markomalley

Sudo, Pat Robertson is an embarassment. ...it all comes down to two things: love God with the whole heart, mind, soul, with all that you are. And love your neighbor as yourself. It's my belief that God will show incredible mercy to all who truly obey those two commandments, whether Christian or not. It's also my belief that there will be a lot of people who call themselves Christians but pay only a passing regard to those two commandments will find themselves surprised... That statement made on a different thread seems somehow appropriate in this case. IMHO arrogance is ugly, it's especially ugly when seen in a person who identifies himself as a Christian. That arrogance is the antithesis of Christianity. on edit: to turn the html switch on

George, This is why I didn't want to get into this in the first place. For any 'evidence' I can supply, you can discount it. And I knew that before I started. If you'll re-read what I wrote, I clearly stated that I could not empircally prove the existence of God and that all I could do would be to identify verified effects, but that those would likely be discounted (And George, I know you're not interested, but this is for other readers: they could look at: http://www.shroudstory.com/ for a ready list of information on the shroud) And, by the way, for the record, each thing you've said about the shroud is, in fact, patently and provably incorrect. To reiterate (ad nauseum), I am not trying to convince you of anything. The bottom line, in my experience, as I have said before, is that a person is going to believe what he is going to believe and there is really little, without divine intervention, that another person is going to be able to do to change that fact. If a person chooses to believe in God, there are things that will help affirm that faith (I called them evidences of effect). If a person chooses to not believe in God, the same things will be interpreted differently to help affirm his skepticism. Nothing I can do about that. St. Thomas had to actually feel the holes in the resurrected Lord's hands before he'd believe. Had St. Thomas been a true skeptic, he would have said that this was the Lord's identical twin and that he drove nails through his own hands to produce an elaborate fraud. That's just the way it is. Rather than wasting any more of my time in making long posts that will not accomplish anything and wasting your time in reading those posts and responding, I'd rather just shake hands and move on.

Thanks. As to the many different spin-offs, there are many different rites within the Catholic Church. Not just the Latin Rite that is so familiar here in the west. Many of those rites have parishes in this country, just not nearly as many as are in the Latin Rite. And, you know, it really doesn't matter so much. Even though the worship services are different, they are considered "particular churches" within the Universal Church. There are many schismatic groups out there as well. Even though these groups are schismatic and adamantly refuse to be in union with the Universal Church, there is still one Universal Church. I personally view it as a case of the pride of man causing the schisms, but that's just my understanding of it. Blessed be God for His providence in preserving the degree of truth that is still passed on through these separated groups and my prayer is for them to again come back to be subjectively within the Universal Church at some point in time. As far is the other -isms, there has always been a bunch of -isms. Any of them contain some element of truth to them, some more than others, but in any case that I know of, there is 'something.' Again, my view of things. How do we know what is good, true, beautiful? Again, my view: there is one God who created the universe. My understanding is that God is supremely good and that He made His creation good. And when I look at something, I try to view things in that light. However, at the risk of being called pollyanish, I recognize that, as the result of the free will that God has allowed (how can there be love if not through free will), there has also been pride in the world since the beginning. And, in an ultimate sense, that pride, with its accompanying arrogance, despair, egoism and the actions/ behaviors that have resulted from all of the above, are the ultimate cause of that in creation which does not reflect the goodness of God. But, as others have said, your mileage may vary.

TWI is fundamentally built on an incorrect, false, and dangerous theology. It is like a snake. It can shed its skin, but underneath the dead skin, it's still a snake. IMHO

