markomalley

**************ADVERTISEMENT************* IF ANYBODY WISHES TO DEBATE A POINT OF CATHOLIC DOCTRINE THAT THEY DON'T AGREE WITH, I WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ADDRESS THOSE POINTS IN THE DOCTRINAL BASEMENT. I DON'T VISIT THERE EVERY DAY, BUT AM THERE ON A VERY REGULAR BASIS. THERE IS NO CHARGE FOR THIS SERVICE. **************ADVERTISEMENT************* Thank you for your attention.

I am not a Rick Warren fan. However, in regard to your particular comment, if TWI teaches something, it's likely that it is wrong (they seemed to have that habit one way or the other). The subject of submission is integral to a relationship with God in any fashion. Worship or otherwise. IF you make Jesus your Lord, that means that you are submitting to Him. If you don't submit your will to His will, then how can you say that you have made Him your Lord? True worship, on the other hand, is moreso adoration than simply submission.

For a sin to be considered a mortal sin (a sin unto death, see I Jn 5:16), three factors must be present... - it must be objectively grave matter (in other words, it must be really bad) - you must know that it is objectively grave matter (remember Rom 5-7?) - you must make a deliberate, free will decision to go ahead and commit the sin. If you did something that was wrong, but you never knew it was wrong (nor could reasonably be expected to know it as a matter of common sense), that would be considered moreso a defect than a sin. God doesn't hold people accountable for what they don't know (or are reasonably expected to know). It would strain the person's relationship with God... If you just came out and did something from sheer reaction, rather than making a deliberate decision, that would not really be something to which you would be held ultimately accountable. For example, if somebody waved his hand in front of your face and you, out of reflex, decked him, that is a whole lot different than you decking him without some provocation. Likewise, somebody who is not in possession of his faculties would not be held accountable for that which he did wrong while he was not in possession of those faculties. (For example, you got wasted and started flirting with the barmaid. You would be held accountable for the decision to get wasted, but the flirting might be another issue, since you were not in possession of your faculties <<you were wasted>> when you did so. That is the key (the text I bolded). You are still coming to God and depending on His mercy. As you seek His mercy, He will provide it abundantly.

And the bishops who don't enforce Church law...enabling this to happen. Thanks!

