Christianity QA » Christian Worship

Translating Jerome's Chronicle online 12

admin — Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – =20 =20 "There is nothing so unclean as a woman in her period." – Saint Jerome= =3D One of my ex-girlfriends used to say something like that. =20 ** Which church was educating (inculcating) her when she was five to n= ine? Richard, PLEASE…… Why always looking for a connection with churches, organised religion and all the other nightmares that seem to haunt you? ** I bailed out when I came to understand church doctrine. I was 13 at the time.

Your history on arcrc demonstrates otherwise. So you know a lot of big words. Understanding all the vocabulary words used in doctrine doesn’t equate to its comprehension (as you often demonstrate). At 13, it sounds more like the common questioning accompanying adolescence that you never outgrew. (didn’t receive the answers you wanted?)

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – … What Jerome should have said is :- "There are few things so dangerous as a woman just before her period." . Damned pheremones. Ahem… surely, hormones? ** Sorry – Pheromones is the correct spelling. Female pheromones air airbourne substances that effect a male’s Jacobs gland, which in turn controls blood flow into and out of the male member. From observation, there is some variation in female pheromones, even between sisters. When a male meets a female who emits the right pheromones, tumescense results and things can happen. Oddly enough, the male’s nose can not detect the smell of female pheromones. However, the Jacobs gland does, but the brain is not aware of anything unusual. Of *pheremones*, that was indeed the correct spelling – however, I believe I said *hormones*? Hormones are things that make it advisable to hide the sharp knives and be especially sympathetic, understanding and compliant at certain times of the month, in certain company. I assume you must either be be celibate, or very, very young?

Saturday or Sunday

admin — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Dave Oldridge writes: Well, the CHURCH changed it to Sunday, using a power mandated to it by

Jesus Christ to make such changes. Dave, would you give us a source for this?? Is it in the bible somewhere?? Written down somewhere?? Do you have a date for this change?? Can you tell us who made the change?? Please share your knowledge. Then Iknow comes back and notice his glaring omission. Of course you are right. Though perhaps it was God who choose Sunday as a celebration of the Lord’s resurrection. Thus leaving the nation of Israel to have the Shabat. Therefore we have two days to consider: the first shabat in Genesis 1 the second the new covenant ?

As with Dave, please enlighten us to the source, If perhaps it was GOD, surely it is in the bible. The inspired word of God. No? Don’t have a reference? How about a date?? When exactly was it changed? By who? I notice, when you mention the first Shabat, you quote Genesis 1. But for the second, the new covenant, just a question mark. Does that mean you have no source for this? Please share the knowledge about this. Why do I get the distinct impression that you have no source, no date, no Who, or anything else?? But I am sure you can supply that data, Right?? And listen Iknow. When you post, your address for the Catholic newsgroup, has a comma after religion, and it should be a period. Therefore your message does not get posted there.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – x-no-archive: yes copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the group) x-no-archive: yes copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the group) Saturday or Sunday Big arguments swirl around the teaching of the "Sabbeth day". In Genesis God says "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He rested from all His work which He had made." Gen 2:3. Now no more is said about the Sabbeth day until Exodus when God told the Israelites that they were to "remember the sabbeth day to keep it holy" Exodus 16:23. This was and is still a sign between God and the nation of Israel forever, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed." Exodus 31:17. The seventh day of the week of seven days has been in human history since the very beginning and is a certain indication that God set it up and it has been in place since then. God did not give iany further instructions on the seventh day again until Exodus and that only to the children of Israel. God did not give the cerimonial laws to Adam-Abraham, Issac or Jacob. The reason for this is clear when we read Genesis 3-4. Adam, while in the Garden had only one restriction. He could eat on the seveth day, he had no menial work to do and he need not travel anywhere so all the future sabbeth restrictions did not apply to him. In fact there were no 10 commandments nor the cerimonial laws of Liviticus. When the Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross His last words were "It is finished" echoing what He said after the six days of creation Genesis 1:21. A new day had come and it is celebrated on Sunday the day of resurrection unto new life. Christ has re-established the original Sabbeth of the Garden of Eden and invited all to come and enjoy His work of redemption. "Behold, I make all things new." II Cor 5:17. In the new creation there will be no menial work, not cooking, no traveling, only adroration, paise and honor to Christ as we serve Him for ever. One comment. Sunday (the" Lord’s Day") did not "replace" Sabbath. Sabbath is a Jewish observance. Sunday is the day the disciples chose to celebrate the Resurrection. We are still to have ‘a day of rest’, but as Christians we are allowed to choose our own. jw God bless! j w Of course you are right. Though perhaps it was God who choose Sunday as a celebration of the Lord’s resurrection. A better way of saying it. Though I believe the apostles/disciples themselves chose to worship on Sunday (see John 20 for two back-to-back Sunday worship services– both attended by our Lord, and thereby giving His total approval to Sunday Christian worship). The apostles/disciples chose Sunday for their Christian services, and God/Jesus/the Holy Spirit totally endorsed that decision. (If God/Christ/the Holy Spirit had NOT endorsed Sunday Christian worship, certainly Jesus would have made that known when He appeared at their Sunday evening service the evening of the day He rose. Likewise, if God had not approved of Sunday Christian worship, the Holy Spirit would surely have made that disapproval known when He came on Pentecost Sunday and blessed the 1st Church with the Sign gifts. In fact that blessing was tacit approval of Sunday worship.) Thus leaving the nation of Israel to have the Shabat. Good point. As in, since they rejected their Messiah, they remain under the darkness of the Old Law. Therefore we have two days to consider: the first shabat in Genesis 1 the second the new covenant ? Yes. Of course, NOWHERE is Sabbath observance COMMANDED for born again believers; neither is it forbidden. We ARE to have a Sabbath rest, but as Paul pointed out, our "Sabbath rest" is in Christ, not in a day. God bless! jw God bless! j w

Good on ye, John.

Response:

Whether tou pray on saturday or on Sunday or while getting ass fucked makes no difference.You are all praying to a God who doesn’t exist,wasting your time!

You are a rather uncouth character. — Stephen Bayzik

Response:

Whether tou pray on saturday or on Sunday or while getting ass fucked makes no difference.You are all praying to a God who doesn’t exist,wasting your time! You are a rather uncouth character. — Stephen Bayzik Just making a point.Not like there’s aGod to punish me for my fucking

language anyway!Oh,I made another point! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

Whether tou pray on saturday or on Sunday or while getting ass fucked makes no difference.You are all praying to a God who doesn’t exist,wasting your time!

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Saturday or Sunday Big arguments swirl around the teaching of the "Sabbeth day". In Genesis God says "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He rested from all His work which He had made." Gen 2:3. Now no more is said about the Sabbeth day until Exodus when God told the Israelites that they were to "remember the sabbeth day to keep it holy" Exodus 16:23. This was and is still a sign between God and the nation of Israel forever, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed." Exodus 31:17. The seventh day of the week of seven days has been in human history since the very beginning and is a certain indication that God set it up and it has been in place since then. God did not give iany further instructions on the seventh day again until Exodus and that only to the children of Israel. God did not give the cerimonial laws to Adam-Abraham, Issac or Jacob. The reason for this is clear when we read Genesis 3-4. Adam, while in the Garden had only one restriction. He could eat on the seveth day, he had no menial work to do and he need not travel anywhere so all the future sabbeth restrictions did not apply to him. In fact there were no 10 commandments nor the cerimonial laws of Liviticus. When the Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross His last words were "It is finished" echoing what He said after the six days of creation Genesis 1:21. A new day had come and it is celebrated on Sunday the day of resurrection unto new life. Christ has re-established the original Sabbeth of the Garden of Eden and invited all to come and enjoy His work of redemption. "Behold, I make all things new." II Cor 5:17. In the new creation there will be no menial work, not cooking, no traveling, only adroration, paise and honor to Christ as we serve Him for ever. More self serving crap from this so called religionist. One of the biggest jokes ever scammed on christians was the changing of the Sabbath day. This was done, simply to differ from the Jews. What is so hard about reading Exodus 20: 8. The commandment reads, REMEMBER the Sabbath, to keep it holy. What was that again, REMEMBER the Sabbath!! Why?? To keep it holy. Notice, it does not say, pick a day and keep it holy. Was the Saturday Sabbath the one Jesus celebrated?? Of course it was. Maybe Iknow will quote one verse, where Jesus says the Sabbath has been changed. He quotes Genesis 1:21 and says that God said it is finished. Verse 21 says no such thing. Neither does Genesis. In other words, Iknow makes that up. The Sabbath was changed by men. Not by Jesus. And not to celebrate his rising from the grave, but to make them different from the Jews. And they picked not the day that Jesus rose, but they Picked the Pagan day of the Sun. This was the day of Sol Ivictus, the Sun God of Rome. Same with the birthday of Jesus, they picked the birthday of the Sun. Another pagan festival. But you will always have a clown like Iknow, who will try and quote bible verses to justify the ways of MAN. But God said, REMEMBER the sabbath, That is the first part of the commandment. The second part is why, TO KEEP IT HOLY. Jesus dealt with people like Iknow, when he said, "Get thee behind me Satan: thou art an offence unto me; for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those things that be of men." God made Saturday the Sabbath. Man changed it to Sunday.

