Posted on 08/20/2014 2:14:15 AM PDT by markomalley
As you may know, the Catholic Faith was illegal in the Roman Empire prior to 313 AD, when the Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan permitting the Christian Faith to flourish publicly. Prior to that time, Church buildings as we know them today were rare—Mass was usually celebrated in houses.
Now be careful here; these “houses” were usually rather sizable, with a central courtyard or large room that permitted something a little more formal than Mass “around the dining room table.” I remember being taught (incorrectly) that these early Masses were informal, emphasized a relaxed, communal quality, and were celebrated facing the people. Well, it turns out that really isn’t true. People didn’t just sit around a table or sit in circle—not at all. They sat or stood formally, and everyone faced in one direction: east.
In the drawing (to the right) you can see the layout of an ancient house church (actually more often called a Domus Dei (House of God)) drawn based on an excavated 3rd century house church in Dura-Europos (located in what is now today’s Syria). Click on the diagram for a clearer view. The assembly room is to the left and a priest or bishop is depicted conducting a liturgy (facing east) at an altar against the east wall. A baptistery is on the right and a deacon is depicted guarding the entrance door. The lonely-looking deacon in the back of the assembly hall is there to “preserve good order,” as you will read below. The photograph below shows the baptistery of the Dura-Europos house church.
What is remarkable about these early liturgies is how formal they were despite the fact that they were conducted under less-than-ideal circumstances. The following text is from the Didiscalia, a document written in about 250 AD. Among other things, it gives rather elaborate details about the celebration of the early Catholic Mass in these “house liturgies.” I have included an excerpt here and interspersed my own comments in RED. You will find that there are some rather humorous remarks in this ancient text toward the end.
Now, in your gatherings, in the holy Church, convene yourselves modestly in places of the brethren, as you will, in a manner pleasing and ordered with care. [So these "house liturgies" were NOT informal Masses. Good order and careful attention to detail were essential.] Let the place of the priests be separated in a part of the house that faces east. [So even in these early house Masses, the sanctuary (the place where the clergy ministered) was an area distinct from where the laity gathered. People were not all just gathered around a dining room table.] In the midst of them is placed the bishop’s chair, and with him let the priests be seated. Likewise, and in another section let the lay men be seated facing east. [Prayer was conducted facing east, not facing the people.] For thus it is proper: that the priests sit with the bishop in a part of the house to the east and after them the lay men and the lay women, [Notice that men and women sat in separate sections. This was traditional in many churches until rather recently, say the last 150 years.] and when you stand to pray, the ecclesial leaders rise first, and after them the lay men, and again, then the women. Now, you ought to face to east to pray for, as you know, scripture has it, Give praise to God who ascends above the highest heavens to the east. [Again, note that Mass was NOT celebrated facing the people as some suppose of the early Church. Everyone was to face to the east, both clergy and laypeople. Everyone faced in the same direction. The text cites Scripture as the reason for this. God is to the east, the origin of the light.]
Now, of the deacons, one always stands by the Eucharistic oblations and the others stand outside the door watching those who enter [Remember, this was a time of persecution and the early Christians were careful to allow only baptized and bona fide members to enter the Sacred Mysteries. No one was permitted to enter the Sacred Liturgy until after having been baptized. This was called the disciplina arcanis, or "discipline of the secret." Deacons guarded the door to maintain this discipline.] and afterwards, when you offer let them together minister in the church. [Once the door was locked and the Mass began, it would seem that the deacons took their place in the sanctuary. However it also appears that one deacon remained outside the sanctuary to maintain "good order" among the laity.] And if there is one to be found who is not sitting in his place let the deacon who is within, rebuke him, and make him to rise and sit in his fitting place … also, in the church the young ones ought to sit separately, if there is a place, if not let them stand. Those of more advanced age should sit separately; the boys should sit separately or their fathers and mothers should take them and stand; and let the young girls sit separately, if there is really not a place, let them stand behind the women; let the young who are married and have little children stand separately, the older women and widows should sit separately. [This may all seem a bit complicated, but the bottom line is that seating was according to sex and age: the men on one side, the women on the other, older folks to the front, younger ones to the back. Also, those caring for young children were to stand in a separate area. See? Even in the old days there was a "cry room!"] And a deacon should see that each one who enters gets to his place, and that none of these sits in an inappropriate place. Likewise, the deacon ought to see that there are none who whisper or sleep or laugh or nod off. [Wait a minute! Do you mean to tell me that some of the early Christians did such things? Say it isn't so! Today, ushers do this preserving of good order, but the need remains.] For in the Church it is necessary to have discipline, sober vigilance, and attentive ear to the Word of the Lord. [Well that is said pretty plainly—and the advice is still needed.]
