markomalley

<--- Note member title (underneath avatar) Why, yes, I subscribe to the Trinity. Couldn't you tell? If you'd like to discuss the concept of a theological basis, please feel free to join the hobbits down in the 'doctrinal basement.'

Good luck on your sale, David.

First, I don't buy the ultradispensationalist approach that Wierwille and Co used. So your comment makes no sense on that basis. But, even assuming that your proposition is correct and we should apply ultradispensational principles, you are telling me that in the age of grace that you should be more judgemental of people than Jesus Christ was when he was on earth? So, during the "Christ administration", the proper thing to do was to minister to the homosexual to deliver him. But during the "Grace administration", the proper thing to do is to kick the homosexual to the curb. During the "Christ administration", the proper thing to do was to minister to the murderer to deliver him. But during the "Grace administration", the proper thing to do is to kick the murderer to the curb. During the "Christ administration", the proper thing to do was to minister to the rapist to deliver him. But during the "Grace administration", the proper thing to do is to kick the rapist to the curb. Do I have that one correct? "You are welcome at the Way..."

TheMex: Think about this for a minute...it is correct to M&A homos, rapists, and other types of criminals and sinners? How do you expect those people ever to be delivered if you can't show them the way? Mat 9:10 And as he sat at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Jesus and his disciples. Mat 9:11 And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" Mat 9:12 But when he heard it, he said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Mat 9:13 Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.' For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." Luk 7:24 When the messengers of John had gone, he began to speak to the crowds concerning John: "What did you go out into the wilderness to behold? A reed shaken by the wind? Luk 7:25 What then did you go out to see? A man clothed in soft clothing? Behold, those who are gorgeously appareled and live in luxury are in kings' courts. Luk 7:26 What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. Luk 7:27 This is he of whom it is written, 'Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee.' Luk 7:28 I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he." Luk 7:29 (When they heard this all the people and the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John; Luk 7:30 but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.) Luk 7:31 "To what then shall I compare the men of this generation, and what are they like? Luk 7:32 They are like children sitting in the market place and calling to one another, 'We piped to you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not weep.' Luk 7:33 For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine; and you say, 'He has a demon.' Luk 7:34 The Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, 'Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Luk 7:35 Yet wisdom is justified by all her children." Luk 7:36 One of the Pharisees asked him to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee's house, and took his place at table. Luk 7:37 And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was at table in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment, Luk 7:38 and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment. Luk 7:39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner." Luk 7:40 And Jesus answering said to him, "Simon, I have something to say to you." And he answered, "What is it, Teacher?" Luk 7:41 "A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. Luk 7:42 When they could not pay, he forgave them both. Now which of them will love him more?" Luk 7:43 Simon answered, "The one, I suppose, to whom he forgave more." And he said to him, "You have judged rightly." Luk 7:44 Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I entered your house, you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. Luk 7:45 You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. Luk 7:46 You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Luk 7:47 Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little." Luk 7:48 And he said to her, "Your sins are forgiven." Luk 7:49 Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, "Who is this, who even forgives sins?" Luk 7:50 And he said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace." Think about it a little, themex...

This is a fundamental aspect of the sick word-faith theology taught by TWI. The same name-it-and-claim-it theology that makes man god and God a slave. This same theology that produced the Bakkers, Tiptons, and Swaggerts of the world. As long as they keep with those fundamentals as the core of their theology and neglect the Gospel (remember, it's not addressed "to" us, it's only addressed "for our understanding" {{ barf}}), any change you see will only be a change in veneer, not a change in the heart, where it's needed. As always IMHO and YMMV

We could dissect the finer points of Constantine down to minutia, but I think the discussion can be boiled down to a difference of opinion whether authority to establish and enforce religious belief is good or bad -- with state-sponsorship of such authority being an extension outside of that religion. And I think that's the bottom line. Believe it or not, I agree with your position on the issue. But we both know that the truly pluralistic republic had not yet been invented as of yet. That is something we must also keep in mind. The religious belief espoused by the ruler was, as often as not, the mandated religion of the people. Persecutions of competing religions was the norm, not the exception. We really haven't found a solution, even to this day, that allows a government to be truly independent of belief systems. I am not sure that such a solution is possible: ascribe to no belief system and provide due respect for all belief systems within the form of government. Because everybody, without exception, has a belief system. Some sort of belief system: even if that system is the denial of all beliefs outside of provable scientific fact. That bias is going to exist one way or the other. I honestly prefer the marketplace approach (as I've said before). Clearly state your ideas and, using logic and intelligence, show where your ideas are superior to competing ideas. Defend your ideas, again using logic and intelligence, against statements made by others. That provides the best possible mechanism, imho. Of course, a state cannot have this...nor would we want it to, either of us. But, a state can attempt to achieve consensus among competing belief systems on issues where consensus is possible, while protecting the rights of the belief system minorities, and remaining silent on areas where there is no consensus. It's a pity that more folks can't apply that positive approach rather than the negative approach that is so common these days (and that criticism applies to all sides). As to your nightmare of Bush being a TWIt. I agree ((cringe)) It brings back memories of reading about the Know-Nothings.

