markomalley

I don't know about you, Goey, but seeing that just gets me going...

That is a very good point, Roy. You know, a very famous saying that is often said in a critical fashion of the Catholic Church is the statement that I have under my avatar, "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" -- it means "Outside the Church there is no salvation." It is a very misunderstood statement, both by non-Catholics and Catholics alike. But it's very simple, though, if one takes a look at it from a Biblical point of view. And that point of view is that Christ established one church...not 5,843 churches. Just one. And when we recognize this, we can see that all of our brethren who have Christ in their hearts are, in some fashion, members of that one church. We may have our disagreements on how that church is structured and what specific teachings comprise the teachings of that church, but that does not change the fact that there is but one church. The point you bring up is that if we treated each other with the respect owed each other as fellow members of that one church, we'd have a lot fewer hard feelings than if we keep telling each other that the other is going to hell because he doesn't believe in the same way I do. That's where the love comes in. We can still have discussions about what we believe and what we don't believe, but, if we have those discussions with love, we can get a lot more accomplished than we do with arrogance. Anyway, good post, Roy.

Brought to the top for free2love to read.

David, There are those on this board who carry an attitude that their interpretation of scripture is the only valid interpretation. All well and good. That's what belief systems are about. But this is not a sectarian board. Even though I do not agree with your theology on many points (and I KNOW you don't agree with mine), I should still respect your right to hold your beliefs. And should respect you in the process. We should be able to discuss and debate all we want. And when we're done, shake hands and move on. When a person posts on this non-sectarian board with an attitude of wanting to shove his/her beliefs down somebody else's throat...either directly (you're going to hell if you don't agree with me) ... or indirectly (asserting that his/her belief system is THE truth and others are not even worth discussing) ... that person is messing up. While I agree that the comparison between the vast majority of members and our "friend" Mike is unfair and a cheap shot, there are some who, through their own posts, have warranted the comparison.

Free2Love, Your comments back to Danny are uncalled for. You advocate the position of "soul sleep" as the only available position. As this is not a TWI, Seventh-Day Adventist, or Jehovah's Witness only board, you shouldn't make that assumption...then attacking somebody for not subscribing to that position. The vast majority of Christianity outright rejects the doctrine of "soul sleep." Not just Catholicism. I recognize that you are attempting to use this as an excuse to attack Catholicism. I don't know what happened to you (other than this incident) nor do I really care to any degree more than simple human charity, but you need to keep in mind that, in addition to attacking my beliefs, when you say <i>but this is more an expression of the extreme ignorance of this priest, stating the exact opposite of the truth</i>, you are attacking the beliefs of many well-respected Protestantsl on this board, as well. If you want to attack Catholicism, I'd suggest you start a rant about a practice that is more uniquely Catholic, rather than attacking based on a belief that is held by the vast majority of Christians, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant. That's the only point I wanted to make. If you want to be shown the scriptural inaccuracy of the doctrine of "soul sleep," as advocated by TWI, there have already been threads on that subject in Doctrinal. I suppose we can re-engage on that subject again though. Oh, and I assume you accept the scriptural evidence I made about a hierarchy being legitimate, since you didn't bother to refute it. Thanks.

Here's one that should (but won't) qualify: WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- A 6-year-old Florida boy who was accidentally left behind by his family after they celebrated his birthday at a Chuck E. Cheese restaurant will temporarily remain in state custody. A judge said the state Department of Children and Families will likely determine Tuesday whether Michael Emanuel can live temporarily with a relative. Emanuel's family said they accidentally left him Saturday night and didn't notice he was missing until the next day. Each relative thought the child was with another family member. Employees at the Boca Raton restaurant called police and the child was taken into state custody. An attorney for the boy's mother told the judge there were 12 youngsters at the party and as they all piled into cars to leave, the boy was simply overlooked. Source: WFTV News Any more info on this one, Raf?

1. If I tell you to do something or not to do something, chances are I have a really good reason for saying it. You may not yet have enough knowledge or wisdom to understand this -- you should trust my judgement. 2. It would require far less energy if you just did it and got it over with, rather than whine. 3. Been there, done that. 4. You really NEED to get more than six hours of sleep a night. 5. Yes, I really meant it when I said it. 6. If you do the same thing, expect the same results. 7. Yes, you DO know (response to "I dunno") 8. If you were sorry, you wouldn't have done it (for the THIRTIETH TIME) 9. (And for the parents of younger kids): Yes, that car IS bigger than you and will hurt you if it hits you.