You’d like them. A lot. There is only one word to describe them, and that is decent. They keep themselves to themselves, work hard, raise their families.
They are a bit like Quakers or Mormons. Totally non violent, respectful, helpful. Strange people in a lot of ways, but they know what they believe and walk the walk. Ain’t my God - but ain’t my culture either. I’m going to guess His mind for their paths? As if. I’d never dare.
Songs are a potent tool for transmitting information, and why bards had free passage throughout Europe during the dark times. You no doubt learned “Ring a ring a rosy” back when you weren’t even 5. It describes the symptoms of the Black Death and has held on to this day. It’s one heck of a tool.
I never do compliments. Just the truth as I see it. :P
Besides: Bruce Springsteen points out you can’t start a fire without a spark!
It was sun worship, read on to see how they are condemned for it.
Roman catholicism is sun worship too, disguised with a few name changes, like from Tammuz to Jesus, and Semiramis to Mary, but the traditions are fully upheld. Even the “mass” goes back to before moses’ time. This is why pork is unclean; it is used in the worship of Tammuz.
I like to call it "mirage" because it looks like it it might be the real thing, but it ain't.
Seriously, give me what you've got and I'd be much obliged. Thank you and bless you.
You know yazidis?
"holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."This is a clear statement that at minimum, the Scriptures have the power to lead Timothy to salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
suf·fi·cient adjectiveSo sufficient isn't "everything about everything," agreed? It's just "enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end." And it really cannot be mistaken that Paul is telling Timothy here that the Scriptures have power "enough to meet the needs" of the "proposed end" of arriving at salvation in Christ. This is sufficiency of the most important kind.
: having or providing as much as is needed
Full Definition of SUFFICIENT
1 a : enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end <sufficient provisions for a month>
b : being a sufficient condition
2 archaic : qualified, competent
2Ti 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.The word "perfect" in verse 17 is artios. Here is the lexical description:
STRONGS NT 739: ἄρτιοςNow, I am not rying to be erudite. I'm trying to make a case well enough that you can see how this idea of the sufficiency of Scripture flows from Scripture quite easily and naturally. To that end, I would like you to consider what it means to have a resource that has, without further additions, the power to make you "complete, perfect," or having "special aptitude for given uses," all with respect to your faith in and relationship with Jesus. Would you say that resource was "enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end?" If not, then you are saying Paul is wrong by omission, because he left out things we need, while clearly suggesting Scripture could get us there. But if you agree that Scripture can accomplish what Paul says it can here, then you do believe in it's sufficiency to the intended purpose, faith in Christ and godly living.
ἄρτιος, ἀρτια, ἀρτιον (ἈΡΩ to fit (cf. Curtius, § 488));
1. fitted.
2. complete, perfect (having reference apparently to 'special aptitude for given uses'); so 2 Timothy 3:17 (cf. Ellicott at the passage; Trench, § xxii.). (In Greek writings from Homer down.)
“You know yazidis?”
Not well. No one does, really. They really do try to keep themselves to themselves. Spent a fair bit of time in Iraq’s Kurdistan region though, so got to know a bit about them and got to know a few of them casually to talk to. Heck - a lot of the Kurds assumed I was one because I am blonde (well, was at the time. More grey than anything else now).
While there are bound to be a few bad apples, I can state that most Yazidis are incredibly nice and gentle people. The Peshmurga (Kurdish Army, basically) who are not exactly humanitarians, dropped everything to help get them off that mountain. You don’t risk your Capital and rare and precious ammo for strangers unless they are very nice people.
It’s one of the things that fascinates me.
