Walking tightrope of religion and politics

"If this interpretation of James concerning the rebuilding of the “house of David” speaks of the Church (Jews and Gentiles together), doesn’t it stand to reason that other prophecies concerning Israel/Judah may well be speaking of the Church under the Kingship of the risen Christ (the “Branch” of Is. 11:1), rather than a re-gathered national Israel/Judah?"

But the atrocities that are to be avenged at his return, largely consist of actions done by governments, and nations. It's hard to substitute the Church as being the object of things discussed in most of these prophecies.
But I would again add that there is much evidence ...(traditional national histories, evolution of Western languages/alphabets, prophetic similarities, etc)...that the nations of the world where Christianity took root, and became the basis of the culture, are, or are closely related to, dispersed National Israel, who was separated from Judah, never to return, 200 years before Judah's captivity to Babylon.

So, if you look at it from that perspective, you can see how both literal, and figurative interpretations can seem applicable.

"Look again at the Acts 15 passage that we have been discussing. James says that the grafting in of the Gentiles along with Jews as the people of God agrees with the prophecy of Amos who said of God: Ac 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up. This gives every indication that the promises of Amos 9 have everything to do with a Jewish/Gentile church, which church constitutes the rebuilding of the “tabernacle of David.”

I can understand what you mean, and even agree to an extent.
I can see how Amos 9: 11-12 could have been fulfilled through Christ's first advent.
But when read in context, you can't help but notice other events that appear to be part of the same narrative, but are unrelated to Christ's first advent. This makes me think that we're dealing with another example of a passage that may take on a different meaning, depending on the period of time, and circumstances involved.

I have an unrelated question regarding Amos 9/ Acts 15.

I noticed that the translation in Acts reads like this;
"That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things."

Amos 9:12 reads;
"That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.

Question:
Do you think it's possible that the word "Edom" may have been a translator's error?
The use of the word "men", in Acts, makes me wonder if the word they were reading was "Adam", which means man or men. Edom means "red". It seems like a hard mistake to make, given the difference in the characters used to spell the words, but something doesn't quite add up.

Any opinions?

Rcofield, if you accept the premise that it is the desire of God your Father to return you to the full stature of the Divine and Heavenly Identity which was yours before the Fall, and that it is the mission of the Master Jesus Christ to work with you to bring about this reunion with your prior Golden Identity, you can see, then, that one category of dirty garments that must be stripped off and thrown aside, are all ideas and feelings of unworthiness.

RC
One more thing

I would still remind you that at Christ's return, a "physical" nation would most likely only exist in a spiritual realm.

"I’m not disagreeing with everything you are saying. I think the crux of the disagreement between Dispensational Pre-Millennialism and Amillennialism has to do with the physical restoration of national Israel/Judah.
You seem to be contending (correct me if I am wrong) that the promises of the OT to which you are referring are promises that can only be fulfilled when national Israel/Judah is re-gathered as a physical nation."

Yes. I would say "rejoined". I don't necessarily think we'll all be gathered to modern-day Israel. I would also say that "national" Israel, and "national" Judah exists today, although Israelites are unaware of their ancestry, as was promised in Duet 32:26.
I'm of the opinion that many of what are considered the Christian nations of the west, were populated by Israelites who migrated to the lands of Japheth, during the centuries after the Assyrian captivity.

Well, that should stir the pot some

I'll post more tomorrow, guys.

Gotta go

PH

Part 1

"No, I don't think so, not in the time frame that the passages speak of at least and I thought you doubted that the passage(s) spoke of Israel's judgment in some of our original posts."

I think the 70 AD event was "a" judgment, that was necessary in order for future world events to unfold as they have, ultimately leading to a final judgment. I would also add that God will use his enemies to carry out that final judgment. But he also punishes those enemies severely, right before rejoining Israel with Judah. I believe that the passages in MT 24, MK 13, LK 21, etc will be completed in the events preceeding Christ's return. That is not to say that I don't acknowledge some similarities in the 70 AD event, although I think some of those supposed fulfillments are a bit of a stretch.

"You see Matthew 24 as a future event. The references to 'you' 'near,' 'this generation,' 'soon,' and Christ's coming are to you future events, whereas both RCofield (with some possible exceptions) and I look upon many of these references as already being fulfilled."

I see it as a narrative that was meant to be remembered throughout the generations, until his return. I do believe that the fall of Jerusalem began a period of "banishment", (for lack of a better term) symbolized by the cursed fig tree. But, I also know that Judah will be (and in part, have been) returned to Israel, and that begins the shooting forth of the tender fig tree branch, that would begin the final generation

"You take literal or plain passages and translate them as figurative, such as 'you' not primarily addressing the disciples as the main audience that Jesus is addressing but a future audience, or later generations. We are the secondary audience of Scripture, in the sense of the context, much of the time"

That's what makes a typology.

cont.

Part 2

"You take references to events that suggest they are close at hand or coming shortly to be a projection (who knows when or how long) into the distant future."

No. I take referenced events and show how they haven't happened.

"You take figurative language, language that has been used in that respect in many of the passages of the OT, such as the references to His coming on the clouds, as being literal."

I do interpret as many references as possible, literally.
I believe that's what we're supposed to do. However, I've never claimed that "his coming in the clouds" is meant literally.

"You have also admitted to supporting the Premillennial Dispensationalist position which is very different from the Postmillennial, Preterist or Amillennial positions."

No, I've said that according to the link you provided, that position appeared to have the most in common with mine.

"When I first suggested to you that the time frame of Matthew 24 and much of the NT was in relation to the theme of the coming judgment upon the Jews/Israel and the destruction of the city, temple and old covenant, and that God was mainly dealing with this judgment in this context, you disagreed with me."

And I still do

" Am I reading you as saying that you agree with at least some of Matthew 24 as relating to this judgment? If so I see your position as starting to morph"

No, you don't see my position starting to morph. I have clearly stated that the only scripture that was fulfilled in the 70 AD event, was the cursing of the fig tree.
You seem to recognize the shooting forth of the tender branch to mean something other than a removal of the curse.

end

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
AREYOUSAYING
“ABORTION IS THE GREATEST INHUMANITY TO A CHILD”

IRT: “When is the Catholic Church going to get rid of this filthy, disgusting tradition and the criminal racketeering that follows it?”

ANS: What are Her rackets and tradition? Is it “Matthew 18:6, “But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea?” Defense of human life is Her only tradition. If Her altruism for all mankind is a racket in the eyes of Her defilers, so be it.

Or maybe it’s the words of Pope John Paul II that disgust you. “The loftiness of man's supernatural vocation to be with God eternally reveals the greatness and the inestimable value of human life....Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practice them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator . Is this opposition causing your paranoia?

IRT: "How can anyone claim to belong to "Christ's Church" and continue to look the other way and make lame apologies like the victims are "gold-diggers" or their favorite, "Others do it, too!"

ANS: You do not condemn others but condemn only the Church who objurgates against this evil. Seventy percent of abuses are said to be by parents.

The Church finds these abuses are an abomination. There is no equal to Her defense for the dignity of human life. The Culture of Death is not a Church construct. it is the machinations of the Sexual Revolution that gives man license to devaluate human life. This devaluation is ascribed by the majority of our amoral Court who corrupts the very Constitution and the people who empowers it.

Yes, may all who violate children must receive their just due. Consequently the Church denounces even her priests who violate Her teachings. For those who violate Her precepts violate the very dignity of God.

However, since even perverts are made to the image and likeness of God, they still have a certain dignity, and even in their perverse state of debauchery they cannot destroy it but must take responsibility because of it.

MrMeaner,

The problem with those "last days" being contemporaneous with the 1st century, is that none of the things that were to come to pass, with the fulfillment of "the last days", ever happened. -MrM

I believe the term does not always refer to the Matthew 24 context, or the event you are picturing. I found this article which proves interesting in bringing that thought out more. Scroll down to find 'The Coming of Christ in Revelation 1:7'

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Modern/index.html

Quote from link:

The comings / visits of God are in turn associated with the Day of the Lord

•The Day of the Lord is judgment day – the day of judicial assessment, the day of reckoning. of decision – Isaiah 2.12-18 Joel 3.2, 12-13

•It is the day when God visits and comes to evaluate and then to bless or to curse.

•It is good news for the covenantally faithful and bad news for the covenantally unfaithful. Amos 5.18 Obadiah 15 Joel 2.30-31

•Adam and Eve’s experience in the Garden – God arrives as the blinding light and terrifying noise of the Cloud of Glory – as the Spirit of the Day.

•The Day of the Lord is a day of clouds – Ezekiel 30.3 Joel 2.1-2 (the cloud of locusts as a reverse Glory-Cloud (a curse cloud)), Zephaniah 1.14-15

•So, e.g. crossing the Red Sea was a Day of the Lord – the cloud was salvation for the people of God but destruction for the Egyptians – Ex 14.19-20, 24-25

•Reversal if God’s people unfaithful – Amos 5.18-20

•For Babylon – the day of destruction and the end of the universe – Is 13.6-13, 19

•Elijah comes before the “great and terrible Day of the Lord” – Malachi 4.5-6 = John the Baptist

•Every ‘Lord’s Day’ as a Day of the Lord

•Fall of Jerusalem as Day of the Lord (day of your anger) – Lamentations 2.21

•Pentecost as Day of the Lord – Acts 2.16-21

•AD 70 as a Day of the Lord

New Testament

•The last day – John 6.38-40, 44, 54
•The day of the Lord - Acts 2:20; 1 Cor 1:8, 5:5; 2 Cor 1:14; 1 Thess 5:2; 2 Thess 2:2, 2 Pet 3:10
•The day of God – 2 Pet 3.12; Rev 16.14
•The day of wrath - Romans 2:5; Rev 6:17
•The day of the Son of Man Luke 17:24 , 30
•The day of judgment - Matt 10:15; 11:22, 24; 12:36; Rom 2:16; 2 Pet 2:9, 3:7; 1 John 4:17
•The day of Jesus Christ - 1 Cor. 1:8, Phil 1:6, 2:16

MRMEANER,

Part 1 of 4

Having read that, I'm wondering why RC, an amillennialist doesn't agree with my posistion
"The "signs of the times" were not intended to provide a specific eschatological time table, but rather to warn of conflicts to be expected throughout history until the Parousia (Ferguson 230). Thus, Jesus in the Olivet discourse is both talking about the coming judgment on Israel, as well as his own Second Coming."
Isn't that kind of what I've been saying?

I’m not disagreeing with everything you are saying. I think the crux of the disagreement between Dispensational Pre-Millennialism and Amillennialism has to do with the physical restoration of national Israel/Judah.

You seem to be contending (correct me if I am wrong) that the promises of the OT to which you are referring are promises that can only be fulfilled when national Israel/Judah is re-gathered as a physical nation.

Look again at the Acts 15 passage that we have been discussing. James says that the grafting in of the Gentiles along with Jews as the people of God agrees with the prophecy of Amos who said of God: Ac 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up. This gives every indication that the promises of Amos 9 have everything to do with a Jewish/Gentile church, which church constitutes the rebuilding of the “tabernacle of David.”

Consider the following commentary of no less a scholar than John Calvin on Acts 15:16:

MRMEANER,

Part 2 of 4

After these things I will return. Because the place is not cited word for word as it is in the prophet, we must see what difference there is, though it be not necessary to examine straitly what diversity there is in the words, so it appears that the prophecy doth fitly agree with the matter which is in hand. After that God hath promised the restoring of the tabernacle of David, he saith also, that he will bring to pass that the Jews shall possess the remnants of Edom. In all that text, there appeareth nothing as yet whence the calling of the Gentiles can be fet or gathered;but that which followeth immediately after in the prophet, concerning the remnant of the Gentiles which shall call upon the name of the Lord, doth plainly show that the Jews and Gentiles shall make one Church, because that which was then proper to the Jews alone is given to both in general. For God placeth the Gentiles in like degree of honor with the Jews, when he will have them to call upon his name. Those of Idumea, and the people thereabout, were in times past under David subject to the Jews; but though they were tributaries to the people of God, yet were they nevertheless strangers from the Church. Therefore, this was news and a strange thing, in that God reckoneth them up with the holy people, that he may be called the God of them all; seeing that it is certain that they are all made equal in honor among themselves by this means. Whereby it doth plainly appear how well the testimony of the prophet agreeth with the present purpose. For God promiseth to restore the decayed tabernacle, wherein the Gentiles shall obey the kingdom of David, not only that they may pay tribute, or take [to arms] weapon at the king’s commandment, but that they may have one God, and that they may be one family to him.

MRMEANER,

Part 3 of 4

I say that this prophecy of Amos is more plain than it is commonly taken to be. The prophet intreateth of the restoring of an house which was decayed; he describeth the miserable ruin thereof. Therefore, the promise, which is added immediately, that the seat and throne shall be set up again, from of which kings of the posterity of David shall rule over the Gentiles, doth properly appertain unto Christ. Therefore, so soon as the kingdom of Christ is set up, that must needs follow which the prophet saith also, that the Gentiles shall call upon the name of God. Now, we see that James did not unadvisedly make choice of this place; for if the kingdom of Christ cannot be otherwise established, unless God be called upon everywhere throughout the whole world, and the Gentiles grow together to be one with his holy people, it is an absurd thing that they should be driven from hope of salvation, and the middle wall must fall to the ground, wherewith the one was separate from the other under the law, (#Eph 2:14). The first word, I will return, is not in the prophet, but the change of the state which he denounceth is very well expressed by this means.

MRMEANER,

Part 4 of 4

The tabernacle of David, which was decayed. It is not without cause that that evil-favored wasteness and ruin of the king’s house is set before our eyes by the prophet; for unless the godly should have been persuaded that Christ should notwithstanding come, though the kingdom of David were brought to nought, who should not only restore to their old order things which were decayed, but should exalt even unto the heavens the glory of his kingdom with incomparable success, they should have despaired a hundred times in a day. After they were returned from the exile wherein they lived at Babylon, they were brought by continual destructions almost unto utter destruction. Afterward that which remained was consumed by little and little with civil discord, yea, when God did relieve their miseries, that kind of help which they had was a certain matter of despair; for that rule which the Maccabees took upon them was then taken away from the tribe of Judah. For these causes the Spirit of God doth diligently beat in [inculcate] this by the prophet, that Christ shall not come until the kingdom of David shall perish, that they may not despair of salvation even amidst greatest miseries. So Isaiah saith, that there shall a branch arise out of the contemptible and base stock, (#Isa 11:1); and let us also remember, that God doth observe this wonderful way in restoring the Church, that he doth build it up, when it is decayed.

If this interpretation of James concerning the rebuilding of the “house of David” speaks of the Church (Jews and Gentiles together), doesn’t it stand to reason that other prophecies concerning Israel/Judah may well be speaking of the Church under the Kingship of the risen Christ (the “Branch” of Is. 11:1), rather than a re-gathered national Israel/Judah?

Hi MrMeaner,

"The "signs of the times" were not intended to provide a specific eschatological time table, but rather to warn of conflicts to be expected throughout history until the Parousia (Ferguson 230). Thus, Jesus in the Olivet discourse is both talking about the coming judgment on Israel, as well as his own Second Coming."

Isn't that kind of what I've been saying? -MrM

No, I don't think so, not in the time frame that the passages speak of at least and I thought you doubted that the passage(s) spoke of Israel's judgment in some of our original posts.

You see Matthew 24 as a future event. The references to 'you' 'near,' 'this generation,' 'soon,' and Christ's coming are to you future events, whereas both RCofield (with some possible exceptions) and I look upon many of these references as already being fulfilled.

You take literal or plain passages and translate them as figurative, such as 'you' not primarily addressing the disciples as the main audience that Jesus is addressing but a future audience, or later generations. We are the secondary audience of Scripture, in the sense of the context, much of the time.

"He came to that which was His own [first], but His own did not receive Him." (John 1:11)

You take references to events that suggest they are close at hand or coming shortly to be a projection (who knows when or how long) into the distant future.

You take figurative language, language that has been used in that respect in many of the passages of the OT, such as the references to His coming on the clouds, as being literal.

You have also admitted to supporting the Premillennial Dispensationalist position which is very different from the Postmillennial, Preterist or Amillennial positions.

Thus, Jesus in the Olivet discourse is both talking about the coming judgment on Israel, as well as his own Second Coming." -MrM

When I first suggested to you that the time frame of Matthew 24 and much of the NT was in relation to the theme of the coming judgment upon the Jews/Israel and the destruction of the city, temple and old covenant, and that God was mainly dealing with this judgment in this context, you disagreed with me. Am I reading you as saying that you agree with at least some of Matthew 24 as relating to this judgment? If so I see your position as starting to morph.

WALTER,

omg, 27 questions?!?! really?!

I'm sorry. Was that over the top?

i tooki the trouble to answer your other post point-by-point, and this is the response?

Weeeellll....you kinda answered it point by point. You keep doubling back and contradicting concessions you claim you have already made. The point of the questions is to try to get you to think outside of the circle you're flying in.

are you trying to drive me away?

....please don't go...don't gooooo...don't gooo away...please don't go...don't gooooooo...I'm beggin' you to stay....hey, hey hey...down on my knees, beggin' you please, please, please....don't go...

Remember KC and the Sunshine Band?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-l5FyA3pgo

i'll try to answer the important ones as time permits.

They're all important. Think about 'em.

Peace.

GOLDENEAGLES,

Rcofield, if you accept the premise that it is the desire of God your Father to return you to the full stature of the Divine and Heavenly Identity which was yours before the Fall, then you can better understand that the long upward climbing path that leads to your reunion with this Previous Golden Reality, must be strewn with discarded garments, as you cast aside, with each upward step, and with great gusto, those garments which do not represent a condition of agreement or congruency with your previous Golden Identity.

Ummm....are you saying I am going to arive in the presence of Christ...naked? :-0

rco,
omg, 27 questions?!?! really?! i tooki the trouble to answer your other post point-by-point, and this is the response? are you trying to drive me away? i'll try to answer the important ones as time permits.

Having read that, I'm wondering why RC, an amillennialist doesn't agree with my posistion

"The "signs of the times" were not intended to provide a specific eschatological time table, but rather to warn of conflicts to be expected throughout history until the Parousia (Ferguson 230). Thus, Jesus in the Olivet discourse is both talking about the coming judgment on Israel, as well as his own Second Coming."

Isn't that kind of what I've been saying?

On the "last days".

The problem with those "last days" being contemporaneous with the 1st century, is that none of the things that were to come to pass, with the fulfillment of "the last days", ever happened.

Is Ch.2

[1] the word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.
[2] And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
[3] And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
[4] And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Can anyone say (with a straight face) that these things have happened?
If not, how can it be said that the "last days" have been fulfilled?

Hi MrMeaner,

In regard to your latest speculations in Joel please read the following:

http://www.preteristarchive.com/PartialPreterism/abshire-brian_pp_01.html

Hopefully I will have time to address your latest two poster to me on Monday or Tuesday.

For your consideration however, have you thought about the terms 'last days,' or 'the day of the Lord' as referring to God's judgment on a specific nation in cases in the OT, depending on context? 'The day of the LORD' could very well refer to His judgment on a certain nation, His day of judgment on it.

Rcofield, if you accept the premise that it is the desire of God your Father to return you to the full stature of the Divine and Heavenly Identity which was yours before the Fall, then you can better understand that the long upward climbing path that leads to your reunion with this Previous Golden Reality, must be strewn with discarded garments, as you cast aside, with each upward step, and with great gusto, those garments which do not represent a condition of agreement or congruency with your previous Golden Identity.

WALTER,

Part 1of 5

I want to respond to your posts with a series of questions. For ease of reference, I will number the questions. If you will, please take the time to respond to each of them individually.

ok. i concede these. let's call this god "first cause" - "FC". honestly, i consider these unanswered issues - possibly unanswerable questions. but, i would like to give your interpretations a chance to play out.

You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth here. On the one hand you say that you “concede” these points, yet on the other hand you contend that these are “unanswered/unanswerable” issues. You seem to want to have it both ways, with your obvious preference being that there is no first and moving cause of the universe. In my neck of the woods that is commonly referred to as “straddling the fence.” You need to come down on one side of the issue or the other, for straddling the fence accomplishes nothing (other than maybe giving you a sore crotch).

So, here are my first questions:

1) In your estimation, is it more reasonable to assume that the universe just popped into existence from nothing, or is it more reasonable to assume that the universe had a first and moving cause?

2) Is it more reasonable to assume that time is of infinite duration, or to assume that time had a beginning?

3) If it is more reasonable to assume that the universe had a first and moving cause, is it more reasonable to assume that this cause was part of the universe, or is it more reasonable to assume that this cause existed apart from the universe which it caused?

4) Which is more reasonable to assume: A first and moving cause of all that exists, or an infinite regression of causes?

5) If it is more reasonable to assume a first and moving cause of all that exists, is it more reasonable to assume that this first cause had a beginning, or is it more reasonable to assume that this first cause has always existed?

i don't know what the heck you're talking about here. any "change" from an acorn to an oak is just reactions between matter and chemicals and so forth.

Sure you know what I am talking about. Just answer the following questions honestly:

WALTER,

Part 2 of 5
6) Is an acorn only potentially an oak tree, or is it actually an oak tree?

7) Can an acorn cause itself to change from an acorn to a fully mature oak tree?

8) If not what causes an acorn to change from a mere seedling to a mighty oak tree?

