Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $75,144
Woo hoo!! And now less than $10k to go!! Closing in on the yellow!! We can do this!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by Mrs. Don-o

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • California Forces Farm Workers into Union

    08/26/2014 12:58:41 PM PDT · 6 of 9
    Mrs. Don-o to afraidfortherepublic
    Oh, Great Cesar's Ghost, I hate this.

    I used to work for the UFW in 1969 and the early 70's, when they were an honest union, or at least "played one on TV." Worker participation, honest elections, honest representation, etc. They even came out against illegal immigration and briefly patrolled the borders to stop "wetbacks" (Yes, Chavez used that word.)

    It's been a racket for decades, became one when Cesar was still alive, but even moreso after he died and his cynical moneygrubbing children turned it into Chavez Legacy Inc. and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party.

    I feel such a profound disgust over this. And of course Gov Brown and his circle are the Corrupters-in-Chief.

  • Demons Believe and Tremble: A Reflection on the Theft of the Eucharist by Satanists

    08/26/2014 7:12:31 AM PDT · 91 of 107
    Mrs. Don-o to Mercat

    Oh, well said. God bless you, Mercat!

  • Recent Gallup Poll Is a Snapshot of the Moral and Cultural Revolution

    08/26/2014 6:47:18 AM PDT · 6 of 19
    Mrs. Don-o to Springfield Reformer

    Of interest, I think.

  • Demons Believe and Tremble: A Reflection on the Theft of the Eucharist by Satanists

    08/25/2014 7:36:51 AM PDT · 36 of 107
    Mrs. Don-o to chajin; markomalley; Campion; OpusatFR
    Thank you, Chajin, for your enlightening comments. I value learning about your Lutheran faith.

    In the Catholic Church, the general maxim is (to put it simply) that the Sacraments are binding on us, but they are not binding on Christ (since nothing can limit Him.)

    I usually hear this applied to Baptism: it is binding on the believer (in fact, binding on the whole human race) to be baptized. If you realize that Baptism was instituted for your salvation, and that God has commanded it, then you are morally obliged to be baptized (in fact, morally obliged to be received into, and remain within, the Catholic Church!!)

    However it is not binding on God. Therefore if He wishes, He can give the grace of baptism wheresoever and to whomsoever He wishes, in any manner He wishes.

    Catholics better-educated than I am, help me out and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the same general maxim applies to the Eucharist. Objectively, if you have the correct minister of the sacrament (a validly ordained Catholic priest) and he does the correct actions ("do the red, read the black") to the correct stuff (wheaten bread and real grape wine) with the correct intention ("I intend what the Catholic Church intends") then and ALWAYS then, it is transubstantiated and becomes the real Body and Blood of Christ. No matter whether the person who receives Communion believes it or not.

    Of course the spiritual condition of the recipient will determine whether you receive it unto salvation or unto condemnation: great faith, great love = great blessing. To receive unmindfully and unworthily, not in a state of grace, would bring condemnation. (But in any case, it's still the True Body and Blood, even if the Blessed Sacrament is in the hands of Anton LaVey.)

    However God is not limited by this. So -- I think ---if a person who received bread and wine which was not validly consecrated, but desired Christ, this person could still receive His True Presence in some way surpassing our understanding. Just because He, the Lord, is entirely unconstrained and can do whatever He wills.


  • Mass To Be Held For Slain US Journalist Foley [No WH Officials To Attend?]

    08/24/2014 6:44:29 PM PDT · 34 of 42
    Mrs. Don-o to SunkenCiv
    I read in the Guardian that it's certain that he was beheaded --- the displayed head was, for sure, his head --- but the actually slice was off-camera. What they were doing on-camera wasn't "it," there would have been gushes of blood.

    Can't say one way or another, I didn't and won't view the video. Don't know why the butcher would't have wanted to show the actual gushing blood.

  • Mass To Be Held For Slain US Journalist Foley [No WH Officials To Attend?]

    08/24/2014 5:59:23 PM PDT · 33 of 42
    Mrs. Don-o to chajin

    As far as I know, no one is ever restricted from attending Mass, whether they are permitted to receive Communion or not. Excommunicated people, as well as people involved in any kind of mortal sin, are still free to come and pray, and can even come up and receive a blessing from the priest (while not being permitted to receive the Sacrament.)

  • Fox News star jumps into 'gay' Christianity

    08/24/2014 5:51:32 PM PDT · 102 of 121
    Mrs. Don-o to Kackikat

    Amen to that.

  • Fox News star jumps into 'gay' Christianity

    08/24/2014 2:26:07 PM PDT · 100 of 121
    Mrs. Don-o to Kackikat
    I don't blame you for not wanting to read their excuses. They are almost guaranteed to produce a headache. But the kick of it is, they think they're sticking with God's word, freeing it from the accumulated prejudices, misinterpretations and biases of the medieval past. And when we don't engage them, they think "See? They have nothing to say."
  • The Ancient Mass in the “House Churches” was not as Informal as Many Think

    08/24/2014 2:21:11 PM PDT · 137 of 138
    Mrs. Don-o to Springfield Reformer
    Thank you for this good reflection. Lots of insight there.

    Let's pray for Kristin Powers and all those similarly situated. And that is undoubtedly millions.

  • Fox News star jumps into 'gay' Christianity

    08/24/2014 12:52:38 PM PDT · 87 of 121
    Mrs. Don-o to Kackikat
    Here's what some of the gay Christian commentators would say:

    When Paul says they have refused to acknowledge God, and therefore God has given them up to their own wicked desires, he is speaking to those who violate their sexual orientation, those that go against their natural desire. But a homosexual's natural desire is for the same sex. Therefore this verse doesn't speak of them. In fact, if you encourage a 'constitutional homosexual' to become heterosexual you are violating this passage.

    [ They "exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural" (v26)]

    Therefore, the wrath of God rightly falls on them (v18), they are worthy of death (v32), they are without excuse (v20).

    Therefore never try to change somebody's inbuilt sexual orientation.

    Here are the specific words Paul uses to describe this sin of going against one's real sexual orientation:

    An impurity and dishonoring to the body (v24)

    A degrading passion that's unnatural (v29)

    An indecent act and an error (v27)

    Not proper and the product of a depraved mind (v28)

    Heterosexual people often take up a "situational homosexuality" especially in a sexually segregated environment: girls' school, boys' school, prison, boot camp. Paul wold say that's wrong, because they're turning against their nature. According to Paul, behavior going against your nature is evidence of active, persistent rebellion against God.

    . God's conclusion: there's "no excuse" for going against your own natural orientation.(2 verses). 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another..."

    This involves two things: turning against your own innate sexual orientation, and/or acting on the basis of sinful lust. Neither of these is applicable to a person who never turned away from their natural function; nor did they act on the basis of degrading passion or lust. It does not apply to someone who IS acting on the basis of a grateful, trusting acceptance of their own nature, motivated by sincere love and commitment, i.e. gay marriage.

