markomalley

Frankly, at that time in my life, I believe it was the encouragement of the potential consequences if caught. As with you, if I was to go today, it would not be of interest if offered. But that's just me. Not placing my judgement on anybody else's personal decisions.

I've had a whole bunch of fun in a whole bunch of places. But don't take my earlier post the wrong way. I've never visited Amsterdam as a civilian...I was always subject to Operation Golden Flow :blink: ... so don't think that I sampled anything stronger than an Amstel in a Brown Cafe. Just want to make sure there aren't any misunderstandings there or anything...

Last time I was in Amsterdam was 1990, so some of the information may be a bit dated...When I lived in Germany, I'd go up there with some buddies every couple of months to party a weekend away. Loved the place! You are a tourist...get over it, that's just the way it is. The way you walk, the way you talk, the way you dress... Be careful around the Central Station, lots of pickpockets around there. Also a lot of folks trying to sell you "stuff." Lots of fun things to see and do in the Red Light. My wife and I toured "the museum" and we also took in a show. Window shopping takes on a whole new meaning over there. Be forewarned. Plenty to drink (Heineken factory there), plenty to see (take a canal tour), plenty of folks to meet (most of the locals I met in my ventures there were very friendly...but that was before the Iraq war, so things may have changed), plenty of ways to get ripped off. The diamond merchants are also VERY interesting to visit. You can learn more about diamonds in an hour there than you are likely ever to learn otherwise in your life. The public transport around the area is very good and effective and cheap. I have ventured into the Brown Cafes...seemed most of the people visiting them were tourist druggies from England (but that may have just been my opinion). Best Chinese food I have EVER EVER EVER had in my entire life...and I've eaten Chinese in more countries than I care to think about...was in the Asian quarter, a couple of blocks beyond the Red Light. I had (don't know if it's there anymore) a particular favorite place that was a dive...long tables with metal tops, flourescent lights, etc....no ambience at all...but the food was INCREDIBLE, cheap, and huge portions. Try staying in local hotels on your trip. Rather than the Holiday Inn, Hilton, etc. You get some better local flavor that way (get a 3 star or better so you get a private bath). If you are going to hit the beach and do so in the style of the many of the locals, hit a tanning booth first...so the superfluous tan lines aren't so obvious. (REAL good way to spot Americans) Remember, what goes on in Amsterdam, stays in Amsterdam. Oh, one other thing. With Belgium, based on my experience, the beer is much better. The locals aren't. Again, just going on my memories. Day trips: Cologne Germany and Normandy are where I'd suggest. About 2-3 hours (IIRC) by express train.

Caveat: I am not a member of Opus Dei. Any information I give is drawn from publically available sources or from people I know who are members of Opus Dei. Also note: a short thread in doctrinal discussed a little bit about it here.a From what I understand of Opus Dei, they are a group within the Catholic Church that tries to do for an individual's spritual life what TWI advertised that it was going to do through the PFAL series of classes. A few major differences: - Opus Dei operates within the Catholic Church. TWI operated outside of any organized group. - Opus Dei members are members of their local parish. TWI encouraged its members to abandon ties with any existing group. - Opus Dei supports and teaches the magesterial teachings of the Church. TWI taught doctrines that were in opposition to any organized Christian group. There have always been conspiracy theories floating around about Opus Dei since it was founded about 80 years ago. From what I understand, the best way to consider Opus Dei is sort of like a religious order (Franciscan, Dominican, Carmelite, etc.), but the people who are members do not wear special clothes and don't cloister themselves behind any walls. They do have a common spirituality and receive training to develop that spirituality. There are commitments made by members to (I think) go to daily Mass and go to Confession regularly, to develop their prayer life, and to perform corporal and spiritual acts of mercy, but otherwise there are no vows of poverty or chastity, like religious orders. But, again, all of the above is based upon my observations and from publically accessible information. I don't have personal experience with this group. Also, I read something that said that requests for membership are significantly up since Dan Brown's efforts came up. See this article in the Scotsman for more.

A note on the New American Bible for Gen 24:2-3 says the following: Put your hand under my thigh: the symbolism of this act was apparently connected with the Hebrew concept of children issuing from their father's "thigh" (Genesis 46:26; Exodus 1:5). Perhaps the man who took such an oath was thought to bring the curse of sterility on himself if he did not fulfill his sworn promise. Jacob made Joseph swear in the same way (Genesis 47:29). In both these instances, the oath was taken to carry out the last request of a man upon his death. Another possibility that I read in a few other sources is that a person, in doing this, was swearing upon his future progeny, since "under thigh" is the source of those children. In that context it makes sense. Of course, TWI would assign some type of "sexual" connotation to this, vice a type of "procreative" connotation.

Fool me twice...