9) If your response to #8 is “just reactions between matter and chemicals,” what causes these “reactions between mater and chemicals”?

10) If your response to #9 is “natural laws,” (a) what causes these “natural laws” to exist, and (b) what causes them to yield the consistent results which they yield?

the "other things involved" are the physical "natural" laws of the universe.

Very good, Walter. Except you stop short of the real question:

11) Did these physical “natural laws” of the universe cause themselves to exist, or are they dependent on a first cause?

so if THAT'S what you mean by "god", then sign me up. i love laws like f=ma and so forth. and those are laws i always obey. please, send me to hell if i violate the law of gravity.

Hmmm….I’m glad to see that you have come to grips with your naturalism—the physical, material universe is your god and its physical “natural laws” are the commandments which you “love” and “obey”. That is commonly known as religious worship, and is in no way distinguishable in its essence from my love to, obedience of, and worship of the God of scripture. Question:

12) Why do you mock religious worship when you, by your own confession, are a religious worshiper?

again, i don't know what you're talking about here - unless you're talking about "potential" given the possible permutations of natural laws.

Sure you know what I am talking about—that is evidenced in your “unless” statement. You attribute all change (that’s what permutations means) in the universe to “natural laws”. The acorn cannot change itself into an oak tree, it is dependent upon the change being effected by “natural laws”. These “natural laws” are not part and parcel of the anatomy of an acorn, but are agents that exist apart from the acorn and which act upon the acorn to effect the change of the acorn from seedling to mature tree. Questions:

WALTER,

Part 3 of 5

13) Is it not reasonable to assume that these “natural laws” that govern and effect change within the universe had their beginning with the universe?

14) If they had a beginning, is it not reasonable to assume that they have a cause?

Your “love” for the “natural laws” is like that of a child fascinated with a sunbeam shining through a hole in the roof of the barn. He admires its qualities, its concentration of light, and the tiny particles of dust which it illuminates. He places his hand under it and sees the luminous spot of light on the back of his hand. He feels the warmth of it and marvels. Yet he never traces the sunbeam to its source, its cause—the sun itself.

In the same way you are fascinated with, and even claim to “love” the “natural laws” of the universe, yet you seem unable to grasp that they have a source, a cause. I, on the other hand, am fascinated with and love the cause of these laws. Question:

15) Is not the cause greater and more worthy of our fascination than the effect?

these "changes" and "movements" are the result of disinterested natural laws acting on "mere" molecules.

16) Why, exactly, do you think you are so insistent that your god (naturalism/natural laws) be “disinterested”?

17) Why, exactly, do you think you are so insistent that you are nothing more than “mere molecules”?

NOTE: I am not asking for a scientific answer to those last two questions. I am much more interested in your philosophical answer to them.

and analogies are always imperfect and only go so far. your comparison of an acorn to the universe is imperfect and goes way too far. just because an acorn needs nutrients from "outside itself" to grow doesn't mean the universe need an external being to change.

18) By what means does change within the universe take place?

19) Assuming you will remain consistent and answer the above question “by natural laws,” I ask you: Did these “natural laws” cause themselves to exist?

WALTER,

Part 4 of 5

there's no relation. do you think the nutrients come from outside the universe? no. everything that acts on that acorn is from within the universe.

20) Did the universe have a first and moving cause?

21) If so, is it unreasonable to assume that the first cause of the universe is affecting the change that takes place in the acorn?

there is nothing "outside" causing these "changes". it's just the natural laws acting on matter. there's no outside agent needed after the creation of matter in the big bang…

Hmmm….”the creation of matter in the big bang”. You are beginning to “get it.” You just need to start “putting it together”. Questions:

22) Is it unreasonable to assume that the cause which created matter and the big bang also established the “natural laws” that would govern the matter which it created?

23) Are you familiar with the concept of “secondary causes”?

again, "change", once the big bang has happened, is a product of natural forces - gravity, electromagnetism, strong/weak nuclear forces. these forces are not really part of or outside of the universe - they just describe how the universe works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law

24) Aren’t “natural forces” such as gravity, electromagnetism, and strong/weak nuclear forces, etc., part and parcel (“products,” if you will) of the big bang?

25) Does not the concept of “force” presuppose something exerting that force?

we have not established the necessity for a "being". all we have so far is "first cause". and "laws of nature".

I’ll not haggle with you (yet) on the issue of “being.” But I do have another question:

26) Assuming that by your use of the term “nature” you mean the physical universe, how do you separate “laws of nature” from the first cause of the universe?

WALTER,

Part 5 of 5

that's a pagan sort of "mother nature" god. or like you said deist disinterested god. i'm ok w/that. that's thomas jefferson's "creator" and "nature's god" of the declaration of independence. i have no problem with that kind of "einstein's god". of course this kinf of god doesn't keep track of the goings on here on earth, or offering eternal bliss/torment based on certain beliefs... but i digress.

I’ll re-ask questions #16 & 17 here and add one more:

27) Why, exactly, do you think you are so insistent that your god (naturalism/natural laws) be “disinterested”?

28) Why, exactly, do you think you are so insistent that you are nothing more than “mere molecules”?

29) Why, exactly, do you personally prefer a god who “doesn’t keep track of the goings on here on earth”?

I don’t know if you have ever thought a great deal about those last three questions, but here is a quotation from one of your fellow travelers in the world of atheism that I think is one of the most honest statements by an atheist I have ever read:

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do... For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom." (emphasis added)
-- Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June, 1966, p.19. [Grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential writers and philosophers of the 20th century.]

If you will, please take the time to answer each of the 27 questions I posed in this series of posts. Take your time, I’m in no hurry.

Peace

"In summary, if there is nothing outside the material universe, then there is nothing that can cause the universe to change. But it does change. Therefore there must be something in addition to the material universe. But the universe is the sum total of all matter, space and time. These three things depend on each other."

and

"Bottom line: This being outside the universe is outside matter, space and time. Therefore, it is not a changing thing; it is the unchanging source of change."

we have not established the necessity for a "being". all we have so far is "first cause". and "laws of nature". that's a pagan sort of "mother nature" god. or like you said deist disinterested god. i'm ok w/that. that's thomas jefferson's "creator" and "nature's god" of the declaration of independence. i have no problem with that kind of "einstein's god". of course this kinf of god doesn't keep track of the goings on here on earth, or offering eternal bliss/torment based on certain beliefs... but i digress.

end

"Nothing changes itself. Obviously, self-moving things, like animal or human bodies, are moved by desire or will—something other than mere molecules. And when the animal or human dies, the molecules remain, but the body no longer moves because the desire or will is no longer present to move it."

these "changes" and "movements" are the result of disinterested natural laws acting on "mere" molecules. and analogies are always imperfect and only go so far. your comparison of an acorn to the universe is imperfect and goes way too far. just because an acorn needs nutrients from "outside itself" to grow doesn't mean the universe need an external being to change. there's no relation. do you think the nutrients come from outside the universe? no. everything that acts on that acorn is from within the universe.

"Now a further question: Are the other things outside the changing thing also changing? Are its movers (or causes) also moving (or changing)? If so, all of them stand in need right now of being acted on by other things, or else they cannot change. No matter how many things there are in the series, each one needs something outside itself to actualize its potentiality for change."

there is nothing "outside" causing these "changes". it's just the natural laws acting on matter. there's no outside agent needed after the creation of matter in the big bang..

"The universe is the sum total of all these moving things, however many there are. The whole universe is in the process of change. But I have already pointed out that change in any being requires an outside force to actualize it. Therefore, there is some force outside (in addition to) the universe, some real being transcendent to the universe."

again, "change", once the big bang has happened, is a product of natural forces - gravity, electromagnetism, strong/weak nuclear forces. these forces are not really part of or outside of the universe - they just describe how the universe works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law

rco, you said,
"A) The universe probably had a first and moving cause…and
B) Time is probably not infinite…and
C) That the cause of the universe therefore probably existed apart from the space/time continuum of the universe…and
D)That the cause of the universe is probably without beginning"

ok. i concede these. let's call this god "first cause" - "FC". honestly, i consider these unanswered issues - possibly unanswerable questions. but, i would like to give your interpretations a chance to play out.

"The material world we know is a world of change. I am now 6'-0” tall, but I was not always that height. The massive oak tree in my yard grew from the tiniest acorn. Now when something comes to be in a certain state, such as mature size, that state cannot bring itself into being. For until it comes to be, it does not exist, and if it does not yet exist, it cannot cause anything."

i don't know what the heck you're talking about here. any "change" from an acorn to an oak is just reactions between matter and chemicals and so forth. and most acorns don't become trees... (is every sperm sacred? hahah (monty python))(though sperm would be more akin to pollen...)

"As for the thing that changes, although it can be what it will become, it is not yet what it will become. It actually exists right now in this state (an acorn); it will actually exist in that state (large oak tree). But it is not actually in that state now. It only has the potentiality for that state."

ok...

"Now a question: To explain the change, can we consider the changing thing alone, or must other things also be involved? Obviously, other things must be involved."

the "other things involved" are the physical "natural" laws of the universe. so if THAT'S what you mean by "god", then sign me up. i love laws like f=ma and so forth. and those are laws i always obey. please, send me to hell if i violate the law of gravity.

Nothing can give itself what it does not have, and the changing thing cannot have now, already, what it will come to have then. The result of change cannot actually exist before the change. The changing thing begins with only the potential to change, but it needs to be acted on by other things outside if that potential is to be made actual. Otherwise it cannot change."

again, i don't know what you're talking about here - unless you're talking about "potential" given the possible permutations of natural laws.

end part 1

"Indeed they do. But neither pleroo nor ginomai appear in either of the two Acts passages referenced. You seem to be parsing words that aren’t there."

But you are claiming that they are fulfillments of the prophecies in MT 24, and LK 21, which is where that word is used.

"So, I ask the question again: Were the events of Acts 2 and 15--in any sense--fulfillment of the Joel and Amos prophecies referred to?"

Yes. In the same sense as the context of MT24, and LK 21

MRMEANER,

Words mean things.

Indeed they do. But neither pleroo nor ginomai appear in either of the two Acts passages referenced. You seem to be parsing words that aren’t there.

What is clear is that Peter and James, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, connected the events of Acts 2 & 15 with the prophecies of Joel and Amos.

So, I ask the question again: Were the events of Acts 2 and 15--in any sense--fulfillment of the Joel and Amos prophecies referred to?

And it's even more specific than "completed"

When you take "pleroo" back to it's root, it actually means "filled", meaning "no more".

The word used in the verses we're discussing isn't even similar in meaning.
It simply means "come to be".
It doesn't mean "come to be only once", or else "pleroo" would have been used.

RC

Words mean things.
"come to be" has a completely different meaning than "completed", or "finished".

Show me where it says that any of these things are "finished".

PH

PT1

"Sorry for the delay. I was involved in a fender bender on the weekend 150 miles away from home. Since it was a minor accident we did not get the police involved. I found out Tuesday that, lawfully, any accident over $1000 in damage has to be reported at a collision reporting center, so I had to travel back to the scene of the accident city since they don't take the information in my home town reporting center."

Well that's a bummer. Thankfully it was only property damage.

"To be honest I find it difficult to determine the split or division in Joel between verses that apply to the times of the OT economy and NT covenant except when there are such clear statements, such as in Acts 2, or where the NT author's, inspired by the Holy Spirit, give understanding to OT verses. In my meager understanding of the history of that time I rely on the careful exposition of the OT by others to piecing together that which has been fulfilled and which has not. So, for the most part I rely on many authors that can reason them out with sound biblical examples and principles and show the connection."

That sounds reasonable.

"The prophecy comes to Joel, and he relays it to the elders 'who live in the land.' It seems that 'locusts' (nations or armies) come against the land in judgment of the peoples sins time and time again."

That's true. That's why the were instructed to pass the porphecy down through the generations.

"First 'what the locust swarms have left the great locusts have eaten; what the great locusts have left the young locusts have eaten; what the young locusts have left other locusts have eaten.' "

I think there could be another message in this description. (This statement may be a topic-changer)
I think it's possible to apply the individual characteristics of the stages of growth, to characteristics of the people being symbolized.
I also think that it's possible that this describes the tactics of the global (political/religious) movement that brings about apostasy.
We have Gnawing, swarming, devouring, and ravaging, in that order.
I can't help but think of the political left, when I hear terms like these.
They actually train people to be worthless consumers who ravage the system, and devour the fruit of everyone else's labor. Currently, all of the economies of the west are being looted by globalists, right before our eyes.
Then, when You add in the identities of the countries involved with these prophecies we've been going over, and you see lots of "red" symbolism scattered throughout, it's not hard to imagine this generation being subject to the same conditions written of in Joel, Ezek., Is., etc, etc

"the part I find interesting is the same typology of judgment is used that is used in the NT, in Matthew 24; Luke 21; Mark 13."

It is intersting, and worth studying the similarities in the 70 AD event. But it's less interesting than trying to understand when this typology will play out again.

cont.

Pt 2

"For instance, 2:2 says, 'a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and blackness.' The imagery is that of locusts devouring the land. I love the imagery of armies coming that leaves behind it 'a desert waste - nothing escapes them.' And the speed at which they come, the noise, the leaping over mountain tops, how they 'turn faces pale...scale walls like soldiers...they plunge through defenses without breaking rank...they rush upon the city, they run along the walls....Before them the earth shakes, the sky trembles, the sun and the moon are darkened, and the stars no longer shine.' Notice it is the LORD's army that is bringing divine judgment. 2:11 says, "The LORD thunders at the head of His army..." He brings it against this people."

Another thing I love about this symbolism, is the way the darkness is used in contrast to the brightness of Christ's coming.

[1] Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee.
[2] For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.
[3] And the "nations" shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.
[4] Lift up thine eyes round about, and see: all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side.
[5] Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the "nations" shall come unto thee.

I took the liberty of properly re-translating the word "goy" into "nations" rather than "Gentiles", as it's the only way it can be translated correctly in the OT.
A study of the Hebrew in Gen 25:23, will absloutely prove that statement.

"So whether this prophecy in Joel 1 and 2 concern the armies of the Assyrians, the Chaldean's or some other nation, the day of the LORD, the day of His wrath, the day appointed by God to take vengeance on the sins of the people or nations is the same point I made earlier about God coming in judgment of the people who crucified the Lord of glory in Matthew 24. "

I can agree with that, with the exception of the word "the" before "Day of the LORD".
I have no problem with someone using that term, as long as it's understood that we're talking about something that can't be said to be "fulfilled" in the sense of being finished or completed. I'm not certain that we can say when the final "Day of the LORD" will be. The next time might not be the last, for all I know. But I do know that there will be a final one, that will preceed the Consummation.

end

MRMEANER,

It depends on your definition of "fulfilled".
Do you mean the one translated from the word "pleroo", which means completed?
(MT 1:22, 2:15, 2:17, 2:23, 4:14, etc, etc)

Or do you mean the one translated from the word "ginomai", which means "come to be"
MT 5:18, 24:34, and LK 21:32, (And nowhere else) which happens to also be the passages we're discussing?

I mean nothing more (or less) than the texts indicate.

Peter said: ”But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel:”--and then quotes Joel 2:28-32.

James said: And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written:--and then quotes Amos 9:11-12.

There is no ambiguity within these texts.

rco,
as i explained, i made those concession to move the discussion along: i can't wait to see how you attempt to distinguish btwn yahweh and other gods.

i'll address your comparison of an acorn to the universe as line-by-line as i can possibly stand. give me time, though.

Hi MrMeaner,

Here is another book that you might consider reading,for it is free online,

http://www.revelation-resources.com/2008/07/25/poythress-understanding-dispensationalists/

http://www.frame-poythress.org/Poythress_books/bdisp/bd0.html#contents

Hi MrMeaner,

Sorry for the delay. I was involved in a fender bender on the weekend 150 miles away from home. Since it was a minor accident we did not get the police involved. I found out Tuesday that, lawfully, any accident over $1000 in damage has to be reported at a collision reporting center, so I had to travel back to the scene of the accident city since they don't take the information in my home town reporting center.

I see that you, MrMeaner and Rcofield, are into the Joel prophecy.

To be honest I find it difficult to determine the split or division in Joel between verses that apply to the times of the OT economy and NT covenant except when there are such clear statements, such as in Acts 2, or where the NT author's, inspired by the Holy Spirit, give understanding to OT verses. In my meager understanding of the history of that time I rely on the careful exposition of the OT by others to piecing together that which has been fulfilled and which has not. So, for the most part I rely on many authors that can reason them out with sound biblical examples and principles and show the connection.

I haven't examined the book of Joel in any great depth.

MrMeaner, you have noted the imagery, the figurative language in chapter 1 that is carried onto chapter 2 where locusts are compared to armies and nations.

The prophecy comes to Joel, and he relays it to the elders 'who live in the land.' It seems that 'locusts' (nations or armies) come against the land in judgment of the peoples sins time and time again. First 'what the locust swarms have left the great locusts have eaten; what the great locusts have left the young locusts have eaten; what the young locusts have left other locusts have eaten.' (vs. 4)

So we have locust swarms, followed by great locusts, followed by young locusts and then other locusts. Armies or nations followed by other armies or nations yet again and again.

PART 2

Besides this, we have passages that speak of 'in your days,' 'in the days of your forefathers,' 'that day,' 'the day of the LORD,' 'the day of the LORD is coming,' 'it is close at hand,' 'the day of the LORD is great,' 'those days,' but the part I find interesting is the same typology of judgment is used that is used in the NT, in Matthew 24; Luke 21; Mark 13. For instance, 2:2 says, 'a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and blackness.' The imagery is that of locusts devouring the land. I love the imagery of armies coming that leaves behind it 'a desert waste - nothing escapes them.' And the speed at which they come, the noise, the leaping over mountain tops, how they 'turn faces pale...scale walls like soldiers...they plunge through defenses without breaking rank...they rush upon the city, they run along the walls....Before them the earth shakes, the sky trembles, the sun and the moon are darkened, and the stars no longer shine.' Notice it is the LORD's army that is bringing divine judgment. 2:11 says, "The LORD thunders at the head of His army..." He brings it against this people.

Notice the figurative language in Matthew 24:27-31, especially the same type of imagery used in Joel with the locusts blotting out the sun and moon and stars and the judgment that came upon the people is used in Matthew. I don't see how you can take this language as literal.

In Matt. 24:29, ‘Immediately after the distress of those days (see previous verses) ‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’

So whether this prophecy in Joel 1 and 2 concern the armies of the Assyrians, the Chaldean's or some other nation, the day of the LORD, the day of His wrath, the day appointed by God to take vengeance on the sins of the people or nations is the same point I made earlier about God coming in judgment of the people who crucified the Lord of glory in Matthew 24. This was the time of the fulfillment of all the sins of the Jewish nation that they had heaped up.

The day of the Lord always brought with it judgment and redemption, depending on which side of the fence the people were on.

But concerning the prophecy in Acts 2:16-21, Gary Demar had this to say,

http://americanvision.org/1728/all-promises-made-israel-have-been-fulfilled-answering-replacement-theology-critics-part-4/

I have answered your other posts but I need to revisit them first. Since I am working this weekend I will probably sent my replies on Monday, or if I am not too tired after work.

It depends on your definition of "fulfilled".
Do you mean the one translated from the word "pleroo", which means completed?
(MT 1:22, 2:15, 2:17, 2:23, 4:14, etc, etc)

Or do you mean the one translated from the word "ginomai", which means "come to be"
MT 5:18, 24:34, and LK 21:32, (And nowhere else) which happens to also be the passages we're discussing?

MRMEANER,

I'm still unclear as to whether you accept Peter's statement in Acts 2 and James' statement in Acts 15 as actual fulfillment of the respective Joel and Amos passages which they quote.

Were the events of Acts 2 and 15--in any sense--fulfillment of the Joel and Amos prophecies referred to?

WALTER,

of course i know that's deism.

So, if you are so certain that your position of atheism is correct, why do you use arguments from Deism to try and counter my postulations? If atheism is the most obviously supportable position shouldn't you be using arguments consistent with atheism to refute my arguments for theism?

i've made concessions i don't really believe in order to move this along.

Why do you find it necessary to “make concessions” to my arguments for theism? Shouldn't you be able to easily dismiss my arguments by the use and application of reason and logic if your position is the more reasonable and logical position?

all those "probably"s you extracted from me are like "intelligence" obtained by the use of torture... ;-) really those are "could be"s in my mind.

If any point of my argument is “improbable,” you should be able to demonstrate such. To “concede” the points I am making under the guise of me “torturing” you is nothing short of confessing that you simply lack the ability to counter my arguments.

my favorite part, i suspect, will be the distinguishing btwn yahweh and all the other false gods people have proposed over the millennia.

What you are failing to realize (largely because you are being dishonest in your “concessions”) is that my arguments have already eliminated the vast majority of “the other false gods people have proposed over the millennia.” The list of “creator gods” you offered earlier do not fit the criteria of the concessions you have made because they were gods of polytheistic cultures. No multiplicity of gods can satisfy the logical demands of the first cause argument, an argument that you (apparently falsely) claim to have conceded.

The bottom line is simply this: If you are going to make concessions to my arguments, it is intellectually dishonest to then turn around and disagree with that which you have already conceded. If you used such tactics in a formal debate you would automatically lose that debate, if not be disqualified outright.

So...do you want to honestly concede the points I have established to date, or do you want to go back, revisit them, and attempt to refute them with the use of sound reason and logic?

