you saw such popular affection for the Pope. He lived out his belief in
the dignity of every single soul. He didn't play the hierarchy game".
(As a sidebar on the TV program I saw about the Pope's life. An
interview with Henry Kissinger. He met the Pope on a visit to the US.
Says Henry, "Well I'm not a Catholic", (Well I'll be damned Henry - Oi
vey, I never would have guessed :-) ). "But I asked the Pope, why did he
tackle such controversial topics in his homilies ?". Jean Paul replied
to the effect, "I'm not a politician, I'm a spiritual leader. I can't
just change the rules to suit current modern thought, otherwise the
Catholic Church just becomes like a welfare organization". And that ties
back to the last sentence in the previous paragraph).
Continues the Psychologist, "The cold compassion shown for living
perpetrators rather than their dead victims is the flip side of contempt
shown for the mentally handicapped or disabled. This unhinging of
morality from life has accelerated the trend towards post-modern
subjectivism and relativism. When we say that every value system is
equal, when we say every kid has the right to choose his own values, we
can't be surprised when some of them pick nihilistic violence".
So where are we at, after I've quoted the above. Not too dissimilar to
the right politically and main religious groups being adamant that
'marriage' means "Adam and Eve' and not 'Adam and Steve'. As I've said
before I'll quite happily go for a state instituted 'Civil marriage' for
ALL - and don't try and shove your secular beliefs down my throat on
this one.
Same with abortion and death - those of a religious persuasion have
their own set of beliefs. Considering the majority of my time is delving
in COBOL, I'll quite happily leave this hot topic to full-time devoted
religious/psychological/medical folks to give me a set or rules to live
by. BUT - I'm talking about a spiritual set of rules. The
secularists/modernists want to arrive at their own set of rules.
Seriously, do they have more time on their hands to consider these soul
searching topics and conclude their own rules - what about inter-action
? So be it. Again the State has to craft laws that can accommodate both.
Just assume there was a concrete law that allowed Terri's death, (i.e.
pull the tubes and refuse food and water), according to the wishes of a
'guardian' :-
1. If she was married - husband makes such choice
2. If they were common-law - were they just an 'item' a few ws before
her illness occurred or was this a long-term relationship - now who
makes the choice ? Proof of relationship under law might prove to be a
grey area.
3. She's not married - Dead easy - her parents are only too happy to let
their daughter survive.
But even simplistic 'conditions' like above also have their caveats, no
doubt.
I'm out of here. No more on this topic. But Daniel, I think I'm 99.9% of
the way with you on this one. There you are JCE he's not totally in the
minority - perhaps the average God-believing people just don't program
in COBOL !
And looking at the quote from Pete just below, it ISN'T a religious
argument/discussion - it's about your moral set of beliefs, which very
much impacts on how society evolves.
(What a beautiful world. Was the movie called 'Blade Runner" ? A lot of
healthy young people living in a sterile world in a huge greenhouse. You
want your 'jollies' - just get Jenny Agutter as the next 'dolly' on the
list. One problem - when you hit 30 years of age you were gonzo ! Peter
Ustinov starred as the only old fart in the movie appearing in the end
scene, sat there like Methusala).
Jimmy
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
>
>
> In this case, though, it's not about religion or politics - it's about
> science. (The fact that these views coincide with my religious views
> seems to be a handicap in this group - it's easy to write off what I say
> as "theology" instead of refuting it with another scientific claim.) The
> free-love me-me-me sixties produced a problem - the "make love" part of
> "make love not war" has this nasty side effect called pregnancy. Well,
> we can figure out a way to make that baby die and come out early (it's
> not really a baby then, is it?). It couldn't survive outside my body,
> so it must *be* my body - and there aren't any laws against
> self-mutilation.
>
> Enter the early 70's - civil rights for black folks in this country were
> really taking off, and abortion was spun as a civil right for women. The
> Supreme Court was convinced, somehow finding something in our
> Constitution that simply isn't there, and said that our individual
> states do not have the right to prohibit this practice.
