| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 01/26/2004 9:33:25 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator, reason:
This thread is now locked. It has served its purpose. thank you all for your participation and patience. |
Posted on 01/22/2004 6:34:29 PM PST by Sidebar Moderator
From John Chapter1: 40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. 41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. F6 42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
(Note the phrase is "shalt be called" indicating future tense. It doesn't say "is also known as." It doesn't say "has been called." It says, "shall be called.")
Clarkson Integrator - Features Issue: 01/19/04
Senator Orrin Hatch aborts views to support stem cell research
By Knight Ridder Tribune
It was 5:00 a.m. in Utah, and Senator Orrin Hatch already was huffing and puffing on his exercise machine when he grabbed a nearby phone.
"Bruce, get your Bible!" he commanded an aide in Washington. "I'm thinking about when life begins."
The predawn call one Saturday last February (2002) was part of a difficult, yearlong journey by a man torn between his longstanding opposition to abortion and his deep faith in science. Hatch read the scriptures; he prayed; he talked to religious leaders, scientists, bioethicists. He struggled with himself.
Then he sided with science.
Hatch, a Republican, is the only member of Congress who opposes abortion rights but publicly supports the use of human embryos, including cloned embryos, for research. He is co-sponsoring a bill, to be introduced Wednesday, that would permit scientists to create human embryos and destroy them after a few days as they remove the tiny stem cells that researchers believe hold cures for some of humanity's most horrible diseases.
Hatch is at odds with an anti-abortion movement that he has stood with for decades, and also with many voters in his conservative home state who view embryos as human beings and their destruction as murder.
"I don't know anybody else in Congress who thinks that because you are cloned you're not a human," said Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of Pro-Life Activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "And I don't know anybody else who says because you haven't been implanted in a woman's womb, you don't have a soul."
Leaders on both sides of the debate say they expect that many members of Congress soon will have to wrestle with the same question Hatch confronted, that of when life begins, as they weigh two competing bills on cloning.
Legislation sponsored by Hatch and four abortion-rights supporters from both parties would ban cloning to create human beings, called "reproductive cloning," but would allow cloning embryos for research, dubbed "therapeutic cloning." Hatch prefers the term "regenerative medicine."
Another bill, introduced last week by Senators Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican, and Mary Landrieu, a Louisiana Democrat, would prohibit both kinds of cloning. A similar measure passed the Republican-controlled House of Representatives overwhelmingly in 2001 and is expected to do so again.
The issue, with its scientific, religious and ethical repercussions, always has been sensitive. But this year, after at least one group claimed without proof to have cloned a baby, tensions already have heightened.
Initially, Hatch assumed that he would stick with his anti-abortion colleagues, who oppose destroying human embryos, both those left over from fertility treatments and those cloned for research, to harvest stem cells. A devout Mormon, he said, "I can't be for something that destroys human life."
Yet Hatch also was a leader on health issues in Congress, and a strong supporter of new types of research. And he was touched by the many victims, people with Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, some forms of cancer and also by a particular little boy, named Cody Anderson, with juvenile diabetes, who hope that stem-cell research would help them overcome their maladies.
So Hatch set out to determine for himself when life began. He searched his soul for an answer, and ultimately decided that it was not at the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg, as many abortion opponents believe.
"I came to the conclusion that, yes, the fertilized egg is a living human cell, but it has absolutely zero chance of becoming a living human being unless it is implanted in a womb," Hatch said.
A former medical-liability defense attorney, Hatch has aligned himself with a loose coalition of scientists, disease victims and their families. They are pitted against abortion opponents, the Roman Catholic Church and some environmentalists. The Mormon Church, which opposes abortion rights in most cases, has not taken a position on stem-cell research or therapeutic cloning.
Opponents of research cloning say there is no evidence that embryonic stem cells hold the key to cures. They put their faith in stem cells taken from adults, which also are being used in research. Hatch and others on his side say the adult cells hold less promise than embryonic stem cells.
Last year on his exercise machine, Hatch's breathing grew heavier as Artim continued his bible research.
Now, nearly 12 months later, the senator breathes easier.
"It was difficult arriving at the point at which I could make a decision," he said. "But once I got there, it was easy."
Not necessarily. Of the following definitions from Dictionary.com, I was using it in the definition #2 sense.
2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.
