jamesAMDG

Some of this may not deal with everything in the order posted. If I miss something, bear with me and I will try and get to it. davesletzer: I don't think I ever disagreed that God is all merciful and all-forgiving. My point is that forgiveness must be freely given (by God) and freely received (by us) if we refuse to acknowledge that what we have done is wrong we cannot accept forgiveness, this is why Pride is so pernicious. If you mean lust, then no, homosexual and heterosexual lust are both gravely sinful. Jesus said that if you lust you have already committed adultery. So of course this is a problem. However, homosexual lust is sinful in a second way, which is that it is against the natural function and complimentarity of the sexes. Let me try an analogy here, heterosexual lust is misusing the God-given gift of human sexuality but it's a misuse of a natural desire. This would make it like putting the pieces of a puzzle together in the wrong fashion. Homosexual desire means that would have already thrown in a handful of pieces from another puzzle before putting them together wrongly. In neither case will the picture turn out, but in one it will be more distorted. But as for either one being worse than the other in relation to our salvation? Plenty of sins can damn our souls to Hell, if they all carry the same effect how do we measure wrongness? October: It should be noted here that DCJ mentioned that homosexuality (desires and actions) are an abomination, not that homosexuals themsleves are an abomination. In this he (or she) is echoing something from the Catechism No one is (or should be saying) that having these inclinations is a sentence to Hell. We all have all sorts of base inclinations, Christ strengthens us to climb above them. Not to be nit-picky, but to you have some sort of source for backing this up? Russ: I appreciate you speaking me for here, but I can do it myself (although somewhat belatedly). The history I was referring to is the constant teaching and practice of the Church which was founded by Christ on the Apostles. But yes, of course, I do believe that the events recounted in the Bible are historical. The Vulgate of Saint Jerome and translations thereof, notably the Douay-Rheims in English. The prophets and apostles. The Bible was written by holy men under the ispiration of the Holy Spirit. Oh yeah, the Vatican is crazy on power. They get so much respect from everyone these days. That's working out great for them. Do mean by "personal faith" a personal religion, where we pick and choose the God of our convenience and personal tastes? For you revelation plays no part in Faith? What is the point of Jesus coming if there weren't something we could figure out on our own? Do you not rely on any number of teachers to shape and mould your ideas, or do you actually have a perfect spiritual sounding board? Read post #21 in this thread for the whole thing about picking fights. October: This statement is demonstrably false. "The Lord spoke [...]" is all over the OT. Exodus and the commandments given to Moses on the mountain are a classic example. Unless you are claiming that most fo the OT is a modern forgery. des and Kay: and (I think Kay might agree with me here, if I'm following your line fo thought but you both commented on this) It seems clear to me that Jesus is not a sceptic about the OT Law but rather is explaining the full scope of what the Law should be. The format used "It was said... I say..." is meant to show that He is teaching with the authority of God. That's why it twigged off so many Pharisees, because they knew Jesus was taching as though He was eauql to God. That's the origin of the blasphemy charge used at His trial.

love: "unholy state"?? Can you please explain to me why GWB, Tony Blair, etc. are evil for wanting to bomb terrorists but you are good for wishing harm to Israel? MOW: It should be noted, in my defense, that I never actually said that. I haven't brought up the war in Iraq at all in this thread. I haven't done this for two reasons i.) The Iraqi war is a much more mixed bag, motives, intelligence and tactics ii.) No one else brought it up. My point was that the spirit of Chamberlain's "Peace in Our Time" is the same peace that is being asked for by the anti-Israel side. Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, et al. are totalitarian groups who do not hesitate to use violence to further their ends. Neither are they interested in any real peace with Israel. You can see it on PLO television where puppets extoll the virtues of martyrdom (ie: suicide bombing) to children. Or in the mouthpiece front groups that chant inaneries like "Palestine will be free, From the [Jordan] River to the Sea" (ie: Israel will be wiped off the map). You can see it in the response of Yasser Terrorfat to the Oslo Accords, where he was offered a state by Israel and nearly all his other demands were met. He responded by launching the second Intifada. These groups do not want peace. They want to destroy Israel. They want to destroy the West. Go ahead, read their speeches, their books and watch their mouthpeice front groups in action. That is why I said there will be no peace until the West is victorious or destroyed. There can be no appeasement because they do not desire compromise. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Good to be back after a short hiatus, needed some time for chillling with my friends, playing cards, all the good stuff. loveapple: Are you saying then that by allowing their citizens to be indiscrimantely attacked Israel would be setting a better example? How else should Israel deal with an enemy force which targets its civilians while hiding behind Lebanese civilians? How can peace be acheived given Hezbollah's very public aims (ie: the destruction of Israel and the driving of the Jews into the Sea?) I guess that answers my last question to a certain degree. Given this opposition to Israel's existence, what should be done now? They were offered one, but Terror-fat knew that peace with Israel would mean a coup against him by the Islamofacist thugs within Fatah, the PLO at large, Hamas, Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, Islamic Jihad and the rest of their cronies. SO instead he diverted Palestinian Arab attention by launching another intifada. Zionist terrorism? Would that be the Jews who tried to buy land legally from Arabs living in what has been variously known as Israel and Palestine but weren;t allowed to because it was ILLEGAL under Jordanian law to sell land to Jews? Or were the zionist thugs and terrorists the ones who fought back against the armed gangs organised by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (You know, the one who supported Hitler and organised Arab brigades to fight for him?) Even if your history weren't wrong, the moral equication you make between two armed groups facing off and blowing up children on the way to school disqualifies anything you say from serious consideration. Untrue, if and when mistakes are made, as they can be in the "fog of war" Israel a.) apologizes and recognizes their faults, b.) investigates soldiers accused of crimes against terrorists and those unlucky enough to be forced into shielding them c.) gives rights to the Arabs who live inside Israel and Gaza as well as Judea and Samaria which surpasses the rest fo the Arab world. When Hezbollah (and Hamas for that matter) kill civilians they dance around in the streets with Korans held high giving candy to children. October's Autumn: You do understand what specious means right? Because after quoting what DCJ said about specious arguments you have simply cranked yours up to 11. Are you saying that ALL WAR is caused and prosecuted by evil men? I hope not, as some wars are necessary because they prevent and vert greater evils. A classic example would be the Second World War. Fighting against Hitler militarily was necessary as diplomacy had clearly been shown to be useless. By fighting, the Allied powers prevented a much greater evil from beign perpetrated throughout the world by averting the world-wide establishment of the Third Reich. You may call it blindness to defend some of GWB actions, but I think Albert Enistein might consider the methods of the anti-war left to be insanity. Let the ghost of Chamberlain rest. There will be no peace in our time until those who desire and attempt to destroy us utterly fail or utterly succeed. Which side are you on? p.s. - The show you are describing is called "Red Green", written by and starring Steve Smith amongst others, it was actually not Public Access but rather produced by our State run broadcaster (my tax dollars at work ) to have the look and feel of Public Access.

