markomalley

This is so ironic as to be nauseating. He has the audacity to make that statement????!!!!???? He, who is a specialist at brainwashing people to not think for themselves? He, who micromanaged an entire ministry to its destruction with minute-by-minute schedules and penny-by-penny financial statements for its followers? How dare he talk about "thinking"? Again, who the h3ll does he think he is making that kind of statement???? He sure could talk the talk, but we all know how well he walked the walk. What hypocricy!!! One of the most arrogant, closed-minded, ignorant people in our time has the unmitigated b*lls to make that kind of a statement to his followers? The man who antethesized humility and meekness? Talk about chutzpah! Again, who in the h3ll did he think he was? Seeing this kind of garbage makes me SOOOOOOOOO glad that I got out before all of that junk got started, you wouldn't believe! I am so disgusted even reading that crap, I can't even imagine my physical revulsion if I had to sit through it.

I can understand the problems with spam, but I don't understand all of this emphasis on tomatoes? What about the classic "pizza bianca", huh? (pizza dough, olive oil, garlic, rosemary, and cheese) That was my favorite in Italy. But if you feel like you must do tomatoes, don't forget about the classic toppings: eggplant, artichoke, and arrugula (done singularly, not all on the same pizza) That's some good eating for ya.

Dan, The Pauline epistles consistently warn against all sorts of immorality. The specific injunction against sodomy is mentioned not only in Romans 1, but in 1 Cor 6 and Gal 5, as well. Immorality in any form is dealt with in these same sections, as well as well in other sections. There is a similar injunction against incest in 1 Cor 5, as well. Think of all those poor people who have been persecuted for incest over the centuries as a result of that section of scripture, as well. Perhaps that one was speciously added as well? If you review the context of Romans 1:19ff, you will note that the overall context is that of the worship and acknowledgement of God as the creator of the universe and the fact that this should be self-evident to anybody (frankly, a defense of the natural law, imo): I hesitated entering this thread because I don't want to push my beliefs on somebody else. Everybody here knows the Biblical proscription on homosexual conduct. Whether he decides to regard that proscription or not is, frankly, a decision between he and his god. I have shown a small portion of the Church Fathers' writings that address a specific issue that was raised: an assertion that a portion of Romans 1 was added centuries later. My purpose was to show that the teachings of the Church have consistently proscribed that behavior from the beginning and, therefore, the likelihood that this section of Romans was added is unlikely. Getting into some kind of debate on the justification of the behavior is a waste of time. I'm not going to convince anybody who does not want to be convinced. I'm going to go back to a statement I made on another thread a few days ago: "You know, whether you agree or disagree with a person's decisions, his status as a human being entitles him to a certain amount of basic human dignity. I have yet to meet anybody who has truly changed his life as the result of belittling." That's the bottom line. Whether I agree with a person's lifestyle or the decisions they've made in their lives, they still deserve a basic amount of human dignity. I think that if I continue on with this line, my positions may be interpreted as something they are not. I, frankly, would prefer not to go there.

Dan, you raise some interesting points. However, the bottom line is that what Marcion taught and promulgated was not in line with what is commonly known as Christianity. I don't want to bore everybody else with the details, but I am sure you can identify many other heterodox positions. And perhaps his theory on the creation being the production of a "demiurge" is correct and the rest of Christianity was full of it. My point is that the source you cite for your initial statement was not promulgating what we know as Christianity. And frankly, I doubt that Paul would have been in agreement with Marcion's positions. You stated, "...all the Christian movements in those early centuries were quite arbitrary in their handling of their material. And even today, churches today continue to disagree over points of interpretation." Although the structure of the Church was not as well defined as it is today, I would tend to disagree with you. We can see definite communication between a good amount of communication among the various episcopal authorities. Look, if you will, at the writings of Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, Justin (Martyr), Iulius Africanus, Origen, and so on. You will see, not only communication among the episcopates, but a continuity of thought as their understanding evolved. This is not to say, as you alluded to, that there were not schismatic sects that would spout up from time to time; however, they all were denounced for their heresies in time and withered on the vine. As to your last slam, "the "beam" evidently sticking in your head," you surely can't be serious in that. If you were, then why in the world would I have any concern with the writings of the Church Fathers? After all, they aren't scriptural and, besides, they are nothing but a bunch of dirty, nasty Catholics anyway. BTW, my criticism you cited was not aimed at you in particular (you'll note I referred to you in the third person throughout my previous post), but as a general tendency with modernism. Frankly, I have the utmost respect for somebody who takes the time to actually study the early Church. Its a far more realistic approach than a "sola scriptura" approach.

