TheInvisibleDan

If there is such a thing as a "God-Gene", I don't see where it would differ all that much in it's purpose from a hypothetical "Science-Gene". Science seeks to explain or understand the "unexplainable" - so do beliefs oft associated with religion, mythology and the supernatural. Scientists tend to have their heads up their asses just as much as theologians. Both can and have demonstrated an incredible lack of wisdom when it comes to applying their knowledge for the betterment of mankind. The ethics of treating ones fellow man don't always come automatically. Science can heal - and it can destroy - just as religion can either serve to heal or destroy. Both (sound) science and religion have sought to comprehend the ultimate question of why we are here, and where we are going; to extend our minds beyond the confines of our worldly fishbowl. And both offer a number of fascinating possibilities. Science and religion amount to nothing more than the different hats our human spirits wear. But in the end we still occupy the same place - isolated on a globe suspended in the infinite vastness of dark space, wondering about everything transpiring beyond our limited perspectives. Danny

It's funny, but I just read the other day in "Fortean Times" magazine a review on another book covering this subject. An online review of this work can be seen at http://www.forteantimes.com/review/opusdei.shtml Danny

OM's quote from "Living in Love" - "Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped." I don't think there's a theology out there, either ancient or modern - that doesn't attempt to steer everything toward "fitting" in one respect or another. This goes as well for the ancient compilers who put together the actual scriptures of the NT canons - whether heretical or proto-orthodox. In regard to the latter - of ancient Christians editing their scriptures according to their diverse beliefs - is an area which Wierwille hardly touched, outside the relatively late (3rd century) controversy relating to the Trinity. But there were other controversies prior to the 3rd century of which Wierwille was apparently completely unaware, which significantly shaped the NT scriptures in respects he never considered. Wierwille demonstrated his own expression quite aptly, to the effect "One cannot go beyond what one is taught" - and he certainly didn't. In order to zealously accept Wierwille's teachings and system as the final, "God-breathed" word on all things "biblical", necessitates ignoring everything we may learn of the first two centuries of Christian history, and all the material and studies relating that period. And sadly, many here do for no good reason, which is a shame. Danny

Perhaps I wasn't mistaken about the crushed Fostex beer-cans on the head after all... :blink:

I apologize to you, Allan, for my manner of brazen expressions toward you last night. The fact is, yesterday was a very mind-blowing day for me, in that I witnessed the near destruction of my mother's house from a leaking oil tank and frozen, burst water pipes - which had been for sale, and about to close on a deal this week. The devastation of the inside of my old childhood home is absolutely heartbreaking. The house might have well been submerged in New Orleans. But personal trials notwithstanding, I stand by the essence of my remarks. I believe anyone who has ever taken PFAL is more than capable of going well beyond it. If Jesus in essence said, "The works that I do, ye shall do greater" - who are we to doubt that we can only do only as much or even less than the next guy, if in fact that guy should be Wierwille (including with the area of 'research')? There may be unique teachings only you may be able to accomplish and present, that no one else on the planet has ever yet considered, including Wierwille. What a sad loss to the world that would be if that never happened, if remaining under the presumption that one guy did it all, and we need go no further, reducing us to spectators or worst yet, those nameless, faceless background extras wandering the school halls behind the main actors of "Beverly Hills 91020". Danny

er - what comments "about Mike"? And as you say, "pfal did it all" for you... Danny

I can't help but wonder - are you are asking me this because you haven't expended one iota of your own personal thought, time and energy into exploring anything on your own, outside of parroting another man's conclusions? Once upon a time I thought I was part of an extraordinary group of people who comprised the world's greatest "Biblical Research" center - the "maverick" Christian scholars of the world who weren't afraid to go where no man has gone before in the field monopolized by the usual, toe-the-line traditional brown-nosers and "yes-men". You haven't made any mindblowing discoveries on your own, Allan? Why not? I thought you kangaroo-hopping Aussies crushing those ironclad Fostex beer cans on your heads were a much hardier and adventuresome lot than that. No, I will not boast this evening a comprehensive list of my "mind-blowing' discoveries - it's getting late and I've had one hell of a day. And besides, why should you take my word on anything I say (as you apparently so easily do a certain other)? Rather, why don't you take half the things on OM's list (if you wish), to get thyself to thy nearest university library to simply explore whatever stuff interests thee most for thine own self? Or are you afraid to do that, because you believe once upon a time a MOG gave you all the answers and thus, you have no further need or reason to "re-invent the wheel" or some such other hindering, half-baked enslaving logic to squelch your hungering spirit? "(Wierwille said) the Word says it - that settles it" Are you going to settle for that? Do you consider your own heart, judgment and abilities so insignificant? Where the hell are the maverick scholars that I once thought comprised the Way International? Has Wierwille's doctrines castrated you that much?