loveapple: Agreed. But I will ask again, please give reasons for your opinions, perhaps even a few suggestions for ways that Israel's policies could achieve the ends you advocate. If Israel isn't being "moderate" or "proportionate" please explain to me what actions would fall within these categories. Saying someone is wrong, without proposing anything else isn't exactly debate. Do you have any particular sources to back up your claim that it is mostly children who are being hurt or killed in Lebanon? If you want to know one of the main reasons for civilian casualties you should read this article from the Jerusalem Post. Or this article on Ynet about Hezbollah preventing civilians from leaving the areas of combat. It seems to me that if Hebollah was at all concerned about women and children and other non-combatants they would let them leave instead of using them as human shields.

davidseltzer: You are twisting my words and Saint Paul's. I clearly explained (when you were accsuing me obfuscating) that when we sin (by whatever means, the people in question exchanged worship fo the Creator for the creature) and without the grace God gives us we are much less apt to commit these sins. You would do well to note that Saint Paul never says paganism causes homosexuality, but rather that after falling into paganism the people in question were given over to their desires which have been pre-existing. No serious Christian could say that a desire for homosexuality is sinful. Dwelling on it, entertaining it and acting on those desires certainly is. But not the temptation. If temptation were sin it would be meaningless to fight temptations and grow in virtue. As an aside... why does it matter to me what scholars, scientists, and psychologists think about God and His Revelation. None of those groups even come close to claiming infallibility. The scholars fo the Jesus Seminar (including your hero Spong) vote on what truth might be with coloured marbles, they vote... is this a serious method for determining truth, whether a bunch of people think it might be true? If God's Revelation were up for vote, or something we could determin ourselves there would be no need for That is simply the fiction of paul. I hope I can reach you with this reasonable assertion.Revelation, it would be self-defeating. Scientists, good scientists anyway, know that the scientific method is used for testing hypothesis and formulating theories. These are changeable, and often are changed when better data comes along. And psychologists? We end up in the area of your voting scholars again. The APA defined homosexuality as a mental disorder until they voted to change it. Which time were they right? So bold, you know better than all the Patriarchs, Saints, Martyrs and Doctors of the Church do you? You can call this bold I suppose, but I think most honest people would call it pride. If I understand you correctly, the Bible, that book that inspired the Saints, Martyrs and Doctors is not good, but a book written by one man, in one very specific place at one very specific time (IE: the post-Christian Anglican Church of the United States in the late 20th and early 21st centuries) should be my universal guide? The fiction of [saint] Paul? Can you please tell me then, for the sake of clarity, how you know which of Saint Paul's letters are fictional and which aren't? Or maybe how a simple man like myself can know this difference without leaving you a post everytime I'm uncertain? Please do not reduce the Bible (or the rest of Existence) down to the tiny narrow little window which science acknowledges as its domain?

loveapple: Again and again it is the same thing with no actual plan. Will you ever actually put forward what you think would be a proportionate response or will you just sit back and say that the Jews shouldn't fight the people trying to destroy them and their state? You didn't respond to the needs of Israel for strategic depth necessary in thier defense and you haven't answered why a politically motivated fake letter can or should be used at all in this type of conversation? Do you have anything to contribute other than blandly insisting that the Jews quietly suffer kidnappings, invasions and rocket attacks? Let's go a step further and change the players. If French suddenly decided to start shelling say, London, what would be an appropriate response for the British government to take? Or, more apropos to the situation in Lebanon, what if an armed group (who was coincidentally part of the government - or in Gaza where a terrorist organisation IS the government) started to shell London while the French government sat idly by? What would be an appropriate reaction? flow: I don't know if you are realy gone or not but I missed this the first time. It seems you are really intent on playing my teacher, first the book reports and now a english lesson. Here at dictionary.com you can find the entry for drivel. It should be noted firstly that I used drivel as a noun and not a verb, so the definitions you gave (all being verbs) are contextually incorrect. Secondly, the first definition as a noun is I stand by my use of the word drivel, but if you insist I could probably modify to simply "trash" if that would be clearer.

