markomalley

Wow...amazing film!

Well, for myself, I would think that a requirement for believing is a pretty powerful "work," myself. But that's just me... If not for the sacrament of reconcilliation, I'd think it would actually contribute to a HIGHER rate of suicide. (Maybe you're thinking about 'venial' sins) But with the sacrament of reconcilliation...

Rich, Man, you are asking me to set myself up to be flamed massively! But what the heck... What you tell me doesn't really surprise me all that much. The bit about Protestant individualism as opposed to Catholic collectivism is true, to a degree. Catholic theology is very big on the "mystical body" of Christ (cf 1 Cor 12). Each member of that "mystical body" has an inherent role within that Body. In addition, the Catholic Church also believes in the long-term view of the receipt of blessings and the salvific function of suffering while on this earth (cf Col 1:24, read the RSV for a better translation). It seems to me that the majority of Protestant groups teach a far more individualistic faith: me and God. It also seems that there is far more concentration on temporal matters. (But that's just my opinion) The real cause, though, I believe of a lower suicide rate is because of a far more fundamental issue, though, in my mind. The vast majority of Protestant groups believe in a tenet called "sola fide" (salvation by faith alone). Catholics teach salvation by grace through the sacraments initiated by Christ. That is a fundamental difference. A person can be under a WHOLE LOT more pressure if he must depend upon the self-perceived strength of his beliefs for his salvation and justification. At least in my opinion. But yours is an interesting observation one way or the other.

It seems to me that Wierwille's viewpoint is directly related to the influence of Darby on his theological point of view. (Darby invented the "dispensation" theory...modified by Bullinger to be "ultra-dispensationalism" -- that, specifically, was closest to the viewpoint held by Wierwille) As we all will recall, ad nauseum, Wierwille taught that the Church Dispensation began on Pentacost. All things that discussed the timeline prior to Pentacost were to be considered "old testament" and not written "to us," but "for our learning." (As a sidebar, this comes from a perversion of Romans 15:4, For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning. Naturally, that exalts one phrase above the entire verse, which says, For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. (You will note that the verse says nothing about them not being applicable to us) The point of this being that he could not support his theology if the actions and teachings of Jesus, while he was on earth, were listed as being directly applicable to us. Therefore, Jesus' words were not really the standard...only Paul's words. Never mind the fact that the majority of the Gospels (with the exception of Mark's gospel) were written well after Paul wrote his letters to the various particular churches. (What would scare the *** out of VP and out of a lot of folks is that if a person wanted to really get back to the first century church in their worship and practice, they would need to go to the Maronite Church, the Chaldean Church, the Melkite Church, or the Coptic Church...those folks' worship order would be very recognizable by the first century fathers)

Rich, I think one thing you'll find in the discourse between Abigail and myself is that we are showing through that discourse some healthy characteristics of fellowships we've found. Not bulleted, but there never the less. You will note that in both cases, there is a liturgy used for the worship service. In her case, that liturgy is based upon thousands of years worth of experience. In my case, the liturgy is not nearly as old...it is only about 500 years old...but its lineage is directly based upon the liturgy used by her group. Secondly, you will note that in both cases, there is a separation between the worship services and fellowship between members of the groups and religious education (theology, scripture, history, etc.). Thirdly, although not directly stated, you will note that the same local leader is not directly involved in all aspects of the 'religious fellowship' for each person for whom he is responsible. That, in of itself, along with the long historical context of both traditions, minimizes the possibility of establishment of a "cult of personality" such as what can possibly develop in a new religious movement (be that movement TWI or some other larger group). Fourth, as multiple people have pointed out, people are responsible for their own lives and are not micromanaged. This, too, was not pointed out directly, but you would note that in most cases, the only time that a public issue is made of a person's personal behavior is if it develops into a major distraction for the remainder of the members of that group (in the Catholic Church, we call that condition a "scandal."). Because of the size and the homogenous nature of the groups (as far as worship and beliefs are concerned), disfellowship (shunning, excommunication, etc.) is only required in the event of that person causing a scandal or if that person is directly responsible for actively attempting to undermine or split that group...thus putting other people at risk because of their heterodox beliefs or actions (again, in the Catholic Church, we call this attempt at splitting "schism" and undermining beliefs "heresy") Fifth, there are multiple outlets, as have been alluded to, within traditional faith groups, to meet multiple needs of diverse members of the community. If members choose to simply worship on Saturday or Sunday, that works. However, there are additional opportunities out there: men's groups, women's groups, singles groups, teen groups, young adult groups, interest groups, sciprture studies, adult faith education, ministry opportunities with the sick, the poor, children, the elderly, the disabled, etc. Not that all faith groups (churches, synagogues) have all of these opportunities, but most have at least some. In most cases, though, these opportunities are voluntary. Not all members of the church/synagogue are required to participate in any or all of the functions out there. I tried to lay the above out so that it is not particularly Christian centered. As I am familiar with some Christian churches and denominations, I know that there is a high degree of variance. I also know, from what I've seen in the area, Jewish groups that do a lot of the same thing. And some Muslim groups. As well as some Unitarian groups. Not all. But enough to make it worth mentioning. Am I trying to paint a picture that all churches, all synagogues are good? No. Healthy? No. Are there differences between groups within a particular denomination? Absolutely. But the key part of what makes something "healthy", from what I've seen, is a diversity to meet the needs of the group members and the needs of the community. And something that is not so small that everybody in the group is guaranteed to know your business, while, if big, that there are tailored sub-groups so that individual attention and participation is possible (but not absolutely required). Hope that helps explain some of the earlier discourse. But it's really hard to bulletize. Sorry for that.