Show me a single culture, anywhere, that doesn’t revere the sun. It seems to be something so deeply wired into our brains that it is deliberate. Even you do. Ever noticed that you are more relaxed, with a jauntier step, on a sunny day?
I can understand Catholics having traces of sun worship. Easiest way to convert pagans is to co-opt their own beliefs.
This is the old slander, not just against Catholicism of course, but against all of Christianity. Lutheran Satire does a good job dispatching this in their YouTube clip, "Horus Ruins Cristmas" (LINK)
You'll enjoy this, EC1 & markomalley. Editor-surveyor, perhaps not so much. Although I'm always tickled pink when you zero in on Catholics, when in fact you think most Christians of the named denominations -- Lutherans, Baptists and so forth --- are likewise not going to enter the Kingdom of Heaven -- as you've stated on the Religion Forum repeatedly.
I do have the sense to rejoice at the honor, however, when Christianity is the target and Catholicism is the bills-eye.
I can’t stop laughing.
It’s perfect. :)
Even my wife has a serious case of the giggles - and she is Buddhist.
>> “This is the old slander, not just against Catholicism of course, but against all of Christianity.” <<
.
But what most are accustomed to calling “Christianity” is not the worship that Yeshua and his apostles practiced and taught.
A clear reading of Paul in Hebrews 3 and 4 shows that they considered the same Torah and Tanakh preached by Moses and his successors to be the Gospel of the Kingdom, and was what they preached.
Paul clearly states that it was unbelief that cost those that died in the desert their salvation, not any defect in Moses’ presentation, and that same unbelief was the proximate threat to the salvation of those to whom he preached.
“Christianity” now omits all that was worship in the first century and before, and adds in forbidden “days” and “feasts” in its place, thus explaining the unfathomable declaration of Yeshua in Matthew 7:23.
.
>> “Show me a single culture, anywhere, that doesn’t revere the sun” <<
.
True to the max!
That is why Yeshua and his apostles told us not to be a part of the world.
.
Sorry it took so long to get back to you. Working on other things.
Anyway, as I have mentioned elsewhere, we who hold to Sola Scriptura do not contend that the Scripture is sufficient for every purpose under the sun. There are topics it doesn’t cover. The point of Scriptures like 2 Tim 3:14-17 and others is that Scripture DOES have everything we need to come to faith in Crist, and to live a life well-pleasing to Him.
And if that is the case, that the Scripture describes the essentials completely, then whatever is outside of Scripture is of secondary importance, and therefore of secondary authority. Please note that “secondary” does not imply useless or unbeneficial. There is a great deal to learn from sources of knowledge outside Scripture, history, science, etc., and as you say, we keep growing in knowledge and ways to apply that knowledge to the needs of humankind. And all that is potentially good (though to be frank some of it is potentially bad too. cf. Frankenstein’s Monster et al).
But what if you’ve come to that place in your life where you just want to hear from God, and He’s not speaking audibly from Heaven as He did with Jesus and the Apostles? You go to the Book that carries what HE thought was most important for us to know and believe.
So I don’t sweat the stuff that didn’t make the final cut. God’s the Editor in Chief of His own Book. Everything that happened, even the unrecorded events and words, all served their purpose in God’s plan. But not everything was essential for us later generations to find salvation in Jesus Christ, and to live good and just lives before our God. Whatever got left on the cutting room floor, that was God’s decision, not mine, and I am not inclined to pick a fight with Him. Talk about a no-win situation ...
Peace,
SR
OK, now, just in case any n00bie lurker were to think that I'm defending homosexual vice, let me state right at the top that I detest and abhor homosexual vice. Likewise heterosexual vice, gluttony, sloth, gossip, and all the other vices, especially intellectual and spiritual pride. (My preaching is better than my practice, but just to get that on the record!)
So I shall assume the persona "Gayla X.Agete"
On Sodom and Gomorrah
LearsFool: They've got the chronology all mixed up. The destruction of the Sodomites was planned BEFORE they ever saw the angels, lusted after them, and tried to break in Lot's house to gang-rape-sodomize them. That story tells just how very wicked they were.