Well, the CHURCH changed it to Sunday, using a power mandated to it by Jesus Christ to make such changes. — Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 A false witness is worse than no witness at all.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – x-no-archive: yes copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the group) Saturday or Sunday Big arguments swirl around the teaching of the "Sabbeth day". In Genesis God says "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He rested from all His work which He had made." Gen 2:3. Now no more is said about the Sabbeth day until Exodus when God told the Israelites that they were to "remember the sabbeth day to keep it holy" Exodus 16:23. This was and is still a sign between God and the nation of Israel forever, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed." Exodus 31:17. The seventh day of the week of seven days has been in human history since the very beginning and is a certain indication that God set it up and it has been in place since then. God did not give iany further instructions on the seventh day again until Exodus and that only to the children of Israel. God did not give the cerimonial laws to Adam-Abraham, Issac or Jacob. The reason for this is clear when we read Genesis 3-4. Adam, while in the Garden had only one restriction. He could eat on the seveth day, he had no menial work to do and he need not travel anywhere so all the future sabbeth restrictions did not apply to him. In fact there were no 10 commandments nor the cerimonial laws of Liviticus. When the Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross His last words were "It is finished" echoing what He said after the six days of creation Genesis 1:21. A new day had come and it is celebrated on Sunday the day of resurrection unto new life. Christ has re-established the original Sabbeth of the Garden of Eden and invited all to come and enjoy His work of redemption. "Behold, I make all things new." II Cor 5:17. In the new creation there will be no menial work, not cooking, no traveling, only adroration, paise and honor to Christ as we serve Him for ever. One comment. Sunday (the" Lord’s Day") did not "replace" Sabbath. Sabbath is a Jewish observance. Sunday is the day the disciples chose to celebrate the Resurrection. We are still to have ‘a day of rest’, but as Christians we are allowed to choose our own. jw God bless! j w

Of course you are right. Though perhaps it was God who choose Sunday as a celebration of the Lord’s resurrection. Thus leaving the nation of Israel to have the Shabat. Therefore we have two days to consider: the first shabat in Genesis 1 the second the new covenant ?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – x-no-archive: yes copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the group) Saturday or Sunday Big arguments swirl around the teaching of the "Sabbeth day". In Genesis God says "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He rested from all His work which He had made." Gen 2:3. Now no more is said about the Sabbeth day until Exodus when God told the Israelites that they were to "remember the sabbeth day to keep it holy" Exodus 16:23. This was and is still a sign between God and the nation of Israel forever, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed." Exodus 31:17. The seventh day of the week of seven days has been in human history since the very beginning and is a certain indication that God set it up and it has been in place since then. God did not give iany further instructions on the seventh day again until Exodus and that only to the children of Israel. God did not give the cerimonial laws to Adam-Abraham, Issac or Jacob. The reason for this is clear when we read Genesis 3-4. Adam, while in the Garden had only one restriction. He could eat on the seveth day, he had no menial work to do and he need not travel anywhere so all the future sabbeth restrictions did not apply to him. In fact there were no 10 commandments nor the cerimonial laws of Liviticus. When the Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross His last words were "It is finished" echoing what He said after the six days of creation Genesis 1:21. A new day had come and it is celebrated on Sunday the day of resurrection unto new life. Christ has re-established the original Sabbeth of the Garden of Eden and invited all to come and enjoy His work of redemption. "Behold, I make all things new." II Cor 5:17. In the new creation there will be no menial work, not cooking, no traveling, only adroration, paise and honor to Christ as we serve Him for ever. One comment. Sunday (the" Lord’s Day") did not "replace" Sabbath. Sabbath is a Jewish observance. Sunday is the day the disciples chose to celebrate the Resurrection. We are still to have ‘a day of rest’, but as Christians we are allowed to choose our own. jw God bless! j w Of course you are right. Though perhaps it was God who choose Sunday as a celebration of the Lord’s resurrection. Thus leaving the nation of Israel to have the Shabat. Therefore we have two days to consider: the first shabat in Genesis 1 the second the new covenant ?

Take the day off IKHDY. Give it a rest.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Saturday or Sunday Big arguments swirl around the teaching of the "Sabbeth day". In Genesis God says "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He rested from all His work which He had made." Gen 2:3. Now no more is said about the Sabbeth day until Exodus when God told the Israelites that they were to "remember the sabbeth day to keep it holy" Exodus 16:23. This was and is still a sign between God and the nation of Israel forever, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed." Exodus 31:17. The seventh day of the week of seven days has been in human history since the very beginning and is a certain indication that God set it up and it has been in place since then. God did not give iany further instructions on the seventh day again until Exodus and that only to the children of Israel. God did not give the cerimonial laws to Adam-Abraham, Issac or Jacob. The reason for this is clear when we read Genesis 3-4. Adam, while in the Garden had only one restriction. He could eat on the seveth day, he had no menial work to do and he need not travel anywhere so all the future sabbeth restrictions did not apply to him. In fact there were no 10 commandments nor the cerimonial laws of Liviticus. When the Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross His last words were "It is finished" echoing what He said after the six days of creation Genesis 1:21. A new day had come and it is celebrated on Sunday the day of resurrection unto new life. Christ has re-established the original Sabbeth of the Garden of Eden and invited all to come and enjoy His work of redemption. "Behold, I make all things new." II Cor 5:17. In the new creation there will be no menial work, not cooking, no traveling, only adroration, paise and honor to Christ as we serve Him for ever.

More self serving crap from this so called religionist. One of the biggest jokes ever scammed on christians was the changing of the Sabbath day. This was done, simply to differ from the Jews. What is so hard about reading Exodus 20: 8. The commandment reads, REMEMBER the Sabbath, to keep it holy. What was that again, REMEMBER the Sabbath!! Why?? To keep it holy. Notice, it does not say, pick a day and keep it holy. Was the Saturday Sabbath the one Jesus celebrated?? Of course it was. Maybe Iknow will quote one verse, where Jesus says the Sabbath has been changed. He quotes Genesis 1:21 and says that God said it is finished. Verse 21 says no such thing. Neither does Genesis. In other words, Iknow makes that up. The Sabbath was changed by men. Not by Jesus. And not to celebrate his rising from the grave, but to make them different from the Jews. And they picked not the day that Jesus rose, but they Picked the Pagan day of the Sun. This was the day of Sol Ivictus, the Sun God of Rome. Same with the birthday of Jesus, they picked the birthday of the Sun. Another pagan festival. But you will always have a clown like Iknow, who will try and quote bible verses to justify the ways of MAN. But God said, REMEMBER the sabbath, That is the first part of the commandment. The second part is why, TO KEEP IT HOLY. Jesus dealt with people like Iknow, when he said, "Get thee behind me Satan: thou art an offence unto me; for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those things that be of men." God made Saturday the Sabbath. Man changed it to Sunday.

Response:

Saturday or Sunday Big arguments swirl around the teaching of the "Sabbeth day". In Genesis God says "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He rested from all His work which He had made." Gen 2:3. Now no more is said about the Sabbeth day until Exodus when God told the Israelites that they were to "remember the sabbeth day to keep it holy" Exodus 16:23. This was and is still a sign between God and the nation of Israel forever, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed." Exodus 31:17. The seventh day of the week of seven days has been in human history since the very beginning and is a certain indication that God set it up and it has been in place since then. God did not give iany further instructions on the seventh day again until Exodus and that only to the children of Israel. God did not give the cerimonial laws to Adam-Abraham, Issac or Jacob. The reason for this is clear when we read Genesis 3-4. Adam, while in the Garden had only one restriction. He could eat on the seveth day, he had no menial work to do and he need not travel anywhere so all the future sabbeth restrictions did not apply to him. In fact there were no 10 commandments nor the cerimonial laws of Liviticus. When the Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross His last words were "It is finished" echoing what He said after the six days of creation Genesis 1:21. A new day had come and it is celebrated on Sunday the day of resurrection unto new life. Christ has re-established the original Sabbeth of the Garden of Eden and invited all to come and enjoy His work of redemption. "Behold, I make all things new." II Cor 5:17. In the new creation there will be no menial work, not cooking, no traveling, only adroration, paise and honor to Christ as we serve Him for ever.

Response:

New & Traditional liturgical music for the Catholic Liturgy

admin — Mon, 06 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Greetings from Australia. This message is of interest to Pastors, Choir Directors and musicians seeking new liturgical music for inclusion in Christian worship. I am a liturgical musician with 25+ years experience in church music and have composed many works including Mass settings, anthems/motets, hymn arrangements suitable for churches with choral resources. Some of these works also include arrangements with brass ensembles and percussion for festival occasions. I invite you to peruse some of these compositions on my website. Just cut and paste the following address into your web browser. http://www.sibeliusmusic.com/cgi-bin/user_page.pl?url=bfk Yours sincerely, Bernard Kirkpatrick Director of Music St. Francis of Assisi Parish, Paddington Australia.