Lifted Up: If you will be so kind as to review my comments on this thread, you will note that not one time did I make commentary about the poster one way or the other. The sole comment I made was about, again imho, WG over-reacting to peoples' commentary about what the poster represented. The remainder of my posts on this thread have been responding to personal attacks made to me for daring to defend peoples' rights to express their POVs on what that poster represents. So here is my commentary on the poster: I wouldn't have it in my house. There are, however, some pretty good examples of modern graphic art represented in a lot of the 1970s era TWI work, so I won't call it a piece of crap (especially with no picture upon what to make that judgement). I wish WG all the luck in the world selling the poster. I won't bid on it but I hope she gets what she needs from it. My commentary on what the poster represents: I have made my current opinion of things TWI, including PFAL class, well known in many, many other threads. There is no need to go into that in this thread. My commentary on Watered Garden: I do not know her. A quick review of her previous posts does not reveal a hyper-sensitive nature and, in fact, showed a bit of humor in her nature. So her reaction still yet makes no sense to me. Perhaps it would had I known her personally, had I spoken with her in chat, or had there been some other pieces that hadn't been filled in (thus my comment: you all must have been PMing the personal attacks toward her). No, my commentary is that a little thicker skin is a good thing. My commentary is that the anti-PFAL comments made on this thread were EXTREMELY mild, as compared to the anti-PFAL commentary provided to Oldies, What the Hey, or Mike, or the anti-Catholic commentary provided me. I'm not complaining about people's commentary thrown in my direction. If I was concerned, I wouldn't post conservative comments on the 'tacks forum or pro-Catholic comments elsewhere. That's why I made the comparison...I didn't make those comments as a plea for mercy or a call for sensitivity. If you're going to post on an openly accessible message board, you'd better not be hyper-sensitive. I appreciate your concern. And I do appreciate that Digitalis' method is far more 'sensitive' and 'loving' than mine. But nobody has ever accused me of being a 'sensitive' or 'loving' person. And I am thankful for that, because I am not 'sensitive' or 'loving' by nature. In fact, when I put something up on line I am an insensitive, direct, a$$hole. (In person, I am considerably more sensitive). One generally doesn't have to look for hidden messages hidden beneath a loving veneer when reading my messages. That is mistake some people make when reading me...they look for hidden messages that aren't there. This has been a very revealing thread.

Wino, Nice input. I think the two most telling paragraphs out of the entire Roe v Wade decision are these: A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. ...... Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. What I would find interesting is to examine this in light of facts and law that have developed on both the above points 33 years hence. (I think about the development of ivf, cloning, dramatically lowered dates of fetal viability, and case law, such as Scott Peterson, etc.)

Happy Birthday, Maureen!!!