And I thought we were having a normal discussion, but I was getting reproved for being insensitive. I cited the three examples that I did earlier because they have been studied with scientific rigor. With both the shroud and the tilma, both have been subjected to intense scrutiny and the results are that the images on both cannot be explained with the technology that was available when the objects came into existence. Neither can be explained as the result of natural phenomena. I could go into detail and provide you with links documenting these analyses, but the fact remains that they are both simply effects and don't put God into a petrie dish for examination. The miraculous healings at Lourdes are another example of an effect. In the modern day and age, for a healing to be declared to be a 'miraculous healing,' there are very tight criteria that must be met. First, the person's medical condition preceding the healing must be completely and unambiguously documented. Then, the person's medical condition must be completely and unambiguously documented after the 'healing'. Then an exhaustive search is done to rule out any possibility of a medical treatment having an impact on the person's cure. Only after any possibility of a medical cure is ruled out and the fact that the person is healed of a condition positively verified is the cure declared a 'miracle.' There have been thousands of 'cures' reported, but only 67 of them met these stringent criteria. That's not to say that the others did or did not happen, many have never been investigated and others have had some defect in the case that would allow a skeptic to possibly dismiss them. Again, there have been independent studies done on these cases. Those cures officially identified have not been debunked. At a minimum, they have been attributed as 'unknown' or a 'statistical anomaly.' But again, the fact remains that they are effects of God and don't allow a scientist to put got into a test tube (as opposed to a petrie dish) for spectroscopic examination. On all of the above, I can provide you links and recommend books. None of them are "mary in a grilled cheese sandwich" -- they are extensively documented and rigorously studied. But since the best they can do is show 'effects' and aren't verified, tangible, reproduceable evidence, I would imagine that none of them would meet your criteria. There are many, many other cases out there that I am familiar with. Many are documented, but not as extensively as the above so I won't even bother to mention them. Apparations can be written off as mass hysteria, so why bother going there. A person's personal testimony of being healed or experiencing some sort of 'miracle' is likewise subject to scorn. If I read you correctly, you want to be able to reach out and touch God...to put Him on a scale and say that he weighs 513.21 kg and measures 2134.5 mm in length and resides at 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202 (the devil may reside there, but I highly doubt that God does ). I can't ever do that. God's characteristics don't lend themselves to measurement (spiritual, noncorporeal). I don't know of any religion more advanced than the primitive polytheistic religions, such as those from ancient Greece, ancient Egypt, and ancient Rome that would assign such limited scope to God. And if that's what you're looking for, I can't help you. When I approach something like what I listed above, I always approach it from a skeptical attitude. There are a lot of charlatans out there and a lot of crackpots out there. But I don't out-and-out deny them because I recognize that miracles have happened in the past and see no reason why they can't happen in the present. So maybe I'm gullible enough to be satisfied with the criteria listed for miraculous healings, above. And so on... You said, The kind of stuff that WayWorld promised but never delivered. Prayer that worked EVERY time (yes, holy wonderful, selfless, Godly kinda prayer would be fine) in a predictable manner. Is that the issue, George? You got burnt by TWI and the faulty theology they taught? (and I'm talking Mike-type doctrine, I'm not even talking about screwed-up practice, like your wife getting raped by Rev so and so or whatever) And then figured that the whole concept of religion, in of itself, is crap? If that's the case, I think I can understand, after a fashion. As to which religion is correct, well, I'm obviously biased. I've briefly looked at Hinduism, Taoism, and Buddhism when I was in college. Not studied them, per se, but examined them. They have several good tendencies, particularly the emphasis on the transcendent vice the temporal. I studied Islam when I lived in Turkey...I didn't convert and had no real interest in doing so, but I wanted to understand the religion. And the way the imam that I met with explained it to me, it had some compelling points, particularly the surrender of the WHOLE being to God. There were a lot of good cultural things I saw from it: for example, banks cannot charge interest on loans (interest being identified as usury). Rather they charge a flat fee for borrowing money. One thing he explained, though, was that there was no caliphate...therefore, there were as many interpretations of Islam as there were Imams. He equated that to Protestantism in Christianity...a thought I found sort of humorous. I've listened to Morman missionaries. Respectfully, too. Again, there are a lot of strengths to their beliefs and the application of those beliefs. But not my cup of tea. I used to have a Wiccan girlfriend years and years ago. She taught me a lot about Wicca...but again, not my cup of tea. I said elsewhere here that it all comes down to two things: love God with the whole heart, mind, soul, with all that you are. And love your neighbor as yourself. It's my belief that God will show incredible mercy to all who truly obey those two commandments, whether Christian or not. It's also my belief that there will be a lot of people who call themselves Christians but pay only a passing regard to those two commandments will find themselves surprised. That's not fear-mongering or some kind of a veiled threat; it's just an opinion. So where now, George? Are we at an impasse here?