Response:

This message is of interest to Pastors, Choir Directors and musicians seeking new liturgical music for inclusion in Christian worship.

Bernard, it is too much trouble for an overworked music director to thumb through the works of individual artists. If you want to sell in the US, I’d suggest that you contact OCP or GIA or one of the music publishers here; those are the primary sources of music for most parishes.

Response:

Resmed

admin — Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

> She is worship leader at Hillsong Church in Sydney… probably sells > more music in the USA than she does in her home country.

far far more I would think – that’s because there are far far far more christians & church goers in the USA than in australia…..a lot of australians are anti-christian – and you don’t find most of us in church, not even on christmas/easter days — Beth in Australia =================== FAQ for alt.support.sleep-disorder can be found here www.anchorweb.com.au/sleepdisorders this site is a work in progress – feel free to submit info/articles

Response:

Tal wrote: > > She is worship leader at Hillsong Church in Sydney… probably sells > > more music in the USA than she does in her home country. > far far more I would think – that’s because there are far far far more > christians & church goers in the USA than in australia…..a lot of > australians are anti-christian – and you don’t find most of us in church, > not even on christmas/easter days > — > Beth in Australia

Beth….. what are ‘Wiggles’? Saw something on the TV night before last that said that the Wiggles from Australia were the most popular with little kids? Hell, I’m still back with the Wobble Boards. —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

> Beth….. what are ‘Wiggles’? > Saw something on the TV night before last that said that the Wiggles > from Australia were the most popular with little kids? Hell, I’m still > back with the Wobble Boards.

The Wiggles are a group of five (I think) guys who do kids shows, mostly singing and dancing kinda stuff — Beth in Australia =================== FAQ for alt.support.sleep-disorder can be found here www.anchorweb.com.au/sleepdisorders this site is a work in progress – feel free to submit info/articles

Response:

"Tal" wrote in message

news:as4e53$nu8pj$1@ID-148111.news.dfncis.de… > hrmph! aussie has lots of great products they export…..including some of > the best produce (meat, veggies etc) in the world! and aside from CPAP….we > invented some other cool stuff…..like the lawn mower, hills hoist washing > line and the black box flight recorder!

And what about Hunter Valley or McLaren Vale Shiraz?! And Vic Bit? (Well, unfortunately, you don’t export that – but somebody should, cuz it’s the best) And wonderful sheepskins that people recovering from serious injuries can slip between their mattress and their sheets, enabling them to get better much faster? And the best hats in the world? And every recording Dame Joan Sutherland ever made? And the best, toughest soldiers who ever island-hopped with Gen. MacArthur? And CHERRY RIPES?!!! (again, y’oughtta export those; I had to arrange a private supply) Just one thing – keep the Vege-mite for yourselves, OK? Rachel

Response:

hrmph! aussie has lots of great products they export…..including some of the best produce (meat, veggies etc) in the world! and aside from CPAP….we invented some other cool stuff…..like the lawn mower, hills hoist washing line and the black box flight recorder! as for darlene….I prefer Geoff Bullock’s stuff personally, from a piano playing point of view as well as for singing… i’ve met Geoff too – seems a nice guy…….. ya know……funny things is, 99.9% of australians would respond "who?" to that darlene comment…..you happened to strike one who knows who she is LOL….well done. — Beth in Australia =================== FAQ for alt.support.sleep-disorder can be found here www.anchorweb.com.au/sleepdisorders this site is a work in progress – feel free to submit info/articles

Response:

> Recordings featuring Darlene Zschech

Who/what is this?

Response:

> > Recordings featuring Darlene Zschech > Who/what is this?

Darlene Zschech is a Christian Worship Music (modern church music) artist – pretty good stuff – she’s based in one of the large churches in Syndey… — Beth in Australia =================== FAQ for alt.support.sleep-disorder can be found here www.anchorweb.com.au/sleepdisorders this site is a work in progress – feel free to submit info/articles

Response:

Tal wrote: > hrmph! aussie has lots of great products they export…..including some of > the best produce (meat, veggies etc) in the world! and aside from CPAP….we > invented some other cool stuff…..like the lawn mower, hills hoist washing > line and the black box flight recorder! > as for darlene….I prefer Geoff Bullock’s stuff personally, from a piano > playing point of view as well as for singing… i’ve met Geoff too – seems a > nice guy…….. ya know……funny things is, 99.9% of australians would > respond "who?" to that darlene comment…..you happened to strike one who > knows who she is LOL….well done.

Only female artists I know from Australia are Dame Edna ?????? and Maureen Murphy! Regards Lee in Toronto —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

And don’t forget the Emu oil that I use for my arthritis Regards Lee in Toronto —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

On 28 Nov 2002 03:25:05 -0800, google2…@woa.com.au (Terry Collins) wrote: >> Recordings featuring Darlene Zschech >Who/what is this?

She is worship leader at Hillsong Church in Sydney… probably sells more music in the USA than she does in her home country.

Response:

On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:45:24 +1100, "Tal" wrote: >hrmph! aussie has lots of great products they export…..including some of >the best produce (meat, veggies etc) in the world!

I think they must go to the rest of Asia. All we seem to get in North America are ResMed and Darlene. Oh, and a couple of Mitsubishi cars… but Mitsubishi cars are nothing to brag about.

Response:

Heard on the radio that Resmed won the Australian Exporter of the Year award! — Beth in Australia =================== FAQ for alt.support.sleep-disorder can be found here www.anchorweb.com.au/sleepdisorders this site is a work in progress – feel free to submit info/articles

Response:

On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:33:08 +1100, "Tal" wrote: >Heard on the radio that Resmed won the Australian Exporter of >the Year award!

There are two things exported from Australia: ResMed medical devices Recordings featuring Darlene Zschech So, Darlene will most likely get it in 2003.

Response:

3 ways to gain Bible knowledge

admin — Wed, 11 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Yes, but evidently the dog does have free will. The Scorpion has only will, the dog uses abstract {objective) information in making a decision…so the dog has free will.

Dogs are subservient, and like to help. The fetch and bring things, the dog was bring the scorpion across the water. That’s his nature, it would be against his nature not to have helped the Scorpion, because he should know better then to carry something that will kill you. I’ve seen dogs kill themselves because they were chasing cars. The Scorpion’s nature does not allow him freewill, even when freewill is what he needs to survive. All he needs to do is not to sting the dog and he will live, but because his nature is to sting, he sting. What if Human Nature is to Think? Try not thinking! Try to keep your mind blank. Language is something innate in man. Without language, man has no being…no abstract information…no free will…no "ego"…only will and essence and subjectivity and "self".

I don’t believe you need language to think, just to communicate your thoughts and ideas to others. I’ve worked with people who are mental handicapped, and you could see they had ideas and thought, but they just couldn’t communicate them with use. I can’t control my thoughts, things in my surrounding trigger my thinking, even what I’m thinking right this moment, the reply to your posting. If I hadn’t read your posting I would not be thinking about it now. But the fact is my thinking was lead down this road not because I wanted to reply but because it was in my nature to reply because thinking is what us humans do. I’m only responding to a trigger that is fuelling uncontrolled thought process that I am unable to stop. Wrong.

Can you prove me wrong???

Response:

The scorpian operated by will, the dog by free will. The scorpian’s essence [nature] and being are the same. Hence, the copula "IS". The dog’s essence and being are not the same. Interesting point. Does this mean we may draw a distinction between soul and mind, equivalent perhaps to the distinction between empiricism and rationalism?

The soul is your "seat of emotions or feelings"…it is subjective…like your will. If you base your decisions solely on your feelings, you are not being objective. You are not looking outside of yourself for abstract information that you can use in deciding whether or not to act a certain way. To me, this is will, not free will. When you use your mind, you are also, hopefully, considering your feelings [not cutting them off...self-ego separation]. In free will, you consider both abstract information and your feelings…looking not only inside of yourself, but outside of yourself [objectively], in making a decision. Rationalism claims that there is a conformity between thought and being because reality has a form which is suitable for comprehension by thought. Empiricism holds that thought has no form of its own but is shaped by an external being. Hegel’s Absolute Idealism holds that thought and being are united in that being is the activity of thought, and thought finds itself when it investigates reality. I believe [right now, anyway] that Being = thought. The scorpion is alive but functions purely on the basis of perceptions, whereas the fox is able to reason on the basis of perception. Liebniz might have called the scorpion a ‘bare monad’, and the fox–like people–a ‘mind monad’.

yes…good analogy. [Although I do not embrace monism, because I believe in Time....and as a man, I do not already have absolute knowledge. If I did, the words I write and speak would be the words of god.] Language is something innate in man. Without language, man has no being…no abstract information…no free will…no "ego"…only will and essence and subjectivity and "self". It depends how you define ‘language’. Like animals, much of the way we humans communicate with each other is non-verbal. In fact language spoken through a non-visual medium like radio is radically different from interpersonal language, because it isn’t accompanied by visual signals such as facial expressions and gestures. So non-verbal language is an important part of human communication, which would seem to indicate that animals are also able to communicate abstract information to each other (threat or submission postures for example, indicating the animal’s intentions regarding social rank).