Your relativism is a poor bedfellow in the real world of actual debate.

Peace.

WALTER,

if i must, and i gather i must, i will go back to your over-reaching post with the "acorns" and so on and illustrate where you went departed from any connection with logical necessity.

Yes, illustrating where my logic is off in that post would be the place to start. A line-by-line, point-counterpoint response will be necessary. Otherwise we are just wasting a lot of time.

Merely stating that I have "made a huge leap," "a huge leap," "huge," and have "departed from any connection with logical necessity" is nothing more than posturing with hyperbole.

This has been the pattern of your responses almost from the beginning of our discussion. I offer a series of premises and draw a conclusion. You then disagree with my conclusion by stating your incredulity and picking around the edges of the argument, thus skewing the discussion into inconsequential side-issues. In doing so you manage to avoid actually having to deal with the argument that I have presented.

I am partially at fault here because I often accommodate you by responding to your misdirection. This usually results in us spending a great deal of time dealing with issues that have little to do with the argument I have offered, and it is protracting our discussion unnecessarily.

In the interest of moving this debate along I am going to insist that you first deal with my arguments point-by-point. Once that is done you will find that many of the peripheral issues you are raising will be answered in that process.

Peace.

no... i didn't miss those... i was hoping there was something in between i missed. i think you're making a huge leap from all that "first cause" stuff to the "being outside the universe causing this change to take place" stuff. a huge leap. huge.

first cause is one thing. currently actively involved is another.

if i must, and i gather i must, i will go back to your over-reaching post with the "acorns" and so on and illustrate where you went departed from any connection with logical necessity.

WALTER,

i'm sorry, but i don't see how "...change within the universe is evidence of a being outside the universe causing this change to take place" follows from any premises you've stated. can you please remind me of the premises? i really don't think that broad assertion follows from any of the first cause things we've discussed. maybe i've missed a post somewhere.

February 22, 2011 11:58 AM and February 22, 2011 11:55 AM (previous thread).

I know you didn’t miss those posts because you’ve been picking around the edges of them without ever meeting the argument head-on.

RC

Here's the rest of the Joel passage

[21] Fear not, O land; be glad and rejoice: for the LORD will do great things.

[22] Be not afraid, ye beasts of the field: for the pastures of the wilderness do spring, for the tree beareth her fruit, the fig tree and the vine do yield their strength.

This is another way of conveying the same thought as in vs19. Even as priests and ministers allow their harvest to be destroyed, God's harvest yields. The next verse explains why.

[23] Be glad then, ye children of Zion, and rejoice in the LORD your God: for he hath given you the former rain moderately, and he will cause to come down for you the rain, the former rain, and the latter rain in the first month.

"the former rain", "the latter rain"
Here's one of those Hebrew words that have a duality in meaning.
It's the word pronounced mor-eh', and one of it's meanings is teacher.
You can find an example of that, in metaphor, in Deut 32:1,2, which is the onpening line in the song of Moses, which happens to be what is sang by those who overcome the tribulation (Rev 15:2,3)
The former rain brings about the knowledge of Christ, his sacrifice, and what it means for us.
The latter rain comes later in the season, and is what brings the harvest to maturity.

Remember we are talking about doctrine, here.

[24] And the floors shall be full of wheat, and the fats shall overflow with wine and oil.

This sounds like a pretty good harvest, doesnt it?

[25] And I will restore to you the years that the locust hath eaten, the cankerworm, and the caterpiller, and the palmerworm, my great army which I sent among you.
[26] And ye shall eat in plenty, and be satisfied, and praise the name of the LORD your God, that hath dealt wondrously with you: and my people shall never be ashamed.
[27] And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the LORD your God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed.

And so begins the restoration.

I have to assume that 21-27 are parenthetical, as the subject then reverts to a discussion matching the one in vs 10-12.

[28] And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

Refresh my memory, was his spirit poured out on "all flesh" in Acts Ch 2, or do you think that by saying "this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel", he was directing those receiving the message to the Book of Joel for further instruction, possibly regarding "the latter rain"?

I'm running out of room here, but you can see that the next verses are clearly repeats of 10-12

He then speaks of Christ, and his church.
"let the bridegroom go forth from his chamber, and the bride out of her closet."--me

"Yes...isn't that interesting...nestled neatly in the middle of all these passages that are supposedly speaking of a final re-gathering of national Israel/Judah?"

That's only natural since the final gathering happens at his return

One thing is for sure. There's no way that this army is referring to Rome, or Titus--me

"How so?"

Well, the prayer in vs 17 asks the LORD not to give his heritage to reproach, or let the "heathen" rule over them.
In 70AD, the heathen already ruled over them, and had for 600 years. This suggests a time when they rule themselves

Do you think there is any significance to that in light of the Acts 15/Amos 9 connection?

I'm not saying that Gentiles aren't among those chosen to be his people, I'm saying that the promises made to the literal seed of Jacob will be kept.
Why does he keep promising to cleanse them, and return them to their land?
If Israel is the church, why would it need to be cleansed?

In Amos 9, in the midst of the carnage described, we are given this information;

[4] And though they go into captivity before their enemies, thence will I command the sword, and it shall slay them: and I will set mine eyes upon them for evil, and not for good.

So, how does this tie in with Jerusalem, Titus, and 70 AD?

What was the biggest obstacle that Peter faced, in receiving God's instruction?
He had a hard time accepting the fact, that others, beside the natural seed, would be included in the promise.
(I'm speaking of the incident with the Italian, and the subsequent vision where God showed Peter that he should not call any man "common")

I can just imagine his reaction if told that God replaced his people

rco,
i'm sorry, but i don't see how "...change within the universe is evidence of a being outside the universe causing this change to take place" follows from any premises you've stated. can you please remind me of the premises? i really don't think that broad assertion follows from any of the first cause things we've discussed. maybe i've missed a post somewhere.

WALTER,

that's just so patently ridiculous i didn't think a detailed refutation was necessary.

In my original argument I gave several premises to support my conclusion. If you disagree with the conclusion, demonstrate the premises to be false.

I find it difficult to believe you are this unfamiliar with how debate is to take place.

You're going to have to do better than "no, it doesn't" if you want to be taken seriously.

"...change within the universe is evidence of a being outside the universe causing this change to take place"

that's just so patently ridiculous i didn't think a detailed refutation was necessary.

how does a leaf falling from a tree provide evidence for a being outside the universe causing the leaf to fall from the tree?

WALTER,

no, it's not.

Well, I guess that settles that. No way to refute that ironclad argument.

rco,
of course i know that's deism. i've made concessions i don't really believe in order to move this along. all those "probably"s you extracted from me are like "intelligence" obtained by the use of torture... ;-) really those are "could be"s in my mind. my favorite part, i suspect, will be the distinguishing btwn yahweh and all the other false gods people have proposed over the millennia.

you can't really be serious about saying that jumper "ignored" the law of gravity. "ignore" would have been if he'd NOT fallen. my use of "ignore" was in the sense of having no choice but to obey. one has no choice but to obey natural laws. surely you knew that's how i meant it.
-------------

you said,
"I simply contended that change within the universe is evidence of a being outside the universe causing this change to take place."

no, it's not.

WALTER,

well, law-giver-given laws don't make themselves, but these aren't law-giver-given laws like "no jaywalking" or even "no idols".

So....the “laws of nature” or “nature's laws” (terms you have used often) make themselves? Isn't that kind of like magic?

law-giver-given laws can be ignored, but natural "laws" can't.

Sure “natural laws” can be ignored. Usually to our detriment (not unlike “law-giver-given laws,” eh?), but they can be ignored. I recall a few years back a young man high on meth climbing to the top of a local forestry tower. He told his friends he could fly, and then jumped. The law of gravity took over and it didn't end well for this young man who ignored the “natural law.”

natural laws are just descriptions of the way things are.

Not at all unlike the laws of God. “Do this and you will live.” “Don't do this or you will die.” They are, in a certain sense, just a description of the way things are.

now, if you're just saying FC imbued matter with these natural laws at the time of the big bang, well, ok.

I simply contended that change within the universe is evidence of a being outside the universe causing this change to take place. The thing being changed is dependent upon elements outside itself for change to take place. Go back and read my original argument. You then skewed the conversation in the direction of “natural laws” existing without a first and moving cause.

but after the big bang, there is no need for a forever-involved "continuous cause" (CC). heck, FC could be sleeping, dead, or busy moving other universes into being.

Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not arguing that point....yet.

BTW: Your above statement is classic Deism. Do you realize that the rationale of my arguments has now moved you from the position of atheism to the position of Deism? This would have to be something of a shocking development from your perspective.

Wanna talk about it? :-)

Peace, brother.

MRMEANER,

He then speaks of Christ, and his church.
"let the bridegroom go forth from his chamber, and the bride out of her closet."

Yes...isn't that interesting...nestled neatly in the middle of all these passages that are supposedly speaking of a final re-gathering of national Israel/Judah? Do you think there is any significance to that in light of the Acts 15/Amos 9 connection?

One thing is for sure. There's no way that this army is referring to Rome, or Titus

How so?

Are you saying that Israel, (as you understand it), has been returned to their land, never to be removed again?

National Israel/Judah...to their physical land? No.

If not, how can this be anything other than a future event?

How? Because the Kingdom of Heaven is a spiritual Kingdom, not an earthly kingdom:

John 18:36
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

I'll try to go a little further with this once you finish your responses to the Joel/Acts and Amos/Acts passages.

Do you understand what is meant by typology?

I do.

are you guys still talking about the end times and what jesus meant when he said i'll be back in your lifetime?

typology?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typology_%28theology%29

is that what you mean? is that a fair definition? basically foreshadowing?

Man..I'm running late

But I have to ask

Are you saying that Israel, (as you understand it), has been returned to their land, never to be removed again?

If not, how can this be anything other than a future event?

How do you (if you do) divorce verses 13-15 from the context of verses 11-12?

RC

Do you understand what is meant by typology?

"Clearly Peter is contending, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that the events of Pentecost were in some sense a fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32. Would this not force us to re-examine the context of Joel 2:28-32 (and possibly the entire book) in light of Peter's inspired declaration?"

We can.
The first chapter begins with the harvest. It is destroyed by a people that God sends.
These people are symbolized with various stages of growth of the locust.
Palmerworm-to gnaw
locust-to swarm
cankerworm-to devour
caterpiller-to ravage
(compare to Rev 9:3-7)

The nation(s)of this group are said to have the teeth of a lion
(compare to Rev 9:8)

They completely strip the vine bare.
The virgin girds herself in sackcloth, and mourns.
(that's us)

The meat offering and drink offering is cut off from the house of the LORD. The priests and ministers mourn.
You can look at that a couple of different ways. It could be referring to the abomination of desolation. It could be referring to a famine for hearing the word of the LORD. (Amos 8:11-14)
It's most likely referring to both of those things.

Then God tells the vinedressers, the husbandmen, those responsible for securing the harvest that they should be ashamed.
God then explains that this has happened because joy is whithered away from the sons of men.
(compare to Matt24:12)

That's when we read that the day of the LORD is at hand, and shall come as a destruction from the almighty.

Ch.2 describes God's army in more detail, and with more symbolism. (compare vs 4 to Rev 9:7)
We have the reference to the sun, moon, and stars being darkened.

He then asks them to turn their hearts toward him, saying "[14] Who knoweth if he will return and repent, and leave a blessing behind him; even a meat offering and a drink offering unto the LORD your God?

He then speaks of Christ, and his church.
"let the bridegroom go forth from his chamber, and the bride out of her closet."

The people pray
"Spare thy people, O LORD, and give not thine heritage to reproach, that the heathen should rule over them: wherefore should they say among the people, Where is their God?
18) Then will the LORD be jealous for his land, and pity his people.
He says he will send them corn, wine, and oil.
(the harvest destroyed by the locust/army)

Then he says that he will drive the northern army, that he sent, far away into a desolate land. "and his stink shall come up, and his ill savour shall come up, because he hath done "great" (the word actually means twisted) things.
(compare to Ezek 39:11)

One thing is for sure. There's no way that this army is referring to Rome, or Titus

OK, I haven't even got to the part in question, and I have to run an errand.
I'll try to pick it up later.
It may have to wait until tomorrow, though.

Atheist Temper Tantrums are
Always Demonic Temper Tantrums.

Eezmamata says, “Hey, fool ... Your entire premise is BS ... your god is a narrow delusion ... a deluded moron like you ... your stinking religion ... You don't even know what the word atheist means ... You are truly deluded, truly sick ... You putz.” [March 1, 2011 4:10 AM]

Thank you, Eezmamata for helping to make my point. I said, you cannot reason with an Atheist. And what do you do, but prove the point, making your first post to this forum in the midst of a temper tantrum, letting fly from your quiver, several arrows of poison tipped character assassination.

What got you so upset where your feeling world is immediately set into a storm of turmoil?

My premise is that the Atheist has allowed his feeling world to become controlled by a demonic presence, which has total and complete control of the mind, through the control of the feeling world. The moment you came upon my post, your controlling demonic presence pushed into your feeling world a large wave of hate in my direction, and out of your mouth, comes what? Hate, contempt, disdain. This is the control strategy of the demonic world. You think that this hate and contempt is your own. But no. In fact these are the chains the demonic presence has wrapped around your own mind to keep you imprisoned in its world of God-Hatred, where you can be used as their pawn to throw mudballs in the face of those who carry torches of truth on the behalf of God .

Truly, these feelings of contempt and disdain that you throw in my direction are the feelings of the demon that has control over you, who surely hates anyone who will hold a torch of truth in front of the person they have enslaved.

Moreover, your response helps to prove my larger point when it comes to what Atheists will do when they have real power in their hands. The wave of hate, contempt, and disdain, driven through you by the controlling demonic presence, is the standard demonic response to believers in all cultures. If the Atheist pawn has a gun in his hand, there is nothing at all the Atheist pawn can do to stop from pulling the trigger, and sending a bullet through the heart of the priest or nun who might stand before him.

Your “Atheist” attitude, which is the attitude of the demon that controls you, explains why, when Marxist/Leninists get their hands on real power, the first thing they do is destroy as many believers as they can.

There is no barrier of morality within an Atheist that can stand in opposition to the strong waves of hatred flowing through them.

Again, your own behavior proves the point. When my main point is that uncontrollable Atheist temper tantrums are at the root of their destruction of believers, there is nothing you can do, to stop yourself from expressing a temper tantrum in your first post to this forum, making my point.

"Whether you call them “forces” or “laws” or “characteristics” doesn't change the fact that they function consistently within the universe. As such they are referred to as “natural laws.” Laws do not make themselves."

well, law-giver-given laws don't make themselves, but these aren't law-giver-given laws like "no jaywalking" or even "no idols". law-giver-given laws can be ignored, but natural "laws" can't. natural laws are just descriptions of the way things are. now, if you're just saying FC imbued matter with these natural laws at the time of the big bang, well, ok.

but after the big bang, there is no need for a forever-involved "continuous cause" (CC). heck, FC could be sleeping, dead, or busy moving other universes into being.

MRMEANER,

Well, he never did say that they were a fulfillment. He said "this is that which was spoken by Joel the prophet".

We're not going to get into a debate about what “is” is, are we?..... :-)

Clearly Peter is contending, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that the events of Pentecost were in some sense a fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32. Would this not force us to re-examine the context of Joel 2:28-32 (and possibly the entire book) in light of Peter's inspired declaration?

Well, in one sense this (Amos 9:11-12) is referring to the return of some of the Jews from Babylon, during the time of Ezra. But as we know, that return didn't last very long.

It may (possibly) have been referring in part to the return from Babylonian exile, but the NT views it as speaking of something much larger. Hear the words of James at the Jerusalem counsel in Acts 15:

14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

He then quotes the Septuagint version of Amos 9:11-12.

Here is the question: If the grafting in of the Gentiles was the beginning of the fulfillment of Amos 9:11-12 (the rebuilding of the “House of David”--which seems clear if the words of James are to be considered inerrant), doesn't this call into question the application of this passage (and possibly others) to a literal, national Israel/Judah?

I believe that (Amos) 9:13-15 is definitely referring to the future.

How do you (if you do) divorce verses 13-15 from the context of verses 11-12? There is no change of subject or transition clause that would warrant differentiating them, and they fit together seamlessly.

Are you contending that Peter was simply wrong when he stated that the events of the Day of Pentecost were a fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32?

Well, he never did say that they were a fulfillment. He said "this is that which was spoken by Joel the prophet".

Look at it this way, without the events in Acts Ch.2, would we even think to relate the Book of Joel to Christ's return?
It's like when Jesus quoted a small part of Daniel, and said "whoso readeth, let him understand". You have to research all of those OT quotes referenced in the NT, to get the complete picture of what's being said/done.

Amos:9-11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: 12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.

"Has God yet begun to fulfill this prophecy? If not, when do you understand that this will begin to be fulfilled? If so, when did He begin fulfilling it?"

Well, in one sense this is referring to the return of some of the Jews from Babylon, during the time of Ezra. But as we know, that return didn't last very long.
Interstingly, this was written even before the ten tribes of Israel were taken captive by the Assyrians.
Even in that historic sense, this was a fairly long-term prophecy.

I believe that 9:13-15 is definitely referring to the future.

I'd also add that those prophecies dealing with the return of Israel, are often confused with the ones dealing with Judah. Most people try to cram all twelve tribes in to one. It doesn't work, and it can't possibly make sense to anyone trying to study under that premises.

WALTER,

i said i these natural forces don't exist inside or outside the universe. they are characteristics, or properties, of matter. the natural "laws" are descriptions of the characteristics of matter.

Whether you call them “forces” or “laws” or “characteristics” doesn't change the fact that they function consistently within the universe. As such they are referred to as “natural laws.” Laws do not make themselves.

is this what you're thinking?
http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int,1778/

Good grief. I am arguing at much more basic level than that.

or maybe you suppose little "gravity angels" pulling (or pushing?) on matter so as to make it appear as if matter were attracted to matter?

If you're going to return to patronization, don't forget that that can work both ways.

To reiterate, even your description of these “forces” and “laws” admits to something transcendent to the universe. A “force” by default presupposes something exerting that force. A “law” presupposes a law-giver.

If you want to call these “characteristics of matter” the argument remains. Characteristics do not cause themselves. They need a first and moving cause. As you refer to these “natural laws” as “characteristics of matter,” they self-evidently have a beginning (Big Bang—space/time/matter universe). Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

Hence, the “characteristics of matter” cannot be appealed to as the ultimate cause of change because they themselves have a beginning.

If you will go back and read my original argument, you've offered nothing to rebut it.

Peace.

rco,
i said i these natural forces don't exist inside or outside the universe. they are characteristics, or properties, of matter. the natural "laws" are descriptions of the characteristics of matter.

is this what you're thinking?
http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int,1778/

that's a joke, but that's what you're saying, right? that yahweh, oh, um excuse me, generic FC, is actively involved in manipulating every single interaction between every single atom, electron and sub-atomic particle in the universe. FC would have been much smarter if it just made matter with certain properties that would cause it to interact the way it does.

or maybe you suppose little "gravity angels" pulling (or pushing?) on matter so as to make it appear as if matter were attracted to matter?

rco,
humans ARE animals. and it seems totally arbitrary, but typically anthropocentric, to think humans have souls but other animals don't. but maybe we're getting ahead of ourselves?

rco,
all i have agreed to is a first cause (FC). there is no need to assume FC is active now. once the big bang happens, no external agent is needed.

WALTER,

Good to hear from you.

are you trying to sneak in the existence of a soul here? a "soul" being like a little you inside (or is it outside) of you that's "driving" your body?

Well, no, obviously not because I referred to animals as well as humans. I was simply making the point that animate creatures remain motionless (unchanged) unless driven by desire or will. Likewise, the universe remains unchanged unless animated by the will of a transcendent being who causes it to change.

and if you think it's "desire or will" that causes your body to move, ask a paralyzed person why they don't desire their legs to move.

That's a non-sequitur, but it actually reinforces my postulate. External changes affecting the central nervous system have rendered the legs of a paralytic incapable of movement regardless of will or desire.

nope. "change", in the case of the post-big-bang universe, is a product of natural forces - gravity, electromagnetism, strong/weak nuclear forces. these forces are not really part of or outside of the universe - they just describe how the universe works. these laws do not make the universe behave the way it does, they just describe the way it works.

Now you're contradicting yourself. You've already agreed that there is probably an external cause of the Big Bang. If there was a cause of the Big Bang, then the “natural forces” resulting from the Big Bang owe their existence to the first cause.

Further, even your description of these “forces” and “laws” admits to something transcendent to the universe. A “force” by default presupposes something exerting that force. A “law” presupposes a law-giver.

the universe "changes" according to the natural forces i mentioned earlier.

And the concept of “natural forces” presupposes something exerting force. The concept of “natural laws” presupposes a law-giver. These things do not exist in a vacuum. They cannot exist without a cause. Remember, “natural forces” or “natural laws” had a beginning, and you have already agreed to the self-evident fact that anything that has a beginning cannot be eternal, and therefore must have a cause.

In offering the argument from change for the existence of a transcendent being outside the universe itself I am simply offering an argument to reinforce what you have already agreed to—that there probably is a first and moving cause of the universe. Your disagreement with this argument seems to indicate that you have not actually agreed to the rational probability of a first cause. I suspected as much, therefore I offered the argument from change to test my suspicions.

Shall we return to the first-cause argument to see where exactly it is that you have derailed? :-)

Peace, brother.