>
> Thirty years later, an entire generation of people have been killed by
> this practice. Recent talks about social security bemoan the fact that
> it twenty-whenever our recipients will outnumber those who are paying
> into the system. Wonder why?
>
> The Democrat party, the ones who pushed for this, is seeing its
> registered voters decline in comparison to the Republican party, who is
> pushing for (among other things, of course) a reevaluation of Roe v.
> Wade. You are more likely to get your beliefs from your immediate
> family than from anywhere else. Democrat's children think abortion is
> okay, "my right", while Republican's children do not, and carry their
> offspring to term. Could this be a reason?
>
> However, 30 years later, we also have a window to the womb that we did
> not have when Roe v. Wade was decided. But, so many folks have drunk
> the kool-aid of "it's my body, it's my right" that they cannot look at
> the scientific evidence with an open mind. The words "embryo" and
> "fetus", which used to just be used a delimiters of age of the unborn,
> have somehow been devalued and is now used as a slur - "it's *just* a
> fetus".
>
> We now know that those who said it is a child were right, and those that
> said it was nothing more valuable than a tumor were wrong. But,
> evidently, I can't be the one to say that, since it also coincides with
> my religious beliefs.
>
>
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-04-16, 3:55 am |
| In article <qa20611nv08nc0u0damcj959vj20ml273t@4ax.com>,
SkippyPB <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>On 15 Apr 2005 01:16:03 -0400, docdwarf@panix.com enlightened us:
[snip]
>
>Under Federal Law, it appears the rules are constant. Refer to:
>http://www.detnews.com/2002/politic...tics-404824.htm
From the above:
--begin quoted text:
Because CHIP is aimed at kids, it does not typically cover parents or
pregnant women, although states can get permission to include adults if
they ask for it.
--end quoted text
Seems like an adult can be a child, as well... fascinating!
DD
| |
|
| Chuck Stevens wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:58999$425f14c0$45491f85$9259@KNOLOG
Y.NET...
>
>
>
>
> If someone works to get what "ought to" be, on the basis of their particular
> theology/religion (in contrast to other patterns of theology) passed as the
> Law of the Land, they work to establish a particular theology/religion as
> state-approved, and to denigrate other theologies/religions as inferior in
> the eyes of the state. I'm *really* uncomfortable with that.
Name me a single religion (to the exclusion of *all* others) that is
opposed to abortion and/or gay marriage. Can't do it? Then laws
against them do not constitute a "state religion" or the creation of a
theocracy. And, if "someone works" on their side, then the other side
better be working too. Don't act as though the
Republicans/pro-lifers/etc are the only ones lobbying for change.
If the Congress approves it, the President signs it, and the Supreme
Court doesn't overturn it, it's law. That's the way things work in this
representative republic of ours. In the case of a Constitutional
amendment, take the Supremes out of the picture. In the case of almost
every bad judgment call in the last three decades, look at the judicial
branch that thinks it's a legislature...
> As another example, the current President of the United States has on
> several occasions (including the 2004 State of the Union address and the
> Bush/Kerry debate) made it clear that he supports a constitutional
> amendment defending the "sanctity" of marriage. I have heard various folks
> declare this desire as a matter of *theological* perspective, but to have a
> government official propose that the government involve itself with
> preserving *sanctity* (sacredness) as the term is viewed from a particular
> theological/religous perspective strikes me as an absolutely appalling
> violation of the principles behind the Bill of Rights.
The assault on the traditional meaning of marriage is what's inspired
this in the first place. See - "they" fight/push/etc for what "they"
believe, other people will fight/push/etc back. Would we ever, of our
own accord, attacked Afghanistan and removed the Taliban? Probably not.
But, they go on the offensive first, our nation struck back.
On either side, an offensive by the other side is going to draw fire.
And, I believe that we have 67% of the state legislatures that would
ratify such an amendment - at least judging from the election 2004 results.
