markomalley

There is a downside to having the knowledge of genetic predispositions. One who has a documented predisposition will not be able to get life insurance (I've actually had to fill out forms asking that very question). And, under our current system, a predisposition will also be considered to be a "pre-existing condition." Likewise, certain jobs may be closed to the person (such as military service). This is not to say that one should not go have regular checkups. But when you start marking a person because of a genetic condition, it can be a scarlet letter. So I can fully appreciate somebody not wanting to be tagged with a certain condition. Again, let me stress that I am not trying to justify this as an excuse not to have checkups. The only thing I'm talking about is getting genetic tests to determine risk.

Had you understood my post, you would recognize that I fully agree that taxes are not charitable giving. But perhaps you don't quite understand charitable giving that a Christian is called to do, so let me lay it out for you in a granular fashion. Let us assume, for this example, you make a gross salary of $6,000 per month. $2,000 is paid for taxes (federal, state, local, sales, property, etc.). $600 for a tithe (which is really not charity), $3,000 a month for expenses (mortgage/rent, gas, food, etc.), leaves $400 to put away for savings (rainy day fund, retirement, kid's college, etc.). And nothing left over for charity. Now, let us assume that the government did not perform social assistance spending and taxes were adjusted accordingly: $6,000 per month for income, $1,000 for taxes, $600 for tithe, $3,000 for expenses, $400 for savings, and all of a sudden, you have $1,000 that can be given to charitable causes. If you assert that taxes do not impede charitable giving, that is ridiculous. If you don't have the money, you can't give it. If you pay less in taxes, you have more money that you can dispose of, including to charity. Would I attempt to assert that everybody would then give all of their excess to charity? Of course not. But there are those of us who would give a whole lot more if there was less taken from us through taxes. And I would assert that this number would be more than we would think, once people were to realize that it is up to them to help keep people from being homeless or to keep folks from starving. Caution: <marquee width=500><blink><font color=red><b>Godwin's Law has been triggered needlessly</b></font></blink></marquee> I did not cite the European example you mentioned because those people did not throw off a dictatorial and unjust ruler. The others did. But try answering the question: should those countries I did cite have just sucked it up? Did those countries, including the United States, commit sin by revolting against their rulers? Should we, morally, still be a British colony?

You and I agree on that one. Shocking. Churches should steer way clear of any government influence...and the lack of doing so is one of my biggest problems with liberal-leaning churches, even moreso than the problem with the government for allowing it. My issue with those who take the Establishment Clause and attempt to create a hostile environment to the public expression of religion by individuals. For example, there are those who would want to prohibit my high school daughter from gathering with a couple of other Catholic kids and praying the Rosary during their lunch break at school, citing 'the wall of Separation' as justification. There are those who would prohibit Federal employees from having a Bible Study group in an unused conference room during their lunch break or after work hours, citing that same wall. There are those who would apply a religious litmus test to elected / appointed officials, not that they wanted to require a religion, but that being a member of a religion would be a disqualifier (once again, the same old tired "too many Catholics on the court" thing came up in some circles with the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to SCOTUS, as a recent example...to say nothing of Sarah Palin's membership in a Pentacostal type of denomination being an utter disqualification for VP). And, of course, who can forget about the case last spring at a Florida high school where Mary Allen, senior class president, as forbidden to speak at the class's graduation because of fears she might mention something about God. One quote about it is sort of funny: "Mr. Staver said the district also agreed to forbid senior class President Mary Allen from speaking at the school's May 30 graduation ceremony on the chance that the young woman, a known Christian, might say something religious. " When it gets to that extreme, I think the pendulum may have swung a bit too far. Of course, I would never expect you to agree with me on that one.

