The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Thread 162
TNS Archives

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Tell your wife to come help:)

How bout those Broncos?

[the808bass]

Just wanted to wish you Godspeed. You and your wife will be in thoughts and prayers.

[SoothingDave]

Let's not forget the passive participle kecharitomene.

Wasn't that a Paul Simon song?

Kecharitomene
Gives us nice bright colors
Gives us the greens of summer
Makes all the world like a sunny day, oh yeah...

SD

[al_c]

Yeah, how come, I need help! I'm getting a bit gun shy today. Go back thru the posts on this page and see how many times my name has come up, and they aren't talking to me but about me. I've noticed this happens alot. Mack says it's a man thing, because I'm about the only woman on here. Men stick together type thing. Tell your wife to come help:)

Sounds Catholic to me. You know ... with all the 'no ordained women' thing and all that. ;o)

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Ask her if she ever saw the one where the liitle (sob) boy took his dad in as his show and tell object:)

Becky

[al_c]

Thanks, bass-man.

[al_c]

Ask her if she ever saw the one where the liitle (sob) boy took his dad in as his show and tell object:)

Sounds familiar.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

down with all kings If your lurking and for others on here, see how to use the Word of God to prove, instead of mans words.

Genesis 2:7, "And the Lord God formed man of the DUST OF THE GROUND, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul." Surely, you don't take Genesis 2:7 seriously? Do you? November 1982, Reader's Digest had an article titled How Life on Earth Began. It stated that according to scientists at NASA's Ames Research Center the ingredients needed to form a human being can be found IN CLAY. The article said, "The Biblical scenario for the creation of life turns out to be NOT FAR OFF THE MARK."(Reader's Digest, November, 1982 p.116) No, it's "not far off the mark" - it's right on it! Scientists have laughed at the possibility of Genesis having any scientific credibility whatsoever - and yet, the more we learn, the more we find it to be SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT!

BigMack

[the808bass]

Is that what he was singing? He is more intelligible than Michael McDonald, tho that may be damning with faint praise.

SHI SWEE FREEDO
SHIYOLIGH AHNMAY
YOU ARE THA MAJI
YORE RIWHERE I WAN BE
OH SWEE FREEDO CARE ME ALON
WE'LL KEE THE SPIRIT ALIVE ONON

[OLD REGGIE]

But thank you for your encouraging and helpful post.

If I misunderstood your intent of your post to Becky please accept my apologies. I interpreted it such that you were telling her to stop talking about what she was taught or remembered from her teachings. Her experience, my experience, and the experience of many others is identical and it is my belief that we should continue to speak of it.

[OLD REGGIE]

You keep making a big deal about it, as if the lack of historical certainty somehow undermines the entire Catholic belief system. It's simply not important, and I wonder why you think it is so.

OK great! You and I are in agreement that there is no proof, only conjecture, that the Papacy was ever established and that there is no indication of an unbroken line. Furthermore, it isn't important.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

I would like to ask a question of anyone who might be able to answer. With the restriction on Vanity posts, I don't really want to post an article about it, but it is completly off the subject of religion. Mack and I aren't sure, so maybe if some of you have a grip of lawyer language you could help.

We have a group of neighbors who recently moved in and are trying to start a homeoweners group, and actually want to make it mandatory. We don't want any part of something like that, but because I heard they were trying to find loop holes to be able to make it mandatory I went to the last meeting and got a copy of the by-laws that they are going to try to pass at the next meeting. 21 pages!

I am trying to write some different ones to present at the next meeting to get them passed that will tie their hands so that 1. they won't be able to make it mandatory and 2. I won't have to go to every meeting to keep track of what they are up too.

I need a translation on one of the laws they wrote. Here it is verbatium:

A majority of the total membership interest of the Group, in person or by proxy, shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business at any meeting of the Members.

My question: Right now for them to get the group mandatory they have to have 100% approval from all the land owners in this addtion. I am reading the above by-law to mean that they will only need a majority of the interestedland owners, which could mean a majority of the votes cast, not necessairly a majority of the land owners.

Anybody have an opinion on how this reads.

Becky

[Wordsmith]

Dave - Hope you've had fun with GreaserX on the other thread. Honestly, I'm not sure if its worth it to even bother participating in some of the other religious threads on FR. The folks may be conservative, but so many of them seem downright mean to the point of being unbalanced, that its hard to see how anything could be accomplished.

[OLD REGGIE]

I don't think they placed bets, but Acts is pretty clear that after they nominated two Joseph and Matthias, they prayed and they cast their lots and the lot fell on Matthias.

I think it is very interesting to look at this election method and compare it to modern methods. We Anglicans elect our bishops. While the exact method varies from one diocese to another, it boils down to majority rules. I don't know whether that's the best way to do it. I suppose in a strict sense it's not the biblical way, but I see it as an administrative issue rather than a docrinal one.

I believe the "cast lots" referenced in Acts 1:25-27 are "votes" while the "cast lots" in Luke 23:25 and John 19:23-25 are more akin to gambling. I believe the "votes" used in the election of your Bishops are exactly the same as the "cast lots" in Acts 1:25-27.

[SoothingDave]

Dave - Hope you've had fun with GreaserX on the other thread.

Tons of fun. It's amazing to see people wallow in their own ignorance. To start off claiming something untrue, then refuse to back it up, then slough off something close, but not what they claimed, then to be proud that they can't understand it!

It's beauitful!

SD

[trad_anglican]

I believe the "cast lots" referenced in Acts 1:25-27 are "votes" while the "cast lots" in Luke 23:25 and John 19:23-25 are more akin to gambling. I believe the "votes" used in the election of your Bishops are exactly the same as the "cast lots" in Acts 1:25-27.

I think that's very interesting. What is the basis for your thinking it's one way in the gospels and the other in Acts? Maybe the808bass can help shed some light on this. I've never really given it any thought.

[al_c]

I'm outa here, folks! Y'all behave and somebody keep the readings going.

I'll pop in and let y'all know how it went.

Until then ... God bless.

AC

[trad_anglican]

I do think that having some kind of election/nomination is a better method than having them appointed by the "higher ups." I think it's more scripturally based. However, the ancient canons are clear that the other bishops and/or the metropolitan must consent to the election so in that respect they do have the final say.

My experience with Anglican bishops, which is considerable, is that the best ones are the ones who are dragged kicking and screaming into it. Anyone who actually wants to be a bishop should be disqualified on that basis alone.

[SoothingDave]

Anyone who actually wants to be a bishop should be disqualified on that basis alone.

That's the case with the election of politicians in the book Utopia. Desiring a gov't position is automatic disqualification.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

I think that's very interesting. What is the basis for your thinking it's one way in the gospels and the other in Acts? Maybe the808bass can help shed some light on this. I've never really given it any thought.

Sometimes the basis for my thinking is just because it is the way I think. I believe, when we read Scripture, we can be guided to the correct interpretation. I offer no intellectual reasoning yet I believe I "know" the meaning.