MRMEANER,

PeterHuff said:

In addition, Peter stands up and says to those Jews gathered from all these nations that the prophecy of Joel has been fulfilled [at Pentecost]

To which you responded:

Except for the fact that in reading the Book of Joel, you find all kind of things prophesied that hasn't happened. In fact, the only thing in the whole book that you can say has partially came to pass, is Ch2:28-29. (emphasis added)

Peter may not have been referring to the entire book of Joel. He said “this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel” and then quoted Joel 2:28-32.

Are you contending that Peter was simply wrong when he stated that the events of the Day of Pentecost were a fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32?

On a separate note, Amos makes the following prophecy in 9:11-12:

11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: 12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.

Has God yet begun to fulfill this prophecy? If not, when do you understand that this will begin to be fulfilled? If so, when did He begin fulfilling it?

Look at the general posture of Atheists, who take the position that the vast majority of the earth’s population are fools for Believing in God. This capacity to elevate a narrow delusion into a superior intellectual position, is a product of hatred, and the logic that flows from it.

Look at this guy!

Hey, fool, the vast majority of humanity believes in lots of gods, not just yours. In fact they believe in other gods that are not yours. Do you see that "s" at the end of "gods" ?

You don't believe in their gods any more than we do. You entire premise is BS. In fact, your god is a narrow delusion compared to all the gods humanity worships.

And a deluded moron like you is claiming reason? I'm amazed you can even type the word.

You've obviously never been to Russia either, there are churches all over the place.

Communism and Religion are competitors for the same weakness in the human mind. List some common attributes: blind faith in the ideology, no questions allowed, apostates and blasphemers murdered.
They raised the state to the same level of worship required as your stinking religion does for your fantasy gods. They didn't kill people in the name of atheism - this is the default position when you don't have a theistic god. You don't even know what the word atheist means.

You are truly deluded, truly sick. There are entire countries in the middle east where people with your fanaticism rule, why not go live there? After all, they believe in the same god, don't they?

You putz.

The tightrope recycled:

Think infinity and recycling with the Big Bang expansion followed by the shrinking reversal called the Gib Gnab and recycling back to the Big Bang repeating the process on and on forever. Human life and Earth are simply a minute part of this cha-otic, sto-cha-stic, expanding, shrinking process disappearing in five billion years with the burn out of the Sun and maybe returning in another five billion years with different life forms but still subject to the va-ga-ries of its local star.

Areyousaying hates. There is no need to trouble yourself about him. He's a virulent antisemitic Lutheran (posts available on request), and unlike the Jews, the Lutherans have not been genocided by the Catholics throughout history, do not face racist discrimination from them as we do. Not from all Catholics, but from many. (I mean many.)

His hatred is baseless, not defensive. He simply hates. In this, he is reminiscent of Luther. (Quotes available on request.)

part 1

PH

"Concerning verse 21,

Luke 12:51-53: “Do you think I came to bring peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

If this isn't referring to a time when division among those who believe they follow Christ, would lead one group to persecute another, what does it mean?
And how would all of that factor in to the 70 AD event?

John 14:25-26
Who is Jesus speaking to in the context of this verse? He says ‘all this I have spoken while with you.’ Who are the ‘you?

John 15:26-27
Who are the ‘you’ spoken of who have been with Him from the beginning? The beginning of what?

This is where it gets interesting, again.
The only choices I can see are;

1) "You" either means his elect, whether those hearing him speak those words, or the remnant that continues to this day
or
2) Inasmuch as the events that were to transpire after the witness, have in no way been fulfilled, the only way you can interpret that literally, would be to agree with GE, and say that the disciples, those hearing those words in person would have to literally be "born again" in flesh to complete the mission.

Like I said before, I'm not willing to make that claim. It may be true, but I would like to think that Jesus could have used the term in a more broad sense.
And I would add that my opinion is that the Holy Spirit doesn't manifest itself in that form, and won't again, until the appointed time

"We have Biblical references to it. Is that not enough for you?"

No, we don't have Biblical references to that specific event.
We have Biblical refences that can be considered similar to that event.
But again, without the big finale that we all know ends the show, I have to assume we are discussing elements of an earlier scene

cont.

pt 2

"Acts 1:7-8: “He said to them: It is not for you to know the times and dates the Father has set by His own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you; and you will witness in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

Do you believe that the apostles were able to make it to all of "the ends of the earth"?

"In addition, Peter stands up and says to those Jews gathered from all these nations that the prophecy of Joel has been fulfilled [at Pentecost]"

Except for the fact that in reading the Book of Joel, you find all kind of things prophesied that hasn't happened. In fact, the only thing in the whole book that you can say has partially came to pass, is Ch2:28-29. You should read Ch.3. It speaks of gathering all nations, and bringing them to the valley of Jehoshaphat (Yahveh's judgment), and judging(shaphat) them for his people, and his heritage, Israel, whom they scattered among the nations.
It also says in vs 20 that "Judah will dwell forever", and that God will cleanse them.

"Matthew 24:14: “And this gospel will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations and then the end will come.”
MrMeaner, the ‘end’ of what?"

The end of this dispensation of time
Actually, I should be asking you that question. If all of this has been done, when was the end, and what was it the end of?

"Hebrews 9:26: “Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself.”

"When did (or will) Christ offer the sacrifice of Himself to do away with sin?"

Are you seriously asking me that?

If that one appearance was at the end of the ages, then when does the appearance mentioned in the next verses happen?

[28] So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."

So is that at the end of another age, or what?

end

jonswitzer ask, “Should we blame atheism/secularism for the Marxist/Communist genocides?

The answer of course is YES.

Atheism is a product of the most intense Demon Inspired Hatred of God. A hatred so intense, and so seamless, that the very idea of God is DESTROYED within the mind.

Look at the general posture of Atheists, who take the position that the vast majority of the earth’s population are fools for Believing in God. This capacity to elevate a narrow delusion into a superior intellectual position, is a product of hatred, and the logic that flows from it.

Why is it that you can never reason with an Atheist? It because you are not just talking to a individual that has been victimized by this demonic control. You are debating the demon controller itself, who has no capacity or desire to entertain a positive thought about God. And that controller enforces that agenda onto the victim’s mind.

The Marxist/Communist program, founded on Atheism, has this foundational relationship to the demonic world, which is the only source of this intense kind of hatred that can move people to commit genocide. When Atheists are in power, what you have is the demonic world in power, in the world of form. Because of this link to the demonic world, Atheists will be invariable inspired to commit atrocities against believers first, and whoever else will stand in their way. The first thing that Marxist/Leninist/Communists do when they have the power, is to physically destroy the churches and murder the priests. That’s what they did in Russia, and that’s what they did in China, and that’s what they did in Tibet, and so forth.

rco,
sorry for the delay, but life happens...

you said,
"Nothing changes itself. Obviously, self-moving things, like animal or human bodies, are moved by desire or will—something other than mere molecules. And when the animal or human dies, the molecules remain, but the body no longer moves because the desire or will is no longer present to move it."

nope. it IS just "mere" molecules. are you trying to sneak in the existence of a soul here? a "soul" being like a little you inside (or is it outside) of you that's "driving" your body? and if you think it's "desire or will" that causes your body to move, ask a paralyzed person why they don't desire their legs to move.

you also said,
"The universe is the sum total of all these moving things, however many there are. The whole universe is in the process of change. But I have already pointed out that change in any being requires an outside force to actualize it. Therefore, there is some force outside (in addition to) the universe, some real being transcendent to the universe."

nope. "change", in the case of the post-big-bang universe, is a product of natural forces - gravity, electromagnetism, strong/weak nuclear forces. these forces are not really part of or outside of the universe - they just describe how the universe works. these laws do not make the universe behave the way it does, they just describe the way it works. are you trying to posit some kind of "intelligent falling theory"? or trying to say that "god is gravity" etc...?

you also said,
"In summary, if there is nothing outside the material universe, then there is nothing that can cause the universe to change. But it does change. Therefore there must be something in addition to the material universe. But the universe is the sum total of all matter, space and time. These three things depend on each other."

the universe "changes" according to the natural forces i mentioned earlier.

On the Subject of Hating Catholics

Since our expert on this subject, RcoField, is not going to speak up, I suppose that it falls to me to speak in his stead.

Areyousaying, you need to consider the origin of your Hatred for Catholics. The truth about this, will be one step on the road to freedom for you.

The level of hatred, which you exhibit, in the direction of Catholics, which is so powerful, that it excludes from the mind, the reality and truth, that the group you hate, actually contains predominantly good people, and Children of God, whom God Loves, be advised, that that hatred is always demon inspired.

It is a powerful hatred that shuts down the operation of reason itself, and will even mock reason, when applied to the group in question. The demon leans on the astral body of the victim, and projects that hatred into the feeling world, and the victim is deceived into believing that the hatred is a native feature of the identity. But it is not. It is always a manipulation.

Allowing yourself to be so manipulated, which places you in a state of rebellion against key Teachings of Christ, has serious ramifications regarding the potential of your own soul to be saved.

We see that hatred of Catholics has the same source as hatred of jews, the same source as all forms of racial hatred as well. It is all demon inspired, and pressed upon the individual who has acquired a taste for hatred. This is the primary tactic of the demonic world to divide and conquer the Children of God on earth.

Areyousaying, it would be good for you to contemplate the deepest meaning of the Teaching of Christ, who said that Love is the fulfillment of the whole law. What does this statement of the law say about the individual who indulges hatred? That individual is in violation of the whole law. And that individual, in that state, cannot be saved. The soul cannot be saved in that condition, because it is in a state of rebellion against the WHOLE LAW.

Tempting individuals to indulge hatred, is one of the primary ways that the demonic world uses to draw the Children of God off the path of love, which is the only path that will lead the soul back into the Kingdom of Heaven.

AreYouSaying:

I recommend you look up the term, "Ad Hominem".

p.s.: You might want to check out the % of catholic priests engaging in pedophilia vs. that of other ministers, or the general populace. I'm guessing you'll be unpleasantly surprised.

Anytime a Catholic tries to moralize to the rest of us about politics or religion, the topic is felony child sexual abuse and racketeering. It's a huge, prom night, puss filled zit on their pompous noses:

The Church and Its Abuse

UNITED STATES
Skinner's Notes

“He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but he whoso confesseth and forshaketh them shall have mercy.” Proverbs 28:113

“The sins of the common, untutored people are nothing in comparison with the sins that are committed by great and high persons that are in spiritual and temporal offices.”
Luther, Table Talk

Stories about members of the Catholic clergy abusing children continue to appear in the press. A Sunday’s New York Time Magazine article (February 13, 2011) featured a report by Russell Shorto, “The Irish Affliction,” detailing the sexual abuse (I believe more accurate terms are “sexual assault” and “rape.”) of children perpetrated by priests throughout Ireland.

Besides the thousands of cases in Ireland, which makes that country only second to the US in the number of cases, Shorto cites reports of clergy sexual abuse in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands, Britain, Italy, Spain, France, Malta, Switzerland, Austria, Mexico, New Zealand, Canada, Kenya, the Philippines, and Australia. Though this list might seem shockingly long, it does not report all the countries that have experienced abuse by Catholic clergy.

More tales of horror will, no doubt, surface in the future (See Washington Post, L.A. Cardinal’s legacy tainted by priest abuse.” Saturday, February 26, 2011). But how many victims have remained silent over the years and how many victims from centuries past took the abuse they suffered silently to their graves?

One particularly disturbing story that has made its way into the news is that of Marie Collins. Collins told the curate of her parish about a priest who sexually abused her when she was thirteen. The curate listened to her ordeal and then informed her that she “may have tempted” the priest into “digitally raping” her.

PH

"Why don’t you read the whole context, starting from 10:1-11:1? Who is Jesus speaking to?"

His disciples, who were sent specifically to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel, and specifically forbidden to go to the "ethnos" or Gentiles...which validates another point I've been trying to make.

And yes, I'm familiar with the misteaching that the fulfillment of Matt 24, Luke 21, Mk 13 is recorded in Acts.
Actually, the example you provided (Acts Ch.4) was one I've been considering posting as an example. Since Peter (who is recognized as being symbolic of the church-- Matt 16:18-19) committed a similar act, on a lesser scale, under different circumstances than outlined in those prophecies, and without the fulfillment of the rest of those prophecies (Matt24,Luke21, Mk13)...we can take this as another example that could be considered a typology

Acts 9:15-17:
This is referring to Paul.
He was the only one sent to the Gentiles.

The examples in Acts, of the Holy Spirit speaking can only be interpreted as fulfillment of those questionable prophecies, if you believe that none of the rest of those same prophecies will come to pass.
And we never read of any testimony before kings.
We are told that Paul was a chosen vessel to bear Christ's name before Gentiles, kings, and Israel, we are never told of an instance where the Holy Spirit witnesses before kings.
And remember, this is in the context of a struggle that involves "nation against nation", and "kingdom against kingdom". I'm not aware of any such struggle that would involve testimony of the Holy Spirit in one side's victory, much less one that ushered in Christ's return, and the gathering of the elect.

I gotta get back to work.

I'll get to the rest of your posts this evening

AreYouSpeaking - I'm gathering you didn't notice that this is a forum about whether religious issues are being exploited in politics (specifically, Islam).

This is not a discussion about pedophilia in the Catholic Church, nor is it about AIDS in Africa, or whether level 52 Sorcs in Diablo II are better off with Meteorb or Lightning builds.

You might be speaking (actually, just cut-and-pasting), but I can assure you no one's listening. If you feel the fervent need to discuss that issue, you might want to look for somewhere where your topic of interest is actually being discussed. Because you're rather wasting your time here.

WISCONSIN
Voice from the Desert

Statement by John Pilmaier, SNAP Wisconsin Director
CONTACT: 414.336.8575

Today it has been confirmed by the Archdiocese of Milwaukee that two priests have been removed from ministry for credible reports of child sexual assault ...

The first priest is Fr. Laurin Wenig, pastor of St. Mary’s Visitation in Elm Grove. The second has not been named by the archbishop, but he is a priest that was in ministry somewhere in the archdiocese, but officially listed as “retired.” By not releasing his name and the details of his offense or offenses, the archdiocese puts every “retired” priest under unwarranted suspicion.

Astonishingly, not only was Archbishop Jerome Listecki not in attendance at St. Mary’s today to make the devastating announcement himself to parishioners, he allowed Wenig to distribute a letter denying the allegations. Listecki gave no explanation to baffled parishioners of the policies and procedures of an investigation, and personally explain and take full responsibility for the drastic step of officially and publically removing Wenig from ministry.

So much for the newly humbled archbishop, who has come to the federal court asking for bankruptcy protection, saying that the archdiocese deserves such protection because of his commitment to transparency and accountability.

Listecki commands a vast and expensive communications network, consisting of several hired spokespersons, a newspaper, a local television and radio show, websites, hundreds of parishes with weekly bulletins and pulpits. If Listecki were truly committed to openness and transparency concerning reports of child sexual abuse he has more than enough communication outlets at his disposal to make that happen. Instead Listecki has decided to maintain the system of secrecy or confusion, which has become a permanent intractable fixture of this archdiocese, whenever reports of sexual abuse by priests arise.

Should we blame atheism/secularism for the Marxist/Communist genocides? Then quit blaming Catholicism for the homosexual/pedophile failures of some of its priests.

I speak as a protestant who feels that there are many unwise and even unbiblical policies in the Catholic hiearchical behemoth.

Nevertheless, blaming Christianity, Catholicism or Atheism for the failure of their followers to be true to their teachings is hardly rational. A bit more childish, in fact, than logical.

Sure, we should hold each other to the tenets that we teach. But that is the point, some atheists teach destruction of society in a self-centered orgy of immorality (Nietzche, Marx). Not all atheists do this and it may not be atheist teaching to do so. Though, atheism does struggle to establish a unified logical basis for morality. Nevertheless, many have worked hard to do so.

In the same way, some Catholic priests have encouraged pedophilia and homosexuality in their ranks. However, when they did so, they did so in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to the well-established (some say monolithic) teachings of the church. It is illogical to blame the church's teaching for this.

However, just like the Catholic church must come clean about the failures of some of its adherents, so much atheist/secularists.

Let's take out some logs from our eyes.

We have natural law, Catholic law, Shariah law and an abundance of philosophers all expounding law. Should we exclude Shariah law from the discussion? No! However, if it is to be part of the discussion, make no mistake, it's weaknesses will be caricatured, straw-manned and mocked just like every other perspective in the debate. Let's just not call it racist, intolerant or bigoted to debate law as Americans, including the mocking rejection of elements of Shariah law as being incompatible with "liberal democracy".

I like what Cicero said, "True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions...It is wrong to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely." Law is what we debate and those debates inherently include the foundations of one's personal worldview.

I disagree with Fr. Pavone - primarily because the idea of debating even limited aspects of our religions has lots of connotative spill-over, and absolutely must have theological underpinnings - else, why bring them up in that context?

Debate should be left solely restricted to political positions. It matters that a candidate is, say, pro-choice, not the religions reasoning behind that stance.

There *is* no box into which you can stick someone due to their religion, After all, Christians alone split on every single divisive issue in our society. Tossing in religious argument simply obfuscates things.

Why does it matter if I am a Christian in favor of capital punishment, rather than a Muslim with a similar position?

Eliminating the Abrahamic part of the religious and political tight rope by:

Saving 1.5 billion lost Muslim souls:
There never was and never will be any angels i.e. no Gabriel, no Islam.

Saving 2 billion lost Christian souls:
The was and never will be any bodily resurrections i.e. No Easter, no Christianity.

Saving 15.5 million Orthodox followers of Judaism:

Abraham and Moses never existed.

Added details upon request for any of these "savings".

Hi MrMeaner,

ME: "Matthew 10:17 and 22-23 says, "Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and you will be flogged in their synagogues. On My account you will be brought before governors and kings as witness to them and to the Gentiles....All men will hate you because of Me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes."

But there are verses you left out, in between –MrM

[19] But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.
[20] For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.
[21] And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.

Why don’t you read the whole context, starting from 10:1-11:1? Who is Jesus speaking to?

I just condensed the verses to save space, skipping verse 19-21 not because I could not provide examples and justification from Scripture for the content but to save time. For example, in verse 19-20 there are examples of these fulfillments in the book of Acts as well, which was the book I chose from to illustrate the points in the other verses I chose. Did you read any of them? I included all kinds of examples of persecution, trials, witnessing to all corners of the known world, famines, going before councils, governors, kings. Their fulfillment is also justifiable with recorded history. History provides all kinds of examples of persecution of Christians, nations and kingdoms arising during this time period, famines and earthquakes concerning the Jewish people and many examples that support the motif of judgment spoken of by Jesus on the city and temple.

PART 2

It is funny that you choose Acts 2:4-12 in your next paragraph of your post. It would have been one I used to show fulfillment of Matt. 10:19-20.

Acts 4:8: “Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: Rulers and elders of the people! …”

Acts 9:15-17: “But the Lord said to Ananias, ‘Go! This man is My chosen instrument to carry My name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. I will show him how much he has to suffer for My name.’

Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, ‘Brother Saul, the Lord – Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here – has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.’”

Acts 19:6: “When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.”

Concerning verse 21,

Luke 12:51-53: “Do you think I came to bring peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

PART 3

When you add Mark 13:9-11, and Luke 21:12-15, and you understand what it means to witness the Holy Spirit speak, (Acts 2:4-12)..how is it possible to believe that this has taken place? -MrM

John 14:25-26: “All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”

Who is Jesus speaking to in the context of this verse? He says ‘all this I have spoken while with you.’ Who are the ‘you?’

John 15:26-27: “When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, He will testify about Me. And you must also testify, for you have been with Me from the beginning.”

Who are the ‘you’ spoken of who have been with Him from the beginning? The beginning of what?

John 16:12-33 (of which I am only going to quote in part, but please read it in context and full context): “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on His own: He will speak only what He hears, and He will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to Me by taking from what is Mine and making it known to you…..In a little while you will see Me no more, and then after a little while you will see Me .”
Some of His disciples said to one another, ‘What does He mean by saying, ‘In a little while you will see Me no more, and then after a little while you will see Me,’ and ‘Because I am going to the Father’? They kept asking, ‘What does He mean by ‘a little while’? We don’t understand what He is saying.’
Jesus saw that they wanted to ask Him about this….Then Jesus’ disciples said, ‘Now He is speaking clearly and without figures of speech…You believe at last!’ Jesus answered. ‘But a time is coming, and has now come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home. You will leave Me all alone…”

Who is Jesus speaking to in these verses? What do you see when you read the Epistles? How many times does the NT make note of these disciples coming before rulers and councils? How many times do these epistles note persecution and what must shortly take place? How many times do they speak of the coming judgment?

PART 4

If that has taken place, that being the testimony of witnessess before rulers and kings in that cloven tongue, would we not have record of it? –MrM

We have biblical references to it. Is that not enough for you?

Acts 1:7-8: “He said to them: It is not for you to know the times and dates the Father has set by His own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you; and you will witness in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

Who are the ‘them’ and ‘you’? In the book of Acts we see fulfillment by the apostles and disciples witnessing in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and to the ends of the world known by the Jews of that time.

Acts 2:5: “Now there were God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.”

In addition, Peter stands up and says to those Jews gathered from all these nations that the prophecy of Joel has been fulfilled [at Pentecost] (vs.14-22) in which Joel makes reference to ‘the last days’. Peter witnesses to them about Jesus. He tells them to repent and save themselves and ‘this corrupt generation’ (vs. 40).

