markomalley

Let me add one thought to clarify my previous post: We must never, ever forget that the Bible is a compilation of individual documents written by a number of people over the period of centuries. That's why the "word search" method is of limited usage...it's good as a reference. It's good to see if a definition applied to a word works. It's good to find something. But it limits our ability to understand the messages that are in each of those documents that were compiled to form the Bible. FWIW and YMMV as always...

Belle, If I can give you a suggestion, you may wish to re-think the methodology you use to study the Bible. Doing the concordance-level word study is a very, very dangerous method for discovering the 'mind of Christ' on a given subject. Let me take one verse and talk about it a bit: Jer 31:13 - Then shall the virgin rejoice in the dance, both young men and old together: for I will turn their mourning into joy, and will comfort them, and make them rejoice from their sorrow. To really understand this verse, you simply must go back to Jer 29 and read the entire context of that particular prophecy. He is giving a prophecy to the remnant of Israel, exiled in Babylon. He is telling them to settle down and to build houses, raise families, and settle in for the long haul. He tells the exiles that those who stayed in Jerusalem, rather than being exiled, will be the subject of plagues. And then after 70 years exile, He will gather His people together again and return them. Dancing, drinking, eating, all sorts of partying will go on. The point is that, from looking at the full context, it becomes apparent that this is not talking about dancing in the Temple, nor is this any kind of a commandment, rather this is a statement about the celebrations that will happen when the sons of Jacob are restored to their land after their long exile. Likewise, the first verse you quoted (1 Ti 2:8) is, when you read the context (start at 1 Tim 1:18), shows that Paul is exhorting Timothy, Bishop of Ephesus, to be careful that his flock doesn't slip into heresy, like the examples of Hymenaeus and Alexander. He first tells Timothy to have them offer prayers for all men, including Kings and Rulers (who weren't Christian), so that they could live a peaceable life. Then he calls on men to pray together without bickering and quarelling and for women to dress modestly and to learn in silence (there are other sections talking about backbiting, rumormongering, etc.). And yada, yada. As you can see from the pictures I posted earlier, prayer, supplication, pleading was commonly done using the Orans posture. The point of this section is not to authorize the raising of hands, but rather to be peaceable and in order (cf 1 Cor 11-14). The point I'm getting at is not to criticize your searching the scriptures, but the point is that understanding the context of what's written and looking for the correct instructional passages is far more beneficial than doing a broad-brush word study without understanding the context within which a given verse appears. Because, as you've seen elsewhere, a verse may appear to say one thing when taken out of it's context, but may say something else completely when we examine it in light of the passage where it is located.

Well, hopefully what I showed you up there will allow you to properly instruct her on the actual meaning of that verse so that she doesn't mishandle it again in future...

Lindy made the following statement: Personally I think the Catholics have one of the best perspectives on all this. Yall seem to focus more on the good actions and morals of an idividual in identifying a "godly" person and not what books they read or what title they put on the god box. I believe the last pope said something to the effect that there are Christians that don't know they are Christians or don't acknowledge themselves as such, because they live Christian values. I clarified what he stated. I stated the Church's position on the subject of salvation, extra ecclesiam nulla salus. You asked, Did Christ make that statement? No He didn't. It is attributed to St. Cyprian of Carthage (191-258), Bishop and Martyr. Sounds latin! Yes, it is. If it was a pope, then how can you claim he was speaking for Christ and the whole church? Of course, the Holy Father, on matters of faith and doctrine, speaks for the whole Church. After all, he is the successor to the one given the keys by Christ himself (cf Matt 16:19) Having said that, though, the statement was made by the Bishop of Carthage (as I said above) in response to the schism of Novatian. And who splintered from whom? Well, obviously, the ultimate responsibility for splintering comes from the devil. However, the pride of man is typically the immediate cause. Who splintered from whom? Well, again, those who went into schism with the Church are obviously the ones who splintered. (Having said that, it is also fairly apparent that a lot of the splintering happened in the wake of some pretty stupid actions done by the men whose responsibility were to guard the Church) You capitalize the Church True enough... ... and say IT teaches ... If I said "it" as the pronoun referring to the Church, I was in error. My apologies. The correct pronoun is "she." it seems you are equating Church with the Roman Catholic religion? ... Maybe I got lost somewhere in your discourse :) Actually, I am referring to the Church established by Christ and spread through the known world by the apostles. There are a number of worship traditions within that Church. They include the Armennians, Albanians, Belarussians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Melkites, Russians, Ukranians, Ruthenians, Latins, Copts, Ethiopians, Abyssinians, Maronites, Syriacs, Malankarese, Chaldeans, and Syro-Malabarese, to name a few. To say "Roman" is simply an inaccurate statement and discounts the work of the remaining apostles or the legitimate liturgical and practical traditions that have developed within each rite. But, to clarify, I am referring to the universal Church.

