markomalley

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=1533542 Video clip of Bush hearing a question from a Turkish woman today at his 1/20/2006 q&a at Kansas State... Enjoy...

Belle, Just as a point of context... You said, Even, as someone else mentioned, the Catholic church has additional books in their Bible that mainstream Christianity doesn't have. Should those books be given equal weight as the other books in the Bible? Are they God-breathed also? What other books might there be out there that are also God-breathed, but not included in the Bible? In fact, the original compilation of the Bible had all of these so-called "additional" books. This compilation was based upon the Jewish Community up until at least 70 AD. As an example of this, the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT), which dates back to before Christ, has these texts. The texts are not only accepted by the Latin and Eastern Churches in communion with Rome, but are also accepted by the Orthodox and Copts, as well. From my understanding (and I do not claim to be an expert in Anglicanism), readings from these books are part of the Anglican lectionary. Luther rejected these books because they were not part of the Masoratic compilation of OT scriptures. They were, however, part of the Septuagint, as I said earlier. Here's the funny part of it all: the Septuagint dated from around the third century BC...the Masoratic canon wasn't compiled and available for modern use until around 300-500 AD (when the Talmud was finally compiled after the Roman diaspora in 70 AD). Yes, I know that there was a Masorah in the Temple from around 100BC; however neither this text nor any complete text prepared from it are available (at least to my knowledge). I am aware of the Dead Sea Scrolls...but, to my knowledge, they are incomplete fragments... There are other texts that Luther considered disposing of, as well: Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. Here's the point, though. Those books weren't added to the Canon of the Old Testament...they are not "additional books." They were taken away in the 16th century. In addition, they are not simply "Catholic" books, but they are accepted and used by ALL of the historic churches, not just the Latin Church. They are only rejected by the descendent groups that can be traced to the western European schism of the 16th century (commonly called the Protestant reformation). I know you're doing a lot of searching and so if you decide to settle on Christianity when you're done with your quest, you may wish to consider the above.

To: All StaffFrom: Justin Case, Director of Programming The 700 Club is religious broadcasting's premier newsmagazine. As such, it is our responsibility to provide our viewers with the timeliest commentary possible regarding current events. Live television is always risky, especially when ad-libbed editorializing is involved. (Please refer to the recent "Chavez" memo.) It is my hope that the use of this prepared script in a time of national crisis will help our founder organize his thoughts so as to prevent, or at least reduce, our program's quarterly public relations fiasco. 700 CLUB EMERGENCY SCRIPT TO BE USED IN A TIME OF NATIONAL CRISIS Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to a special edition of The 700 Club. Everyone's thoughts and prayers, of course, are on the havoc caused by today's— Please check one: natural disaster terror attack Supreme Court ruling stock market crash wardrobe malfunction —which, you will recall, I predicted in my book— Please check one:Bring it On Shout It From the Rooftops Courting Disaster The Ten Offenses The Life and Times of Danuta Rylko Soderman —where I stated: "This is what happens to a nation that turns its back on God and allows its future to be dictated by the radical agenda of— Please check one: the New World Order feminists homosexuals liberals Greasespot Cafe members —and unless we repent now, more disasters could be on the way, including a— Please check one: devastating hurricane season recession time of religious persecution Democrat in the White House another season of America's Funniest Home Videos —so I encourage you today to do your part and— Please check one: join The 700 Club write your Congressman take someone out stock up on cases of Pat's Age-Defying Diet Shake Adopted from the Wittenburg Door

Pond, You said, Comparisons between insurance now and insurance 30 years ago are irrelevant--the insurance world is completely different.Secondly, D&C, D&E, etc., have always been covered procedures...when medically indicated... In fact, I believe that you'd find that most 'voluntary'/ 'discretionary' procedures (such as boob jobs, nose jobs, facelifts, etc.) are not covered. Performance of a medical procedure simply to terminate a pregnancy (when there are no medical contraindications to the condition of pregnancy) is, I believe, the only 'voluntary'/ 'discretionary' procedure that is covered by most insurance. However, you will note that a point I explicitly made in my post opening this thread was: You've managed to sneak in the back-alley abortion and the coathanger into the argument when it doesn't belong. But as long as you did, please note the following: Note the dramatic drop between 1941 and 1960. This drop was not due to the legalization of abortion, it was due to the introduction of antibiotics. In fact, you'll note the vast majority of the decrease all happened long before 1973. Something to consider...

