markomalley

My husband is basically non-confrontational. He usually keeps his mouth shut. On a number of occasions we would get called to do stuff that he didn't want to do, like clean up someone else's yard, whatever. At the time, we had 3 small kids and quite a bit of work we were doing on our own home (which we were buying), so essentially, he didn't volunteer to help out. So, someone would invariably ask me to volunteer him, and I'd invariably tell them no.

A conversation would go something like this (usually on the phone): We're cleaning x's house and need someone to clean out the gutters. Would your husband be available to help out at 10am Saturday?

Me: No.

Them: I'd like to talk to him myself.

Me: No you're not. I already know he's not going to have the time, because he has plenty to do around here.

Them: He needs to grow a pair.

I can't recall how many times I was told my husband needed to grow a pair, but it was more than a couple of times. Why would someone say something like that?

Seems to me that he'd need to grow a pair if he could get bullied to do something on the phone.

Funny how they wouldn't notice that irony.

(Please to note: I am not saying he would succumb to their persuasion or not. Not implying anything one way or the other on that)

Thoughts of your wife, Kevin, will keep you all in prayers.

My maternal grandmother had breast cancer and my mother has breast issues that keep her cautious so I, of course, pay very close attention to my own health in that regard and I'm thankful for the ability to make informed decisions when needed.

My daughter had most of her cervix removed 2 years ago (she was only 25) and of course that now requires extremely close monitoring of cancerous cells again as well as her daughter's attention for the rest of her life, too. If my daughter hadn't kept up with her annual Gyn exams..........

I get on a soap box and yell kinda loud at men, specifically, who don't tend to their health, won't go to doctors for physicals, won't listen when their body is saying something because of "ah, it's fine, nothing is going to happen to me"

Bullshi+

We do, indeed, have to consider both sides of our genetic make up and value ourselves enough to not just "believe" and/or not just assume.

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.

Taxes are not charity. How they are dispersed is not charitable giving. Do you understand the difference?. . . . Taxes do NOT impede charitable giving required of a Christian. Perhaps your understanding of this needs tweaking.

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.

Even the most dictatorial governments prevent lawlessness. . . even or especially the most tyrannical ones.

What's next. . . Hitler? Like I didn't see that coming. Hubby owes me five. Pharoah, Pilate, Caiphas (Who prophesied!) Did God use them? He used all of them. . . . for HIS purpose and they were bad men. . . He used the most TRAGIC of events. . . . the death of His Son for good. . . for His glory. It is not about us, but about God. His purpose which may not be ours. Should be.

Persecuted Christians in dangerous countries submit to laws and governments. . . .even to the point of death, but still perfectly obeying God. . .

Did Jesus perfectly submit to God's will? Did He overthrow the Romans? Isn't that what they were crying for Him to do? Was God's providence and sovereignty what happened?

Just as it is in the examples you presented.

For the LORD Most High is awe-inspiring,

a great King over all the earth.

He subdues peoples under us

and nations under our feet.

He makes nations great, then destroys them;

He enlarges nations, then leads them away.

Ah, Lord GOD ! You Yourself made the heavens and earth by Your great power and with Your outstretched arm. Nothing is too difficult for You!

Who should not fear You,

King of the nations?

Let the heavens be glad and the earth rejoice,

and let them say among the nations, "The LORD is King!"

From one man He has made every nation of men to live all over the earth and has determined their appointed times and the boundaries of where they live. . .

God chose Israel and then raised up Egypt to enslave them. . . then delivered them and drown the Egyptians! God is sovereign over nations. . . nothing happens that He does not ordain.

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?

Mark, ((here comes the onslaught, ... ;) ))

You, no doubt, have read in that letter where Jefferson explains _why_ there is the 1st Amendment. So that it supports separation of church and state. And, (IMNSHO) for it to be effective, that wall must go _both_ ways. Has to, or else that 'wall' is a sham.

And frankly, if your church (or any other) _needs_ the support of the government in order for it to carry out its doctrine, well, as Ben Franklin once said:

Think about that one for a moment. How about _that_ as being a proper usage of said wall.

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.