    Mind you,this is not my argument. This is one you could pick up at any "Gay Christian" site, which is worth a google if you're interested.

    My own view is below (tagline)

  • The Ancient Mass in the “House Churches” was not as Informal as Many Think

    08/24/2014 11:56:18 AM PDT · 135 of 138
    Mrs. Don-o to LearsFool
    "How ought we to deal with the simple, the naive, the untaught and gullible who fall for these lies? And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will."

    Tht's got my Amen.

    As for Christ's Church, the gates of hell will not prevail against it. He did not found it for some unnecessary, uncertain or failing purpose.

  • Fox News star jumps into 'gay' Christianity

    08/24/2014 11:45:48 AM PDT · 82 of 121
    Mrs. Don-o to GeronL
    That's what Gayla would say.

    I say what Pope Francis said (tagline)

  • The Ancient Mass in the “House Churches” was not as Informal as Many Think

    08/24/2014 11:44:52 AM PDT · 133 of 138
    Mrs. Don-o to all the best
    You are right. No question about that. But they tend do discount what the Chuch taught and believed in he past, because they are skeptical about "Church" and about the wisdom of people before the 20th century.

    Until our culture/society turned its back on the Bible and Christianity, Christians did not even entertain the notion of conrtaception, i.e. sex split off from its procreative design. And that was the error that lead directly tot he acceptance of homosexuality.

    BOth are acts against nature.

  • Fox News star jumps into 'gay' Christianity

    08/24/2014 11:43:51 AM PDT · 80 of 121
    Mrs. Don-o to Mr Rogers
    OOps, some of my formatting is wrong, and I have attributed to you things that were written by me. Or by Gayla. Formatting is not my forte.

    I think it's sufficiently lear from context, though, to anyone with normal reading comprehension (!!!)

  • Fox News star jumps into 'gay' Christianity

    08/24/2014 11:37:17 AM PDT · 76 of 121
    Mrs. Don-o to Mr Rogers; NKP_Vet; Viennacon
    Thank you, Mr. Rogers, for continuing to patiently and intelligently advance this discussion,, since so many other FReepers are content to say "They’re wrong, and that's that" without any sustained attempt to clarify things. You're put careful thought into it, and I appreciate that.

    Now let me assume the persona of "Gayla X Agete", the confused "Gay Christian Ally" --- although I could just as well assume the name "Kristen Powers."

    Mr. Rogers: "If homosexuality in the Bible referred to homosexual rape, it would say so. If loving, monogamous homosexual relations were allowed, it would say so. God is not stupid, and He knows how to make distinctions, when there is one to be made."

    Gayla: Exactly to the point. God does connect his Scriptural condemnation to sex expressed in idolatry, forcible rape, temple prostitution, and soft people addicted to luxury ("malakoi"). He made this distinction so we could see it's exploitative sex He objects to, not loving marital sex. He says this so clearly n Hebrews 13:4 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV) “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."

    Marriage honorable for "all" means honorable for "all." It's “only” the whoremongers and adulterers He will judge."

    Mr. Rogers: “The word “therefore” connects the making of Eve from a part of Adam’s body with the “one flesh” sexual union between a man and a woman in marriage: it is the reunion of the two constituent parts of a sexual whole. It is not another man who is the missing part or sexual comple­ment of a man, but rather a woman. (Jesus emphasizes this connection between the two different sexes, “male and female,” in Matthew 19:4–6 and Mark 10:6–8.)

    Gayla: Biblically, sharing the same bones and flesh is a common metaphor for kinship. In Genesis 29:14, Laban greets his nephew Jacob as "my bones and flesh"; and in 2 Samuel 19:12-13, David greets some of the men of Judah as "my brothers, my bone and my flesh"; see also, Judges 9:2; 2 Sam 5:1; 1 Chr 11:1)…" It doesn’t mean one is a male and theother is a female, nor does it mean that they’re married, or meant to be married!

    In the NT, the way Paul uses “one flesh” shows that it doesn’t mean “to be married”: 1 Cor. 6:16: “Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, "THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH." Paul, in using this verse, is saying that when a person has sex with a prostitute, he becomes one flesh with her. Paul is in no way saying that the man and the prostitute are now married!

    Mr. Rogers: “”Consistent with the pattern in Genesis 1–2, sexual intercourse outside of the marriage relationship between one man and one woman is prohibited. For example, “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14; reaffirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19:18; cf. Romans 13:9; James 2:11). In addi­tion, other specific kinds of sexual intercourse outside of marriage are also prohibited, such as prostitution (1 Corinthians 6:15–18), incest (Leviticus 20:11–21; 1 Corinthians 5:1–2), and bestiality (Leviticus 18:23; 20:15–16).”

    Gayla: I complertely agree with your argument here, since the Bible is clearly against any sexual intercourse outside of marriage. But our understanding of that has been a gradual thing. In the OT it was NOT clearly “one man and one woman”, because the Patriarchs and Kings all had plural marriages (plural wives) plus, concubines. Intercourse outside of marriage was sometimes clearly provided for (cf the distribution of virgin prisoners of war to the soldiers as part of the plunder --- that nasty business with the Midianites -- Numbers 31.) The definition of marriage has since been further refined to mean, no polygamy, no concubines, no gender discrimination, but just two people who love each other, regardless of gender. Paul sees the ultimate wrongness of gender discrimination when he says, Galatians 3:28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” That’s very supportive of marriage equality.

    Mr. Rogers: ”Homosexual conduct is also viewed as a sin (something contrary to God’s will) in several passages of the Bible. Leviticus 18:22 says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination [Hebrew to‘ebah, actions that are extremely displeasing to God].”

    Gayla: The Biblical context makes it clear that this is an OT thing that no longer applies to us. That same chapter, Leviticus 18, says it is an abomination to have intercourse with a woman who is menstruating. the Bible further refines this to mean you have to wait 7 days after the last spot of menstrual blood. The OT says that for sex to be kosher, the women had to have ritual mikvah baths to be purified, and all the men had to be circumcised. You ready to apply that?

    Other parts of the OT describe the eating of various birds --- owls, eagles, waterfowl, etc. -- as well as shellfish and any kind of non-kosher meat, as an “abomination”; then there other related offenses such as mixing two kinds of fabrics and the growing of two types of seed in one field. These were provisions meant to keep the Jews strictly away from other tribes by making all of their customs different: the way they ate, dressed, farmed, and related to each other. All these 616 Mitzvot from Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers have been superseded in the New Covenant.