Welcome to GSC. And to the Doctrinal Basement. You will find a host of different beliefs here. The Church identifies six sins against the Holy Spirit: Presumption (of forgiveness) Despair (belief that your sin is too great to forgive) Resisting the known truth Envy of another’s spiritual good Obstinacy in sin Final impenitence (i.e., refusing to repent of sins until you die) St. Thomas Aquinas has the following to say in his Summa Theologica (II.II) Article 1. Whether the sin against the Holy Ghost is the same as the sin committed through certain malice? Objection 1. It would seem that the sin against the Holy Ghost is not the same as the sin committed through certain malice. Because the sin against the Holy Ghost is the sin of blasphemy, according to Matthew 12:32. But not every sin committed through certain malice is a sin of blasphemy: since many other kinds of sin may be committed through certain malice. Therefore the sin against the Holy Ghost is not the same as the sin committed through certain malice. Objection 2. Further, the sin committed through certain malice is condivided with sin committed through ignorance, and sin committed through weakness: whereas the sin against the Holy Ghost is condivided with the sin against the Son of Man (Matthew 12:32). Therefore the sin against the Holy Ghost is not the same as the sin committed through certain malice, since things whose opposites differ, are themselves different. Objection 3. Further, the sin against the Holy Ghost is itself a generic sin, having its own determinate species: whereas sin committed through certain malice is not a special kind of sin, but a condition or general circumstance of sin, which can affect any kind of sin at all. Therefore the sin against the Holy Ghost is not the same as the sin committed through certain malice. On the contrary, The Master says (Sent. ii, D, 43) that "to sin against the Holy Ghost is to take pleasure in the malice of sin for its own sake." Now this is to sin through certain malice. Therefore it seems that the sin committed through certain malice is the same as the sin against the Holy Ghost. I answer that, Three meanings have been given to the sin against the Holy Ghost. For the earlier doctors, viz. Athanasius (Super Matth. xii, 32), Hilary (Can. xii in Matth.), Ambrose (Super Luc. xii, 10), Jerome (Super Matth. xii), and Chrysostom (Hom. xli in Matth.), say that the sin against the Holy Ghost is literally to utter a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, whether by Holy Spirit we understand the essential name applicable to the whole Trinity, each Person of which is a Spirit and is holy, or the personal name of one of the Persons of the Trinity, in which sense blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is distinct from the blasphemy against the Son of Man (Matthew 12:32), for Christ did certain things in respect of His human nature, by eating, drinking, and such like actions, while He did others in respect of His Godhead, by casting out devils, raising the dead, and the like: which things He did both by the power of His own Godhead and by the operation of the Holy Ghost, of Whom He was full, according to his human nature. Now the Jews began by speaking blasphemy against the Son of Man, when they said (Matthew 11:19) that He was "a glutton . . . a wine drinker," and a "friend of publicans": but afterwards they blasphemed against the Holy Ghost, when they ascribed to the prince of devils those works which Christ did by the power of His own Divine Nature and by the operation of the Holy Ghost. Augustine, however (De Verb. Dom., Serm. lxxi), says that blasphemy or the sin against the Holy Ghost, is final impenitence when, namely, a man perseveres in mortal sin until death, and that it is not confined to utterance by word of mouth, but extends to words in thought and deed, not to one word only, but to many. Now this word, in this sense, is said to be uttered against the Holy Ghost, because it is contrary to the remission of sins, which is the work of the Holy Ghost, Who is the charity both of the Father and of the Son. Nor did Our Lord say this to the Jews, as though they had sinned against the Holy Ghost, since they were not yet guilty of final impenitence, but He warned them, lest by similar utterances they should come to sin against the Holy Ghost: and it is in this sense that we are to understand Mark 3:29-30, where after Our Lord had said: "But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost," etc. the Evangelist adds, "because they said: He hath an unclean spirit." But others understand it differently, and say that the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, is a sin committed against that good which is appropriated to the Holy Ghost: because goodness is appropriated to the Holy Ghost, just a power is appropriated to the Father, and wisdom to the Son. Hence they say that when a man sins through weakness, it is a sin "against the Father"; that when he sins through ignorance, it is a sin "against the Son"; and that when he sins through certain malice, i.e. through the very choosing of evil, as explained above (I-II, 78, 1 ,3), it is a sin "against the Holy Ghost." Now this may happen in two ways. First by reason of the very inclination of a vicious habit which we call malice, and, in this way, to sin through malice is not the same as to sin against the Holy Ghost. On another way it happens that by reason of contempt, that which might have prevented the choosing of evil, is rejected or removed; thus hope is removed by despair, and fear by presumption, and so on, as we shall explain further on (Q 20,21). Now all these things which prevent the choosing of sin are effects of the Holy Ghost in us; so that, in this sense, to sin through malice is to sin against the Holy Ghost. Reply to Objection 1. Just as the confession of faith consists in a protestation not only of words but also of deeds, so blasphemy against the Holy Ghost can be uttered in word, thought and deed. Reply to Objection 2. According to the third interpretation, blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is condivided with blasphemy against the Son of Man, forasmuch as He is also the Son of God, i.e. the "power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:24). Wherefore, in this sense, the sin against the Son of Man will be that which is committed through ignorance, or through weakness. Reply to Objection 3. Sin committed through certain malice, in so far as it results from the inclination of a habit, is not a special sin, but a general condition of sin: whereas, in so far as it results from a special contempt of an effect of the Holy Ghost in us, it has the character of a special sin. According to this interpretation the sin against the Holy Ghost is a special kind of sin, as also according to the first interpretation: whereas according to the second, it is not a species of sin, because final impenitence may be a circumstance of any kind of sin. Pope +John Paul II had the following to say about it (in the Encyclical Dominum et Vivificantem) 46 Against the background of what has been said so far, certain other words of Jesus, shocking and disturbing ones, become