Yes…I agree. I think animals do have a certain amount of free will. The scorpian in this fable had less than the dog. loudbuzz

Response:

You are dumb enough to use Outlook Express because it is installed by default and you don’t know any better. You are dumb enough to top post because that is the default setting and you don’t know any better.

Anyone using outlook should be drawn and quartered. Or even worse, should be forced to attend a Christian worship service.. "Hab nun, ach! die Philosophey, Medizin und Juristerey Und leider auch die Theologie Durchaus studirt mit heisser M

Wahhabism: Time to give Saudis an ultimatum

admin — Sun, 19 May 2002 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Time to give Saudis an ultimatum Jeff Jacoby, Globe Staff, Sunday, January 13, 2002 Second of two parts FOR THANKSGIVING in 1990, former President George H.W. Bush went to Saudi Arabia to visit the 400,000 American soldiers stationed there as part of Operation Desert Shield. The Saudis welcomed Bush, but made it clear that no Christian worship – including grace before the Thanksgiving meal – would be permitted on Saudi soil. It was a shocking insult, but the Americans didn’t protest. Instead, the president and his party went aboard a US ship in the Persian Gulf and said their prayers there. As this episode suggests, the US-Saudi relationship has been dysfunctional for some time. The Saudis treat the Americans with highhandedness, and are rewarded for their disdain with military and diplomatic support. At least part of the explanation for this obsequiousness is oil, of course: They have it, we need it, and our economy would suffer badly if it were to become unavailable. The tendency to be ingratiating with the Saudis is especially pronounced in the Bush family, with its roots in West Texas oil. In a striking demonstration of this last July, the elder George Bush telephoned Crown Prince Abdullah to assure him that his son’s "heart is in the right place" and that he was "going to do the right thing" when it came to the Middle East. That was the last thing Abdullah should have been told. The real issue is not whether we do what the Saudis want, but when the Saudis are going to begin doing what America wants. The House of Saud would be nothing without its vast oil wealth, and it would have lost that wealth long ago were it not for the American muscle that guarantees the security of the Gulf. And what do the Saudi princes do with their wealth, besides financing luxurious lifestyles for themselves? They spend it to keep themselves in power by buying off their country’s Wahhabi religious establishment so that it will keep a lid on the discontent that seethes throughout the kingdom. And the more money they have poured into the Wahhabis’ coffers, the more they have undermined world peace and menaced the United States. Wahhabism – radical fundamentalist Islam – is the established creed of Saudi Arabia. It is intolerant and totalitarian, and its influence is felt across Saudi society. "Anti-Western and Extremist Views Pervade Saudi Schools," read the headline on a New York Times report last fall. And not only schools: Islamic supremacism and loathing of "infidels" permeates the mosques, many government ministries, and much of the media. The Wahhabi sheiks work tirelessly to spread their brand of Islam to Muslims everywhere. The princes’ petrodollars fund Islamist killers in Kashmir and subsidize fundamentalist subversion in the Philippines. They encouraged Al Qaeda’s savagery. They radicalized Pakistan. They spread the Wahhabis’ influence to the mosques of Europe and America. They prepared the way for Sept. 11. "By funding religious extremists from Michigan to Mindanao," military theorist Ralph Peters writes, "the Saudis have done their best to destroy democracies, turn back the clock on human rights, and deny religious freedom to Islamic and other populations – while the United States guarantees Saudi security.." A better policy would begin by retracting the elder Bush’s simpering message to Abdullah and restating instead what his son told the world on Sept. 20: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists." If you are with us, we would tell Riyadh, you will immediately cut off the Wahhabis’ funds and shut down their financial pipeline. You will close the "charities" they use to finance Islamist terrorism. You will purge them from your universities, schools, and bureaucracy. You will halt the emigration of young Saudis lusting for violence and jihad. And you will order those who are abroad to return at once or lose their citizenship. We would make it clear to the Saudi princes that we expect their full cooperation no matter where the war on terrorism takes us. And if it takes us to a land war in Iraq, Saudi Arabia will make its military bases available for staging the invasion. Will the Saudis refuse? Will they protest that complying with our demands will mean the toppling of their regime? Either way, our course will be clear: We will seize and secure the oil fields. But our purpose would not be plunder. We would appoint a respected, pro-Western Muslim ally to run the oil industry in trust for the Muslim world. No longer would the petro-wealth of Arabia be used to advance Islamist fanaticism and terror – or to maintain a decadent royal family in corrupt opulence. It would be used, rather, to promote education, health, and democracy throughout the Middle East. The Gulf’s great riches, now a well spring of disorder and unrest, could be transformed into a force for decency, stability, and peace. Is it feasible? No question. But the first step – fixing our dysfunctional relationship with the House of Saud – will be the hardest. Let us see if if President Bush is up to the task.

Response:

Places of Worship

admin — Sun, 02 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

One thing i have always appreciated about the Catholic Church is that anyone can walk in and tell right away that this is a place of Christian worship. Most other places it’s not that clear what they are. For example i was recently visiting a friend at a local congregation. With the exception of a (very small) cross on the podium there was no indication as to what this structure was made for. It could as well have been city hall as the walls, windows, etc were totally absent of anything desiganating it a place of Christian worship. The same can be said for most of the protestant and non-denom buildings I have been to. CATHOLIC AND GRATEFUL! CATHOLIC FOREVER!

Response:

One thing i have always appreciated about the Catholic Church is that anyone can walk in and tell right away that this is a place of Christian worship.

Does it *matter* where one is?!: Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Joh 4:20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain; but you people say that the place to worship is in Jerusalem." Joh 4:21 Jesus said to her, "Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. Joh 4:22 You people worship what you do not understand; we worship what we understand, because salvation is from the Jews. Joh 4:23 But the hour is coming, and is now here, when true worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and truth; and indeed the Father seeks such people to worship him. Joh 4:24 God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and truth." Why do you make such a big deal about "where" we worship, or what it "looks" like?! For example i was recently visiting a friend at a local congregation. With the exception of a (very small) cross on the podium there was no indication as to what this structure was made for. It could as well have been city hall as the walls, windows, etc were totally absent of anything desiganating it a place of Christian worship.

Luk 18:11 The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity– greedy, dishonest, adulterous– [or have a modest place of worship, being improperly "labelled"] The same can be said for most of the protestant and non-denom buildings I have been to.

Maybe we’d rather use our financial resources to help the needy, the starving, the poor, than to use it to build elaborate stained-glass, and statues, etc. etc? CATHOLIC AND GRATEFUL! CATHOLIC FOREVER!

You need to stop acting holier-than-thou, William… — Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco.ca Pray thee, take care, that tak’st my book in hand, To read it well: that is, to understand. — Ben Jonson

Response:

If you think that of a roman rite church, you should faint in an Eastern Orthodox Church!

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -One thing i have always appreciated about the Catholic Church is that anyone can walk in and tell right away that this is a place of Christian worship. Most other places it’s not that clear what they are. For example i was recently visiting a friend at a local congregation. With the exception of a (very small) cross on the podium there was no indication as to what this structure was made for. It could as well have been city hall as the walls, windows, etc were totally absent of anything desiganating it a place of Christian worship. The same can be said for most of the protestant and non-denom buildings I have been to. CATHOLIC AND GRATEFUL! CATHOLIC FOREVER!

Response:

O I was glad when they said unto me….let us go into the House of the Lord! William you do not need all the grandeur and garb that most catholic churches have in their sanctuaries. All you need is the presence and I have enough Living Saints around me that came pray for me and intercede without the cold dead statues of people that are waiting the – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – One thing i have always appreciated about the Catholic Church is that anyone can walk in and tell right away that this is a place of Christian worship. Most other places it’s not that clear what they are. For example i was recently visiting a friend at a local congregation. With the exception of a (very small) cross on the podium there was no indication as to what this structure was made for. It could as well have been city hall as the walls, windows, etc were totally absent of anything desiganating it a place of Christian worship. The same can be said for most of the protestant and non-denom buildings I have been to. CATHOLIC AND GRATEFUL! CATHOLIC FOREVER!

– Isaiah 46:18 For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.