> I think any law that favors one theological perspective over another
> represents such a violation, even when I agree with the theological
> perspective for which support is being proposed as law.
Then you'll never have any laws. Just because an idea is contained in a
religion's theological perspective does not mean it does not have value
outside of that context. Look at the first part of the book of Daniel -
he and the three Hebrews ate a "balanced" meal, while the others pigged
out on steak and wine. In the end, the balanced diet proved to be the
one that made them stronger. Should we not encourage people to eat a
balanced diet, because it's in the King James Version of the Bible, and
as such, excludes Jews and Muslims? Of course not.
"Freedom of religion" is not the same as "freedom from religion" or
"freedom from being offended". Believe me - I find a lot of things that
go on in this country offensive! :) The First Amendment was put in to
prevent a "Church of England" type scenario, where the head of the
country was also the head of the church, and there was an official state
religion. It was never intended to mean that people of faith had no
standing in the public square.
Does it scare you because it seems to be catching on with a lot of people?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
|
| SkippyPB wrote:
> On 15 Apr 2005 01:16:03 -0400, docdwarf@panix.com enlightened us:
>
>
>
>
> Under Federal Law, it appears the rules are constant. Refer to:
> http://www.detnews.com/2002/politic...tics-404824.htm
Interesting link - thanks...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
|
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <qa20611nv08nc0u0damcj959vj20ml273t@4ax.com>,
> SkippyPB <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
>
> From the above:
>
> --begin quoted text:
>
> Officials expect the new policy to be published in the Federal Register as
> early as next w. After a 60-day comment period, it would take effect.
>
> --end quoted text
>
> Still early, as yet.
Also from the above:
--begin quoted text:
February 1, 2002
--end quoted text
:)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| Lueko Willms 2005-04-16, 3:55 am |
| .. On 13.04.05
wrote swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com (SkippyPB)
on /COMP/LANG/COBOL
in m0jq51pnrr7ntef5el54egfe6nkso1knsr@4ax.com
about Re: OT - "lie" vs "error"
s> As a lifelong Catholic, I don't recall ever learning or hearing that
s> Mary was a "lifelong" virgin. She was indeed a virgin at the time of
s> Jeasus' conception.
So the earthly life of the founding god of that religion was
conceived by artificial insemination, foetus transplant, or cloning.
Why should that be forbidden for today's folks?
Quod licet jovi non licet bovi?
Yours,
Lüko Willms http://www.willms-edv.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --
Der Verleger hat ihn in effigie vor sein Werk aufhängen lassen. -G.C.Lichtenberg
| |
| Peter E.C Dashwood 2005-04-16, 8:55 am |
|
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:gJY7e.1028940$8l.867198@pd7tw1no...
> LX-i wrote:
>
<snip>>
> And looking at the quote from Pete just below, it ISN'T a religious
> argument/discussion - it's about your moral set of beliefs, which very
> much impacts on how society evolves.
I dunno Jimmy, even when you quote it you get it wrong... I did NOT make the
statements 'below' which I have snipped from this mail), apart from the
first paragraph (three lines). Still, I give you credit for trying...
<snip>
> (What a beautiful world. Was the movie called 'Blade Runner" ?
Since you asked, no, it was Logan's Run. (And I'll make no sarcastic
comments about the quality of our respective memories...:-))
<snip>
Pete.
| |
|
| "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:b97ce$425dd6f9$45491f85$3161@KNOLOG
Y.NET...
> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
> I'm not talking about the unborn child - I'm just wonder how far this
> cleansing "right" goes. Does it go as far as cleansing the world from the
> perpetrator (vigilantism)? Does it allow her to destroy other people's
> property if it reminds her of the event?
Well apparently, for some crimes, it extends to dropping large bombs on
sections of the populace whether or not those areas contain "innocents" or
otherwise.
Then again, for similar crmes elsewhere it results in monetary handouts, and
in other cases the "hear no, see no" response.