easier to understand. We might call them the words of "unforgiveness." They are reported for us by the Synoptics in connection with a particular sin which is called "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit." This is how they are reported in their three versions: Matthew: "Whoever says a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."180 Mark: "All sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin."181 Luke: "Every one who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven."182 Why is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit unforgivable? How should this blasphemy be understood ? St. Thomas Aquinas replies that it is a question of a sin that is "unforgivable by its very nature, insofar as it excludes the elements through which the forgiveness of sin takes place."183 According to such an exegesis, "blasphemy" does not properly consist in offending against the Holy Spirit in words; it consists rather in the refusal to accept the salvation which God offers to man through the Holy Spirit, working through the power of the Cross. If man rejects the "convincing concerning sin" which comes from the Holy Spirit and which has the power to save, he also rejects the "coming" of the Counselor-that "coming" which was accomplished in the Paschal Mystery, in union with the redemptive power of Christ's Blood: the Blood which "purifies the conscience from dead works." We know that the result of such a purification is the forgiveness of sins. Therefore, whoever rejects the Spirit and the Blood remains in "dead works," in sin. And the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit consists precisely in the radical refusal to accept this forgiveness, of which he is the intimate giver and which presupposes the genuine conversion which he brings about in the conscience. If Jesus says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven either in this life or in the next, it is because this "non-forgiveness" is linked, as to its cause, to "non-repentance," in other words to the radical refusal to be converted. This means the refusal to come to the sources of Redemption, which nevertheless remain "always" open in the economy of salvation in which the mission of the Holy Spirit is accomplished. The Spirit has infinite power to draw from these sources: "he will take what is mine," Jesus said. In this way he brings to completion in human souls the work of the Redemption accomplished by Christ, and distributes its fruits. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then, is the sin committed by the person who claims to have a "right" to persist in evil-in any sin at all-and who thus rejects Redemption. One closes oneself up in sin, thus making impossible one's conversion, and consequently the remission of sins, which one considers not essential or not important for one's life. This is a state of spiritual ruin, because blasphemy against the Holy Spirit does not allow one to escape from one's self-imposed imprisonment and open oneself to the divine sources of the purification of consciences and of the remission of sins. 47 The action of the Spirit of truth, which works toward salvific "convincing concerning sin," encounters in a person in this condition an interior resistance, as it were an impenetrability of conscience, a state of mind which could be described as fixed by reason of a free choice. This is what Sacred Scripture usually calls "hardness of heart."184 In our own time this attitude of mind and heart is perhaps reflected in the loss of the sense of sin, to which the Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia devotes many pages.185 Pope Pius XII had already declared that "the sin of the century is the loss of the sense of sin,"186 and this loss goes hand in hand with the "loss of the sense of God." In the Exhortation just mentioned we read: "In fact, God is the origin and the supreme end of man, and man carries in himself a divine seed. Hence it is the reality of God that reveals and illustrates the mystery of man. It is therefore vain to hope that there will take root a sense of sin against man and against human values, if there is no sense of offense against God, namely the true sense of sin."187 Hence the Church constantly implores from God the grace that integrity of human consciences will not be lost, that their healthy sensitivity with regard to good and evil will not be blunted. This integrity and sensitivity are profoundly linked to the intimate action of the Spirit of truth. In this light the exhortations of St. Paul assume particular eloquence: "Do not quench the Spirit"; "Do not grieve the Holy Spirit."188 But above all the Church constantly implores with the greatest fervor that there will be no increase in the world of the sin that the Gospel calls "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit." Rather, she prays that it will decrease in human souls-and consequently in the forms and structures of society itself-and that it will make room for that openness of conscience necessary for the saving action of the Holy Spirit. The Church prays that the dangerous sin against the Spirit will give way to a holy readiness to accept his mission as the Counselor, when he comes to "convince the world concerning sin, and righteousness and judgment." 180. Mt 12:31f. 181. Mk 3:28f. 182. Lk 12:10. 183. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theo.IIa-IIae, q. 14, a. 3: cf. St. Augustine, Epist. 185, 11, 48-49: PL 33, 814f.; St. Bonaventure Comment. in Evang. S. Lucae, Ch. XIV, 15-16: Ad Claras Aquas VII, 314f. 184. Cf. Ps 81/80:13; Jer 7:24; Mk 3:5. 185. Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia (December 2, 1984), n. 18: AAS 77 (1985), pp. 224-228. 186. Pius XII, Radio Message to the National Catechetical Congress of the United States of America in Boston (October 26, 1946): Discorsi e Radiomessaggi, VIII (1946), 228. 187. Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia (December 2, 1984), n. 18: AAS 77 (1985), pp. 225f (In case you haven't figured this one out, I am the token Catholic around here) If we take a look at the actual text of St. Matthew, we see the following: 12:31 διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑμῖν πᾶσα ἁμαρτία καὶ βλασφημία ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἡ δὲ τοῦ πνεύματος βλασφημία οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται 12:32 καὶ ὃς ἐὰν εἴπῃ λόγον κατὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ ὃς δ' ἂν εἴπῃ κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ οὔτε ἐν τούτῳ τῷ αἰῶνι οὔτε ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι I bring the Greek up here because of an interesting little tidbit in v. 32. When speaking about man, it says: εἴπῃ λόγον (eipon logos), but when speaking about the Holy Spirit, only the word εἴπῃ (eipon). The word eipon is the verb and refers to utterance without regard to the content uttered (thus the expression εἴπῃ λόγον eipon logos -- utter a word). It can also be considered a thought, as well (see Thayer's). If you die prior to repenting of εἴπῃ κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου, then how can you be forgiven (consider I John)?

