[ QUOTE ]
I think it is saying exactly the opposite of how you seem to be reading it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hiya RJT,

No, I am sure this is not so. Following your comment above I have carefully read and re-read it, just in case.

In a post following the one quoted above you showed that the realisation is starting to dawn upon you (If you allow me to be as presumptuous for the sake of the discussion).

I will not dwell on the older version of the doctrine (the mitigated flames/heat!!!), but look at the final position as it is presented in the interview.

The way I understand our different view points, just about the non baptised souls, mind you, as I am sure we have other differences as well: [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

You seem to tolerate an equivocal position by the church, whereas I demand a immediate and formal withdrawal of the idea or concept. Hope is something we give hopeless to make their lot easier right now. I don't find it satisfactory. To me I have to equate it with a form of spiritual terrorism. I do understand that a statement on non-baptised people having the same rights as baptized ones, will ultimately force other retractions by the church as well, all rooted in the irreconciliability of good/god and evil, present in a number of monotheist religions. The fundamental issue in my opinion. It is in the interest of the church, sadly, to keep and gain adherents by this naive yet powerful terrorism towards the less educated/liberated. That is the position from which my diatribe came from. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Thanks for your polite and thoughtful, even if misdirected, posts. It does make this thread interesting and may set more people on the way of liberation and freedom from superstitions and dogma, than the reverse. Again, imo. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]