Dave: Let's look at wat Saint Paul said in a a larger context of the verses surrounding it, without all the aplifications in square brackets. Saint Paul's First Letter to the Romans 1:16-30 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and to the Greek. 17 For the justice of God is revealed therein, from faith unto faith, as it is written: The just man liveth by faith. 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: 19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. 21 Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. 23 And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things. 24 Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. 27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. 28 And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, 30 Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, [...] It becomes clear that their homosexuality was not CAUSED by their paganism and sins against God by denying Him justice in worship and reverence, but rather, because of these sins, God withdrew His grace from them (something that happens to everyone who commits a mortal sin). In this state of sinfulness they did not resist their disordered temptations and fell into these sins. This is a lesson to everyone, if we deny God that which is His by right (worship and love) we separate ourselves from Him and lose the special help and strength which is His grace. Thankfully of course, we can choose to be made whole by believing, repenting, making a good confession and making our penance with a firm intention to live a better life (either from fear of Hell - imperfect contrition or from pure love of God - perfect contrition; we should always strive/pray for perfect contrition). It si important to remember that God never causes us to sin, but if we choose to sin we have, by our own acts, told God to buzz off. The Lord loves and respects us so He will not force Himself onto us and will leave us if we so desire. Without His strength given to us through grace, our tainted natures do tend towards sin so yes, we may start to commit these terrible acts. What a terrible thing to be in a state of sin, for whatever reason.

Loveapple: Gaza was part of the land which Israel captured from Egypt in one of the THREE illegal wars started by surrounding Arab states in the last 50 years which were all attempts to completely annihilate Israel. They were not occupying the land, they captured in wars they didn't start and used the land as a security buffer to prevent future attacks. Those lands helped to create what is called "strategic depth" in military terms. This strategic depth is necessary so that the Israeli army has time to react before the next illegal war and attempted genocide against their people. The Israelis have given up some of this strategic depth to show that they have god faith intentions of living up to their end of the peace talks. But unfortuantely, their neighbours don't seem interested in peace (with the exception of sometimes Egypt and sometimes Jordan) regardless of the agreements that have been signed. This strategy si what is known as "land for peace" and it has been an utter failure as it has only enhanced the self-opinions of the terrorists who demanded the land in the first place as we have seen with the continued exhortations to violence of the PLO (and their refusal to amend their charter calling for the destruction of Israel), the rise of Hamas and the attacks of Hezbollah.

Sorry I didn't get back to this sooner, was out of town for a few days. flowperson: You're right I can sometimes ramble. My emotions do occasionnaly get the best of me when I'm writing as I like to strike when the proverbial iron is hot. Please help me clear up a few things about your post, then I will distill my questions down from their "rambling" formats into something a little cleaer. Exactly how old do I need to be to defend Israel? Is this like one of those rides at the exhibition where you have to be a certain height? Also, what do you know of my life, expereiences and "depth of knowledge"? I've read all the pre-requisite lefty stuff, Chomsky, Zinn, Ward Churchill, Naomi Klein, etc. and I wasn't convicned. Apparently you don't know me especially well and you give me this as your advice to, apparently, improve these things... If I understand correctly, you are advising me to read anovel about the Muslim pilgrimmage to the Kabbah to be able to comment on the terrorism of Hamas and Hezbollah? I think I'll take a pass and I'll pass on the book report too, never liked them when I needed to them for marks, so I won't be doing one now for you. My questions are: 1.) What would be an appropriate Israeli response to incursions accross Israeli borders from two peices of land they gave up in the "peace" process? 2.) Israel gave up this land voluntarily under the "land for peace" arrangement, their negotiating partners (PLO and Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon) have not kept their ends fo the bargain and are now attacking Israel with rockets and kidnappings. 3.) What possible purpose can obviously faked letters, from pro-terrorist websites, add to the conversation?

Which part of what I said was this meant to interact with? "the rest of the world sees it differently"? How and why? You have given me no indication of what "the rest of the world" would consider an appropriate response to the daily provocations of kidnappings, killings and Katusha rockets from Hezbollah in Lebanon and Kassam rockets being fired by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa, et la. in Gaza. Or perhaps your only real solution is for the Jews to just lie down and suffer these crimes?