The Donation of Constantine really has nothing to do with my views on him, and you never stated such. But it keeps coming back. I can see some Protestants pointing to it as an excuse for the rise of Roman Catholicism rather than what they consider to be truth, but I'm not a Protestant (or any other ---ant or ---ian) and I really don't see how it plays into the discussion here. I understand that, from your personal perspective that it means little or nothing to this. However, much of the folk history is based upon a false perception that there was this church-state cabal that happened beginning with him...the Donation (admittedly an invention of a Catholic pope...but one of about 500 years later) was, as far as I can tell, the source. Look at yourself: Constantine did this...Constantine did that...most of which is documented to be done by other emporers. His late baptism can also be used to provide evidence that he was never really a Christian, but only using it for his own political motives. Now why would a baptism a month before his death lead one to believe that it was done for political purposes. Had he wanted to convert for merely political purposes, it would have made sense that he'd be baptized as soon as possible, thereby being able to speak "from the inside." At least IMHO The Arians being "put down" is a nice way of saying they were tortured and murdered. Since the official religion of Rome was the approved form of Christianity, do you think Theodosius is solely responsible for this? Would he do such a thing without the backing of the religious leaders (were they calling themselves popes by this time yet?). I believe that the normal injunction was exile. But, I am certain that you are, unfortunately, correct in far too many cases. Theodosius continued to tolerate the traditional pagan practices and rituals which had enjoyed toleration from successive Christian emperors throughout the fourth century, i.e., almost anything which did not include blood-sacrifice or did not smack of treason against the emperor, until 391 at least. He then issued a series of laws which seemed effectively to prohibit all pagan worship by forbidding visits to pagan sites of worship or even the adornment in any manner of the images of the gods. This apparent change of policy on his part has often been credited to the increased influence of bishop Ambrose of Milan. For in 390 Ambrose had excommunicated Theodosius because he had ordered the execution of several thousand of the inhabitants of Thessalonica in response to the murder there of his "general" Butherichus. Theodosius accepted his excommunication and even performed several months of public penance, so it is all too easy too imagine how he might have taken the time to review his other "failings" also, including his continued toleration of paganism. However, the importance of these laws has been greatly exaggerated. They were limited in scope, specific measures in response to various petitions and accusations and tell us less about Theodosius than the private agenda of many of the increasingly militant Christians who could be found throughout his administration. Although he had voiced his support earlier for the preservation of temples or pagan statues as useful public buildings or as works of art, in 391 he officially sanctioned the destruction of the most famous of the temples in the East, the Serapeum at Alexandria. Bands of monks and Christian officials had long been accustomed to take the law into their own hands and destroy various centres of pagan worship , but the destruction of the Serapeum seemed to confirm that such actions had often enjoyed the emperor's tacit approval at least, and served to encourage such action in the future also. Again, however, Theodosius had been effectively manipulated into sanctioning the destruction of the Serapeum by local officials who had essentially engineered the crisis there for this very purpose. From the Roman Emporers site. I would like you to note the bolded text above. This is largely the influence of the Church hierarchy at that time and, outside of the Papal States, throughout history. They could excommunicate or provide some form of ecclesiastical discipline to the secular rulers. As with the cite I gave you earlier in regard to the destruction of the Alexandria Library, much of the excesses came as the result of a whipped up mob mentality. You may want to do a little more historical research outside of official church history. There was never a set official form of Christianity from its beginning. Even Acts shows two forms of it, Paul's and James' (three if you include the followers of John the Baptist). But outside of Acts, beliefs were all over the board. To arrive at your conclusion, one must assume that Paul's version is the only correct one, making everything else heresies. That's too big of an assumption, not only to Paul, but also assuming that most of what it is in the Bible credited to him was actually written by him. It can be shown, without too much effort, that most of the writings with his name on it were not written by him and are in fact much later creations. It also assumes that the entire history of the first century is contained in the New Testament. I have read a number of different sources, both ecclesiastical and secular. Here's an interesting thing that I've noted when dealing with history or any type of social science: the biases of the author can many times influence the conclusions. Let me give an admittedly over-simplified example (that has nothing to do with the discussion but illustrates my point): Home Ownership Rates Race 1970 1980 1990 2000 White 45% 48% 65% 73% Black 25% 27% 48% 65% If a study was conducted using the above numbers, several conculsions could be drawn: Home ownership rates dramatically rise across the board for the last 30 years! Blacks lag behind whites in home ownership rates! Blacks make tremendous strides in home ownership rates -- come close to closing gap! Home Ownership rates rise the most during Republican rule! Any one of the above conclusions is accurate and supported by the facts given. The hypothesis of the researcher (perhaps influenced by his pre-existing biases) would govern the conclusion found. It is a rare social-sciences researcher who will openly admit that either he is wrong or that his biases may have been unsupported by fact. You are absolutely right...I need to look at a broader cross-section of historical research in order to ensure that I have a balanced viewpoint. But the problem is, like with you, I have a life outside of ancient history, doctrine, and debates on spirituality. Having said that, for me to form a truly educated view, I need to spend time researching the primary source materials, not reading pre-digested pablum put out by any author. I am the first to admit my relative ignorance on the subject. I've always found that it is not only important to know what I know, but to know what I don't know, as well. I haven't seen anything that suggests disputes were resolved at the Council of Nicea. In fact, quite the opposite. Nothing was resolved. Even the simple topic of dating Easter was left divided along ethnic and regional rivalries and to this day is celebrated on different dates, one by the Roman Catholic Church (and its off-shoots), the other by various churches that constitue Eastern Orthodoxy. Well, it's interesting to read Socrates' account of the Council. Here is some of how it started: On the following day all the bishops were assembled together in one place; the emperor arrived soon after and on his entrance stood in their midst, and would not take his place, until the bishops by bowing intimated their desire that he should be seated: such was the respect and reverence which the emperor entertained for these men. When a silence suitable to the occasion had been observed, the emperor from his seat began to address them words of exhortation to harmony and unity, and entreated each to lay aside all private pique. For several of them had brought accusations against one another and many had even presented petitions to the emperor the day before. But he, directing their attention to the matter before them, and on account of which they were assembled, ordered these petitions to be burnt; merely observing that ‘Christ enjoins him who is anxious to obtain forgiveness, to forgive his brother.’ When therefore he had strongly insisted on the maintenance of harmony and peace, he sanctioned again their purpose of more closely investigating the questions at issue. When they agreed on the terms of the Creed, apparently only five of the bishops (Arius, Theonas, Secundus, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis) did not sign up to it. Frankly, the dating process for the Feast of the Resurrection (Easter is an anglified German term) is of so little doctrinal interest as to not worth discussing (again, imho). I can't see how that is any more of a 'doctrinal' issue than the use of the Julian versus Gregorian calendars. But if that helps you show division, so be it. As to the quote of the book you earlier recommended to me, I think that the author has it exactly backwards. According to Eusebius of Caesarea, Socrates, and Sozomen, Eusebius refused to subscribe to the Nicene Creed and was exiled. He later recanted of this: Not long after the council of Nice, Arius was recalled from exile; but the prohibition to enter Alexandria was unrevoked. It shall be related in the proper place how he strove to obtain permission to return to Egypt. Not long after, Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognis, bishop of Nicæa, regained possession of their churches after expelling Amphion and Chrestos who had been ordained in their stead. They owed their restoration to a document which they had presented to the bishops, containing a retractation: “Although we have been condemned without a trial by your piety, we deemed it right to remain silent concerning the judgment passed by your piety. But as it would be absurd to remain longer silent, when silence is regarded as a proof of the truth of the calumniators, we now declare to you that we too agree in this faith, and after a diligent examination of the thought in the word ‘consubstantial,’ we are wholly intent upon preserving peace, and that we never pursued any heresy. Having proposed for the safety of the churches such argument as occurred to us, and having been fully convinced, and fully convincing those who ought to have been persuaded by us, we undersigned the creed; but we did not subscribe to the anathema, not because we impugned the creed, but because we did not believe the accused to be what he was represented to us; the letters we had received from him, and the arguments he had delivered in our presence, fully satisfying us that he was not such an one. Would that the holy Synod were convinced that we are not bent on opposing, but are accordant with the points accurately defined by you, and by this document, we do attest our assent thereto: and this is not because we are wearied of exile, but because we wish to avert all suspicion of heresy; for if you will condescend to admit us now into your presence, you will find us in all points of the same sentiments as yourselves, and obedient to your decisions, and then it shall seem good to your piety to be merciful to him who was accused on these points and to have him recalled. If the party amenable to justice has been recalled and has defended himself from the charge made, it would be absurd, were we by our silence to confirm the reports that calumny had spread against us. We beseech you then, as befits your piety, dear to Christ, that you memorialize our emperor, most beloved of God, and that you hand over our petition, and that you counsel quickly, what is agreeable to you concerning us.” It was by these means that Eusebius and Theognis, after their change of sentiment, were reinstated in their churches. (Sozomen, Book 2, Chap 16) Can you please do me a favor: the phrase, by subscribing to a blasphemy from fear of you, was attributed to Eusebius of Nicomedia in the book you cited. Could you please see if that quote was footnoted. If so, could you please let me know the source? I tried googling the phrase to see if I could locate its source, but all I got was a bunch of circular references (lots of people quoting the phrase, nobody giving the citation of its origin -- LOL) You got me on that one. Been awhile since I've studied this and yes, it was Theodosius who made the official declaration. It was inevitable though. What Constantine did was take a "subversive movement that set itself against the power and glory of Rome" and move it to a cult that had "sealed an alliance of throne and altar and the church could be regarded as a branch of the Imperial civil service. The Christian church now functioned as 'the Christian state-within a state'." I won't argue with that premise. Constantine did provide tremendous credibility for the Church. However, I would hardly make the claim that ascendency was inevitable after Constantine's rule. His son, Constantus, was an Arian. He called the Council of Rimini in 359 AD, where a different Creed (the "Dated Creed") was drawn up, one that gave place to the Arians. Most of the 400 bishops there were persuaded to sign that creed, but, when the Pope refused to accept it, the bulk of those who initially agreed to it recanted this agreement. Emperor Julian described himself as an apostate. He fully intended to restore the empire to Pagan Worship. Although I can't find a definitive "neutral" source to confirm it, it is said that he even attempted to remove his baptism by bathing in bull's blood. Valens was another Arian. The point is that we can hardly say 'inevitable' due to Constantine's conversion, even though his role was important (perhaps invaluable). I did not intend to infer that Constantine had the library destroyed. I was inferring that since the wonderful act of setting what is approved doctrine and texts placed the unapproved texts in the heretic classification, the library's destruction was a result of it -- because it contained these texts. Just because the mob was encouraged by monks who wanted it destroyed due to its pagen texts, does not change the fact that the mob destroyed it because it contained Gnostic texts. I was also inferring the absolute stupidity of such logic, whether of the monks or the mob. The citation I provided stated that the mobs destroyed it at the instigation of the monks because it contained Pagan material, not because it contained gnostic material. Of course, there is a difference. I won't argue about the tragedy of the waste. I think Constantine's "open mind" is best summarized by: (I won't bother repeating the quote) I see (minus your bolding) nothing offensive in what the author quoted. Here is Eusebius' full account of the speech. I think it's much more powerful that way. "It was once my chief desire, dearest friends, to enjoy the spectacle of your united presence; and now that this desire is fulfilled, I feel myself bound to render thanks to God the universal King, because, in addition to all his other benefits, he has granted me a blessing higher than all the rest, in permitting me to see you not only all assembled together, but all united in a common harmony of sentiment. I pray therefore that no malignant adversary may henceforth interfere to mar our happy state; I pray that, now the impious hostility of the tyrants has been forever removed by the power of God our Saviour, that spirit who delights in evil may devise no other means for exposing the divine law to blasphemous calumny; for, in my judgment, intestine strife within the Church of God, is far more evil and dangerous than any kind of war or conflict; and these our differences appear to me more grievous than any outward trouble. Accordingly, when, by the will and with the co-operation of God, I had been victorious over my enemies, I thought that nothing more remained but to render thanks to him, and sympathize in the joy of those whom he had restored to freedom through my instrumentality; as soon as I heard that intelligence which I had least expected to receive, I mean the news of your dissension, I judged it to be of no secondary importance, but with the earnest desire that a remedy for this evil also might be found through my means, I immediately sent to require your presence. And now I rejoice in beholding your assembly; but I feel that my desires will be most completely fulfilled when I can see you all united in one judgment, that common spirit of peace and concord prevailing amongst you all, which it becomes you, as consecrated to the service of God, to commend to others. Delay not, then, dear friends: delay not, ye ministers of God, and faithful servants of him who is our common Lord and Saviour: begin from this moment to discard the causes of that disunion which has existed among you, and remove the perplexities of controversy by embracing the principles of peace. For by such conduct you will at the same time be acting in a manner most pleasing to the supreme God, and you will confer an exceeding favor on me who am your fellow-servant." (bold and underscore mine) Eusebius, Life of Constantine, Book 3 Chap 12 Without Constantine seeing the political advantages that Christianity offered him in securing his authority and him giving the cult the backing of the Roman Empire, it seems to me very plausable that the hotly divided cult would have continued to fight each other and eventually been taken over when Islam came knocking on the door. Therefore: "Constantine, though only seeing political advantage and control, doesn't get enough credit for Christianity as we know it." It is likely that Constantine, seeing the degredation of the Empire, may have recognized that Christianity may have been the only way to save the empire. But otherwise, I'm afraid that I see little evidence that it would advantage him to make his conversion.