Is the fidelity that good on the iPod's recorder? I know when I have tried to record albums or CDs through my computer, I have been very disappointed with the results. And I'm either too cheap or just not motivated enough to bite the bullet and buy a decent audio card. When I hear of 2,000 songs downloaded to the device (@ 99 cents a pop), I'm thinking I must be in the wrong line of work!

One question about iPods...how do you afford 99 cents a song?

The Invisible Dan stated in an earlier post, In a later post, he cited Marcion as a source for this. One thing he didn't mention was that Marcion was a heretic. Both Justin Martyr and Tertullian denounced him. His heresy, in a nutshell, included that he taught that Christ was God, but that Christ was not the Messiah (it's a lot more complicated than that). Texts that he altered to support his views included Luke, Romans, and Ephesians. To quote the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (v. VII p 173), "In the Gospel of St. Luke Marcion made an arbitrary change in the text in order to provide for an immediate appearance of God in the world..." Sources: New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol VII, pp 172-174. http://www.ccel.org/php/disp.php3?a=schaff&b=encyc07&p=172 Catholic Encyclopedia, Marcionites, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm There's more, but this is not the "doctrinal" forum. Anyway, the point is that the teaching of the church has been consistent on this subject has been pretty consistent all throughout. This is not a change that was imposed in the 4th Century, as some have tried to indicate. A few examples to add to the one Cynic posted: From the (Dated 80-90 AD): (btw, pederasty is defined as "one that practices anal intercourse especially with a boy") From Justin Martyr's (Ch 12): (around 150 AD) From his Discourse to the Greeks: From Clement of Alexandria, in his The Paedagogus, (Book 3, Chap 8) And there are more examples all throughout the period of the early church. The point is that this has been the consistent teaching of the Christian Church. Having said that, I will repeat again something that I've said before. What your opinion is on whether any of this is relevent in how you live your life is your business, not mine. I really don't care. However, when I see Scriptures being discounted because they don't agree with your beliefs, I have visions of Wierwille with his "literal translations according to usage" or deleting verses of the Bible because they don't line up with what he believed and taught. But, because I know that I am going to be excoriated here, let me repeat this one more time: how you choose to live your life is your business. It is your business and your business alone.

Wow. An un-person.

What was that old Burger King jingle again??

FWIW, TWI taught a vastly over-simplified and somewhat inaccurate account of the First Council of Nicea. The council was called as a result of the heresy of Arius. It re-affirmed the already-existing doctrine of the Trinity and formulated the Nicene Creed. (Of course, we all know that conceptually, the Trinity has been in existence since the writing of the Gospel of Matthew and Pauls letters to the Romans and to the Galatians, and it is alluded to from the earliest writings of the Church Fathers -- Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Igantius of Antioch and Polycarp. However, the first documented explicit use of the word itself comes from Tertullian and Origen at around the beginning of the second century). The point is not to provide and exigesis on the Trinity but to point out that the thought that the concept originated with the First Nicene Council is completely false. The council also set the formula for setting the date for Easter (the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox). This council did not set the date for Christmas. That date floated around quite a bit. The origins of the 25 December date may have originated with Tertullian back in the second century AD, but there was not one council that went and set the date. The other issue dealt with by the First Nicene Council was the schism of Meletius of Lycopolis, which had its origins earlier in the century, from somewhere around 303 to 306 AD. Oh, btw, P-Mosh, if you are interested in learning how the first century Christians lived, I would refer you to a document called The Didache. It has been dated to between AD 80 and AD 90.