I was at work yesterday, and there's this friend of mine that goes to the Church of Christ. She was raised in that faith. She REALLY wanted me to attend there last Sunday. She even had folks looking out for me. She attends one about 1hour north of me, but there's another one about 10 mins from where I live. I told her that I was going to stick with where I was at and shared with her about our meeting on Sunday. She said that her church would've baptized us there on the spot Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not there- fore after them. I wasn't quite sure why she had shown me that particular verse. Hi Sunny! (For the purposes of this discussion, remember that I am not a fundamentalist, please). She was taking a verse out of its context in order to show that you were being deceived. A horrible misuse of the scriptures, imho. Let's look at the overall context of this section of scripture... Luk 20:45 And in the hearing of all the people he said to his disciples, Luk 20:46 "Beware of the scribes, who like to go about in long robes, and love salutations in the market places and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts, Luk 20:47 who devour widows' houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation." Luk 21:1 He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury; Luk 21:2 and he saw a poor widow put in two copper coins. Luk 21:3 And he said, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them; Luk 21:4 for they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all the living that she had." Luk 21:5 And as some spoke of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said, Luk 21:6 "As for these things which you see, the days will come when there shall not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down." Luk 21:7 And they asked him, "Teacher, when will this be, and what will be the sign when this is about to take place?" Luk 21:8 And he said, "Take heed that you are not led astray; for many will come in my name, saying, 'I am he!' and, 'The time is at hand!' Do not go after them. Luk 21:9 And when you hear of wars and tumults, do not be terrified; for this must first take place, but the end will not be at once." Luk 21:10 Then he said to them, "Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; Luk 21:11 there will be great earthquakes, and in various places famines and pestilences; and there will be terrors and great signs from heaven. Luk 21:12 But before all this they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors for my name's sake. Luk 21:13 This will be a time for you to bear testimony. Luk 21:14 Settle it therefore in your minds, not to meditate beforehand how to answer; Luk 21:15 for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict. Luk 21:16 You will be delivered up even by parents and brothers and kinsmen and friends, and some of you they will put to death; Luk 21:17 you will be hated by all for my name's sake. Luk 21:18 But not a hair of your head will perish. Luk 21:19 By your endurance you will gain your lives. Luk 21:20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Luk 21:21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it; Luk 21:22 for these are days of vengeance, to fulfil all that is written. Luk 21:23 Alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days! For great distress shall be upon the earth and wrath upon this people; Luk 21:24 they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led captive among all nations; and Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. So we can see that the context starts off with a condemnation against those who flaunt themselves and, in a fashion, another statement against matierialism (the widow gave away her meager material wealth while the rich, while appearing to contribute much more, didn't even put a dent into their wealth). As material wealth is mentioned, they talk about the adornments on the temple. He then transitions to a prophetic discourse about the destruction of the Temple (which we know now actually happened in 70 AD). In verse 8 (notice how the RSV is rendered differently than the KJV), he says that when the Temple is destroyed, there will be those that start screaming "The End Is Near" and for those disciples not to be decieved by those types (gee, sounds like a lot of "end time prophets" now, doesn't it?? ). He then goes into what is going to happen to them vice what will be happening during the actual 'end times.' So we can see that this verse has nothing to do with what you are talking about, it, instead is a warning to not be deceived by all these types who start screaming the end is near. (Remember, no man knows the hour?) But, right before she did that, I was telling her IMO about why VPW made such a stink about water baptizm. Why did he do that???? I asked myself on Sunday :unsure: Well,.. Water baptizm wouldn't have been conveniant with the Way fellowships. 1) We didn't have a church to go to that had a built in tank to be emmersed in 2) We couldn't do it in the twig coord. bathtub 3) Couldn't rely on swimming pools, especially if you live in the Northern states. So, why not make water baptizm obsolete, and just teach the importance of S.I.T to make things simpler for the in home fellowships. Now, thats what I came up with while I was RELEARNING about baptizm on Sunday. LOL....... I'm not saying that was VP's intent, but I do know that he had to change a few things doctinally to make himself appear to know more than the average Christain back in his day and time. Thats what cult leaders do, and that's why he convinced us all to follow his ways and not the ways of Jesus Christ! Hmmm.... It could've been his intent, but who knows. :) So, I think my friend was sharing that verse because of what I shared with her and not because I was attending a different church than her :) I think your friend was sharing that verse with you as a little "Christianized" stab at the church you are attending, imho. Sorry.

