markomalley

There's enough reality where a truly diligent person would be able to: a. Keep a newspaper clipping file b. Caveat stories with "I remember hearing about.....a while back" (thus indicating that they could be legend, could be a valuable parable, or whatever) c. Refer to generic experiences that happened in the past ("I remember when...") As long as one of the above is done, I see no harm with fictional stories being used to illustrate a useful moral lesson. The only harm happens when a fictional story (or one of questionable pedigree) is presented as verifiable fact and is lauded above the moral lesson it is supposed to illustrate.

His epitaph is, as you so eloquently pointed out, perfectly consistent with the theology he not only preached but lived. Me.

Rascal/Diazbro/FFC: And that's the beautiful thing about GSC. This is not a cult. We don't all have to agree on our beliefs, our spirituality, or any other thing. Hopefully we can be respectful in our disagreement and allow our fellow greasespotters the freedom to practice their spirituality (or lack thereof) in the fashion they choose. But one way or the other, nobody is going to M&A you for disagreeing on a theological point. (Unless Paw changes the site's rules in the future LOL).

ex10: You said, I happen to live in the world of relationships with other humans. And I would really like to be the best human I can be. (Blame catechism, I'm telling ya, it STICKS.) So, idealism and spiritual aspirations aside, I gotta get along with people in my world, and make a contribution that matters. Can you translate? Then you asked Jonny, Just how might one go about it? First, a caveat: I am not at the beginning of my journey and I am far from the end. But I can see the path that is hewn for me. In answer to your first question, there's no 'cost' to developing a Christ-like attitude toward your fellow human being. There IS a cost of pride. There IS a cost in time and hard work. But there is hardly a cost of money, at least one that you'd miss when it's all said and done. There are some people who are called to a vocation of voluntary poverty, there are some who are called to the life of a hermit, there are some who are called to a vocation of a friar, but those who are also called to witness the life of Christ in our families and within society. As the apostle asked, Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? The answer is clear: God arranged the organs in the body, each one of them, as he chose. Although we may not be called to live the life of total abandonment in a religious life, there is no reason why we cannot develop Christ-like internal attitudes while in our current station and exemplify those attitudes with our spouses, our children, our co-workers, and the people with whom we come in contact. Let me repeat my caveat (in different terms): I am not perfect. I am a long way off from being perfect. Yada Yada. How? There may be a number of different ways to get from point 'a' to point 'b', the way that has worked for me is basically a reliance on scriptures as the standard using Catholic spirituality (specifically an Ignatian technique) as the method. I know you used to be Catholic, so you're probably already familiar with what I'm saying, so I won't waste either of our time with that. Keep in mind that a lot of the methods used in Catholic spirituality would and should apply to any Christian, even if they reject some of Catholic dogma. Hope that helps.

Ex10/Dooj The section from Matthew 5/Luke 6 are part of larger sermon. This sermon begins at Matt 5:1 (the Sermon on the Mount) and at Luk 6:17 (Sermon on the Plain). To really understand these verses, you really need to analyze each of the sermons as a unit and then to interpret the verses within the context of the sermons within which they are located. Otherwise, taken out of context, they can be twisted to mean what we'd like them to mean. The Sermon on the Mount does a couple of things: - It expounds at length on the characteristics of those "beati" -- blessed (from which the term "Beatitudes" has its origin). If we look at these characteristics as a set, we see a call to a radical abandonment of mental and physical attraction to the material and the temporal. With a little thought, I am confident that you can find examples both in the gospels and in the Pauline epistles that parallel this call, so I won't waste your (or my) time in showing the specific verses (of course I can if requested, I just don't think it necessary). - It then gives specific examples of behaviors that exemplify those characteristics: essentially a call to radical love that comes when the law is truly written on the heart and comes from within, as opposed to a mere external, behavioral observance of that law (cf Ps 40:7-8) The Sermon on the Plain states the same but also adds the three woes upon those who are living for the material and for the temporal. Taken within its proper context, the phrase "forgive, and ye shall be forgiven" is simply a component of this radical love and abandonment of the temporal/material that is a part of Jesus' overall message... It's a very similar call like the one given to the rich man to sell all he had, and for us to take up our crosses. It's a different, foreign mindset to the one with which we've been raised. Temporally, it makes no sense. Looked at from an "eternal" perspective, there's no other way that does make sense. The famous midieval philosopher, St. Thomas Aquinas, had an interesting way of saying this: "To love is to will the good of another" (cf: Summa II.I.28.3 and II.II.25.6).