You will find that there are 2-3 people on this board who are publically Catholic. You will (probably not) find that there are a couple of others who are "in the closet" about it (as there are a lot who are vehemently against anything Catholic). follows: What's the difference between a Catholic and a Baptist? Catholics say "hi" to each other in the liquor store. What's another difference: You can go fishing with just one Catholic. However, you must always go fishing with more than one Baptist. If you go with just one, he will drink all of your beer. A man went to heaven and was being shown around by St. Peter. As they went from cloud to cloud they came to various doors which St. Peter would open. One showed a large group rolling on the floor and talking in tongues. "Our Pentecostals" he said.. Next was a serious ritual. "Our Jewish persuasion" he replied. Then another ritualistic service. "Our Catholics". At the next cloud, he didn't open the door but instead put his forefinger to his lips in the hush motion and they both tip toed past.. Once past, the man asked what that was all about !? "Those are the Baptists", he explained. "They think they are the only one's here". A man walks into the woman's section of a department store and tells the sales clerk he wants to buy a bra for his wife. "What type of bra?" asked the clerk. "Type?" inquires the man, "there's more than one type?" "There are three types," replies the clerk, "The Catholic type, the Salvation Army type, and the Baptist type. Which one do you need?" Still confused the man asked, "What is the difference in them?" The clerk responds, "It is really very easy. The Catholic type supports the masses, the Salvation Army type lifts up the fallen and the Baptist type makes mountain's out of mole hills." Oh, and just to be fair: In North Ireland a Protestant man married a Catholic woman. After their marriage he decided to covert to the Catholic church. So he went to the preist and took instructions and was later baptized Catholic. He had one problem however. He couldn't get it into his skull that he was a Catholic man, and no longer a Protestant. This became such a problem that he returned to the priest and asked for some advice. The priest told him that if he was to repeat the phrase "I'm a Catholic, not a Protestant" enough times the idea might penetrate his thick skull. The man left mumbling to himself, "I'm a Catholic, not a Protestant. I'm a Catholic, not a Protestant." The next Friday the priest decided to visit the newlyweds. He knocked on the door and was greeted by the wife. When he stepped in, he smelled something that should not be in a Catholic's home on a Friday. He asked the wife where her husband was, and she replied that he was in the kitchen. The priest walked into the kitchen and saw the man pouring thick brown gravy on a thick hunk of roast beef. Agast, the priest was about to explode when he heard the man mumble, "You're a trout, not a cow. You're a trout, not a cow."