I am not a socialist nor do I advocate a socialist state. God wants us to depend on Him and Him alone. . . . okay. . . at the end of your work week. . . tell your employer God has you covered and say no thanks to your pay check.

Who are we to tell God how He will provide for those in need?

Everyone must submit to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist are instituted by God. ² So then, the one who resists the authority is opposing God's command, and those who oppose it will bring judgment on themselves. ³ For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do good and you will have its approval. ⁴ For government is God's servant to you for good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, because it does not carry the sword for no reason. For government is God's servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong. ⁵ Therefore, you must submit, not only because of wrath, but also because of your conscience. ⁶ And for this reason you pay taxes, since the [authorities] are God's public servants, continually attending to these tasks. ⁷ Pay your obligations ⁽to everyone: taxes to those you owe taxes, tolls to those you owe tolls, respect to those you owe respect, and honor to those you owe honor.

Government does not take the place of God. . . but God uses governments. . . for His purposes. In our society. . . which is governed. . . we have social welfare programs in place to help care for the needy. Thank God.

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:

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:

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.

Sorry :( wrong forum

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.

Excellent point, but then what is in the nature of angelic beings that would make them unable to repent or be contrite? Is there any scripture that suggests that they don't have the ability?

(I hope I'm not taking this subject too far afield)

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)):

I hope the above is of assistance. Wish I had a prooftext, but I don't.

What I don't understand is why Satan or any of his fallen angelic followers cannot be forgiven, other than "because God said so". What is God's reason for making forgiveness unavailable to them? After all, they changed once, didn't they? From the angel of light and whatever the other guys were angels of to The Devil and his demons.

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?

Don't you think that an angel of God can feel sorrow though?

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:

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:

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:

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.

I was watching an episode of Touched by an Angel this week, and in this particular episode, satan came to a small town disguised as a white supremacist to destroy the town with hate, fear and division. At the end, when confronted by the angels, Tess (Della Reese) said to the devil (satan himself) that God loves him too. This took me aback that she would say this, and I looked up on the internet to see what people thought about this.

I was quite surprised to see how many people are saying that yes, indeed God loves the devil. He doesn't love his evil ways, but God does yes indeedie love satan himself. Some even went as far as to say that we should love satan too! They usually use the verse of loving our enimies, forgiving those who sinned against us, blah blah blah.

I just cannot quite swallow this line of thinking. I know God loved Lucifer, but satan is more than just a being of evil ways, satan IS evil. Just as God is Love. I think the idea of loving satan can be very dangerous, to the point of being passive towards evil. I don't even think that satan or his minions (sp?) can be forgiven, in the impossible event that he would ask for it. I mean, I think his future is pretty well laid out in the bible, isn't it?

Somebody once told me that God mourns satan. I don't know if that is in the bible or not though. I would really like to know if there is something in the bible that relates to this question.

I don't know what is bugging me more, the idea that I'm suppose to love satan, or that God might love him or what.

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:

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:

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

You mention the other conspiracy theories of other sects. I think the main difference, in the case of twi and herr vicster, they simply were spoken, and not published. One can find past issues of spotlight, various sects predictions of the worlds end, etc..

I never remember seeing anything like this in the magazine, or vic's paid newspaper publications.

The same goes for outrageous claims in classes.. the original sin, noah's supposed castration, etc. etc..

Perhaps the victoid didn't want to give the world concrete proof that he was a.. fraud?

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.

This weekend marks the 40-year anniversary of the Manson murders. For me, it is a chilling reminder to see the shocking outcome when blind allegiance to a cult leader runs its course.

When I attended wierwille's advanced class, I was surprised to see all the conspiracy theories... ie the illuminati, the myth of the six million, the marxist minstrels, every denomination is headed by seed men etc. etc. Far removed from reading bible verses, this "advanced class" was ushering in ideologies, unsubstantiated theories, us-versus-them agendas. In this isolated class-setting, one needed to severely ante-up to be counted as a faithful advanced class grad.

Then, the corps indoctrination included aspects of MAL-pack (more abundant life in survival settings) where each corps twig was required to map out a secret destination in the event of government collapse/takeover. More so in the corps indoctrination program, the mantra "the suggestion of a general is tantamount to a command" was well-known and voiced by the corps coordinators. So, the "general" (wierwille) might suggest something in private...and the "soldier" was to follow orders.

