Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Win Smith who wrote (17666)	7/3/2001 12:15:38 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

At this point, there is little to object to in having the Church set its own rules, since membership is voluntary. If one objects to the authoritarianism, one can become a Methodist or Episcopalian, which are pretty liberal denominations, or join the Unitarian- Universalists, for that matter. The logic of the situation favors licensing, I should think: the church is based on certain doctrines and discipline, and expects those to whom it gives authoritative positions to take care not to go to far afield. Denying the license merely says that the person cannot claim to be teaching as a Catholic theologian, that is, as a representative of the Church. The review was interesting. I think the Lollards were persecuted for incendiary doctrines rather than Wycliffe's translation of the Bible, but it is true, there was some hostility to the idea of the uneducated interpreting the Bible without guidance, and it was not until the horse was out of the barn that the idea of Catholic vernacular translations became acceptable, roughly at the time of the Counter- Reformation. I do not recall what penalties there may have been for merely possessing a vernacular translation........