What a bunch of drivel. Not only because it is an obvious fabrication for political and religious (Muslim) purposes. The pro-terrorist tone, for example the so-called author "hope that one day [the author] will have a son who will give his life for our country to be free" which is classic Arab doublespeak for suicide murderers. Watch the footage of a Hamas funeral, or a PLO funeral, or an Al-Aqsa funeral, etc. They are hailed as great heros whose portraits are hung throughout the neighbourhood. Disgusting. How about the way in which the author casually states that negotiations have not accomplished anything? By the end of the Oslo Accords (which Terror-fat and his cronies never implemented even though the Israelis did) the Arabs so-called Palestinians who are in actuality Egyptians and Jordanians before those countries lost several wars in which Israel was the aggreived party) have been given over 90% of the land first promised to the Jews by the League of Nations and in the Treaty of Versailles. The Israelis have gone to the bargaining table knowing they can only hope for the peace of Saladin (ie: can be broken once Muslim strength has been reinforced and was used to push the Crusader armies out of the Holy Land) The organisation which "received" the letter is clearly pro-terrorist. It explicitis denies the right of Israel to exist and advocates an "Any means necessary" approach. Which of the 8 points says blowing up a bus of children on their way to school is a holy act? Or how about breaking into a farm and gunning down everyone you find, men, women and children? Great friends you have there. I'm not even going to bother going further. If someone can't this for the transparent Islamist, pro-Jihad, pro-Terrorist garbage it is, what can I possibly offer in reply? How do you explain colours to a blind man? As a side note, what would be the "appropriate" response for Israel be when it's borders are violated, its citizens killed and kidnapped? Would it be appropriate for Israel to take hostages and murder them in a field like what happened to a young Jewish farmer recently? Or how about just threatenign to kill these hostages until Hamas, Hebollah, et al. release all of the kidnapped Israeli citizens? Would that be just? No of course not, kidnapping violates the inate human dignity of all peoples and yet is a fun new tactic for the Jihadis. How can you sleep at night defending these butchers? The truly just course, which the Isrealis are taking, is to attack and destroy the terrorist infastructure, to starve the terrorists of the free movement, expression and funds they use to murder their own factional opponents and innocent Jews in Israel. Yes, mistakes happen, and war can be an ugly thing, but have you asked yourself why the Hamas leaders are always living in the middle floors of full apartment buildings, or surrounding themselves with children? They use human shields to make Israel look bad when it defends itself. When Israeli soldiers commit real crimes they are tried for them in a court of law. When Arabs commit crimes under the PLO and Hamas they get a pat on the back, or they go to jail for a few weeks until the next amnesty. Arabs living in the so-called Palestinian terrorities have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court of Israel if they feel they are victims of injustice, they choose instead to become murderers. Israel has the righ tto defend it's integrity and the physical well-being of its citizens (Arab and Jew alike) and I shed no tears for murderers who hide behind children. Shame on everyone who perpetuates this garbage.

Humblest apologies to Ms. Rivers and the illustrious des, my ears are now quite full. (and to carl who I also overlooked) AltheiaRivers: An equal capability and an equal role are different things. A great number of people are as capable of for example, being police officers, politicians, doctors, etc. But they are called to something else. Just because someone is called to do something doesn't give them less human dignity (the only equality that really matters; ie: we all have an immortal soul which we are responsible for and which will be judged... thats real equality) How do you come the conclusion that his instructions here were to be understood only for that particular congregation? From Saint Paul's First Letter to the Corinthinians 14:31-35 31 For you may all prophesy one by one; that all may learn, and all may be exhorted: 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the God of dissension, but of peace: as also I teach in all the churches of the saints. 34 Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith. 35 But if they would learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church. In the verse directly preceeding his instruction on women he teaches in all the churches that God is not a Nice to be back thanks. des: Sorry but there is no reliable evidence for the origin story of a "rule of thumb" See here http://research.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/ruleofthumb.html or here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb Perhaps, and perhaps I'm reading more into it than I should. But it feels an awful lot like a consolatio prize for not being able to get a woman elected as Pope. If this is referring to what I said about Beach, it wasn't intended to be an attack on her, but rather a refrecne to a historical event. ... Now now, be nice. After all, you are free not to comment if I have become so irksome as all that. carl: This confuses me greatly. How can something be ok in the past but in the present it is sinful (discrimnation being a sin)? There isn't really any place where Saint Paul says women are called to the official and priestly role. They were certainly called to other roles within the Early Church, not least among them prophetesses. Besides though, people minister in many different ways, music ministry, parish councils, as teachers, etc. Having women in these roles in no way opens the door to an office which has only ever been held by men (In the case of a nearly 2000 years tradition as Chirstians and the 4000 or so preceeding years of Jewish history there were no women priestesses) This is a fundamental mistake I often see made by people who think women can/should be ordained as priests. They don't acknowledge that it is not a person who chooses the priesthood for themselves, but rather, it is something that God calls them to do (after which they must decide if they will follow Him and His call). This is as true now as it was during the time of the Old Testament. God called His priests exclusively from the Tribe of Levi, was He discriminating against the other Tribes? If so God is a sinner which denies His divinity. When someone who is not/cannot be a priest like Core (Numbers 16.1-50) tries to do so without God's approval there are dire consequences. dave: While I'm not as bibilically literate as I should be, where does Saint Paul say this?

Wow, apparently putting in a full stop, laughing face isn't enough to indicate that someone might not mean they're actually looking for fisticuffs. I might be a jerk, but sheesh that seems a bit excessive (and if I can recall correctly I've started a bunch of posts with similar things) My face isn't particularly red though. A little bored I suppose though with things changing from the topic I proposed to, role-playing and costumes in the bedroom. That seems like an odd segue, but this is the internet after all. Dave was the only one who said anything realted to the topic so I guess I can answer him. (des wasn;t far off the mark on Spong though) Dave I'm actually not especially confused. What is your premise for saying that Scripture isn't Sacred if it offends? Jesus said a few things that he acknowledged were offending people (His description of the Real Presence in the Eucharist comes to mind - Gospel of Saint John 6) John the Baptist wasn't afraid to offend Herod and it cost him his head and the desceration of his body by having the head showed around on a silver platter. And certainly the Prophets of the Old Testament weren't afraid to offend people, they were stoned to death with an alarming frequency. Being asked by God to work on His behalf is more often than not a short route to the gallows (or historical/cultural equivalent). Are you saying that when the prophets called for justice for the poor that they weren't prophesying for God? That all the offensive stuff Jesus said about loving your neighbour and turnining the other cheek were the unDivine parts of Scripture? I must admit that would seem to be a new tactic for someone who, seemingly (given the endorsement of Spong), a progressive. As for Saint Paul, admittedly he was a man. I doubt you could find a Christian who would call him divine. But he claims to speak in the name of the Lord often during his parts of Holy Writ. So are you saying he's a liar? Or a lunatic? Or thruthful? I imagine you've heard of the trilemma before, but I'm interested to see if you have found a way out of it. I appreciate the offer to read some of Spong's silliness but I think I would rather re-read the DaVinci Code before I got into that. And that's saying alot. I don't want to go too far about him here though, back in the olden days I got in trouble for referring to him as John "Always-Wrong" Spong (this is included for historical purposes only and shouldn't be construed as an attempt to insult him again)