I understand what you are saying there, Mark, even though I disagree. Of course, but I usually say YMMV...that's why... Taking that comparison you just made, I would say then that for those that truly want to know God then they should expose themselves to as many "formulae" as possible and learn as much as you can from each. I say that as in "letting it (the formula) speak for itself" not take what matches with my current belief system. Looking at it from a macro perspective, it is absolutely a wise thing to test any given formula presented. If the formula produces results that are in concert with known axioms and proven theorems, then it is likely a valid formula. If, on the other hand, the formula produces results that are not valid, then the formula is without a doubt invalid. That isn't what happens though most of the time, is it? What usually happens is that we stick with what is the cultural norm or family tradition.... It may be for you, my parents were agnostics ;) ...even if that norm is a formula from one group of people that hovered or were pushed around the Mediteranean and Asia Minor, which was written about 2000- 3000 years ago and take that as "the Word of God." Well, if you consider it, most of the foundations of modern western philosphy came from the mediterranean area from around that time, as well. Including the foundations of what 'agnostics' and 'atheists' tout as 'ethics.' Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Euclid, etc. The foundations of western algebra and geometry come from that time and region, as well. ...They take that formula as a sole source to God and toss the others into a pile labeled "hogwash." What usually happens is that people accept it because it works for them or makes sense to them or is easily explained to them or explained away. This does not make something "the word of God." Of course, you recognize that I am not a sola scriptura Protestant (I believe that being sola scriptura is unscriptural :) ) I know that would be a lot of reading but not any more than studying the same book everyday of your life. Perhaps one might learn more! Maybe not. I agree. That's why I enjoy studying Patristic writings and other theological works that help us understand the science of existence. BTW, Personally I think the Catholics have one of the best perspectives on all this. Yall seem to focus more on the good actions and morals of an idividual in identifying a "godly" person and not what books they read or what title they put on the god box. I believe the last pope said something to the effect that there are Christians that don't know they are Christians or don't acknowledge themselves as such, because they live Christian values. Thanks. However, the Church teaches: "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" (there is no salvation outside the Church). However (a point that most Protestants and not a few Catholics don't understand) is that there is only one Church...there are ecclesial groupswho are in schism with the Church and there are those that, over a period of centuries, have fallen into heresy, but that doesn't all of a sudden change them into being different "churches." There is only one Church. Period. (cf 1 Cor 3:3-7, 1 cor 12:12-14). Christ, the Light of the World, is the head of that Church and illuminates our understanding. Even though an ecclesial group may be in schism, they are still lit by the light of the Word incarnate (cf Phil 1:18). So the statement holds true (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) for Christians who are raised in other ecclesial communities. As you can see in the example below, Paul acknowledged what was true as taught in classical Greek philosophy(cf Acts 17:17ff) and used that truth to spread the gospel. There will be some degree of truth in virtually any philosophical tradition. I can say that because of the fact that we believe (from scripture) that all men had a common origin. As civilization spread, it is likely that there are some degrees of commonality of this common light was preserved in the traditions of all societies. Not all the light...and certainly not an equal distribution of that light, but some light, nevertheless. There is a natural law that is written on men's hearts (cf Rom 2:15). Whether that natural law is genetic or cultural is not important, the fact remains that it exists. So therefore, it is possible for a man to do good to others and to love and revere God to the best of the man's knowledge and ability, whether or not he has been taught Christ. As a result of this, we also believe that God will show mercy for the sake of true justice to those who have endeavored to live according to this natural law engraved on their hearts but, who through no fault of their own, have not been taught sufficiently enough to have the opportunity to believe on the Lord Jesus and be baptized. That's not to say that they are guaranteed salvation, that is not an excuse for willful ignorance, but it is an affirmation of the magnitude of the salvific work of the cross. By the way, on this subject, I'd like to reproduce Paul's discourse on Mars Hill...I believe you'd find it most appropriate: Act 17:16 Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols. Act 17:17 So he argued in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the market place every day with those who chanced to be there. Act 17:18 Some also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers met him. And some said, "What would this babbler say?" Others said, "He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities"--because he preached Jesus and the resurrection. Act 17:19 And they took hold of him and brought him to the Are-op'agus, saying, "May we know what this new teaching is which you present? Act 17:20 For you bring some strange things to our ears; we wish to know therefore what these things mean." Act 17:21 Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new. Act 17:22 So Paul, standing in the middle of the Are-op'agus, said: "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. Act 17:23 For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To an unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. Act 17:24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man, Act 17:25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything. Act 17:26 And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation, Act 17:27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us, Act 17:28 for 'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your poets have said, 'For we are indeed his offspring.' Act 17:29 Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, a representation by the art and imagination of man. Act 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent, Act 17:31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead." Act 17:32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked; but others said, "We will hear you again about this." Act 17:33 So Paul went out from among them. Act 17:34 But some men joined him and believed, among them Dionys'ius the Are-op'agite and a woman named Dam'aris and others with them. You'll note a couple of things here: Paul was familiar with these other Gods -- and likely was familiar with other philosphical teachings espoused there. Paul used what was good from those schools to help make his point. An issue that some could likely consider to their rhetorical profit...