Interesting. In the Catholic Church (as well as those Protestant denominations that use the Lectionary), we have a three year cycle (for Sundays...plus a two year cycle for weekdays) that takes us through the entire New Testament and the vast majority of the Old Testament throughout the cycle. In addition, we pray the entire Psalms every four weeks throught the Liturgy of the Hours. Interesting. By the way, you'll be interested to learn (I think, at least), that I've been studying some stuff out of the Mishnah recently...particularly Seder Kodashim. Also the targum of the Torah. Fascinating stuff...helps explain a whole lof of context in the New Testament about the sacrifice of Christ.

Abigail, I think you have come up with some really good points in this post. Tremendous points, in fact. The way the Catholics and the Orthodox are taught, the liturgy used was an outgrowth from the Jewish liturgy in use at that time. The early believers in Christ continued in the traditions of their Jewish forefathers, worshiping as they had in both the Temple and the Synagogue . To this worship practice they added the distinctly Christian components which were, in fact, transformed Jewish worship practices. These included Baptism, the Eucharist, the Agape meal, and others. Baptism was also present in Jewish religious practice as a personal repentance for sin. Baptism, like the Lord's Supper, was transformed in both meaning and content by our Lord Jesus Christ. Baptism became not only a repentance for one's sins, but being baptized in the name of the Trinity now also assured forgiveness and incorporation into the Body of Christ, the Church. Baptism was the once and for all initiatory rite whereby one received the Holy Spirit and came into the Church. The early Christians with their transformed understanding of the central elements of Judaism had a practical problem: how to conduct worship? They wanted to carry on their old Jewish worship practices while at the same time incorporating this new meaning and content. They accepted the necessity for continuity with the old, and for the celebration of the new, but could not do both together. The result was doing both in parallel. The Temple hours of prayer and the Synagogue worship were kept, but were not centered in Christ. Each day of the week, those Christian believers in Jerusalem would attend the Temple for prayers during the daily cycle, and on Saturday — the Jewish Sabbath — they would attend either Temple or Synagogue. Source: Liturgia.com If folks take a look at the scriptures, they'd note some interesting things (if they could take off the TWI/CES/CFF/whatever blinders): Acts 2:46 (RSV): And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, Acts 5:41-42 (RSV): Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name. And every day in the temple and at home they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ. Acts 9:19-21 (RSV): and took food and was strengthened. For several days he was with the disciples at Damascus. And in the synagogues immediately he proclaimed Jesus, saying, "He is the Son of God." And all who heard him were amazed, and said, "Is not this the man who made havoc in Jerusalem of those who called on this name? And he has come here for this purpose, to bring them bound before the chief priests." Acts 13:13-44 (RSV): Now Paul and his company set sail from Paphos, and came to Perga in Pamphyl'ia. And John left them and returned to Jerusalem; but they passed on from Perga and came to Antioch of Pisid'ia. And on the sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down. After the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent to them, saying, "Brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say it." So Paul stood up … As they went out, the people begged that these things might be told them the next sabbath. And when the meeting of the synagogue broke up, many Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who spoke to them and urged them to continue in the grace of God. The next sabbath almost the whole city gathered together to hear the word of God. And so on and so forth. Now this is, as you point out so well, not to say that there was not worship in the homes of believers...for one reason or another...but, looking at it with fresh eyes, I see no place where people are directed or even encouraged to have their worship services in their houses, vice in synagogues. Naturally, the existence of church buildings would be an outgrowth of the synagogue as the Church grew in size and in places where a synagogue did not pre-exist. Bottom line is that the use of the "home fellowship" exclusive of other worship and learning does not, imho, appear to be the model set up in the Scriptures.

For a child is born to us, a son is given us;upon his shoulder dominion rests. They name him Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace. His dominion is vast and forever peaceful, from David’s throne, and over his kingdom, which he confirms and sustains by judgment and justice, both now and forever. A Peaceful and Blessed Feast of the Nativity of Our Lord to one and all!