Seventh Day Adventists teach soul sleep. JW's teach soul sleep. Herbert Armstrong taught soul sleep.

I can definitely see perfectionism resulting in frustration (life just isn't perfect). And apathy as a compensation technique to that frustration. Yup. But not necessarily the only compensation technique.

Lindy, first of all, this is sort of a hypothetical exercise, since you and I are coming from completely different perspectives. You said, OK, I understand why the Greek semantics from the early part of the first millenium are important to many of you. You can also understand why they are not so much for me. I prefer to speak in modern English. I think for christians (and everyone really) etymology should be important but so is speaking in a modern, contemporary way at least to avoid confusion. I said, after pasting the Greek definition for the word rendered 'forgive' in KJV English, That's all the Bible asks for you to do. Let it go. That's what 'forgive' means. Let it go. No more, no less. Anything else is reconcilliation. I don't know anywhere in the Bible where there is a mandate to reconcile with he who sinned against you. Just a mandate to not let the sin eat you alive. (I know most folk treat the two as one concept, but that's not what is written in the Bible. It also makes little sense in modern life) Under normal circumstances, I'd agree with your statement, but the argument I am forwarding is based upon writings originally penned using those Ancient Greek Semantics©, therefore, the meanings of the words used then are critical. Keep in mind that this is a hypothetical exercise. Since there is no God and the writings of the Canon of Scripture are simply old legends penned by superstituous dead white guys&tm;, it has no bearing on reality, right? If TWI's depiction of God and TWI's depiction of eternity are correct, there is no justice, because, in the long run, he'll get away with it, provided at one point in his miserable life he confessed the Lord Jesus and believed God raised him from the dead. It matters not how many women he raped, how many lives he ruined, how many suicides he caused, how much money he embezzled, etc. He would not need to express any kind of remorse (before God or before men), he would need to pay no kind of penalty whatsoever. He succeeded completely in scamming God. The verses I've quoted out of the gospel writings and out of the "Catholic" epistles are totally irrelevant, as they are not, according to the ultradispensationalist view taught by VPW, not addressed "to" the "Church of God." If I still subscribed to TWI's sotierology, I'd be *%^#*ed. I think those who subscribe to TWI theology should ask some serious questions of their God: first of all, how could God allow such an injustice to occur, that a man who blasphemed God's Holy Name and never expressed the first sign of remorse would be able to have the vision of God and an eternity with Him? Frankly, if I was personally hurt by LCM and still subscribed to the TWI theology, I would be severely tempted to take Justice into my own hands and provide LCM the punishment he deserves, as it would be apparent that he would not receive eternal justice of any kind. I don't subscribe, however, to TWI's theology anymore. As such, I can let it go. And I can encourage others to do so, as well. The reason for this is that I have confidence that LCM will either repent of his past sins or he will eventually have to answer for them. Therefore, I can confidently leave it in God's hands. That's not to say that I will forget what he's done to others, including you. Yes, warn people so that they don't make the same mistakes we did. Yes, try to help people see they aren't alone in what they experienced. Yes, support people so that they can get some mental closure in their lives. The bottom line, Lindy, is that I'm saying the Bible instructs us to "let it go." The fact that the word "forgive" is used in the KJV translation is of minimal relevence, particularly considering the modern definition of the word. The instruction is to "let it go." If you subscribe to the Bible, you'd do well to do so. If you don't, you'd still do well to consider that course, as there is no healthy outcome to doing otherwise.