Acts 13:45-48: “When the Jews saw the crowd, they were filled with jealousy and talked abusively against what Paul was saying. Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: ‘We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you rejected it and do not consider yourselves of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles. For this is what the Lord has commanded us:
‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’
When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.’”

PART 5

Matthew 24:14: “And this gospel will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations and then the end will come.”

MrMeaner, the ‘end’ of what?

Hebrews 9:26: “Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself.”

When did (or will) Christ offer the sacrifice of Himself to do away with sin?

PART 6

ME: "but what I see is you putting an interpretation on Scripture as to something that it is not saying. You are reading into it rather than taking out of it."

If you were God, would you create a work that would have to be decyphered, and partially discarded, or would you create a work that was only discernable to those who appreciate, and absorb God's word, without "taking out of it". I think the second from last verse of the Bible warns against that. –MrM

You misunderstand what I mean when I say ‘taking out of it’ as to what that means – that is, what it actually says in context. When I asked you who the ‘you’ is addressing you basically said to whatever generation the ‘you’ is referring to and are applying it to a future generation.

I gave you many for instances, when Jesus says, “When you see standing in the holy place,” or “/Do you see all these things,” or “Watch out that no one deceives you,” you take out of the Scripture something it does not say. It does not say that the you referred to is a ‘you’ other than what in the normal context it makes reference to – the disciples. You add to the meaning by making it something other than what it says in context, unless of course you can supply other Scripture that interprets this ‘you’ is other than the disciples.

Is it not obvious that, in context, Jesus is talking to His disciples who have just asked Him a question in reference to His previous conversation against the Pharisees, the teachers of the law and the temple? In this respect I am taking the ‘you’ out of the Scripture as it relates to the context. That is why I asked you who Jesus was speaking to and you basically came up with ‘you’ meaning the generation that all these things will happen to’ and you project that ‘you’ way into the future as not yet being fulfilled. Am I reading you correctly?

Eliminating the Abrahamic part of the tightrope by:

Saving 1.5 billion lost Muslim souls:

There never was and never will be any angels i.e. no Gabriel, no Islam.

Saving 2 billion lost Christian souls:

The was and never will be any bodily resurrections i.e. No Easter, no Christianity.

Saving 15.5 million Orthodox followers of Judaism:

Abraham and Moses never existed.

Added details upon request for any of these "savings".

Posted by: cornbread_r2 | February 27, 2011 8:28 PM

Fair enough.

I'm accustomed to anti-Christian hostility from most columnists and commenters on Wapo, in every section.
It actually seems as though the most vitriolic commentary against Christianity you will find on this rag sheet, occurs on this blog devoted to matters of faith.
Isn't that strange? Take a look at the comment section of the "On Faith" main page, and tell me I don't have a reason to be defensive.
So, if the intent behind the comment made by csintala79 was as innocent as you suggest, I offer my sincere apologies to csintala 79. If the comment was just another whiny jab against Christians...or people of any faith who want to discuss theology, then I would reassert my suggestion.

When is the Catholic Church going to get rid of this filthy, disgusting tradition and the criminal racketeering that follows it? How can anyone claim to belong to "Christ's Church" and continue to look the other way and make lame apologies like the victims are "gold-diggers" or their favorite, "Others do it, too!":

Cardinal Rigali Avoids Prison ... For Now!

by A.W. Richard Sipe

On January 21, 2011 the Philadelphia Grand Jury under District Attorney R. Seth Williams issued a Report on sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests. It is the finest, clearest, and most complete account of the pattern and practice of the Catholic Church in dealing with priests who abuse minors and their victims. If you want to know the real dynamics of the Catholic clerical system read this report.

In short: the Grand Jury released what has been termed a "sordid" (in content) report on clergy sex abuse. This led to the arrest of a Catholic schoolteacher and three archdiocesan priests on rape, indecent sexual assault and other criminal charges:

Fr. Charles Engelhardt, 64, an Oblate of St. Francis de Sales, is accused of orally sodomizing and molesting a 10-year-old altar boy in 1998 in the sacristy at St. Jerome Parish in Northeast Philadelphia.
Fr. Edward Avery, 68, an Archdiocesan priest who was defrocked in 2006, is charged with the same offenses against the same boy. And this boy's sixth-grade teacher at St. Jerome School, 48-year-old Bernard Shero, is accused of orally and anally sodomizing the then-11-year-old in the back of the teacher's car.
Fr. James Brennan, 47, an Archdiocesan priest, is accused of forcing his pen!s into the buttocks of a 14-year-old former parishioner when he was in the priest's bed. At the time, the summer of 1996, Father Brennan was on leave from Cardinal O'Hara High School. In 1997, he was returned to active ministry and assigned to St. Jerome Parish.
Importantly, Monsignor William Lynn, former Vicar for clergy is charged with endangering the welfare of children for allowing the priests work.

There are six sections, and scores of subsections on this WAPO site that aren't entitled "On Faith". Go to one of them, and knock yourself out. -- MrMeaner

I may be mistaken, but I think csintala79 was writing about the usefullness of politicians debating religion during political campaigns -- which was, afterall, the question posed by Frank Pavone, the originator of this thread . Like or not, Pavone's invited comment on a topic that potentially affects all of the voters of this country -- religious and non-religious alike. If anything, your and others' private debate about whether or not Jesus has come back yet might be fairly seen as the intrusion on this forum thread.

csintala79 says, “We have serious problems to deal with, and getting embroiled in endless debate over personal beliefs diverts us from the task of solving them, but perhaps this is what some are hoping for. Believe it or not, God is not coming down on a cloud to fix things; we have to work cooperatively together to accomplish this.”

The need for cooperation is obvious. But what is the basis of the universal spirit of cooperation? The spirit of cooperation that can transcend vested interests? That would be God and his Divine Providence. Working out our differences here, will allow the floodtide of Divine Providence to once against unite our nation.

Look at the situation in Wisconsin. Here we see, csintala79, an example of the capacity of the people, who I take would be your fellow travelers, the ironage unions, which have become the backbone for the advance of the homosexual and abortion agenda in this nation, encrusted upon the tit of the state treasury like a colony of aphids, refusing to give up their perch. What are you going to say to them, to get them to cooperate in the balancing of the Wisconsin budget?

Truly, is not the spirit of sacrifice fully embodied in the Teachings of Jesus Christ, indeed once fully understood? And do we not see, how those people, who have departed from the fountain of spiritual truth, have lost the capacity to sacrifice? Even as they roll and frolic in the piles of gold coins they have filched from the people through their strong arm union tactics?

"We have serious problems to deal with, and getting embroiled in endless debate over personal beliefs diverts us from the task of solving them, but perhaps this is what some are hoping for."

There are six sections, and scores of subsections on this WAPO site that aren't entitled "On Faith".
Go to one of them, and knock yourself out.

Religion has been debated for centuries, no, millenia. An objective, definitive conclusion shall not and cannot be reached. Religion, dealing with the unseen spiritual world, is beyond logical explanation and scientific investigation, meaning that debating religion is a waste of time. We have serious problems to deal with, and getting embroiled in endless debate over personal beliefs diverts us from the task of solving them, but perhaps this is what some are hoping for. Believe it or not, God is not coming down on a cloud to fix things; we have to work cooperatively together to accomplish this.

Simplifying the saving of 1.5 billion lost Muslim souls:
There never was and never will be any angels i.e. no Gabriel, no Islam.

Simplifying the saving of 2 billion lost Christian souls:
The was and never will be any bodily resurrections i.e. No Easter, no Christianity.

Simplifying the saving of 15.5 million Orthodox followers of Judaism:
Abraham and Moses never existed.

Added details upon request.

Simplifying the saving of 1.5 billion lost Muslim souls:
There never was and never will be any angels i.e. no Gabriel, no Islam.

Simplifying the saving of 2 billion lost Christian souls:
The was and never will be any bodily resurrections i.e. No Easter, no Christianity.

Simplifying the saving of 15.5 million Orthodox followers of Judaism:
Abraham and Moses never existed.

Added details upon request.

Prayer is the Gateway to Freedom - Part 1

In response to my stated belief that, "prayer can be the most meaningful and powerfully productive activity in which man can engage."

Psolus asks, “How, exactly, does that work?”

Basically, you begin with the principle, “ask and ye shall receive.” It’s like going to McDonalds and asking for a double-cheeseburger. If you don’t ask for it, you can’t receive it. If you simply try to take it, you will get arrested and thrown in jail. So you have to ask for it, and moreover, you need to pay for it, before they put the bag in your hand.

In response to my stated belief that, "Prayer is the gateway to freedom."

Psolus asks, “Are you saying that people who don't pray are not free?”

Yes. That is indeed true. People who do not pray, are not free. People who do not pray can never become free.

If part of your definition of freedom is to be able to go to Mcdonalds and get a double cheese burger, those who do not make the effort, and who don’t ask, and who don’t pay, are not free to have a double-cheeseburger. In this regard, they are actually enslaved by a spirit of stubborn rebellion that will not allow them to do, what the law requires, to get the double-cheeseburger.

You might ask, what if a person doesn’t want a double cheeseburger? The same principles apply to every other item on the menu. Though, it is important to understand that if you ask for something that’s not on the menu, you will not receive it, even if you have the money to pay for it.

Of course, the principle of freedom goes much deeper than a double-cheese burger, or even a Big Mac, or heaven help us, a fine bottle of wine, which you will find on the menu of some restaurants. Though the double-cheeseburger scenario has all of the basic prayer-related principles inherent in it.

(more)

Prayer is the Gateway to Freedom - Part 2

The definition of freedom, from the perspective of God, is to have the soul free to be the person that he or she was before the fall, where the soul did actually live in a state of spiritual freedom, and did not have to deal with the toil and turmoil, the pain, and the suffering, that we see associated with the human condition on earth. Before the fall, the soul did not have to go through this birth and death, and birth and death, and birth and death scenario.

God the Father, having a perfect memory, remembers exactly who you were Psolus, exactly who Rcofield was, exactly who Peterhuff was, exactly who MrMeaner was, exactly who Cornbread was, before the fall. God maintains a vast library of multidimensional videotapes in this regard for each one of us. And his goal is to bring each one of these souls back to the life of victory, achievement, and excellence, that they knew at that time. This is the end goal of God’s Love.

And when it comes to asking, in prayer, for things that are not on the menu, we can see why people sometimes don’t get what they ask for. If what they ask for does not serve this primary goal of bringing the soul step-by-step back into the divine pattern of identity the soul had before the fall, the prayer cannot be, and will not be answered, because the item is not on the menu.

Surely, you can understand that to be allowed back into heaven, we must become again, the heavenly person who loved to live there in the first place, the person who respected God with the whole heart, and rejoiced in the endless domains of magical wonder that he made possible for every soul to live in and explore, forever and forever. Properly targeted prayer will always keep this goal in mind, and all prayers that have this goal in mind are answered, in due course.

One can go straight to the center of the target in this respect by asking God our Father, “Please remake me, here and now, into the person that I was before the fall.” Of course, if a person says this prayer, they must be both ready and willing to change, sincerely listening for the clues that God will place before them, in regards to the changes that need to be made.

Of course, prayer can only be practiced from the starting point of sincerity. Psolus, if you ask the Lord God for sincerity, he will give it to you. Ask for the level of sincerity you had before the fall, and God will give it to you. As you are his precious child, no less than anyone else on this thread.

(end)

Apology in Diocese newspaper has Philadelphia Catholics talking

PHILADELPHIA (PA)
Newsworks

By Elizabeth Fiedler

An apology printed in the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, has Catholics talking, including mass-goers at the Cathedral Basilica of Saints Peter and Paul in Philadelphia today.

The apology printed in The Catholic Standard and Times says while the Catholic Church is struggling to deal with the problem of sexual abuse of minors, youth sports organizations, public schools, community groups and other faith communities all report incidents of abuse. And yet few have been forced to look as extensively at the abuse perpetrated within their organizations or to enact broad policies to prevent it, it reads.

Those words didn't sit well with 57 year old Philip Kellenbenz, a lifelong Catholic from Northeast Philadelphia.

"That's just a crutch that they want to lean on," said Kellenbenz. "That's an excuse. They ought to fall on their knees and say thank God almighty that there by the grace of God goes I - 'cause what if they were the ones being abused? It wouldn't be such a pretty thing. It wouldn't be such an easy thing to pass off with these petty excuses."

GoldenEagles,

"Actually, prayer can be the most meaningful and powerfully productive activity in which man can engage."

How, exactly, does that work?

"Prayer is the gateway to freedom."

Are you saying that people who don't pray are not free?

MrMeaner,

"Here's the thing about mocking;
It's not really considered mocking, if it isn't funny."

Are you an expert on mocking?

"I say that as someone who appreciates good mocking skills."

Do you have any mocking skills?

"Say what you will."

Yes, I will say what I will.

"The man knew how to insult idiots."

Did you often feel insulted by him?

"I believe that whatever it is you call yourself doing is a form of mental illness."

What, exactly, makes you believe that?

Your imaginary god?

Your imaginary book of magic?

"Why would it be?"

Why indeed?

"Maybe the kind you're into is, but generally, no"

How do you know what kind I am into?

Was that you outside my bedroom window last night?

"Will it make you leave?"

Don't let my presence stop you from having a good cry if you need to have one.

Psolus says, "... prayer is meaningless."

Actually, prayer can be the most meaningful and powerfully productive activity in which man can engage. Prayer is the gateway to freedom.

Here's the thing about mocking;
It's not really considered mocking, if it isn't funny. I say that as someone who appreciates good mocking skills.

"Is Richard Nixon one of your heroes?"

Say what you will. The man knew how to insult idiots.

"Do you believe that sex is a form of mental illness?"

I believe that whatever it is you call yourself doing is a form of mental illness.

"Do you believe that sex is a "sin"?"

Why would it be? Maybe the kind you're into is, but generally, no

"You're not going to start crying, are you?"

Will it make you leave?

MrMeaner,

"No, you made me laugh."

Well, good for me.

"It's what clowns do."

It's what some clowns do.

"You're a good clown."

Why, thank you.

"What? What on earth have you said to anyone here, that would change their opinion on anything?"

You tell me.

"So....what are you doing here?"

Mocking you and the other believers; what are you doing here?

"Not angry at all. To quote tricky Dick Nixon:
"Don't get the impression that you arouse my anger, for you see, one can only be angry with those he respects""

Is Richard Nixon one of your heroes?

"And yet, you're here...being slapped around, again"

Do you often have these violent thoughts?

Isn't violence a "sin" in your imaginary belief-world?

"I don't find mental illness sexy"

Do you believe that sex is a form of mental illness?

Do you believe that sex is a "sin"?

"I'm pretty sure you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about"

Hey, it's your imaginary belief-world, not mine.

Do you have the slightest clue as to what you are talking about?

"I'm starting to think that this thread is hell"

You're not going to start crying, are you?

PH

"Matthew 10:17 and 22-23 says, "Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and you will be flogged in their synagogues. On My account you will be brought before governors and kings as witness to them and to the Gentiles....All men will hate you because of Me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes."

But there are verses you left out, in between

[19] But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.
[20] For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.
[21] And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.

When you add Mark 13:9-11, and Luke 21:12-15, and you understand what it means to witness the Holy Spirit speak, (Acts 2:4-12)..how is it possible to believe that this has taken place?
If that has taken place, that being the testimony of witnessess before rulers and kings in that cloven tongue, would we not have record of it?

"Did I make you angry, MrMeaner?"

No, you made me laugh. It's what clowns do.
You're a good clown.

"Or have I just shaken your faith?"

What? What on earth have you said to anyone here, that would change their opinion on anything?

"I agree, believing in and discussing superstition is a complete waste of time".

So....what are you doing here?

"My, my, you are angry."

Not angry at all. To quote tricky Dick Nixon:
"Don't get the impression that you arouse my anger, for you see, one can only be angry with those he respects"

"Goodness, you're almost hysterical."

And yet, you're here...being slapped around, again

"Uh oh, you are thinking about sex!"

I don't find mental illness sexy

"I'm pretty sure that that is big "sin" in your imaginary belief-world."

I'm pretty sure you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about

"Will you now be going to hell?"

I'm starting to think that this thread is hell

MrMeaner,

"Psolus is a clown."

Did I make you angry, MrMeaner?

Or have I just shaken your faith?

"You are wasting your time."

I agree, believing in and discussing superstition is a complete waste of time.

"Maybe he/she will just shut the hell up for a while, lurk around, and try to learn something."

My, my, you are angry.

Isn't that a "sin" in your imaginary belief-world?

"It's obviously attracted to something here."

Goodness, you're almost hysterical.

"Of course, there's a chance that he/she is a masochist, in which case, you are being an enabler"

Uh oh, you are thinking about sex!

I'm pretty sure that that is big "sin" in your imaginary belief-world.

Will you now be going to hell?

";)"

Seriously, do you own a Hello Kitty backpack?

peterhuff,

"That requires believing many things before you could know how to read, whether subconsciously or consciously. You would have to believe that letters combined together in certain ways relay convey, reveal, represent certain ideas and concepts or certain things or objects in the physical realm or in the world of ideas and concepts. You would have to believe that 'green with envy' means something different from 'the grass is green' in order to make sense of what I mean when I used green in the two different contexts."

That entire paragraph is based only on your beliefs; it has no basis in fact.

"Then you'll have to. I already did."

Did I make you angry?

"Yeah, but since I already listed a few and I don't want to play your game of going back over what I said previously. Dig it out yourself, if you are at all interested."

Did I make your imaginary god angry?

"There is only one true and living God. All else are false."

Are you sure that you picked the right one, and not one of the false ones?

Yeah, well, so does every other believer; you can't all be right.

"Not solely mine. Logic and common sense derived/based on the word of God."

From your imaginary false god?

"With lack of knowledge on what a belief is it is possible to believe that you believe nothing, but for a thinking human being to believe nothing is impossible no matter how much they convince themselves of lack of belief."

That is simply your belief, and has not basis in reality.

"It depends what you mean by 'free.' All kinds of things shape a person’s beliefs and the 'natural man' does not believe the things of God, nor can he do so other than by the grace of God, but the natural man certainly has a volition by which he chooses things of his own accord. Those things are based on his natural self and what the ‘natural self’ desires. You are a slave to whatever has hold of you."

That is a particularly sick belief.

You are welcome to it.

"You could not live your life without what the Bible calls sinning no matter how hard you tried."

Your bible is a work of fiction written by primitive men, and the concept of "sinning" is a superstitious concept.

"Try living for a day or week without thinking sexual thoughts about women since you constantly make sexual references to them."

Sex is not a sin; just because you fear sex does not make it "evil", "dirty", or a "sin".

"Try living one week without lying once, without being deceptive once. Try living a week without bearing false witness against others. Can you do it?"

I don't need to try, because none of that is a "sin"; your superstitious concept of "sin" does not exist.

"If you think you are free then try doing it."

I am free from your superstitious beliefs; only you are bound by them.

"How do you know He is imaginary?"

How do you know that he isn't?

More...

More:

"That is a projection of yours, your belief, not mine."

Your the one who believes in him, not me.

"You don’t state something like that without believing it or without holding enmity to Him. His word tells me that man constructs what he believes (his/her world-view) on one of two foundations, a solid one or a false one. [bibley stuff expurgated] Yours is pretty shaky, would you not say, since you don’t have anything to base what you say on – you believe ‘nothing’ (Right)."

Are you succeeding in convicting yourself, because this is not working on me at all.

"Yes, one of the things. I have explained. It is not getting through. It is falling on ears that will not hear. You have blocked out that what I say can be true. That is obvious with your many references to God, such as the one you just used - 'imaginary.'"

Still not working.

"I don’t think that many of the billions are aware they have a world-view, although the term has come to be known and talked about more in the last ten/twenty years or so, but most would admit only to a belief or belief structure of some kind."

And, how many of "most of the people of the world" have you talked to?

"A belief is built on core values and basic starting points. Yours apparently starts on the premise that you believe nothing. It is the part of your world-view that makes it such, that tries to hold it together. To compromise this basic belief would compromise your whole way of thinking, so you protect it and will not let it go, no matter how much it does not make sense of or conform to what is real, what is true."

Are you sure that you don't believe that you, yourself, are your imaginary god?

You seem to know everything; you certain seem to more about me than even I do.

"I believe God’s word, which reveals as much – that we all have beliefs. A disbelief in one thing is a belief in another."

Do you believe that you are god?

"No, you are either deceiving yourself or trying to deceiving others, or both. You have a world-view, you have many beliefs that stem from your foundational belief that seems to be, ‘I believe nothing.’ That is what you are trying to convince yourself of or trying to convince others of. I don’t think too many people buy into what you are selling. (Yes, let me guess your response – “I’m not trying to sell anything.”)"

Tell me more about myself, imaginary god.

"No, not me in particular, but you don’t have a lack of belief, what you do have threatens truth and pretends to put up with anything, because nothing really matters, then it denies the Christian God as if believing in Him does matter. In that way it is duplicitous. It works on personal preferences and threatens morality. It promotes self and anything and everything that gratifies self, which says ‘I’ll do it my way regardless of the consequences.’"

Is there anything else that you can tell me about myself, all knowing one?

More...