Todd, I have done the neti neti exercises a long, long, long time ago when I was in college. They weren't called that, but the same format was done to prepare the mind to go into a transcendental state for meditation. It's a useful exercise. A similar exercise was taught as part of a progressive relaxation regimen. The basic mental skills one learns through these exercises is useful when a person wishes to deeply contemplate any given subject, be it the existence of God, the derivation of pi, or a particularly difficult problem. The ability to consciously shut out distractions allows one to concentrate particularly deeply on one specific subject and can help one develop incredible clarity in recognizing a solution set. Let me suggest another contemplative technique that you might enjoy. I have mentioned it on another thread a while ago, but am not sure that you read it. The technique is called Lectio Divina. It means literally "divine reading." It is a meditative reading of scripture that allows the reader to slowly enjoy the scripture and to allow God to speak to the reader through that slow, prayerful reading. Its origins can be traced back to the second century AD, but it gained popularity Saint Benedict, the founder of western monasticism (from around 500 AD). There are essentially four key activities to this: lectio (reading), where one reads slowly, deliberately, and prayerfully the text selected. Some schools of thought have the person read normally a whole section of scripture until one passage stands out -- that passage is the one selected for the 'lectio.' This deliberate reading is repeated several times until it is understood by the reader. meditatio (meditation), where the reader then ponders this scripture in his heart. Ruminate on it. Think about it. Allow it to interact with your thoughts. Personalize it. oratio (prayer), where the reader takes the product of that meditation and offers it up to God, asking God to inculcate that scripture into the reader's heart. contemplatio (contemplation), where the reader just sits in silence, in the glow of the presence of God, allowing God to work. Keep in mind that externally through the first three phases, all an observer would see is the person repeating the passage over and over again. There is no distinct shift from one phase to another in this process...it just happens. Anyway, fwiw, maybe you would get some enjoyment out of this technique. You can google lectio divina if you'd like or check out this link if you'd like. Try it a few times and let me know what you think.

LG, without a doubt everybody who is a participant in this board has at least attempted to have a relationship with God. But, LG, I also said, George, I don't care that you're a non-theist. And that, too, is simply a fact. I really would far prefer to live and let live. But look how the thread opened up again. Rather than simply stating his skepticism, within his opening post he said: Unless we concoct some bizarro world where love equals neglect or power equals impotence, which is what I saw entirely too much of with the Bible-thumper crowd. etc. Then, in a subsequent post, he is offended by a respnse where I affirm his disbelief by saying, If a person wants to be a skeptic, they're going to be one. It's not my place to change his/her mind. It is my place to pray for him or her, but if a person lacks the capacity to believe in God (ref the 1 Cor 2 quote i provided earlier), I can't fix that and no amount of evidence, logic, or persuasion can do so. It takes a miraculous intervention to happen. I'm not in charge of the miraculous intervention department. I'm also not in the position to second-guess the one who is. when he says, And just how do you know what I would or wouldn't believe, and what would convince me? And how do you know what it requires for anyone to believe in God? So I decided to take him up on his offer and tell me what it would take. Since George implied, by his last post, that I didn't know what it would take to convince him, I simply asked him to tell me. So what's the problem? On edit: corrected a grammatical error.

