And that it's at the same time both self-defined and universal.

Mr. Judd;

That's certainly not true for the Objectivists, who tend to be thorough going secularists. For Objectivists, righteousness is an emergent property of the physical structure of reality. In this view, one can discover it on one's own, but it is an objective fact, not an opinion (hence the name of the movement).

AOG:

That's not different.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are creatures of the state as representative of the general will and endowed by the state with certain rights as defined by a consenus of citizens of that state and approved by their representatives, regardles of any prior defintions of rights and immunities. The constitution of government which follows shall be held to be a living document and subject to interpretation by a panel of Supreme Court judges in all cases of law and equity."

Tom is the one who said the bishop of Nashville --- who threatened to have my parents burned in hell FOREVER if they didn't pay him to send me to his fourth-rate elementary school -- was a backwoodsman.

The implication, I suppose, was that a better, more urban and urbane bishop would have given better advice.

Maybe so. I wouldn't know. I've never met a moral bishop.

You guys are really funny.

Maybe they're there now, begging for you to redeem them?

Taking the threat of the bishop of Nashville seriously regarding public vs. parochial education and eternal punishment is even funnier.

"The central claim of secularism is precisely that we each have access to a righteousness of our own."

Ummm...isn't that the central claim of Protestantism?

Otherwise, there would be no need to read & interpret the Bible for ourselves, because a central ecclesiastical authority would do that for us.

Well, they did pay to send me, which -- if god were at all moral -- would have let them off the hook.

But you guys are supposed to be the theology experts. Once in Hell, nobody can get you out.

Tom, Orrin says we must follow our bishops and we have no choice among them. Therefore, it would be the sin of Pride -- worst of all sins, according to the Catholics -- to disbelieve the bishop.

You just cannot bring yourself to admit that the organization is, because of its central reason for being and not because it imperfectly reflects its missio, pure evil.

I gotta admit, though, the doctrine of eternal punishment is the greatest marketing idea in history.

Catholic theology is fairly clear regarding mortal sin. Even individual bishops can't make it up as they go along.

Harry:

Everyone will have a chance to repent when the Rapture comes.

Jeff:

There was no need for Protestantism; it was a mistake. However, so long as it adheres to the original sources it's not a disaster.

OJ:

Perhaps my knowledge isn't up to snuff, but wasn't the point of Protestantism to read, and interpret, the Scriptures for ourselves?

That means righteousness is based on our individual interpretation, and that secularists hardly have a monopoly on that sort of thing.

Jeff:

No.

Wrong, Tom. If you are supposed to submit yourself to the authority of Holy Mother the Church -- and you are required to -- then you must accept YOUR bishop's teaching. You are not permitted to pick and choose; if you prefer the Latin Mass, you can find bishops (and archbishops) who agree with you; but they've been unchurched, so you cannot choose them.

I didn't go to Catholic school for 14 years for nothing. It was very expensive.

Along that line, I cannot resist passing on this I found while looking for something else. It's a "free offer" of a book called "From Gospel for Asia." There are 3 reasons given why you should take this free gift. I liked No. 2:

2. It will challenge you to live a more simple lifestyle so you will have some money left over for the gospel.

What a racket.

OJ:

Okay, then. What was Protestantism all about?

I could swear I heard somewhere that part of it was rejecting the need for adherence to an institutional Church for salvation.

Purifying the institution, but it got carried away. So long as it remains moored to the text though it's not too bad.

But moored by whom? Since it is possible to read virtually anything, except maybe the Federal Reserve Bank, into the Scriptures, it seems one could moor onto whatever one feels like.

Protestantism is a path to righteousness of one's own.

Yes, it can be and that's why it was a mistake.

A mistake we can blame our freedom on.

If we were more free rather than less we could.

Dare you to cite which PARTS of the text are important. We know, for example, that you deny Luke 9, Matthew 14 and Mark 6.

Harry:

I don't deny anything. Some parts seem less likely than others to be literally true, but that doesn't affect their Truth.

So let me get this straight. The only way to properly interpret the Scriptures is have a group of men appointed to do that for me, and you.

Who may not be questioned. Who are always right. Who understand and interpret Scripture perfectly.

Because they talk to God, and have it all straight from Him.

After all, Scripture is inaccessible to anyone without special training.

Right?

No. Scripture is entirely accessible, but you're not entitled to read it any way you want. Read it the way it has been read for miillennia. The Church's problems were institutional, not doctrinal.

Read it the way it has been read for millenia by whom?

It wasn't read 200 years ago as it is today, and it was different then from 200, or a 1,000 years prior.

There is no one way it has been read, nor one group privileged to have the most correct interpretation.

Okay. Let's assume there was. But how would one know, except to take someone else's word for it?

Jeff:

It's read the same there's just stuff that makes moderns uncomfortable. They should get over it.

OJ:

You completely dodged my point. There is no single way the Scriptures have been read over the last 2,000 years. Even by the Catholic Church.

And which group has the direct line to God?

So tell me precisely, who is the unchallenged authority, and how you know. God is not an acceptable answer, since it is the human interpretation of the Gospels that in question.

I'm unaware of any serious differences of opinion over Scriptures.

I am. There are some evangelical sects that believe everything in the Bible is literally true.

You don't.

A significant part of one sect thinks homosexuality is, as it turns out, OK.

You don't.

What about infant damnation? No longer an article of faith, but it was once, wasn't it? How about the requirement to receive Christ as your savior in this life to receive eternal salvation?

Sounds like some serious differences of opinion to me.

You aren't talking about reading the Scriptures there, but about people who don't like what they find there.

I am talking about everyone who doesn't find everything in the Bible inerrantly true.

And I am talking about everyone in the Bible who believes in its inerrant truth, despite more than a few internal contradictions.

To pick one example. so far as I have been able to determine here, the assertion that homosexuality is immoral is the word of man, not God. Christ had nothing to say on the matter, nor does the Ten Commandments.

Is the immorality of homosexuality an established fact because it is in the Bible, or historically contextual, reflecting only the opinions of the men who wrote the text?

Besides that, I asked a series of questions to which I don't have answers. Was there once a belief in infant damnation? If so, were they wrong then, or are we wrong now?

Regarding salvation, are the Evangelicals right, or are you?

If the former, then proselytizing is the order of the day. If the latter, it is irrelevant. Which is it?

Lumping people who disagree with you into the category of "don't like what they find there" both patronizes people who don't see things your way, as well as dodges the issue.

The Bible explicitly condemns homosexuality but it is also implicitly outlawed in the commandments and in Christ's command that we love one another.

I don't think infant damnation is in there, but obviously creatures that don't make moral decisions yet are not fully moral beings.

Evangelicals are right--Gentiles have to accept Christ as their savior.

We proselytize. There's hope even for you to see the light and stop killing your fellow men.

OJ:

The condemnation is in the Bible, but is that the word of God, or of man? Besides, your notion of love is far too crotch centered. I don't know about you, but for me, love is in the brain.

Regarding Gentiles--is that in this world, or ever?

And what about Jews. Special exception for them?

The answer to that question makes a big difference to those whose accident of birth put their religious beliefs outside Christianity.

Jews are the Chosen people. Christianity brings their tenets to the rest of us.