Response:

he do want to faint, does he? Someone might think he had be slain in the Spirit…..we do want to have that now! LOL – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you think that of a roman rite church, you should faint in an Eastern Orthodox Church! One thing i have always appreciated about the Catholic Church is that anyone can walk in and tell right away that this is a place of Christian worship. Most other places it’s not that clear what they are. For example i was recently visiting a friend at a local congregation. With the exception of a (very small) cross on the podium there was no indication as to what this structure was made for. It could as well have been city hall as the walls, windows, etc were totally absent of anything desiganating it a place of Christian worship. The same can be said for most of the protestant and non-denom buildings I have been to. CATHOLIC AND GRATEFUL! CATHOLIC FOREVER!

Response:

One thing i have always appreciated about the Catholic Church is that anyone can walk in and tell right away that this is a place of Christian worship. Rather, you can tell it’s a collection of statues. You also keep Jesus on the cross as best you can, but little do you know HE is no longer on it, but is alive and well… no longer suffering on it as the RCC buildings always try to portray.

Jesus died on the cross for us – not arose. Testimony: For real filth, see Alan Ferris’s web page, www.arcerland.com/dungeon.

Response:

Why do you make such a big deal about "where" we worship, or what it "looks" like?!

I think a place of worship should look like one. And it should be obvious that it is a place of worship when you enter it. Maybe we’d rather use our financial resources to help the needy, the starving, the poor, than to use it to build elaborate stained-glass, and statues, etc. etc?

I never hear this arguement when a nice office building is built, or the latest stadium or ballpark. But let someone build a church to reflect the glory of God then people (who don’t even attend the church in question) make this type of comment). We have learned that not only can we have places of worship that look like places of worship but we can help the needy, the poor, and the staving too. You need to stop acting holier-than-thou, William…

Since when is gratitude to God "holier-than-thou"?

Response:

You do not, and can not, tell the worth of a building from how it looks, rather, the purpose to which it is put tells us how good a church it is. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – CATHOLIC AND GRATEFUL! CATHOLIC FOREVER!

Response:

Since you’re not God, what makes you think that your opinion is even the least bit significant? Maybe we’d rather use our financial resources to help the needy, the starving, the poor, than to use it to build elaborate stained-glass, and statues, etc. etc? I never hear this arguement when a nice office building is built, or the latest stadium or ballpark.

Oh? Which churches build office buildings or stadiums?! But let someone build a church to reflect the glory of God then people (who don’t even attend the church in question) make this type of comment).

I’m not the one looking down on the Protestant churches, William. You need to stop acting holier-than-thou, William… Since when is gratitude to God "holier-than-thou"?

C’mon! What purpose did your post serve accept to criticize Protestant churches for not looking "worshippy" enough? Your entire post cried out, "holier-than-thou!" — Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco.ca Pray thee, take care, that tak’st my book in hand, To read it well: that is, to understand. — Ben Jonson

Response:

Hmmmmm "Biblical places of worship"…like the tent that Moses was instructed to make to house the Ark of the Covenant? Like the temple of Solomon? — Buny —-"Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal." ~ Albert Camus

Response:

Are you saying that "the tent that Moses was instructed to make" had stained-glass in it? Are you saying that these temples were on every street corner in every city in the world? And why did you delete my Scriptural citations? Buny

– Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco.ca Pray thee, take care, that tak’st my book in hand, To read it well: that is, to understand. — Ben Jonson

Response:

One thing i have always appreciated about the Catholic Church is that anyone can walk in and tell right away that this is a place of Christian worship. Just out of curiosity, what do you think the Biblical places of worship looked like, when they worshipped in their homes? Do you think they had giant stained-glass windows of the Madonna? Hmmmmm "Biblical places of worship"…like the tent that Moses was instructed to make to house the Ark of the Covenant? Like the temple of Solomon?

"For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come." (Hebrews 13:11-14). — Huldah For the Bible truth about the Jehovah’s Witnesses, see: http://mywebpage.netscape.com/trisagionseraph/jw.html For the Bible truth about ‘Oneness’ Pentecostalism, see: http://mywebpage.netscape.com/trisagionseraph/op.html

Response:

Just out of curiosity, what do you think the Biblical places of worship looked like, when they worshipped in their homes? Do you think they had giant stained-glass windows of the Madonna? Hmmmmm "Biblical places of worship"…like the tent that Moses was instructed to make to house the Ark of the Covenant? Like the temple of Solomon? Are you saying that "the tent that Moses was instructed to make" had stained-glass in it? Are you saying that these temples were on every street corner in every city in the world?

No, I am saying that You can tell what they were made for, because they did not look like any other construction–they looked like places of worship. And why did you delete my Scriptural citations?

Because I was not commenting on them…because I do not understand why people quote long expanses of previous material to comment on a small part of it(thereby wasting bandwidth)….because my server has this thing about "more quoted material than new material" and will net send it if the ratio is too high… Why are you upset about it? — Buny —-"Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal." ~ Albert Camus

Response:

Just out of curiosity, what do you think the Biblical places of worship looked like, when they worshipped in their homes? Do you think they had giant stained-glass windows of the Madonna? Hmmmmm "Biblical places of worship"…like the tent that Moses was instructed to make to house the Ark of the Covenant? Like the temple of Solomon? And why did you delete my Scriptural citations? Because I was not commenting on them…

Why did you not comment on them? They speak to why William is out of line to make comments about places of worship being specially adorned or otherwise set apart. because I do not understand why people quote long expanses of previous material to comment on a small part of it (thereby wasting bandwidth)….

And I don’t understand why people respond to posts while deleting the parts which prove them wrong… because my server has this thing about "more quoted material than new material" and will net send it if the ratio is too high…

That would have been solved by quoting the citations and then simply *commenting* on them… (Sorry to have to point out the obvious.) Why are you upset about it?

I’m not "upset" about it at all. I’m simply pointing out that your position has no leg to stand on if you include the cites, which is why you were forced to delete them instead of commenting on them. Buny

– Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco.ca Pray thee, take care, that tak’st my book in hand, To read it well: that is, to understand. — Ben Jonson

Response:

And why did you delete my Scriptural citations? Because I was not commenting on them… Why did you not comment on them? They speak to why William is out of line to make comments about places of worship being specially adorned or otherwise set apart.

What is wrong with a church looking like a church, a temple looking like a temple, a mosque looking like a mosque. Note that I did not say it had to be filled with expensive artwork, or anything elso ostentatious…I have attended Mass in a church that was origianlly a trailer…but when you looked at it, you knew it *was* a church. Heck, the parish I grew up in had a church that was originally built to be a gymnasium. It was in the archdiocese of New Orleans in the ’60s and the archbishop was on a school building kick. The archdiocese had acquired land in the suburbs (and this was not an affluent community-most homes were in the $30s), and they started building the school-gym first, which was basically a big cube. Then the archbishop realised that perhaps it would be better to have a church there first-and the gym was then refitted to become a church. No school was ever built, and the remaineg land eventaully sold. A church does not have to be really fancy–but it does have to have certain attributes, which tend to identify it *as* a church… because my server has this thing about "more quoted material than new material" and will net send it if the ratio is too high… That would have been solved by quoting the citations and then simply *commenting* on them… (Sorry to have to point out the obvious.)

Perhaps I did not wish to comment on the entire post–which I did not. I do not disagree with your entire post, only part of it-which is why I have further explained my opinion above… Why are you upset about it? I’m not "upset" about it at all. I’m simply pointing out that your position has no leg to stand on if you include the cites, which is why you were forced to delete them instead of commenting on them.

I was not "forced" to delete them…I was just commenting on why I think "churches look like churches"…this also helps when you are on vacation in an unfamilar town and are trying to find a church to attend Mass on Sunday…ours happens to be in the middle of a neighborhood, and to get to it, one must make several turns when driving through this neigborhood. One of the jokes that visiting priests often make is that they always arrive early, because they are afraid of getting lost-again. — Buny —-"Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal." ~ Albert Camus

Response:

O I was glad when they said unto me….let us go into the House of the Lord!

Yes, but you weren’t so glad about turning from sin…. Now when you go to the House of the Lord you are a hypocritical stench. You reprobate scum would be funny in your hypocrisy were you not now so malicious. See folks, the weak minded Taylors, spiritual dimbulbs, decided to be neutral about sin (the sin of the reprobate Mark Bassett). But look at how quickly they have joined him in sin! You cannot be neutral about sin or you will end up as some religious scum like the Taylors! See what the sinful, lukewarm spiritual filth, the Taylors condone and support at http://www.impsmail.org/bassett.html These reprobate spiritual filth do not represent "Oneness" except to testify to the backslidden and pride engorged condition of some in the UPCI leadership. They have blindly joined the handful of dimbulbs who threw away their integrity, honor, and salvation to support the reprobate Mark Bassett in his life of unrepentant sin. Let any real Christians join with me in prayer that the Taylors would be the last that reprobate Bassett deceives into hell with him. Pastor Winter — "Winters, you are a blabbering heretic. In a truly godly nation you would be executed for publicly promoting your heretical doctrines." – Tom Albrecht trinitarian deceiver 2000 "Copyright infringement my ***" (obscenity deleted) – Brian Boggs cultist 2000 "lying to mr. winter is just a defense" – Mark Bassett UPC Preacher 1999 "It isnt a salvation issue…" - Mark Bassett 1999 regarding Biblical holiness "Sorry old man. I never lie, if I, can help it." – Raymond W Knapp 2000 "…God is Triune in nature…" – Raymond W Knapp 2000 ",I did get saved in a Southern Baptist Church," – Raymond Knapp 2000 http://www.onenesschristian.org Apostolic Oneness Pentecostal See reprobates Bassett, Moon & Knapp in action: http://www.impsmail.org

Response:

CATHOLIC AND GRATEFUL! CATHOLIC FOREVER!