I think organizing a folder within this web page with such threads as: The Myth of the Six Million Wierwille, Jonestown, & totalitarian "cults", exploitative manipulation, TWI-style The Thirteenth Tribe 1978-The Current Phsychological Hoax 1976 corps meetings...fill me in VPW - A Patton Wanna-be? The reason for the suggestion is that it shows a lot of the deep-seated paranoia that characterized TWI from almost the beginning that then manifested itself through so much of the terrorizing of the 1990s. I think, for me, it lays bare some of the flakier beliefs held true by TWI. Of course that's all IMHO, FWIW, and, of course, YMMV.

Rangel did the same crap back in 2003. He snuck the bill in back in the beginning of 2003 and left it set. Then, as the 2004 election cycle started ramping up, rumors were introduced among the left wingers saying that Bush was going to bring back the draft. When somebody did a quick check, they saw that there was a draft bill sitting in Congress -- therefore, Bush was going to introduce the draft, of course (because it's Bush's fault...regardless of whether it is or not) . The draft and bills were discussed here a while ago in the following threads: Is the draft going to come back? US Soldiers Running Off to Canada Troop Tells off Murtha & Co. The funny thing is that the 'pubs let the bill sit until the 'dems started trying to use it against them in the days before the election. They then brought it up for a floor vote. No committee. No debate. Just a vote. Of course, the bill failed. Here's the funny part: Even Rangel voted against it (his own bill!) So if Charlie Rangel wants to try the same stupid type of trick, let him!

Lioness in zoo kills man who invoked God A man shouting that God would keep him safe was mauled to death by a lioness in Kiev zoo after he crept into the animal's enclosure, a zoo official said on Monday. "The man shouted 'God will save me, if he exists', lowered himself by a rope into the enclosure, took his shoes off and went up to the lions," the official said. "A lioness went straight for him, knocked him down and severed his carotid artery." The incident, Sunday evening when the zoo was packed with visitors, was the first of its kind at the attraction. Lions and tigers are kept in an "animal island" protected by thick concrete blocks. Source Sometimes you just can't make this stuff up! Any other contenders?

Allan, Seriously, I have never-ever heard that...including at my first wife's funeral... Most frequently, I have heard: "God finally called _______ home." I have heard other statements that, using the twi theology, could be twisted around. But I certainly have not heard the one listed by free2love. I am not saying it wasn't said. Frankly, it sounds like something said by a person who was grasping at something comforting to say but didn't know what that comforting thing was. You need to remember, since you were educated by Marists, that Catholics have a slightly different attitude toward death than TWI taught. Since we don't practice the "soul sleep" doctrine, like as taught by TWI, we can have the attitude expressed by St. Paul, "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. (Phil 1:21)." Even the attitude toward physical suffering is different: "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church (Col 1:24)." Rather than cursing the darkness, we try to see God's light illuminated in that darkness. So I could see how a priest (whether a papal chaplain or not), heartbroken at the loss of a good father to a family and concerned for that family's survival, could be grasping for something to share to help soften the blow of the loss of the father to that family. Fortunately, I haven't run into that circumstance. As there are a thousand things one could say that would be in accord with the Magesterium (since you were educated by the Marists, I'm sure you're familiar with that term) that don't require that statement to be said.

It'll be a cold day in Hell before I go to that party!

Must be upgrading LES

The Hebrew word used in Gen 1:10 is "miqveh" -- strongs 04723 Also used in Ex 7:19 (pools), Lev 11:36 (plenty), 1 Ki 10:28 (linen yarn), Ezr 10:2 (hope), Jer 14:8 (hope), Jer 17:13 (hope), Jer 50:7 (hope). The greek word used in 2 Th 2:1 is "episunagoge" -- strong's 1997 Also used in Heb 10:25 (assembling together). In the Septuagint, used in 2 Mac 2:7 (gather together) FWIW

Exactly, Oakspear. That's the scenario I was trying to set up in the beginning of the thread. When I stated, Note: this is NOT an attempt to start a creation argument. This is not trying to start a TWI/non-TWI argument. This is NOT an attempt to mock anybody's beliefs. This is NOT a veiled request to be evangelized by anybody. This IS simply curiosity on my part. my effort was to set up a survey of the opinions of people. I then put in this caveat: (You will recall I started the LDS Catechesis thread a while back...it wasn't that I was thinking about converting to LDS, I was just curious to hear, from the horse's mouth, about some of their unique doctrines and practices, so that I wouldn't be repeating rumor and garbage when talking about them. This thread is in much the same spirit) to illustrate that I was not seeking an answer for my own purposes, but rather to simply illustrate that I was trying to see why others think the way they did. I appreciate everybody's response so far..,..they've been educational! (Roy, I completely forgot about that issue with the first couple of days...how could time be measured without a sun to show it's position...brilliant!) Oh, one other thing: I do have my own beliefs regarding the timing of the creation story, but, as I said, I'm soliciting other peoples' opinions.