Roy, I think you should have given one more choice on the last question...after all, there may be some innies who would like to answer. Otherwise, Great Poll!!!!!

(I understand I did a bit of an alarmist thread title...but I got you to look, didn't I?) Credit score for medical bills coming soon Health care, credit industries join forces in planning medFICO By Jason Roberson McClatchy News Service Article Last Updated: 01/18/2008 11:55:53 PM MST DALLAS - Mortgage lenders aren't the only ones showing more interest in your credit score these days - the health industry is creating its own score to judge your ability to pay. The new medFICO score, being designed with the help of credit industry giant Fair Isaac Corp., could debut as early as this summer in some hospitals. Healthcare Analytics, a Waltham, Mass., health technology firm, is developing the score. It is backed by funding from Fair Isaac, of Minneapolis; Dallas-based Tenet Healthcare Corp.; and venture capital firm North Bridge Venture Partners, also based in Waltham. Each kicked in $10 million for the project. The score is already raising questions from consumer advocacy groups that fear it will be checked before patients are treated. People with low medical credit scores could receive lower-quality care than those with a healthy medFICO, they argue. ''How much assurance do I have that they're not going to look at this medFICO first, before they decide whether to treat or not?'' asked Linda Foley, founder of the Identity Theft Resource Center in San Diego. That will not happen, says Stephen Farber, chairman and chief executive of Healthcare Analytics. Hospitals will check the score, which will be based on the patient's medical bill payment history, only after the patient is discharged, he said. Source: Salt Lake Tribune, 1/18/2008 You can read the rest of the article (it gives a little more back and forth, but no real additional data). Also, see Dallas Morning News article. Or choose your article through Google. So what do you think?

I would be proud to vote for a woman for office. A couple of figures come to mind: Margaret Thatcher. Jeanne Kirkpatrick. There are others, of course. I would be proud to vote for a black man for office. A couple of figures come to mind: Michael Steele, JC Watts. There are others, of course. I would prefer that race and sex would not be issues, but that a person's positions on the issues of the day were the determinants. But as long as 'race politics' and 'gender politics' are issues discussed during election cycles, the race and sex of the candidates will continue to be factors.

LOL. You are bringing up a bunch of history....discussions between the invisible one and myself...from a LONG time ago. Good times. Trust me, you have no idea....

I fully support the concept of Burn the Chaff Day... Start with all TWI books, notes, media (video/audio), and graphic training aids (posters, etc.). Continue with the wife's clothes ('cept those she is wearing at the time). Move on with the wife's objects d'art, knick knacks, crafts, etc. After all, you are the man of the house. You make the rules (isn't that what TWI teaches?). If you say it's chaff, it's chaff. Who does she think she is to argue with you? (Again, isn't that what TWI teaches?) You know all the chapters and verses that TWI uses to place women in subjection? Pull 'em out and apply them. Vigorously. If she gripes, then tell her to knock it off with all the old TWI habits. If she wants to live 'em where they are convenient to her, she can live 'em where they are inconvenient, as well.

