markomalley

I sort of like the concept of gun laws. I think that in this day and age it would be sort of nice for people to mandatorily carry guns. And not concealed either. I guarantee that society would become significantly more polite. But I do believe in gun control...you need to KNOW where that round is going. :D

Thank you very much!

Fair enough. I understand the point. Can you post a link of supported UBB tags and attributes then? The help page says there is supposed to be such a list available as a popup, but I don't see how to get access to it. I very much so appreciate it.

Are you planning to enable HTML tags at some point in the future? (if you know HTML, its sometimes easier just to write the tags rather than use the interface to insert UBB tags) BTW, I like the 'look and feel' of the new boards in general. Nice job!

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

Apparently the plot didn't work so well. Note the chart of wholesale gasoline futures pricing below: Note the spike for Rita was not nearly as high as for Katrina. And when it was apparent that Rita's bite was not going to be that bad, the prices started immediately going down. You can read the analysis of it here. Oh, and btw, I'm not trying to defend the oil companies. But the price spikes are just the way the market works. The real crime is that we've allowed over a quarter of the country's oil refining capability to be located in that immediate area. It is a HUGE vulnerability that needs to be fixed. If something happened there that knocked a sizable portion of that capability off-line, I'd hate to see the impact on the economy. I agree, but should assertions on this thread go unanswered?

Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God? I am personally an advocate of ropes courses, having taught both high ropes and low ropes for a few years during the 90s (as a part of teambuilding classes). My perception of LEAD was that it was just a glorified ropes course. But, after reading accounts of LEAD from some people like HCW and others tells me that any resemblence between LEAD and a properly-run high ropes course is purely coincidental. Safety is always the first rule with a ropes course...therefore the number of accidents is minimal. It seems that safety was, at best, an afterthought, for LEAD. That surely had to impact its effectiveness. Miracles? As I stated in earlier posts, arrogance impedes that from happening. This stuff about LEAD shows another example of the institutional arrogance displayed by TWI.

Linda, sorry to interrupt, but at this juncture, I believe all the officials in Texas, along with the citizens of SE Texas, need to be seriously and heartily patted on the back. While you're right that there are lessons to be learned for the next time, the job they did was almost textbook in its nature. Compared to the response of the local officials in Louisiana, its night and day. And, although Katrina probably provided some good motivation for people to react (which helped matters), the fact that there were actually preparations in place and the fact that the plans had been exercised and practiced for MONTHS and YEARS beforehand really was evident in Texas. If you compare the responses in Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama to the response in Louisiana, you can absolutely see the importance of local/state government preparations to a successful response and recovery effort. (Speaking non-politically here), I hope that the remainder of states and the remainder of us as individuals take the lessons from here and make sure our plans are adequate and in place, in case they are needed. As an example, I really question our local governments' ability to effectively evacuate the DC metro area if needed. The traffic jams leading out of Houston would pale in comparison to what would be seen on 95, 66, and 270 leading out of DC if the DC metro area ever had to be quickly evacuated. I hope our local governments are doing some serious re-looking at their plans. If that's politics, I'm sorry.

Rachel, Although there is a disagreement between Christian groups on when the new birth happens, I am not familiar with a group that advocates that belief. Can you share some substantiation for your beliefs? The accounts in Luke 1 and in Matthew 3 tend to contradict the assertion you've made, based strictly upon the phrase from Psalm 2 that you cited. Is there something else that backs up what you've said (other than where the Psalm was cited in Acts and in Hebrews, neither of which really provide amplification to substantiate your claim)? Thanks.

See, I'm at sort of an impasse. I've gotten to the point where I understand (with my head) the concepts involved. But its extremely complex and my understanding is not such that I am competent to explain it to somebody so that they'll be able to understand it. And the key to this understanding is an understanding of the spiritual side of the ancient liturgies (the Latin Mass, the eastern Divine Liturgies, etc.). And although I don't mind being freely identified as the token Catholic on this board (I know there are a few others, but I think I'm the only one who posts on Doctrinal), I don't want to be perceived as prostletyzing. And if I start to go into that, I'm very concerned that I will be perceived as prostletyzing. This IS, after all, not only not a Christian board, it is most definitely a non-Catholic board. Frankly, I'm sort of smarting still from some of the vicious, hurtful posts put on gsc after the death of JPII. I am not sure that I want to open myself up to being the recipient of more of those type of posts. If I start explaining the spiritual/theological meaning behind the Eucharist, I am frankly concerned that I will have to wade through that stuff (again). Its not that I mind going into an ontological explanation of the theology behind this, its just that I don't know that I want to deal with the (likely) scathing Jack Chick-type pushback that I'll likely receive. (Legit questions/objections/concerns are fine, no problem, but maliciousness is another story altogether) So I'm treading very carefully at this juncture. Let it suffice for right now that my understanding that I'm gaining show a direct connection between the contents of Col 1:24 and other verses about Christian persecution, suffering, etc. and the metaphysical reality of the mystical Body of Christ, as described in 1 Cor 12 and so on.