ex10/krys: Thanks

Try this, Rascal. Objectively, you are already forgiven before it happened. That was what the cross did for you. Subjectively, you are forgiven when you repent. What does that mean? (trying to keep it as neutral as possible so this thread doesn't get moved to the Doctrinal forum) Think about the parable of the prodigal son: The father's attitude toward the son after the son had blown his inheritance was one of concern and love. He rejoiced when the son came back home. That's the objective forgiveness. It took the son's initiative to repent (come back home) before he could benefit from it. The son's repentence enabled him to receive that forgiveness, subjectively. Did the father chase after the son? No. It took the son's initiative to repent of his actions. The analogy with us is that the letting go is the objective forgiveness. Letting go. It doesn't mean that you do a blasted other thing until such time as the person who sinned against you repents. You just don't let that person have control over you anymore through resentment. If that person truly repents (and I mean truly), then that's when a) he can benefit from your forgiveness and B) the two of you can begin (begin) to be reconciled. But, that repentence on the part of the person who trespassed against you must be genuine. We are all familiar with the Peter's question about forgiveness: Mat 18:21 Then Peter came up and said to him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?" Mat 18:22 Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven. But do we remember the story that immediately followed? Mat 18:23 "Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. Mat 18:24 When he began the reckoning, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents; Mat 18:25 and as he could not pay, his lord ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. Mat 18:26 So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, 'Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.' Mat 18:27 And out of pity for him the lord of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. Mat 18:28 But that same servant, as he went out, came upon one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and seizing him by the throat he said, 'Pay what you owe.' Mat 18:29 So his fellow servant fell down and besought him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you.' Mat 18:30 He refused and went and put him in prison till he should pay the debt. Mat 18:31 When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their lord all that had taken place. Mat 18:32 Then his lord summoned him and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you besought me; Mat 18:33 and should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?' Mat 18:34 And in anger his lord delivered him to the jailers, till he should pay all his debt. So it seems to me that the offended party doesn't hold a grudge. The offending party asks for forgiveness from the trespass and is granted it by the offended party. however, the offending party's repentence must be sincere! Oh yeah, and here's the next verse: Mat 18:35 So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart." So let it go...if IF the person who offended you shows repentence and asks for forgiveness, then you can deal with the next step. But move on...

You say you'll let it go but not forgive. Forgive Forgive: aphiemi 1) to send away a) to bid going away or depart 1) of a husband divorcing his wife B) to send forth, yield up, to expire c) to let go, let alone, let be 1) to disregard 2) to leave, not to discuss now, (a topic) a) of teachers, writers and speakers 3) to omit, neglect d) to let go, give up a debt, forgive, to remit e) to give up, keep no longer width=50% align='center'> That's all the Bible asks for you to do. Let it go. That's what 'forgive' means. Let it go. No more, no less. Anything else is reconcilliation. I don't know anywhere in the Bible where there is a mandate to reconcile with he who sinned against you. Just a mandate to not let the sin eat you alive. (I know most folk treat the two as one concept, but that's not what is written in the Bible. It also makes little sense in modern life)

Krys, First, I do not hold exactly the same beliefs as this guy. Second, the first time I saw this e-mail was many, many months ago. It initially took me aback, as well. I read it and re-read it. On the first paragraph, I would point out one sentence that I think that many folks are missing or not paying proper attention to: If God foresees molecular developments becoming cancer, he can stop it or not. That is absolutely a true statement. The next sentence is less true, but could still be, in some cases: If he does not, he has a purpose. I do not necessarily subscribe to this sentence, because it implies that if he does not, it absolutely is to His purpose. It could be, could be, that there is some greater good that could happen as a consequence of Him not stopping it. If this sentence I quoted was necessarily true, then there is no sense in this guy getting an operation and, in fact, it would be an affirmation that the practice of medicine is evil, because if God did not affirmatively prevent a person from falling ill, according to this sentence, it would be God's purpose in one getting sick. And the attempt to cure the illness would be a vain struggle against God's will. Obviously this is not the case. So it's obvious that I don't agree fully with what this guy is saying. But my disagreement is not so violent as others. I think the fundamental, overall, thrust of the message is a useful one. That's why I don't join in the lynching of this guy. I have a fundamental belief that God will deliver us. But I also believe that this deliverance may come either from what is causing our suffering or through what is causing our suffering. Remember that deliverance may not mean the same thing in God's perspective as it does in our perspective. I recall St. Paul's statement about his thorn in the flesh (2 Cor 12:6-11). Paul asked for it to be taken away. God said No. Why? (Look it up and tell me, if I can suggest) -- what specifically that thorn was is not relevant (so please, nobody, drag out the piffle lesson on the thorn in the flesh -- the fact is that God said NO...and He said NO for a reason. There are many, many tremendous examples of saints that are examples to us...many of those examples dealt with suffering, martyrdom, disease, etc. They learned to bear their crosses with patience. And I think, as LG alluded to earlier, with patience. They stayed humble and were utterly dependent on God. Not just saints listed in the Bible, those listed in the Catholic canon, but saints we encounter in everyday life. Contrast that to TWI, particularly in later years. People were berated, condemned and often excommunicated when they had crosses to bear, particularly illnesses. Man was exalted above other men. Contrast that with the example given us by the saints, including the apostles. The contrast between TWI and Christianity couldn't be clearer. OK, I'm off my soapbox now...