That's why I directed the questions toward "fundamentalist" friends, rather than in general (I enjoyed your response, anyway, Todd). I know what my doctrine teaches about it. But I am not a fundamentalist. I just see a disconnect between how the first is interpreted (not necessarily the interpretation) and how the second one is interpreted. Since I'm not a fundamentalist, I can live with that. But for those who literally take the Bible as their sole source for faith and practice, I am trying to understand how they can resolve it.

Well, I personally thought that my score should have been displayed in the top left hand side rather than the bottom right hand side. Talk about BIAS!!!

This poll is subjective, not scientific. I would say that the respondent should define it in his or her own mind when answering.

FWIW, no surprise here for me. Moral Order: 5.5 Moral Rules: -6.5 But what the heck is Paleoconservatism? (I guess it must be the opposite of neoconservatism!)

Note to mods: I post this in "open" because there are a lot of folk who don't venture to the 'tacks section. Please try to keep it in this section if at all possible, as I would tend to consider it a fairly 'general interest' topic...thanks... From the website: This test is a morality-based political test. It finds your political position not by asking you what you think about political issues but by defining your Personal Moral System. Political opinions are shaped by your moral values. Once we map your personal moral system, we can accurately tell you what your stance is on any political issue. The test determines where you stand along the Moral Matrix and then plots your position. You can take the test by clicking here You can read about their methodology by clicking here I found it to be interesting. Hope you do as well!

Not trying to start an argument, just an inquiry... There are many, many people who interpret the time sequence outlined in the creation account of Genesis 1-2 to be six literal days (144 hours). Many of the same exegetes will apply very loose figurative rules to the interpretation of times given in various prophecies, such as Daniel's 70 weeks (Dan 9:24ff). What I'm curious about here is what are the exegetical rules that require time to be accounted for in one passage quite literally and in another passage very figuratively? Note: this is NOT an attempt to start a creation argument. This is not trying to start a TWI/non-TWI argument. This is NOT an attempt to mock anybody's beliefs. This is NOT a veiled request to be evangelized by anybody. This IS simply curiosity on my part. (You will recall I started the LDS Catechesis thread a while back...it wasn't that I was thinking about converting to LDS, I was just curious to hear, from the horse's mouth, about some of their unique doctrines and practices, so that I wouldn't be repeating rumor and garbage when talking about them. This thread is in much the same spirit) If anybody who considers themselves to be a exegete or a "Bible only source for faith and practice" type of person would do me the courtesy of explaining the above question, I'd appreciate it.

As a never-miss-a-Sunday, go-to-daily-Mass-when-I-can, Catholic who has attended my share of funerals and worked my share of funerals, I will never cease to be amazed when I hear of these "It was God's will" statements by clergy in the wake of a funeral. I will also say that I have never heard that statement being made in person. It's funny, though: the only time I've ever heard of that statement being made was when I've heard ex-Catholics make the statement as being the rationale for them leaving Catholicism. A more incredibly insensitive thing to say I can't think of. A couple of comments on your post, having said the above: You cite the primacy of love. I think you have some valid points. However you use scripture to justify that conviction. In order for scripture to have validity in your thesis, you need to have faith in that scripture. Having said that, I think what you are complaining about is "Word-Faith" theology...what is used by a number of televangelists and espoused by VPW. I agree with you fully that this is a horribly dangerous theology that is leading many, many Christians astray. As far as your assertion of no hierarchy, I agree that there are too many who are in authority who think that their position is one of being served, rather than one who serves. I would point out for your attention the following scriptures: Matt 16:17-19 Eph 4:11-12 Ph 1:1 Tit 1:5 1 Tim 3 And one that I'll quote (as it supports my statement above about having an attitude of service) John 21:15-17 -- When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep." [*]There are far too many people who call themselves bishops, reverends, ministers, pastors, "brothers", or whatever, who seem to have forgotten the above section.

It may seem morbid, but we do pools on everything else. How about a pool for the upcoming cone season? If you want to record your votes for the end of the season, feel free to let us know your guesses. Let's see how well we guess for the end of the season!

Have fun Casey!

There are plenty of restaurants in Amsterdam. A lot of Italian there also (as there are throughout Europe). Good doner kebab sandwiches also. Herring? In Germany, you can get some good kick-butt herring sandwiches. Never ate herring in the Netherlands, though. And pickled herring and akavit are good companions...when you're in Denmark or in Greenland...but not the Netherlands.... The lines at the Rembrandt museum are horrible (at least they were when I visited). Agreed on the Anne Frank house. Well worth the visit.