Someone asked in my blog's comments (gratutitous advertising - http://jamesamdg.blogspot.com) so I'm back. Hopefully I can stick around for a bit and while I'm here, let's pick a fight. Does this passages from Sacred Scripture offend you? Saint Paul's Letter to the Epehsians 5:21-24 21 Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ. 22 Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: 23 Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. I am sure that right now some of the people reading this (if anyone even bothers to read posts by me anymore, given my track record) that at least some are, if my title didn't get them first. Here's my essential beef, there are many in the so-called liberal camp who despise Saint Paul because they see him as a woman-hater whose works have been used throughout history to keep the distaff side of things down. This is one of the particular passages often used to justify this misguided opinion. Unfortuantely this silliness has also found its way into the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church too, when this passage comes up during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass there is an alternate reading offered (depending on the country where the Mass is being offered). Of course while everyone's pants are in a twist they tend to ignore the passage immediately following, namely 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it: which spells out the husband's side of marital responsability. This is very important because it shows that the true subjection is from the man's side. Just as Christ Jesus, Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, was incarnated as a man and was subject to human beings, to the point of being beaten to death and executed on a cross, the husband is called to give this devotion to his wife. He is called to do anything and everything in his power to protect, keep and save her if she is threatened regardless of the consequences to himself. It is also one of the passages which made Christianity so popular with early converts (particularly women who made up a large portion of converts in the early Church). Pagan religions had always regarded women as subject to their husbands but never drew a corresponding responability on the man's side. Christianity, and this often maligned excerpt from Saint Paul were responsible for the progress which the Western (Judeo-Christian) world has seen in the status of women and their rights and roles within society. But some may ask themselves where does the liberal sexism (bad and stupid) which I referred to in title of my topic? It is to be found in the wholesale revision of history and Sacred Scripture which is currently taking place under the guise of tolerance and political correctness. This manifests itself in many ways, for example, BeachofEden, shortly after Pope Benedict XVI's election went on a tear about the Church being sexist for not accepting women priests, etc. The Liberal assumption here is that a woman is more capable than a man, by virtue of her sex, than a man to be in positions of power and authority. An example of this is the liberal joy (and orthodox, for Protestants, horror) over the election of Katharine Jefferts Schori in the Episcopalian Church as Presiding Bishop. That oughta be enough for tonight.

With my portentious return, the contenious conversations being. Ok not really contentious, but I am hoping for some fun. Cynthia - How do you read the Ot and see God as having an ego? I'm not entirely sure where you are going with that. Everyone - We worship God because it is right and just. This used to be a part fo the Holy Mass and still sort of is. In the Tridentine rite of the Holy Sacrifice, the Priest says "Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro." (Let us give thanks to the Lord our God." and the people respond "Dignum et justum est." (It is right and just). In the rite of Paul VI the Priest says "Let us give thanks to the Lord our God" the people respond "It is right to give Him thanks and praise" If anything the fact that God bothers with us at all, sent His Son to save us, forgives our sins, fills us with grace and hears our praise shows that God is the opposite of ego. He is self-emptying and other-fulfilling not for His good, but for ours. Therefore, the only just and right response to someone who gives themselves entirely for your good, especially at the expense of themselves is to be thankful and to express your thanks and appreciation.

Why is believing in an all powerful/all knowing God be childish?

Ya know, I've heard that, but I've never picked up on it. Pullman makes a big deal of it in his Narnia critiques. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Seriously? Read the part where he tells Lucy and (I forget the other names) about what they can't do because they are girls! Not to mention the fact that Jesus is depicted as a lion and Satan as a female witch. His writings are loaded with sexism. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Uhmm, forgive me for speaking out of turn, but portraying Jesus as a Lion has a sound basis in Holy Writ (Genesis 49.9, Proverbs 20.2, Osee 11:10 and most clearly in Saint John's Apocalypse 5:5) As for the other stuff, are you sure that Lewis is speaking when he some girls are, apparently told they can't do something or is it one of his characters? So the evil character is a woman, so what? if it were a man would it be "truer" for you? if so why is a man more representative of evil than a woman?