Typical exclamation by my daughter: "Omigod, ONE-ONE!!" (developed from many not pressing the "caps" key on the internet) "Random" people. (I've heard a couple kids using this) And yeah, "That wins!" Danny

Or, one can spend a a couple days browsing and rummaging through the "theological" section of the libraries at the local colleges and universities in their area. But if one can't do that, pick a couple Biblical subjects that interests you most and browse through the online library catalogues, through which just about any number of studies can be obtained through interlibrary loan. There are lot of excellent, mind-blowing things outside the walls of "PFAL". Danny

It sounds like a series worth checking out, Mark. I appreciate the recommendation. As I was reviewing some scattered entries on Constantine last night, I thought to myself, "Good God, has anyone ever filmed a miniseries on this guy, along the vein of "I, Claudius"? (lol). Danny

Yes, 'history is fun". :) Marcionism continued as a formidable threat in the East, where it had receded, where there it prompted writers such as Epiphanius, Pseudo-Adamantius (3rd century) "Dialogue", St. Ephraim, Bardesene and Eznik de Kolb to dedicate entire works against the Marcionites. Perhaps what we should be asking is who were those "Christian bishops" with whom Constantine had contact with, which we read about in the "New Advent" entry on him: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm "Constantine himself preferred the company of Christian bishops to that of pagan priests. The emperor frequently invited the bishops to court, gave them the use of the imperial postal service, invited them to his table, called them his brothers, and when they had suffered for the Faith, kissed their scars. While he chose bishops for his counsellors, they, on the other hand, often requested his intervention-- e. g. shortly after 313, in the Donatist dispute. For many years he worried himself with the Arian trouble, and in this, it may be said, he went beyond the limits of the allowable, for example, when he dictated whom Athanasius should admit to the Church and whom he was to exclude. Still he avoided any direct interference with dogma, and only sought to carry out what the proper authorities--the synods--decided. When he appeared at an oecumenical council, it was not so much to influence the deliberation and the decision as to show his strong interest and to impress the heathen. He banished bishops only to avoid strife and discord, that is, for reasons of state. He opposed Athanasius because he was led to believe that Athanasius desired to detain the corn-ships which were intended for Constantinople; Constantine's alarm can be understood when we bear in mind how powerful the patriarchs eventually became." They obviously weren't "Arian" priests, nor "Marcionite". To him these were "Christian" representatives, but were they representative of all the diverse Christian movements throughout the empire? Obviously not, if these guys are requesting him to intervene in their particular dogmatic affairs - against other "Christians" no less! And apparently, such contact did not come to nought. Danny