First of all, I know a lot of people who work a full work week and don't expect to be paid a dime for it. They are members of religious orders. Who are we to tell God how He will provide? Well, it seems to me if the model of charitable giving extolled throughout the entire Bible is followed, we are not actually telling God how He will provide, rather, we are simply following the guidelines He set forth. On the other hand, if we set up an example that is nowhere even hinted at and require the poor to follow that example, at that time we begin telling God how Hw will provide. Your quote from Romans 13 is an interesting one. In the context of your post, the message I'm receiving from you is that we should all shut up and submit to the government. I don't know if that's what you intended to communicate, so if I got that wrong, please clear it up a bit. Thanks. Let's carry out the logic of that a bit, though. We should just shut up and pay our taxes, tolls, and give respect to the government. OK, fine. Using that line of thinking, Poland's domination by the USSR should not have been opposed in the 1980s, because their domination was of God. The countries of Africa should not have risen up and thrown off their French and English colonial masters during the 1960s. Mahatma Gandhi should have just concentrated on Yoga, rather than leading the Indians out of Colonial rule in the 40s. As with Iraq in the 20s. Turkey should have never thrown off Ottoman rule and become a secular state. And, finally, the US should still be a British colony. So perhaps that understanding of Romans 13:1-7 needs some tweaking.

Geisha, I believe those in our society who self-identify with a major concern for social justice have seriously misinterpreted, if not perverted, two thousand years of social teaching. I believe they have co-opted social justice teaching to promote a socialist agenda. That is not a universal condemnation, just the general norm for the past 75-80 years. Therefore, since I have no desire to be associated with those doctrinal perversions, I prefer to separate myself from identifying with them. I will perform labor with those groups from time to time, as some of them do perform worthy work; however, I refuse to support the positions they take on political issues. In fact, I have actually used a "lobbying night" to lobby for positions that correspond to authentic social doctrine rather than the perversions they promote. You see, my position on social issues is that it is a personal responsibility of Christians (and other people of good will) to perform both corporal (physical) acts of mercy and spiritual acts of mercy. This is not something that can be delegated to a centralized governmental bureaucracy. Take, for example, feeding the poor. It is my personal responsibility to feed the poor, not the government's. Therefore I work from time to time in the local soup kitchen, deliver groceries to the homebound, and stock my local food bank. It is my pleasure to do so, because I feel that I get some variety of blessing for it and believe that I impart some sort of blessing to those whom I serve. And, oh, by the way, we don't ask the religion of somebody when they get fed, get groceries delivered, or pull food out of the food bank (just thought I should say that). Assistance can be tailored to what is needed in a given individual circumstance. Paying my taxes does not relieve me of that responsibility, but it strips me of my resources needed to properly carry out that responsibility. (When, after taxes, I take home only about 60% of my gross income, I am severely hampered in my ability to share with the poor) Even Dorothy Day believed in a voluntary poverty, not a State-imposed one. If you look up the name Dorothy Day, you will find her to be as radical a social justice champion as there is, but she comes from an era that was before the current one where State controlled charity became the preferred option. You said, God is a bit socialist in this respect. . . take another look. One area that is often misunderstood is that society does not equal the State. Socialism makes that mistake. So do most "social justice" types. I have studied the subject intently for years. God is in no way a socialist. God wants His people to depend on Him and Him alone. Socialism substitutes God with the State as the source. Socialism is a grave moral evil.

