markomalley

One more thing... Bottom line, if we have chosen to live in a "diverse," "accepting" society as we have, through our actions done, then I fully agree with Lindy's sentiment: As to what marriage is....well I don't think there is a lock on that definition, but I would think that the specifics of that definition is largely agreed upon between the two people taking it on. So if two people have agreed on it, I don't care to imagine what is or is not going on in their bedroom. Marriage is either a sacrament or a contract. A sacrament has parameters established by God that must be fulfilled for it to work as intended. It is a grace. A contract is simply an agreement between parties. The parties set up the rules. We have rejected marriage as a sacrament. Therefore, it is a contract.

I think that those who would condemn this lifestyle should just mind their own business. Seems to me that we've had this debate a couple of years ago...but it was about a different lifestyle. And it seems that the conclusion to the matter was that people who don't approve of it should just mind their own business. I don't see what's different about that particular type of relationship and the one that is being described here. Sure, there may be some who are unsavory about how they live their lifestyle and allow that lifestyle to impact their kids, but why should kids be allowed to be a factor. After all, we need diversity in this world, right? Seems to me that, in this modern society, one of the big things we should have learned by now is that we should mind our own business and stay out of other folks' bedrooms (or swing clubs, nudist resorts, or whatever). If we shouldn't impose our narrow moralities upon others, in one area, then we shouldn't impose our narrow moralities upon others, in any other area...as long as those who are actively and directly involved are over the locality's area of consent (be it 12, 14, 16, 18, or whatever) and are able to give consent. After all, if we or our children see two women or two men making out in public, we know that we shouldn't impose our morality upon them...i.e., if we don't like it, don't look. But we absolutely shouldn't say anything about it. If we see a magazine cover with the same thing, then we should simply not look at the magazine. But if we see the same thing, but it's two women and a man, two men and a woman, three women, or whatever permutation, we all of a sudden have a right to complain? I see a little hypocrisy in the argument. We have a situation where doing the honorable thing and marrying the woman you get pregnant (marrying the man who made you pregnant) in order to give the kid a name is now considered passe (how do you do a grave in UBB code???), we have a situation, ever more common, where a woman has multiple kids from multiple fathers, we even have a word for it now: "blended families." Nobody says anything about it. It's considered rude to even bemoan it at all anymore. But, yet, we dare criticize those who agree to stay together while agreeing to go elsewhere (or go multiple directions) for their sexual fulfillment? WTF?? Again, don't get me wrong...I am not advocating having a party at home with the kids in bed. I am not advocating having lifestyle magazines around where the kids can see them. But who are we to criticize them...considering where our society is and considering what else that we condone or tolerate? Folks, we already have a hedonistic society. Don't believe it? Just turn on the tube or just look around you. And if that's the society we want in some areas, then who are you to criticize if somebody else goes and tries a different variation than what is commonly accepted? Sorry if it sounds harsh...but if we, as a society, say what we do in regards to some serious deviations from sexual morality...we have no right to say anything about any deviation from sexual morality. IMHO. FWIW. YMMV.

Roy... Good question that you pose. A couple of things I'd check into: First, using Biblical evidence only, can you demonstrate that salvation is the same thing as the new birth (regeneration?) Second, think about the tense used in the statements that so many use toward the salvation of believers: Rom 10:9 says (KJV): if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Rom 5:10 says (KJV): much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. Acts 2:21 (KJV): And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Both of the above verses put the actual event of salvation in the future. (Thou shalt be saved...we shall be saved) All in the future tense. Is salvation an event that has happened in the past (Biblical proof, please) or is something that will happen in the future (see prooftexts, above). Just something to consider on the subject...

You bring up some good points, as always, T-bone. But I think it is actually far simpler than that (reductionism ;)) Remember Wierwille's influencers: some of which included the Benny Hinn-type Charlatans who had the arrogance to convince others that they had a power to command God how to act. Merge this with his embracing of Arianism. The only result can be the Gel-Cell battery...

That makes complete sense, Clay. Particularly considering how He acts. After all, one could go back all the way to Genesis 1 to see that.

I would be very interested in seeing that. I have, on another board, had some extensive discussions with some Orthodox brothers...and that conversation made me seriously examine the topic a while back. One thing to keep in mind is the original construction of the Creed, vice the construction with the filoque (a relatively modern addition...added in the west somewhere in the 800s) The traditional Western depiction of the relationship is an inverted pyramid. The traditional Eastern depiction is a pyramid, right side up. I think the most important aspect of the relationship is the triangle...far more than The issue comes down to if there is support in scripture for the Son directly sending the Paraclete...or if the Father does so at the Son's request. This is actually a very serious area of discussion between Benedict and Bartholomew, for what it's worth. And, for the first time in a thousand years, there appears to be some progress.