You know, whether you agree or disagree with a person's decisions, his status as a human being entitles him to a certain amount of basic human dignity. I have yet to meet anybody who has truly changed his life as the result of belittling. (For those who are non-Christian, please skip the following section. It is not intended to offend you. Thanks.) I constantly go back to the encounter that Jesus had with the adultress. He did not pick up a stone with the rest of them. He protected her from them. He did not condemn her; in fact, he explicitly denied any condemnation to her. He then said, only after it was all said and done, "Go and sin no more." I think there is some great learning in that passage. Maybe I should start practicing what I preach.

I don't know, I personally thought it was a very well done site, myself. In fact, much better done than the TWI, CFF, or CES sites (so I would have my doubts that this would be sponsored by any of them or by a consortium of them -- at least not done by the same web development team(s) that put those sites up). And for those who object to the pose, what exactly are believer (CES, CFF or TWI) couples supposed to do together, if not enjoy each other? I realize its been several years since I have been out of the stuff, but I thought that couples were supposed to be romantically involved. Is that something that changed since I left?

and then ya get the credit card bills in.....

Dovey, I hope this provides you the info you need: BTW, here's the entry on Ron Karenga, who created the holiday in the 1960s: Hopefully that gives you some good background on Kwanzaa. Interesting holiday founded by a person with an interesting history.

Roy, FWIW, For what its worth, by weight, you are correct...there is much more oxygen than hydrogen in water. Oxygen weighs 16 times more than hydrogen (for each atom). So if there are two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom in each water molecule, then there is 8 times more oxygen (by weight) than hydrogen in each water molecule. Merry Christmas.

Hairy, The Harry books are classic fantasy literature. They are, you're right, written for 12-year olds, but they are so well written that there are a HUGE number of adults that absolutely LOVE them.

Horny b*st*rds. LOL

Is that ground squirrels, as opposed to chopped squirrels, squirrel jerky, squirrel chops, or are you trying to say something else here, Kathy? I understand squirrel stew is a fine dinner on a cold winter's night. ;)-->

Ya know, Shellon, that profound statement could be taken in multiple ways.

Dr. Sudo, That web site has always got some of the best satire. Love it. Maybe our aspiring legal beagle, Pat, could use that as a style guide for his attempt at satire...

When my daughter got to be about "that age" and started to question the existence of Santa (some of her school friends started to deny the existence of Santa), I told her this: That faulty logic worked for that year. The next year, she proudly announced that she didn't believe anymore. So, the presents initially from Santa were suddenly from Mom and Dad. When she awoke on Christmas morning, guess what? No presents from Santa. Disappointed, she announced that she knew it was a fraud all along. I replied, "remember what I said? Believe in Santa, get presents from Santa. Stop believing in Santa, no more presents from Santa. You stopped believing." A while later I told her that she would start seeing Santa again when she had her own kids. I think the loss of Santa is one of the saddest days in every child's life. Because it is one of the first signs of a loss of true innocence.

Garth, why did I KNOW you were going to be the first respondant?????? Happy Solstice to you too. :D-->

You might think so, but, after all, she may know where all the bodies are buried. She may have ascended based upon "an offer they can't refuse." The same thing may keep her in power.

Apparently the blame for all the current bru-ha-ha over whether it is "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays" rests squarely on the shoulders of Christians, according to Barry Lynn. Imagine that, there is a problem because Christian groups are being aggressive and (shudder) are demanding inclusion in Christmas celebrations. Oh, the scandal. I just don't think I can take this any more........ --> ;)-->

And, as long as one system of beliefs is not given primacy over another, I have no issue with your statement. When I have to walk around in hiding so my religion does not offend somebody who disagrees (be that disagreement be from somebody of another religion or somebody whose dogma is "areligious"), I have a problem with this. I have no problem being on equal footing with somebody of a different creed than mine, but when I am forced to subordinate my faith to another person's faith, whether that faith is Theistic or Atheistic, then I simply become resentful. Having said that, as I recall we have had this dicussion before, ad nauseum. It is as likely to be resolved this time as on any prior effort. Frankly, you know where I stand. I know where you stand. Neither of us are likely to budge on this topic. So following your next post, as I am certain that you will want to respond in order to refute anything I've said in this post, I'm perfectly willing to drop this particular derail and press onto solving some other of the world's problems. :D--> ;)-->