I think you meant Montanist - or Montanism [Cynic beat me to it], which from the impression one might gain reading about them, was something akin to our modern "spirit-filled" Pentecostal movements. "The danger that this church presented to Christianity was the greatest in the generation between 150 and 190. In this period and it alone was actually a counterchurch: this observation is evident from the abundance of opposing writings, and can be read from the nature of the opposition offered by Justin and from the work of Celsus as well...Celsus often spoke as though there were only two churches, the "great church" and the Marcionite, and alongside them only Gnostic underbrush." -Adolf von Harnack, p.100, "Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God" As for categorizing Marcion as a "Gnostic" it's not always been such a cut and dry case to make, despite the unusual feature of Marcionite dualism; in many respects he shared more in common with Catholicism than with the variety of speculative Gnostic movements (prone to the "hidden knowledge aspects" you mentioned) at the time; I think that's the reason why Catholicism regarded Marcionism the greater threat. Even at the time of Origen, who "still saw in Marcion the chief adversary of the church and threw himself with all diligence and with full force into the battle against the "doctrina Marcionis", which he sharply distinguished from the "longa fabulositas" of Basilides and the "traditiones" of Valentinus. In addition to the ancient and newly shaped authorities that they brought into the battle, he and the great old Catholic theologians before him also forged the spiritual weapons with which they met Marcionitism. the ecclesiastical theology they developed and which still today is the doctrinal foundation of the great confessions is in much greater measure an anti-Marcionite theology than an anti-Valentian or anti-Ebionite theology. One may also unhesitatingly assume that this theology had a great part in the suppression of the Marcionite church." (Harnack, ibid.) Harnack provides various examples of the suppression of the Marcionite Church, but I will cite one(p.102): "The church inscription at Lebaba [ which was to "The Synagogue of the Marcionites"] in the territory of Licinius shows us that in the year 318/319 the Marcionite community there could erect a church building with an inscription on which the owner of the building was announced to everyone. But the rejoicing was not long-lived. Constantine began to forbid heretical assemblies and to destroy the meetinghouses, and even to forbid worship services in private homes, to expropriate the tracts of land, and to confiscate the heretical books.. (emphasis mine) I'm sorry, Mark, I like you (I really do), but if Harnack is correct in the presentation of his facts here, this doesn't exactly line up with the notion that the Catholic Church had not in some way enough clout to have steered or influenced Constantine (and subsequent rulers) in a certain "political" direction that favored their church against all others. Danny

Digi - Please forgive me if I came across as a smug brainiac. Again, I think there are a good many decent English translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls that suffice most readers quite well (inclusing myself) and make juggling dictionaries and ancient texts a rather needless exercise. Again, it all depends on where one's interests lies. "Word studies" are not the end-all, cure-all to actual study or "research" as the Way made them out to be. In such an approach, some tended to miss the forest for the trees. Studying texts and dictionaries are only tools. But the most important resource is the willingness to contemplate entire expressions and ideas in the comfort of your own mind. If, for example, you wanted to find parallel expressions between Paul's epistles and "The Thanksgiving Hymns" in the Dead Sea scrolls, - and there are a lot of them(!), - you or anyone else who already has a familiarity with Paul's epistles from having read them over the years will have no difficulty whatsoever in recognizing them when reading any English translation of "The Thanksgiving Hymns". No dictionary, ancient text or .PHD is required; no big, heavy "commitment". Just read and enjoy. Danny

'Digitalis' wrote: Though such requires a bit of footwork and old-fashion persistence, anyone who truly desires to study any of the manuscripts /mss. fragments discovered at the Dead Sea or Nag Hammadi may obtain facsimiles, or photographs of the original manuscripts to go over for themselves. There are even editions of the Dead Sea Scrolls being released which feature the translation with a parallel Hebrew/Aramaic text. And somewhere online, one may even read a "Gospel of Thomas" Coptic text/English interlinear. You don't have to "lay" your faith in any scholar - though learning a little bit of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Coptic would be most helpful. And facsimiles could be quite costly (interlibrary loan could provide a way around the cost factor), if that's what you want. It's up to you how far you want to go. The stuff is already out there. It's not being held hostage "under lock and key", unless there are manuscripts hidden in a vault in the Vatican basement that we know nothing of (as featured in a couple hilarious scenes in that movie, "Stigmata"). :) But even without reference to the "original manuscripts", there are already many decent English translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi in circulation for one to at least get started. Why wait around for something akin to official, divine "FDA approval" - just pick up a couple volumes for your bookshelf or bathroom and begin reading. The more one reads, the better acquainted one becomes with the material, the more one will gain from it all. Again, it's up to you how far you want to go. No one's holding you back but yourself. Danny

By the time any news of the CG meetings and of the abuses within twi had reached my ears (circ.1987), news of scandals, corruption, greed, abuses, powerplays and just plain insanities had also emerged about other Christian groups and celebrities outside the Way. The Jim Bakker PTL scandal; Jerry Falwell's questionable "power-play" role in the entire PTL affair; Jimmy Swaggert's hypocrisy exposed and his well-known, dramatic power cry; Peter Popoff's "healing" acts being exposed by the "Amazing Randi"; and lest we forget, Oral Roberts claim that God would kill him unless he raised 8 million bucks. Not exactly a good year for old time Bible thumpers. It's interesting that this all seemingly happened about the same time, though give or take a year for my memory; a lot of pillars came tumbling down. Suffice to say, what was happening was apparently not only a Way thing. Danny