True enough! And the issue applies doubly to those who had families (as in wives/husbands and kids {who weren't aborted per their command}) -- to require this form of discipline of EVERYBODY, regardless of their existing moral commitments, is absolutely A PERVERSION of Christianity!

Well, I think you're making it a little too complex. First of all, I do not pretend to be any kind of an expert on gnostic texts. As you know, I don't subscribe to gnositicism, so I'm honestly just not in any kind of position to discuss the merits of what was there or not. The analogy that I was trying to draw (based upon the analogy of Newtonian Mechanics, not upon field theory), is as follows: Gravity is nothing in of itself. Gravitational force requires matter (at least two distinct objects) in order to have any kind of meaning whatsoever. Even then, looking at it from a Newtonian perspective, gravity is not a thing, it's an attraction that the two have one for another. The formula I wrote for gravity, F1,2=G×(m1m2/r1,22), is not gravity, it describes gravity. The analogy is sort of like this: Draw a parallel between the two objects (m1 and m2) with God and his creation. The attractive force (the interaction) between God and His creation exists, but, without the existence of God, it is rather meaningless. Likewise, without the existence of His creation, there is nowhere for that attraction to go. The attractive force that exist between God and His creation will grow the closer the creation moves to God. Likewise, if His creation moves farther away, it is more likely to be attracted to other objects (in this model). (I know it is not a perfect analogy...in fact it is very flawed...m2 is not dependent upon m1 for its existence nor did m2 create m1 and likewise m2 did not write about and describe m1 or the F1,2...just the most obvious flaw...but hopefully it is a bit useful despite its flaws) Now the words that are written down and documented as F1,2=G×(m1m2/r1,22) are meaningless without the objects. The words God inspired the authors of the canonical writers to put down are meaningless without God there to warrant them. Likewise, the words written down are rather futile if there is no creation to appreciate them. Did Gravity exist prior to the documentation of the formula: F1,2=G×(m1m2/r1,22)? Of course it did. Does the interaction (the attraction) between God and His creation exist if there is no written word? Of course. Is gravity dependent upon the existence of the formula, F1,2=G×(m1m2/r1,22)? Of course not. Is the interaction between God and His creation dependent upon the existence of a written word? Of course not. So what good is the formula, F1,2=G×(m1m2/r1,22)? If you choose to understand the interaction between the two objects, m1 and m2, you will need to understand the formula. If you choose to understand the interaction between God and man, you will need to understand God's Word. Will gravity work if you don't understand it? Sure. Can you gain some anecdotal knowledge without understanding the math? Yes. Will God continue to interact with man (with that attraction exist) if man has no understanding of God's Word? Yes. Can man gain some anecdotal knowledge without an understanding of God's Word? Sure. Can you get a false understanding of gravity as a consequence of not understanding it? Yes. Can you get a false understanding of God's interaction with man as a consequence of not understanding God's Word? Yes. Finally, does Newton's gravitational formula work? Yes...to the degree of precision that was available given the technology and the theoretical mathematics available at his time. However, there are more modern and precise theories that help apply that principle to technologies around at this time. Can Newton's gravitational formula be shown false? Again, within the scope that it should be applied, no. Is written scripture true? Yes...within the levels of understanding that His creation had when this word was written. Are there additional formulae that help the modern scientist apply the basic principles behind Newtonian mechanics more precisely? Yes. And likewise, when helping us understand the relationship between God and His creation.

Sorry, I was just trying (in my usual off-the-wall fashion) to show that once again, TWI screws up a perfectly good concept. That's my usual line: that TWI perverted everything they touched.