Gayla X.Agete Bu it doesn't say they engaged in loving, faithful, family-building, same-sex marriage. Therefore it is gang-rape-sodomy that is being condemned, not homosexuality per se."
"God made no distinction between them and us"
LearsFool: the "them and us" in this passage refers to Jews and Gentiles, not males and females or so-called gays and so-called straights.
Gayla X.Agete The division between Jews and Gentiles is just one part of the problem of human alienation. A fuller theological/moral context shows that God intends to break down all cultural/traditional/racial prejudices so that people of every race, tribe, color, physical condition --- blind, lame, lepers, male/female, gay/straight, slave /free -- are accepted in His Kingdom.
Marriage honorable for all, the marriage bed undefiled
LearsFool: What is marriage? Invented and defined by God as male and female (Matt. 19, I Cor. 6:16.) Plus, two men or two women cannot consummate a marriage. In the past, our laws provide for annulment if the marriage had not been or could not be consummated. And we all know what "consummated" means. A "marriage" between two people of the same sex cannot be consummated. They can never become "one flesh".
Gayla X.Agete: This comment about annulment is not in the Bible: it comes from a man-made legal code (“our laws”). It's human tradition. The Bible doesn’t say anything about annulment, infertility, or even impotence. It doesn’t even have the word “consummation” applied to sex. So please avoid these un-Biblical views.
The Old Testament view of marriage was only partial, because as the Bible says (Hebrews 7:18-19),"There is, on the one hand, the abrogation of an earlier commandment because it was weak and ineffectual (for the law made nothing perfect); there is, on the other hand, the introduction of a better hope, through which we approach God."
The law made nothing perfect. Hebrew law banned marriage by race and tribe (don't marry Canaanites, Moabites, etc.), was polygamous, especially on the part of its greatest patriarchs and kings, was not based on fidelity ("great" mean, ilike Abraham and David,could have sex even with slave girls -- fidelity, eh?), was not based on love (Deuteronomy 22:28–29 required a rapist to marry his victim).
The New Testament shows Jesus came to break down barriers between people, on the basis of love. Since Love is the supreme law --- "do unto others as you would want them to do unto you" --- gay people are freed to marry based on love: you wouldn't want any law to ban you marrying the person you loved, as long as that person is of age, single, and consenting. The New Law of Love is what we follow.
There is no longer... male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.
LearsFoolAre they seriously suggesting that we're all androgynous now?
Gayla X.Agete No,androgyny comes later, when in heaven, we will be "like angels," as Jesus said, and will be entirely free of gender restrictions. In heaven we aren't given in marriage in the same sense that the Old Law defines. But as for this life on earth, Gay Christians are saying sex and gender are now fluid categories, and not the central definition of a loving marriage relationship. The center of marriage is committed love, whatever the sex or gender.
Even Christ is portrayed, under "mysterium tremendum" image of Ephesians, as being "married" to the Church (Ephesians 5:32) All people of whatever sex are members of His Church, His bride. Yes, His bridal Church certainly contains men; so marriage in the Kingdom doesn't depend on gender.
"Husband" and "wife" in Ephesians therefore doesn't necessarily mean male and female; a married gay man can see his partner as his "wife" since this "great mystery" is dno longer constrained by the limitations of gender. In the Church he has a bridal relationship with Christ: same here with another man.
LearsFool: But all these distinctions still exist. Women and man ("Let the women keep silence in the churches" I Cor. 14:34) Slaves and masters ("Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling" Eph. 6:5) Races and cultures("And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Acts 18:4)
Gayla X.Agete But they shouldn't exist; they should fade away. Paul himself says they are all one in Christ, and shows the beginning of the end of all these barriers: his letter to Philemon saying a slave should be welcomed home not as a slave but as a brother; the enthusiastic in pouring of gentiles of every kind into the Church and all the barriers to Marriage Equality swept away; the prophetic stance that "God's Spirit will be poured out on all flesh, women and men prophesying, etc. Away with those who prohibit marriage between a man and the one he loves, or a woman and the one she loves.It may once have been against the law, but Paul says "Love" is th emore excellent way.
Romans 1:26-17 and Homosexuality
LearsFool: So because the path to this abomination is described, it's no longer an abomination? Is murder okay as long as I'm not sacrificing the victim to Molech?