This is a point of respectful disagreement and will likely continue to be so. That's all well and good. You are quite right that the majority of what was taught by the apostles was not written down immediately. Much of what was taught was recounted at a later time. We can see this through each of the Gospels; in fact two of those Gospel accounts were written down by others based upon their hearing the accounts provided by one of the apostles (Mark was based on the sermons of Peter and Luke was based on the sermons of Paul). I respectfully do not concur in the characterization of the "winning side" versus the "losing side" as you, and others, have characterized the development of early Christianity. I prefer to characterize it as a struggle to maintain orthodoxy in the face of various threats to that orthodoxy. In truth, I see it as not being very much different than the threats that surface today through the various popular heresies of the past several hundred years (Including one that I fell into for about a decade). But, again, it depends upon which authors you read...although I have been to a couple of the sites in Asia Minor, I hardly consider myself to be expert enough in archaeology to be able to properly analyze the primary source info for myself. However, as with anything, YMMV :)

I thought of you when I read this and figured you'd enjoy it. Glad to see you back from the other side of the Pond!

I was be in the government for over 20 years (military) and I saw the full range of sexual harassment policies. I saw people walking absolutely on egg shells for a long time, but the last few years in, I saw a distinct change: more accusations were being turned away as unsubstantiated and the potential victims were being told that not everything that they might perceive as sexual harassment was...and that their accusations would not automatically be adjudicated in their favor, as had been done for several years (to the destruction of not a few careers). You see, when I came in, it was really and truly before the era of the revelation of the existence of 'sexual harassment.' Sexual harassment was not acknowledged, unless there was distinctly a provable case of a promotion being denied because some sweet young thing not putting out for her middle-aged fat, pervert of a boss. Then the awareness training started up and the pendulum started swinging. As a manager, I was advised that I should never be in an office with a female unless there was a third party witness or if the door was open and somebody listening on the other side (to protect myself from an accusation). After a couple of years of that, it started to swing back toward the middle. I honestly don't know where the pendulum is now, as I've been out for too many years to say with certainty anymore. The point is, yes, you are right, people should be sensitive to what others' feelings when they send a message. But the receiver bears a little responsibility too. The receiver should a) not take a criticism of a thing as criticism of the person, b) consider the source and the source's background a bit , and c) ensure that what the receiver heard/read was what the sender said/wrote (and if it's not perfectly clear, then provide feedback to get clarification). To say that the sender has all the responsibility is just plain wrong. The receiver also has a responsibility if we are to communicate. Gee, I was just thinking the same thing myself.

I don't know who the h3ll you think you are, but you have no right to ascribe motivation to anything I say. Excuse me? First of all, nobody here has insulted WG. (Unless you include saying that she overreacted is an insult) If you can please paste in a comment by a poster who did insult her, I'd appreciate it. 'Cause I sure didn't see one. Second, If Im sure you could get alittle money for the books on EBay or somewhere but wouldn't a burning ceremony be much more satisfying?, If people paid for the Velveeta Virgin sandwich (or whatever that processed insanity was...lol) there no doubt would be somebodies willing to pay for the cassette baggage. , and Can't we just donate directly to the college fund without defiling our houses with that stuff??? aren't cynical, I don't know what is. Any of those comments far exceeds in venom what has been posted on this thread. Again, please copy and paste these venomous criticisms of Watered Garden in a post and put it up here, because I sure didn't see any.

What about the feelings of those who are still wounded? Should they not be allowed their catharsis? After all, the same Psalmist that wrote, Come, let us sing joyfully to the LORD; cry out to the rock of our salvation. Let us greet him with a song of praise, joyfully sing out our psalms. For the LORD is the great God, the great king over all gods, Whose hand holds the depths of the earth; who owns the tops of the mountains. The sea and dry land belong to God, who made them, formed them by hand. Enter, let us bow down in worship; let us kneel before the LORD who made us. For this is our God, whose people we are, God's well-tended flock. wrote this: Why do you glory in evil, you scandalous liar? All day long you plot destruction; Your tongue is like a sharpened razor, you skillful deceiver. You love evil rather than good, lies rather than honest speech. Selah You love any word that destroys, you deceitful tongue. Now God will strike you down, leave you crushed forever, Pluck you from your tent, uproot you from the land of the living. Selah and this: If an enemy had reviled me, that I could bear; If my foe had viewed me with contempt, from that I could hide. But it was you, my other self, my comrade and friend, You, whose company I enjoyed, at whose side I walked in procession in the house of God. Let death take them by surprise; let them go down alive to Sheol, for evil is in their homes and hearts. It may just be me, but I figure if it's OK for the Psalmist to write about supposed friends and allies that did him wrong, it should be OK for folks here to pop out about how TWI did them wrong. Like others, if my defense of their right to express their feelings hurt Watered Garden's feelings, I do apologize for any collateral damage that my defense may have caused her.