Spectrum, TWI was a fraud. Period. Now we can discuss the merits of the different theological points adopted by TWI, but the fact of the matter is that each one of those was taken, without attribution, by VPW. You can look at any number of threads in the Doctrinal Forum to discover this for yourself. Use of the intellectual property of another without giving that other attribution is plagerism, pure and simple. Plagerism is a form of theft. There are others who post here that would be better to detail exactly what was plagerized and from whom it was stolen than I could ever imagine to be. I am certain that they would be happy to again address the issue with you. The original point of your post: It is RESEARCH that started TWI, and it is only continued research that should be keeping it alive and functioning. Now, not to bad-mouth anyone, but does it not seem logical that a "Biblical Research and Teaching Ministry" should have a vital and ongoing Research Department as its MAIN FUNCTION? I rather suspect that if there even still is a research department there, it is way way down on the list of priorities with so much "busywork" to do to at least keep afloat what remains there presently. When I first came to a fellowship with TWI I was thrilled at the name it had been given. It was direct and honest...The Way Biblical Research and Teaching Ministry, and its main BUILDING was referred to as the BRC (Biblical Research Center). It seemed to make sense to me from the very beginning, that this is "the true ministry of Jesus Christ", because he said he was "the Way, the Truth, and the Life". Equating this together, the Founder called it simply "The Way". Now, Biblical Research is what his ministry did, and in that process was found The Truth. And as that Truth (from the research) was taught, it brought Life. So, in other words, the very name of the ministry meant "The Way, the Truth, and the Life" -- or simply said, the "Ministry of Jesus Christ". That made a lot of sense to me. I was excited and proud in the 70's at the young age of 24 to be part of a Biblical Research Ministry whose purpose seemed to be to uncover truth which has been hidden for centuries and share that with people, as it was for many a year. I can sympathize with your sentiments. I think that most of us were excited to be involved with a 'ministry' that had uncovered the truth as it hadn't been known since the first century and we were highly motivated to share it with others... But we were defrauded. We were lied to. And we bought into it. Hook. Line. Sinker. As others have stated, TWI was never about Biblical Research. TWI was always a cult of personality...with the leader being a liar, a thief, and a pervert. (Again, if you would like documentation of that, there are plenty of threads on this site that fully document that assertion) You wish to stay in the mindset that it was a good organization with a good leader? OK, fine. That's your right to do so. You wish to learn the truth about it? Look around. There are plenty of folks here who still hold to many of the doctrines and practices taught by that organization but who, at least, now give credit where credit is due. If you wish to be a researcher, then you need to research how you were taught as well as what you were taught. You need to do so honestly as a real workman... Define what it is you wish to find out (e.g., what is Jesus' nature) Gather data from multiple appropriate sources...for example, to answer the above, you should look at: the scriptures (both OT and NT) what Jesus' contemporaries believed about him what those who were closer to Jesus' time on earth believe about him (i.e., patristic writings). While those writings are not scripture, they will indicate what the author of the writing believed...(and, since the writings were preserved for up to 2,000 years, what a considerable group of folks believed at the time, as well) what scholars have concluded over time (with that type of source, you can see if they effectively proved their point or not) what other scholars say today (you can look at the methodology of the scholar to see if they formed conclusions based on a reasonable, logical, basis) [*]Form your hypothesis (What you think you should conclude from the above) [*]Try to disprove your hypothesis...using your data above. [*]Publish your theory and your proof (for example, on the doctrinal board at gsc) for critical review (trust me, if there are holes in your theory, there are multiple folks who will be happy to help you out here. But any real researcher gives full credit to the ideas and people who came before him.

For the zhubert.com website? I've always just highlighted the text, right clicked, and selected copy. The one trick about that is since each one of the words points toward a hyperlink, you need to start your process of selecting so that your mouse is not directly pointing on the word, but a little to the right or to the left of the word (if you're using Windows, the cursor will change from an arrow to a finger -- or however you have it set up -- when it senses the hyperlink...if it is sensing the hyperlink, move your cursor slightly until it isn't, then hold down your mouse key and start dragging) (That's not a special feature of that site, but is common to any web site you'll hit with your browser)