Gayla X.Agete: Gay Christian married couples are neither practicing an abomination NOR sacrificing to Molech!
You're saying homosexuality per se is a "path" to the abomination of idolatry, but that's not so. What's abominable is idolatry itself, and the sins that were part and parcel of idolatry, such as pederasty, temple prostitution, and of course, as you mention, covetousness, maliciousness; envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; etc. - Rom. 1:29. But none of these things is gay marriage. If gay marriage does not involve pederasty or prostitution, or rape or promiscuity, or envy, murder, etc., then homosexuality per se is not what Paul was talking about.
Rape, promiscuity, prostitution, abuse of a minor, etc. can be in practice part of heterosexuality, too, and there can be heterosexual idolatry, but that doesn't make heterosexuality per se an abomination. It just means heterosexuality should be expressed in the right way: a commitment to love, in the shared covenant of marriage. The same is true for everybody, gay or straight. ("Marriage is honorable for all, and the marriage bed undefiled.")
LearsFool: Are these things sinful only for idol-worshippers?
Gayla X.AgeteOne could just as well say, "Are these things sinful only for homosexuals?" Of course not. These things (prostitution, sexual contact with a minor, promiscuity, etc.) are sinful for everyone. They are a product of lawless lust. But the solution to lawless lust is lawful marriage. St. Paul says "It is better to marry than to burn." So it is better for committed gay couples to get married than to engage in sinful behavior such as promiscuity and the other sins of non-married sex.
Besides, Paul says it is wrong to forbid people to marry. He says of certain erroneous teachers that "They forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth" (1 Timothy 4:3). These people by forbidding marriage to gay couples, are exposing them to the "burning" of lust. Mandatory celibacy is not taught anywhere in the Bible. Marriage as an honorable estate, and as a remedy for concupiscence, is.
Arsenokoitai and Malakoi
LearsFool: Arsenokoitai is a word coined by combining two words, yielding the new word "male-bedders". Malakoi means "soft" or "effeminate". The Bible writers often used euphemisms ("lie with", "know", "cover one's feet", etc.), just as we do ("sleep with", "powder one's nose").
Gayla X.Agete: That translation “male-bedders” doesn’t really define homosexuality -- to say that it does is a mere human interpretation. For one thing, a married straight woman is bedded with the man she wedded: that doesn’t make her an ”arsenokoitai”, precisely because she’s not just “bedding” a man, she’s married to him. It’s spousal love, not just male-beddery. So if a man marries the man he loves, that’s in principle the same: it spousal love, married love, not “arsenokoitai.” In fact, a life of promiscuous fornication, male-bedding, is just what Christian gays are trying to avoid: we say we should flee fornication, and get honorably married.
Many Goay Christians interpret "arsenokpitai" as bed-hopped of either sex, that is, promiscuous fornicators. A teaching agsinst "bed-hopping" is not against gay marriage. Onthe contrary, we should be against gays bed-hopping and in favor of gays settling down and getting married.
Even less are you using an accurate definition of "Malakoi." Strong's Greek Word study says malakoi means (a) soft, (b) of persons: soft, delicate, effeminate. Neither has any necessary connection with sexuality.
A word derived from "malakoi" (malakos) is used in the NT to describe fabrics (Jesus said, "Did you go out to the desert to see a man dressed in soft clothing?") But there are many heterosexual men who dress in soft lothing, and who ARE soft (in the sense of "not burly, muscular, rugged") and many homosexual men, on the other hand, who DO dress in rugged or stereotyupically masculine clothes and who ARE physically tough.
Many Gay Christians interpret "Malakoi" to mean "a man who dresses in fine clothes," that is, a fashion-obsessed man. This is a teaching against male fashion, vanity, and especially luxury --- not against gay marriage.
So this has nothing to do with sexuality. To say that homosexual men are soft in this sense--- sissies or pansier--- is another human stereotype, one of the "traditions of men." To apply it to sexuality is just to perpetuate a false and defamatory stereotype. Those gay professional athletes are not soft and effeminite. The rapists of Sodom were certainly not malakoi! And as for whethether they are "arsenokoitai"? Well, it doesn't say the men of Sodom wanted to bed men. It says they wanted to rape angels. And angels, as we know, have no gender.