No George, not hardly. Look at it: I said, No evidence of an Almighty: George, that's an interesting one. Sure, I could list some evidence. You could witness the ascention of Christ with your own eyes and you'd be looking for the wires. In fact I daresay that you'd rip your eyes out before believing what they saw if you'd witness something for your own self. So why in heaven's name would I be so naive as to assume that you'd take the word of a fool (me) when, in all likelihood, you'd never believe your own eyewitness. JJ responded to me and said that in that statement, I wasn't being fair to you. I said to JJ, It isn't, but live, Biblical evidence can simply be refuted. If I provided personal evidence, it's only my word and can be readily discounted. I could speak to verifiable cases,...,but those will either be disregarded or rationalized away...their minds are closed...no matter how much evidence is out there. So why bother?...Maybe it's unfair to George and I certainly wouldn't want to offend him. But I also wouldn't want to waste either his time or mine in pursuing something that either a) if it would bear fruit, the pursuit wouldn't be necessary in the first place, or cannot bear fruit in the first place. And then you came back with your rant, which simply verified everything that I've said up to that point. To quote Shakespere, The lady (gentleman in this case) doth protest too much, methinks. So let me put the ball in your court here, George: What is the quality and quantity of evidence that you would accept in order to acknowledge that there might be a possibility of the existence of a supernatural entity that is spiritual (i.e., not consisting of matter) and non-corporeal (i.e., does not occupy a finite space) in nature? Keep in mind that this evidence would, by nature, have to be effects consequent to the existence of this entity, since, by the characteristics I have provided above (spiritual, non-corporeal), its existence itself would not be measurable. What types of citations are acceptable to you? Are peer-reviewed publications acceptable? Is direct testimony acceptable? Are statistical studies acceptable? Does the source of the citation, itself, have to meet a standard of pureness to be usable (i.e., if I have a citation from a thoroughly documented source, but that source has religious connections (e.g., a catholic university or the vatican, etc.), will you immediately disregard that source?) [*]If I have a reference that is off-line only, will you take the time to look at it (i.e., go to the library and do an interlibrary loan to get the book or journal)? Or must all my sources be available to you on the Internet? [*]If we agree to terms here and I am able to provide documentation that meets the criteria agreed to, are you going to give it an honest, objective look? George, you said: And just how do you know what I would or wouldn't believe, and what would convince me? And how do you know what it requires for anyone to believe in God? And if you're not in a position to "second guess" (read "try to make sense out of"), then how can you know anything? If you blindly accept the "right" religious tenets and reject the "wrong" ones, what do you use as a guide to determine which is which? OK, fine. You tell me what you would believe and not believe. Seems to me like there's no amount of evidence that will work for you, but if there is, tell me and I'll consider whether I can hit the target or not. I told you before, I don't really care whether you believe or not. Your business. If you want to have a calm, orderly discussion of what I believe and why I believe it to be valid, then I'll be happy to engage you, or anybody else, in that discussion. And I'm sure that would apply to just about anybody else around here who has moved beyond their TWI days and found what works for them. And if the result of that conversation is, George, I don't care that you're a non-theist. If you insist upon physical proof that is quantifiable, measurable, and repeatable--you want to be able to measure, analyze, and break down into component elements--that's your business. If you want to be some variety of theist, that's your business too. If you are questioning which one you'd like to be, maybe I can offer something. But don't expect for me to have much patience with utter, unsatisfiable skepticism after some of the mocking and derisiveness you've provided to those who have the misfortune of believing in something bigger than themselves, regardless of what that something might be...

Thank you for illustrating my point so well, George!