Two points to bring up on the discussion: 1. Probably the most succinct explanation of the Trinity and the Holy Spirit's relationship within the Trinity that I've seen within scripture is contained within John 14-16. Jhn 14:7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; henceforth you know him and have seen him." Jhn 14:8 Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied." Jhn 14:9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Jhn 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Jhn 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, Jhn 14:17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you. Jhn 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. Jhn 15:26 But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me; Jhn 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. Clearly within the verses quoted, the "personhood" of the Holy Spirit is shown. We can clearly see from John 14:26 and 15:26 that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Nicene Creed, as used in the Western Church, states: "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who Proceeds from the Father and the Son..." That last phrase, known in theological circles as the "filoque" (Latin for "and the Son"), coincidentally, is the primary theological area of dispute between the Latin Church and the Orthodox Churches. The original Creed of Constantinople-Nicea says: "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who Proceeds from the Father" Although I am a Latin, I have to say that I think the Orthodox side of the argument is the correct view on this argument. Probably the most extensive description of the Trinity in the form of a Creed is the Athanasian Creed, developed around the same time as the Nicene Creed (at a regional synod overseen by St. Athanasius, the Patriarch of Alexandria, Egypt). It's "official" dating is 381 AD (but there is some controversy surrounding that date, so I don't want to call the dating "authoritative") 1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; 2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. 3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; 4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. 5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. 6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. 7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. 8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. 9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. 10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. 11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal. 12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. 13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty. 14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. 15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; 16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. 17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; 18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord. 19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; 20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords. 21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. 22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. 23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. 24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. 25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another. 26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal. 27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. 28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity. 29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. 30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man. 31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world. 32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. 33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood. 34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ. 35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God. 36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. 37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; 38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; 39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty; 40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. 41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies; 42. and shall give account of their own works. 43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. 44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

Hey, all I know is that I don't have popups anymore! (Even on famous popup/popunder sites like Drudge). And, I have never run into problems accessing any URL I've tried to go to. And it does speed up access...as 127.0.0.1. Having said that, if you have an open source adblock that works with Opera and/or IE, I'm more than willing to try it. The ones I've tried in the past (mind you, a couple of years ago before I learned about 'blacklisting', i.e., modifying the hosts file) had very limited success. They may have improved.

By the way, the reason I found out about this was that a piece of malware modified my "hosts" file to redirect all requests going to security related sites, such as Symantec, to a porno site. Made it so I couldn't update my antivirus definitions or find instructions on how to remove the worm. I had to become intimately familiar with the "hosts" file after that point.

No. I have modified my HOSTS file to force the mapping of certain URLs to my local computer. (C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\etc\hosts) For example, from Google, Inc., the following URLs are mapped to "home:" 127.0.0.1 adwords.google.com #[Gmail ads] 127.0.0.1 pagead.googlesyndication.com 127.0.0.1 pagead2.googlesyndication.com #[Google AdWords] 127.0.0.1 adservices.google.com 127.0.0.1 ssl.google-analytics.com #[urchinTracker] 127.0.0.1 www.google-analytics.com #[Google Analytics] 127.0.0.1 imageads.googleadservices.com #[Ewido.TrackingCookie.Googleadservices] 127.0.0.1 imageads1.googleadservices.com 127.0.0.1 imageads2.googleadservices.com 127.0.0.1 imageads3.googleadservices.com 127.0.0.1 imageads4.googleadservices.com 127.0.0.1 imageads5.googleadservices.com 127.0.0.1 imageads6.googleadservices.com 127.0.0.1 imageads7.googleadservices.com 127.0.0.1 imageads8.googleadservices.com 127.0.0.1 imageads9.googleadservices.com 127.0.0.1 www.googleadservices.com Doing that for ad sites eliminates a HUGE amount of banner ads, popups, pop-unders, browser hijack attempts, 3rd party cookies, and so on. I've done this for the past few years and it really works well. There are a number of places that maintain replacement "hosts" files (along with instructions to replace)... the one that I use as my base file (I modify it further) can be found via this page: http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm Sorry that it makes it so I can't see the Google ads on this page, but, of course, I'm not going to lower my computers' security in order to be able to see them on GS.

Tell the Red Cross that. The funny thing is that they DON'T exclude people who have risk factors for other infectuous diseases...politically incorrect to do so. The other funny thing is when I decline to donate blood...and am asked why...and I tell them the reason for my ineligibility.