OK, well, I'm glad I placed that caveat there then The apostles scattered to the four winds. Yes, there were some that did itineraries, a la Paul, but some left and didn't return. Andrew and Thomas come to mind right up front.Now as far as TWI's concept is concerned, I'm sure you have read enough of my posts to know that I have nothing, nothing positive to say about TWI. In fact, if you decided to re-read my post, I think you'd find a pretty good criticism of them (once again) screwing up a perfectly good biblical concept. And then that advice wouldn't apply, would it. Although maybe it should. To use TWI as an example for ANYTHING (other than as an example of how NOT to do something) is a foolish gesture, imho. To repeat what I said, To use TWI as an example for ANYTHING (other than as an example of how NOT to do something) is a foolish gesture, imho. OK For some reason, I think that you believe that I am apologizing for TWI. Oh, puhleese, not hardly. Let's look again at what I did say and not what you (apparently) read: You know, really and truly, a no debt policy is not totally a bad thing. For those who are called to be available at a moment's notice to relocate in order to serve. Debt can really tie a person down...and makes that person, in a fashion, enslaved to the person to whom he owes the debt (think about it, the bank can repo your house or car if you miss a payment or two...that means when you are working, your first obligation is to make those payments) I can see having some really hard teachings on the subject of debt. I really can. And I can see telling a person who wishes to go into a full time service position that he should be totally debt-free prior to entering that commitment and maintain that debt-free status. I can see a teaching where a person is counselled that any revolving debt needs to be paid off in full each month. I really can. You will please note that I said a no debt policy. Not TWI's no debt policy. This places it in the hypothetical (thus the use of the word a vice the) Then you'll note I said, For those who are called to be available at a moment's notice to relocate in order to serve. You will note that I did not say the Way Corps. I did not say TWI staff. I was not even referring to TWI, at all. (please refer back to the discussion on a vice the) Then, you'll see the following couple of paragraphs. That explains why I believe that a (vice the) debt policy is a good thing for the category of people about whom I was referring. But not everybody is called to live that full-time service position. Frankly, if you look at 1 Cor 7, it lays it out fairly well: 1Cr 7:33 but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, 1Cr 7:34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. 1Cr 7:35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. The point is that some people are called to be single...and totally and completely dedicate themselves to the things of God. Some people are called to be married...in which case they need to concern themselves with taking care of their families... Having the same debt rules (or any type of spiritual discipline) for both classes of folks makes no sense in that context. I further go on to say: But not everybody is called to live that full-time service position. That further clarifies the condition I mentioned earlier (For those who are called to be available at a moment's notice to relocate in order to serve). I just said not everybody is called. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the 'no debt' policy implemented by TWI apply to everybody? So if I made the statement not everybody is called, then how in the world could I possibly be talking about the abortion of TWI??? Then I cite some scripture. 1 Cor 7. (Wait a minute, 1 Cor 7 doesn't talk about debt, does it?) Why did I cite that particular passage? Because it pointed out that some folks are called to be single and some to be married. I cited only three verses out of that section rather than the whole section. (the purpose of it being to identify that married folk and single folk would naturally have different agendas and that neither is bad) Why did I cite that section? Because it clearly shows that married folks have an obligation to take care of their families. As I said earlier: The point is that some people are called to be single...and totally and completely dedicate themselves to the things of God. Some people are called to be married...in which case they need to concern themselves with taking care of their families... So, with the distinction that the Apostle Paul mentions (unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord vice married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband), which one is the one who would be the better candidate for the class I was discussing (those who are called to be available at a moment's notice to relocate in order to serve)? Obviously not. Obviously the "no debt" policy implemented by TWI was counter to the purposes of the good of married folks (again, I am not speaking about credit card debt, I am primarily speaking about house mortgages, business loans, car loans, etc.). The debt policy implemented by them forced people to live in a lifestyle where they couldn't concern themselves with how to please his/her wife/husband. So, are we clear on this? I was not saying that TWI's "no debt policy was good (and, frankly, there is no way that a reasonable person should have been able to accuse me of saying that if he simply read what I wrote dispassionately). Let me try again, using different words, to re-state what I already said: I believe that a no-debt policy (although badly mangled by TWI to the detriment and harm of their followers) has its place in a limited scope and application. Those people who feel called to remain unattached (i.e., single) and wish to dedicate their lives totally in service to God (i.e., foregoing a family or other earthly attachments) should be totally unencumbered by debt, even in this day and age. The rationale for such a statement on my part is that a mortgage, car payment, business loan, etc., would tend to tie a person down from the obligation that the person takes on to repay the debt. I say single, echoing the concerns mentioned by the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor 7, because the moral commitment taken on through marriage and parenthood would put temporal obligations on a person that would reduce their ability to be responsive in the way discussed by the Apostle. In addition, such a person should probably be very circumspect in the jobs he or she takes, as well. Business owners, managers, involvment in long-term projects, and so on, would also tend to incur a moral obligation to stay in a certain place for a significant period of time, thus minimizing that person's responsiveness. Thus, a person who felt so called would need to acknowledge internally that in dedicating his/her life in such a fashion, he/she would also voluntarily forego much material wealth that would otherwise be available to somebody who would be in a position to make a long-term business commitment. Does this degrade the value of a person who has accepted either the obligations of a family or the obligations of responsibility for others (e.g., through work)? No. Not at all. Should a no-debt policy (e.g., mortgages, business loans) apply to those people who are taking on long-term responsibilities? No. Is this in any way a defense of the TWI no-debt policy? No. What they did was a perversion of a perfectly good Biblical principle. Their policy was directly responsible for unnecessary poverty, unnecessary illness, and unnecessary stress. There. Hopefully that communicated it a bit better. Oh, btw, you know who I was referring to when talking about groups to whom a no-debt policy should apply? Groups like Franciscan Friars, Dominicans, members of Catholic Worker houses, and other forms of consecrated life. There is no way that those groups could deal with individual debts of their members.... Again, FWIW, IMHO, and YMMV