I wouldn't say that consistency in application of "laws" or consistency in
the valuation of "life" is a strong point of the world at the moment.
I'd like to see life traded on the stockmarket....
This w in Daifur, the value of life dropped again as their plight was
ignored.
In other news, it seems that the value in Pinellas Park has returned to its
normal levels after reaching a 52 w high earlier in the month. Investors
in Washington have sold out after realizing further political gain was
unlikely.
In recent ws the value in CLC has been dramatically turbulent as the
value enters it's 5 th w of strong debate.
Finally, we expect to see gains throughout the teen market share as Britney
undertakes the task of bringing life to the fore for the teenie boppers.
JCE
JCE
| |
| James J. Gavan 2005-04-16, 3:55 pm |
| SkippyPB wrote:
> It will be very interesting to see who the next Pope will be. I'm
> wondering if they'll go back to an Italian pope or will it be soemone
> from another country again. To the best of my knowledge, there has
> never been a North American pope or Asian for that matter.
>
Interesting, yes. But it would be a DISASTER if the next Pope was an
American. Can't you just anticipate the reaction from the USA's
enemies ?
Papa JP II will be a difficult act to follow. You can come up with all
sorts of platitudes to describe him. Have to get Chuck the Latin scholar
to confirm, but "Servitor servientum Dei" - "Servant of the servants of
God".
Jimmy
| |
| James J. Gavan 2005-04-16, 3:55 pm |
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 14-Apr-2005, "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Yep. What happens if he's black?
>
>
> Politics cannot be separated from religious needs here.
To the best of my knowledge there isn't a black US cardinal. If the next
pope is black (African), Asian, S.American or European - that's OK by me
- not that my vote counts :-)
Jimmy
| |
| SkippyPB 2005-04-16, 3:55 pm |
| On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 12:04:06 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@enternet.co.nz> enlightened us:
>
>"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
>news:d3pi4n$23nh$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
>
>Well, I have to confess (appropriate, that :-)) that in 25 years of
>intensively searching for answers to some fundamental questions, followed by
>casual research that continues to this day, I did not look at the
>organisations you mentioned.
>
>I reached a point where I decided that the concept of a Supreme Being is
>really not necessary to explain what we see around us, and it has caused
>more trouble than it has ever sorted out. So, as I said initially above, the
>requirement for Satan to be part of any theology I embraced was just ONE
>reason for not embracing such belief system.(There are many, but I'm not
>going into them here...)
>
>Of all the religions I DID look at, I found Buddhism to have the most appeal
>for me. They preach personal responsibility. I like that. The Buddha never
>claimed to be God, he just said: "Look, about this suffering you're going
>through, I've given it some serious thought and I think it can be sorted.
>Here's 8 basic rules that should improve your life." (A free translation
>into modern English; no offense to any Buddhists reading this... and no, I
>am NOT a Buddhist (before Mr. Gavan paints black and white over my
>grey...:-) )
>
>Pete.
>
>
Just a note here but being married to a Buddhist I think I have a
little knowledge of it. Buddhism is NOT a religion. It is a
philosophy, a way of life. Monks don't necessarily "pray" to Buddha.
They meditate and ask for guidance, but you'll never find any miracles
or other such things attributed to Buddha.
Fact is, when I lived in Thailand I learned that many Buddhists
adopted Hinduism as their religion because it has "gods" they could
pray to and ask for things. They maintained their Buddhist traditions
and ceremonies but turned to the Hindu gods for favors.
I've also been told that Catholics can and do practice Buddhism
without fear of violating the second commandment. If Buddhism was a
religion, and Buddha more than a philosopher, Catholics would not be
allowed to do so. Zen is also another philosophy that Cathlics may
follow.
Much more on that subject can be learned from:
http://www.innerexplorations.com/index.html
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"When you look at Prince Charles, don't you think that
someone in the Royal family knew someone in the Royal family?"