Yeah, I'm still here. :D

P-Mosh, Glad you evacuated safely. You are so right about what you said...its obviously a plot to increase the profits of the oil companies. And this site has incontrovertable scientific evidence that George W. Bush caused the hurricane to happen and personally directed it to go on its exact course, just like he did with Katrina. Although it doesn't say the reason why he did so, its pretty obvious when you think about it...what company is Cheney associated with? I'm glad you can see the truth, even if nobody else can.

sufferings: pathema 1) that which one suffers or has suffered a) externally, a suffering, misfortune, calamity, evil, affliction 1) of the sufferings of Christ 2) also the afflictions which Christians must undergo in behalf of the same cause which Christ patiently endured b) of an inward state, an affliction, passion 2) an enduring, undergoing, suffering affliction: thlipsis 1) a pressing, pressing together, pressure 2) metaph. oppression, affliction, tribulation, distress, straits lacking: husterema 1) deficiency, that which is lacking 2) in reference to property and resources, poverty, want, destitution CM, you have a point. But based upon those definitions, it appears to include both what you're talking about and physical pain (imo).

CM, Thanks for your words. I said at the beginning of this thing: I should have been more clear...the opportunity to make some spiritual good out of something that, frankly, sucks. As I've been emphasizing throughout, that one verse in Colossians (1:24), really is key to the process. The other key is the relationship to the Body of Christ. Making those two "fit" in my mind is the trick. Look through the verses I've cited above...and there are more verses talking relating our suffering to Christ that I haven't cited. The relationship is interesting, to say the least.

Irish, His post on the bottom of page 2 was what inspired me to post what I'd worked. The crux is: what's up with Col 1:24? (see my first post) See, Howard accurately (imho) identified the cause of the suffering...no arguments. But why are Christians subject to it? As has been pointed out by many...there are some who are afflicted and some who aren't. Degrees of holiness have little or no correlation (so you can't use the cop-out that a person is "out of fellowship")... Sure, it made Howard tougher. He has drawn strength from his affliction. Many people grow closer to God through affliction and persecution. I am very happy for him for this (really am). But one thing that he hasn't gone into is contained in the scriptures I quoted above: "if we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation" "always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus" "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions." Do you see the relationship between the persecution/affliction of Jesus and the affliction that we experience now? That part was not covered by Howard (HCW). The real question is that I'm wondering about the connection between the affliction in the body, persecutions, etc., that we see and the reality of the mystical body of Christ? (Thus posting the example from Revelation) Is that the explanation for Col 1:24? Does that make the "Body of Christ" a much, much deeper concept than what we were taught? Is it more than a metaphor to explain inter-dependence in friendship?

Rachel, Thanks for what you're saying, but its slightly off the point. Hebrews 12:4-11 does say what you claim, but it is in light of children receiving discipline, thus implying that the child did something deserving of the chastisement. However, that does not mesh with the Colossians quote that I was referring to above. It also does not account for why a saintly person, meek and holy, who has no need of chastisement, still sometimes is suffering. St. Therese of Liseaux is a classic example of this: if you ever read her writings and accounts of people who knew her, a more holy person could not really be imagined. Her nickname, the Little Flower, was well deserved. Yet she suffered from tuberculosis for years before she died of that horrible, wasting disease. I can guarantee that she was in NO need of any kind of chastisement...and likewise I am sure that many of us have met wonderful, holy protestant people who have undergone similar afflictions, without any kind of perceptable reason. Even so, we still have to look at Colossians 1:24 and its implications.