And would it have been better if the men of Sodom had wanted to rape Lot's daughters?? Really??
LearsFool: You don't have to know many same-sex couples to observe the natural male-female relationship in its perverted state: One plays the male part, and the other plays the female part. (Pardon my bluntness, but if they both played the same part, they'd never get anywhere.) And the role-playing goes beyond their sexual acts.
Gayla X.Agete: That’s more of that “human custom” or “traditions of men” again. It is unfortunate that this is heternormative, binary-based homosexual behavior still lingers--- but it's because when gays haven’t been free to really develop a fully-expressive gay culture, they too often find themselves imitating heterosexual behavior, and even the worst of heterosexual behavior: male/female role playing, one active, the other passive; one the gal, the other the guy, one dominating the other, etc. Now that gays are more free to explore the whole spectrum of sexuality, this binary stuff is disappearing. There’s infinite variety in the ways of sexual intimacy that doesn’t mimic heteronormativity. The gender binary is out the window.
LearsFool: They know this. They deny it, because it's a constant reminder of God's design of male and female which they fight against.
Gayla X.Agete: Read agains what I said about the rejection of the gender binary. We are rejecting these limitations, which are really the “traditions of men.” In fact, even Christian heterosexuals are rejecting these artificial rules.
LearsFool: (What exactly is "the natural use of the woman" in Rom. 1? What does it mean for something to be "against nature"?)
Gayla X.Agete: Exactly. Most straight couples have decoupled sex from fertility: they use contraceptives within marriage, they get vasectomies and they have their tubes tied, all with the acceptance of their various churches. Evangelical women actually top all other religious categories in their use of the most effective forms of birth control : surveys show 74% of married Evangelical women (LINK)have voluntarily sterilized themselves: they use either (permanent, surgical) sterilization or (temporary, hormonal) sterilization, e.g. oral, transdermal, injected or implanted hormones. Like the Pill. Hormonal alteration of one's sexuality.
Clearly, the vast majority of married Evangelicals -- as well as other Christian denominations, including married Catholics --- have in practice rejected “the natural use of the woman” and are habitually having sex “against nature.”
And there’s practically nobody in the Christian world who is consistently against this love-and-relationship-centered view of sex, and thus marriage is more “about love” than “about rigid gender roles chained to procreation.”
Any view of sex that makes a mandatory connection to procreation is a “tradition of man,” and not really Biblical, since most extended and detailed text about sxual love in Scripture is the Song of Solomon, and it's all about inerpersonal longing, and the experience and fulfillment of desire. It doesn’t allude to having babies --- not even remotely, not even once. Therefore it has no necessary connection with male and female. That is necessary for fertility, but it is not necessary for love and marriage.
Thus ends, for now, the dialogue between LearsFool and Gayla X. Agete.
I just want to repeat again that I am neither Gay nor pro-Gay (nor, pro-Gayla.) I’m playing back the arguments that have been made to me in other forums and in actual conversations with people who term themselves "Gay" "Christians."
Your turn…
:o)
God bless you.
I don’t know if you are familiar with the Sufi people? Sometimes called the whirling dervishes, for the dancing? They are an offshoot of Islam. (being pulled into the dance is probably the single most amazing thing that has and ever will happen to me. Also one of the most tiring!).
They greet the sunrise every morning with a flat statement - “The sun is not God.” Yet they do greet the sunrise, even so.
It’s just such a common thing, sun worship, that there must be a reason. :)
No worries. People have lives outside the internet! :)
Was talking about this with a friend (the Rabbi) earlier - we have some strange conversations - and he said scripture is the Book of Life. You can read it and follow it faithfully and that is totally fine. The Lord wrote it and saw it was good, but, because people are not perfect, he invented Jazz.
Going to have to think about that one for weeks.
The sufi worship the Moon God.
They’re spending $30,000,000 to build a temple not too far from here.
They do. Just as the Christians do.
Seriously, once it is finished - wander along to it a couple of times. I have no fears for your faith. You are strong. But the chance to see sheer joy should never be skipped! :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