More:

"You don’t have a lack of belief, you have a misplaced belief, a faulty belief structure, one that is either pretentious or delusional that hurts itself. I fear the consequences of what you have faith in, what your faith leads to, the uselessness and stubbornness of your belief and what it leads to – a pretended ultimate meaninglessness. Not everything is meaningless my friend."

The one true god has call me "my friend".

I must be blessed among men.

"I’m Canadian. I have no say in what your Congress does."

Holy Moly!

Who knew that the one true god is Canadian?

But, then, that kind of makes sense.

(fin)

Well PH, we could list persecutions of the church, spanning the times, from now until the sun burns out.
Whether you believe those admittedly different interpretations I've offered, or not... what about the other aspects of the prophecies? I haven't heard you address any of those. What about those things that are undeniably unfulfilled? Don't you believe that those things have to happen, as well?

Hi MrMeaner,

Sorry, this is going to be rushed.

You provided the context of Matthew 24 starting at verse 9, so let's look at it and its fulfillment for a starter, then I must go to bed. 6:30am comes early.

9] Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

Matthew 10:17 and 22-23 says, "Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and you will be flogged in their synagogues. On My account you will be brought before governors and kings as witness to them and to the Gentiles....All men will hate you because of Me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes."

Similar language, yes?

Who is Jesus talking to in the context of the verses? Remember, I'm not asking for your interpretation of who He is talking to, just what is revealed from the context.

Let's see if Scripture gives the fulfillment of such persecution and of the 'you' being the disciples and apostles going to the ends of the known world and before councils, synagogues, kings and governors. I'll just list some of the verses from the book of Acts alone, although there are many more. I trust you will look them up?

See Acts 4:1-3; 5:17, 27, 40-42; 6:11-15; 7:57-59; 8:1, 3-4-6, 25, 40; 9:29; 10:1-2, 19, 27-28; 11:1-4, 19, 28; 12:1-5; 13:6, 14, esp. 27-29, 32-33, 38 with Daniel 9:24, Acts 13:47-51; 14:1-2, 5, 19, 22; 16:16-18, 19-24; 17:1-2, 5, 6-9, 13, 16-17, 22; 18:4, 7-8, 23; 19:23; 20:29-31; 22:22-24, 30; 23:6, 12-15; 24:2, 10; 25:24; 26:1-3; 27:1.

From just these verses you will see that the disciples and apostles living at the time of Jesus witness and were persecuted in many parts of the world, in synagogues and councils, before governors and kings. They are persecuted, stones, flogged and endure many trials. There are famines mentioned, many false prophets and deceivers, and the message is also preached to the Gentiles because of the hardness of the hearts of the Jews and the nation of Israel.

This is not taking into account the many other passages in the Epistles that deal with the same subjects and the language is always the same. The time is near, at hand, soon, quickly coming. The fulfillment is almost here, the end of the age is upon them, judgment and tribulation is coming quickly. These churches and people are told to prepare.

When I get back I'll go into verse 10 and onwards.

"Obviously little of what I have said has sunk in because we have been through much of this before,"

I was tempted to make the same claim about you, but I try to be tactful.

"but what I see is you putting an interpretation on Scripture as to something that it is not saying. You are reading into it rather than taking out of it."

If you were God, would you create a work that would have to be decyphered, and partially discarded, or would you create a work that was only discernable to those who appreciate, and absorb God's word, without "taking out of it". I think the second from last verse of the Bible warns against that.

"Please try answering some of my questions from the previous posts."

I believe I have. I didn't put every question in quotations before I answered, but every question you have asked has been answered in full.
You have not answered my simple questions..going back some time, now.

"Since Christ refers to the 'abomination of desolation' spoken of by Daniel the prophet and admonishes the reader to understand, when does this abomination happen and what generation does it happen to?"

When it happens, you will know. (or maybe not, if you can't rightly divide the word)

"Remember the decree to rebuild the temple to the coming of and cutting off of the Anointed One plays into His reference? Please relate it to this if you can."

No, I don't remember that.
Are you referring to the "street" and "the wall"
The wall was "banah" (built, restored, repaired) on June 7, 1967, as was the "street" or lower square.

"It is obvious from the structure of other verses that have almost identical language that Jesus is talking to His disciples. Can you show otherwise from Scripture?"

Of course.
Those were the people who were trusted to carry the message forward, ultimately to be compiled into the works that future generations would study. Doesn't that seem logical?

"You say the references to 'you' refers to the generation that this will happen to (prove it) and in doing so you refuse to consider the context and who Jesus is addressing."

You dismiss the events that Jesus says marks "this generation".

"Rome against and in relation to Israel of that time, as did many other nations and kingdoms rise against Rome. "

Israel did not exist at that time.
They were given a bill of divorcement, half of a millennium before Christ was ever born.
(Jer.3:8, Is.50:1)

"Why does Paul refer to the 'fulfillment of the end of the ages has come' on them? (1 Corinthians 10:11)"

What?
That verse cites OT references to the exodus, as examples to be heeded by those who would witness the end of this age. How is that relevant to our discussion?

Can you explain why it was written that "the day of the LORD is nigh at hand", in the book of Joel, 900 BC?

Would you ask God why he chose that particular verb tense in that sentence?..or would you just take it as an "example" meant to carry forward to later readers of the word?

Hi MrMeaner,

(^8

Good luck with that prophetic picture! People have been predicting the 'end' for a long time now. Lots of false prophets.

I live in Ontario.

Hi MrMeaner,

Obviously little of what I have said has sunk in because we have been through much of this before, but what I see is you putting an interpretation on Scripture as to something that it is not saying. You are reading into it rather than taking out of it.

Please try answering some of my questions from the previous posts. Why do you interpret 'this generation' as a generation some (at least) two millennium different from that of Christ's appearing in bodily form to His people? Can you show me another instance of the term 'this generation' referring to anything other than the generation alive at that time in the gospels? If not then why interpret it this way in this one instance, ignoring all the other references as to their meaning?

Since Christ refers to the 'abomination of desolation' spoken of by Daniel the prophet and admonishes the reader to understand, when does this abomination happen and what generation does it happen to? Remember the decree to rebuild the temple to the coming of and cutting off of the Anointed One plays into His reference? Please relate it to this if you can.

You say the references to 'you' refers to the generation that this will happen to (prove it) and in doing so you refuse to consider the context and who Jesus is addressing. It is obvious from a host of other passages that these things were to come upon the Jews of His time, that the fullness of transgressions was referring to those who would reject their Messiah.

It is obvious from the structure of other verses that have almost identical language that Jesus is talking to His disciples. Can you show otherwise from Scripture?

It looks like we will have to bring up these other verses and see if the Bible gives the reader any indication to their meaning and fulfillment.

OK In 70 AD, which is when you claim that the Day of the LORD, came to pass, which nation rose up against which nation? Which kingdom against which kingdom. OK, you have Rome, and um, um, who else? -MrM

Rome against and in relation to Israel of that time, as did many other nations and kingdoms rise against Rome.

Secular history reveals as much. The Bible reveals that much. Daniel 2 and 9 reveals as much. Four kingdoms would conquer and come against Daniels people and control much of the known world of that time - the last being the Romans - before the great and terrible day of the Lord when He would establish His everlasting kingdom and bring an end to the age of Jewish temple worship and sacrifice.

The same terminology is used in both Daniel and Matthew Mark and Luke - 'end of the age' or simple 'the end.' Daniel 12:4, 9, 13; 9:27; Matt. 10:22; 24:3, 6, 13, 14; Mark 13:4, 13; Luke 21:9.

Why does Paul refer to the 'fulfillment of the end of the ages has come' on them? (1 Corinthians 10:11)

Can you answer any of these questions?

Daniel 9:11 refers to the curses and judgments of Moses. What does that mean?

I'm off tomorrow morning, back Sunday night.

More tightropes for the politicians and religious leaders:

It is called the Great Angelic/Satanic Con Game:

Joe Smith had his Moroni.

Jehovah Witnesses have their Jesus /Michael the archangel, the first angelic being created by God;

Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tin-kerbell" got around) and his jinn.

Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented.

The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.
Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty/ ugly wingie thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.

Holy moley PH:

I just noticed that you're Canadian.

So...If I can convince you that the apostasy is yet to come, and things go wrong in 2012, can you hook me up with a place to live up there in the relatively free land of Canadia...I mean Canada?
I'm either headed north, or to New Zealand, if the communists maintain control in this country, after the next election.
You don't live in the "French" part, do you?...lol

PH:

Psolus is a clown.
You are wasting your time.
Maybe he/she will just shut the hell up for a while, lurk around, and try to learn something.
It's obviously attracted to something here.

Of course, there's a chance that he/she is a masochist, in which case, you are being an enabler
;)

Hi PSolus,

ME: "How do you know that, since you believe nothing?"

Because I know how to read. - PSO

That requires believing many things before you could know how to read, whether subconsciously or consciously. You would have to believe that letters combined together in certain ways relay convey, reveal, represent certain ideas and concepts or certain things or objects in the physical realm or in the world of ideas and concepts. You would have to believe that 'green with envy' means something different from 'the grass is green' in order to make sense of what I mean when I used green in the two different contexts.

ME: "Since this is the common question of many of your threads I'll combine the question into one response."

I can't wait. -PSO

Then you'll have to. I already did.

ME: "I base those beliefs that you questioned on many things,..."

Many things? -PSO

Yeah, but since I already listed a few and I don't want to play your game of going back over what I said previously. Dig it out yourself, if you are at all interested.

ME: "...the least of which is God's word,..."

Which one? -PSO

There is only one true and living God. All else are false.

ME: "...logic/common sense..."

That would be your logic, and your common sense, right? -PSO

Not solely mine. Logic and common sense derived/based on the word of God.

ME: "...and the fact that most people in the world admit to believing in something."

So, you believe someone who claims to believe in something, but you do not believe someone who claims to not believe in something? -PSO

With lack of knowledge on what a belief is it is possible to believe that you believe nothing, but for a thinking human being to believe nothing is impossible no matter how much they convince themselves of lack of belief.

PART 2

ME: "They shape their world-views on these core beliefs,..."

And they are free to do so. -PSO

It depends what you mean by 'free.' All kinds of things shape a person’s beliefs and the 'natural man' does not believe the things of God, nor can he do so other than by the grace of God, but the natural man certainly has a volition by which he chooses things of his own accord. Those things are based on his natural self and what the ‘natural self’ desires. You are a slave to whatever has hold of you. You could not live your life without what the Bible calls sinning no matter how hard you tried. Try living for a day or week without thinking sexual thoughts about women since you constantly make sexual references to them. Try living one week without lying once, without being deceptive once. Try living a week without bearing false witness against others. Can you do it? If you think you are free then try doing it.

Did your imaginary "god's word" tell you that? –PSO

How do you know He is imaginary? That is a projection of yours, your belief, not mine. You don’t state something like that without believing it or without holding enmity to Him. His word tells me that man constructs what he believes (his/her world-view) on one of two foundations, a solid one or a false one. (Matthew 7:24-27) Yours is pretty shaky, would you not say, since you don’t have anything to base what you say on – you believe ‘nothing’ (Right).

Does your "logic/common sense" tell you that? Explain. –PSO

Yes, one of the things. I have explained. It is not getting through. It is falling on ears that will not hear. You have blocked out that what I say can be true. That is obvious with your many references to God, such as the one you just used - 'imaginary.'

Did most people of the world admit to that? –PSO

I don’t think that many of the billions are aware they have a world-view, although the term has come to be known and talked about more in the last ten/twenty years or so, but most would admit only to a belief or belief structure of some kind.

A belief is built on core values and basic starting points. Yours apparently starts on the premise that you believe nothing. It is the part of your world-view that makes it such, that tries to hold it together. To compromise this basic belief would compromise your whole way of thinking, so you protect it and will not let it go, no matter how much it does not make sense of or conform to what is real, what is true.

ME: "The difference appears to be that they are cognizant of it..."

And, you believe them? –PSO

I believe God’s word, which reveals as much – that we all have beliefs. A disbelief in one thing is a belief in another.

PART 3

ME: "...and you pretend not to be or have at least convinced yourself of that."

So, you just don't believe me? –PSO

No, you are either deceiving yourself or trying to deceiving others, or both. You have a world-view, you have many beliefs that stem from your foundational belief that seems to be, ‘I believe nothing.’ That is what you are trying to convince yourself of or trying to convince others of. I don’t think too many people buy into what you are selling. (Yes, let me guess your response – “I’m not trying to sell anything.”)

Does my lack of belief threaten you in some way? –PSO

No, not me in particular, but you don’t have a lack of belief, what you do have threatens truth and pretends to put up with anything, because nothing really matters, then it denies the Christian God as if believing in Him does matter. In that way it is duplicitous. It works on personal preferences and threatens morality. It promotes self and anything and everything that gratifies self, which says ‘I’ll do it my way regardless of the consequences.’

Do you fear my lack of belief? –PSO

You don’t have a lack of belief, you have a misplaced belief, a faulty belief structure, one that is either pretentious or delusional that hurts itself. I fear the consequences of what you have faith in, what your faith leads to, the uselessness and stubbornness of your belief and what it leads to – a pretended ultimate meaninglessness. Not everything is meaningless my friend.

Do you need Congress to pass a "Protection of Belief Act"? –PSO

I’m Canadian. I have no say in what your Congress does.

rco,
thanks for shepherding us along to the next thread. i do have problems with some things in your last post to me. i'll get back to you.

part one

PH:

Why don't you give some Scriptural references then in the context of Matthew 24 or Luke 21 that suggests otherwise?

OK
In 70 AD, which is when you claim that the Day of the LORD, came to pass, which nation rose up against which nation? Which kingdom against which kingdom.
OK, you have Rome, and um, um, who else?

9] Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
[10] And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
[11] And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
[12] And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
[13] But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

In 70 AD, who was hated of all nations for his namesake?
And what is it that they had to endure to the end, to be saved?

"[15] When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

So, you're saying the "prince that shall come, and shall destroy the city and sanctuary" (Dan 9:26) was Titus?...because the (small P) prince is the subject of the 2nd part of vs. 26, not Messiah.
Carrying the subject forward, it is the prince who confirms the covenant for one week.
It is the prince who causes religious observances to cease. He is the desolator.
Christ is the one who pours out his wrath (Rev. Ch.15, 16) upon the desolate (followers of the desolator) at his return. THAT is the day of vengeance. THAT is the day of the LORD

"[21] For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."

So you believe that the 70 AD event, which occurred 650 years after most of Judah had been dispersed among the nations, was the greatest tribuation there has ever been in the world, or ever will be?
Millions of holocaust survivors would probably disagree.

"[29] Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
[30] And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
[31] And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

I'm interested to see how you tie any of that to a past event

cont.

part 2

PH

"[32] Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:"

What is meant here?
What branch is he referring to?
When did it/ will it put forth leaves?
Why is it important to know when "summer is nigh"?

[33] So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

See what things? Aren't these "things" listed in the prior verses, just discussed?

"[34] Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."
Which generation? The one that sees all of these things happen. The one that is present on earth, when "the branch is tender, and putteth forth leaves"

"[37] But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
[38] For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
[39] And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."

That seems to indicate a global destruction, not one aimed at a particular people

"[40] Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
[41] Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
[42] Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come."

If you are "taken", you have been deceived by the "prince" who will "confirm the covenant".
At that point, you are the target of Christ's wrath.

"Luke 21:20-24 makes it even plainer. "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know its desolation is near...For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written...There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. They will fall by the sword..."

"all that has been written..."...So, Israel and Judah have been re-joined, Christ has returned with all his saints, Satan has been destroyed, Kings and queens are making their yearly pilgrimage to the temple (that doesn't exist).
I don't think so

"The Roman armies came against Jerusalem with sword. Do you propose that sword in this instance means something else, something metaphorical? If so, then show me from Scripture why."

"And they shall fall by the edge of the sword"
I've already discussed how we are "delivered before councils", so the Holy Spirit can give testimony that even "the gainsayers" won't be able to resist.
This is how his enemies will be made his footstool. This is when the gospel will be published among all nations.
"The sword" is his word
Rom 13:4, Eph 6:17, Heb.4:12, Rev.1:16, .2:12, 2:16,19:15, 19:21...any many other examples that aren't as obvious

"Fill up, then, the measure of the sins of your forefathers.' (Matthew 23:32)"

Were the forefathers of Israelites responsible for the blood of Abel? (Matthew 23:35)

end

From that perspective, yes, let Islam, Christianity, and any other religion be debated on the campaign trail. After all, campaigns should be about what people care about, and lots of people care about religion. -- Frank Pavone

Yeah, well, lots of people care about having nice lawns too...

If politicians can take the exact same empirical data and spin it into diametrically opposed positions, can you imagine what they would do with a subject like someone else's religion? How far into such a debate would they get before we hear, "But that's not my religion!". When everyone in the game claims to have the ace-high trump card of Divine Revelation how can anyone win the hand?

I can't imagine a more futile exercise.

If a politician can't justify a position on purely secular grounds -- and without invoking an authority from outside time and space -- then they have no business running for office in the United Sates.

peterhuff,

"How do you know that, since you believe nothing?"

Because I know how to read.

"Since this is the common question of many of your threads I'll combine the question into one response."

I can't wait.

"I base those beliefs that you questioned on many things,..."

Many things?

"...the least of which is God's word,..."

Which one?

"...logic/common sense..."

That would be your logic, and your common sense, right?

"...and the fact that most people in the world admit to believing in something."

So, you believe someone who claims to believe in something, but you do not believe someone who claims to not believe in something?

"They shape their world-views on these core beliefs,..."

And they are free to do so.

"...just as you do."

On what do you base that belief?

Did your imaginary "god's word" tell you that?

Does your "logic/common sense" tell you that? Explain.

Did most people of the world admit to that?

"The difference appears to be that they are cognizant of it..."

And, you believe them?

"...and you pretend not to be or have at least convinced yourself of that."

So, you just don't believe me?

Does my lack of belief threaten you in some way?

Do you fear my lack of belief?

Do you need Congress to pass a "Protection of Belief Act"?

Does Israel have the Right to Exist?

Regarding the intersection of religion and politics, I would like to know how many participants in this discussion support Israel's right to exist? If yes, why? If no, why?

I agree with Fr. Pavone. The only way to make a knowledgeable decision when voting is to educate ourselves on issues and also the reality behind the proper names of religious identities. Assuming Christianity=Islam=Any other religion, just because they deal with God and beliefs, does each a disservice, and when it comes to making decisions that touch American lives and security is irresponsible. The Qur'an can inform us by what it actually teaches especially about the call to Jihad. History can inform. Learning about the Mohammad of history can be a real eye opener, when you hear Islam referred to as a religion of peace and mercy. Seeking the truth should come before our vote.

Hi PSolus,

Second, you have stated your beliefs in your posts, identifying them as things that you believe. -PSO

How do you know that, since you believe nothing?

On what do you base that belief? -PSO

Since this is the common question of many of your threads I'll combine the question into one response.

I base those beliefs that you questioned on many things, the least of which is God's word, logic/common sense and the fact that most people in the world admit to believing in something. They shape their world-views on these core beliefs, just as you do. The difference appears to be that they are cognizant of it and you pretend not to be or have at least convinced yourself of that.

peterhuff,

"So you believe that I have said something that reveals my belief."

No.

First, I believe nothing.

Second, you have stated your beliefs in your posts, identifying them as things that you believe.

"Without you having such beliefs you couldn't even form a sentence because without beliefs communication is not possible."

On what do you base that belief?

"You believe I have communicated in such a way that you can understand where I stand on the issues."

No.

First, I believe nothing.

Second, you have stated where you stand on many issues.

"You can't even use sign language without first believing that certain signs convey certain meanings."

On what do you base that belief?

"You believe that what I have said conveys information into what I believe."

No.

First, I believe nothing.

Second, you have stated your beliefs in your posts, identifying them as things that you believe.

"But you will not apply this to your own beliefs..."

I have no beliefs.

"because to do so would end your little game of meaninglessness that you love to play and you would be embarrassing yourself by admitting that you are wrong or have been deceptive or deceived by your own cunning or thinking."

On what do you base that belief?

"Rubbish, total carp."

On what do you base that belief?

"You are not fooling many people."

Exactly how many people am I fooling?

"You believe that..."

I believe nothing.

"...or else you would not defend it with most posts that you submit..."

On what do you base that belief?

" - an ingrained belief."

I have no beliefs, ingrained or otherwise.

"You just won't admit it."

On what do you base that belief?

"Having no beliefs is a belief in its own right."

On what do you base that belief?

"To express that you believe 'nothing' you would first have to believe an uncountable amount of things to even communicate that belief."

On what do you base that belief?

"Sure you do."

Sure I don't.

"You would never have learned the meaning of words without sharing other peoples beliefs that words do convey certain meaning in certain contexts."

On what do you base that belief?

"You believe a cat is a cat, not a dog; that the sun is not the moon; that light is not dark, and on and on it goes."

I do not believe any of the above.

"If you did not believe these simple assertions that I made then you could not make sense of them.

On what do you base that belief?

"Do you know what I mean when I say that a cat is different from a dog?"

Not when you say it, but when normal people says it, I understand what they are saying.

More...

More:

"1) That does not answer the question of how you know."

Perhaps it just doesn't answer the question for you - that's your problem, not mine.

"And if you don't know then how can you state your judgment a valid, even to you?"

I have no need to state my judgement as valid to anyone.

"2) Then why do you subject yourself to other peoples beliefs on this forum?????"

What makes you believe that I am subjecting myself to other peoples beliefs in this forum?