You know, Krys, with that definition of "forgiveness," there is no doubt and should be no question why some people are unwilling to forgive. By that definition, you are to immeditately trust that person again, putting yourself back in the same vulnerable position where you just got hurt. You (or anybody) can look up any concordance for the greek or hebrew words rendered as "forgive" (or variants) in the Bible. I've done it before and don't feel like doing it at 12:10 AM on Sunday Morning. Somebody else can if there is a doubt. (blueletterbible.org or another one) -- the actual definition means (IIRC) to put it away -- to let it go. Nothing else. But if LCM taught what you stated about forgiveness, there's no wonder why it's so hard for so many. And there's also no doubt why the subject becomes such a violent one around here.

I would agree with the effect that has been expressed by Oaks and Mo. I understand the innate desire to understand this because of our desire to reach up to God. But to whom are we reaching? I can also understand it from a theological perspective: on one hand, if Jesus is solely a resurrected, created being who had a definitive beginning, then the worship of Him is a sacrillege and idolatry. On the other hand, if Jesus is, on an integral level, God, who condescended to become flesh for a time in order to save His fleshy creation, to not worship Him is blasphemous. And, of course, there are accusations thrown both ways, because to admit that the other could be right is an acknowledgement that I could be wrong. And none of us religious types wish to acknowledge that possibility. Myself included (but at least I admit my feet are made of clay).

I dare not contest with the meister of Greasespot Nostalgia...(I am not WORTHY) Having said that, the point is that there are some women who have a classic beauty that transcends time. Rita had that kind of beauty. Neither of those two wannabees that Dot initially discussed would ever be able to hold a candle to her. As to the rest of them I pictured, they are all classics in their own way...but, as always, it's imho and, of course, ymmv

Rita Hayworth....in her day..... Gilda? Goldie!

Call me old fashioned, but I thought it was all about pleasing the spouse, not pleasing ones self. If the focus leaves the spouse and focuses on "me," "me" becomes very vulnerable to temptation to cheat. I personally haven't, but I've noted that the times where I've been tempted have been at a time that I've focused on my own self versus on my spouse. And pretty much whenever I've talked to somebody who has cheated on his/her spouse, their sentences are always punctuated with "me" "me" "I" "I" and so on. Not to say that it's the easiest if the spouse is constantly a black hole (absorbs everything, gives nothing). Hopefully both adequately discerned their attitudes towards giving/receiving/etc., before they got hitched. Geo is absolutely right in what he says, though. The fault-finding. The blame. In order to justify the behavior. But, again, it's a matter trying to justify one's behavior (i.e., it's still about "ME") And CW is absolutely right in what she says: it's immaturity. Sort of like a 3-year old saying "me, me, me" But I think the bottom line is a matter of egocentrism, all in all.

OnionEater, Neither Jen nor Angelina hold a candle to any of the above... imho and ymmv

Nope... I'm just saying I've seen better...far better...

I don't find either of them all that attractive, as far as that goes...