    Mr. Rogers: ”In a long list of sins, Paul also includes “men who practice homosexuality” (1 Corinthians 6:9).This phrase translates two different Greek terms: malakos means “soft” or “effemi­nate” and was commonly used in the Greco-Roman world to refer to the “passive” partner in homosexual acts, while arsenokoites is a combination of Greek arsen (meaning “man”) and koite (here meaning “sexual intercourse”). The term arsenokoites was apparently coined by Paul from the Septu­agint (Greek translation) of Leviticus 20:13, and means (in plural) “men who have intercourse with men.”

    Gayla: There is excellent Biblical evidence that arsenokoitai means a man fornicating with a man, not just the act of having intercourse with a man. If it were the latter, it would also apply to a married woman “bedding” a man; but obviously it is lawful for her to do so, because they are spouses; they are married. Similarly with gay couples: if it were arsenokoitai, fornication, I would be a sin; but if they are spouses, in marriage, this is not a sin.

    As for “malakoi,” it means, simply, “soft.” The same word is usually used to describe fine, delicate fabric. This is how Jesus uses it: “What did you go out to the desert? To see a man dressed in soft clothes (malakos)?” If applied to a person, it wold mean a delicate, perhaps weak and cowering man. Its application to sex is dubious. In the LXX this Greek word applies to those who live in luxury.

    Mr. Rogers: “In 1 Timothy 1:10 Paul uses the same word arsenokoites in the midst of vices derived from “the law” (here, the second half of the Ten Commandments), which means that this verse also should be interpreted as an absolute prohibition of male-with-male intercourse”

    Gayla: No, the Biblical criterion of the Commandment against “adultery” is not “straight or gay?” It’s “married or unmarried”? It is an absolute prohibition of all fornication and adultery. This text in itself gives us to understand that marriage is the only proper setting which sanctifies sexual union. It is a pro-marriage argument. It is not an argument against gay marriage.

    Mr. Rogers: ”Early Jewish interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and early Christian interpretation of 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, also show that these verses were understood as absolute prohibitions against all types of homosexual conduct.”

    Gayla: That’s just -- as you said----interpretation. In other words, the traditions of men. Jewish “interpretation” is obviously nor authoritative: these are the same people that interpret the Scriptures to deny that Jesus is the Christ. Early Christian interpretation was similarly not free from error. I would rather depend on the words of Scripture alone, not human interpretation and the “traditions of men.”

    Mr. Rogers, as you know -- and as other reads and lurkers I hope are aware -- I myself am not “Gayla” and I emphatically do not believe in “Gayla’s” -- or Kristen Powers’ -- arguments.

    However, I deny that they are simply in open and knowing rebellion against God’s revealed will. They think they are DOING God’s will and holding strong AGAINST the “traditions of men” which have always been prone to error. Look at what the majority of Christians used to believe about the earth being the center of the Universe, slavery being OK, and discrimination against gay people being OK -- all based on erroneous interpretations of the Bible, ---they would say!

    I think a good many of them have been seriously misled by clever teachers, and are further encouraged along this path because of the widespread bias against Christian Tradition (what all Christianity has agreed upon until approx. 15 minutes ago). They have, as well, an unfounded confidence in each person’s competence to correctly interpret the words of Scripture.

  • Fox News star jumps into 'gay' Christianity

    08/24/2014 8:49:32 AM PDT · 44 of 121
    Mrs. Don-o to lurk; capt. norm; rockrr; wardaddy; metmom; GeronL; cloudmountain; chatham; Mr Rogers; chris37; ...
    This may interest you. It's an answer to the question, "How can they justify homosexuality, when the Bible says it's an abomination?"

    #115 and following down the thread (LINK)

    We've been discussing this this delusion in all of its aggravating detail.

  • Fox News star jumps into 'gay' Christianity

    08/24/2014 8:30:35 AM PDT · 38 of 121
    Mrs. Don-o to RoosterRedux
    I'll tell you how. They say that the homosexual behavior referred to in the Bible was non-marital, it was fornication (or worse, rape or pederast or prostitution) and therefore a sin, and therefore an abomination. But if you had a nice, gay, Christian couple who were married, loving, faithful, pray-toether-stay-together WEDDED SPOUSES, then it would't be fornication, it would be married love, and not a sin.

    That's the delusion.

    We've been discussing that in detail over here (LINK)

  • The Ancient Mass in the “House Churches” was not as Informal as Many Think

    08/24/2014 8:23:49 AM PDT · 131 of 138
    Mrs. Don-o to LearsFool
    Here, this is the sort of thing I was talking about:

    They're Christian gay marriage supporters. They HAVE the Bible. They AGREE that in it is the Word of God. They've had their personal encounter with Jesus, whom they ACCEPT as Lord and Savior. That's good enough for them.

    Bringing them to the Gospel won't help them. They think they're already there.

    "But their interpretation isn't right, and I can provie it, because...." OK, complete that sentence.

  • The Ancient Mass in the “House Churches” was not as Informal as Many Think

    08/24/2014 7:42:57 AM PDT · 130 of 138
    Mrs. Don-o to LearsFool
    "So if young people won't listen to Jesus because they've been seduced by a "Hermeneutic of Suspicion", you insert a "Hermeneutic of Continuity" to work a faith in them that Jesus' words were unable to? "

    I'm not sure you're quite getting it. "Jesus' words" have nothing to do with it, in their eyes. These Gay Christians I'm referring to (and they're not all gay --- in fact, most of them are straight but consider themselves "gay allies") --- think they ARE following Jesus. They've got NO PROBLEM with Jesus. They accept Jesus' word. They say Jesus is Lord. Fine.

    Their delusion is that Jesus is right and the Church is wrong. Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. Cool. The Church not only mentions it but opposes it. Uncool.

    They think the Church is acting outside of the message and character of Christ, and contrary to the Gospel, because we are no being inclusive enough, accepting enough, even celebratory enough of every person and their own way of being, their own irreplaceable God-given uniqueness, which they think includes attitudes and behaviors which Chrisianity has always considered to be sin.

    So the problem is not that they don't accept Jesus or don't accept the Gospel. They do, according to their own interpretation. And "their own interpretation" is based on their presumed competency to sincerely and honestly and prayerfully and without bias read and interpret Scripture for themselves.

    That error is pushed further in the wrong direction by the sophisicated scholarship (should I put that in quotes? "Scholarship"?)--- the "new explanation" --- which tells them that sure, God's Word condemns idolatry, rape, prostitution, pederasty, etc, but it never condemns gay marriage because it never addresses gay marriage.

    It never addresses "gay marriage", they say, except in this sense: that marriage is honorable for everyone, and the marriage bed undefiled.

    THAT'S the problem. Notjust that they accept sodomy and fake marriage, but that they follow an impossibility, a Christ who has been split off from His Body --- split off from His Church. Thus a false 'christ.' One who is leading them into all error and eternal loss.

  • The Ancient Mass in the “House Churches” was not as Informal as Many Think

    08/23/2014 7:04:05 PM PDT · 127 of 138
    Mrs. Don-o to LearsFool
    You are both charitable and knowledgeable, and I appreciate that.