The concept of a wall of separation between church and state comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church. The letter was written to reassure a religious minority in the new state of Connecticut that their rights were not something that was conveyed to them by a legislative body; rather, those rights were immutable. The letter itself says: To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut. Gentlemen The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing. Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this exp​ression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem. (signed) Thomas Jefferson Jan.1.1802. The first amendment, itself, says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. You can judge for yourself, in this particular context, whether Jefferson's letter is a good exposition and an accurate representation of the text that is actually in the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment or not. I don't particularly see any conflict when reading the entire context of Mr. Jefferson's short note to these people. However, do I see any basis for the current way that the "wall of separation between church and state" has been applied in modern days? I absolutely do not see that. ((placing hands over head waiting on the onslaught from Garth & Co)) The Establishment Clause is not the subject of this thread, though (the way I see it), the subject is the intermingling of Church and State. Looking at it from a doctrinal point of view. Consider the famous quote from Jesus, as recorded in Mark 12:17, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." It seems that Jesus clearly understood the roles of a non-religious government and that of the religious establishment. (look at the context of that verse to see what I mean) Consider social justice efforts in the Bible. You will see no examples of where a secular state is charged with looking after the poor. For example, in Leviticus 19:10, And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God. There was no commandment to turn over part of the harvest to the government for government redistribution of wealth. Those who owned fields and vineyards were told to leave a bit behind. It was an individual call to charity, not a call for government action. Consider in the New Testament. Acts 4:34-35, There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need. Who effected distribution? Not the government, but the church. Likewise, there was no compulsion to sell the surplus and pay the proceeds as a tax: it was voluntary. Then you have the other passage that is frequently used by the "social justice" types: Mat 25:34-36 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Mat 25:37-39 Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' Mat 25:40 And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' You will, again, note that there was not a call to be taxed and to have a government, either earthly or spiritual, make the distribution. There was an obligation laid for each person to take action. Knowing this, it amazes me that the churches would want to be intertwined with government. One would think they would be familiar with the verse, No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." (Luke 16:13) When they compromise themselves by acceptance of government money, and the government terms and conditions that go along with that government money, they compromise themselves.

I don't know that it would be. There is a good, doctrinal discussion that could be had regarding the intermingling of government and religion as well as the impact of government co-opting religion for its own purposes. I would be interested in hearing peoples' scriptural reactions on that.