You know, really and truly, a no debt policy is not totally a bad thing. For those who are called to be available at a moment's notice to relocate in order to serve. Debt can really tie a person down...and makes that person, in a fashion, enslaved to the person to whom he owes the debt (think about it, the bank can repo your house or car if you miss a payment or two...that means when you are working, your first obligation is to make those payments) I can see having some really hard teachings on the subject of debt. I really can. And I can see telling a person who wishes to go into a full time service position that he should be totally debt-free prior to entering that commitment and maintain that debt-free status. I can see a teaching where a person is counselled that any revolving debt needs to be paid off in full each month. I really can. But not everybody is called to live that full-time service position. Frankly, if you look at 1 Cor 7, it lays it out fairly well: 1Cr 7:33 but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, 1Cr 7:34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. 1Cr 7:35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. The point is that some people are called to be single...and totally and completely dedicate themselves to the things of God. Some people are called to be married...in which case they need to concern themselves with taking care of their families... Having the same debt rules (or any type of spiritual discipline) for both classes of folks makes no sense in that context. Just something to consider. FWIW. YMMV.

Congratulations!! I hope all works out well for you with this group!

Traditional Gravity Model: F1,2=G(m1m2)/r21,2 Where: G=6.6742±0.001×10-11 Nm2kg-2 m1 and m2 are the masses of the two objects in kilograms r21,2 is the square of the distance between the two objects in meters2 and F1,2 is the attractive force between the two objects in Newtons. So what? (and yes, I realize that Newtonian gravity has been superceded by Unified Field Theory, but it's a lot easier to explain) This theory requires a bunch of values (the mass of the objects; the distance between the center of the objects) in order to determine the value of the force (gravity). And keep in mind that the constant "G" was not defined for 130 years after Newton published his work! You can't prove gravity without the two objects. You sure can't come up with the value of "G" without some precision measurement of the relationship between the two objects. There is an interesting analogy there if you care to examine it.

David: <font face='arial' size=7 color='000000'>TMI, David</font> After all, don't ask unless you <i>really</i> want to know the answer.

I would refer you to the thread down in 'doctrinal' called Jesus is Here? -- imho, it pretty well covers it.

For those who missed it, the commercials can be seen here.

I don't buy dispensationalism. To provide a little information backing up what I already knew about it (that it was a recent innovation), I found a convenient "non-Catholic" and "secular" source to cite...but am more than happy to locate plenty of other sources. Frankly, I am not up on the latest dispensationalist vs nondispensationalist debate within Protestantism (for fairly obvious reasons). Fact remains: - dispensationalism is a relatively recent innovation (Darby popularized it...now where he got his information is an interesting, but not particularly relevant discussion) - dispensationalism distorts how one understands the scriptures (and is a cause for many of the horrible misinterpretations that were pushed on folk by the leadership of TWI btw) You want a couple of "Catholic" articles on the subject? Are we living in the last days, Carl E. Olson. False Profit, by Jimmy Akin Left Behind: Any Link With The Early Church, Dwight Longenecker As far as Dave McPherson is concerned, I have no idea who that is. As to Margaret MacDonald, until this came up, I'd never heard of her (nor for that matter have I ever heard of a group called the "Catholic Apostolic Church"). So I'll take your word for whatever you claim she said...it's really not that important to the point I was trying to make one way or the other.