My avatar is a picture of St. Maximilian Kolbe. He voluntarily sacrificed himself while a prisoner in Auschwitz so that man with a family would be spared (providentially, the man he replaced actually survived his imprisonment): Early in 1938 the saint was already certain that war was imminent, and began to prepare his spiritual children for any possible fate, even martyrdom. "Would it not be the supreme honor if we could seal our Faith with our blood?...What a dream!" When the Germans invaded Poland in 1939, Saint Maximilian was ordered to cease his publishing. Niepokalanow then turned its attention to treating the war injured. Before long the Gestapo arrested Father Kolbe and imprisoned him at Amtitz. He was released, but only to be arrested again on February 17, 1941. This time he was sent to the dreaded Auschwitz, and there under an inhuman monster of a commandant named Fritch, he became known as Prisoner Number 16670, just one more of the thousands of human statistics living in the terror of that vast horror chamber. Maximilian Kolbe would have been hated enough by his Nazi keepers just for being a Pole. But he was a Catholic priest as well, and his tormentors reserved their finest cruelty for that class of prisoner. In spite of his obviously wretched health, he was assigned the hardest and dirtiest tasks in the camp. Dogs were set upon him supposedly to make him work faster, but actually more to torture the poor man. And should he stumble or fall in his cruel work, as he did many times, he would be beaten and kicked till he lost consciousness. And still, saint that he was, Father Kolbe not only endured this barbarity with heroic patience and courage, but he was the most loving and tender consoler to fellow inmates who suffered not nearly as much. The fact is that he was happy to receive the brutal beatings that put him in the infirmary, for there he could hear confessions in the dark of the night without being noticed. The roll call one July morning at Block Fourteen, where Saint Maximilian was being kept, revealed that a prisoner had escaped. Commandant Fritch's policy in such cases was to assemble all the prisoners from the block in the yard where they would stand at attention the whole day. If, by the end of the day, the escapee had not been recovered, ten others would be chosen at random to die in his place - death by starvation. By three o'clock the prisoner was still not found and Fritch selected his victims. One of them, Francis Gajowniczek, cried out, "My poor wife, my poor children! What will happen to my family!" At that moment another prisoner stepped up to the commandant with hat in hand. Fritch bellowed, "What does this Polish pig want?" The reply came: "I am a Catholic priest from Poland. I would like to take his place, because he has a wife and children." A Witness recalls, "From astonishment, the commandant appeared unable to speak. After a moment he gave a sign with the hand. He spoke but one word: 'Away!' Gajowniczek received the command to return to the row he had just left. In this manner Father Maximilian took the place of the condemned man." From the hour that Father Kolbe descended into the starvation bunker - dark, cold underground cells of torture where human beings were left naked without any food or water to shrivel up and die in unspeakable agony - from that hour a great change came over the horrible place. Its keepers testify that the wailing and cries of suffering that earlier reverberated off the bunker's walls were now converted into prayers and hymns. The change, in fact, was seen throughout the whole camp. Beatings were less frequent and less severe after the holy man's sacrifice. Even Fritch himself took no more hostage - victims to die in the place of escapees. "Never before," said the guards, "have we seen anything like this." When they made their morning rounds at the bunker to remove starvation - consumed corpses, they would find among the heaps of agonized, half-dead victims one who was always in prayer on his knees or standing, one who was always bright and fully conscious, one who was always peaceful and well kept. That one was Father Kolbe. "As if in ecstasy, his face was radiant. His body was spotless, and one could say that it radiated light," an attendant reports. "I will never forget the impression this made on me." After two weeks, the saintly priest was still alive and in this same beautiful state. The Germans needed the cell, however, and could wait no longer for him to die. On the morning of August 14, 1941, the director of the infirmary came with a syringe loaded with a lethal dose of carbolic acid. Upon entering the saint's cell, Maximilian cheerfully offered the executioner his arm for the injection, and with it the frail remnant of his life for God. The next day, on the Feast of Our Lady's Assumption, the body of Saint Maximilian Maria Kolbe was cremated, thus ironically fulfilling his dearest dream of immolating himself completely: "I would like to use myself completely up in the service of the Immaculata, and to disappear without leaving a trace, as the winds carry my ashes to the far corners of the world...." A decent account of his entire life can be found here: http://www.catholicism.org/maximilian-kolbe.html His life has always been a source of awe for me.

Well, it's a tough subject for a lot of people around here who have been hurt in one way or another by TWI and/or its minions. There have been knock-down drag outs on that very subject more than once around here. There are some who have been victims who believe that the challenge to forgive is a direct demand to turn about and embrace their abusers, making themselves again vulnerable to further abuse. They have a fully deserved defense mechanism built up in their lives so as to prevent being abused again in the future. There are others who are apologists for the abusers who use this defense mechanism as a mechanism to attack the victims for a lack of Christian charity. Unfortunately the high emotions and polarization make any discussion rather difficult. Myself, when I see the subjet rear its head, I've learned to pray for both the victims and the abusers: that the victims can someday find peace in their hearts to the point of being healed and that the abusers can someday feel contrition to the point of true repentance. I don't know if either wish will ever be made manifest, but I figure the prayers don't hurt even if I never see any results.