That is a good question and is one that is impossible to answer. Why? Because it's impossible to prove a negative. In other words, there are no examples that I see of where an angel (or a devil) being contrite. That, of course, doesn't prove that they can't be contrite. But it also disallows prooftexting that they can be contrite, either. The best explanation that I have read is from a seventh century saint, St. John of Damascus (An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (Book II)): Chapter 3. Concerning angels. He is Himself the Maker and Creator of the angels: for He brought them out of nothing into being and created them after His own image, an incorporeal race, a sort of spirit or immaterial fire: in the words of the divine David, He makes His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire : and He has described their lightness and the ardour, and heat, and keenness and sharpness with which they hunger for God and serve Him, and how they are borne to the regions above and are quite delivered from all material thought. An angel, then, is an intelligent essence, in perpetual motion, with free-will, incorporeal, ministering to God, having obtained by grace an immortal nature: and the Creator alone knows the form and limitation of its essence. But all that we can understand is, that it is incorporeal and immaterial. For all that is compared with God Who alone is incomparable, we find to be dense and material. For in reality only the Deity is immaterial and incorporeal. The angel's nature then is rational, and intelligent, and endowed with free-will, changeable in will, or fickle. For all that is created is changeable, and only that which is un-created is unchangeable. Also all that is rational is endowed with free-will. As it is, then, rational and intelligent, it is endowed with free-will: and as it is created, it is changeable, having power either to abide or progress in goodness, or to turn towards evil. It is not susceptible of repentance because it is incorporeal. For it is owing to the weakness of his body that man comes to have repentance. It is immortal, not by nature but by grace. For all that has had beginning comes also to its natural end. But God alone is eternal, or rather, He is above the Eternal: for He, the Creator of times, is not under the dominion of time, but above time. They are secondary intelligent lights derived from that first light which is without beginning, for they have the power of illumination; they have no need of tongue or hearing, but without uttering words they communicate to each other their own thoughts and counsels. Through the Word, therefore, all the angels were created, and through the sanctification by the Holy Spirit were they brought to perfection, sharing each in proportion to his worth and rank in brightness and grace. They are circumscribed: for when they are in the Heaven they are not on the earth: and when they are sent by God down to the earth they do not remain in the Heaven. They are not hemmed in by walls and doors, and bars and seals, for they are quite unlimited. Unlimited, I repeat, for it is not as they really are that they reveal themselves to the worthy men to whom God wishes them to appear, but in a changed form which the beholders are capable of seeing. For that alone is naturally and strictly unlimited which is un-created. For every created thing is limited by God Who created it. Further, apart from their essence they receive the sanctification from the Spirit: through the divine grace they prophesy : they have no need of marriage for they are immortal. Seeing that they are minds they are in mental places , and are not circumscribed after the fashion of a body. For they have not a bodily form by nature, nor are they extended in three dimensions. But to whatever post they may be assigned, there they are present after the manner of a mind and energise, and cannot be present and energise in various places at the same time. Whether they are equals in essence or differ from one another we know not. God, their Creator, Who knows all things, alone knows. But they differ from each other in brightness and position, whether it is that their position is dependent on their brightness, or their brightness on their position: and they impart brightness to one another, because they excel one another in rank and nature. And clearly the higher share their brightness and knowledge with the lower. They are mighty and prompt to fulfil the will of the Deity, and their nature is endowed with such celerity that wherever the Divine glance bids them there they are straightway found. They are the guardians of the divisions of the earth: they are set over nations and regions, allotted to them by their Creator: they govern all our affairs and bring us succour. And the reason surely is because they are set over us by the divine will and command and are ever in the vicinity of God. With difficulty they are moved to evil, yet they are not absolutely immoveable: but now they are altogether immoveable, not by nature but by grace and by their nearness to the Only Good. They behold God according to their capacity, and this is their food. They are above us for they are incorporeal, and are free of all bodily passion, yet are not passionless: for the Deity alone is passionless. They take different forms at the bidding of their Master, God, and thus reveal themselves to men and unveil the divine mysteries to them. They have Heaven for their dwelling-place, and have one duty, to sing God's praise and carry out His divine will. Moreover, as that most holy, and sacred, and gifted theologian, Dionysius the Areopagite , says, All theology, that is to say, the holy Scripture, has nine different names for the heavenly essences. These essences that divine master in sacred things divides into three groups, each containing three. And the first group, he says, consists of those who are in God's presence and are said to be directly and immediately one with Him, viz., the Seraphim with their six wings, the many-eyed Cherubim and those that sit in the holiest thrones. The second group is that of the Dominions, and the Powers, and the Authorities; and the third, and last, is that of the Rulers and Archangels and Angels. Some, indeed , like Gregory the Theologian, say that these were before the creation of other things. He thinks that the angelic and heavenly powers were first and that thought was their function. Others, again, hold that they were created after the first heaven was made. But all are agreed that it was before the foundation of man. For myself, I am in harmony with the theologian. For it was fitting that the mental essence should be the first created, and then that which can be perceived, and finally man himself, in whose being both parts are united. But those who say that the angels are creators of any kind of essence whatever are the mouth of their father, the devil. For since they are created things they are not creators. But He Who creates and provides for and maintains all things is God, Who alone is uncreate and is praised and glorified in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Chapter 4. Concerning the devil and demons. He who from among these angelic powers was set over the earthly realm, and into whose hands God committed the guardianship of the earth, was not made wicked in nature but was good, and made for good ends, and received from his Creator no trace whatever of evil in himself. But he did not sustain the brightness and the honour which the Creator had bestowed on him, and of his free choice was changed from what was in harmony to what was at variance with his nature, and became roused against God Who created him, and determined to rise in rebellion against Him : and he was the first to depart from good and become evil. For evil is nothing else than absence of goodness, just as darkness also is absence of light. For goodness is the light of the mind, and, similarly, evil is the darkness of the mind. Light, therefore, being the work of the Creator and being made good (for God saw all that He made, and behold they were exceeding good Genesis 1:31) produced darkness at His free-will. But along with him an innumerable host of angels subject to him were torn away and followed him and shared in his fall. Wherefore, being of the same nature as the angels, they became wicked, turning away at their own free choice from good to evil. Hence they have no power or strength against any one except what God in His dispensation has conceded to them, as for instance, against Job Job 1:12 and those swine that are mentioned in the Gospels. Mark 5:13 But when God has made the concession they do prevail, and are changed and transformed into any form whatever in which they wish to appear. Of the future both the angels of God and the demons are alike ignorant: yet they make predictions. God reveals the future to the angels and commands them to prophesy, and so what they say comes to pass. But the demons also make predictions, sometimes because they see what is happening at a distance, and sometimes merely making guesses: hence much that they say is false and they should not be believed, even although they do often, in the way we have said, tell what is true. Besides they know the Scriptures. All wickedness, then, and all impure passions are the work of their mind. But while the liberty to attack man has been granted to them, they have not the strength to over-master any one: for we have it in our power to receive or not to receive the attack. Wherefore there has been prepared for the devil and his demons, and those who follow him, fire unquenchable and everlasting punishment Matthew 25:41 . Note, further, that what in the case of man is death is a fall in the case of angels. For after the fall there is no possibility of repentance for them, just as after death there is for men no repentance. I hope the above is of assistance. Wish I had a prooftext, but I don't.