Proverbs 30:20 Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness. Pastor Winter — Apostolic Oneness Pentecostal /*/ PreRapture Ministry http://www.pentecostal.biz for Bible studies (text and audio) Have you obeyed Acts 2:38 as Paul taught in Acts 19:4-6?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – One thing i have always appreciated about the Catholic Church is that anyone can walk in and tell right away that this is a place of Christian worship. Most other places it’s not that clear what they are. For example i was recently visiting a friend at a local congregation. With the exception of a (very small) cross on the podium there was no indication as to what this structure was made for. It could as well have been city hall as the walls, windows, etc were totally absent of anything desiganating it a place of Christian worship. The same can be said for most of the protestant and non-denom buildings I have been to. The art doesn’t make a Church William. I have been to some very beautiful Protestant churches and I have been to very simple and plain Catholic Churches. When our Church was being renovated, we went to Mass in a gym for over 2 months. When I go to the Poconos, I have a choice of driving 20 miles to Mass in a very beautiful but modern Catholic Church, or a mile away to a local fire hall. I drive the mile. Beautiful art should inspire you to think of God, my Church has beautiful stain glass windows of Biblical scenes. I often look at one after my prayers before Mass starts and meditate on what is being depicted. A Protestant who goes to church may not have the windows or art to reflect on, but he usually has a Bible and may read a passage that results in exactly the same effect. Remember our Lords words, "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." Art is nice but isn’t necessary, the main attraction is there, that is what is really important. I find this all rather silly. We have some people here who claim we are worshipping stain glass windows and statues, etc. We spend countless hours trying to explain the use of icons in Catholicism/Orthodoxy. Now you come along as a Catholic and complain that the Protestant churches don’t have art. Kind of feeds the misconception in an indirect sort of way, doesn’t it? I’ve been to several Protestant churches which do indeed have stained glass windows. It was ‘the thing’ years ago to build churches with same in order to depict biblical scenery, catch the sun’s beauty and magnify the art, etc…. Not all churches build today using stained glass, because in some cases, the art has died out, although, it appears to be making a bit of a comeback — more so as a crafting hobby.

My local Anglican church has just had a new stained glass window installed. It’s very beautiful, and depicts a local landmark.

Response:

As with Paul we ‘Preach Christ Crucified’. So there’s the biblical basis for that one. Also the acknowledgement and respect for relics goes back to pre-NT days. Remeber the dead man thrown in the grave of (Elisha?) who was brought back from the dead through contact with the bones of the prophet. Also in the NT people passed around the handkerchief of Paul and they were healed. The Temple was chock full of statues so what is wrong with statues? Lastly we don’t bow to statues. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What purpose did your post serve accept to criticize Protestant churches for not looking "worshippy" enough? Your entire post cried out, "holier-than-thou!" Amen. I guess that’s because we don’t let on Christ is still nailed to the cross, and display that theme in our churches, or have the building cluttered with statues and relics…. and we don’t bow down to statues either. What a shame, isn’t it, how ‘unholy’ we Prots are…… Doc ) SMILE ! Only a DENTIST should look down in the mouth!

Response:

Be honest Doc. When was time you were IN a Catholic Church? Or are you taking this all on hearsay? The Catholic Churches I’ve been in have the RISEN Christ in front of the Cross. Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Still Only $9.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com With NINE Servers In California And Texas – The Worlds Uncensored News Source

Response:

CATHOLIC AND GRATEFUL! CATHOLIC FOREVER! Proverbs 30:20 Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.

Leave it to MR. Winter (notice I did not say pastor) to come up with something completly irrelvant.

Response:

Why do you make such a big deal about "where" we worship, or what it "looks" like?! I think a place of worship should look like one. And it should be obvious that it is a place of worship when you enter it. So if a sick person is bedridden, and can’t enter that ‘place of worship; — and they pray to God from their bed instead, you’re claiming that God will refuse to hear those prayers? After all, according to you, that sick-bed is ‘not a place of worship What shallowness…..

Doc, I don’t know whether the desert ‘looks like’ a place of worship, but it’s been found adequate: "And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind? But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings

Are the souls of those Frozen Embryos frozen or are they

admin — Fri, 10 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

How so? If Pbarker is lamenting the fact it is gone then seems to me it has been accepted by some, if not many. I was even taught about limbo when I was in the dark grasps of the Catholics. False doctrine? Perhaps, but then it seems that untruth is popular. Oh here we go. Another Catholic that has seen the light. I don’t deny that it was taught for many years. I deny that it was ever Catholic doctrine. You do understand the difference I hope.

Sure there is a difference, no denying that. But it was taught nonetheless and many have believed and that is not to be denied. Just because it is not doctrine does not mean the teaching is any less false. You do understand, I hope. It was a theological idea that became more popular after the Jansenists declared that any child who died without being baptized was going to burn in hell. I suspect the real truth is closer to being introduced by the pagans who have added many things to the Catholic church. Man-made tradition began creeping into church teachings around 324 A.D. when Emperor Constantine made Christianity the official religion. The pagans then got into the church to gain the rights of Christians and in doing so brought in much of their pagan tradition and rituals. The pagans did this because they found Christian worship too simple after practicing their own elaborate pagan ritualistic tradition. Have you been talking to Peter Terry?

No. Nor the Pope. Just listening to the Holy Spirit. There is no doubt that some traditions, (note that is with a small t) are the result of pagan influences, the Church doesn’t deny it. They are not matters of faith and morals.

But if they become teachings that beguile people are they not just as real no matter if they are "t"radition or not? Before this happened there were no confessionals, statues, rosaries, votive candles, holy water, images, relics, medals, vestments, scapulars, signs of the cross, prayers for the dead, purgatory, limbo, prayers to Mary and the saints, novenas, popes, priests, nuns, celibacy of clergy, sacrifices of the mass, lent, etc. Also, there were not seven sacraments; just the only two in Holy Scripture: baptism and communion. Nope, don’t buy all of this.

Of course you don’t, you would rather embrace what you want and deny what is not convenient. There were 7 Sacraments from the beginning. The way they were celibrated may have changed, but they were always there.Many of the things you mention were carried over from Judaism. I realize your Bible is missing a few books, it was easy for the Protestants to gnore whatever didn’t fit in. The Sacrifice, note, there is only one Sacrifice is the same Sacrifice that was made on Calvary. It is beyond time and space. Every Mass brings us to the foot of the Cross. In pastoral practice many priests used the concept to help upset parents deal with the lose of a child. So, you endorse false teaching to help those grieving? I don’t consider it false teaching. It was not doctrine.

If limbo does not exist it is false no matter what label you put on it. Tell me your flavor of Protestantism, and a little bit of time, and we’ll see how different concepts have been replaced with more sound theology. Or….are you one of those people who are afraid to tell what flavor they are? Tell you what Falcon. Write out an outline of your beliefs. We’ll take it from there.

I do not understand your "flavor" term. Not being obtuse, just want to be on the same page. I understand you need to point fingers at the Church you left. I have been there myself. It makes it easier to ignore the pit in the bottom of your stomach everytime you think about what you have done. The doubts. It never goes away Falcon. You either learn to live with it, or you sit down and find out the real truth about Catholicism. I say this with love. I would be willing to discuss anything at all with you, if you are willing to open your mind and heart. I do not wish to convert you, I only want to show you what you missed the first time around.

I will and do say the same to you. As much as you might think me attacking the Catholics, it is not, it is trying to shine a light on the darkness out of caring and move, not hatred and judgement. Ciao, Falcon #### To reply via email remove "7" from address #### # Failure is not an option # # It comes bundled with the software #

Response:

"Falcon" wrote That was basically the point I was/am trying to make to a stubborn (Grin) Scout Lady. Whether it is doctrine, dogma, teaching or whatever, it is perceived as a "truth and fact" for numerous Catholics. + Ahhh. OK. + You are right of course. + Many Catholics believe things that don’t even make sense. + They aren’t even sure what they believe or why they believe it.