(Believe it or not) I agree with you. Where I run into problems (and where I will disagree) is when somebody asserts something to be a teaching of the Catholic Church and it isn't or when somebody starts to assert something as objective truth when it simply isn't. Then I engage. (I don't even usually bother with trying to defend against the Whore of Babylon type comments any more...not worth my time (for the reason you cite below). But for the most part, I would prefer to stay on a positive light and, where I insert something from Catholic teaching, it being something that might actually assist the situation at hand. I think that Church history is very important...not dogmatic, but important to see how thought developed on an issue. For example, the dispensationalist dogma preached by VPW, TWI, and some church groups influenced by the thought process in the Scofield Bible was actually started by a guy by the name of Darby a couple of hundred years ago. Before that time in any recorded historical references, there was never discussion of a dispensationalist viewpoint. Those facts can be verified.So for those who claim that dispensationalist views are the accurate and original (i.e., first century church) way to interpret the Bible, it can be proven that this is not the original way the scriptures were interpreted. It removes the authoritative claim used by the proponents of that method. (Now if somebody wishes to still advance that method of exegesis they are more than welcome to do so...and it can be judged on its merits, as compared to other methods used by exegetes) That's a very valid point. And if I was really studying the subject, I would try to find some members of that group in 1967 and interview as many of them as I could...in order to discover where their influence came from for myself. But I brought up the history lesson in order to show that, contrary to what many have taught, spiritual 'gifts' have been provided throughout the history of the Church, since the day of Pentecost. It helps put things in perspective. I hear that myself a lot. In fact, some groups (such as the Society of St. Pius the Tenth) actually left communion with the Church over it. What I see as being a more accurate statement is that the changes justified by the invocation of the "Spirit of Vatican II" have been a travesty ("The Spirit of Vatican II" is a phrase used by 'liberal' groups to justify modernist changes that were not called for (and, in some cases, condemned) by the actual results of Vatican II -- but I rarely bring that up here, as it's a little too "inside Baseball" for the folks here...mostly non-Catholic) I understand, and for a doctrinal discussion...unless it is a defense, specifically, on a teaching of the modern Church, you won't find me referencing modern (post 1054 AD) sources. That is for the reason you state. But if you actually look at it, though, you really don't find a Pope making any radical changes in doctrine. New applications based on changed situations (e.g., Pope Leo XIII published several teachings on the dangers of socialism in the middle of the 19th Century...the doctrine was not new but the application was because of a different situation that had come up) Appreciate it. And you might actually want to check out St John of the Cross. I say this not as an effort to proselytize, but because you might get something out of his readings. And, since they're so old, they are in the public domain!

There are two ways you can do it. First is with the HTML font tag, like you used. Problem is, the person reading the page has to have that font installed on his computer. Most people don't have it instsalled. The second way is to use extended ASCII. See this link. ASCII(235) = δ, ASCII(224) = α, and so forth. The easiest way to input it is to hold the alt key and then use your numeric keypad to enter the ascii number. (Of course, I copied/pasted from a website, but that's a different issue. ;)

Try this: ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

I guess it would help if I read the request. No, that would just change to a character format. But it should still be possible to do it with a user defined function that could be put into normal.xls. In fact, there is: see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/213360 Sorry for the confusion.

One difference is though that he (Luther) tried to cut them out after they were established as part of the Canon of Scripture, not as part of the culling process that resulted in the formation of the Canon of Scripture. I think the issue comes up particularly when one deals with a 'sola scriptura' (by the Scriptures alone) attitude. What is Scripture? What is Apocrypha? What is Pseudographia? If I quoted "faith without works is dead" (cf James), a person who followed Martin Luther's lead and excised James from the Canon could completely disregard it. The same thing comes with the treasures within the 7 books of the OT that were removed. (Having said that, it's far better to stress on what is common vice what splits us and then move forward)

Early Christian Writings -- the Didache For a good collection of patristic writings, I'd refer you to the Christian Classics Ethereal Library or New Advent. Happy reading!

A food bank Lots of scholarships for the local parish school (and many of the recipients aren't even members of our parish or even Catholic -- my daughter's best friend -- a Lutheran -- was a recipient) Use of parish facilities for a homeless shelter during the winter (in conjunction with other ecclesiastical communities in the town) counseling for the living victims of abortion (the local 'Project Rachel') assistance for single mothers (the local 'Gabriel Project') Administration of a local food distribution scheme for low income families (the Share Food Network) Assist with operations of a local soup kitchen (part of the Elizabeth House project)...again, with other local ecclesiastical communities in the area. If you'd like to see a synopsis of what we do at the parish level, you can click here. If you'd like to see a synopsis of what we do at the diocesan level, you can click here. And, of course, there are the national groups like Catholic Charities, Catholic Relief Services, and Catholic Campaign for Human Development. Obviously, the attitude does not quite line up with that put forth by TWI.