Abgigail, I never took it that way at all. I am just genuinely trying to find out an answer to that question...

Moderator: Please try to leave this thread in *Open* for a while before moving it. I am really trying to get some facts here, not start a heated debate...and more people read *Open* than *'Tacks.* If the thread turns too heated after a couple of days, I'll understand if it needs to be moved (after having some exposure here first). Thanks for your help First of all: I'm not trying to stir up anything here, just trying to find out an answer to a question. A couple of days ago, Abigail made a statement on a thread in 'tacks that said, I agree, minors having abortions without parental consent should be a no-no. But there does need to be an exception for emergency health situations. I gave her a response that said, Medical procedures for medical necessity have always been allowed. I know of NO cases prior to 1973 where a woman was denied a procedure that was medically necessary. If you can cite cases of a procedure that was deemed medically necessary being denied a woman (pre-1973), then please advise. Link to the thread in question. I haven't heard a response on this yet, but it got me to doing a little research on the subject, though, out of curiousity. From what I've been able to find (without actually going to a library and pulling a book), it appears that abortion was legal in all 50 states prior to Roe if it was medically necessary if the mother's life was endangered. In a plurality of states, it was legal if deemed necessary to preserve the health (mental, emotional, or physical) of the mother. Apparently, it was also legal in several states for any reason whatsoever (prior to a specified gestation period) (AK, HI, CA, CO, PR, DC, NY and I think a couple of others). The problem I'm running into here is one of hyperbole and lack of facts (and this applies to both sides of the debate, frankly). I know that there are a few of us who are going to college right now and have access to a lot of facts that aren't available for the rest of us (I'm not in school right now, so I don't have access to the online databases like I did when I was enrolled). I also know that there are some real sharp folks here who may have some information I don't have. So the question I have is sort of a re-iteration of one I asked Abigail, above: Does anybody know of any cases pre- Roe-v-Wade where a woman, for whom an abortion was medically necessary (i.e., one done not simply to remove a pregnancy), was denied that abortion? What I am not looking for: I am not interested in data where the woman was injured as the result of an illegal abortion. That is interesting, but not relevant to the question I have. I am not interested in data where the woman was forced into a life of poverty because she bore a child she wasn't economically prepared for the birth. Again, those are compelling stories, but are not relevant to the question I have. I am not interested in data where the woman suffered with mental anguish because she was forced to bear a child that was conceived as the result of rape or incest. Those are also compelling, but, again, are not relevant to the question I have. I am not interested in data where the woman was forced into a life of suffering because she was forced to bear a child who had Down's syndrome or some other birth defect. Those are heart-rending stories, but are not relevant to the question I have. etc. I am not trying to stir up yet another abortion debate. If I was trying to do so, I would have started this thread in the 'tacks section. I am just trying to find out some hard, verifiable facts in an issue that is filled with hyperbole on both sides. I do appreciate any data people can provide!

Excellent points!

OK, so let's all have a big group hug before descending back into the mosh pit :D

Raf, Since you are now the subject matter expert on this movie, a couple of questions: Can you possibly explain how in the world the movie got not one but four Golden Globes, three Critics Choice awards, and the Producers Guild Award? And one request for some speculation: Will you have any disbelief if it takes home any Oscars?

Yup: contra=against indicate=to point out, to state or express Normally used in medical parlance as a condition to make a medical course of treatment inadvisable. I'm sure you can transpose that meaning to theology.

From Rascal on the Cognitive Dissonence Thread: I don`t know.... it is like they promised to *fix* everything.... teach us EVERYTHING pertaining to life and Godliness... healing....whatever our issues were.... But somehow in the process ..... we became entirely dependant on them for everything....self worth....friends....a substitue family...a noble mission...aproval from friends...aproval from God.....understanding what he required of us.... They promised us answeres.... They promised us healing.... they won our trust....we dared to finally hope.......as a result....we stayed even when miserable...endured abuse, lived in untenable situations....in hopes of achieving the promised health/wellbeing.

Please provide this evidence (or at least a subset)... And I'm not referring to evidence to contraindicate the fundie interpretation of scripture...that is easily refuted...