Wierwille manipulated an "army" to jump at his command. Don't ask questions, don't ask how high to jump.........just jump. Thaaaaaat's riiiiiight.

IMO, it's chilling to see the parallels of Manson's followers and the extreme subtle suggestions to the corps. Manson directed his followers' actions from behind the scenes. He didn't bloody his own hands. Thankfully, wierwille didn't project violent "prophecies" to his followers.....at least, not to my knowledge. BUT...........how close to the edge did we go????

When so many blame martindale for twi's downfall, they fail to recognize wierwille's ultra-smooth conning of one's conscience.

Chilling reminders..........

:blink:

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.

The ones they got rid of are probably detectives who investigate murder, rape, abuse, etc. and they kept the ones that sneak around giving people speeding tickets.

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)

a stole by any other name is still a stole ;)

Sounds like this thread is rapidly being "Stole"n

Sorry bout that

Sorry but got to add my 4 cents worth. First, proably Wierwille gave Martindale a stole, if anything. 2nd A mantle is a shelf over a fireplace . Mark, the closest thing to a cloak is the cope used in Catholic and Anglican/Episcopalian entrances for Matins or Vespers. Back to topic at hand. We now return you to our regular program already in progress :blink:

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 <_< )

The whole mantel discussion is extraneous to the original question regarding the viability of GSC.

But, since we are exploring that avenue, has anyone else seen the ludicrous hypocrisy in all the pomp and circumstance assigned to the event by an organization that so vocally criticized the ritual ceremonies of other religious groups? Oh, yeah, if it's Catholicism involved, it's damnable but, since it's "the one true household", everything is just peachy. Riiiiight.

Yes...fascinating, isn't it?

Marky,

The "Sorry, no sale dude." _was_ figurative, and frankly I think you know that, particularly if you read the rest of my post. Oak had it correct.

BUT, in case the meaning was somehow lost on you (what, bad morning w/o your cup o' coffee?) it basically means that I do not accept Penn's reasoning (from the 3:00 marker on) regarding those who push their beliefs upon others, especially the "push you away from being hit by a car" mentality as a reason on why they are 'good people'.

Clear as mud now?

<_<

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.

I think it was from the Old Testament where the prophet, i.e. "Man of God" would wear a mantle, a strip of cloth about 6-10 feet long, representing his anointing as the prophet for Israel. During the ceremony, VP wore it around his neck and then whipped it off and wrapped it around LCM's neck. It hung down in front several feet on either side, kind of like those things some ministers in more traditional churches wear with their robes, though as I recall it was woven of wool more like a winter scarf. (Probably the wool came from one of King David's sheep or something).

It was all very ritualistic and totally made up by TWI.

Oh yea, and that Elijah threw his mantle over Elisha which meant he was called and ordained or something.

Please see the above Bible verses another poster so kindly provided.

WG

Totally

but, please note:

The Pallium. From the Catholic Encyclopedia

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?

You don't recognize figurative language? :blink:

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)

Mark,

Uummmm, ... no. Sorry, no sale dude.

The Christian proselytizer might 'really, really, really' believe what he's saying, and he might even be a nice guy and all, but being pushy with his religion (ie., speaking it more than once after being turned down) crosses the line. That was one of the biggest things I hated about going WOW.

Penn's example about 'believing that you were going to be hit by a truck unless he steps in and tackles you' doesn't fly, particularly if their ain't no truck to begin with. False dilemma, my friend, false dilemma.

As far as someone continues to 'pray for you' even if you decline it crosses no one's lines, _so long as the prayer doesn't keep sticking it in your face about it.

Best example for Christians to bring people into the fold (that is, those who decide to), is to live a moral/ethical life above the rest, and be that example that clearly demonstrates why Christianity is the 'saving grace' of us all. Simply 'preaching Jesus' ain't gonna cut it.

Nor will regarding infidels and other forms of unbelievers a 'bunch of sorry asses', that much is for sure. <_<

"No sale"

Who's trying to sell you something?