    I am not in need of persuasive efforts, because I am not beguiled by the gay exegetes' Scriptural arguments at all. Not in the least. But I really do have a concern for the young and sexually confused (as well as the not-so-young), for whom I pray every single day.

    I think they would benefit from the realization that all of Chritendom has been in agreement about the basic norms of sexual virtue until very, very recently (that is, until the mid-20th century).

    That's assuming they have not already picked up a "Hermeneutic of Suspicion," an assumption that most Christians have, historically, been mostly wrong about most everything. Or the idea that what most Christians have believed, down the millenia and across contnents and cultures, is irrelevant. Some see themselves as being led by the Spirit, as they think, without the blinders and biases of the past.

    A "Hermeneutic of Continuity" would help them avoid the tyranny of relativism and modernism, and find sound Scriptural interpretation. A "Hermeneutic of Suspicion" (or of historical indifference or skepticism) will impede them.

    Do you see what I'm getting at?

  • The Ancient Mass in the “House Churches” was not as Informal as Many Think

    08/23/2014 6:44:44 PM PDT · 125 of 138
    Mrs. Don-o to Springfield Reformer; LearsFool
    You are right, S-F, to have a skeptical attitude toward the statistics, and to want to scutinize them carefully.

    The link I shared with LearsFool a couple of clicks ago was...

    Two things about AGI: it's basically the research arm for PP. It actually has better, more accurate statistics in the pregnancy-contraceptive-abortion related field than anybody else, including the CDC. BUT it also presents those statistics to the media in a way that is, while technically accurate, operationally misleading.

    If you look at the first chart at the link, you will see that there are two hugely biasing aspects which most people will hardly notice: They are surveying every woman who has ever had sex. OK, but that includes a woman who go drunk and had sex with a condom once when she was in college, and then repented and never did it that again --- counting her the same as a woman who started haing sex when she was 18 and bascally was on some contractive for the rest of her life from 18 to 48. Both these hypothetical women, and every woman in-between, simply counts as a "contraceptive user."

    This is a meaningles statistic,like asking all women who have EVER driven a car, whether they have EVER run a red light, exceeded the speed limit, failed to signal, driven on the shoulder, or crossed a double yellow line. You might get a figure like 95-100%, but it wouldn't really tell you much of anything about whether most women accepted or affirmed or regularly committed traffic violations.

    The second graph is just as bad, because it surveys only "sexually active women who are not pregnant, post-partum or trying to get pregnant."

    Think of what this means. It means it screens out the EXACT sub-sets of women most likely to NOT use contraceptives: the abstinent, and the happily fertile married. Many married, non-contraceptive-using women spend their entire married life, practically, in one or another of these categories (trying or a least open to getting pregnant; pregnant; or postpartum). So they've excluded from the survey the precise subsets of women who would pull the numbers back in a non-contraceptive direction.

    How big or small that group is, I do not know. But at least on this web page (you'll notice it's the "media center") AGI's not going to tell you.

    With that in mind, you can evaluate their finding that 74% of Evangelical women are using either permanent sterilization (tubal ligation) or temporary hormonal sterilization (oral, transdermal, injected or implanted hormones). I have no doubt that's true, but true for a selected demographic slice, and not "all Evangelical women."

    Nevertheless it's certain that contraceptive acceptance is overwhelming in practically all demographic subsets in the USA, with the smallish exceptions of the most devout practicing "Orthodox" believers in Christianity, Judaism, and probably Islam.

  • Toure: If The Protests In Ferguson Had Been Peaceful Would America Have Listened?

    08/23/2014 5:17:03 PM PDT · 52 of 61
    Mrs. Don-o to 2ndDivisionVet

    ...SAME AS...


    [Sorry, I don't get it.]

  • The Ancient Mass in the “House Churches” was not as Informal as Many Think

    08/23/2014 4:22:13 PM PDT · 121 of 138
    Mrs. Don-o to LearsFool
    M'dear Lear, you are quite right in saying this is a bunch 'o baloney.

    But. Your response is --- I am sad to put it this way --- yet another instance of the unwillingness if not an incapacity on the part of many faithful Christians to actually engage the issues with these "Gay" "Christians."

    "Oh, they've been given over to their depravity" - - and then walk away? Is this truly the Good Shepherd's response?

    Some of them are addicts, addled, not really using their honest mind as a guidance system at all. Maybe they've lost their minds. But some of these spurious arguments (like the ones I strung together in the last post) are not posed to us by gay sex addicts, seared in conscience, but by kids -- adolescents--- young adults ---their teachers -- and their parents -- yes, sexually normal and even, by their description,Christians, who are just baffled and easily taken by pseudo-scriptural sophistry. And we know who he "author" of that is.

    These --- I'll call them the confused ---

    • Think it is compassionate to stand with the gays in their push for marriage
    • think that marriage should be for all couples who seek it
    • actually can't imagine Jesus not blessing this
    • see it as different from allthe other kinds of gay sex which are condemned in the Bible
    • do not see that gay marriage is ever condemned in Scripture --- gay fornication yes, gay adultery yes, gay promiscuity yes, but not gay marriage
    • believe that the Biblical witness aainst gay marriage is, if not nonexistent, then dubious, debatable even among Christians (and a doubtful law isn't binding)
    • and they're not hearing clear testimony to the contrary.

    And rapidly as the gay christian/gay marriage delusion has advanced (yes, even in seminaries, University theology deparments and and Bible Colleges from sea to shining sea), man-woman Christian marriage, has retreated. Normal man-woman marriages are dropping, sometimes precipitously, in pretty near every denomination except maybe the LDS.

    Look at the slogan "Marriage Equality". Gays "win" on that equation, because two, maybe three generations have a positive reflexive response to "equality" (or "fairness") but do not even know what marriage is.

    I've repeatedly asked other FReepers (not you, I'm not saying it was you) why they think contracepted sex in marriage is OK but gay marriage is against nature. Almost nobody will favor me with an answer. Certainbly not a coherent answer. That is because most Christians gave up on natural sex 40 years ago, and they don't even realize they did.

    Does any church say a contracepted act of sexual intercourse does not consummate a marriage? Comment?

  • Advertisement removed after resident expresses offense [offending word: bacon]

    08/23/2014 4:06:31 PM PDT · 54 of 107
    Mrs. Don-o to Gen.Blather
    I'm posting this quote here, partly because I think you will be interested in it, but also partly so I can find it, retrieve it and fetch it when needed. (I just have to google "Mrs Don-o" and Mussolini". I know, awkward, but it's how I file things):

    On the political level, one of the clearest examples has been given by the sociologist Peter Berger, who said:

    "My mother was from Italy and my father was Austrian. As a child I spent a lot of time in Italy. This was in the 1930s, when Italy was of course under Mussolini. Sometime during that period, I forget which year it was, Mussolini made a speech in which he called for a reform of the Italian language.