3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
4. A fictitious story, person, or thing: “German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth” (Leon Wolff).
I could have assumed the #3 or 4 sense, but that would leave open the possibility that someone would presume it in the #2 sense, so I qualified it with the word, "false" to avoid confusion. Ha! A lot of good that did me.
Why don't you research that and get back to us?
Thanks for your post. Yes, if the posters would do it -- or, they could post a revised post.
What the moderators, and all of us, need to see on this forum is some editing of the heart, a change of heart, on the part of those who post this way. Otherwise the same things flow from the same heart and the New Testament rules (the article and post #778) are not followed.
Thus my calls for repentance, for a change of heart.
I believe the problem here, marlowe, is that you are asking for a simple "yes" or "no" answer to a question which does not lend itself to a simple answer. Specifically, you are asking a complex question and demanding a simple answer. Moreover, you have already indicated why you are doing this.
It seems you wish to set up a straw man and then knock it down. If polemikos answers, "no, it is not possible to be saved outside the Church" you will come back with, "ah, then you believe all we Protestants will be going to hell." Certainly, a straw man you would love to use to knock the Church.
If polemikos says "yes, it is possible to be saved outside the Church," then you have already indicated you will use this to argue it really doesn't matter to which church one belongs.
Hence, your frustration when he doesn't grab the bait and, hence, your bluster about an 'unwillingness' to answer a direct question when polemikos directs you to a website offering the Catholic position supported with the writings of the Early Church Fathers on this subject.
Basically, the Catholic position is that 'yes' it is possible to be saved outside the Church provided one is invincibly ignorant. To wit: they have not been brought to a saving knowledge of the necessity of belief in Christ and, hence, the Body of Christ.
The situation becomes even more complex when discussing this with our Protestant brothers and sisters. We believe your baptism brings you into the Mystical Body of Christ which is the Church. Due to historical circumstances, we recognize you are not in full communion with the Church. Moreover, we recognize, again through historical circumstances, that many of our Protestant brethren -through no fault of their own- remain ignorant about the necessity of coming to know Jesus in the Sacrament of the Eucharist and coming to experience the healing power found in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
Thus, we hold out the hope, the possibility, that Our Lord, in His Infinite Mercy, will spare you come the Day of Judgement and, that, you will, therefore, be saved.
You stated them in the order which best fits your scenario without regard to the facts, that is obvious.
It might be a good idea for you to read the Bible before you make "off the wall" pronouncements.
If you want to believe it is James, so be it. That's one of the things that is different between you and me.
If you want to believe what you have been told rather than what is in the Bible, so be it. That's one of the things that is different between you and me.
Congressional testimony should never be restricted regardless of its content providing it is public record and not a matter of national security
That aside - it is not up to you to assess Maj Carletons sincerity - you look at it with a seasoned eye that claims victimhood (no offense intended) - additionally, if we are going to discuss apologetics of other faiths, yours is certainly likly to be included.....and based on the mods statements - they will let a thread as such stand, providing the ensuing discourse is palatable....and have stated as much here
Additionally, you state lies of a sexual nature"
I am not aware of those, but am aware of verifiable records as to the marital habits of LDS founders, - which are not germaine to this thread.
"We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists--that with them is the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."
- Luther, Commentary on John, ch. 16.
Reggie, is it truly your contention that if any time elapses between the death of one Pope and the election of another, the line is "broken?"
If this is the case, allow me to save you the trouble since I doubt Pope Linus assumed the role immediately and exactly coinciding with the death of Peter. Heck, the line was broken again just twenty five years ago since -as I recall- several days (weeks) passed between the death of John Paul the I and John Paul II.
I could break down your #837 and make similar comments, the fact that I post on a thread is the offensive and hypocritical thing, my motives are questionable and should be doubted, etc.
But I do not wish to be drawn into an endless loop. There are endless attempts to do so. That is why I need some appropriate way of dealing with hostile posts that does not result in an endless back and forth, but neither lets you proclaim that your false charges are true because I "ran away" and did not answer them.
I have been told that addressing replies to "All" is not the way to do it. Surely there is a way. Perhaps I will just refer you back to this post as you continue to question my motives and attempt to portray me as an offender without offering anything of substance for me to reply to.
I believe it has been quite a while since I posted on a Servetus thread. I can review the substance of my posts there, the points I make, and importantly the points I do not make, some other time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.