Belle, I second Mark's excellent advice concerning the incredible wealth of information and insight found in the Patristic writings - no less than my respect for the wealth of insight offered through his faith (and from a many others here, from their respective beliefs, faiths, convictions and experiences as well). Though I've immersed myself in the topic of Roman Catholicism's rival sister Church (sisters can be fiercely competitive - I know, because I have 3 of them, lol) - in a number of cases it may not be possible to entirely understand one without the other. In weighing any possible interpolation (or subtraction or alteration) -it's not simply with the aim of the old Wierwillian "scratch it out" and be gone with it; I'm not satisfied until exploring and trying to truly understand the possible reasons behind the development of an interpolation (or subtraction or alteration). Which takes putting oneself in the other guy's shoes. This is where history - and even faith - comes to life. Where juggling foreign dictionaries is not sufficient by itself, but rather, the contemplation of whole various spiritual ideas, where they agree and where they conflict, in both past and present. Clayton is absolutely right that that which is within becomes clarified by time. I'm delighted you've joined us here in the subterranean catacombs of GS (lol). Danny

'Oakspear' wrote: The earliest-known Christian canon was in circulation approx. between 130 and 144 AD, if not earlier. It happened to be published by Catholicism's most formidable rival in the "Great Church race", the Marcionite Church. The Marcionite canon comprised of one gospel and ten Pauline epistles, the latter somewhat briefer in length than the versions we encounter in the orthodox canon with which we are most familiar. There are a couple of ways scholars tend to evaluate these canons in comparison: 1.) Marcion removed material from his NT books to accord to his peculiar doctrinal position, a charge made by his critics and too often assumed by scholars; or - 2.) the proto-orthodox text represents an expansion of Marcion's earlier texts - the orthodox movement interpolated much material into these texts to specifically counter Marcion's doctrines. I have devoted much time and study to exploring this fascinating, latter possibility (perhaps boring many here in the process, I'm sure), as other scholars over the years. Though no Marcionite version of the NT has survived intact, it is possible for us to reconstruct it through the reports of his ancient critics, who cited and alluded to the material in his Bible in order to refute him. Like a puzzle we can piece together a "snapshot"of Marcion's text and in the process, re-assess the material reported as "missing" with Marcion in a whole different perspective, not as material that he excised, but that which was added later by his opponents; material which tends to be quite "anti-marcionite" in its nature. In addition, the order of Pauline letters differed from that of the orthodox canon. It began with Galatians, not Romans (Bullinger is completely wrong in his assertion that the order of Paul's letters never differed).- Being that I have to take off for work in a moment, I paste here a sampling of my thoughts (on the topic of "the Newness of the Gospel") on the opening to the orthodox "Romans", which epistle, in my view, represents the most heavily, flagrantly interpolated of all of Paul's epistles. "The version of To the Romans promoted by orthodoxy was for them the epistolary keystone that underscored and validated their (re-)interpretation of Pauline doctrines in much the same way that Galatians served to the Marcionites. "When in Rome...", how better to celebrate their authority and tradition than by having at the head of their Pauline corpus a fattened epistle dedicated to their beloved city, no less than in their view, the ecclesiastical hub of the true Catholic faith? Had Marcion been as crass as certain members of the loose federation of churches at Rome, he might have set at the head of his canon an epistle addressed To the Sinopians in honor of his native city, rather than To the Galatians. But to his credit, he didn't. A distinctive Marcionite belief railed against by all ancient critics from Tertullian to Eznik concerned Marcion's promotion of the "newness" of "the Gospel". The commencement of Romans in the orthodox version was specifically designed to refute the Marcionites in this claim of "newness" (Romans 1:1-5, KJV): 1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: 5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name: And modern commentators have not hesitated to lend their voice to the orthodox intent behind these passages: "In these verses, the apostle defines what he means by God's good news [=the Gospel]; First, he says that God promised this [Gospel] by the writers of the Old Testament. As Denny says, "The gospel is not in principle a new thing, a subversion of the true religion it has hitherto been known to the people of God. God promised it before, through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures"... Thus does Paul at one stroke cut away all objections to his message from the Jews who said he was introducing something new and opposed to the Mosaic economy." -K. Weust, Romans in the Greek New Testament, p.14, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament vol. I., Eerdmans (emphasis mine). "The Jews" toward which "Paul" is supposedly "cutting away all objections" is a complete dead-ringer for the second-century Marcionites, famously known for claiming that Paul was introducing something new and entirely opposed to the Mosaic economy! Add to this the piling on of orthodoxy's dogmatic emphasis upon 1) The Old Testament prophets which promised afore the Gospel (Rom.1:1-2); 2) through the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament prophets; (against Marcion who claimed "Krestus" was new and un-prophesied, and did not enter into the OT creator's realm until "The 15th year of Tiberius Caesar..."; 3) made of the seed of David according to the flesh, against Marcion's docetic notion that Krestus possessed a body like an angel, and that he indeed had human flesh, as well as to underscore that Krestus was actually the warlike messiah descended from David and prophesied in the OT; 4) By whom we have received ... apostleship...; notice the conspicuous "we" which deflates Paul's position held among the Marcionites as the one and only true Apostle, who was at odds with the legalistic "false-apostles" (Peter, James and John, cf. Gal.2:9) at Jerusalem. But to orthodoxy, Paul was one among many apostles, and even in subjection to their authority. Here we are given an explicit outline of the interpolator's intents which he implements in the process of revising and expanding the earlier Marcionite material, recasting "the apostle of the heretics" into a spokesman for the orthodox doctrine of "the faith" (1:7, a term BTW commonly occurring in the deutero-pauline "Pastoral" epistles). There is perhaps no other Pauline epistle so heavily interpolated than the epistle addressed To the Romans, which revision (approx.150 CE) most likely accompanied the orthodox release of their production of The Book of Acts ending with Paul at Rome, which again, became the seat of orthodox authority. Lengthy sections equivalent to whole chapters were inserted unabashedly into the earlier Marcionite work (e.g., 1:1b-5; 1:20-2:1; 2:15-2:19; 3:1-3:18; 3:23-4:24; chapter 9; 10:18-11:32; 13:1-7; 15:1-16:23). This new orthodox edition of Romans introduced their Paul, which gave voice to all the doctrines they wanted Paul to promote. And before the ink was barely dry, new epistles were appended (the Pastorals of 1 & II Timothy, Titus) to their Pauline corpus which topped and locked their version of Paul with the "God-breathed" status of "holy writ" against all other versions in circulation. And for any traces of Marcionism they could not entirely eradicate, "Peter" was on hand to assure the readers that there was stuff in Paul "difficult to understand" and liable to be "twisted" (by those pesky Marcionites, of course)." (thanks Mark) :) In any event, it's amazing how much one learns when becoming informed as the specific controversies occurring among Christian movements in the second century. These controversies literally shaped the end product which has come down to us. Well, off to work I go. Danny