It isn't, but live, Biblical evidence can simply be refuted. If I provided personal evidence, it's only my word and can be readily discounted. I could speak to verifiable cases, like the 67 verified miraculous cures at Lourdes, or the apparently inexplicable images on the Shroud of Turin or Juan Diego's Tilda at Guadalupe, and so on...but those will either be disregarded or rationalized away. In the case of the 67 verified cures at Lourdes, all a person who wishes to disbelieve would need to do is simply call them, at best, a fraud or at least, a psychological phenomenon. In the case of the shroud or the tilda, they can simply call them forgeries...find a single source on the 'net that backs them up, and their minds are closed...no matter how much evidence is out there. So why bother? If a person wants to be a skeptic, they're going to be one. It's not my place to change his/her mind. It is my place to pray for him or her, but if a person lacks the capacity to believe in God (ref the 1 Cor 2 quote i provided earlier), I can't fix that and no amount of evidence, logic, or persuasion can do so. It takes a miraculous intervention to happen. I'm not in charge of the miraculous intervention department. I'm also not in the position to second-guess the one who is. Maybe it's unfair to George and I certainly wouldn't want to offend him. But I also wouldn't want to waste either his time or mine in pursuing something that either a) if it would bear fruit, the pursuit wouldn't be necessary in the first place, or B) cannot bear fruit in the first place. (I have a lot of experience dealing with skeptics/ atheists/ agnostics and maybe this has colored my judgement in the matter)

Promises of the Bible not coming to pass: no, not true. Promises of the Vicster's misinterpretation of the Bible not coming true: yup. Prayers going unanswered: no, not true. Vain, ego-centric prayers that are at total odds with the will of God going unanswered: sure, ya got a good point there. No evidence of an Almighty: George, that's an interesting one. Sure, I could list some evidence. You could witness the ascention of Christ with your own eyes and you'd be looking for the wires. In fact I daresay that you'd rip your eyes out before believing what they saw if you'd witness something for your own self. So why in heaven's name would I be so naive as to assume that you'd take the word of a fool (me) when, in all likelihood, you'd never believe your own eyewitness. As said by the Apostle Paul: Now the natural person does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it, because it is judged spiritually. George, I am not hardly trying to convince you of anything. I thought I'd just acknowledge your (unintentional) assistance.

George, You said, Like the miners' families in W. Virginia, I find religion to be the "good news" that simply isn't. And sooner or later the truth will come out. I'd just as soon know up front what's really going on. And, like JJ said in his last post, one usually recovers in about the same amount of time, with or without the holy, invisible shoulder to cry on... You have a very good point here. I would submit that people who use this type of rationale (answered prayers, etc.) as their rationale for believing in a god (note the small 'g' there) are looking for a spiritual shovel with which to help them dig, rather than worshiping the creator of the universe. A very utilitarian view. And one that will likely have a very frustrating outcome when (not 'if') their prayers are not answered to their satisfaction. I appreciate your help (unintentional, I realize)!

Thanks for the answer.

You ask for a definition, I give you a definition. Fill in the blank...an apparation of God, an apparation of Moses, an apparation of Paul, an apparation of the archangel Michael ...

A supernatural manifestation of an object to the eyes of the recipient. I ask because you cited several biblical accounts of apparations.

As always an interesting point Danny. What is more interesting is that the four usages of the word antichristos (opposition to Christ) is clearly a reference to those that deny the incarnation of Christ: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (1Jo4:3) -- For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. (2Jo7). You're more of an expert on this than I, but weren't these verses a refutiation of certain gnostic sects which believed that Jesus was merely a phantasm? Particularly curious since both the Apostle's Creed and the Creed of Constantinople-Nicea (written by the Church) contain affirmations of the incarnation... OK, OK...derail done...

Clay, Have you been the recipient of an apparation?

Since this is in the doctrinal forum, maybe it would be appropriate to look at this from a doctrinal point of view. In the Lord's prayer (as elsewhere), the Greek word rendered as forgive is apheimi. The meaning of apheimi is to let go, to send away, to release. It's most commonly rendered as "leave" in the New Testament. Anyway, any of us can do the word study on that word and so I won't bother here. The point is that when it's properly defined, we understand that the meaning is "send out trespasses away even as we send away those who trespass against us..." -- that changes A LOT! Just something to consider in this thread discussing forgiveness in the doctrinal forum...