But Raf was the official "keeper of the cone" during the Hurricane season of 2005 (and thus the weatherman). You should be FLATTERED to have that karma title! ;)

But Raf was the official "keeper of the cone" during the Hurricane season of 2005 (and thus the weatherman). You should be FLATTERED to have that karma title! ;) never mind...wrong thread.

Doojable in the "Witnessed to by an innie" thread: That sounds like it would work on bumper stickers, t-shirts, and coffee cups!

You're welcome. I do a lot of business travel. I try to figure out how to do the best I can for the money. Hotel tips next?

If you rent enough, try to get a premier membership with the rental agency...I've used both the Hertz #1 Club and the National Emerald Aisle. The savings in time is HUGE. And you get benefits that, in my mind, at least, make it well worth the effort: - No lines at major airports. Your car is waiting for you to climb in and go. - Often, they will have a bunch of cars lined up and you just pick the one you want. - Other times you'll get a free upgrade without even asking. For example, on my last trip, I asked for a Corolla and they automatically upgraded me to a Taurus (mid size to full size). In the case of Hertz, my company paid for it. But I looked on their web site and the annual cost if I had to pay for it myself would be $50. (If I rented more than a couple of times a year, to me, it would seem like it was worth it) Not sure what National or Avis or whatever cost, but I'm sure it's not much different. --------- My attitude to off-airport rentals (like Thrifty). Sure, you'll save a couple of bucks (not as much as you think). But you will pay for it in inconvenience, shabby car, and the possibility of missing a flight. --------- You can get discounts in a number of ways. - If your company has an arrangement with a car company, a lot of times they'll have a corporate purchase agreement code or discount code that you can apply for your personal rentals. - You can get discounts through AAA or AARP membership or through other groups that you may be a member of. - Discount clubs often have arrangements with car rental places (I am a member of BJ's...and they have arrangements with a number of rental companies. I'm sure that Costco and Sam's Club also have discounts) - If you are active, reserve, or retired military, or are a federal government employee (maybe state too, not sure), you can use a government discount (show your ID card when you rent) Other ways to save money on rentals: 1. Check with your car insurance before you rent. Most car insurances will cover you when you rent a car. If that's the case, you don't need to pay for the collision damage waiver. That can save a HUGE amount of money (maybe $10 a day). 2. If you KNOW you're going to do a lot of driving, pre-pay for a tank of fuel. Otherwise, you have to waste valuable time paying for expensive gas at a nearby gas station OR pay the rental car company up to TWICE the cost of the gas to fill the tank for you if it's not at 100% full.

I can answer that. I was stationed in Italy at the same time and can't donate blood either. They have a permanent prohibition on people living in certain countries from donating blood, because of the mad cow disease that was going on in Europe at the time. (Called BSE)

I might be tempted to ask that innie what was wrong with her believing that she would need to be in a (gasp) third aid place? What's worse is a third aid place run by an "empty?" (empty shell, or some such thing...) I might then make some comment about it being nice that she had adequate cash to pay for a doctor's appointment. (If she made a comment about insurance...the appropriate comeback would be along the lines of: "Insurance...I thought that you folks weren't supposed to go in for that because it demonstrated lack of believing" If she made a comment about medicaid, medicare, or whatever...the appropriate comeback would be: "uneequally yoked with unbelievers? Something else new for the Way?") Of course then, I'm not a very nice person :evildenk:

I understand. If they have a problem or a concern, I'm sure they'll edit as appropriate (or delete the whole thread). I do appreciate and share your concerns, though.

How would calling up a company and saying that you're disappointed with them and implying that you will keep that in mind for future business endeavors with them be a legal liability? It's not that anybody is implying that somebody blow up public storage locations...it's not that anybody is suggesting that their networks get hacked into and disabled. What it does is to let them know that they may have a public relations disaster on their hands. The implicit threat is that they saving that $8,000 may end up costing them more than $8,000 worth of business in the long run. I am not sure how individuals calling this firm up would cause a liability to this web site.