I have been working the subject of human suffering in the Bible recently. The motivation behind this is that my wife is going through a lot right now. How to make something good out of something that, frankly, sucks. Anyway, the background on this is that I have examined the lives of a lot of Christian saints throughout history, and in many examples, there are those who have borne great suffering in their lives and some who have voluntarily sacrificed their lives. Of course, we all have encountered some sort of persecution for our faith. In an effort to keep this to a reasonable length, I'm not going to repeat a bunch of scripture that we already are well familiar with (Job, the foretelling of Christ's sufferings in Isiah, the Passion, etc.) -- but there are a few verses that I find are very revealing on the subject. The following show that suffering is going to happen: I find it interesting that Paul cited the sufferings of Christ are also in us...and that he stated that we are carrying about the body the dying of Jesus (we all know what He went through in his death). This quote from Peter is also very revealing: But the following verse absolutely blew me away: Note the last phrase: filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions. Now I thought that nothing was lacking in His afflictions. When I look at that verse through my old Protestant eyes, that makes no sense. Looking at it through Catholic eyes, it makes a little more sense (Protestant theologies have different ontological bases than Catholic theology, imho...Catholic theology is more transcendent, but again, imho). But, still, how could anything He did be lacking and require filling, as is stated in the above verse (and, yes, the word lacking is an accurate translation)? Its sort of tough to accept. So what about the view of us (collectively) as the Body of Christ? Consider this verse: A lamb (remember "behold the Lamb of God") standing (if it's standing, that implies that it is alive), as if slain (sort of a paradox there, isn't it?) Does that mean that He is alive but still wounded? (think about Isiah) Does the Bible really mean that we are the Body of Christ when it says so? What's the implication with our suffering (be it mental, emotional, physical)? (Yes, this line of thinking requires some metaphysics, I'll admit) Just some stuff I've been working through...I'd enjoy any comments, mockery, criticism, or whatever...

Howard, VP did not invent anti-Catholicism. He was not the first and won't be the last. He's not hardly the only person who is anti-Catholic around and was not hardly the only person to teach anti-Catholicism. And anti-Catholicism will continue until the end of time. I don't try to take anti-Catholic comments as a personal slap. Fortunately some people see the light. As I have pointed out on GSC before, Ralph Woodrow, the author of Babylon Mystery Religion (which was the source document that TWI used to substantiate their positions), withdrew that book from publication because of its errors. Bishop Fulton J. Sheen one time made a statement that few people in America hate the Catholic religion, but there are many who hate what they mistakenly believe is the Catholic religion—and that if what they hate really were the Catholic religion, Catholics would hate it too. Thanks for your words. I'll tell you that I had such a hard time with that issue (the Trinity), that its not funny. See, I studied JCNG HARD when I was "in." I needed to be able to defend my position against those evil Trinitarians that wanted to talk me out of "the truth." (I wish there was a "barf" emoticon on this board LOL) And so I committed all of those verses to memory and much of the rest of that book. When I (voluntarily) left TWI, I believed all of the doctrine that I was taught...I just thought that something that "the Doctor" started off good was ruined by the evil "Craig." And that maybe some day the "ministry" would get back to "normal." So I kept studying on my own. But that didn't happen, did it? After trying some offshoot groups in the early 90s, I came to the realization that it just wasn't going to come back to where it was going to be something good. So, every once in a while, I'd start checking out churches. All well and good until the subject of the Trinity came up in a "message" or is a discussion. See, I KNEW the Bible on that subject. I KNEW that the Trinity was Idolatry. So I'd feel my blood boil when I heard the Trinity mentioned as if it was a fact. And eventually I realized that I would just have to go it alone. I wasn't going to get back into TWI, because I saw what they were going through...I wasn't going to deal with offshoots...I'd tried a couple and they just didn't work for me. And I couldn't bring myself to compromise on my beliefs that I KNEW were true. So Trinitarian churches were out, as well. And that worked for a couple of years. Until I started to experience what God meant when he referred to Christians collectively as the Body of Christ. I was recognizing in my life the deficits of not regarding the parts about where we're supposed to support each other and build each other up in love. And saw it even more in my wife and my daughter. So I needed to overcome that bit about the Trinity, because I couldn't go someplace where my blood would boil every time I went there. And I finally re-examined the subject, but looked at it from THEIR point of view. Could THEY back up THEIR arguments. And I found that they could. And rather easily. So I mellowed on the subject: they're not INTENTIONALLY being idolatrous; maybe they just didn't have all the light that Vic did. I went back and looked at JCNG (hadn't cracked the book in years). And I re-examined it from the other perspective (when I "worked" it while in TWI, I did so from a positive perspective. I WANTED to believe it). I wanted to see if I could debunk it now. And that's when I recognized the dishonest mental gymnastics he used. You know the first hole? Matthew 28:19. Remember him saying that it MUST have been a forgery? Prove it. You can't. Even The Aramaic Interlinear produced by TWI (literally the ONLY book of theirs that I still keep on my bookshelf) has that verse. And I had to get honest with myself and realize that I had practiced and believed a lie. Once the JCNG stuff fell apart, the doors opened as far as what church I could select then. I believe that anybody who humbles himself before God and asks for His Divine Mercy will receive it. However, I do believe there is an unforgivable sin: unrepentent pride (either in a positive light or negative light). Pride, on the "positive" side, manifests itself as arrogance: "I don't need God." Pride, on the "negative" side, manifests itself as utter despair: "I am too bad for God to save." You remember that verse in I John: If we confess our sins, God is faithful to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness? (I think its 1:9) -- well, if you're arrogant, you don't believe that you need to confess any wrong and so won't. If you, on the other hand, are in "utter despair," you'll feel that God's Word doesn't say that God will forgive to the uttermost, and that confession is a waste of time: he won't forgive you anyway, so you may as well continue as you were (you're going to hell anyway). Remember the "prodigal son?" What if he had just stayed in that pig stye in the distant country? That's a completely different thread. :)--> Hopefully bedtime stories included Bible stories from the beginning.I think that's how we ALL are in terms of determining who Jesus is and who God is. At this point all I really know is that I'm REALLY trying to get this thing right God, REALLY I AM!