OK, CK. Wierwille was an apostle. The Biblical definition of an apostle is: apostle: from the greek, apostolos Etimology: apo = away from stolos = equipment, particularly with a military connotation Definition: one who is sent forth, a messenger, ambassador, envoy Sources: Strong's, Blue Letter Bible, Liddel-Scott Lexicon The questions remain. If he is an apostolos, Who sent him forth? Where was he sent forth from? Where was he sent forth to? What was the message he was given by the one he sent forth?

And this is the perverse part of it all. He perverted the Biblical and Classical Greek meaning of the word "apostolos" to fit his purposes. He then doesn't even live up to the measure that he himself set. Yet...he is venerated even now by a few. Incredible. My only regret is that I was sucked into this perversion for a few years. --------------------------- Oh, and btw, Allan, cower is not the word. Are repulsed is the word. So your sentence should read, those who still 'run with it' today are now taking the same 'ribbing and jibes' for it, even from them who initially embraced it and now cower from are repulsed by it. I think that would be more accurate with those of us about whom you are speaking.

Yuck yuck yuck. Should have suspected as much. Fool me once...

The Church is considered a singular entity. And Revelation says the new Jerusalem, not the old Jerusalem. There is a difference. Please note Galatians 4:22ff: Gal 4:21 Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law? Gal 4:22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman. Gal 4:23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through promise. Gal 4:24 Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Gal 4:25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. Gal 4:26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. Gal 4:27 For it is written, "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in travail; for the children of the desolate one are many more than the children of her that is married." Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. Gal 4:29 But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now. Gal 4:30 But what does the scripture say? "Cast out the slave and her son; for the son of the slave shall not inherit with the son of the free woman." Gal 4:31 So, brethren, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

Read what I wrote again, really slowly, OK? Let me try it one more time: Jesus is married. Read that one more time: Jesus is married. His bride is the Church If he had relations with another, he would be an adulterer If he was an adulterer, he would not be without spot or blemish. Therefore, his sacrifice on the cross at calvary would not have met the criteria of a passover sacrifice. What part of the above are you having a problem understanding? If you can tell me with which of the above statements you are having a problem, I can explain a bit more (quoting scripture rather than just citing it)and would be happy to do so, but it appears, for now, that you are not reading what I wrote. (Oh, btw, I am married...and I didn't slap myself in the face)

They didn't. But, according to both the citations previously given, he is married. His bride is the Church. If the gnostic claim was true, it would make him an adulterer. And adultery is mentioned more times than I care to discuss in both the Law and the Prophets. (And of course the implication would be that He would no longer be the Lamb without spot or blemish and therefore incapable of redeeming us through His sacrifice) Hope that clears it up a bit for you.

He is married. His bride is the Church. Eph. 5 and Rev 19:1-7, etc.

I am personally happy with my iRiver. Also it's all solid state...no hard drive to crash and a much smaller battery requirement.

But one question, though, Allan: Where did he come up with the definition that he used? You see above the definitions that I found lexically. I only remember him simply asserting that this was the definition. It's not, as you are plainly able to see.

I note that CK has, yet again, modified his tag line. I was simply going to refute it, but, first, I was in the doctrinal section and the topic was more appropriate for "about the way". Secondly, I thought it would be more fun if I'd put it up for your consideration and enjoyment. Apostle: what was Wierwille's "definition according to usage?" Wasn't it something about somebody who brought new light to a generation? I guess the first thing to do is to discuss the actual Biblical usage of the word: apostle: from the greek, apostolos Etimology: apo = away from stolos = equipment, particularly with a military connotation Definition: one who is sent forth, a messenger, ambassador, envoy Sources: Strong's, Blue Letter Bible, Liddel-Scott Lexicon So, apparently Wierwille was incorrect in his literal according to usage or whatever (big surprise, huh?) I would ask then, from where was he sent forth and who was the entity that sent him forth? Of course, I have my personal theories, but I'm interested in your opinions on the subject...

Was rather disturbed when I read this article: iPods only last a year Apple will not fix them By Nick Farrell: Sunday 28 May 2006, 21:32 OWNERS of iPods that die after a year are being told that Apple will not fix them. According to the Guardian, Apple is telling punters who machines suffer from breakdowns after a year iPods are supposed to die after that time. As the paper points out if you spent as much as iPod users do on their players on a fridge or a telly, you would expect it still to be working a year afterwards. However, Apple seems to think the Sale of Goods Act, which indicates that such gizmos should really last five years, only applies to other manufacturers. Each new iPod comes with one-year hardware service coverage. Customers can extend coverage for up to two years for £39. If the warranty has expired, Apple offers a repair service which includes a battery replacement at £49. The Guardian has been advising its readers with iPod problems to quote the Sales of Goods Act at Apple and sometimes this has worked. More often, the paper says, it hasn't. So says the Manchester Grauniad. Source here Anybody over on this side of the pond ever note this? (As important, I certainly hope my iRiver won't suffer from that type of reliability issue)

Look at it on the bright side: Hopefully ck and Mike can talk to each other and so neither one of us will have to deal with them again.

Sniff, sniff... I'm sure you'll miss big ol' woody!