You know, Goey, the funny thing is that I don't know of any doctrines of the Church that don't have their origins from scripture or, at a minimum, from "pre-Nicene patristic writings." (although I honestly can't think, off the top of my head, of any actual doctrines that do not have their origin at least alluded to in the Scriptures. For example, the belief against abortion is alluded to in the Scriptures, but it is explicitly condemned in the Didache (dating from around 75-80AD): "You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born." So does that place the Didache as the source of the belief? No, the belief that a child in the womb is alive is scriptural, and thus we can conclude that the intentional termination of that life is a murder...but the Didache tells us that at least the group of Christians who wrote and maintained the document held that belief strongly, as well. It's funny that restorationist groups like TWI talk about wanting to return to the beliefs of the early Church and get rid of all the pagan Romanist influence, and in the interpretation of scripture, they will look at a bunch of references like "manners and customs of the Bible...(generally written in the 19th and 20th Centuries...2000 years after the early Church)...but they consistently refuse to look at early Patristic writings (written in the time of the early Church and before "Constantine paganized Christianity"), which would actually show what the early Christians believed and how they practiced! For a true restorationist, I would think that they'd be passionate about referring to the pre-Nicene Fathers so that they could get it right and get rid of the modernist influence on religion. But, hey, I'm just a dumb Papist, so what do I know... Rachel, I would strongly encourage you to get a copy of the Mishnah and study it along with the scriptures...it will greatly strengthen your understanding of how Christ fulfilled the OT prophesies and will help explain a lot of what was written in the NT. But, again, I'm just a dumb Papist, so what do I know...

What post got deleted?

use the text formula =text(value to be converted,text formatting to be used) A B C 1 1 =text(a1,0) returns the value of cell a1 as the ascii (text) for the number 1 (i.e., ascii 49) Then if you need to get rid of the formula, just copy the resultant cells and "paste special" the values only. If you need to do more than one cell, just make sure to not use absolute cell references and drag/copy&paste, etc., as required.

Two links: http://www.htmlcodetutorial.com/ http://www.w3schools.com/ The HTML Code Tutorial site is easier to use and a better quick reference (IMO), but the W3Schools is better to "learn" code. It has tutorials for HTML, XHTML, CSS, XML, XSL, SOAP, javascript, etc. One word of warning, though...not all HTML codes work reliably here (if that's why you're asking). For example, the <P> tag produces some strange results.

Allow me to echo Evan's comments. Anybody coming out of TWI needs to, in my opinion, completely break from the teachings of TWI. Utterly. And then study from a fresh perspective...not from within the TWI paradigm...but using honest research techniques: Define what it is you wish to find out (e.g., what is Jesus' nature) Gather data from multiple appropriate sources...for example, to answer the above, you should look at: the scriptures (both OT and NT) what Jesus' contemporaries believed about him what those who were closer to Jesus' time on earth believe about him (i.e., patristic writings). While those writings are not scripture, they will indicate what the author of the writing believed...(and, since the writings were preserved for up to 2,000 years, what a considerable group of folks believed at the time, as well) what scholars have concluded over time (with that type of source, you can see if they effectively proved their point or not) what other scholars say today (you can look at the methodology of the scholar to see if they formed conclusions based on a reasonable, logical, basis) [*]Form your hypothesis (What you think you should conclude from the above) [*]Try to disprove your hypothesis...using your data above. [*]Publish your theory and your proof (for example, on the doctrinal board at gsc) for critical review (trust me, if there are holes in your theory, there are multiple folks who will be happy to help you out here. There are a whole, wide variety of beliefs here, from Catholic to Orthodox to Evangelical to Lutheran to Calvinist to Agnostic to militant Atheist to Neo-Pagan to Wiccan to Jewish to so on and so forth. You will get, to put it mildly, a diversity of views... Good luck with it. If you are still looking (i.e., this wasn't a drive-by posting), I look forward to seeing what you find.