The following does not express my views, but I thought it would be an interesting topic for discussion... Sunday Herald - 08 January 2006 Oh come all ye faithless A new series depicts religion as dangerous bunk. But is presenter Richard Dawkins just preaching to the converted? By Stephen Phelan WHEN it comes to the question of its own existence, humanity is roughly divided between three possible answers: “Creation.” “Evolution.” Or, “Don’t know.” In competing for the largest possible audience share, television networks now generally cater to viewers whose beliefs fall into each of those categories, while trying not to alienate any of them. Which makes programmes such as The Root Of All Evil? so rare as to seem almost revolutionary. This new two-part documentary, which begins on Channel 4 tomorrow, asserts that there is no safe or defensible middle ground between science and religion, its thesis being that even the moderate followers of Islam, Judaism and Christianity are deluded, defective and potentially dangerous. As writer and presenter of the films, subtitled The God Delusion and The Virus Of Faith, Professor Richard Dawkins agrees that “polemic” is the only word for them. “There are different ways of making a programme like this,” says Dawkins. “One would be to let each viewpoint speak for itself and be very even-handed, which is what the BBC has very often had to do. The other is this kind of single-minded argument, a perspective which makes no attempt to disguise itself.” As one of the world’s foremost evolutionary scientists , Dawkins has gained exceptional prominence as a professional atheist. Since publishing in 1976 his first neo- Darwinian textbook, The Selfish Gene – which traced the origin and proliferation of the species down to a tiny urgent signal on our DNA strand – he has been on public record as an enemy of God. Or, to put it another way, as an ambassador for rationality. He prefers the latter term. “I would,” he says, “really rather like to be thought of that way.” It is in this capacity that Dawkins travels to various theological flashpoints – including Lourdes, the American Bible Belt, the Holy Land’s al-Axa mosque and an English faith school called the Phoenix Institute – challenging a full range of beliefs and their advocates. And for an ambassador, he is not particularly diplomatic. The programme takes its cue from a statement Dawkins made immediately after September 11, 2001: “[Religion is] lethally dangerous nonsense. Let’s now stop being so damned respectful!” With this in mind, Dawkins confronts Pastor Ted Haggard of the New Life Church in Colorado by comparing the show business techniques of his evangelism to those used in the Nuremberg rally. London Hassidic community leader Rabbi Herschel Gluck is accused of propagating “miseducation”. Jerusalem is described as “the least enlightened place on Earth”; key articles of faith are dismissed as “Bronze Age myth”, “ancient scribblings” or just plain “barking mad”; and God himself is editorialised as “the most vindictive character in all fiction”. Dawkins is so unequivocal that he may come across as didactic even to those viewers who agree completely. “I don’t suppose I thought too much about the persona I present on television,” he says on reflection. “I mean, I am what I am. But I hope you can see I didn’t browbeat anyone I spoke to. I didn’t interrupt them in the way that certain political interviewers do. I let them speak their lines, and, you could say, gave them enough rope to hang themselves.” This is probably true. While Pastor Haggard, for example, may have a point when he counter-accuses Dawkins of “intellectual arrogance” on camera, he does himself no favours by later throwing the film crew out of his Christian-industrial mega-compound. “It was a curious business,” says Dawkins. “He didn’t really mind being compared to Josef Goebbels, but then he accused me of calling his children ‘animals’, which I can only assume was a reference to my advocating evolution.” In the programme’s most dramatic interview, an American-born Jew turned Gaza-based hard-line Muslim called Yousef al-Khattab (formerly Joseph Cohen) announces that he hates atheists as much as Zionists and Christians, and tells us with undisguised menace that we must clean up Western society, where “women are allowed to dress like whores”. “The odd thing,” says Dawkins, “is that before we started shooting, he was a perfectly nice guy, talking about ordinary things in a nice, smiling way.” When Dawkins was commissioned for The Root Of All Evil?, he was already writing a book on the same theme, titled The God Delusion. The programme is not a TV adaptation of the book, he insists, but “most of the script for my voice-over and pieces to camera are pretty much taken from it”. Producer Alan Clements will accept credit for the original “uneasy and timely idea” of making a documentary about the apparent “rise of faith and retreat of reason in modern society”. He stands by the finished product 100%. “I think these are important films,” says Clements, “and programmes like this need to be made and watched. But I can’t take credit for the philosophy of it and the way it’s expressed.” This is, then, for better or worse, a programme that lets Dawkins be Dawkins. His views, already well known, are expressed here with often electrifying clarity. He deconstructs such “fairy stories” as the assumption of the Virgin Mary with witty, angry and rigorous academic passion. But by his own admission, he has nothing particularly new to say, or to learn, about this subject. “I pretty much knew what I was going to find when I started making the films, which didn’t make it any more palatable or acceptable, of course.” Dawkins describes all religious faith as “a process of non-thinking”, although he seems to have been particularly fired up by the current fusion of free market forces, neo- conservatism and Christianity in the United States, which he equates with the Taliban in its insidiousness. “In Britian, religion is slowly dying the death it deserves. America is very different, a country in the grip of a lunatic religious mania.” What, though, does he actually hope to achieve with these programmes, in this country? He must know that audiences will respond according to the polarities of their own faith or lack of it. True believers will be affronted, while the typical, liberal Channel 4 viewer will have their non-belief validated. Dawkins expects “some pretty vocal complaints by the sort of people who tried to close down Jerry Springer: The Opera”. “And as far as atheists go, I am preaching to the choir. But I think a fairly substantial number of people haven’t really given it a lot of thought, and only vaguely think of themselves as Christian. This programme just might open some eyes to the fact that you don’t have to believe this stuff, that it’s OK to be an atheist. It’s a bit like being gay 30 years ago, when it was necessary to consciously come out of the closet. I’m hoping that I may sway people in that middle category, who might be shaken into thinking about it.” If this piece of work gets those kinds of results, it will be as much because of its tone as its content. Television, like the society from which it broadcasts, has found it expedient to display ever greater tolerance, indulgence and relativism in regard to lifestyle choices, particularly matters of faith. For this reason, Dawkins’s eminently reasonable argument may come across as almost radical in its forcefulness. “Yes it will,” he says. “Because you’re simply not allowed to attack someone’s religion. You can attack their politics or their football team, but not their faith. I think it’s very important that this should be seen as complete nonsense. Why shouldn’t people be required to defend their religion?” Dawkins refers not just to Islamist terrorists or the Catholic leaders whose dogma allows Aids to blaze through Africa, but to that majority of believers who consider themselves rational and progressive – if his documentary makes a single statement, it’s that “all religion represents a danger to our society and future”. “I think moderate religion makes the world safe for extremists, because children are trained from the cradle to think faith in itself is a good thing. So then when someone says it’s part of their faith to kill people, their actions need no further justification, and are almost respected as such.” There seems little point in debating the matter with Dawkins. He’s heard and said it all before, so often that this new programme seems as much a product of exasperation as anything else. If his only core belief is in evolution, isn’t he driven to despair, or even hate, by men like Yousef al-Khattab, who stand literally opposed to human progress? Dawkins answers by alluding to a classic Fawlty Towers scene. “Do you remember when Basil’s car broke down and he thrashed it with a tree branch? That’s what we do when we hate people who do what we think of as wicked things. Instead, we should think of them as Fawlty’s car. They have a faulty component. In this case, it’s faith, which makes them think that belief has nothing to do with evidence. And instead of hating that, we should be trying to cure it.” Part one of The Root Of All Evil is on Channel 4 tomorrow at 8pm Original Article. Website for the miniseriesEnjoy!