Thought I'd bump this thread up, since the Oscars are this weekend. "Batman Begins," a Warner Bros. Pictures Production (Warner Bros.)(1 Nomination) Cinematography "Brokeback Mountain," a River Road Entertainment Production (Focus Features)(8 Nominations) Heath Ledger - Performance by an actor in a leading role Jake Gyllenhaal - Performance by an actor in a supporting role Michelle Williams - Performance by an actress in a supporting role Cinematography Directing Original score Best picture Adapted screenplay "Capote," an A-Line Pictures/Cooper's Town/Infinity Media Production (UA/Sony Pictures Classics) (5 Nominations) Philip Seymour Hoffman - Performance by an actor in a leading role Catherine Keener - Performance by an actress in a supporting role Directing Best picture Adapted screenplay "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," a Warner Bros. Productions Ltd. Production (Warner Bros.) (1 Nomination) Costume design "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," a Walt Disney Pictures/Walden Media Production (Buena Vista)(3 Nominations) Makeup Sound mixing Visual effects "Cinderella Man," a Universal Pictures and Imagine Entertainment Production (Universal and Miramax)(3 Nominations) Paul Giamatti - Performance by an actor in a supporting role Film editing Makeup "The Constant Gardener," a Potboiler Production (Focus Features)(4 Nominations) Rachel Weisz - Performance by an actress in a supporting role Film editing Original score Adapted screenplay "Crash," a Bob Yari/DEJ/Blackfriar's Bridge/Harris Company/ApolloProscreen GmbH & Co./Bull's Eye Entertainment Production (Lions Gate) (6 Nominations) Matt Dillon - Performance by an actor in a supporting role Directing Film editing Original song Best picture Original screenplay "Darwin's Nightmare," a Mille et Une Production (International Film Circuit) (1 Nomination) Documentary - features "Don't Tell," a Cattleya/Rai Cinema Production (1 Nomination) Best foreign language film (Italy) "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room," an HDNet Films Production (Magnolia Pictures) (1 Nomination) Documentary - features "Good Night, and Good Luck.," a Good Night Good Luck LLC Production (Warner Independent Pictures) (6 Nominations) David Strathairn - Performance by an actor in a leading role Art direction Cinematography Directing Best picture Original screenplay "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire," a Warner Bros. Productions Ltd. Production (Warner Bros.)(1 Nomination) Art direction "A History of Violence," a Benderspink Production (New Line)(2 Nominations) William Hurt - Performance by an actor in a supporting role Adapted screenplay "Howl's Moving Castle," a Studio Ghibli Production (Buena Vista)(1 Nomination) Best animated feature film "Hustle & Flow," a Crunk Pictures/Homegrown Pictures Production (Paramount Classics, MTV Films and New Deal Entertainment)(2 Nominations) Terrence Howard - Performance by an actor in a leading role Original song "Joyeux Noël," a Nord-Ouest Production (Sony Pictures Classics)(1 Nomination) Best foreign language film (France) "Junebug," an Epoch Films Production (Sony Pictures Classics)(1 Nomination) Amy Adams - Performance by an actress in a supporting role "King Kong," a Universal Pictures Production (Universal)(4 Nominations) Art direction Sound editing Sound mixing Visual effects "March of the Penguins," a Bonne Pioche Production (Warner Independent Pictures)(1 Nomination) Documentary - features "Match Point," a Jada in association with BBC Films and Thema S.A. Production (DreamWorks)(1 Nomination) Original screenplay "Memoirs of a Geisha," a Columbia Pictures/DreamWorks Pictures/Spyglass Entertainment Production (Sony Pictures Releasing)(6 Nominations) Art direction Cinematography Costume design Original score Sound editing Sound mixing "Mrs. Henderson Presents," a Heyman Hoskins Production (The Weinstein Company)(2 Nominations) Judi Dench - Performance by an actress in a leading role Costume design "Munich," a Universal Pictures/DreamWorks Pictures Production (Universal and DreamWorks)(5 Nominations) Directing Film editing Original score Best picture Adapted screenplay "Murderball," an Eat Films Production (THINKFilm)(1 Nomination) Documentary - features "The New World," a Virginia Company, LLC Production (New Line)(1 Nomination) Cinematography "North Country," a Warner Bros. Pictures Production (Warner Bros.)(2 Nominations) Charlize Theron - Performance by an actress in a leading role Frances McDormand - Performance by an actress in a supporting role "Paradise Now," an Augustus Film Production (Warner Independent Pictures)(1 Nomination) Best foreign language film (Palestine) "Pride & Prejudice," a Working Title/Scion Films Production (Focus Features)(4 Nominations) Keira Knightley - Performance by an actress in a leading role Art direction Costume design Original score "Sophie Scholl - The Final Days," a Goldkind Filmproduktion and Broth Film Production (Zeitgeist Films)(1 Nomination) Best foreign language film (Germany) "The Squid and the Whale," a Squid and Whale, Inc. Production (Samuel Goldwyn Films and Sony Pictures Releasing)(1 Nomination) Original screenplay "Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith," a Lucasfilm Ltd. Production (20th Century Fox)(1 Nomination) Makeup "Street Fight," a Marshall Curry Production(1 Nomination) Documentary - features "Syriana," a Warner Bros. Pictures Production (Warner Bros.)(2 Nominations) George Clooney - Performance by an actor in a supporting role Original screenplay "Tim Burton's Corpse Bride," a Warner Bros. Productions Ltd. Production (Warner Bros.)(1 Nomination) Best animated feature film "Transamerica," a Belladonna Production (The Weinstein Company and IFC Films)(2 Nominations) Felicity Huffman - Performance by an actress in a leading role Original song "Tsotsi," a Moviworld Production (Miramax)(1 Nomination) Best foreign language film (South Africa) "Walk the Line," a Fox 2000 Pictures Production (20th Century Fox)(5 Nominations) Joaquin Phoenix - Performance by an actor in a leading role Reese Witherspoon - Performance by an actress in a leading role Costume design Film editing Sound mixing "Wallace & Gromit in the Curse of the Were-Rabbit," an Aardman Animations Limited Production (DreamWorks Animation SKG)(1 Nomination) Best animated feature film "War of the Worlds," an Amblin Entertainment/C|W Production (Paramount and DreamWorks)(3 Nominations) Sound editing Sound mixing Visual effects Any bets on what films are going to sweep Oscar?