I don't even think it's a matter that they couldn't be forgiven. But do they have the capability of authentically be contrite and repentant? Forgiveness is contingent upon the sinner being contrite (regretting his actions) and repenting (making a firm resolution to not sin again). If spiritual beings (angels or fallen angels) cannot repent (vice will not repent), then how would it be possible for them to take receipt of forgiveness?

Rather than "sorrow," I probably should have said "contrition." I think it would have been a bit clearer, so my apologies on that. As far as whether an angel could feel "sorrow," I am of two minds. First, I would think that angels would be surrounded by such glory that it might overshadow any grief or mourning that they would have. Take a look at Isiah 6:1-3, Ezekiel 1:22-28, Apocalypse 4. However, I would think that there would be mourning in heaven for a sinner who is lost. Jesus stated, Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance (Luke 15:7) -- I would think that there would be some variety of grieving when one goes "off the tracks" as well. But I am not 100% sure that it would be something that we, as flesh and blood, would be able to fully appreciate. Consider this: Isa 53:3 He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Isa 53:4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed. Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. Jesus was identified as the Lamb of God: Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! (John 1:29) If we take a look at the exalted position of the Lamb in heaven: Rev 5:6 And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth; Rev 5:7 and he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne. Rev 5:8 And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints; Rev 5:9 and they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation, Rev 5:10 and hast made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on earth." Rev 5:11 Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, Rev 5:12 saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!" Rev 5:13 And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all therein, saying, "To him who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might for ever and ever!" Rev 5:14 And the four living creatures said, "Amen!" and the elders fell down and worshiped. One can't help to wonder at their reaction as the Lamb was smitten for our sins. Was it some type of sorrow or mourning or grieving or would it have been some sort of righteous anger? Or just a pause and gasp from the joy? Or something else altogether? Compare this to the reaction to the martyrs who were calling for vengeance: Rev 6:9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne; Rev 6:10 they cried out with a loud voice, "O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth?" Rev 6:11 Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been. They were basically told to be patient. A very non-emotional type of response -- one that is very difficult for those of us with blood pumping in our veins to understand. And that's my point: I am not sure we would really be able to understand what spiritual beings "feel." Nor will we be able to understand what we will "feel," once our corruption has put on incorruption.

