markomalley

Can't forget the cone's pic! (on edit, to correct the width of the pic)

Just something to think about before going out and buying your halloween candies this year...

Man found in women's outhouse told to get treatment There's not really too much that can be said about this case, is there?

The ultimate fast food.

David, First, let me emphatically state that I was not making a paid commerical announcement for the Catholic Church. I was merely describing my processs that I used...to reconcile within my own head how I could go back to pretty much ANY church...and that process was basically doing a check on my own beliefs. (Now here is the paid commercial announcement: once I was able to get beyond the JCNG and ADAN hurdles laid before my from my participation in TWI, which, if one is going to participate actively in almost any major denomination, one will have to do, then I found that I had absolutely no problems with any of the doctrines that make the Catholic church unique: apostolic succession, transubstantiation, the communion of saints, etc. But this goes beyond what I was originally trying to say in my first post on this thread) As with you, I don't have a problem with a group or a person "rocking the boat," either. Take, for example, Luther. What originally wound him up was the push for donations to construct St. Peter's Basillica in the Vatican. This got translated into the sale of indulgences. A horrible practice and a complete perversion of doctrine. He very rightly railed against it. Frankly, had he not done what he did, the reforms put into place by the Council of Trent would never have happened (one of the chief reforms being the supression of that evil practice). The way I see "traditional Christianity" flourishing was not because it was the biggest thing going, but rather the credit goes to the Holy Spirit. Early Christianity was hardly the biggest thing going. Christianity had everything going against it in the early years...from the "orthodox" religion (Judaism) in the area forcibly trying to suppress it to having the might of the Roman Empire trying actively to wipe it out in organized purges at various times until the Edict of Milan (which officially established a tolerance for it...not, as some believe, established it as the State religion). How many thousands of Christians voluntarily went to their deaths rather than renounce their beliefs? Yet, Christianity flourished. Look at it in comparison to TWI. How many people were put to death by the State for their beliefs? How many people were jailed? How many people were denied housing because of their beliefs? What organized, State-run persecution was there? Yet, can anybody realistically say that TWI has, in retrospect, flourished? Back in the mid-late '90s when I started to come to a realization that I need to come back to some form of organized fellowship (and I wasn't stuck on Catholicism either...the process was originally something that applied to trying to locate some Protestant group that I could live with) and put myself through the process that I described in my earlier post, that's the comparison I drew. As far as seeing the "other side of the boat," again, I didn't give the suggestion I made in order to recruit for the Catholic Church. I'll keep my parochialism restricted to the "doctrinal" forum. But it is a matter of trying to take an honest look at one's beliefs and taking an honest look at traditional Christianity's (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, etc., etc.) views on those subjects that completely separate TWI from "traditional"/ "orthodox" Christianity. So, for me, one side of the boat is staying with the TWI beliefs...been there, done that. The other side of the boat is to give an honest, fresh look at what Wierwille taught and maybe re-evaluating our positions on it.

A very good point, as usual Danny. Why don't you try this one on for size? How about Christian acts that represent the three theological virtues: Faith - Hope - Charity. Or how about Christian acts that teach their followers the four cardinal virtues: Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and Temperance? OR how about Christian acts that exemplify the seven spiritual works of mercy: To counsel the doubtful, to instruct the ignorant, to admonish the sinner, to comfort the sorrowful, to forgive all injuries, to bear wrongs patiently, and to pray for each other? Or maybe the seven corporal works of mercy: To feed the hungry, to give drink to the thirsty, to clothe the naked, to ransom the captive, to visit the sick, to harbor the harborless, and to bury the dead? Despite any doctrinal difference, for me, if I can see a group that lives the above, I will have very few problems with that group.