While I agree in principle that there can be an ethical point made about "charging for the Word," I can actually see it from the other point of view. I am, in fact, taking a class this week (for my work). My company had to pay a lot of money for my seat in that class. Frankly, this is NOT a "good week" for me to be away from work. Sorry, but its just not. Well, I worked around it...and the only reason is that my company would be out a little over $2K if I couldn't and ended up not showing for the class. I'm having to put in a lot of extra work (did a few hours of work after I got home from class) because my work hours were filled with going to a class. Its not that I'm not motivated to go to the class. I am. But I would have rescheduled for a "better time" had it not been for the loss of the class fee. Religious colleges, both Protestant and Catholic, include a tuition for their students, even those taking courses via distance learning and correspondence. Taking a single class at CUA costs over $1K. A single class at Catholic Distance University (CDU) costs $795. And both of those include continuing education classes. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for a second trying to compare Piffle with what is taught at CUA or CDU (or respected Protestant institutions), but the fact that there is a class fee for piffle is not, in of itself, outrageous. In fact, its one of the most reasonable parts of it. Now if you'd like to talk about the quality of the material in the class...if you'd like to talk about the value for the money, then we'd have a different subject completely. Maybe they should have paid the students? :D-->

Howard, Agreed almost completely. In my 16 years post TWI, I've found the most aggregious transgression of TWI is an over-emphasis on the person and power of the "manifestations" that are supposed to be at the beck-and-call of the individual. The position is fundamentally wrong and sets the individual believer up to become to have an ego-centric life rather than a Christ-centric life. And as a result, they were making man God, and thus institutionalizing the worst form of idolatry. Biblical accuracy is not, in of itself, a bad thing. But TWI developed it with an arrogance that put its so-called Biblical scholars above God. The ego ruled (rules?) in TWI. They epitomized the expression "knowledge puffeth up." And that's the beauty of the sacraments. God provided very simple physical mechanisms to distribute His grace to His people. Very complex spirtual topics with deep theological background. Scritural buildup from the Old Testament era through the New Testament and continuing for 2,000 years hence. Take, for example, baptism (which has been discussed in this thread). A person doesn't need to study the scriptures and Church history for years in order to be baptized. He doesn't need to understand the figures provided in the Old Testament and through Jewish practice, from the flood, to the passing through the Red Sea, to the ritual washing of the dead. He doesn't need to understand the complex theological figures stated by St. Paul in Romans. He doesn't need to be an expert in Tertullian. He simply needs to believe that as the water is poured over his head or as he is dipped, that God washes the inside as the water "washes" the outside. And it works whether you have 15 minutes of instruction or study the subject for a decade. Similar arguments hold true for the other 6 sacraments that God instituted to transmit His grace to us. All of them are tremendous gifts (my word, not a Biblical one) to mankind, as they boil down the tremendous mystery of God's relationship to us and His saving grace to very simple actions for us to take. I agree that one can do that while ignorant of trinitarian sacraments. Having said that, is intentional rejection of the truth still ignorance? I say this not as a slap in your direction, but rather a legitimate question. I've had people say to me "your arguments are logical, I can see it in the Bible, but no, thanks." Are people like that still "ignorant"? I can't give an answer to that one. Is it like what Danny said above, where he said "I can't claim ignorance anymore," or like has been said, "they haven't heard enough to believe"? I just don't know.