For Sion's sake I will not hold my peace, and for the sake of Jerusalem, I will not rest till her just one come forth as brightness, and her saviour be lighted as a lamp. And the Gentiles shall see thy just one, and all kings thy glorious one: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name. And thou shalt be a crown of glory in the hand of the Lord, and a royal diadem in the hand of thy God. Thou shalt no more be called Forsaken: and thy land shall no more be called Desolate: but thou shalt be called My pleasure in her, and thy land inhabited. Because the Lord hath been well pleased with thee: and thy land shall be inhabited. For the young man shall dwell with the virgin, and thy children shall dwell in thee. And the bridegroom shall rejoice over the bride, and thy God shall rejoice over thee. - Isa 62:1-5 (reading for the Vigil of Christmas) Here's hoping this Advent was a peaceful season of preparation for the rememberance of the first coming of the Lord and for the upcoming second coming!

Abigail...you bring up a good point. Here's another one to consider:

Do any of you find it interesting that Jesus Christ is not mentioned here? (I assume that ck subscribes to the theology of Arius here...i.e., that he does not subscribe to Jesus Christ being the second person of the Godhead) That is very telling...

Two threads: John Lynn Leaves CES? Hi! It's the real me - John Lynn

The importance of it is that VPW was trying to show how HE was right and that EVERYBODY ELSE was wrong. And if VPW correctly showed how everybody else was wrong in this case, then his students would be more likely to be accepting of his conclusions, elsewhere, that contradicted Christianity. After all, we all saw the picture of the 4 crucified with Christ, didn't we? Those eeeeeevvvviiiiilllll Catholics knew it all along, but they were suppressing it from their people. I wonder what other truths they were suppressing from their people! (/sarcasm) See, if he could show you how he was right with this and everybody else was wrong (on a relatively minor thing), then on more important doctrines, such as baptism, the Godhead, etc., it would require less rigor for him to get folks to believe him. And thus continue with his indoctrination.

Before trying to make some leap of logic in regards to what Luther did or did not believe, let us take a look at some of his writings. Source: The Table Talk of Martin Luther (published 1566) Source: Luther's Small Catechism (1528) Source: The Smalcald Articles (1537) Note the dates of each extract. Luther posted his 95 theses in 1517 and was excommunicated in 1520. He died in 1546. So, although I hardly agree with Luther (being one of the few token Catholics on this board), it's obvious that he was not an Arian in any fashion. If somebody could post something written later that contradicts this, I'd be happy to read it, but until that point, it sounds to me that, as was the norm, VPW and TWI was forming a conclusion based on no objective evidence.

I'm incredibly saddened to hear that, George. Since you did decide to make the decision to forgo further treatment, I hope that you have the opportunity to close out your affairs and will have the comfort of family and friends in the time you have left. I'm not sure what else to say regarding that. Naturally, you'll be in my prayers. I don't know if there is anything else that any of us could do to help you. Please do let us know, though, if there is.

Geez and I thought it was for something important, like you passing an extra class exam or something.

TWI only had four members. Then six. Then whatever. None of us (AC Grads, Corps Grads, Piffle Grads, College Prog Grads) except the Board of Directors/Board of Trustees/whatever were members of TWI. Something to keep it in perspective.

Caution: NSFW NS F W NS F W Caution: NSFW BTW, NSFW="Not safe for work" Here's a hotlink if the embedded object doesn't work: If you know any younger folks deployed overseas, they might enjoy that video.

We did the "Santa Thing" with our daughter. It was as much for social reasons as for anything else (all the other kids believing in Santa, all the "Santa" displays, "Santa pictures" and so on). We never actually came out and said it, but we did it. As she started to get older, she would, of course, try to stay up so as to bust Santa depositing gifts. Then she would try to stay up so to bust us pretending we were Santa. Then it finally came out: "There is no Santa Claus, is there?" At that time we explained the story of St. Nicholaus to her: that in ancient Turkey, the bishop of Myra used to sneak around and give gifts to the poor people of the area...nobody knew it was him for years until, one day, one of his beneficiaries caught him in the act. We reminded her about back in the days when we lived in Italy that St. Nicholaus would come on December 6th (his memorial day) to distribute candy to all the children in our town. From St. Nicolaus, the spirit of Santa Claus was born. We told her that we still believe in the spirit of Santa Claus. We also promised her that as long as she continued to believe in the spirit of Santa Claus that she would continue to receive gifts from Santa Claus. But that when she stopped believing in Santa Claus that she would then see gifts from her mother and father. Well, it's been a few years since that time, but our daughter definitely believes in Santa Claus to this day. Of course, she doesn't leave milk and cookies and she doesn't see the "Santa gifts" under the tree any more; but she has figured out the joy of seeing a recipient's face light up when an unexpected gift comes. So she's figured out that it's far more rewarding to be Santa Claus than to get from Santa Claus.