'jkboehme' wrote: I'll grant that he was a gifted gatherer and organizer, to have done so effective job toward compiling and selling PFAL. But a considerable bulk of its content, as has been discussed elsewhere, was borrowed (or plagiarized) from others. Which doesn't require much brainprower. I've seen Elizabeth Clare Prophet on TV from time to time; I think she actually exceeds Wierwille in the I.Q. department (as may Moon), though she appears just as whacky. It's always always a matter of debate whether or not the Way's renewed mind teaching reflected the intentions of the writer, but nonetheless - the material is present in the NT, among many other notions similarly expressing the idea of "change" and "conversion" or "becoming" a Christian. Wierwille didn't require a college education to find such things upon which to utilize or capitalize. He needed to look no further than his Bible. And he certainly made use of it. That may be fine for today's "typical protestant main-line denominational churchs" but is not descriptive of all denominations outside the Protestants; nor is it reflective of the different Christianites throughout history. When one contemplates the early Christian movements during the opening centuries of Christianity, from a 21st century standpoint we would be compelled to question how "healthy" such actually were in view of the persecutions, the martydoms of untold thousands of lives, the practices of self-sacrifice and ascetism; not to mention the divisions in families that occured when people left behind their old life to join these new Christian "cults". Not to overlook the challenges Christianity offered against the status "norm" of Roman society. If descriptive of all denominational mainline churches today, - for which I hold a certain, healthy skeptism - it's not an ideal I disagree with, and for that matter, even prefer. But historically - such would appear to have been the extraordinary exception and not the norm. So the saying goes, there's nothing 'new under the sun". But "ethical" movements also promote some form of "thought reform" (whatever one may wish to call them). But God forbid it may be difficult to observe as being present in one's own theology or philosophy. Danny