OK, here are some examples of miracles in modern times. . Also see Lourdes, A Medical Perspective Padre Pio of Pietrelcina Did any of the things happen at Lourdes, with Brother Andre, or with Padre Pio? I can't say from personal experience...the only one of the three places I've been was to San Giovanni Rotondo... All I do know is that the Catholic Church is exceedingly careful in acknowledging something as a miracle. The reason for this is that there have been some questionable miracles declared during the middle ages. They do a thorough investigation of any purported miracle now and if there is any possibility of explanation of a natural cause for the phenomenon, it is automatically ruled out as being declared an acknowledged miracle. Thousands upon thousands of people have reported cures from Lourdes. Out of that quantity, only 66 have been officially acknowledged. One thing else...to the best of my recollection, any of these "miracle workers" were extremely humble people who rejected ANY credit for what God was able to do through them. For example, Brother Andre was repeatedly queried by the hierarchy of his religious order...each and every time he denied all credit, attributing any of the cures to the intercession of St. Joseph to God. Padre Pio, after receiving the stigmata, asked God to take it away, not because of the pain involved, but because he did not want to be the center of attention. St. Bernadette (Lourdes) lived the balance of her life in seclusion in a convent after the apparations at Lourdes. As did Lucia dos Santos, of Fatima fame. Quite a contrast between their activities and some charlatans like Benny Hinn, Robert Tipton, and Victor Wierwille. One other thing: this is not a Catholic thing or a Protestant thing. I am not for a second saying that miracles only happen within the Catholic Church. I just relate those because that is what I am familiar with. I am confident that genuine miracles also happen within the Protestant denominations as well. As to differences between signs, miracles, and wonders. Its been a long time since I've done a word study on those words, but a quick look at Strong's (via the Blue Letter Bible) shows that there's not really much difference in the meaning of the words. (One of the words in the two verses where all three are used together means power, and the other two mean miracle, wonder, sign, etc.) Perhaps somebody more familiar with the expressions could field that part of your question.

That is an interesting question, as always, Danny. Could a Catholic administer a valid baptism to a neo Marcionite? Yes, absolutely. Could a Catholic administer a licit baptism to a neo-Marcionite? Not as long as the person continues to remain a neo-Marcionite. Would a Catholic administer baptism to a neo-Marcionite? Doubtful. Part of the baptism rite is an acceptance of the Apostle's Creed by the adult to be baptized (preceeded by instruction so that the person understands what he's being asked). Could a Marcionite, with the belief in the creator God and the Good God, be able to, in clear conscience, be able to affirm the Apostle's Creed? A valid baptism simply requires the person to be baptized to be baptized using the Trinitarian formula. If Marcionites baptized using the Trinitarian formula, then they are valid. Re-baptism cannot occur, because of what baptism does:- It washes away all vestiges of sin, including Original Sin - It imparts an indelible character on the person being baptized. Anabaptists (those who re-baptize) deny that baptism imparts that indelible character. That's the reason why, if a valid baptism (whether licit or not) was administered, there would be no reason to rebaptize. In your case, if you've been validly baptized in the past, there is no need to be baptized again. Now I'm not sure about the practices of any Protestant denomination in regard to baptism, but I would think that it is implicit that you'd want to join that church with any of them. But the real question I'd ask is this: if you are a Marcionite, why would you want to be baptized in a non-Marcionite church? I can't imagine that any church would just baptize a person at random, no matter what their beliefs are regarding baptism. If you're baptized in a non-Marcionite church while retaining Marcionite beliefs, then you'd go from being an unbeliever to being an apostate. As Peter wrote, "For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down to them." Not that ignorance is a good thing, but I'd think that ignorance was better than apostasy (IMHO). You're most welcome, as always.

Any possibilities of it turning north at some time?

I don't know...I hear of miracles happening on a regular basis. Not literally constantly, but its not like they've disappeared off the face of the earth. Maybe you could be more specific in what you're talking about here? Are you referring to spectacular phenomenal miracles (a la the tongues of fire over the apostles)? or something else?

From somebody who lived two years in Frankfurt, I am not that fond of Frankfurt, but there is a HUGE amount that is nice near there. Really, the only "fun" part of Frankfurt that I saw in my time of living there was Sachsenhausen, south of the Main river. Otherwise, imho, its just another modern city. Wiesbaden is a nice city, as is Mainz. The Taunus Mountains are gorgeous. Koenigstein is a pretty little medievel town. Frankfurt is within a very short travel to the vineyards of the Rhein and the Mosel rivers. The best (imho, again) part of Frankfurt is that it is a HUGE transportation hub. You can get almost anywhere in Europe from Frankfurt...and that is VERY convenient. Having said this, if you're a single, young soldier, then I understand that the Kaiserstrasse district may have some sights worth seeing, but that likely doesn't apply to most of us ;)-->