--Robin Williams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| SkippyPB 2005-04-16, 3:55 pm |
| On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 16:40:44 -0500, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net>
enlightened us:
>Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
>In this case, though, it's not about religion or politics - it's about
>science. (The fact that these views coincide with my religious views
>seems to be a handicap in this group - it's easy to write off what I say
>as "theology" instead of refuting it with another scientific claim.)
>The free-love me-me-me sixties produced a problem - the "make love" part
>of "make love not war" has this nasty side effect called pregnancy.
And that is worse than the side effect of war (lots of dead, many
innocent, people)?
<<snip>>
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"When you look at Prince Charles, don't you think that
someone in the Royal family knew someone in the Royal family?"
--Robin Williams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-04-16, 3:55 pm |
| In article <78524$42608c9b$45491f85$22276@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>Also from the above:
>
>--begin quoted text:
>
>February 1, 2002
>
>--end quoted text
>
>:)
That was noticed after the response was sent, hence my attempt to cancel
the posting.
DD
| |
| Donald Tees 2005-04-16, 3:55 pm |
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Mao Tse Tung observed that power grows from the barrel of a gun; that may be
> true, but I still cling to the belief that the pen is mightier than the
> sword.
>
I see, in my morning paper, that the high court of appeal in China has
declared evidence gained by torture is no longer legal in court. The
power of the gun is in poverty and starvation. Once you get everyone
fed, and the kids safely asleep in a real bed, under a real roof, then
the pen wins hands down every time.
Sloganism and religion are effective for coping with poverty. Once you
get to the point of reading and writing though, then we can evolve as
individuals, and start to attain spiritual balance instead of a set of
symplistic rules, set by a ruling class.
I find the idea that god created people so that He had someone to admire
Him is as amusing as Hell. Who would admire such an idiot? The idea that
We created God so that We would have something to attain to appeals to
me much more.
BTW, I understand you have a well used guitar. If you ever get over to
Canada, I have an old Gibson, a 1612 long neck fiddle, and a mandolin
that would like to play with it.
Donald
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-04-16, 3:55 pm |
| In article <p8b8e.6957$MZ2.1042328@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[snip]
>The main reason that I reject religion of the traditioanl sort is
>because I consider it a cop out.
The most succinct summary along these lines of which I am aware is
'Organised religion denies the ingenuity of both humans and deities.'
DD
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-04-16, 8:55 pm |
|
"SkippyPB" <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:i09261t989mp5l2925ldgdip9n409p2jt1@
4ax.com...
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 12:04:06 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> enlightened us:
>
would[color=darkred]
ludicrous.[color=darkred]
and[color=darkred]
and[color=darkred]
intrinsic[color=darkred]
will[color=darkred]
by[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]
appeal[color=darkred]
never[color=darkred]
I[color=darkred]
>
> Just a note here but being married to a Buddhist I think I have a
> little knowledge of it. Buddhism is NOT a religion. It is a
> philosophy, a way of life.
Thanks. I stand corrected. I was using the term in the broadest sense, but
you are absolutely right.
> Monks don't necessarily "pray" to Buddha.
> They meditate and ask for guidance, but you'll never find any miracles
> or other such things attributed to Buddha.
>
Yes, I spent a lot of time in the Himalayas and had regularly daily
discussions with Buddhist monks. They suggested I join them for 6 months and
I thought long and hard about it. Declined in the end because the food was
dreadful.... :-)
It is a beautiful and workable philosophy.
> Fact is, when I lived in Thailand I learned that many Buddhists
> adopted Hinduism as their religion because it has "gods" they could
> pray to and ask for things. They maintained their Buddhist traditions
> and ceremonies but turned to the Hindu gods for favors.
>
Now that's interesting. I was told by a highly educated and religious Hindu
in India that they saw Buddhism as eroding the 'customer base' of their
religion.