"3) Why is it that almost every thinking person is willing to admit they have beliefs but you?"

On what do you base that belief?

"Is that not an oddity?"

Do you believe that to be an oddity?

"Do you just want to tell them the incredible fact that you believe nothing over and over again?"

Do you believe that I do?

"No, you are looking for something that can make sense of life and give it meaning and disguise this fact by playing dumb or being a smart Aleck."

On what do you base that belief?

(fin)

I agree, Father. Religion should be openly debated when it comes to political campaigns. I'm tired of always hearing one side of the story. Frankly, it's always opposed to Christianity and often bending over backwards for other religious beliefs or none at all.
There is far too much censorship of the truth by the mainstream media. That's why I appreciate Catholic radio and other media--they tell the WHOLE story and look at issues closely. Where else would we hear the truth? Certainly not from those who are clearly antiChristian and politically 'correct.'

Hi PSolus,

ME: "What are you resting your assertion on other than your belief?"

I am "resting my assertion on" the fact that I have read your posts. - PSO

So you believe that I have said something that reveals my belief. Without you having such beliefs you couldn't even form a sentence because without beliefs communication is not possible. You believe I have communicated in such a way that you can understand where I stand on the issues.

You can't even use sign language without first believing that certain signs convey certain meanings. You believe that what I have said conveys information into what I believe. But you will not apply this to your own beliefs because to do so would end your little game of meaninglessness that you love to play and you would be embarrassing yourself by admitting that you are wrong or have been deceptive or deceived by your own cunning or thinking.

And, I have no beliefs. -PSO

Rubbish, total carp. You are not fooling many people. You believe that or else you would not defend it with most posts that you submit - an ingrained belief. You just won't admit it.

Having no beliefs is a belief in its own right. To express that you believe 'nothing' you would first have to believe an uncountable amount of things to even communicate that belief.

ME: "Are you resting your assertion on someone else's belief?"

I never "rest my assertions on" other's beliefs. -PSO

Sure you do. You would never have learned the meaning of words without sharing other peoples beliefs that words do convey certain meaning in certain contexts. You believe a cat is a cat, not a dog; that the sun is not the moon; that light is not dark, and on and on it goes. If you did not believe these simple assertions that I made then you could not make sense of them. Do you know what I mean when I say that a cat is different from a dog?

ME: "How do you know it is their belief if you believe nothing?"

In my experience, people are overly-happy to share their beliefs with people who do not want to hear those beliefs. -PSO

1) That does not answer the question of how you know. And if you don't know then how can you state your judgment a valid, even to you?

2) Then why do you subject yourself to other peoples beliefs on this forum?????

3) Why is it that almost every thinking person is willing to admit they have beliefs but you? Is that not an oddity? Do you just want to tell them the incredible fact that you believe nothing over and over again? No, you are looking for something that can make sense of life and give it meaning and disguise this fact by playing dumb or being a smart Aleck.

More information for our political/religious leaders walking the tight ropes of human life:

guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html

"CONTRACEPTIVE METHOD CHOICE

Contraceptive method use among U.S. women who practice con-traception, 2002

Method No. of users (in 000s) % of users
Pill 11,661 30.6
Male condom 6,841 18.0 "

i.e.
The pill fails to protect women 8.7% during the first year of use (from the same reference previously shown).
i.e.
0.087 (failure rate)
x 62 million (# child bearing women)
x 0.62 ( % of these women using contraception )
x 0.306 ( % of these using the pill) =
1,020,000 unplanned pregnancies during the first year of pill use.

For male condoms (failure rate of 17.4 and 18% use level):

1,200,000 unplanned pregnancies during the first year of male condom use.

The Guttmacher Institute (same reference) notes also that the perfect use of the pill should result in a 0.3% failure rate
(35,000 unplanned pregnancies) and for the male condom, a 2% failure rate (138,000 unplanned pregnancies).

o Bottom Line #1: The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the pill and male condom have led to the large rate of abortions ( one million/yr) and STDs (19 million/yr) in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the pill or condoms properly and/or use other methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and STDs.

Bottom line #2-

Currently, a perfect barrier system does not exist. Time to develop one! In the meantime, monomasturbation or mutual masturbation are highly recommended for heterosexuals who need a contraceptive. Abstinence is another best-solution but obviously the sex drive typically vitiates this option although being biological would it not be able to develop a drug to temporarily eliminate said drive?

Church: We’re Sorry, We Guess

PHILADELPHIA (PA)
Philadelphia Weekly

Here’s something new:

The church has apologized! No, not specific priests, and not to their rape and torture victims. No, not the specific Cardinals and/or Bishops who covered it up. No, not the pope. But the Catholic Standard and Times, the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia – which once in a while, like in this case, breaks news – has published a letter of apology. Yeah, we were surprised, too. But then we read the whole thing.

“We are sorry…We, the Church, are sorry for the sexual abuse suffered by our brothers and sisters when they were young people at the hands of the Church’s clergymen and teachers. The Church is sorry for the sins and crimes of some members against other members. The Church begs forgiveness of our brothers and sisters, and of almighty God…” begins the letter.

According to Philly Confidential (Standard and Times’ website isn’t working for some reason), the apology is unsigned and begins taking on a ‘There are a lot of pedoph!les out there, and they’re all bad! Why does everyone always blame us!? How dare Pennsylvania try to lift the statute of limitations on ’sexua! abuse’ cases!’

RCofield,

"Just as I thought."

No, just as you believed.

"You really don't know if my beliefs are superstitious; you just hope they are."

Do you fear that I do?

"Oh, we will, one way or the other."

Are you afraid not to believe that.

"You want to think my beliefs are meaningless, and have therefore convinced yourself they are without even bothering to investigate."

I am aware from experience that your beliefs are meaningless to me; there is no need to investigate.

If you also doubt your beliefs, you are free to investigate them to your heart's content.

"That's wishful thinking."

No, it isn't.

"Or laziness."

Perhaps, mom.

"Or both."

Or, neither.

"Yet you keep posting them—without support—as if they are of substance."

Why does that frustrate you so?

"You are one of the most committed “believers” I have encountered on these threads."

Your belief in that statement says otherwise.

Oh, I believe nothing.

"So, if even you do not believe that you believe nothing, why do you so desperately want me to believe that you believe nothing?"

I do not care what you believe; why do you so desperately want to believe that I believe something?

Do you feel lonely and foolish out there with your superstitious beliefs?

"You're no different in this respect than a poorly informed and apologetically challenged evangelical christian."

That reminds me of the scene in American Graffiti where the poor, homely, love-struck girl told some hotrodder that his car was uglier that she was.

Good one.

"Oh, I “get it” alright."

That is not evident.

I apparently understand your position better than you do."

Again, not evident.

If you did, you would not be so frustrated about it.

"Yet you post incessantly."

No, I post "cessently".

"You're either insane or confused; perhaps both."

Perhaps neither.

"Yet you waste large segments of your time trying to convince me that my beliefs are “superstitious.”"

No, I'm not trying to convince you of anything; I have learned from experience that one cannot convince the superstitious that they are superstitious.

But, I do enjoy pointing it out to them, so it's not a complete waste of time; think of it as a hobby.

"So obviously the one you are trying to convince is yourself."

By "obviously" do you mean "that is my belief"?

"Only a fool dismisses as “meaningless” that which he does not understand."

Is that more "preacher talk"?

"Only a fool is derisive toward that which he has not given reasonable consideration."

Sing to the choir, preacher.

Hey, choir, wake up!

"That is “Peregrine-ese” for “I have no idea how to respond to such sound reasoning.”"

Ha, "sound reasoning"; I see that I have managed to teach you a little about irony.

More...

More:

"The one by which you said earlier you were made familiar with the adage “That's like the pot calling the kettle black.” "

None of my grandpas are pots, kettles, or black.

"Do try to keep up."

Isn't irony so much better when you know what it is and how to use it?

You're welcome

"Which is “Peregrine-ese” for “I have no idea how to respond to such clear application of my own illogical thinking.”"

OK, you're going a little overboard with the irony, do you want to practice sarcasm for a while?

"Because “grandpas” usually recognize foolishness when they hear it. Usually."

Did you grow up in a Norman Rockwell painting?

"Despite all the bluster about being a “thinker,” thinking just doesn't seem to be your strong suit."

Wow, I seem to have rally got up your nose lately, preacher man.

Maybe you should take some time to pray to you imaginary god for forgiveness, flagellate yourself, or whatever it is that do, and return when you're not so jittery.

(fin)

Victims of clergy sex abuse protest

LOS ANGELES (CA)
Contra Costa Times

By Rick Orlov, Staff Writer
Posted: 02/24/2011

With Cardinal Roger Mahony retiring this weekend, a small group of survivors of sex abuse by Catholic priests staged a demonstration Thursday in front of the downtown cathedral, demanding that he open the church's abuse files.

The group of about a half-dozen victims also called attention to a new lawsuit filed against the Salesian Society of the Catholic Church for an alleged case of abuse at a school in Bellflower 18 years ago.

"Cardinal Mahony leaves this weekend and the one thing he could do to possibly clean up his legacy is to release all his files on child abuse cases," said Joelle Casteix, a Southern California regional director for Surviving Network of Abuse by Priests.

Philadelphia: Ground Zero for Catholic Bishops

PHILADELPHIA (PA)
Patheos

Survivors can now see that the tide is turning and many rank and file Catholics now comprehend the depth and the scope of what the Philadelphia Archdiocese has done.

By Marci A. Hamilton, February 25, 2011

Unless you've been living under a rock (and I hope you are not), you must have heard about the Philadelphia Grand Jury Report that was issued earlier in February and that detailed the persistent efforts by the Philadelphia Roman Catholic Archdiocese to hide child sex abuse. I talked about it in my last column.

The Report ended with suggested criminal charges against the highest-ranking diocesan official yet, Monsignor Lynn. In what appeared to be a slow-motion response, the Archdiocese finally relieved him of his duties this week. How long does it take an American bishop to figure out that a higher-up charged with the crime of the endangerment of children should be placed on "administrative leave"? Lots longer than it should!

I was one of three attorneys who filed a lawsuit against the Archdiocese, Cardinal Rigali, and Cardinal Bevilacqua soon after the Report on behalf of a victim of two different priests at two different Catholic schools in the Philadelphia area. As the complaint details, he asked the Archdiocese for assistance and they promptly asked him to sign a document that says he "prohibits" the Archdiocese from going to the authorities.

Rev. Romano J. Ferraro—Assignment Record

UNITED STATES
BishopAccountability.org

Summary of Case: Ferraro was arrested on 4/1/02 for repeatedly raping a boy 1973-80 in Billerica MA, starting when the boy was 7 years old. Ferraro was convicted on 5/7/04, when a jury found him guilty of child rape and guilty on three counts of indecent assault and battery against a child under 14. He was sentenced on 5/20/04 to life in prison. Ferraro was a childhood friend of the boy's father and molested the child during annual Christmas visits. The victim had come forward to authorities in late 2001, and it was possible to prosecute because the SOL clock, which precluded bringing charges six years or more after a crime is committed, had stopped with Ferraro out of state. Ferraro denied the charge but admitted at the trial that he was a pedophile predator who had abused perhaps dozens of boys. He also stated that he knew he was a pedophile by 1955, 5 years before his ordination. Earliest abuse alleged in civil suits was 1964-68 but previous assignments suggest earlier problems. Then he was in Key West FL as Navy chaplain 1968-71 in the Miami archdiocese; was dishonorably discharged; and was sued 1/06 for FL abuse. Reassigned, he allegedly abused in the Brooklyn, Rockville Centre, St. Louis, and Metuchen dioceses. A St. Louis man who alleged abuse by Ferraro committed suicide in 2006 after a long struggle with depression. Ferraro was suspended in 1988 after an allegation, but the Brooklyn diocese apparently knew much earlier

peterhuff,

"What are you resting your assertion on other than your belief?"

I am "resting my assertion on" the fact that I have read your posts.

And, I have no beliefs.

"Are you resting your assertion on someone else's belief?"

I never "rest my assertions on" other's beliefs.

"How do you know it is their belief if you believe nothing?"

In my experience, people are overly-happy to share their beliefs with people who do not want to hear those beliefs.

I am confused as to the number of comments that reminded Father Pavone of the problems that have beset the Vatican, when he was discussing the right and necessity of all citizens to openly discuss the merits of religious beliefs of those in public life. There was another issue that brought calumny upon the heads of those who dared to discuss it and that was slavery.No matter how you cut it, Truth will prevail in matters that oppose the Natural Law of human behavior. Can we not endeavor to apply reason to matters of faith?

YEAL9,

"Pro-abortion choicer" Obama rode to the Blood-Red House on the backs of 35+million aborted womb-babies!!!.....the Immoral Majority now rules the land and will do so in the foreseeable future. How very sad and disturbing!!!

On what grounds do you oppose abortion?

Italy has thus far collected upwards of 600,000 in the last few months from VAtican Bank, for money laundering. They weren't buying the Vatican's b.s. that it could not be prosecuted since it is a "sovereign nation."

That is not the case here. Here the survivors and heirs of 200 Nazi priests who tortured to death thousands of Serbs, Jews, Roma, and deposited the loot in Vatican Bank were denied the right to sue the Vatican since it is a "sovereign nation."

Should "religion" be discussed in campaigns? You bet.

Discussion points

Is it legal for a religion to be both a Sovereign Nation and a Tax exempt entity?

Why isn't the RCC at the Hague for crimes against humanity? The rape of children worldwide, for example

Vatican Bank, nazi priests, etc.

PEREGRINE,

I have nothing to prove to you.

Just as I thought. You really don't know if my beliefs are superstitious; you just hope they are.

No, we probably won't.

Oh, we will, one way or the other.

I have no need to hope anything; your superstitious beliefs are all meaningless.

You want to think my beliefs are meaningless, and have therefore convinced yourself they are without even bothering to investigate. That's wishful thinking. Or laziness. Or both.

Yes, I believe nothing, including my own opinions.

Yet you keep posting them—without support—as if they are of substance. You are one of the most committed “believers” I have encountered on these threads.

No, I believe nothing.

So, if even you do not believe that you believe nothing, why do you so desperately want me to believe that you believe nothing? You're no different in this respect than a poorly informed and apologetically challenged evangelical christian.

I thought you were beginning to get it; apparently not.

Oh, I “get it” alright. I apparently understand your position better than you do.

I have no need to accomplish anything...

Yet you post incessantly. You're either insane or confused; perhaps both.

I don't care either way.

Yet you waste large segments of your time trying to convince me that my beliefs are “superstitious.” So obviously the one you are trying to convince is yourself.

Of course, that would be meaningless for me, as prayer is meaningless.

Only a fool dismisses as “meaningless” that which he does not understand.

At first, I laughed at what you had written, and then I quickly typed my response.

Only a fool is derisive toward that which he has not given reasonable consideration.

That is not "ironic", Alanis, that is just an example of your poorly-applied belief-logic.

That is “Peregrine-ese” for “I have no idea how to respond to such sound reasoning.”

And, are you referring to my maternal grandpa, my paternal grandpa, or some other grandpas?

The one by which you said earlier you were made familiar with the adage “That's like the pot calling the kettle black.” Do try to keep up.

Remember that thinking before typing thing that I alluded to earlier?

Which is “Peregrine-ese” for “I have no idea how to respond to such clear application of my own illogical thinking.”

Why would by believe that?

Because “grandpas” usually recognize foolishness when they hear it. Usually.

Not at all.

Despite all the bluster about being a “thinker,” thinking just doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

From the topic: "there should be no religious test for public office, nor is it the role of government or any public official to use the force of government to either advance or block particular sectarian creeds."

Hmmm?

"Pro-abortion choicer" Obama rode to the Blood-Red House on the backs of 35+million aborted womb-babies!!!

(The fastest growing USA voting bloc: The 70+ million "Roe vs. Wade mothers and fathers" of aborted womb-babies" whose ranks grow by two million per year.)

i.e. the Immoral Majority now rules the land and will do so in the foreseeable future. How very sad and disturbing!!!

2008 Popular vote

69,456,897 for BO 59,934,814 for JM

BELLEVILLE (IL)
News-Democrat

BY GEORGE PAWLACZYK - News-Democrat

BELLEVILLE -- Bishop Edward Braxton failed to remove a veteran Catholic priest from ministry weeks after receiving "credible evidence" that the cleric sexually molested a minor years ago, a leader of a support group for people abused by the clergy said Thursday.

"He has known about this for weeks, if not months, and has not acted," said David Clohessy, a director of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests during a news conference outside the Belleville Diocese chancery office.

"It is the duty of the church to protect children of the diocese, and that is not happening," he said.

BELLEVILLE (IL)
KMOV

by Jim Suhr
The Associated Press
Posted on February 25, 2011

ST. LOUIS (AP) -- A southwestern Illinois diocese's urging that the state's highest court throw out a $5 million jury award in an alleged priest abuse case drew rebukes Thursday from a regional priests' group and a victims' advocacy organization, both of which urged the diocese to pay up.

The Diocese of Belleville last week asked the Illinois Supreme Court for the relief from the 2008 jury verdict, insisting it is not responsible for telling parishioners about sexual misconduct involving priests including the Rev. Raymond Kownacki, the clergyman at the center of the questioned award.

Calling that legal stance "disastrous," the Southern Illinois Association of Priests insisted Thursday the position violates the diocese's child-protection policy, "common moral sense, and the inherent right of everyone to protect themselves from sexual predators."

OS ANGELES (CA)
Los Angeles Daily News

By Tony Castro, Staff Writer
Posted: 02/24/2011

In recent weeks, the Sunday morning masses celebrated by Cardinal Roger Mahony at the downtown cathedral have drawn larger-than-usual crowds, heavily populated by the poor and undocumented of Los Angeles. | See photo gallery.

Those two constituencies, after all, make up the centerpiece of his quarter-century legacy as the leader of the Los Angeles Archdiocese - a post he will officially turn over Sunday as his 75th birthday forces his retirement.

In those years, the archbishop marched with Cesar Chavez, championed immigrant rights and called for changes in the country's immigration policy.

But Mahony's legacy was tarnished by the clerical abuse scandal involving more than 500 victims and a record $660 million settlement. He also was accused of failing to report abusive priests to civil authorities and keeping them working in parishes without informing parishioners.

Late night for you PSolus, or early morning?

ME:"You believe that, do you?"

You have demonstrated that. - PSO

What are you resting your assertion on other than your belief? Are you resting your assertion on someone else's belief? How do you know it is their belief if you believe nothing?

Hi MrMeaner,

I have time for a quick post here. You said,

One more thing; Why do you believe that Israel/Jews were the target of the vengeance prophesied in the OT, when every indication is that the targets of vengeance are the nations of the world, who rise up against Israel/Judah?

Why don't you give some Scriptural references then in the context of Matthew 24 or Luke 21 that suggests otherwise?

So in answer to your question above, because Jesus makes reference to Daniel 9:24-27 in His Matthew 24 discourse.

Jesus said: "So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel - let the reader understand..." and then He goes into some of the details of that judgment.

Let the reader understand what?

Luke 21:20-24 makes it even plainer. "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know its desolation is near...For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written...There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. They will fall by the sword..."

The Roman armies came against Jerusalem with sword. Do you propose that sword in this instance means something else, something metaphorical? If so, then show me from Scripture why.

As the angel Gabriel said to Daniel, "Seventy
'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring an everlasting righteousness...to anoint the most holy.

All these things, the filling up of the transgression of Daniel's people, was fulfilled with the coming of the Messiah, rejection of Him and the destruction of the city and temple. With that destruction there was no more sacrificial system because Jesus had put away with sin, provided the perfect atonement for all those who would put their faith in Him, as well as supplying the everlasting righteousness that justify those who are in Him before God! There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus the Lord; those resting in Him and His merit and work on their behalf.

Remember, just before the disciples came to Jesus and asked Him 'when will this happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming and the end of the age' He had given His rebuke to the Pharisees and teachers of the law in which He said, among other things, 'Fill up, then, the measure of the sins of your forefathers.' (Matthew 23:32)

This is what they did in rejecting Him and putting Him to death, filled up the measure of their transgressions to its fullness. The 'end of the age' happened with the destruction of the city and temple.

1 Thessalonians 2:16 also makes mention of this 'heaping up their sins to the limit' or fullness, those who 'killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets.'

I'll spend some time on the rest of your post later.

peterhuff,

"You believe that, do you?"

You have demonstrated that.

At times, it seemed as though you were deliberately attempting to convince me of that.

Oh, I believe nothing.

Hi PSolus,

You said,

No, he keeps telling me that my posts are a "mass of confusion" because he is unable to comprehend anything that does not conform to his make-believe world-view.

You believe that, do you?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
AREYOUSAYING |
FEBRUARY 24, 2011 1:45 PM
THE SHALLOW RANT IS MEANINGLESS.

IRT: "Oh, do tell us Father of the'...defense of human rights and the securing of the common good...' Here's what Pavone's Church thinks of "human rights and "the common good" While they cry, "Others do it, too," they find a priest guilty of molestation and his punishment is he "must retire to a life of prayer and penitence."

ANS: There were only four perfect human beings; two were in the Garden and screwed up the whole human race. The other two were Jesus and His Mother. Carping like a parrot only proves that priests are persons and vulnerable to the wiles of the world and that their salvation is not guaranteed.