    In modern Italian - - as in most Western languages, with the interesting exception of English -- there are two forms of address, depending on whether you are talking to an intimate or to a stranger. For example, "tu" and "usted" are used in Spanish. In modern Italian "tu" is the intimate form of address, "lei" is the formal address. "Le"> happens to be the third person [feminine singular].

    I do not know the history of this, but it has been a pattern of modern Italian for, I would imagine, some two hundred years. No one paid any attention to this. Even as a child, I knew what one said in Italian. It meant nothing.

    "But Mussolini made a speech in which he said that the use of "lei" is a sign of effeminacy, a degenerate way of speaking Italian. Since the purpose of the Fascist Revolution was to restore Roman virility to the Italian people, the good Fascist did not say "lei"; the good Fascist said "voi" -- from the Latin "vos" -- which is the second person plural. From that point on, everyone who used "lei" or "voi" was conscious of being engaged in a political act.

    "Now, in terms of the empirical facts of the Italian language, what Mussolini said was nonsense. But the effect of that speech meant an awful lot, and it was intended to mean an awful lot. Because from that moment on, every time you said "lei" in Italy you were making an anti-Fascist gesture, consciously or uncon sciously -- and people made you conscious of it if you weren't --- and every time you said "voi" you were making the linguistic equivalent of the Fascist salute.

    "The "funny feeling" which we associate with generic "man" and with other instances of inclusive language is the same twinge of uneasiness that second- person "lei" would have prompted in Fascist Italy. The feeling is not a natural response but a conditioned response to the stimulus. We feel it because we have been coached to feel it. We feel it because, like rats repeatedly given a jolt of electric current when they move in a particular way, we have become aware of potential unpleasantness accompanying certain behavior. That is how a taboo works.

    The Italian who used stigmatized risked Fascist anger; the English speaker who uses stigmatized "man" risks feminist wrath, but the phenomenon is identical. The converse is also applicable. As Berger says, the accommodationist Italian who said voi was giving the equivalent of a fascist salute. The accommodationist in our time who uses "inclusive language" is making a little genuflection, a curtsy, in the direction of feminism

    An insight on PC language. Every time you open your mouth, it makes you bow, or face the consquences.

  • Chef Dies After Spitting Cobra He Was Cooking Bit Him On The Hand

    08/23/2014 1:00:12 PM PDT · 39 of 59
    Mrs. Don-o to Steelfish

    Karma bites.

  • The Ancient Mass in the “House Churches” was not as Informal as Many Think

    08/23/2014 12:34:25 PM PDT · 115 of 138
    Mrs. Don-o to LearsFool
    Thanks you so much! And quick, too! ---I don't mind if you cut-and-pasted :o) ---

    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…


    God bless you.

  • I Want You to Eat a Taco, Drink a Beer, and Fund Abortion

    08/23/2014 6:59:27 AM PDT · 14 of 22
    Mrs. Don-o to Pinkbell
  • Democracy and Ferguson

    08/23/2014 6:48:59 AM PDT · 7 of 7
    Mrs. Don-o to Kaslin
  • The Ancient Mass in the “House Churches” was not as Informal as Many Think

    08/23/2014 6:22:04 AM PDT · 110 of 138
    Mrs. Don-o to editor-surveyor; EC1; markomalley
    "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."

    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.

  • “black mass” nixed in oklahoma city

    08/22/2014 6:18:19 PM PDT · 19 of 27
    Mrs. Don-o to bigbob; Morgana
    I mentioned Yahoo News. Here's other coverage, also confirming that the Satanic fling with go on (but without having a sacred object to desecrate)

  • Huge Asteroid Heading for Earth... Possible Impact March 16, 2880

    08/22/2014 5:59:32 PM PDT · 66 of 81
    Mrs. Don-o to Hawthorn

    Oh, thank goodness.

  • “black mass” nixed in oklahoma city

    08/22/2014 5:52:26 PM PDT · 18 of 27
    Mrs. Don-o to bigbob; Morgana
    Yahoo News coverage says the B;ack Mass will go on, but without a consecrated host. (I wish the media would stop calling it a "wafer." Incorrect term. A consecated Host is called a Host, or the Holy Eucharist, or the Blessed Sacrament. Unconsecrated, it is called "Altar bread.") Anyway..

    (Yahoo: Daniels said the Angra Mainyu will instead use Black Forest bread from Germany in its ceremony, set for Sept. 21 at the Civic Center in Oklahoma City. The use of Black Forest bread, Daniels said, is a practice that dates back to the 1600s.

    The Black Mass of Oklahoma has been held for several years and has faced resistance from state and local leaders as well as setting off anger in a state where many identify themselves as deeply religious Christians.

    The black mass is a modern ritual to celebrate the perversion of the Catholic Mass, Angra Mainyu said. The group will also hold a Satanic exorcism, designed to drive out the "Holy Ghost" from a person, it said.)

  • “black mass” nixed in oklahoma city

    08/22/2014 5:32:14 PM PDT · 16 of 27
    Mrs. Don-o to Oliviaforever
    "The Satanists and Atheists are not protected by the First Amendment."

    That's not true. The First Amendment applies to them as to everybody else. These are human rights which are founded in something more fundamental, even, than the U.S. Constituution.

  • Huge Asteroid Heading for Earth... Possible Impact March 16, 2880

    08/22/2014 4:31:02 PM PDT · 56 of 81
    Mrs. Don-o to nickcarraway

    Just when I was planning to straighten out, turn my life around, start sharing positivity and reach out to the community as an outspoken advocate of reaching out to the community.

  • The Ancient Mass in the “House Churches” was not as Informal as Many Think

    08/22/2014 4:12:25 PM PDT · 105 of 138
    Mrs. Don-o to EC1

    You know yazidis?

  • The Ancient Mass in the “House Churches” was not as Informal as Many Think

    08/22/2014 4:07:51 PM PDT · 104 of 138
    Mrs. Don-o to LearsFool
    Yes, I certainly AM interestedin your Scriptural answers to the gay -- uh -- "mirage" advocatea.

    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.

  • The Ancient Mass in the “House Churches” was not as Informal as Many Think

    08/22/2014 11:10:12 AM PDT · 98 of 138
    Mrs. Don-o to Springfield Reformer; LearsFool
    My point being that Scripture is "inspired" and "profitable" for "teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness," --- Amen. Yes, it is --- but Scripture dosn't say it's sufficient. It says that YOU (the man of God) will be proficient and equipped (or perfectly furnished and complete) --- in other words:

    Adj applied to Scripture: inspired and useful

    Adj applied to the man: proficient, equipped, well-furnished

    without implying that Scripture alone is enough to make him so.