I forgot to respond to one thing that you raised in your initial post which I wanted to note. The case of Gallileo Galilei is especially interesting as most people view it as the Church attacking and silencing someone simply because they put forth a theory which the Church was at odds with. This is a half-truth. The Church for example did not put Copernicus through the same process because he was content to leave his theories as theories. Gallileo insisted on his theories as laws (which of course we have seen are not so, at least not in the way he proposed them) after having been warned by the authorities not to, because his proofs ere too weak and after he had promised that he would only advance his ideas as theories and not insist on their perfect veracity. Having broken his own promise by going back on his word he was subject to further sanctions. It would appear difficult to defend the Church's action in putting Gallileo under house arrest, it should be noted that in non-Christian countries (like the Caliphate) his sentence for offending against the revelation of God would have been death. In fact, these sentences are still regularly carried out in places like Pakistan, Indonesia and Nigeria. While the certain institutions of the Church were involved in education and science I think that your assertion of a secularisation of learning in the Caliphate is suspect. Given the way in which Muslim countries of the present deal with suspected heresy I'm not terribly inclined to go along with you here. In fact, the Church did offer much freedom to those involved in learning and didn't restrict it to a sliver of the elite. Universities had lowish tuitions and students who could demonstrate promise and ability were eligible for scholarships from the Church, religious orders and wealthy patrons. Given what had come before (and what was elsewhere in the world) the university system that was burdgeoning in Europe was excedingly egalitarian and free. I'm not sure where you wanted to go with the alchemy meme. Alchemy is not a real science and has been throughly debunked. Whether or not there were skills in things like construction extant in other parts of the world that predate Rome (and necessarily Europe) doesn't affect my main thrust because it was the mathematical and scientific work of (mostly) clergy throughout Europe who analysed these sorts of techiniques to create more than the ability to build a great structure, but rather into the analytic aspects of physics and higher maths. But enough of this, at some point (I think probably right now even) we'll just end up talking in circles.

So here's my reply about the origins of Western learning etc. I'm presupposing here that you aren't talking about the work of ancient Rome and Greece because you skipped to the tenth century. Europe's history in the liberal arts (grammar, rhetoric, logic and arithmetic, geometry, music, astronomy) can be traced to the resurgence during the Carolingian Rennaissance. The first Carolingian king was Charlmagne who ruled 768-814 and through his son Louis the Pious (regined 814-840). Under the Carolingians the emphasis in learning was placed on teaching correct Latin (so to be able to understand and build on the works that still existed from ancient Rome) and to create curricula which follwed the seven traditional liberal arts of Rome (as noted above). Under Charlemagne schools and institutions of learning where constructed and encourgaed throughout his empire and were based around Cathedrals (where those who had gone through more formal training: the monks and priests were stationed) One of the central figures of this renaissance was Alcuin, who was also a teacher of Charlemagne. One of the great achievements of the Carloiginian rennaissance was the creation of "carolingian lower-case" a legible and standardized was of writing which included upper and lower-case letters, spacing and punctuation. All of course necessary to the transmission of knowledge through the standard forms of learning we are familiar with today, and which have their roots in Charlemagne's efforts. As far as Math and science goes. There was certainly some math beign done by Muslim scholars but it by and large leaned very heavily on the source materials that they had without creating much in the way of waves. And Science was often attacked and undermined by Muslim clerics and theologians because positing a rational and knowable universe (necessary to what Science is and does) is antithetical to a traditional and orthodox view of Muslim theology. It infringes on God's omnipotence because it says that the universe runs without his diret intervention and explicit will. For science to emerge as we know it today, it was utterly necessary for the Christian view of a rational and ordered universe as created by a God who was outside of nature (not pantheistic or pagan) who had ordered and ordained all things by weight and measure according to Divine Plan. ... While you seemed to puzzle greatly at my misspelling of the word "inculturation" I can explain it simply by noting that where local custom is not contrary to Faith and Morals, it can be incorporated (within guidelines) to make the celebration of the Sacred Mysteries more releveant and/or more easily comprehensible. A good example would be the Churches in communion with the Pope who do not use the Roman Rite of the Holy Mass. Some of them would be (but this isn't a complete list, there's about 12 I think) Byzantines, Melchites, Chaldean etc.

Don't feed the trolls right? But who can resist such ramblings, I mean really? So if revelation clearly spells out that the anti-Christ will be a pope? Why is that so much anti-Catholic garbage like Chick tracts take such pains to say the word "pope" never appears in the Bible? Or for that matter you don;t offer any references for this (or anything else for that matter)? But I did want to correct a few little things as they concern the FACTS of the apparitions of Our Blessed Lady at Fatima. Sister Lucia is not a Saint, her cause might have been opened (I don't know) but she has most certainly not been canonized. Secondly she was a religious Sister, a member of the Carmelite Order. As far as any of research indicates she didn't take a vow of silence as such, but rather followed her vocation into a cloistered lifestyle where she had very little direct contact with the outside world. Sr. Lucia shared the "Third Secret" with the Bishop of Leira in 1944, he told Pope Pius XII. She said the secret should be revelaed at the Pope's discretion and not before 1960. So it stands to reason that all successive Popes after Pius XII knew the secret. Catholics (and all Christians other than 7th-Day Adventists (to the best of my knowledge) worship on Sunday because it was the day of the Christ's resurrection. Read the Early Fathers and you'll see tons of references to the reasons for worshipping on Sunday. But that's enough for now. p.s. - please use punctuation and spacing, makes your screeds easier to read. p.p.s - flow- I'm toally going to reply to what you were writing about whether Islam brought reason and philosophy to the West in the tenth century, look for it tomorrow (Sunday in honour of Christ's Resurrection)