A nice fellowship, as long as it teaches solid doctrine and operates out of love is a great thing. The absolute best... I know in my parish there are about 30 "small group fellowships" that meet a couple of times a week for fellowship and study of some subject or another. Sometimes the studies will be the Mass readings for the upcoming Sunday. Sometimes straight Bible study on one subject or another. Sometimes just getting together for bowling. But it is nice to have a smaller group of likeminded folks to work with. Anyway, how would I run it? Lots of prayer and then some more on top of it. If I wasn't particularly driven to teach on a given subject, I would gain a consensus from other people in the fellowship on the topic to be studied (including one that might take several weeks to go through thoroughly) and then work along those lines. Make sure the chairs are comfortable, the lighting is good, and the coffee fresh. And then some more prayer.

I use Internet Explorer (with all due respect to the Firefox and Opera users out there)...I think the problem is with how some web pages are set up, not with the browser. If the text of the web page is set up as paragraphs, there is generally no problem. The text will wrap around. However, a lot of times, the web page is set up as a table with a defined width, in pixels. This allows the page designer to control exactly how the text is displayed, regardless of the size of the browser window. If the table is set up so that it is too wide, your text will be cut off on the right hand side, or you may miss complete columns. If you copy and paste the web page into your word processing program, the entire table will be pasted into the program...and it will retain the same, basic formatting. So that won't work. There are three things you can do at this juncture: 1. If you need only the text, you can do the following: When you are within the web page, type Ctrl-A (to select all the text) and Ctrl-C (to copy the text into your clipboard). Then go to your word processor and, instead of hitting Ctrl-V (or the 'paste' button), find the command that will allow you to paste the text as unformatted text. In MS-Word, that is Alt-E-S, which opens up a menu and then you select "unformatted text" and click the OK button. That will get the text over, by itself. 2. If you need the text and the formatting (including pictures, graphs, and so on), the easy thing to do is to the following: [File][Print Preview...] in order to check to see if the text will run off the right side. If it won't, then go ahead and print. If it will, then close the print preview window, and click [File][Page Setup...] and click the "Landscape" radio button. Then go back to [File][Print Preview...] and check again. Your text should no longer run off the right side. You can then click the [Print] button on the top of the preview page and print without incident. 3. If you need the text, formatting, and it must be in "Portrait" orientation, you will have to do as before, When you are within the web page, type Ctrl-A (to select all the text) and Ctrl-C (to copy the text into your clipboard). Then go to your word processor and type Ctrl-V (or the 'paste' button). You will then have to adjust the width of the table columns until all the content fits inside your page width. How you do that is dependent upon your word processor program. In general, you should be able to select the table that was pasted over and then play with the margins using the ruler at the top of the word processor window. Sorry I didn't see this last night, but hope it helps.

WW already dissected this post in another thread, but I wanted to highlight one point: I always cringe when I hear somebody say that. That little phrase was used to imprison so many of us. The implications of that phrase are that if you, after consideration of all the facts available, arrive at any conclusion other than the one who made the "get honest" statement, then you were either lying, in denial, or born of the seed of the serpent Therefore, if that phrase was used, it meant you automatically had to mentally assent to the speaker's position -- because we wouldn't want to be seen as a liar! The horrible thing is that I have found that this statement has been so inculcated into me that I may have used it from time to time. I've caught myself more times than I can mention and changed my wording...but it may have slipped through. If it did slip through and the comment was directed toward anybody reading this, please accept my apologies.

David/ White Dove: Thank you both so much for your kind responses. David, your comment Personally -- I think she was *lambasted* for thinking of coming here first, with something she wanted to get rid of. But then again -- that is my opinion. I think this is the bottom line: you must have interpreted the comments as slamming her. I interpreted them as using this object as another excuse to slam TWI, Wierwille, and PFAL and nothing personally directed at her. But as the saying goes, opinions are like...we all have them and they all ... White Dove, your comment Mark I agree with some of your points here, but even if WG overreacted wouldn't it have been much nicer if there was not anything to overreact to? I think that is the point David and others are making. In an ideal world, you'd be absolutely right. The point of me posting all of those extracts that I did earlier was to illustrate that "why sell it, why not burn it?" was a frequent comment. Anti-TWI comments made in conjunction with other threads were commonplace. The comments (especially at the beginning of the thread) were consistent with those made in other threads...going back as far as 2002 (the extent of the records available online). In an ideal world, we would all treat each other with perfect Christian charity and none of us would take advantage of that charity for our own gain. (However, it should be pointed out -- before somebody else has a chance to do so -- that all too often in TWI that charity was used by those in power to the detriment of the person displaying the charity) But we don't live in an ideal world and there are a lot of people who feel a need to vent. If not about TWI, about something else. I am certain that we both can relate to that, can't we, White Dove? Mark sorry if you thought I was yelling at you I wasn't, I thought you were having trouble seeing the small print. But you know what they say once the eyes go then the hearing is not far behind. Sure thing, White Dove...sure thing... ]

