Comments for Religion and Private Life http://newsinitiative.org/ucb A News21 Blog Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:37:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 Comment on PBS doc on LDS tonight by The work and the glory http://newsinitiative.org/ucb/2007/04/30/pbs-doc-on-lds-tonight/#comment-3709 The work and the glory Sun, 23 Mar 2008 19:11:24 +0000 http://newsinitiative.org/ucb/2007/04/30/pbs-doc-on-lds-tonight/#comment-3709 I’ m just a regular 16 year old Catholic girl. I dated a 17 year old Mormon boy, whom I loved very much. We were great together, but sometimes I couldn’ t figure out why he loved me back. After all, I wasn’ t Mormon, and he told me that he“ would love to convert me, but wouldn’ t force me.” He even got me a Book of Mormon for Valentine’ s Day (romantic, I know). One time, he talked about marriage and how he would want to be married to me forever (which scared the crap out of me. Who at my age thinks about marriage? ... I’ m just a regular 16 year old Catholic girl. I dated a 17 year old Mormon boy, whom I loved very much. We were great together, but sometimes I couldn’ t figure out why he loved me back. After all, I wasn’ t Mormon, and he told me that he“ would love to convert me, but wouldn’ t force me.” He even got me a Book of Mormon for Valentine’ s Day (romantic, I know). One time, he talked about marriage and how he would want to be married to me forever (which scared the crap out of me. Who at my age thinks about marriage? …

]]> Comment on My Little Dog is Evil by Weird http://newsinitiative.org/ucb/2007/06/09/my-little-dog-is-evil/#comment-3537 Weird Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:37:21 +0000 http://newsinitiative.org/ucb/2007/06/09/my-little-dog-is-evil/#comment-3537 You are weird! You are weird!

]]> Comment on Second Life Success by Marcie Jennings http://newsinitiative.org/ucb/2007/07/29/second-life-success/#comment-3470 Marcie Jennings Thu, 06 Mar 2008 00:52:03 +0000 http://newsinitiative.org/ucb/2007/07/29/second-life-success/#comment-3470 Just like everything that has been created for good, the devil seems to find some way to corrupt it. The first time I heard about second life was in a sexual content so ofcourse I stayed away. Now that I know it doesn't have to be that way, I might see what it is all about. Just like everything that has been created for good, the devil seems to find some way to corrupt it. The first time I heard about second life was in a sexual content so ofcourse I stayed away. Now that I know it doesn’t have to be that way, I might see what it is all about.

]]> Comment on New Jerusalem or bust by cristian http://newsinitiative.org/ucb/2007/07/03/new-jerusalem-or-bust/#comment-3158 cristian Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:30:10 +0000 http://newsinitiative.org/ucb/2007/07/03/new-jerusalem-or-bust/#comment-3158 jesusalen is the new city and the last prophesy of redemption as it was written in revelation. jesusalen is the new city and the last prophesy of redemption as it was written in revelation.

]]> Comment on Comments Welcome by Michael http://newsinitiative.org/ucb/2007/07/19/comments-welcome/#comment-851 Michael Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:54:11 +0000 http://newsinitiative.org/ucb/2007/07/19/comments-welcome/#comment-851 This is superb! Great job. This is superb! Great job.

]]> Comment on Moral Compass by Atheist Perspective » Moral compass http://newsinitiative.org/ucb/moral-compass/#comment-850 Atheist Perspective » Moral compass Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:50:52 +0000 http://newsinitiative.org/ucb/moral-compass/#comment-850 [...] group of Berkley students have designed an excellent online aid which points out how the major religions view differing moral [...] […] group of Berkley students have designed an excellent online aid which points out how the major religions view differing moral […]

]]> Comment on Comments Welcome by eye-of-horus http://newsinitiative.org/ucb/2007/07/19/comments-welcome/#comment-847 eye-of-horus Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:22:47 +0000 http://newsinitiative.org/ucb/2007/07/19/comments-welcome/#comment-847 *** What's the (Western) God got to do with it? *** The only gods worth a damn operate "beyond good and evil" (to use Nietzsche's sparkling phrase). That is, moral categories *do not* apply to them. The Powers act as they will. Their actions are subject to no constraint. The gods of Job and Oedipus for example must be acknowledged and worshiped whatever they do. Morality *does not* grow out of religions with such divine Immoralists. The truth of a wide separation of morality from religion receives a masterful summary by the eminent classicist, E. R. Dodds: “I need hardly say [sic!] that religion and morals were not initially interdependent, in Greece or elsewhere; they had their separate roots. I suppose that broadly speaking, religion grows out of man’s relationship to his total environment, morals out of his relation to his fellow men.” [The greeks and the irrational. UCal. 1951. 31] Ironically a good Father god arises from hatred. From the all-too-human psychologically protective act of projection. Just as the ‘other’ is evil and guilt incarnate, the “god with us” is spotless and acts for our good. Here originates the holy one of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, brothers all. Each defined by negating the Other, the sons of Darkness who dwell outside the Light. Each a metaphysical and ethical dualism. Each a morally rigoristic religion of wish fulfillment, self-deception and resentment. Secularism corrupts. Tolerance capitulates to evil. Only the pure ones prevail. Sophocles, Euripides and the author of Job among the Ancients and Darwin, Nietzsche and Freud among the Moderns understood that existence cares not one iota for humanity’s well-being or being comforted. The foundation of our legal well-being and right action is the Constitution -- in which the word 'God' does not appear. "We the people" give rights and duties to each other, that is, to ourselves as the sovereign body. Additionally, Amendment 1 protects what used to be called "freedom of conscience." Initially the right of every man (not slave, not female, not propertyless) to freely choose how to conduct his religious life. "Freedom of conscience" provides cover for the atheist, agnostic, deist, and an overwhelming population of the blessedly indifferent. What's God got to do with ethics and law? Nothing. To claim otherwise is to be at once intellectually dishonest and morally blind. George W. Bush's tyranny begins here. eye-of-horus copyright asserted 2007 *** What’s the (Western) God got to do with it? ***

The only gods worth a damn operate “beyond good and evil” (to use Nietzsche’s sparkling phrase). That is, moral categories *do not* apply to them.