Try living for a few years in a place so far out in the sticks that Macon is the big city and believing what I believe...lol... (Not comparing, just saying I sympathize)

r/w= real world (ref your comment: You don't have to get your car keyed or have angry religious people get in your face, and tell you that you are going to hell for not believing. Or worse. You try going around telling people that you don't believe in God, and see how far that gets you. )

Garth, Sorry you are undergoing persecution right now (particularly persecution in the R/W). I think any of the groups represented here on this board have undergone varying degrees of persecution through history. I think, if we're honest, every group has been responsible for it's share of persecuting (within it's scope of ability) as well. In light of that, maybe we all should take a breath and consider that fact and treat each other with a little more respect. After all, it isn't going to change your mind for people to tell you you're going to h3ll...it'll just get your back up. It doesn't please me when I'm accused of supporting the whore of Babylon. And I'm sure there are plenty of cult references when it comes to Maureen's religion. So maybe we ought to just articulatly state our positions on doctrine without bashing the other...if we disagree with somebody else's doctrinal position, so state using logic to the best of our ability and without calling the other person a heathen or a fool, and if it is apparent that consensus won't be reached after our positions have been articulated, then back off, shake hands, and pick the next topic to discuss...

Have a great visit, George!

And that is exactly the point: Scripture is supposed to help reveal Christ to us.

Belle, Here are a few passages to consider. The only thing I ask is that you consider these passages on their own merit and don't apply pre-existing private interpretation that was inculcated into all of us at one point in time: Luk 16:19 "There was a rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. Luk 16:20 And at his gate lay a poor man named Laz'arus, full of sores, Luk 16:21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table; moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. Luk 16:22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried; Luk 16:23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Laz'arus in his bosom. Luk 16:24 And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Laz'arus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.' Luk 23:42 And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." Luk 23:43 And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." 2Cr 5:8 We are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. (note: the word "be away" in the above verse is derived from the Greek word ekdemeo, which means "to go abroad, depart". "At home" in the above is derived from the Greek endemeo, which means to be among one's own people. Both words are derived from the word demos: "the people, the population, a group assembled in a place" -- note the interesting usage and the similarities between the two words discussed here) Phl 1:23 I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. Phl 1:24 But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. Hbr 12:1 Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, (btw, in each other use of the word 'martus', the usage is in the literal sense...there is no reason to believe that this one is a figurative use) Rev 6:9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne; Rev 6:10 they cried out with a loud voice, "O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth?" Rev 6:11 Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been. Rev 7:9 After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no man could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, Rev 7:10 and crying out with a loud voice, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb!" Rev 7:11 And all the angels stood round the throne and round the elders and the four living creatures, and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, Rev 7:12 saying, "Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might be to our God for ever and ever! Amen." Rev 7:13 Then one of the elders addressed me, saying, "Who are these, clothed in white robes, and whence have they come?" Rev 7:14 I said to him, "Sir, you know." And he said to me, "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Rev 7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night within his temple; and he who sits upon the throne will shelter them with his presence. Rev 7:16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; the sun shall not strike them, nor any scorching heat. Rev 7:17 For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd, and he will guide them to springs of living water; and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes." Just something to consider...

Or, there is a possible third way: and that is that the pneumatology you were taught in TWI was in error. BTW, this version of pneumatology is not unique to TWI. You may be taught something very similar if you attend a ecclesiastical group that subscribes to a similar pneumatology as TWI (and there are many of those out there). There have been a lot of threads recently that challenge us to completely re-examine fundamental concepts we've been taught throughout our experience in twi. This may well be one other thing that needs re-examination....

Actually, I don't concur with your statement. While I do agree that a person who accomplishes them need not be 'devil-spirit' possessed, a la TWI teaching. But to not look beyond...in other words, why are these works of the flesh...does a disservice and is short sighted, imo. Jn 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 1 Jo 3:8 He who commits sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. etc. And it also seems that one should not discount the reports in the Bible of a people who have come under the influence of demons to varying degrees. If one subscribes to the Bible, that is. My contention is not that a person will not be pushed in that direction by some spiritual influence. My contention is to list that as an immediate cause for each occasion. That simply turns a respect for the Bible into mere superstition and voodoo.

Is it? (Seriously) Do tell... 'Cause I don't recall where it says that, without exception, that it takes demon possession to do any of the above... But I'm more than willing to listen. I just recall TWI saying so...

One choice is missing: "I am not God. I am not omniscient. Therefore, I don't know."

I wonder how many other descendents of Kenyon (this Word-Faith theology is what TWI and this place have in common) have gotten in the trap of MOG worship and "spiritual enlightenment" as being an excuse given for violation of the natural law?

Amen

In which case, I pity you...