Leave for a few days and everything just piles up. I'll try and respond in the order they were posted (for FredP at least this will result in my reponses to him being in more than one place) FredP I'm not entirely sure if that's what I said. If it came accross that way I didn't mean it. I was trying to say that while I am willing to debate and defend my faith, what cannot be up for grabs is the notion of Truth itself. And I think that when "spirituality" enters into a discussion Truth is often the first casuality. My experience being that it usally devolves into "well thats true for you but not for me" kinds of stuff. To what syncretism are you referring? jerryb True, the ancientness of a religion doesn't point to its truth in an empirical way, but the endurance of any institution over millenia (Christianity being a fulfillment of Judaism) through wars, persecutions, geoncides etc. points to a foundation greater than human (doesn't prove it, but gives certain indicators). The Catholic Church is a prime example, throughout her history, the Church has been attacked, driven underground (still is in some places), held secualr power, and so on. Some of her members have lived scandalously unChristian lives, some popes come to mind who were so busy stealing and whoring they never got around to much poping. But through all this, the Faith and the Church endured precisely because God guides her and sustains her. Governments and nations routinly fall apart for far less serious problems than some of her sons have caused the Church. As far as personaly fulfilling goes. There are two things that need to be said. The first is plain ignorance can interfere with our perceptions. When I was an atheist I couldn't believe that life in the Church could ever be fulfiling. I insulted and mocked those who found hapiness there, calling them sheep, etc. ad naseum. But I never knew the Faith. I had a caricature in my mind created by the media, my school and teachers and all the other usual suspects. The more I learned )and continue to learn about the Church) the more I am convinced that true hapiness (both on earth and in Heaven) cannot be separated from her and her service to God. Secondly, humanity is fallen. Whether or not a person believes in Original Sin, I think that most can and should be able to see that humanity is in a pickle. If there is a God, how can our unfallen destiny be the greed, lust, violence and hatred that so many experience on earth. Things are not as they should be. Nearly all religions I know of teach this in some way. Because of the Fall we cannot always trust our feelings and emotions on first look. After all most sins come from our feelings that we don't examine before acting on. Given this handicap, it only makes sense that True things need to be examined and prayed about and lived before being rejected or hoping to find fulfillment. That being said, my fulfillment in the Church began almost immediately when I heard the call to convert (one of only a very few mystical experiences I've ever had). FredP I'm totally willing to get into a thread about papal authority if you want. But maybe we should start a different thread for it? If not I'm ready to "throw-down" in here (haha). I will say this little bit though, in interests of giving balance to flow's ovation, it's hard to type when I'm giving a rapsberry and mucking up my screen While I'm sure you've heard this all before, the organization of the Church is eminantly biblical and takes into the needs of various times and places as it gives almost complete authority to the Bishop within his diocese. Whether it resembles the council's of Imperial Rome isn't really anything as far as I can tell. Authorities have always had advisors and the person who makes the final desicions has acted in concert with them or after listened to them. I'm not sure where you are going with this, are you suggesting for example that every congregatio should hirefire their own preacher and have no oversight? Because Protestanism has shown the disaster and disunity which such an approach causes. I actually don't think that most people care whether Aquinas and Augsutine used aspects of Greek philosophy, while rejecting others in formulating their theologies. Whether it was Greek or not has no bearing on classical philosophy's use of reason and the solligism for testing truth. It was, more than anything, the best system anyone had managed to put together up to that point when it came to reasoning argument, so naturally they used it. flowperson Huh? Reason, as understood in the Western and contemporary sense doesn't come from Islam in the thenth century. I can't defend the Jewish expulsion from Spain (but it should be noted was carried out by a secular power, not the Church proper), the Crusades were (or began) as a defensive war wagainst Muslim aggression against Christians in the East and the occupying of Christian lands throughout Asia Minor and the Middle East. The Inquisitions were matters of protecting the faithful from false prophets and false religions. Executions were carried out by civil authorties where it was a criminal offense to be a heretic (the Church didn't execute) and it was precisely the work of the moral theologians (many Spanish) and their work after the discovery of the New World that led to the formulations of international human rights. Actually, this is a true form of inculcuration, that is using existing elements of Truth to make clear and relevant the eternal message of the Gospel. These things are not done at the expense of doctrine or dogma, but rather they sometimes deal with changeable things like the language of the Mass. ok, I think that's all. Plus, I'm getting tired of working on this long post. out.

Hi James....very good point that you make here. Maybe I'm just looking for a better word to define a personal experience of God. But the only answer I can muster to your question"What makes spirituality superior to religion" is...one definition of religion in the dictionary is"the service and worship of God". I believe that you could serve and worship God.in the physical sense, without ever reaching the definition of spirituality defined as "relating to or AFFECTING the spirit". But like I said...I'm reaching here.....can you help me with this? Blessings Jerry <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not sure if I can help because I fundamentally disagree with your a priori position, as best as I can see it. It seems to me that you are assuming that a a traditional religious experience necessarily is less affective spiritually and that the relationship with God is on a lower plane. You haven't offered any reasons or proof why this would be so. To me it seems quite elitist as it assumes that most fo humanity has and continues to order thier lives according to religious faiths which, in this thread, have been dismissed by some as "canned mass-membership mentality". That was why I asked how and why what you are advocating, or seem to be advocating (a personalised, I-made-it-my-way-faith) would be superior to traditional religious experience. After all, for any faith to survive for several millenia, there must have been something that was satsifying to the people who practised it. And in terms of traditional Christianity, there must be some reason that it was so attractive to so many people from so many cultures in so many times. But you did ask for my definition of "spirituality". If it wasn't made clear in my earlier remarks I have little respect for people who think they can create their own religious faith. There are two reasons for this, firstly the elitism involved and secondly the way that they deny Truth and almost always advocate some form of relativism. I believe in Truth. I believe that God is a perfect and unified Trinity of Three Persons (Father, Son and Holy Ghost). I believe that God has revealed Himself throughout history, first through the Covenant with the Jews and their descendants and finally through the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, His Passion, Death and Resurrection. He founded the Catholic Church on Saint Peter and the Apostles and instituted the Seven Sacraments. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Liturgy fo the Hours, the Rosary, Eucharistic Adoration and other traditional religous experiences are full incredibly meaningful to me. And not because I'm some angry octagenarian who wishes the Church would just "turn things back", I'm 24 years old and a convert (recieved into the Church in 2001) This things are are open to debate (except my age and my conversion), a person can discuss how, why and whether these things are true. But what cannot be up for grabs is Truth itself and the ability of humans to know and to some degree proove it. It think the "spirituality" movement is dangerous to huamnity because it recasts us in the role of the playthings of the gods from pagan times, bits of whismy tossed about by powers we can never know or understand and fundamentally, meaningless.