Even Popes sin and some may be in Hell. If Judas, an apostle, isn’t in Hell, it took a miracle to save him. Satan was God's greatest creature is in Hell because he insulted God.

Your scandalmongering and exasperated insinuation have no credibility. Your slanderous imputations that the Catholic Church condones child abuse are a malicious traducement of the truth. Moreover, your opprobrious use of the tragic travail of these poor abused victims to impugn the Church is a scurrilous obloquy of your own character.

Criticizing the Church for molesting children, and attempts to define how the Church defines civil rights only reveals your scurrilous intentions. There are no Civil Rights without God. Rights are God given, but you are an atheist, or you wouldn’t be proffering such asinine and cretinous calumny; your tactics maligns both you and your character.

Pedophile priests do not impugn the Church anymore than a corrupt soldier impugns the Military or a corrupt policeman impugns all police.

Yes, others do it too. You can’t take bad priests out of context with the culture and society they live in and then attempt to make them the exception because their Catholic.

That tactic exposes the denseness of your fatuous sophistry. In the last 30 years, the number of priests that were pedophiles was .2 percent. Some 70 percent of gays have committed pedophilia at least once.

The most dangerous predator to the child is a family member. The mother is the most dangerous because she can have her child murdered; over 52 million unborn have been murdered in America alone, and some 43 MILLION are being aborted every year worldwide.

The Public School system in NY City shuffles and protects its 5% pedophiles it employees. Since that’s not on your mudslinging agendas, it confirms your purpose of muckraking.

You have no compassion for the victims. The Church has always been concerned. Her care for people has been demonstrated by Mother Teresa; the Church's incessant defense of human life, Her voluminous Charities, and Her multitude of schools and hospitals all vindicate Her credibility and compassion for man.

PH:

"Do you not think time indicators or verb tenses are important in conveying information?"

It depends on whether you're looking at the passage in a historical sense, or, once again, as a typology.

Why do you think that typologies would be used in the OT, but never again, after Christ's first advent?

For example, during Christ’s “trial” before Pilate, the priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should choose to free Barab’bas and crucify Jesus.

Is it just a coicidence that Barabbas means “son of the father” in Greek?

The priests incited the multitude to choose an evil, murderous “son of the father”, over the true, sinless “Son of the Father”.

Don’t you think there’s a lesson in there, that was meant to be carried forward to future generations?

It sounds pretty similar to the whole apostasy thing, where the harlot falls away, and ultimately chooses the anti-christ, does it not?

In that case, Christ’s own trial is used as a typology. It doesn’t take away from the historical meaning of it. It, like the other examples, adds to the deeper meaning behind the word, as a whole

Is the word not forever?
Don't you believe that the future would be addressed, in a work purported to be "God's word"?

"Do you think God is capable of saying what He means?"

I do. And I try to understand it without disregarding other things he has said

"Many of the typologies of the OT are explained in the NT. Hebrews is a prime example"

I agree that some are at least partially explained, but many are not. Zechariah Ch. 14 is a prime example.

"For I will gather ALL nations against Jerusalem to battle....Then shall the LORD go forth and fight against those nations....His feet shall stand that day in the mount of Olives...and the mountain shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west....And the Lord shall be king over all the earth....And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
(which, BTW, was the feast, during which Christ was born on Earth)

There's no way a person can claim that this has happened, and I find it difficult to replace any of the actual participants mentioned, with a metaphor for the church, and make any sense out of it whatsoever.

One more thing;
Why do you believe that Israel/Jews were the target of the vengeance prophesied in the OT, when every indication is that the targets of vengeance are the nations of the world, who rise up against Israel/Judah?

If it were true, God's counsel could in no way be considered "immutable", unless God changed the definition of "immutable", to something meaning the opposite of immutable.

RCofield,

"Then it should be no problem for you to name three of them and demonstrate conclusively that they are superstitious."

I have nothing to prove to you.

If you want to get out from under your ignorant, superstitious beliefs, you will have to do it on your own.

Good luck.

"We'll see."

No, we probably won't.

"You should hope they do."

I have no need to hope anything; your superstitious beliefs are all meaningless.

"Yes, thanks for asking."

I'm sure that you want to believe that.

"The real question is “do you believe your claim”?"

That is no real question; I believe nothing.

"Your oft-stated answer is “I believe nothing.”"

Yes, I believe nothing; I just typed it again.

"Hence, you claim to believe nothing, including your own opinions."

Yes, I believe nothing, including my own opinions.

"So, do you believe that you believe nothing?"

No, I believe nothing.

I thought you were beginning to get it; apparently not.

"You have accomplished nothing by merely claiming that prayer is meaningless."

I have no need to accomplish anything, just as your prayers accomplish nothing.

"Prove that it is meaningless and you might be onto something."

Again, I have no need to prove anything to you, or to be "onto something".

If you want to believe your superstitious beliefs, go right ahead.

If you want to stop believing your superstitious beliefs, go right ahead.

I don't care either way.

"Of course, that may be a little difficult for you as you obviously don't even understand what prayer is."

Of course, that would be meaningless for me, as prayer is meaningless.

"Yes."

Too bad.

That confirms many of my suspicions about you.

"Did you think about it at all before, or after, you placed it in quotations and responded to it?"

At first, I laughed at what you had written, and then I quickly typed my response.

"It is rather ironic that you live in a world where you “make-believe” that you “believe nothing” (and that you are “deflowering virgins”), all the while believing others' world-views are “make believe.”

That is not "ironic", Alanis, that is just an example of your poorly-applied belief-logic.

Oh, and, I believe nothing.

"If you asked your grandpa about that he would tell you that is a case of the pot calling the kettle black."

What makes you believe that?

Have you met my grandpa?

And, are you referring to my maternal grandpa, my paternal grandpa, or some other grandpas?

"You would then respond that you believe nothing, therefore neither the pot nor the kettle exist, the pot never called the kettle anything, and the pot couldn't possibly know with certainty that the kettle is black."

Remember that thinking before typing thing that I alluded to earlier?

"Then he would probably have you committed for psychiatric evaluation.'

Why would by believe that?

Do you want to believe that, or, do you need to believe that?

More...

More:

"You may need to think about each of those statements for a week or so before placing them in quotations and responding to them."

Not at all.

(fin)

Now comes the denizens of the Catholic League, in their attack on me and other victims to discredit and demonize us by claiming these stories are "ancient history" while ignoring the fact that all of them are dated this year with the majority of them from this month.

Before you dismiss my posts as off topic, Father himself brought up the topic of "... defense of human rights and the securing of the common good..." (unless there is a special Papal dispensation for pervert priests and those who hide them.)

MARYLAND
Gazette

by Alex Ruoff | Staff Writer

Garrett David Orr, the former Georgetown Preparatory School teacher arrested on charges he molested two students while employed as a Jesuit priest there, was indicted by a Montgomery County grand jury Thursday.

Montgomery County State's Attorney's Office spokesman Seth Zucker said the indictment means Orr will be tried in Montgomery County Circuit Court. He faces four counts of third-degree sexual offense and two counts of child abuse.

Orr, 57, of Pittsburgh was charged with the crimes Jan. 25 after two former students separately contact Montgomery County police, and said Orr had molested them while living in the school's dormitory, located on the North Bethesda school's campus, according to court documents.

AUSTRALIA
Broken Rites

By a Broken Rites researcher

(Article updated 21 February 2011)

After a family complained about a sexually-abusive Catholic religious Brother (Peter Paul Van Ruth) in their son's school, the church allowed this offender to transfer to teach (as a lay person) in government schools, a court has been told. Later the offender was allowed to resume teaching (as a lay person) in the Catholic system, where he eventually rose to administrative positions.

In the Melbourne County Court on 21 February 2011, Peter Paul van Ruth (now residing in Adelaide) appeared for pre-sentence proceedings for offences that he committed in 1969 while he worked as a Catholic religious Brother at Salesian College "Rupertswood" (a secondary school at Sunbury, near Melbourne, in the state of Victoria).

This school was operated by the Salesians of Don Bosco religious order. "Rupertswood" then was a boys-only school, with boarders as well as day students. The boarders included many from distant communities.

Van Ruth, who is known by his middle name (Paul), was born on 5 July 1946. He was charged with indecent assaults against two boys, both aged 12. These were not necessarily the only boys who were touched by Brother Paul Van Ruth. These were the two who have spoken with the police.

PHILADELPHIA (PA)
Philadelphia Inquirer

By David O’Reilly
INQUIRER STAFF WRITER

As an adviser to the bishop of Brooklyn, N.Y., in the early 1980s, then-Auxiliary Bishop Anthony J. Bevilacqua recommended that a sexually abusive priest wishing to return after treatment "seek an assignment outside the diocese," according to letters released Tuesday by an advocacy group.

The Rev. Roman Ferraro went on to the Diocese of Metuchen, N.J., in which he molested two young boys a few years later. The victims reached an out-of-court settlement with the diocese.

In 2004, Ferraro was convicted of child sexual assault for abusing a Massachusetts boy in the 1970s. Now 76, he is serving a life sentence.

"These documents raise the question of whether this was Bevilacqua's way of dealing with [abuser] priests" throughout his long career as a prelate, Barbara Blaine, national president of the Survivors' Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP), said at a news conference outside the Cathedral Basilica of SS. Peter and Paul.

PENNSYLVANIA
The Express-Times

Thursday, February 24, 2011

By JIM DEEGAN
The Express-Times

Retired Allentown Bishop Edward Cullen played a role in deceiving parishioners about a priest accused of molesting an altar boy at a Philadelphia parish 18 years ago, according to a Philadelphia grand jury report.

Cullen, who retired as bishop of Allentown in May 2009, was vicar for administration to Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua in Philadelphia before becoming Allentown Diocese bishop in 1998.

In 1993, Cullen issued a memo to another Philadelphia Archdiocese administrator, Monsignor William Lynn, saying parishioners of St. Therese of the Child Jesus parish in Philadelphia should be told the Rev. Edward Avery was resigning as pastor for health reasons, the grand jury report says.

In fact, Avery had been accused of sexual abuse.

Suffer the little children

KENTUCKY
Leo Weekly

By Jonathan Meador

And they brought young children to Him, that He should touch them: and His disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, He was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Mark 10:13-14

As the sun rose on Thursday, Feb. 3, 2011, David M. Jarboe Jr. stepped into the parking lot of downtown Owensboro’s Blessed Mother Catholic Church. A few blocks from the Ohio River, Blessed Mother is a flat, ranch-style structure featuring just one church-like fixture: a small, white spire in its central narthex, pointing to the sky. The resulting architecture makes it a bit unorthodox-looking for a Catholic church — no flying buttresses, stone gargoyles or giant stained-glass windows — but it fits right in with the surrounding neighborhood of modest one-story homes.

It’s impossible to know what Jarboe was thinking, gun in hand, on that frigid morning, but according to multiple news reports, we are able to make an educated guess. The former Owensboro Catholic High School football player had posted a six-page note on his Facebook page earlier that morning alleging that he had been the victim of sexual abuse at the hands of parish priests when he was a child.

“Let my life be a testimony,” Jarboe wrote. “The abuse of this church is real. Let it be known. It doesn’t make you a non-believer. It doesn’t jeopardize your fate. It’s the right thing to do. Religion is not a bad thing. But destroying free thought is. However, never once will I ever agree with the molestation of children. And never once will I agree with an institution that chooses to not acknowledge it … I hope this message will save at least one child from the pain and torment that I have gone through. A child is precious to God, and using your authority as a church official to take advantage of someone is one of the foulest things imaginable. Perhaps your parents don’t see, perhaps those you know don’t see, know that God sees. And God never forgets.

“So farewell,” the note concluded. “I have loved, I have lived, I have finally forgiven, I have no regrets. I am finally at peace.”

The Catholic Church Says No

PHILADELPHIA (PA)
The Philly Post

ROBERT HUBER

There is no way out. Not in this life. That’s what I kept hearing. Again and again. Maybe this was worse, over time, worse even than what someone so important did to them. Afterward, their church offered them nothing. Their church simply said no.

Art was a Vietnam vet, he was in law enforcement for 38 years. His son was sexually abused by a priest, the principal of his school. Art went to the diocese. The only thing he cared about was his son, who they broke and he wanted fixed. They wanted his son to go away for 50 thousand dollars, to sign off on never suing. Art’s son killed himself with a drug overdose.

Barbara turned on Channel 3 a few days ago, and there he was: the priest who molested her 45 years ago. His name is Joseph DiGregorio. She says she told Cardinal Regali about him in 2005. A review board recommended a “safety plan” for Father DiGregorio, which means he would be shielded from potential victims, then later decided there was “insufficient conclusive evidence” that he was a person who would do what Barbara said he did. She said that back when she was 16, DiGregorio kissed her, took her bra off, and lay on top of her in his car.

There are no restrictions on the father’s priestly duties, and there he was, on TV, and in the newspaper, calling what Barbara said made up.

YAKIMA (WA)
Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests

Statement by David Clohessy of St. Louis, Director of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (314 566 9790, SNAPclohessy@aol.com)

Once again, a Catholic priest fails to call 911 about a child sex abuse report.

Once again, a Yakima priest says nothing about a child sex abuse case and Yakima’s bishop says nothin too, until contacted by the media.

Those repeated promises by Catholic officials to put the safety of kids first and to be “open” about child sex cases are clearly just insincere public relations gestures.

We call on Bishop Carlos Sevilla to send a strong signal by severely disciplining Fr. Milich. No matter what Sevilla’s hand-picked panel may or may not recommend, Milich clearly violated his civic and moral duty, and for months, enabled a credibly accused child molesting cleric to be near kids. This kind of callousness and recklessness by Catholic employees will never stop unless it is severely punished.

Oh, do tell us Father of the "...defense of human rights and the securing of the common good..."

Here's what Pavone's Church thinks of "human rights and "the common good". While they cry "Others do it, too," they find a priest guilty of molestation and his punishment is he "must retire to a life of prayer and penitence." "Others" should be so lucky.

SANTIAGO, Chile (AP)– A prominent Chilean priest whose sex abuse case was closed by a judge has been found guilty by the Vatican.

The Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says Fernando Karadima is guilty of abusing minors and "must retire to a life of prayer and penitence." Friday's statement from the Vatican means Karadima can't meet with his former parishioners or other priests.

Four men accused Karadima of sexually abusing them for years in a wealthy Santiago parish where he was a respected leader in Chile's Catholic church.

The former archbishop didn't believe them, and a local judge closed the case, citing the statute of limitations. A prosecutor is appealing.

ATMAMAMIA: You said, "Gov. Huckabee had the courage to speak the truth. This is what separates the Statesmen from the politicians."

A more accurate statement woud be, "Governor Huckabee had the courage (or gaul) to speak what he BELIEVED to be the truth." And what really separates the statemenen from the run of the mill politicians is that most of what they believe and say turns out in the future to be correct. At this point there is little evidence that Huckabee KNOWS the truth about Islam or that his beliefs and predictions will turn out to be STATESMAN quality.

But you are right about one thing, that is, the run of the mill politician often believes in nothing except what will gain re-election.

Gov. Huckabee had the courage to speak the truth. This is what separates the Statesmen from the politicians.

In October, 2000, the Holy Father John Paul II declared St. Thomas more the Patron Saint of Statesmen. Thomas More risked it all and lived the truth. He lost his head but kept his soul.

A Statesmen is willing to take these risks and take a stand. Unlike, for example, the run of the mill politician who changes his opinion on the sanctity of marriage according to the direction of the political winds of the moment.

I think we are stepping into a quagmire and our Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves.

PEREGRINE,

Yes, you do.

Then it should be no problem for you to name three of them and demonstrate conclusively that they are superstitious.

Are your prayers working on me?

We'll see. You should hope they do.

Are any of your prayers working at all?

Yes, thanks for asking.

Do you believe my claim?

The real question is “do you believe your claim”? Your oft-stated answer is “I believe nothing.” Hence, you claim to believe nothing, including your own opinions.

So, do you believe that you believe nothing?

No problem; it's meaningless.

You have accomplished nothing by merely claiming that prayer is meaningless. Prove that it is meaningless and you might be onto something.

Of course, that may be a little difficult for you as you obviously don't even understand what prayer is.

Did you think about that at all before, or after, you typed it?

Yes. Did you think about it at all before, or after, you placed it in quotations and responded to it?

No, he keeps telling me that my posts are a "mass of confusion" because he is unable to comprehend anything that does not conform to his make-believe world-view.

It is rather ironic that you live in a world where you “make-believe” that you “believe nothing” (and that you are “deflowering virgins”), all the while believing others' world-views are “make believe.”

If you asked your grandpa about that he would tell you that is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

You would then respond that you believe nothing, therefore neither the pot nor the kettle exist, the pot never called the kettle anything, and the pot couldn't possibly know with certainty that the kettle is black.

Then he would probably have you committed for psychiatric evaluation.

You may need to think about each of those statements for a week or so before placing them in quotations and responding to them.

On the whole this post by PAVONE isn't bad. He said one thing that is absolutely true -- "my beliefs are, in one way or another, going to affect how I treat you." Beliefs matter a lot. What we really believe defines us. If I believe you are a worthless lump (which I do not) I will treat you in certain ways. If I believe you are a being in God's image (which I do not) I will treat you in other ways. Beliefs matter.

The beliefs of political leaders matter. Therefore, I want to know their beliefs about many things, including their religious beliefs. A religious test for public office is unconstitutional, and should be. But as an individual I am free to apply any kind of test I wish to. And I will.

Pavone said,"let Islam, Christianity, and any other religion be debated on the campaign trail. "

With this I disagree. Debate is the wrong word and the wrong action, at least about theological notions. Let them not debate from a religious perspective things such as the death penality or plural marriage. But I certainly want to know where each canditate stands on these and other moral issues, AND on his/her support of ALL our constitutionally guranteed rights, including religious freedom and separation of church and state.

I don't want a debate. I want to know beliefs.

RCofield,

"I hold no superstitious beliefs."

Yes, you do.

"Scripture, however, does apply to you whether you want it to or not."

And, that is just one of those superstitious beliefs.

"That's just your uninformed opinion."

Are your prayers working on me?

Are any of your prayers working at all?

"Which opinion, of course, you claim even you do not believe."

Do you believe my claim?

"I shall."

No problem; it's meaningless.

"They're telling you they are virgins, Peregrine?"

Why, are you interested?

"You're being awfully gullible for one who claims to believe nothing."

How do you know that, or do you just need to believe that?

"I am, thanks."

You're welcome.

"Let's see here: If Peter is “nothing” without his beliefs....and you “believe nothing”....then it is you who is “apparently nothing.”"

Did you think about that at all before, or after, you typed it?

"This is part of the reason Peter keeps telling you that your posts are a “mass of confusion.”"

No, he keeps telling me that my posts are a "mass of confusion" because he is unable to comprehend anything that does not conform to his make-believe world-view.

"...inasmuch as it impacts the defense of human rights and the securing of the common good..." ...except of course, those rights of little boys molested by your pervert priests....

PEREGRINE,

You know that your ignorant superstitious beliefs do not apply to me.

I hold no superstitious beliefs. Scripture, however, does apply to you whether you want it to or not.

Your childish prayers are meaningless, except to you.

That's just your uninformed opinion. Which opinion, of course, you claim even you do not believe.

Continue praying;

I shall.

I will continue to deflower virgins.

They're telling you they are virgins, Peregrine? You're being awfully gullible for one who claims to believe nothing.

Have fun.

I am, thanks.

(To PeterHuff) Yes, you are a believer; you are apparently nothing without your beliefs.

Let's see here: If Peter is “nothing” without his beliefs....and you “believe nothing”....then it is you who is “apparently nothing.”

This is part of the reason Peter keeps telling you that your posts are a “mass of confusion.”

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DAVID6
POSTED BY: FEBRUARY 23, 2011 9:40 PM

IRT:
“There is only one foreign nation that thinks that it has the right to tell organizations in almost every city in America what to do. That nation is the Vatican.”

ANS:
Hmm, I thought it was Obama who was telling Omar Gaddafi to cease and desist, called on Muhammad Hosni Sayyid Mubarak to resign and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker to cave in. What was the Pope saying? Here’s a clue for the paranoia who think the Church is big brother watching over their shoulder. Yes, he is because God appointed him to do so.

"HUMAN LIFE IS SACRED AND INVIOLABLE
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness" (Is 5:20). “

Humanity today offers us a truly alarming spectacle, if we consider not only how extensively attacks on life are spreading but also their unheard-of numerical proportion, and the fact that they receive widespread legal approval and sweeping powerful support from a broad consensus on the part of society.

"God's Holy Law, the Fifth Commandment, remonstrates to all mankind, ”You Shall Not Kill, viz. Murder the innocent.” Mt 19:17 apprise all mankind, “If you would enter life, keep the commandments." Authority is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently, laws and decrees enacted in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience." Moreover, they are a presage to self-destruction.

"Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or willful self-destruction is an abomination. Whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself is repugnant. Whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons is abhorrent.

All these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practice them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator. Is that threatening to you?--John Paul II.

The Church's mission is not to govern nations, but what is written in Matthew 28:19, "Go therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."

Hi Guys,

Hope you find your way here.

Our old thread:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/c_welton_gaddy/2011/02/keep_the_focus_on_candidates_capabilities_not_their_faith.html

Are you advocating for the reappointment of the grand inquisitor, sir?

There is only one foreign nation that thinks that it has the right to tell organizations in almost every city in America what to do. That nation is the Vatican.