Yes, I agree completely and that is one of the reasons, in my mind at least, why Catholics, in general, just follow along with church teaching without seeing that some are very contrary to what God has told us. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -+ Others have thought it all out and know what they believe. + I know I read things that peak my interest all the time. + Like Limbo going away. + It was a tough thing to envision in the first place. + It had no scripture base, but it did make sense to me… + Since I haven’t heard the term in years, I just wondered. She (Scout Lady) did not answer the question either. Kind of side stepped it with "I don’t consider it false teaching. It was not doctrine." So, apparently, in her view, if it is not "doctrine" it does not matter if it is true or a false belief no matter how many people believe it. + Then you actually asked the question in earnest? + If so, then you deserve an earnest answer. + The quick answer is "no." + I do endorse trying to help a grieving family. + I endorse telling them that God knows what is best. + I endorse telling them that "I’m sure that God has a special place for your child." + I endorse trying to lighten their burden. + I certainly tell them that God is the answer.

Thank you for your answer, it is a good answer. I would add another thought for you to consider. Why does God need a special place for babies, children, mentally deficient people who cannot reason or think clearly, etc? He does not, that is the answer. God is a God of grace and mercy, He needs no special place for them, He already has a place, called Heaven, that will suffice just fine. Do not confine God to earthly bounds, He is majestically above that type of thinking. God Himself told us how special children are and their place in Heaven: Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven." He also stated: "Whoever receives one of these little children in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me, receives not Me but Him who sent Me." There was never a need for the man-made falsehood of limbo, God told us already how and what He thinks of children and their place of importance in His Kingdom. Ciao, Falcon #### To reply via email remove "7" from address #### # Failure is not an option # # It comes bundled with the software #

Response:

"Gabby" < wrote … Mass is not the time for instruction, it’s a time for worship and praise. The proper place for things like that is the Parish Bulletin (which unfortunately most people chuck in the garbage every week) and proper religion discussion groups (we’re hoping to set one up in our parish this fall). We try to publish something in the bulletin each week to cover different areas that may be problematic for our parishioners — i.e. the great difference between Mass and a Liturgy of the Word with Communion which some people seem to feel are the same thing.

+ Excellent insight. + My parish is in a bit of turmoil right now, trying to raise enough money to double the size of the church, at the same time keeping all the ministries going. I attended one bible study, but the "teacher" was a bit too formal. RCIA is meant for new people. Perhaps an insert in the bulletin – on "what we believe" would be appropriate each week. + Thanks for the thoughts.

Response:

"Lars" wrote … "Lars" wrote m… in limbo because they have not been baptized? LOL……Are you serious? Ha ha ha…… What about the millions of non-Christians? Are they all in limbo too? Religion makes people into zombies… + Lars – this could be a serious topic of discussion, if you let it. Serious? That a frozen embryo is considered a human life? Now is that

serious? How many men who masterbate? Is that killing also? + Are you a religious person at all? I am a spiritual person…. Do you believe in Jesus? I do not need organized religion……Catholicism is all about politics

and money nowadays……Jesus has nothing to do with it anymore…. + If so, we can go further. + If not, the discussion is mute. Who says so? You?

+ Since I could be half of the conversation, then yes, that is my input at this time. + In order for two people to "discuss" anything, they must speak the same language, and have some sort of common beginning. I was merely trying to find a common beginning prior to our discussion. + I am sorry if I have offended you, and good day to you. Patrick

Response:

"CeCe" wrote … in limbo because they have not been baptized? There is no such thing as Limbo anymore. They did away with it. + They did? + Tell me it aint so…… + Where was I when it went away?

Yep, it’s true. They did away with Limbo some time ago, not sure exactly when. It is generally accepted that babies that die without baptism are taken straight to Heaven due to the mercy of God. CeCe — I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use. –Galileo Galilei

Response:

"CeCe" wrote … in limbo because they have not been baptized? There is no such thing as Limbo anymore. They did away with it. + They did? + Tell me it aint so…… + Where was I when it went away?

Since limbo never existed except in the false teachings of the Catholic church the Pope can arbitrarily remove it or bring it back anytime he so chooses. Ciao, Falcon #### To reply via email remove "7" from address #### # Failure is not an option # # It comes bundled with the software #

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "CeCe" wrote … in limbo because they have not been baptized? There is no such thing as Limbo anymore. They did away with it. + They did? + Tell me it aint so…… + Where was I when it went away? Since limbo never existed except in the false teachings of the Catholic church the Pope can arbitrarily remove it or bring it back anytime he so chooses. Limbo was never doctrine, so your claim of it being a false teaching is false in itself.

How so? If Pbarker is lamenting the fact it is gone then seems to me it has been accepted by some, if not many. I was even taught about limbo when I was in the dark grasps of the Catholics. False doctrine? Perhaps, but then it seems that untruth is popular. It was a theological idea that became more popular after the Jansenists declared that any child who died without being baptized was going to burn in hell.

I suspect the real truth is closer to being introduced by the pagans who have added many things to the Catholic church. Man-made tradition began creeping into church teachings around 324 A.D. when Emperor Constantine made Christianity the official religion. The pagans then got into the church to gain the rights of Christians and in doing so brought in much of their pagan tradition and rituals. The pagans did this because they found Christian worship too simple after practicing their own elaborate pagan ritualistic tradition. Before this happened there were no confessionals, statues, rosaries, votive candles, holy water, images, relics, medals, vestments, scapulars, signs of the cross, prayers for the dead, purgatory, limbo, prayers to Mary and the saints, novenas, popes, priests, nuns, celibacy of clergy, sacrifices of the mass, lent, etc. Also, there were not seven sacraments; just the only two in Holy Scripture: baptism and communion. In pastoral practice many priests used the concept to help upset parents deal with the lose of a child.

So, you endorse false teaching to help those grieving? Ciao, Falcon Pope Pius VI in 1794 said that one could believe in a middle state of happiness, and still be Catholic. He condemned the false teaching that any child that died without baptism was hell bound. This is the only mention of Limbo in any significant Catholic document, and it is a long way from saying it existed infallibly.

#### To reply via email remove "7" from address #### # Failure is not an option # # It comes bundled with the software #

Response:

"Lars" wrote m… in limbo because they have not been baptized? LOL……Are you serious? Ha ha ha…… What about the millions of non-Christians? Are they all in limbo too? Religion makes people into zombies… + Lars – this could be a serious topic of discussion, if you let it.

Serious? That a frozen embryo is considered a human life? Now is that serious? How many men who masterbate? Is that killing also? + Are you a religious person at all?

I am a spiritual person…. Do you believe in Jesus? I do not need organized religion……Catholicism is all about politics and money nowadays……Jesus has nothing to do with it anymore…. + If so, we can go further. + If not, the discussion is mute.

Who says so? You?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "Lars" wrote m… in limbo because they have not been baptized? LOL……Are you serious? Ha ha ha…… What about the millions of non-Christians? Are they all in limbo too? Religion makes people into zombies… + Lars – this could be a serious topic of discussion, if you let it. Serious? That a frozen embryo is considered a human life? Now is that

and money nowadays……Jesus has nothing to do with it anymore…. I agree – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – + If so, we can go further. + If not, the discussion is mute. Who says so? You?

Response:

+ Ahhh. OK. + You are right of course. + Many Catholics believe things that don’t even make sense. + They aren’t even sure what they believe or why they believe it. + Others have thought it all out and know what they believe. + I know I read things that peak my interest all the time. + Like Limbo going away. + It was a tough thing to envision in the first place. + It had no scripture base, but it did make sense to me… + Since I haven’t heard the term in years, I just wondered. So, you endorse false teaching to help those grieving? + Hmmmm. + What a question….. kinda like…. + So you endorse hiding the fact that your father beat your mum? She (Scout Lady) did not answer the question either. Kind of side stepped it with "I don’t consider it false teaching. It was not doctrine." So, apparently, in her view, if it is not "doctrine" it does not matter if it is true or a false belief no matter how many people believe it.

+ Then you actually asked the question in earnest? + If so, then you deserve an earnest answer. + The quick answer is "no." + I do endorse trying to help a grieving family. + I endorse telling them that God knows what is best. + I endorse telling them that "I’m sure that God has a special place for your child." + I endorse trying to lighten their burden. + I certainly tell them that God is the answer.

Response:

+ As I am saying now….. + It would be nice if some instruction took place during Mass each week – covering the sacraments, commandments, beatitudes, RCIA, etc.

I can understand the need for it but Mass is not the time for instruction, it’s a time for worship and praise. The proper place for things like that is the Parish Bulletin (which unfortunately most people chuck in the garbage every week) and proper religion discussion groups (we’re hoping to set one up in our parish this fall). We try to publish something in the bulletin each week to cover different areas that may be problematic for our parishioners — i.e. the great difference between Mass and a Liturgy of the Word with Communion which some people seem to feel are the same thing. Suzanne

Response:

"CeCe" wrote … – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I went to 12 years of catholic school in the States and I was not taught anything about doctrine. They do not teach this stuff. They also don’t make a point of telling you that what they teach may or may not be doctrine, as you pointed out is the case in Ireland. My experiences have not been much different. The only catechism we studied was the Baltimore Catechism and that is written for children only. We didn’t use it past the third grade (8 years old). It seems to me that the only catholics who are educated in this stuff are those who actively sought to learn about it. It is not offered in the schools, it is not offered during the homilies at mass, therefore a large percentage of us are very unaware.

