re: #275 Obdicut

I also believe all of that to be equally offensive. Again, it is more offensive when it is personalized to one’s own family members.

Why?

You and I have gone down this road before. It is about issue remoteness. Something is more offensive to someone the more it is directed towards them. It has more cogency and more impact.

I don’t think that’s comparable in the least. I think a better comparison would be the Catholic Church saying that the only way a dead gay friend of mine was in heaven is if he repented of his gay sins. Which is what they do.

Actually I perfer my analogy. Here is why. They are performing an act. A ceremony to confer a particular status on someone posthumously. A status that said particular individual made a choice not to take part in, one that would have offended that person in life. That is wrong. And is different than simply saying he should have repented for his sin. It is taking steps for that person in death they chose not to take themself.

No. I don’t get at all why saying “All the Jews in the Holocaust are damned unless they accepted Jesus” is less offensive than “Martin Fitzruber is damned if he didn’t accept Jesus.”

The former includes the latter.

See my comment above. Issue remoteness. The fact that the former includes the latter is not disputed. Simply the impact that has on the family of a particular person is in question.