First of all, I don't know about "Touched by an Angel." It's been a long, long time since I've seen that show. Having said that, you may wish to recall the prophecy from Ezekiel 28: Eze 28:12 "Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord GOD: "You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. Eze 28:13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, carnelian, topaz, and jasper, chrysolite, beryl, and onyx, sapphire, carbuncle, and emerald; and wrought in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared. Eze 28:14 With an anointed guardian cherub I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked. Eze 28:15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you. Eze 28:16 In the abundance of your trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned; so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God, and the guardian cherub drove you out from the midst of the stones of fire. Eze 28:17 Your heart was proud because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor. I cast you to the ground; I exposed you before kings, to feast their eyes on you. Eze 28:18 By the multitude of your iniquities, in the unrighteousness of your trade you profaned your sanctuaries; so I brought forth fire from the midst of you; it consumed you, and I turned you to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all who saw you. Eze 28:19 All who know you among the peoples are appalled at you; you have come to a dreadful end and shall be no more for ever." We must remember that God is love (1 John 4:8) -- so I would submit that, other than a condescension made to help primitive man understand, God is organically incapable of hate. If He is capable of hate, then God could not be described as "love." Lucifer is a created being and all that God created was good (1 Tim 4:4). The passage above analogizes Lucifer's state in the beginning, at the moment of his creation. So it would be safe to say that God loved Satan at the time. Consider this: For the mountains may depart and the hills be removed, but my steadfast love shall not depart from you, and my covenant of peace shall not be removed, says the LORD, who has compassion on you. (Isa 54:10) The context of this verse, of course, is to Noah after the flood; but it goes to show that God is faithful: if one considers all of the evil perpetrated by man since the flood, it would take tremendous longsuffering to not repent of that decision. So I don't see that God would change His mind about Lucifer, even considering the rebellion that Lucifer committed. But it's also obvious that God recognized from the beginning that Lucifer would do what he did. After all, He's had the lake of fire waiting for a while (Mat 25:41: Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;). Angels aren't known for saying they're sorry and amending their ways, either (be they angels of God or the devil and his minions. As St John of Damscus said about 1,300 years ago: "what in the case of man is death is a fall in the case of angels. For after the fall there is no possibility of repentance for them, just as after death there is for men no repentance." So do I think that God loves Satan? Yes. God is Love. Do I think that God is trying to get Satan to repent? No. The ability for regret and contrition is a grace given to man, not one given to angels. Do I think that God regrets having created Satan? God knew from the beginning what would happen and if he would repent of it, he wouldn't have created those angels to begin with. Do I think that in the real world, a matronly Della Reeves type angel would say, "God loves you too" to Satan? No. There is absolutely no indication of such behavior by the Lord or any of the Angels in the real world. Such a statement might be made to a really bad man...such a statement might be made to a man who was possessed by the Devil...but a physical manifestation of the Devil? No, because such a statement would imply that the receiver could be softened or made to feel sorrow, which neither an angel nor a demon is capable of. In my opinion. For what it's worth.

If the forehead was the President of Home Depot..... .....I would do all my shopping at Lowes

Ham, you are asking me to stretch my memory beyond the breaking point... But weren't some of these conspiracy theories discussed in the tape from the 70s, The Current Psychological Hoax? It's been forever, but I seem to remember him going into some of them there. And I'm thinking that Jeremiah (a really old tape -- 60s or early, early 70s) had some of that content in it, as well. If I have either of those titles wrong, my apologies.

The interesting part about this is how similar this sounds to many apocalyptic stories and tales. I'm considering many in various Seventh Day Adventist groups (like the Branch Davidians) in particular. There are conspiracy theories with other Christian sects, as well. And it's not limited to religions. If you look at the Alex Jones / Jeff Rense brand of political belief, they are big-time into conspiracy theories, as well. (I am not including all 9-11 Truth conspiracy types, though. While the full extent of that theory is that Bush did it, but he did it at the behest of the Bilderbergers, I think that most 9-11 Truthers just believed that Bush did it for his own jollies, without being ordered around by shadows beyond Cheney). I think that the common thread is that they are looking for some theory of theories that they can use to rationalize feeling powerless and small.