Shouldn't this be moved over to "Just Plain Silly?"

The problem with that is "what brand of Christianity would you like with your coffee?" Remember the old blue laws? Stores would be, by law, required to close on Sunday? Can't have a bar within 1,000 feet of a church? and so on? Well, a lot of this stuff comes down to what variety of Christianity. You and I may approve of having stores be closed on Sunday. Suppose there is a town that is majority Seventh-Day Adventists...they would want stores to be required to be closed on Saturday in that town. In a country run by Catholics, you would not be able to buy condoms or birth control pills (fine by me, but I'm sure I'm in the minority here). In a country run by Southern Baptists, we'd still be under prohibition. In a country run by rastafaris, you'd be able to buy dope at the local 7-11. In a country run by orthodox Jews or Muslims, you wouldn't be able to have that bacon and egg biscuit from your local Krystal shop. The problem with saying that we are a Christian country or a Muslim country or whatever, is that the dominant denomination would love to impose itself on everybody. I think that would hold true no matter what the denomination, religion, or belief system (or lack thereof). If you'd like to see an official atheist state, take a look at how religions were treated by the USSR or China. Barely tolerated, provided they didn't step over the line. And you can see the blessings of living in a Muslim society. If you really want this to be a "Christian" country, then I think the thing to do is to, at the grassroots level, convert people to living their own lives like Christians (80% of the people in this country call themselves Christians...but I bet out of that, less than half of them even read the Bible...much less live it). I think if the Christians concerned themselves with getting other Christians to live the gospel and Jews worried about getting Jews to live the Talmud and Atheists/Agnostics concerned themselves with getting their atheist/agnostic brethren to live an ethical life, rather than worrying so much about other peoples' business, this would be a heck of a lot better country.

You ever drive on a road and see a cross and/or flowers on the side of the road? I see those things all the time around here, but don't know if that is a universal custom or not (I don't ever remember seeing that kind of thing in MN where I grew up). In parts of Europe, you see little shrines all over the place, commemorating where loved ones were killed, where battles were won, or some other kind of event. That's what I think those crosses were originally. Regardless of what they were, I wanted to show, based on some clearer photographs, that there is no way that they were originally constructed in the way they were. Therefore, Bullinger should never have used those crosses as evidence of his "4 crucified with Christ" theory...as plagerized by VP. Had the photo not been so poorly colorerd and so grainy, this would have been just as obvious in the photo that he included in that appendix in his companion Bible.

If you go to any message board, you will find that the majority of members choose to remain anonymous. People have various reasons for choosing anonymity. Those who choose to reveal their identities will do so for their own reasons. Those who don't will not do so for their own reasons. As you have patience you will get to know those members who choose to identify themselves. You should respect those who choose, for whatever reason, choose not to do so. It may have nothing to do with TWI. It may be simply as a matter of discretion on their parts.

Fool me once...

Almost a year ago, we had a thread going down in the Doctrinal Basement called "Misquoting Jesus." Since Bullinger's five crosses came up, I'd like to quote a small part of a post I made on that thread: I remember when I went through the piffle class that, during a break, the class coordinator passed around a copy of Bullinger's Companion Bible and showed us Appendix 164 with that now very familiar grainy picture: Now, let me quote a couple of accounts the locals have about the 5 crosses: five Crosses, located at the locality "Ar Pemp Croaz", at the crossroads road of Kerfons. This monument is composed of a large cross (XVème or XVIème century), alongside of four smaller crosses (of the Average Age). One sees, in the vicinity, of the traces of the Roman way which went from Carhaix in Yaudet. These crosses have apparently were gathered on only one support, probably about 1728 Google translated page: here. Original (in french) here. The monument of the five crosses is composed of a large cross (XV 2nd or XVI 2nd century), surrounded of four smaller and older. Oldest of all, which is also most massive, is a pattée cross of X 2nd century and comprises reasons carved on its reverse. It also comprises the date, "1728", it is probably the year when they were joined together on the same support according to the local tradition, this monument would have been high in commemoration of a combat during which the inhabitants would have overcome the English. Actually, a vice-chancellor gathered these crosses at the beginning of the XX 2nd century to save them destruction. Google translation here. Original (in french) here. Keeping in mind that Brittany is a very Catholic area of France, and looking at the color pictures, which explanation seems more feasible? One other thing, the five crosses that are made on an altar when it is consecrated are symbolic of the five wounds of Christ...no more... Sorry for the length of the post, folks... If you'd like to read the whole thing, you can see it here.