Here is a terrible article about how a soldier got treated while he was deployed. If, after reading the article, you are so inclined, there is some easy action you can take to help this soldier out! SPRINGFIELD, Mo. — After serving a year in Iraq, Army Reserve Spc. Patrick Rogalin came home and found that everything he had put in a storage locker _ essentially everything he owned _ had been sold. Several payments for the locker had bounced because someone emptied his checking account while he was gone. "It's really insulting, after all I went through over there serving my country, to come back and have to deal with this," Rogalin said. Rogalin, 20, said he put his belongings into a Public Storage unit near St. Louis before shipping out and set up automatic payments with the company. But while he was in Iraq, he said, someone accessed his checking account and cleaned it out. After learning of the problem from his bank, Rogalin opened a different account and resumed making payments to Public Storage. "When I got back I called Public Storage to find out the status of my account and they told me the contents of my storage container had been auctioned off in June because the bill hadn't been paid," he said. Rogalin said Public Storage never told him his account was in trouble, or that everything he owned _ clothes, books, electronic gear, furniture and other property _ was going to be sold. He said he had to move in with his girlfriend. "Otherwise I wouldn't have anything." Ron Ramler, regional vice president of Public Storage, said company policy prevented him from talking about Rogalin's case. Rogalin said his contract with Public Storage, based in Glendale, Calif., says the company is liable for losses up to $5,000, but he said the company offered him only $2,000 and an apology. Rogalin estimates his belongings were worth $8,000. "I called them back and told them this isn't anywhere near right," Rogalin said. "They upped their offer to $2,500 and gave me seven days to accept it or get nothing." He said he rejected the $2,500 but does not have enough money to fight the company in court. Rogalin still has his car and clothing he brought back from Iraq. His girlfriend, Jaimie Alonzo, 21, and her parents bought him clothes for Christmas. "At least now I'm not wearing the same three things every week," Rogalin said. Rogalin said he plans to attend Missouri State and join the university's ROTC program, so he can resume his Army career as an officer after he graduates. Source: AP What a situation. The guy is identity theived while he is deployed and, as a result, gets all of his possessions sold out from under him. Public Storage's customer service number is: 1 (800) 567-0759. I imagine that if Public Storage gets enough phone calls from aggrevated consumers, they may realize what a public relations disaster they have on their hands and may change their attitude. If you are so inclined, you may wish to call them up and tell them how disappointed you are at their attitude toward this soldier. (Of course a subtle reminder that Public Storage is not the only storage firm out there may help, as well) In addition, if you post on other boards, you may want to spread this word around to those other boards... (To the mods: Sorry for posting the entire article. But I thought it was worth it)

I guess my modified HOSTS file is preventing me from seeing the ads. You say they're below the Greasespot Cafe logo at the top of each page?

I'm just relating my real-world experience with this. Maybe that explains the delay in payment though. Bottom line is that it got paid. My advice to people remains the same: if you are the surviving responsible person (spouse, parent, or whatever), make sure that you have something in your hands that says that somebody else assumes financial responsibility for the harvesting...and keep a copy.

When my first wife died, they harvested some of her organs (I know they got her corneas and some bone, but am not sure what else). (i.e., she was a donor) Hospital bills came in TO ME (for use of operating room, supplies, etc.) Yes, the organ harvestors eventually paid the bills...it wasn't immediate but they did pay...but the couple of months they took to pay was very nerve wracking to me. Obviously my health insurance stopped the minute she was declared dead...thus the insurance wasn't going to pay. When I, as the surviving spouse, signed my consent, I was not of the presence of mind to ask the financial questions. I am not sure I would have known at the time what to ask and what to look for on the papers I signed. I don't even have a copy of it any more to look (I don't even remember if I asked for a copy of the papers). I guess that's one thing to keep in mind if your SPOUSE or unmarried child is a donor. Make sure you take the time to read the papers. They will pressure you to sign without reading. Don't. And make sure that a copy of EVERYTHING is made available to you before you sign. (You will forget and they won't worry about it once your signature is on the documents) Of course, my experience is about 18 years ago, so things may be a whole lot smoother now. FWIW.

Actually, it is related to the other statement I made in post #4: First, I personally couldn't care less whether Ellison is sworn in with his hand on the Bible, the Qu'ran, or on a roll of toilet paper. Whatever. For the vast majority elected officials, the "oath of office" is meaningless, anyway. I have seen enough Congressmen do enough just for the show of it...the "photo-op," as it were. When I was in the service, I had to play the role of the adoring servicemember enough times to have personal experience with it. Think about it: the swearing in ceremony with the book (Bible, Quran, Cosmopolitan, whatever) is nothing but a photo-op anyway...they were sworn in long before that. The job of electing the speaker. Big show on Thursday...but it was already officially decided long before. Photo-ops are just that. My sense is that he was making a statement. The result of this statement is that the right wing fell for it: and appear to be a bunch of intolerant idiots. Had they just not made a big deal about it, it would have never made the news (including the bit about Jefferson's Quran) outside of Minnesota and outside of the Arab News (or some other such site) and that would have been that. The right wing needs to pick its battles. This is not one that should have been picked.