It took me almost 10 years after getting 'out' in order to feel comfortable in a traditional church at all. As long as I continued to subscribe to TWI teachings, I had big time trouble. I had a hard time not standing up in the middle of the church service and screaming "idolatry!!!!!!!" It was so offensive to me that I couldn't even stand to pray with people who weren't like I was...a former TWIt who was smarter than the mindless robots who stayed in...much less going to a worship service...after all, didn't these idiots in church realize that you worshipped God by SITing? How stupid could they be??? Hypocrites...pharisees... I read the words of Gameliel in Acts "5:38 And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; 39 but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it--lest you even be found to fight against God." I realized eventually that maybe traditional Christianity, which has flourished in 2,000 years, may have something to it. All groups who dissented from traditional Christianity eventually faded away. Some with help, some on their own. But I still didn't feel comfortable in a church. What I did, though, this time was that I did some of my own research on the subjects that truly separate TWI from traditional groups. But I did so, unlike when I was in TWI, not from the perspective of trying to prove these groups wrong...I did so through trying to see if their beliefs were justified...if they were scriptural. And I found that their beliefs could just as easily be justified, if not more easily justified, than the beliefs that we embraced in TWI. I might have one or two verses that needed to be studied and understood...not hardly the dozens and dozens of verses that had to be dealt with, in one case (Matt 28:19), with an obvious denial of scripture (I dare anybody to show me a critical greek text that doesn't have the trinitarian formula in that verse...even Lamsa, even TWI's aramaic interlinear, has those words written in it) The two subjects I had to deal with? JCNG and ADAN. I would suggest to anybody who longs to go to church but doesn't feel comfortable because of the doctrinal issues to look at it from the church's point of view. Is their belief system logical and systematic? Not to look if you can poke holes in it, because chances are, you can. But can they support their doctrine using a logical system (and that logical system may not be a system of ultradispensationalism, like TWI's system was built upon...but whatever the system, it should be consistent within itself). Can they, using a sensible methodology, base their doctrine on scripture? Or are they like Jehovah's Witnesses and depend upon their own (mis)translation of the Bible to back up their claims? Do they, for the most part, walk the walk as well as talk the talk? (There will be exceptions that can be found anyplace...any group of any size will have scumbags along with the good folks) And, finally, is the norm of people (who fully understand and practice the doctrine of their church in their daily life) within that church one that displays the grace of God and demonstrates the fruit of the spirit or is the norm one of condemnation/judgement, arrogance/insecurity, etc.? If you can find that, then you'll probably be able to find a group you can live with.

The charismatic renewal movement is not without controversy. 1967 was the date...a youth retreat as I recall was where it started. I'm more of a traditionalist rather than a charismatic, so I don't really have that much history on the subject, just a cursory knowledge. I know they have "charismatic" and "healing" prayer services all the time now, at least in my area. But if you really look at it, though, there has repeatedly been the movement of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Many of the well-known saints, such as Theresa of Avila, Therese of Liseux, Padre Pio, Francis of Assisi, Claire of Assisi, Benedict, and so on, have documented phenomena associated with them...including prolonged ecstasies, particularly in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, healings, miraculous knowledge, prophesies, even the stigmata. Different manifestations and gifts of the Holy Spirit. Just because Glossolalia wasn't reported in the histories doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Besides, one can look at 1 Cor 12:11 and see that these gifts are distributed by the Holy Spirit as He deems fit. The point being is that I would hardly consider the recent "Charismatic Movement" as the first movement since the first century. Evan, I'm not sure, though, what you mean by a difference in approach and beliefs between the Pentecostals and the Charismatics though. Could you please expound a bit?

I know there is quite the revival going on in the Church right now. Called (of course) the "Catholic Charismatic Renewal"...its pretty easy to find groups almost anywhere...

Anybody have any office pools on how high the count will go? Also, I am glad that Alpha appears, as of yet (knock on wood), to be heading out to sea.

Wordwolf's Evaluation of "when to leave" (mocking another poster, of course, but a classic in of itself!) From: The "Loy"-alty Letter.

The Creed of Nicea-Constantinople: I think that sums it up pretty well.

http://babelfish.altavista.com/ Computerized translation. May not be perfect, but should help get the message across if no other option.

Well, apparently some people take their regard for dogs to a "different" level :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: reference: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/21/D8DCCAI83.html Let me say it before anybody else has a chance: eeeewwwwwwwww!

It is a great oversimplification to determine a correct translation of a word by merely doing a histogram of its translations in the KJV, or any other translation, for that matter. In providing validation of the root of the word sOzO, I am not saying that "saved" or "secure" or "healthy" or whatever is or is not the accurate translation in any case. I haven't studied that in order to determine whether it is or not. And one use of the word may be accurate in one context and may be inaccurate in another. Having said that, I think a more interesting exercise would be to make sure the usage of the word is accurately translated or accurately applied in our particular dogmas or not. For example, "he was saved" means a different thing than "he is saved," which means a different thing than "he will be saved," which means something different than "he is being saved," which is markedly different than "he is saving himself." The point is that each of those usages would trace back to the word sOzO, but they all mean significantly different things.

Hey, WTH: Look up in Strong's Concordance: Word # 4982 (Hyperlink from Blue Letter Bible -- and, yes, I confirmed it in my hardcopy Strong's...) quote: from a primary sos (contraction for obsolete saoz, "safe") Have a good afternoon!

If you're concerned, wean yourself off of it for a month or so. Then come back... Regardless, I normally like reading your stuff. BTW, why did you take the "Mother Angelica" avatar off? I thought it was cute!!!