My suggestion: learn a lot. Attend Mass at a number of different churches in your area -- each is different -- and learn the symbolism. Get a Catechism of the Catholic Church (available at all bookstores) and read it. The spirituality is significantly different than protestant sects, particularly ones like TWI. The mechanics are that they have instruction for those who are interested. The instruction takes somewhere around 6 months or so of one night a week. No, they don't charge for it. The stuff is pretty elementary that they teach, particularly for somebody who was heavily involved in TWI. If you have any questions, PM me with your e-mail and we can talk off-line or ask specific questions and we can talk on-line (albeit guarnateed with a lot of background noise -- "DON'T DO IT") Why are most churches long? Most churches are shaped like a cross. Typically, the architecture is vertical, to try to get the occupant to raise his mind toward heaven. Usually what you see is the part of the church that is shaped like the tree of the cross...they will normally have side chapels or the sacristy (where the clergy put their vestments on) at the cross-member part. The altar is typically where the tree and arm meet. They also have some "church in the round" configurations, as well. And some that are just boxes. But cruciform is the "standard," if you will.

David, It would be a matter of common courtesy, I'd think. When you meet another gentleman, you are introduced as "Mr. Miller" and "Mr. O'Malley" -- when you get to know each other better, you may change to Dave and Mark, but the polite norm is "Mr., Mrs., Miss, Ms., Dr., etc." I regard treating clergy and religious in the same fashion. "Father Miller, Sister Regina, Brother Francis" -- just an extension of that polite form of address. Now there are plenty of clergy that I've gotten to know where I have no problem addressing them as "Sam, Joe, Jack" -- when shooting pool with them or drinking a beer in the back yard. But in public or with strangers, I am polite in my address. (I only know a couple of religious sisters who are young enough to where I'd ever even think of addressing them by their first name only...but that's a matter of respect for age, not title) I agree with you on the caste system. I chuckle with my priest friends about it...and in honesty, they don't like it much. Because they feel as if they are always in a fishbowl. Seriously. I have one priest friend who drives a VW Jetta. He believes that is the limit of the car that he can drive considering his position (people would talk, dontcha know). He is getting ready to go into the Chaplain Corps soon, so he'll have money. Chaplains get paid as officers. He would love to go out and get a BMW Z car, but doesn't dare do so, as it gives people an excuse to talk about him behind his back. (btw, contrary to popular belief, diocesan priests are not required to take a vow of poverty, only religious ones are (i.e., Franciscans, Dominicans, etc.). They are paid a stipend -- somewhere between $8k and $12k a year, as well as speaking fees if they run a mission, book royalties if they write, gifts as the result of weddings, funerals, baptisms, etc.) (another btw, it is considered "normal" to bestow a gift on a priest in that fashion, but it is NOT required)

Informally "Deacon" Formally (i.e., in writing, "Reverend Mister")

There are two types of deacons. Transitional deacons (which are seminarians in their last year before being ordained priests) and Permanent deacons. Liturgically, their roles are the same. Pastorally, their roles are different: Liturgically, Deacons are ordained clergy. They are ordinary ministers of baptism. They can preside over marriages (outside of a Mass) or funerals (outside of a Mass). They are ordinary ministers of communion, but, obviously, not of the Eucharist. They also assist in Confirmation, Ordination, and assist at Mass. There is nothing theologically against them administering the annointing of the sick in of itself, but, as the recipient of the annointing often wish to give their confession, the sacrament of annointing is reserved to the presbyteriate. They can give blessings (with the exception of blessings reserved to the presbyteriate and episcopate). The guidelines in general are that they can perform liturgical functions that do not require acting in persona Christi. Pastorally, Permanent deacons play an important role pastorally. They will often be chaplains for schools, hospitals, police and fire agencies, etc. They distribute communion to the homebound. In areas where there is a profound shortage of priests, they may be a pastoral administrator of a parish where no priest is available. Deacon, of course, comes from the word diakonos. That is the bottom line of their ministry: service. After the second Vatican Council back in the 60s, the role of permanent deacon was revived. It was seen as an ordained role for mature, married men who felt a call to ministry. So, obviously, ordained men can be ordained to the permanent diaconate, after a period of formation (in my diocese, the formation takes four years). As with other orders, once a person is ordained, he is not allowed to get married. Unlike the other two orders (the presbyteriate and the episcopate), married men are allowed to be ordained in the order of the diaconate. In my parish we have three priests, four permanent deacons, two seminarians that came out of our parish (they will, of course, be assigned elsewhere once they've been ordained into the presbyteriate), and one man in formation to be ordained into the diaconate (he is scheduled to be ordained in 2008). There are two men who are currently discerning if they wish to go into formation for the diaconate starting in 2007.

Danny, Very good thoughts. Those of us who consider ourselves Christians should consider the words and the example of Jesus in our daily walk. I would think that the state should set up systems that will encourage that behavior (thus I believe that the Christian representative would encourage charity work through the tax scheme).

Amen!