David, First, nobody was denigrating WG. Including me. If I denigrated WG, please quote me and show me where I did so. Please. Becuase maybe I'm just too blind to see what I said. Secondly, at least in the beginning of the thread, nobody at all denigrated WG. I think she over-reacted. I still think she over-reacted. Sorry, but I don't see it. So please cut and paste in the statement I made that denigrated WG. Please. Because all I can see is that I mentioned that I thought she radically over-reacted to some (imho compared to the crap people throw at some folks) very, very mild criticism of things TWI. And since that point in time, I've been getting slammed. Now I understand WW slamming me. It's not the first time and won't be the last. But otherwise...I am seriously confused as to where I have sinned. So please show me David, because I sure don't see what I did wrong. Or maybe I should just keep my comments down in the Doctrinal basement.

2 Peter: I believe it was written shortly before Peter's death in 67 AD. 1 and 2 Thessalonians were written when Paul was in Corinth, around 48-49 AD Galatians was written somewhere around 53-54 AD Romans was written somewhere around 56-57 (from Corinth) 1 Corinthians was written somewhere around 57 AD (from Ephesus) 2 Corinthians was written somewhere around 57 AD (from Macedonia) Ephesians, Philipeans, Colossians, and Philemon were written during Paul's captivity, around 61-63 AD 1 Timothy, Titus, and 2 Timothy were written from Macedonia 63-66 AD Well, if you think about it, none of the New Testament writings were organized into a Canon as of yet. They were simply letters from another apostle to a church. And he did stress their authority...(the plural was used, remember). However, you forget about the passage 2 Pet 3:15-16: 15 And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, 16 speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. So it's apparent that Peter was on speaking terms with Paul (otherwise why would he have written such a thing?) Totally different incidents. If you are talking about the incident in Galatians 2, you will note carefully that Peter was doing the right thing until James, et al influenced him (Gal 2:12). If I have the timeline correct, the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) was convened to deal with the issue conclusively (Acts 15). Peter made an unambiguous proclamation declaring the doctrine officially (Acts 15:7-11). Paul and Barnabas tell their tale (v 12). Then finally James declares that he will abide with the policy (13-21). Subject of Peter being the first Pope. That will completely derail the thread. Either PM me or start a new thread. (Matt 16:19)Subject of Catholic Church believing Paul went in different direction? Nope. In fact, yesterday in the Church was the Feast of the Conversion of Paul. It was celebrated at one of the five main churches in Rome: St. Paul Outside the Walls (the site of Paul's beheading on the Via Ostia) Paul and other apostles have a falling out? I don't think so. Look, one thing to keep in mind is that the Acts was written by Luke. Luke was Paul's historian. Therefore, of course, the book will feature Paul's activities, after his conversion. Each of the Twelve Apostles (+ Paul) had their own missions: Peter to Rome John to take care of Mary and then to Asia Minor/Ephesus/Rhodes following Mary's death James in Jerusalem Andrew: Greece/ Ukraine Bartholomew: Arabia Jude: Mesopotamia/Armenia/Iran Matthew: Media/Ethiopia Philip: Phyrgia Simon: Iran Thomas: India James (Zebedee): marytred Matthias: unknown Paul: Asia Minor/ Greece/ etc. -- ending up in Rome So it's not all that surprising that we heard nothing in scripture of what happened to many of them: as they disappeared from the civilized world (although there are local stories about the destiny of most of them, as they established Christian communities that all survived for at least a few hundred years. I understand your position. I enjoy Church history, so it's enjoyable to me and I have most of the resources needed to get the job done. The Bible, of course, is a primary resource. But a lot of the stuff is not in the Bible and must be gotten through other histories. But it is all interesting to put together a picture of what happened: and that picture does not line up well with what fundamentalists and folk like Wierwille taught about history. And it re-emphasizes my position on Scripture stated a few posts up.

Well, good for you Ricky!!!!! I am sure that a college fellowship would, by nature, be a lot more independent than a normal (family type) fellowship. I sincerely hope that it continues to be as much of a blessing for you in the future as you report right now. If you read my posts, you know that I don't even come close to agreeing with TWI doctrine anymore, but, hey, if it works for you, then more power to you. (I post a lot of controversial stuff in doctrine and would be happy to have your input on any of the subjects to which I've contributed btw) I'd hope you keep posting and encourage the other members of your fellowship to read and post, as well. Speaking from the perspective of somebody who has gone back to the Catholic Church, I have to hear no end of crap from people when matters of faith and my Church come up, but with that exception, even though I am the token representative of the whore of Babylon, we are all able to get on just fine. If you, and perhaps some of your folks, have a thick enough skin to endure taking crap off of people like me, you may be able to get some accurate, up-to-date information of what is going on now, at least in your fellowship. I, for one, would enjoy the interchange. Look forward to hearing from you!

For other threads dealing with this thing, please see: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...ndpost&p=153258 http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...ndpost&p=107823 http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...ndpost&p=152910 Best to you, Lisa.

((clearing the ringing from his ears)) Now, now, now...no need to shout...