The Powers act as they will. Their actions are subject to no constraint. The gods of Job and Oedipus for example must be acknowledged and worshiped whatever they do.

Morality *does not* grow out of religions with such divine Immoralists. The truth of a wide separation of morality from religion receives a masterful summary by the eminent classicist, E. R. Dodds:

“I need hardly say [sic!] that religion and morals were not initially interdependent, in Greece or elsewhere; they had their separate roots. I suppose that broadly speaking, religion grows out of man’s relationship to his total environment, morals out of his relation to his fellow men.” [The greeks and the irrational. UCal. 1951. 31]

Ironically a good Father god arises from hatred. From the all-too-human psychologically protective act of projection. Just as the ‘other’ is evil and guilt incarnate, the “god with us” is spotless and acts for our good. Here originates the holy one of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, brothers all.

Each defined by negating the Other, the sons of Darkness who dwell outside the Light. Each a metaphysical and ethical dualism. Each a morally rigoristic religion of wish fulfillment, self-deception and resentment. Secularism corrupts. Tolerance capitulates to evil. Only the pure ones prevail.

Sophocles, Euripides and the author of Job among the Ancients and Darwin, Nietzsche and Freud among the Moderns understood that existence cares not one iota for humanity’s well-being or being comforted.

The foundation of our legal well-being and right action is the Constitution — in which the word ‘God’ does not appear. “We the people” give rights and duties to each other, that is, to ourselves as the sovereign body.

Additionally, Amendment 1 protects what used to be called “freedom of conscience.” Initially the right of every man (not slave, not female, not propertyless) to freely choose how to conduct his religious life. “Freedom of conscience” provides cover for the atheist, agnostic, deist, and an overwhelming population of the blessedly indifferent.

What’s God got to do with ethics and law? Nothing. To claim otherwise is to be at once intellectually dishonest and morally blind. George W. Bush’s tyranny begins here.

eye-of-horus
copyright asserted 2007

]]> Comment on Moral Compass by Quo Vadis » UC Berkley comes up with a “moral compass” http://newsinitiative.org/ucb/moral-compass/#comment-837 Quo Vadis » UC Berkley comes up with a “moral compass” Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:27:21 +0000 http://newsinitiative.org/ucb/moral-compass/#comment-837 [...] folks at the journalism department at UC Berkley decided to develop a "moral compass" application to inform people of where different faith groups fall on different questions. Unsurprisingly the [...] […] folks at the journalism department at UC Berkley decided to develop a “moral compass” application to inform people of where different faith groups fall on different questions. Unsurprisingly the […]

]]> Comment on Comments Welcome by Jody+ http://newsinitiative.org/ucb/2007/07/19/comments-welcome/#comment-825 Jody+ Wed, 01 Aug 2007 02:44:29 +0000 http://newsinitiative.org/ucb/2007/07/19/comments-welcome/#comment-825 Ditto for several other answers... perhaps you need an Episcopalian "fuzzy" label. Most dioceses would require that homosexuals be celibate in order to be ordained, there are several dioceses of the Episcopal Church that will not ordain women. I understand why some statements must be sweeping when you will find individuals in any faith group that disagree with official teaching, but when official teaching is clearly unclear and/or conflicted while in the process of change you should probably have a way to indicate that for honesty's sake. Ditto for several other answers… perhaps you need an Episcopalian “fuzzy” label. Most dioceses would require that homosexuals be celibate in order to be ordained, there are several dioceses of the Episcopal Church that will not ordain women. I understand why some statements must be sweeping when you will find individuals in any faith group that disagree with official teaching, but when official teaching is clearly unclear and/or conflicted while in the process of change you should probably have a way to indicate that for honesty’s sake.

]]> Comment on Comments Welcome by Jody+ http://newsinitiative.org/ucb/2007/07/19/comments-welcome/#comment-824 Jody+ Wed, 01 Aug 2007 02:36:26 +0000 http://newsinitiative.org/ucb/2007/07/19/comments-welcome/#comment-824 This is an interesting and informative web site. However, as an Episcopal Priest, I think it is important to point out that the response as to homosexual relationships are blessed by the entire Episcopal Church, thereby making it an official position is incorrect. At the most it should be listed as "varied" or "discerning," since the item you refer to as indicating official blessing was merely a resolution indicating that <i>some Episcopalians are exploring this as a legitimate position and we are not sufficiently of one mind to condemn them</i>. That is hardly a unified and official position, and I would hazard a guess that while the majority of the Episcopal Church voted not to reject such practices at General convention, a majority of Bishops have not approved such rites, nor would they encourage priests in their dioceses to use them. A little more clarity about our confusion would be appreciated :-p This is an interesting and informative web site. However, as an Episcopal Priest, I think it is important to point out that the response as to homosexual relationships are blessed by the entire Episcopal Church, thereby making it an official position is incorrect. At the most it should be listed as “varied” or “discerning,” since the item you refer to as indicating official blessing was merely a resolution indicating that some Episcopalians are exploring this as a legitimate position and we are not sufficiently of one mind to condemn them. That is hardly a unified and official position, and I would hazard a guess that while the majority of the Episcopal Church voted not to reject such practices at General convention, a majority of Bishops have not approved such rites, nor would they encourage priests in their dioceses to use them. A little more clarity about our confusion would be appreciated :-p

]]>