Laying aside the contradiction in Sister Chittister's actions given the vows of obediance she took when becoming a Sister and her, repeated calls, to disobediance vis a vis the Church. It seems strange to me that so many people, especially on this board (but certainly not exclusively here), double-think their way into this mindset. The double-think I'm referring to is the insistence on "the community" as a focus during worship and at the same time insisting on the absolute autonomy of religious belief. This autonomy is most often manifested in rejecting traditional religious practice and belief and creating syncretistic and personal ends of worship. Ok, this has been all rambling and maybe hasn't made much sense. So at this point I'll abandon it until I get my thoughts clearer. I have a question for jerry though. What makes spirituality superior to religion? Why should one prefer and seek it?

I know this isn't the debate section, but "Fight for Your Right" was a Beastie Boys tune from License to Ill, Twisted Sister did "We're not going to take it" (amongst others) I'm a one-stop resource for Catholic commentary, rock & roll and probably other stuff.

Oops, lotsa replying to do. des, Not mine, I borrowed it from Pope Benedict VXI when he was still Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. It was one of the highlights of his pre-conclave stuff. I think that as this century progresses it might well become as popular as Pope John Paul II's naming of th current de-Christianized West as the "culture of death". Thanks anyway though. This isn't really a refutation of my thesis against abortion. I hear often enough as so many people seem to think that the commission of a future crime means that the State should make it legal, thereby eliminating the crime. I don't doubt that there are some women who would still choose to murder (yes, murder, I'll explain why I insist on using the word murder later this post) their children. This fact doesn't excuse the State's responsability to protect it's most vulnerable members from a violent death in one of the very few places they should be completely free from harm, the womb. At the very least, criminalizing abortions would lower the number of abortions by creating a social deterrant. So one day, one minute, and one second before the start of the second trimester there is no baby and then POOF! a baby! Please can you explain this and what your criteria for human life is? I'm not entirely sure about this, but I do realize that many of those in the pro-life movement are friends of convenience. Frankly, if it means fewer murdered babies I can go along with it. Thanks for clarifying. I still disagree with with point b.), after all Palestine was never a state and so if anyone is responible for those citizens who were displaced because of the ars, it would be the the countries of whom they were formerly citizens. But this is not the case, so-called Palestinians are treated far worse in the surrounding Muslim countries then they are in Israel and no one utters a peep. It wasn't intended to be nasty, it was my observation of what I see on the left (religious or political) in that they support (at least implicitly) the Palestinian Authority and it's terrorist wings in Fata and the other terrorist groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, etc. The same people that would kill these nice white-bread middle-class bourgousie for not forcing their women into hijabs etc. Strange bedfellows, you must admit. mystic trek, No, there really wasn't. As I stated earlier, the so-called Palestinian people were citizens of surrounding countries until those countries lost that land in successive, unprovoked wars against Isreal. As a side note, God created Israel when he drove the Canaanites out and gave it to the Jews and to their descendants forever. This covenant was never revoked. I stand by my statement of Muslim aggression. This is mainly because militant Muslims do not recognize ethnicities but only religion. They work for a reconstruction of the Caliphate which encompassed more than just Arabs in it's population. For further evidence of this you can look at the array of Mulim groups around the world, representing Chechens, Indonesians, Thais, Pakistanis, Arabs, Caucasians, etc. who cannot let a day go by without decrying the State of Isreal and without giving real material and financial support to the terrorist thugs who control "Palestine" Carl, We must respect the right of the majority to choose their leaders and pass their own laws. This doesn't mean I advocate a system with no checks or balances, as these are both a part of healthy and functioning democracies. For example, in Canada, where I live, the Prime Minister appoints Supreme Court members with NO oversight from anyone. There is no examination, no confirmation, no public candidates, nothing. The Senate is unelected and essentially functions as a rubber stamp to what the House of Commons does. There are no ballot initiatives on legal and social issues, nothing. The government decided this year that they would make gay "marriage" legal from a federal perspective (it was a null issue as several provincial courts had already made this impossibilty legal, no, not made it legal, FORCED it to be legal) and there was no chance for anyone to anything. There were committee meetings, but the outcome was already decided as the Liberals (the political party, not in a general sense) were a majority. You didn't offer any examples of the "rights of minorities [being] often violated" so I can't really respond. But if your only reason is that these "minorities" are unable to force a win in an election because they are not supported by a majority (and it might not be) we mean very different things by the "rights of minorities". Calling abortion murder has nothing to do with whether or not abortion is legally classified as murder. It is a moral statement. It is murder to intentionally take the life of an innocent person, regardless of what the law says. Your logic would have me believe that killing a black man in the time of American slavery wouldn't be murder. I say that intentionally killing an innocent human being is murder. From conception a human being is present in the womb. A child in the womb is as innocent as anyone can be, as they haven't committed any acts yet, and certainly are not mentally developed enough to form intent or be rational. Legalese be damned.