I don't think Wierwille was smart enough to come up with all these techniques on his own, and may not have been even conciously aware of employing such; the fact of the matter is, there is already an abundance of material throughout the Bible itself relating to the forsaking of one's true "historical self", of a forsaking (and even "hating") father and mother, brother and sister (in order to become a disciple be it of Jesus or anyone else), of accounting all one's prior upbringing, education and experience as "dung" for the "excellency of Christ", of putting off the old man and putting on the new, and so on. Instilling a sense of alienation against the world and even one's own self - jeesh, one only need review the "Gospel of John" (e.g., "the world hates me, the world hates you, the world is out to get you, etc., etc.") The essential elements providing the potential for the mind-control stuff you described is already present in the Bible, as well as throughout other religions. There's seemingly little "new" about the brain-washing techniques you described. Religions -both true and false alike -have been employing these for centuries. Danny

Whoa Sunesis, creepy description of CG's snakey side. (even mediums appear civilized by comparison). Reminds me of that serpent priest in "Conan the Barbarian". Danny

'Oakspear' wrote: Which makes the role of CG in the drama of the Way all the more curious, in that he was and still is viewed the "devil incarnate" among both wayfers and ex-wayfers. The impression of him conveyed through the old, pre-CES "Overview" tapes taught by the way-apostoli JAL is one of a petty, tyrannical pip-squeak, who strapped on a 44 Magnum and practiced walking on water in his bathtub. TO be certain, a tape of one of CG's teachings (which accompanied JAL's "Overview" tape) with him blaming the Way Corp. for all the backsliding of the organization naturally didn't endear him to the Corp. It was also claimed that some Way Corp. even committed suicide as a result of hearing CG's condemnation of them - would anyone be so kind as to refresh my memory and actually confirm this? Thanks. Danny

I'm hard-pressed to imagine how things might have played out with twi had CG and 'POP" not entered into the scenario to upset the applecart. It appears to have been the prime catalyst that brought many things to the surface and got everyone else talking. Without CG stirring up the murky waters when he did, it's quite possible that many of us might have remained involved with twi a lot longer, which is a frightening prospect by itself. Danny

I must confess to holding a certain reserve of appreciation for this man - as "nutcase" and as "wicked" as he may have been - in being so instrumental in pushing all the other nutcases over the edge, in the process putting on quite an ugly spectacle for many of us to behold (or in my case, read about), whether through POP or the transcripts of the emotionally-charged (and very weird) confrontation with the hq leadership under the stage spotlights. As egotistical as he may have been, and as bizarre as those meetings, they nonetheless underscored the corruption in the organization, and provided a many with sufficient reason (circ. 86?. 87) to get as far away from the Way as possible. Hell no, I have no desire to join his church, which appears to me (from what little I've seen) as nothing more than the same old rehashed Wayfinism. But he does appear to have played a pivotal role (some would say akin to Darth Vader) in the unraveling of the Way. I'de like to at least thank him for that. Danny

Excie, this is no mere Eunuch-corn fantasy. I think there might actually be something to it. But as usual, you're being much too kind. :)

I do hope the Catholic Church, in any effort to actually become more "universal" in their movement, in extending their merciful God's hand of friendship and good will toward truly encompassing all the peoples of the earth, will get beyond the literal stumbling-block of their own ancient propaganda (as well as other denominations), particularly having to do with material (e.g., Rom.1:20f) which initially had less to do with homosexuality but served more as a caricature for certain groups of eunuchs the Catholic movement had serious political concerns and reasons for attacking. It was a "great eunuch war" (and heated debates among churches over what defined them - because eunuchs enjoyed great power in the palaces of rulers) - the eunuchs of one church in struggle with the eunuchs of another church, for the top title in the "Great Church Race" of the first three centuries of Christianity. One bloody, eunuch "slap-a-thon". Imagine that. The debate between "the circumcision in flesh" and the 'circumcision in Spirit" must have taken on an additional, frightfully whole new meaning for all of sides of that war during Christianity's formative years. :) The heated debate over what consitituted a true 'eunuch" during those times - literal vs. figurative - appears as controversial then as today's 'baptism" debates. Danny