"Preach the gospel always, if necessary, use words." -- St Francis of Assisi

Well, as one who has lived in a Muslim country longer than pretty much anybody around these parts (3 years in Turkey...several months in other miscellaneous parts of the Muslim world), let me share with you the following: It's up to the particular school of Islam that he or she follows. That's basically all there is to it. Frankly, the majority of Muslims I know are cultural Muslims. They get their boys circumcised, they will observe the Ramadan fast (at least in public), and will have their marriages blessed by an imam. And that's it. The pork thing is something that is cultural (their bodies are not used to processing pork and so they don't like it, even when in a country where it's widely available), not religious (most will try it). The women wear scarves where appropriate and bikinis where that is appropriate. And then I have met a number that are of varying degrees of religiosity. Both in the Muslim world and in Europe / the States. Frankly, I have met some who are VERY religious (i.e., they'll stop what they're doing to do their prayers...and they actually slaughter a sheep for Eid al Adha...and have done the Hajj multiple times) who are very nice folks and by all accounts quite holy (both in actions and in the fruit they manifest in their lives). But I've met some who are exactly the opposite. And anything in between. I, for one (an outsider, mind you), think that the biggest problem nowadays with Islam is that there is no Caliphate. A Caliph has the same basic type of authority as a pope (or patriarch) in Christianity. He has the ultimate authority to say what their collection of scriptures (Quran, Hadith, Sunnah, etc.) actually say in regard to a particular issue. Since the abolition of the caliphate in 1924, there has, by apperances, been a huge amount of chaos. Competing imams will issue competing fatwas (any one of which may call on the whole Muslim world to support). There is no moderation and widely varying degrees of intellectual rigor applied to these judgements. When you have a relatively uneducated base of followers in this situation, it's very likely to be abused. Not only in the third world, but in the developed world, as well. Oh, and as to the content of the "sinfulness" of the Muslim who accompanied p-mosh -- when I lived in Turkey, there were a number of fancy western hotels (Hiltons, Marriotts, etc.) with casinos. You had to have a foreign passport to use a casino. Well, the vast, vast majority of patrons in those casinos were rich arabs from "conservative" Muslim societies. Particularly Libya, Saudi Arabia, and also Iran. There were interesting rumors around those visitors. But the only thing I can report from first-hand experience was in the casinos. The point: there are hypocrites in multiple cultures and religious traditions (or non-traditions, as it were). Not saying anything about p-mosh's friend one way or the other -- as I don't pretend to know if he cultivated a public appearance of religiosity or not...but hypocrisy is not uncommon at all. For what it's worth.

Darned "closed shop" (union reference) county! If they were in a "right to work" county, they'd get rid of those, too, and go with red light and speeding cameras!!!

Just got it a few weeks ago and LOVE IT. The pros: it does both EDGE and 3G (or WiFi if you are at home or at a hotspot) the list of applications that can be downloaded for it is constantly growing (a "unique" example described below) good support for streaming MP3 (but not WMA or AAC yet...but this is a matter of time) the API for the Android platform (the G1's is open source, which means that multiple, multiple people can develop for it) Integrated GPS that can work with Google maps and a number of other GPS-enabled applications. The GPS can be turned off at the user's option (in case you're worried about big brother) The phones are readily available in an "unlocked" form (as an unlocked instrument, they are called the HTC "Dream"). With an unlocked phone, you should be able to plug in a SIM card from any GSM network provider and use it. Also, you do not incur a contract commitment if you buy an unlocked phone. The application example that I'll mention is called "Shop Savvy." From a user perspective what happens is if you are comparison shopping for something, you simply: - Launch the application - Use the camera on the phone to scan a bar code. - The application interprets the bar code into a UPC. It then searches both (participating) local stores and online stores for the UPC and then returns the lowest price for each. - If you want to buy it online, you can launch your browser to the site. - If you want to buy it locally, it will give you directions (using your GPS) to get from where you're at to where the store is. (Having said that, no it DOESN'T have everything on it. If you want to compare the prices of cans of beans at the grocery store, you're out of luck. And NO, not all brick/mortar stores participate. I think only those stores that have an online presence will return results. Also, if you want to check on the price of a "Greatland" brand product (Target house brand), it will return target.com and the location on nearby Target stores...) The cons: Android is a "work in progress." That means that some of the features are "coming" in future releases. For example: Bluetooth support is minimal for music/video. (Bluetooth works fine for regular phone use, just not for music/video) (This is supposed to be fixed with the next OS update -- codenamed "cupcake" (of all things) -- due to be out by the end of the month) No touch keyboard or handwriting recognition (also supposed to be fixed with "cupcake") [*]Being an "open source" platform, some of the applications you can download are great (like the one described above) and some just plain suck. If you are used to messing with open source software, you get used to that. If you aren't, that could get really frustrating. [*]Battery usage is really lousy, particularly if you have all the bells and whistles turned on (such as 3G, WiFi, Bluetooth, GPS). My solution: a car charger and a USB cable at work, so I can charge my phone while sitting at my desk. If I was going to operate the phone for long periods away from a charging capability, I would need to get a spare battery. Note: this is my only real bitch about the phone. (Note: this bitch wouldn't have prevented me from buying the phone, but it's still a bitch) Bottom line: it's a really nice phone. but it is a work in progress. If you like gadgets, you'll love the phone. If a Blackberry is a windows machine and a iPhone is a Mac, a G1 is a Linux box. Cost: $179 (with a 2 yr T-Mobile contract)/ $439-$519 (unlocked version)