> I've also been told that Catholics can and do practice Buddhism
> without fear of violating the second commandment. If Buddhism was a
> religion, and Buddha more than a philosopher, Catholics would not be
> allowed to do so. Zen is also another philosophy that Cathlics may
> follow.
>
Zen is a philosophy that most of us SHOULD follow.
> Much more on that subject can be learned from:
> http://www.innerexplorations.com/index.html
>
> Regards,
Thanks for that, Steve, very interesting.
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-04-16, 8:55 pm |
|
"Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:p8b8e.6957$MZ2.1042328@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
followed by[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]
appeal[color=darkred]
never[color=darkred]
going[color=darkred]
sorted.[color=darkred]
translation[color=darkred]
I[color=darkred]
> The main reason that I reject religion of the traditioanl sort is
> because I consider it a cop out.
>
> As a programmer, I'd have been aware for years of the power of symbols.
> The second you define one, and actually use it in a program, it becomes
> capable of taking on all the values that you define within it. Those
> values have a *very* real affect on what we call the "real" world, In
> spite of the fact that it is a purely symbolic contstruct, in the sense
> of "show me the 'x'", the affect on the world is measurable. I can only
> show you a symbol representing the 'x'' ... what it really *is* is a
> function of how I, as the programmer, use it.
>
> I believe that purely symbolic spiritual constructs are also real, and
> those spiritual values that we hold dear are crucially important to
> human happiness. In that sense, I believe in a "God" and a "Devil", They
> are symbols that we use in making judgements, and those judgements total
> to become the world as we know it. So in some sense, both god and the
> devil exist ... they also have an observable affect on humanity.
>
> It seems to me though, that trivializing them down to little images of a
> daddy, or the good guys and the bad guys, is primitive to the point of
> silliness. "Heaven" and "hell" as place that we get sent to by the "god"
> and the "devil" is a rather childish views of *my* spiritual values and
> the affect that they have on the world.
>
> It is a cop out as well, because it refuses to acknowledge the fact that
> it is *me* that is assigning values to those symbols, and so it it *me*
> that is responsible for the fact that my god is screwing up. It might be
> okay for a child, to simplfy it down to bedtime stories, but grownups
> should have a more sophisticated world view than that.
>
> Donald, [spiritually aware athiest (until I get it right).]
>
Fascinating. Have you ever studied semiotics, Don?
Umberto Eco ("The name of the Rose", "The Island of the Day Before") is
professor of semiotics at Bologna university.
I can heartily recommend his books (in particular, I think you'd enjoy the
second one named above. In his fiction, his semiotic background filters
through, sometimes with startling effect.)
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-04-17, 3:55 am |
| Steve, can you please check your quotes. It looks as if I said the below,
and I didn't. (I did say the top three lines)
Thanks,
Pete.
TOP POST no more.
"SkippyPB" <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:pi9261hmde93qh13eelc59434uc3d09o7b@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 16:40:44 -0500, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net>
> enlightened us:
>
>
> And that is worse than the side effect of war (lots of dead, many
> innocent, people)?
>
> <<snip>>
>
> Regards,
>
> ////
> (o o)
> -oOO--(_)--OOo-
>
>
> "When you look at Prince Charles, don't you think that
> someone in the Royal family knew someone in the Royal family?"
> --Robin Williams
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Remove nospam to email me.
>
> Steve
>
| |
| Donald Tees 2005-04-17, 3:55 am |
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Fascinating. Have you ever studied semiotics, Don?
>
> Umberto Eco ("The name of the Rose", "The Island of the Day Before") is
> professor of semiotics at Bologna university.
>
> I can heartily recommend his books (in particular, I think you'd enjoy the
> second one named above. In his fiction, his semiotic background filters
> through, sometimes with startling effect.)
>
> Pete.
>
Not as such, though you cannot take a communications course without
touching on it, I suppose. I'll check the above out, always looking for
a new read.
Donald
| |
| Donald Tees 2005-04-17, 3:55 am |
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <p8b8e.6957$MZ2.1042328@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
&g | | |