    It's like saying, "You already have the paint, the brushes, the drop cloth, the pan, the rollers, the masking tape -- so, here's a $50 gift card for Home Depot, which will be useful to you. to get whatever you need to be fully equipped and perfect."

    Not a perfect analogy. Just the point that you might not even need the card, if you've got everything else. Like some good and holy Christian in Pakistan who lives and died without evhaving seeing a Pashto Bible. Paul himself says says he needs the the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15)

  • The Ancient Mass in the “House Churches” was not as Informal as Many Think

    08/22/2014 10:58:29 AM PDT · 97 of 138
    Mrs. Don-o to Springfield Reformer; LearsFool
    Hello, my friends. Good conversation.

    Now, I'm not trying to be stupid here (although sometimes i manage to be stupid without trying!) but I've combed over previous posts and I don't see where Scripture says Scripture is "sufficient." Can you give me a chapter and verse?

    And don't say 2 Tim 3:17, because that's the one that says Scripture is inspired and useful (which is indisputable),

  • Wendy Davis is Dodging Big Questions About the Perry Indictment

    08/22/2014 9:39:38 AM PDT · 10 of 43
    Mrs. Don-o to 2ndDivisionVet

    I think most people would agree it's a retty good mug shot. If I were a Texan I'd put it on a mug.
  • Islamic State militants stone man to death in Iraq -witness [for adultery]

    08/22/2014 9:31:30 AM PDT · 11 of 13
    Mrs. Don-o to Beowulf9; markomalley
    The term "medieval" is really a misleading anachronism in this case. Medieval Christianity would never have condoned stoning for adultery; and I'm guessing that in some times and places medieval Islam (e.g. early Andalus and early Ottoman, before the fall of Constantinple) they wouldn't have been much interested in stoning adulterers, either.

    This may seem pedantic, but in fact today's Islam is far more fierce and "fundamentalist" than even Islam in, say, 1960. It hasn't been a time-linked thing. Medieval Andalusian Islam would be rather a relief (comparatively!).

  • The Ancient Mass in the “House Churches” was not as Informal as Many Think

    08/22/2014 9:06:14 AM PDT · 94 of 138
    Mrs. Don-o to EC1
    Fascinating examples. Thanks for that.

    An odd example comes to mind.

    I am not, of course, of the Yazidi faith (and I pray every day that they will not all be murdered by Jihadi terrorists, as ISIS continues its hideous sweep across the plains of Nineveh) --- but one interesting thing about the Yazidis is that their religion existed for at least 8 centuries, and some say much longer than that, without scriptures. They are not regarded by the Muslims as "People of the Book," which is what they call Jews and Christians. (What exists of Yazidi scipture, their "Book of Revelation" "Black Book," and "Book of Melek Taus weren't written down until 1911-1913, and then thy were not written down BY the Yazidis, for their benefit, or even with their permission: they were written down by foreigners, maybe anthropologists. They themselves do not possess or use these books.)

    For their entire history, they have maintained their doctrines on faith and morals, by their songs. Their songs, memorized by all, were and are their reference for every part of their religious belief and practice.

    This gives them a great staying power, great strength, and at the same time a great vulnerability. A paradox.

  • The Ancient Mass in the “House Churches” was not as Informal as Many Think

    08/22/2014 8:42:49 AM PDT · 93 of 138
    Mrs. Don-o to LearsFool
    What a sweet spirit you have. I really appreciate you good will.

    Yes, you are making an important point. One doesn't say "I am of Polycarp" or "of Irenaeus" any more than one could say "I am of Apollos" or "I'm with Paul or Cephas" (even though Paul and Cephas between them wrote, well, more than a third of the NT if you count it by verses, or more than half if you count it by books --- the principal author being the Holy Spirit.) But we are all "of Christ."

    You can't even have one person saying "I am of Sacred Scripture" and another saying "I am of Sacred Tradition" or "I am of the Church." We're of all three --- because we are all "of Christ."

    There should and must be no contradiction between these things. God, being Author of all, is not the Author of confusion. And Tradition is SO important in protecting the right interpretation of Scripture.

    This was made strikingly apparent to me when I read through a number of so-called "Gay Christian" websites and saw how they argued supposedly "Biblically" in favor of their gay marriage position.

    Mind you, I do not agree with their position at all, so you need not expend any electrons telling me to stop supporting gay marriage (I totally reject it) -- but just to point out where people can be misled about Scripture if they don't have Tradition.

    They would take verses like:

    • There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28), plus
    • God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us. (Acts 15:8-9), plus
    • "Marriage is honorable for all, and the marriage bed undefiled,"
    and come to the conclusion that same-sex marriage is nowhere condemned and is, in fact, OK.

    They deal with both OT and NT prohibitions against gay sex by doing what they would call a more detailed and accurate interpretation of the words of Scripture:

    • The story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) is about gang rape, not about monogamous same sex relationships.
    • The 2 verses in Leviticus (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13) are in the context of Molech worship, which would indicate that what is being condemned is ritual same-sex sex, again not monogamous same sex relationships.
    • The Romans passage (Romans 1:26-27) is describing idolatry leading to same-sex sexual rituals, not homosexuality in general (read the entire chapter, not just verses 26-27).
    • Then we have the problem of translating the terms arsenokoitai and malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. No one really knows what arsenokoitai means because Paul coined the term. Many gay-marriage-affirming Christians believe this is harking back to the Leviticus passages and thus refers to those participating in pagan same-sex sexual rituals.

    If you accept these interpretations, monogamous same-sex relationships are never condemned in Scripture.

    I don't agree with that, but what makes it really clear and definitive, is that the Church has never accepted anything like "same-sex marriage" nor even a single act of man-man or woman-woman sex, in any context, as being OK.And that's what clarifies things and makes me KNOW, no matter what scholarly Scriptural arguments are brought to the fore by gay-affirming Biblical scholars, that the "gay marriage" interpretation is wrong.

    Even strongly Scripture-oriented Protestant teachers, like eminent Baptist Albert Mohler, fall back finally to the ultimate Tradition argument by noting that no Church Father nor pastor nor Council nor teacher nor exegete nor document in history has ever taken a pro-"gay marriage" position: so we know what those disputed Scripture passages mean, and what they don't mean, because of Tradition.

    And the constant teaching of the Church (i.e. the Magisterium) thanks be to God.

    See what I'm saying? Tradition and Scripture work together in defense of the same, one, truth.

    Just for your reference: you could check out these "Gay Christian" sites HERE and HERE.

    God bless you. Now I have to go make lunch. Do the dishes. Mop the floor. And think some more :o)

  • The Ancient Mass in the “House Churches” was not as Informal as Many Think

    08/22/2014 7:41:54 AM PDT · 90 of 138
    Mrs. Don-o to Springfield Reformer
    You've written well, and there's nothing to take exception to. I do appreciate your erudition, I always have a respect for learning.

