Text 31, 188 rader
Skriven 2005-01-25 00:47:52 av Kay Shapero (1:102/524.0)
Ärende: [2 of 2] JMS posts to moderated b5 newsgroup
====================================================
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated


>All our disagreements here revolve around WHAT the Church is.
>
>If it is merely a human institution, then we should properly measure it
>only by human standards.
>
>If it is a divine institution, then we should properly measure it by
>divine standards.

And personally, I think that the Divine should be at least as moral and upright
as the average human being, don't you?

It should not deliberately and falsely punish people like Galileo for the crime
of being right.

It should not be a jealous god, a trait we find petty and embarrassing in
ourselves when we detect it.

It should not be capricious and prejudicial, should be accessible to the gentle
strains of wisdom and discussion.

It should not have created the fly, or plague bacilli.

It should have warned Adam about the snake at the same time it mentioned the
Apple.

It should be powerful enough that it would not allow its name to be used to
bolster the engines of war, for the greater destruction of lives, innocence and
the future.

It should have been willing to hire a good editor, because the poetry of Job
and the lyricism of Psalms is much diminished by the banality of Deuteronomy
and the pounding relentlessness of Numbers.

And finally, it should understand, as any decent human parent does, that the
apple (a different one) does not fall far from the tree, that the child often
resembles and reflects the parent...and that if the parent is jealous, and
vindictive, and judgemental, and violent, then so too will the child reflect
those things...and that perhaps some of the blame for the child's behavior can,
in some tiny way, be laid at the feet of its architect.

Because if we were made in god's image, and god is perfect, then the
advertising is incorrect, and we were made deliberately imperfect.  And that
would be a terrible indictment for any parent.

So I for one, in sum, would be willing to allow the church to be judged by
divine standards as soon as they could be raised to the standards of the
average really good person.  Until that time comes, I refuse to grade on a
curve.


 jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)
------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 02:04:25 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: To JMS
From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated


>We're talking about the Pope, here.  Was that not made clear?  It was the
>Pope (multiple Popes) who ordered the different Inquisitions.  This the the
>Pope, who was (within the past 10 years) REAFFIRMED as infallible by the
>current Pope.

And let us recall one other thing.

In 1632, Galileo wrote and published "Dialogue on the Two Great World Systems,"
which build on the work of Copernicus stipulating that the Earth revolved
around the Sun, which went against the notion -- propagated and defended most
vigorously by the Catholic church and its Inquisition -- that in fact it was
the Sun that went around the Earth.

The Bible clearly states that at one point the Sun was stopped in its orbit
around the Earth, and that, as far as the Pope and the Church was concerned,
was that...and Galileo was forced to face the Inquisition and spent the last
ten years of his life under house arrest.

The first, and most obvious point being that the infallible Church and Pope
were wrong.

The second point being the irony that the Church could not even begin to admit
its mistake for *centuries*.  It wasn't until 1980 that John Paul II
(reluctantly, some said) finally requested a "re-examination of the evidence"
in case they MIGHT have made a mistake about this whole earth/sun business.  It
then took another 12 years, until 1992, before the Church finally said, okay,
so maybe he had a point, and exonerated Galileo.

The accused, now proven innocent, could not be reached for comment.

 jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)
------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:53:14 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: To JMS
From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated


>>Which is, of course, another way of saying "When good stuff happens, we're
>>happy to take the credit, but when bad stuff happens, we won't take the
>blame."
>>
>     Sounds like pretty much every other bureaucracy I have dealt
>with (g).

But when a given bureaucracy lays claim to divine authority, it seems right and
appropriate to hold it to a higher standard than the local Elks Lodge.

 jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)
------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:04:15 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: And so it begins???
From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated


> I'm still waiting for you to inform
>> us what the Democratic Party needs to do to fix the political system,
>> since you already gave us so much information on what the Republican
>> Party needs to do, immediately after telling us both parties were at
>> fault.

You do recognize, do you not, that the Republican party currently controls the
House of Representatives, the Senate, the Executive Branch and some might argue
the Supreme Court as well, right?  That being the case, it's kind of up to the
people who are running things to fix it, is it not?

Right now, with the threat of eliminating the filibuster, the court of last
resort for any minority party, the democratic party has been effectively
removed from the process in a very significant way.

So much for the theory of checks-and-balances.

 jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)
------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 00:55:44 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: To JMS
From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated


>The distinction being made by the previous poster reminds me of the
>distinction that some (especially Catholic) theologians make between
>the Church of the flesh and the Church of the Spirit. The Church of the
>flesh can sin, but the Church of the Spirit does not. The right
>teachings of the Church come from the latter, while the sinful acts of
>the Church come from the former.

Which is, of course, another way of saying "When good stuff happens, we're
happy to take the credit, but when bad stuff happens, we won't take the blame."


 jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)
------------------------------------------------------------


--- MsgPost v1.01
 * Origin: StormGate Aerie.. all alone in the net... (1:102/524)