Sounds like this thread is rapidly being "Stole"n Sorry bout that

Still , but... That was my first thought as well...but And, by the way, for those who need a program, this is a stole: But when wool was mentioned, my mind immediately turned to palium. (no, not pablum, palium <_< ) Yes...fascinating, isn't it?

Actually, it was perfectly clear in the beginning. And I was TRYING to be a little flippant, as you weren't even a participant in the thread prior to commenting on my response to Oakspear's original post.

Totally but, please note: The Pallium. From the Catholic Encyclopedia The modern pallium is a circular band about two inches wide, worn about the neck, breast, and shoulders, and having two pendants, one hanging down in front and one behind. The pendants are about two inches wide and twelve inches long, and are weighted with small pieces of lead covered with black silk. The remainder of the pallium is made of white wool, part of which is supplied by twolambs presented annually as a tax by the Lateran Canons Regular to the Chapter of St. John on the feast of St. Agnes, solemnly blessed on the high altar of that church after the pontifical Mass, and then offered to the pope. The ornamentation of the pallium consists of six small black crosses -- one each on the breast and back, one on each shoulder, and one on each pendant. The crosses on the breast, back, and left shoulder are provided with a loop for the reception of a gold pin set with a precious stone. The pallium is worn over the chasuble. The use of the pallium is reserved to the pope and archbishops, but the latter may not use it until, on petition they have received the permission of the Holy See. Bishops sometimes receive the pallium as a mark of special favour, but it does not increase their powers or jurisdiction nor give them precedence. The pope may use the pallium at any time. Others, even archbishops, may use it only in their respective dioceses, and there only on the days and occasions designated in the "Pontificale" (Christmas, the Circumcision, and other specified great feasts; during the conferring of Holy orders, the consecration of abbots, etc.), unless its use is extended by a special privilege. Pope Benedict XVI and his pallium (the five crosses represent the five wounds of Christ and the three pins represent the three nails -- in case somebody wants to start a "four crucified with..." discussion). A mantle such as was described in 2 Kings 2, (known in Greek as a mandyas) is a kind of CLOAK. A liturgical mantle looks like this Greek Orthodox one: What you describe is HILARIUS!! He gave LCM a "pallium" and called it a mantle??? (I heard the tape, but wasn't there when it happened, thank you very much) The funny part is that considering how virulently anti-Catholic VPW was, did he intentionally use a uniquely Latin-Rite Catholic symbol or was it just out of sheer ignorance?

Yeah...had YOU been the one with the response, that would've been one thing. But unless you and Garth are having the same login problems as Abi and Manofathousandscreennames (a/k/a sushi), then my response stands. (And since there are a couple of thousand miles separating you two, last time I checked:spy:, I doubt that you are both posting using the same computer)

"No sale" Who's trying to sell you something?