    BUT! It doesn't really cover the fact that Scripture, precious and irreplaceable though it is, is not in itself the source of salvation, nor even necessary for salvation, as is evident in the case of the book-less, the illiterate and those not mentally competent to read. Their salvation is provided, no doubt, by Christ, per the truths found in Scripture (and again, Christ says "I am the Truth") but not by a book or collection of books, or an approved canon or anything of that sort.

    [Now at this point I am afraid of being misunderstood as devaluing Scripture, making it seem on a level with any-old-thing-you-want, and that's not what I'm saying. We need Christ, and "Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ," as Jerome says. But rather than saying Scripture is "complete," "sufficient," "all you need," et. let us say Christ is complete, sufficient, and all you need.]

    Back to those three categories of people,the book-less, or illiterate, or mentally limited: taken together, they have always been the majority until very recently, and in many nations are still the majority. Mot earlyChristians had no Scripture, and that's a fac. They heard the Scriuptures read at Liturgy on Sunday (a good definition of Scripture is "what's read at Liturgy": these are, inherently. liturgical books) and hey heard the preaching and thy received the Sacraments and they imitated the vituous lives of pople like Paul Priscilla & Aquila, etc and thus the truths of the Faith were transmitted to them. The "all nations" which the Apostles were to teach and baptize, were and long remained without texts in 99% of their waiting hands.

    But look at the individual Scripture-less person: he needs to be reached by those teachings of the Apostles which can be handed down or reached-across to him. And that handing-down, hat reaching-across, is, precisely, Tradition.

    It is not, precisely, Scripture. It's the truths which can be found in or derived from or reasonable inferred from Scripture no doubt, but it's not Scripture per se. To use a term you yourself relied upon, it's that which is God-breathed. And God doesnt just breathe texts.

    Nothing in Tradition can contradict, much less abrogate, Scripture, but it can deliver those same truths, with clarification, with varied styles of repetition, with amplification, with unfoldings which reveal more depth, more detail, more specific application --- and all of this from the Holy Spirit, who is the font of bothScripture and Tradition.

    OK, here's how I want to say it: God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth". That of course includes those who are, and will always be, Scripture-less; it also includes those who, possessing Scriptures, still by God's will and the working of the Holy Spirit need the Church's doctrine, life and worship, all of which are handed down in speech, song, ways of prayer, ways of obedience, morals and manners, and practice, all under the "breath" of the same Spirit who breathed those God-breathed books.

    Scripture is THAT PART of the Apostles' preaching and teaching which was committed to writing before the death of the last Apostle. It is a closed canon: public revelation, in that sense, is closed.

    So in these ways --- Scripture and Tradition --- Christ must be proclaimed to all nations and individuals, so that this revelation may reach to the ends of the earth.

    This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. All this is part of the Father's self-communication, since what He communicates to us is Christ, and the Church is --- we are --- the Body of Christ, and Christ teaches us through the Chuch.

    Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For God has utterd, really, only one Word, and that Word is Our Lord Jesus Christ.

  • The Ancient Mass in the “House Churches” was not as Informal as Many Think

    08/22/2014 4:39:58 AM PDT · 85 of 138
    Mrs. Don-o to LearsFool


  • The Ancient Mass in the “House Churches” was not as Informal as Many Think

    08/21/2014 6:37:16 PM PDT · 81 of 138
    Mrs. Don-o to LearsFool
    Actually, everything you wrote sounds pretty good to me :o)

    But I'm like a person passionate about my family's genealogy-- now there's a Biblical theme. If I want to get the story of my family, I would like to know who they were in every generation. Some of them have stories --- some have jokes --- some have recipes --- some have diaries or letters, some have photographs, or drawings, a carving on a tree--- all of them have the mysterious connections of genes and chromosomes --- which can connect me in myriad ways with this family which is MY family and perhaps some venerated ancestor whose name we all have.

    Family, Genealogy, Tradition. OK, another analogy trick! But even more than this: Lear's Fool! Surely you know that we are all members of the Body of Christ!? And so all the histories of these faithful Christian people tie in with the life of Christ that is in me, because we all have a living, vital connection.

    We are individually the cells, tissues, organs and systems of Christ: His limbs, and senses, --- the Church is, so to speak, the extension of Christ through history. I can't get enough of this! I love this, the continuity, the lives living within each other like matreshka dolls. A transmission of doctrine, a continuity of wisdom, a consistory of kindred, the organic connection which is the Church, so that He in Whom we live, and move, and have our being, puts us in constant, living, loving connection with each other.

    That's the Church. The Body of Christ. It's like what James Faulkner said about history: the past isn't dead; it isn;t even past. I love that. I'm right in there with the John-Polycarp-Irenaeus tag-team of doctrine, the St. Thomas people of Goa and Mosul, right there in communion with Stephen the Martyr and Justin the Martyr, and Felicity, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucy Agnes, Cecilia, Anastasia, and all the saints we commemorate in the Mass because we pray wih them and live with them, -- all because we live in Christ.

    You may think this is far afield from Sacred Tradition as straitly defined, but it's part of the whole splendid richness of the Christian milieu. Wouldn't you want to know how St. James' community prayed in Jerusalem? Wouldn't you want to know what the martyrs wrote on the walls of the Catacombs of Callixtus and Priscilla and Domitilla? What kind of Christian wouldn't want to read Scriptures along with Irenaeus? --- admiring him for being a disciple of a disciple of John?

    Who wouldn't want to get their hands on a handbook for new Christian converts written when Timothy and Titus were still alive? It has some respects even more explicit moral instruction than what is written inthe NT--- such as, "Neither murder a child by abortion, nor will you destroy that which is born"? Who wouldn't find that valuable? It has more detailed instructions on how to baptize, than the Gospels do. Isn't that good to know?

    To me, it's wonderful. Tradition.

    Good night, Lear's Fool.

  • The Ancient Mass in the “House Churches” was not as Informal as Many Think

    08/21/2014 3:00:16 PM PDT · 78 of 138
    Mrs. Don-o to LearsFool
    The Church is the family of Faith. Continuity is of key importance, since the Church's existence is continuous, not intermittent. Search the historic resources which show us how the early Church believed, prayed, governed and conducted itself, and passed its truths and its way of life on to subsequent generations.

    Chains of transmission like St. John - St. Polycarp - St. Irenaeus are crucial.

    Look to the principle centers of early Christendom which were founded by the Apostles --- Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, Rome --- and see who their 2nd and 3rd generation teachers were, and what they taught. Early Liturgies, like the Liturgy of St. James (Jerusalem), show us how they conducted public worship.

    Apostolic Fathers Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas, Hermas, Epistle to Diognetus, Papias, writings like the Didache-- that's a lot to chew on before you even get to the mid-2nd century!

    This is your family!!