ex10, The other thing is, in most cases, there is the element of MOG worship to deal with. I don't care if your talking about a Catholic Priest, a Protestant Pastor, a school teacher, a parent, grandparent, or whatever, you stil have the element of idolatry..."this person is above reproach/above the law/ above suspicion" When we actually believe our own inherent dignity as human beings, teach our kids to respect their own inherent dignity, and don't place other human beings on an unearned higher pedastal, merely due to their position, our kids will always be subject to some kind of abuse. And we, ourselves, wil be subject to believing the exalted abuser over our own flesh and blood.

Ricky, www.zhubert.com is an excellent resource, particularly if you have some knowledge of Greek.

No, WW, I'm not. Those are the group of researchers I was referring to. And that was my point that I was trying to make to RickyG. Please review what I initially wrote (pay particular attention to the second and third paragraphs: On the research dept., I'd be interested to hear some more about it: what kind of projects they are working on, etc. Seriously. They have, in the past, done some tremendous work. Are you familiar with their Concordance to the Pes hitta Aramaic? (I don't know if it's sold or not anymore) -- the work is fairly widely known and is actually well respected, from what I gather. If they are able to do some honest work like that, I'd be interested in seeing it. Of course, if, otoh, all they do is rehash old stuff, then that's a completely different story. The group of folks that were employed in the early 80s did some genuinely good work. You know me, I am not hesitant to criticize TWI at a moment's notice. But, in the case of their Aramaic work during the early '80s, they did some genuinely good work. If they are trying to recreate that, then the best of luck to them (that's the point I was making to RickyG) -- but if they simply re-hash old junk, then "research" dept or not, it will still be a joke. From what I understand, the research department found error in TWI's dogma when it was measured against the actual content of scripture and for this reason they were canned. If TWI actually was to allow Biblical Research to take some precedence and admit where they're wrong (don't worry, I'm not holding my breath), then there might be some hope for the place. Allow me to repeat: I'm neither holding my breath nor buying ice skates to take on a trip to hell -- but anything is possible. Look at Armstrong's old group: they recognized the error in their ways after he died and are now considered by most to be a semi-orthodox group. Anything is possible. Just not bloody likely.

WW I think it would be pretty hilarious if I walked in, asserted one of the pro-Catholic positions I've taken with scriptural backup (see especially the doctrinal forum), and see how long I lasted before being given the bum's rush. Col 1:24 anybody? Any bets on how long it'd be until I was thrown out on my fat a$$? Integrity of the Word...my heinie!