When you're done, why don't you snap a photo of it so we can see your work! If you don't have any online storage available to you, I'm sure there are plenty of us who would be happy to put it online for you!

JJ, My communication skills are inadequate to express what I am writing in this particular post so forgive me in advance for not doing the subject adequate justice... To adequately do justice to the second article of the Great Commandment (love your neighbor), it is my humble opinion that you must be capable of doing the first (to Love God). To love God one must be first profoundly humble. This is a subject that was never adequately taught in TWI (in my experience) if it was even taught at all. To be able to sit in adoration of God, contemplating the absolute immenseness of Him, the profoundness of His love for us, and His attendence to us as individuals and collectively as a people just puts me in sheer awe when I consider it. As I said above, I wish that I could have the vocabulary and the communicative skills to adequately paint the picture for you, but I truly can't. I don't even think the words in the Gospel adequately communicate it. I am not sure that there are words to express it. Although it is supremely humbling, it is not humiliating (from the word humility)...it's just something that you <i>know</i>. (and, btw, a couple of months ago Sudo posted to me that he was absolutely shocked when he came to the realization that I was a practicing Catholic...he thought I was far to intelligent for all of that voodoo or some such...so I don't believe that it is a matter of a lack of intelligence or common sense that causes me to believe the way I do...) But when you end up having this "vision," this actual experience of loving God with all that you are, it is both profoundly humbling and profoundly exhillerating, because you recognize not only how much you can love God, you recognize how much He loves you. I cannot quantify it. I fully expect to be thoroughly scourged by Garth, George, et al for having the audacity of trying to explain this stupid experience (so, go for it guys...have fun). Without that (for lack of a better term) humility, one can't truly love his neighbor. Why? Because if you haven't fully inculcated into the depths of your being an appreciation of God and an understanding of exactly what He has done for you, you won't appreciate the dignity that He has given your neighbor as being another creation in His image. And without an appreciation for the dignity that your neighbor has just by being God's creation, regardless of what that neighbor has done or not done to earn that dignity, you can't truly love him. Again, imho.

Sure, of course. Draw it on paper. If you're using a computer projector, you can scan it and then project it. If you're using the old-fashioned method, you could get some photocopier acetate and run it through a photocopier and then shine it up on the wall with an overhead. Again, something that has been done before... (BTW, if you look at a computer projector, they are anywhere from $750US up. But I'd want at least SXGA resolution and that's $1250US+. On the other hand, an overhead projector is more like about $150US-$300US. Staples has one for $139US, but I'd get one that put out at least 3,000 lumens and that's like about $200US)

Thank you excathedra...

Well, of course you can picture the kind of reactions I've had when I crossed back over the Tiber River. I got in contact with an old twig coordinator with whom I was very close -- when he found out that I had "become" Catholic, there was never any contact again. My wife converted to Catholicism about 6 years ago. She was practically disinherited by her family (very staunch fundamentalists). It took them about 2 years to accept her decision -- and to this day there are frequent jabs at her. But it is not to be surprised. Most Protestant denominations have anti-Catholicism in the foundational documents that define their faiths: "... the Pope is the very Antichrist..." Martin Luther, Smalcald Articles Part II Article IV (one of the defining documents of the Lutheran denomination) "There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof, but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God." Westminster Confession, Chap 25 Article 6 (one of the defining documents of the Presbyterian denomination) "The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming." Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 26, Article 4 And there are similar sentiments in most other documents defining the various protestant denominations...to say nothing of whole ministries that have a full time job of bashing Catholics (Jack Chick, Bob Jones, etc) [commentary: if these ministries spent their energies trying to convert heathen rather than bashing Catholicism they'd actually be able to do some good...but that's another story altogether]. Anyway, the above is not intended to be a derail, but a statement trying to empathize with my in-laws. With all of the above influences, how could their reactions be otherwise? I'm just thankful that the love for their daughter overcame their hatred of the Church so that they have restored communion with her. Anyway, the take-away point: I sympathize completely with you...been there and done that in a couple of different fashions. If your friends love you, they'll come around. If they don't come around, they weren't your friends in the first place...