    Very early resources like the inscriptions in the catacombs of the martyrs of Rome, even what we can learn about the layout of early churches, like the article at the top of this thread about the church at Dura-Europos.

    I want to stress continuity, authentic chains of transmission. That's one of the horrible things about the forces of Islam smashing thrugh the cradle-lands of Christianity: the Holy Land, Jordan, Syria, Egypt--- now ISIS thugs have burned as many as 1,500 ancient Christian manuscripts in Mosul alone, and an 1800 year old church --- wiping out not just people, but the whole irreplaceable historic evidence of the Church on the Nineveh plain and beyond, churches founded by St. Thomas and other Apostles.

    I'm so sick about this. ISIS knows how EXTREMELY important these things are, the ancient precious legacy of Christianity, and are systematically destroying them. And 90% of "modern" Christianity, 90% asleep, doesn't even know or care that they exist.

    Sorry. I got off track. But-- oh, who I mourn that our precious, priceless, irreplaceable Christian roots are being destroyed, and that so many do NOT mourn.

    Excuse me, again. I am thinking of how our past is annihilated: by radical Islamists who REALIZE how important it is, and Chrisians who neither know nor care.

  • The Ancient Mass in the “House Churches” was not as Informal as Many Think

    08/21/2014 2:05:25 PM PDT · 75 of 138
    Mrs. Don-o to LearsFool
    Except the Bible doesn't say it's all you need.

    On the other hand, I've shown many places where it says we need Sacred Tradition (not any-ol' "huma" tradition, but Sacred Tradiion, the kind Paul insisted we "hold fast to") and the teaching authority of the Church:

    2 Tim. 3:14,17

    2 Thess. 2:15

    Luke 10:16

    Matthew 18:17

    1 Tim 3:15

    Throughtout history, many individuals and whole tribes and clans had the Faith, were received in the Church, were saved by Jesus their Savior, without having any access to written Scriptures. Books were extremely few and rare in history before movable type. Not an ideal situation, but nevertheless a true, historical situation. Huge numbers of people were illiterate. Huge numbers of people for many generations periods couldn't get Scriptures in their native tongue. Evennow you can hardly find it in Tuareg or Pashto or many other languages.

    St. Stephen deacon, the first martyr, never held a single book of the New Testament in his hand, never laid eyes on it. Every single person mentioned in the Bible lived their Faith without the full OT and NT (with the possible exception of St. John.)

    They learned about Our Lord through Oral Tradition --- preaching, teaching, prayers they were taught, songs, liturgy --- and example.



  • The Ancient Mass in the “House Churches” was not as Informal as Many Think

    08/21/2014 12:48:05 PM PDT · 73 of 138
    Mrs. Don-o to Springfield Reformer
    Don't have much time to write right now. Thank you for your conscientious and well-expressed points. You might want to have a look at #72.

    Have a blessed day.

  • The Ancient Mass in the “House Churches” was not as Informal as Many Think

    08/21/2014 11:56:45 AM PDT · 72 of 138
    Mrs. Don-o to LearsFool
    Thanks for your patience with my lpses into tpographical incoherence...! Lapses.


    Typographical. There.

    Rather than launching right into the ol' repartee, let me try telling you a true and recent experience of mine, soon to be grist for an analogy

    I'm supposed to deliver parking passes and gate tickets for the Appalachian Fair to a number of parishioners who volunteered to man a pro-life literature table at the Fair. I don't drive. So I had to give instructions like so:

    1. [email] No problem, I'll leave the tickets in the Adoration Chapel on the little table at the left. You can pick them up anytime before Saturday. This is all you'll need. [Knowing we all get to the Chapel at least once a week, probably more.]

    2. [note] In each ticket envelope I put a note showing how to get to the Fair's designated parking areas, which gate to go in, and how to get to Bldg. 4 where our pro-life table is.

    3. [instructions] At the pro-life table I put instructions on how to handle T-shirt and button sales, and best ways to get people to sign the petition. "How to" and "how not to" deal with non-pro-life people who might distract them.

    4. [card] I also left a card on the table saying that if they had any questions, they could call me, or Michelle the overall coordinator, and if there were any hassles over the exhibit space they could call the Fair Security office, giving phone number.

    Now. Would it make sense if somebody said, "I did pick up the envelope with the tickets, but I couldn't do any more than that because you said that's all I'd need"?

    Obviously, that would be nonsense.

    Here's what I'm getting at. This is the difficulty with simply saying, without further reflection, that Scripture is in itself sufficient, "that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work." (II Tim. 3:17)

    First, Scripture doesn't say that Scripture in itself is sufficient. It says Scripture is "profitable" for "teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness," --- Amen. Yes, it is --- but it dosn't say it's sufficient. The meaning is "with that, along with everything else, you'll be complete" --- NOT "with that ALONE you'll be complete." Paul himself says it needs the the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15).

    If this passage actually meant "sufficient," it would mean the Scriptures Timothy knew when he was growing up as a boy -- that's who he's talking to, and what he's referring to --- were sufficient. When Timohy was growing up, many of the Epistles and none of the Gospels had not yet been written!

    So if Paul is saying THOSE Scriptures --- the ones Timothy had already leanred --- were "sufficient," he would be saying that the New Testament was not necessary!

    But of course, that's not what he meant at all.

    So, basically, we have Paul saying to hold fast to Tradition (2 Thess 2:15); and he tells Timothy to "continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it" (2 Tim. 3:14) RIGHT before he tells him the value of the Scipture he learned as a boy; and you have Jesus telling his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and anyone who rejects you, rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ.

    All of them got this charge, to transmit Christ's truths by preaching. ALL of them did not leave written Scriptures: (most did not). But they all had this authority to preach and teach. Hence the truths were transmitted by written word, by spoken word, and by the precept and example of the Apostles themselves.

    So when you say "Where is THAT in Scriptures" or "How do you get THAT interpretation? Isn't it just speculation?" we can legitimtely say, "The Church handed this down from the days of the APostles. This is how the Church judged the meaning and interpretation down thrugh the centuries."

    Jesus Himself said that if there's some kind of dispute, some kind of correction that has to be handed down, you should take it to the Church (Matthew 18:17) and Paul reinforces this strongly, calling the Church "The pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). Back to my little analogy. The Bible itself (like my initial e-mail to my friends) points you to these other resources (the preaching, the example, the rulings of Apostles, the aauthority of the Church) -- it's the Bible itslef which says, "Here's where you can go for the truth."

    Please excuse typos.

    Now I'm off to some other stuff. A tomato sandwich would be nice... :o) And sorry for the length. I didn't have enough time to write shorter :oO.

  • Washington Post Writer Says Abortion Is “A Deeply Affirmative Value”

    08/21/2014 7:36:35 AM PDT · 18 of 28
    Mrs. Don-o to Tennessee Nana