The question of to what specific time period these books were for. is sort of a funny subject. Dispensationalism is something that is a relatively recent innovation that has, imho, really screwed up Biblical exegesis for the past 150 years or so. Most folks are not even aware of the history of dispensationalism: Born out of the restless religious environment in England and Ireland in the 1820s, dispensationalism is rooted in the Plymouth Brethren movement, especially the teachings of John Nelson Darby (1800–1882). While Darby is the father of dispensationalism, Dave MacPherson, in his 1975 book Incredible Cover Up, stated that the beginning of the movement could be rooted in Glasgow, Scotland. There in 1830 a fifteen-year-old girl named Margaret McDonald claimed to have the gift of prophecy and visions of the end of the world. McDonald would often go into "prophecy trances" and write down her visions soon after. MacPherson claimed that Darby learned of McDonald's visions during a visit to Scotland in the 1830s. Whether this was the origin of Darby's ideas on the subject is a hotly disputed topic. The Plymouth Brethren movement, essentially a reaction against the established church and its ecclesiology, became known for its anti-denominational, anti-clerical, and anti-credal stance. While theologically orthodoxal, the Plymouth Brethren, Darby in particular, developed some unique ideas regarding the interpretation of Scripture while emphasizing prophecy and the second coming of Christ. The theology of this movement became dispensationalism. This new teaching first spread in America through prophecy conferences such as the Niagara Bible Conferences (1883–1897). Most importantly, Dwight L. Moody (1837–1899) was sympathetic to the broad outlines of dispensationalism and had, as his closest lieutenants, dispensationalist leaders such as Reuben Archer Torrey (1856–1928), James M. Gray (1851–1925), Cyrus I. Scofield (1843–1921]]), William J. Eerdman (1833–1923), A. C. Dixon (1854–1925),A. J. Gordon (1836–1895) and William Blackstone, author of the bestseller of the 1800s "Jesus is Coming" (Endorsed by Torrey and Erdman). These men were activist evangelists who promoted a host of Bible conferences and other missionary and evangelistic efforts. They also gave the dispensationalist movement institutional permanence by assuming leadership of the new independent Bible institutes such as the Moody Bible Institute (1886), the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (1907), and the Philadelphia College of the Bible—now the Philadelphia Biblical University (1914). The network of related institutes that soon sprang up became the nucleus for the spread of American dispensationalism. The energetic efforts of C. I. Scofield and his associates introduced dispensationalism to a wider audience in America and bestowed a measure of respectability through his Scofield Reference Bible. The publication of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909 by the Oxford University Press was something of an innovative literary coup for the movement, since for the first time, overtly dispensationalist notes were added to the pages of the biblical text. The Scofield Reference Bible became the leading bible used by independent Evangelicals and Fundamentalists in the U.S. for the next sixty years. Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871–1952), strongly influenced by C. I. Scofield, founded Dallas Theological Seminary in 1924, which has become the flagship of dispensationalism in America. Dispensationalism has come to dominate the American Evangelical scene, especially among nondenominational Bible churches, many Baptists, and most Pentecostal and Charismatic groups. Prior to dispensationalism, Covenant Theology was the prominent Protestant view regarding redemptive history and is still the view of the Reformed churches. A relatively recent view, which is seen as a third alternative, especially among conservative Baptists, is called New Covenant Theology. Outside of Protestantism, however, all of the Christian churches (e.g., Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox) reject dispensationalism. For more, see the Wikipedia article. Something to keep in mind when considering, to whom written... Article extracted per "Fair Use" doctrine for educational purposes. 17 U.S.C. 107Source URLs: www.wikipedia.org

The one I thought of was, Will wage Jihad for food

Since we didn't approve of the messages provided on existing protest signs over in Europe, I'd like to present you the opportunity to suggest a new motto for a protest sign: Pics linked per "Fair Use" doctrine for comment purposes. 17 U.S.C. 107 Source URLs: awfulpics.com

Raising hands is an ancient posture of prayer that pre-dates Christianity. The above picture was a drawing in the Roman catacombs. As was this one: This one was from pagan Rome: from Roman-occupied Egypt: to this day (an Iraqi Chaldean Catholic woman): A traditional Greek Orthodox icon: ou can read the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Orans, the prayer posture with raised hands...a lot of the history and iconography... There is also the following: The Orans position (Latin for "praying") or some variation of it, was common to almost all ancient religions as an outward sign of supplicating God (or if a pagan religion, the gods). Consider what we do when we plead with someone. We might put our arms out in front of us as if reaching for the person and say "I beg you, help me." This seems to be a natural human gesture coming from deep within us - like kneeling to adore or to express sorrow. Now, turn that reach heavenwards and you have the Orans position. The ancient monuments of Christianity, such as the tombs in the catecombs, often show someone in the Orans position supplicating God, to show that the prayers of the Church accompany the person in death. I could understand why LCM wouldn't approve: it is far too "Catholic" related...and that simply wouldn't do! Pics linked per "Fair Use" doctrine for educational purposes. 17 U.S.C. 107 Source URLs: www.pbs.org; ist-socrates.berkeley.edu; www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk; www4.point.ne.jp; act-intl.org; www.kathrinburleson.com On edit: to add legal disclaimer.

Gee...sort of reminded me of VPW :blink:

One thing to point out folks was my original question: Is this an indicator of where society at large is going to be in 25-30 years? (BTW, thanks, Laleo, you are so right: New York mag rather than New Yorker...apologies) I fully recognize that this is a clique in an exclusive school in New York, not the behaviors of the school population in general at a county-wide high school in rural Kansas (if you read my comments at the bottom of the article I extracted in my opening post, you'll see I acknowledged that already) I ask this because it seems like the trends for the rest of the country's youth seem to flow out of the New York and Los Angeles areas to the rest of the country. I posted this article and solicited comments because I was curious to see if you all thought that this 'fashionable behavior' that existed in this clique would start to spread and become commonplace and accepted throughout the country in 25-30 years. There have been some tremendous comments on this thread: The sexual revolution happened either during, or shortly before, most of our own high school days (my High School days were in late 70s). Of course, that sexual revolution was really made possible by the marketing of the birth control pill and was popularized in the 'pop culture' of that era. Even so, in my high school (in suburban Mpls/St Paul MN), girls were very coy (in mixed company at least) about if/when/with whom they had sexual relations, sl uts were shunned, homosexuals kept very, very, very quiet about their preferences (anybody who is familiar with Mpls knows that it has always been a very liberal, gay-friendly town), and pregnant girls tended to disappear for a few months (they'd magically return about 6 months later after recovering from an illness) -- and were talked about. I'm certain that abortions happened regularly, but they, too, weren't talked about at all. Keep in mind, this was not a conservative Catholic high school: this was a large public school that had a reputation for partying. Ten years after I graduated, the school had a daycare center in it. Fast forward 5 years. I have friends whose daughters are getting close to menarche. They promise me that the girls will be on birth control within weeks of their first period. And not just one set of friends, either. Fast forward 15 more years. My wife, who was a 5th grade teacher until her disability retirement, was required to allow in her public school class sensitivity training for homosexuality (to reduce the incidence of homophobia in elementary school) and the old condom on cucumber training session. 5th grade, mind you. And if you question the necessity of this: out of four 6th grade classes, there were 3 pregnant 6th graders one year. Of course, we have no idea how many abortions...likely many, many more. On a lark sometime, drive around your suburban high schools: look to see how many of them have daycare centers for children of students. Try middle schools (yes, they exist). You don't even have to ask the question: if you see a fenced-off area with some preschool-appropriate playground equipment next to the school, you've found the answer. Don't get me wrong, this is not hand-wringing. It is what it is. Things have changed. What was socially unacceptable to our generation is now commonplace and accepted as a fact of life. DSM-II listed homosexuality as a disorder. DSM-III had it as "Sexual Orientation Disturbance." DSM-IV doesn't list it at all. Now homophobia is considered the mental disorder (it's likely to be listed as such in the next DSM revision). High school kids having sex was considered risque. Now it's accepted that elementary school kids do it all the time. Things change. That's part of life. This group (this clique) of kids in this school consider themselves polysexual. Or just sexual in general. This is not the the only clique in the only school where this is the case. What was considered risque in our days is now passe to most kids these days. The question is: is this trend going to spread and become the norm? Or is this going to die out? And if this becomes the norm or even passe, what's going to be the shocking sexual behavior when these kids have their own teenagers to deal with?

Believe it or not folks I actually tend to agree. Obviously with the TWI statements But also, believe it or not, with the statements made against Catholics by t-bone and bliss. In my parish, there are approximately 8,000 registered parishoners. Only about half of them regularly show up for one of the seven Masses we have each weekend. Out of those, I'd say likely half (if not more) are just there out of habit or for some other social reason. Out of the remainder (those who are directly there because of conviction rather than habit), I'd say that likely half don't understand in any way, shape, or form the theology of the Mass, or, for that matter, have any more in-depth understanding of Catholic theology than what they learned through the Baltimore Catechism. In other words, they really do it out of some sort of superstition, rather than out of any sort of understanding "why" they are there. I find that to be a true tragedy. The style of teaching used in the catechism given Catholic children does tend to produce a laziness in the thought process. I have a kid getting ready for Confirmation and I have had to deal with this for years with her: going behind what was taught in her catechism class and providing more depth so that she, at least, has some understanding of why she's doing what she's doing and what the theological bases are for those acts. I personally think that the level set for that catechesis may have been appropriate for an illiterate audience of catechumens (students)...to provide them some memorizable information so that they could learn the fundamentals of the faith without needing to learn to read (which, face it, up to about 75-100 years ago in this country, and even to this day in many places in the world is the case with large segments of populations). But in a literate society, such as is the case for the most part in the US and in Europe, that level of depth is simply insufficient. It's not that the information is not there: it's that they don't take the time to teach it in any way. (Btw, this is not a statement against Catholicism, this is a statement against how those in charge of the stewardship of Catholicism are not exercising their responsibilities properly -- in most cases) On the other hand, I wonder how this laziness issue impacts most church-goers, regardless of where they go to church. Whether we're talking Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, or whatever. I wonder how high a percentage of folks actually work to learn what it is they believe and how high a percentage of folks just go there and either don't concern themselves or blindly accept what they're taught? One other thing: there is one fundamental difference though that I would want to point out contrasting the mental laziness in Catholicism (and other legitimate ecclesiastical bodies) versus the mental laziness in TWI: If you legitimately question or want to dig out something in regards to Church doctrine (i.e., you are having a hard time with a specific belief or practice), you can find the answers and, in most cases, the leadership in those bodies will be thrilled to help you look. If you legitimately question or want to dig outsomething in regards to TWI doctrine (i.e., you are having a hard time with a specific belief or practice), the TWI leadership will, these days, call you on the carpet. That is, imho, a HUGE difference! However, as always, YMMV.

(on edit, removed by moderator direction)