Honestly, I thought that it was a good concept at around the beginning of the year. As I remember there was some hostility going on here and an alternative was a good thing. Having said that, I used to try to look at LES forum on a somewhat regular basis, but, in time, it seemed like there were no posts. So I got out of the habit. If there was more activity over there, I might start going over there on a regular basis again. Nothing against that forum, but even the best designed forum can't live without users who post. So it depends... How much is it utilized? You, as the administrator, know how many people check the board out daily. I, as a user, don't have access to that kind of statistics. If people are regularly checking it out and then leaving because of no activity, then it may need to be marketed a little wider. If nobody is coming to it for days at a time, then I'd wonder.... How much work is it for you to maintain? How much money does the BBS software cost to maintain? How about the hosting service? Are you willing to expend the time and resources for something that has the potential that people may post? If it costs you only a negligible amount of time and money, then I'd suggest you keep it... And, don't take anything I say as being critical of your efforts. The site and the board are very well done. But, no matter how well designed, you can't FORCE people to post. And without a good, solid base of posters, then its not possible to maintain a viable base.

Quite so, Thomas. The reason I bring this up is that some branches of Protestantism and their practices are taken for the whole. Of course, that is not the case. For those who had no religious upbringing other than TWI, I believe that it is important to mention these things. I realize that rejection of sacramental baptism (to include baptism of children and infants) is very easy for those who may only hear a Catholic endorse the process (after all, we all know that the Pope is the antiChrist and any Catholic is a mind-numbed robot, right? ;) ), but when it is recognized that a good plurality of Protestant denominations also practice this, its not as easy to dismiss out of hand. Or so the theory goes, at least. B)

In addition to Catholics, the Orthodox practice it as well. Also Anglicans (Episcopals), Lutherans, Methodists, Nazarenes, Presbyterians (PCUSA and PCA, at least) allow infant baptism (there may be others, those are just the ones I am familiar with).

Baptism is not only done with infants, but it is done when a person, either through choice or through family, becomes a member of the Church. For example, in Acts 16: "13 On the sabbath we went outside the city gate along the river where we thought there would be a place of prayer. We sat and spoke with the women who had gathered there. 14 One of them, a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth, from the city of Thyatira, a worshiper of God, 5 listened, and the Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what Paul was saying. 15 After she and her household had been baptized," 30 Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31 And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved." 32 So they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to everyone in his house. 33 He took them in at that hour of the night and bathed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized at once. Its clear from these examples that whole families were baptized when the head of household converted. But what about when the head of household gets a new family member (e.g., the birth of an infant)? That subject really wasn't dealt with directly in the Bible. One clue we have comes from Colossians 2: 11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. 12 You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And even when you were dead (in) transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he brought you to life along with him, having forgiven us all our transgressions; You'll note that baptism is compared to circumcision, after a fashion. When was circumcision done to Jews? First, it was done to young infants (8 days old). Second, it was done to a person who converted to Judaism. It would be logical for baptism to parallel this process.

Evan, you'll find with Catholicism, being saved is more of a process than an event. In essence, we believe that when a person is buried with Christ in baptism and "quickened together" with Him, all guilt of sin is removed and the person becomes a "new creature" in Christ. We believe that, in baptism, a fundamental change of character happens...a true regeneration. However, as we have freedom of will, we can do as the prodigal son did and walk away, which is just what happens when we make a deliberate decision to sin. Fortunately, God is merciful and will forgive us to the uttermost, cleansing us from all unrighteousness, as we approach Him with contrite hearts and beg his forgiveness, which He bountifully doles out to any who ask. I know some Protestants fundamentally agree with the above and some will vehemently disagree, depending upon their denomination's dogma...but that's basically the fundamental view on salvation from a Catholic POV. Hope that gives the information you were (implying you were) looking for.

Well, they don't mean the same...but as you say, they are applied in twi as if they did mean the same thing. That's exactly the point. First, the error saying that if somebody spoke in tongues, they were born again [suppose somebody intentionally or subconciously 'faked it,' does that count?] Then, they affirm the consequent by drawing the conclusion you state! Sure, they may not have explicitly stated it, but we all remember what "believers" said if a "student" took the class and then didn't "manifest" at the end of session 12.

The "loyalty letter" was the straw for me...although there was a lot that was going on before then that significantly loaded the camel's back before that point.

FWIW (not meaning to interrupt here :) ), but I seem to recall him saying the only way you could prove you were born again was by speaking in tongues. disclaimer: just because I remember him saying something is no endorsement of what was said.