+ I agree. I spent 12 years in Catholic grade and high school. We weren’t taught dogma. I don’t even recall any bible study. Baltimore Catechism certainly was a part of the memorization – especially the early years. I really wish there were more "instruction" in our weekly Mass. The sermon is sometimes interesting, mostly not. + Tonight at Mass, I feel I paid more attention to the heat and humidity, the twin red-headed boys in the seat in front of me, the baby in the back, the lady who always wears the blue dress, the family that brought up the "gifts," than the actual sermon. + Thank goodness we have the Nicene Creed to bring us back to what we believe, the Offertory, the Eucharist and His Precious Blood, and the simple words: "Just say the word, and my soul shall be healed!" + I do wish we had more instruction during Mass. + I sometimes wonder if people understand our Faith. + I know I certainly could learn more…..

Response:

"CeCe" wrote … It is still open, the church has not ruled on it one way or the other. They do not say it exists, but then they do not say it does not exist. You are free to choose on your own. Though I believe the current trend is to not believe. See, this is a good example of what I wrote in a previous post. I was taught as a child that Limbo existed. No one ever said that it wasn’t church doctrine. They just told us about it as if it were a fact, and we believed. That about sums up all of my catholic education. They told us stuff, we believed it, and it’s only now that I’m

+ As I am saying now….. + I spent several years overseas. + It is unbelievable some of the things you miss when you have no television for 3 or more years in a row. + For example, my kids didn’t know they needed "Jordache" jeans. + They weren’t aware of Reebok or Nikey shoes, teen magazines, "Kiss," Michael Jackson, Palmolive soap, or Kool cigarettes. + The Capital of China suddenly diappeared one time + It used to be Peking. Some new city took over: Beijiing….. + One of the most boring classes in high school was "Religion.’ + It sucked – year after year. The "Protestant Reformation" was one of the absolute worst classes….. + It would be nice if some instruction took place during Mass each week – covering the sacraments, commandments, beatitudes, RCIA, etc.

Response:

in limbo because they have not been baptized?

LOL……Are you serious? Ha ha ha…… What about the millions of non-Christians? Are they all in limbo too? Religion makes people into zombies…

Response:

"Falcon" wrote .. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "CeCe" wrote … in limbo because they have not been baptized? There is no such thing as Limbo anymore. They did away with it. + They did? + Tell me it aint so…… + Where was I when it went away? Since limbo never existed except in the false teachings of the Catholic church the Pope can arbitrarily remove it or bring it back anytime he so chooses. Limbo was never doctrine, so your claim of it being a false teaching is false in itself. How so? If Pbarker is lamenting the fact it is gone then seems to me it has been accepted by some, if not many.

+ Ouch. + Please don’t use me as one knowledgeable Catholic. + I have never claimed to know everything about my faith. + That is one main reason I came to this newsgroup in the 1st place. + I walked out of the church ( for spite) for nearly 10 years. + When I came back, I didn’t see much difference. + Limbo was taught to me 40 years ago concerning children and adults who never had the chance to know Jesus or be baptised — but led good lives — or died prior to a chance to even live a little. + I was told St Christopher was gone along with many other saints. + But, I didn’t hear that Limbo was not being taught any more. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I was even taught about limbo when I was in the dark grasps of the Catholics. False doctrine? Perhaps, but then it seems that untruth is popular. It was a theological idea that became more popular after the Jansenists declared that any child who died without being baptized was going to burn in hell. I suspect the real truth is closer to being introduced by the pagans who have added many things to the Catholic church. Man-made tradition began creeping into church teachings around 324 A.D. when Emperor Constantine made Christianity the official religion. The pagans then got into the church to gain the rights of Christians and in doing so brought in much of their pagan tradition and rituals. The pagans did this because they found Christian worship too simple after practicing their own elaborate pagan ritualistic tradition. Before this happened there were no confessionals, statues, rosaries, votive candles, holy water, images, relics, medals, vestments, scapulars, signs of the cross, prayers for the dead, purgatory, limbo, prayers to Mary and the saints, novenas, popes, priests, nuns, celibacy of clergy, sacrifices of the mass, lent, etc. Also, there were not seven sacraments; just the only two in Holy Scripture: baptism and communion. In pastoral practice many priests used the concept to help upset parents deal with the lose of a child. So, you endorse false teaching to help those grieving?

+ Hmmmm. + What a question….. kinda like…. + So you endorse hiding the fact that your father beat your mum?

Response:

"Falcon" wrote .. Limbo was never doctrine, so your claim of it being a false teaching is false in itself. How so? If Pbarker is lamenting the fact it is gone then seems to me it has been accepted by some, if not many. + Ouch. + Please don’t use me as one knowledgeable Catholic. + I have never claimed to know everything about my faith. + That is one main reason I came to this newsgroup in the 1st place.

I did not mean this as an "ouch" for you, sorry if it came across to you that way. + I walked out of the church ( for spite) for nearly 10 years. + When I came back, I didn’t see much difference. + Limbo was taught to me 40 years ago concerning children and adults who never had the chance to know Jesus or be baptised — but led good lives — or died prior to a chance to even live a little. + I was told St Christopher was gone along with many other saints. + But, I didn’t hear that Limbo was not being taught any more.

That was basically the point I was/am trying to make to a stubborn (Grin) Scout Lady. Whether it is doctrine, dogma, teaching or whatever, it is perceived as a "truth and fact" for numerous Catholics. In pastoral practice many priests used the concept to help upset parents deal with the lose of a child. So, you endorse false teaching to help those grieving? + Hmmmm. + What a question….. kinda like…. + So you endorse hiding the fact that your father beat your mum?

She (Scout Lady) did not answer the question either. Kind of side stepped it with "I don’t consider it false teaching. It was not doctrine." So, apparently, in her view, if it is not "doctrine" it does not matter if it is true or a false belief no matter how many people believe it. Ciao, Falcon #### To reply via email remove "7" from address #### # Failure is not an option # # It comes bundled with the software #

Response:

+ Lars – this could be a serious topic of discussion, if you let it. + Are you a religious person at all? Do you believe in Jesus? + If so, we can go further. + If not, the discussion is mute.

Response:

No Falcon you don’t seem to understand. Catholics are still allowed to believe in this middle state. It is based on what is known as Abrahams bosom. The theology of the concept has evolved, it doesn’t mean it was a false teaching at all. It is not a matter of faith and morals, belief in this concept does not affect Salvation in the least.

I will reluctantly agree that in and of itself belief in limbo is not a threat to salvation. The threat of limbo, as I see it, is as another teaching that undermines the power of Christ. In reflection I could wrap up a huge bunch of Catholic teaching and doctrine into that same category – The power of Christ is insufficient. Is the god of the Catholic church so small and powerless that he is unable to handle children who die and has to tuck them into a special place? The Lord I worship is not bound by such inadequacies and certainly does not need to have His children, young or old, tucked away into a place, be it limbo or purgatory, to "finish" what was accomplished and completed on the cross. Have you been talking to Peter Terry? No. Nor the Pope. Just listening to the Holy Spirit. Me too. He tells me to help you see the light.

(Grin) At least you maintain some sense of humor at times. There is no doubt that some traditions, (note that is with a small t) are the result of pagan influences, the Church doesn’t deny it. They are not matters of faith and morals. But if they become teachings that beguile people are they not just as real no matter if they are "t"radition or not? No Falcon. These traditions of which you speak do not beguile people. It is your rejection of Catholicism that leads you to believe that they do. It doesn’t mean that it is.

It is not due to rejection of Catholicism, it is due to the convictions that I have within myself, convictions that compel me to proclaim the truth of God. Yes, you will insert the phrase "truth as you see it" into that, so be it. Before this happened there were no confessionals, statues, rosaries, votive candles, holy water, images, relics, medals, vestments, scapulars, signs of the cross, prayers for the dead, purgatory, limbo, prayers to Mary and the saints, novenas, popes, priests, nuns, celibacy of clergy, sacrifices of the mass, lent, etc. Also, there were not seven sacraments; just the only two in Holy Scripture: baptism and communion. Nope, don’t buy all of this. Of course you don’t, you would rather embrace what you want and deny what is not convenient. What an ignorant statement from one who choose the path of easy believism.

That is a new term for me, had not heard that one before. If I decode this term correctly you are saying that we Protestants have it easy since we just have to believe with faith and that’s all we need. Just isn’t that way. We too have the need for cleansing while on this earth. We too are bound by the commands of our Lord and we too strive to become acceptable before God. We too have works of faith. The fundamental difference, as it seems to be, is that our works of faith are to help us with repentance, cleansing of our sinful nature, glorifying God and being a living testimony to the power of Christ while the Catholics see works of faith as "earning" their righteousness and as working their way into heaven. Earning points, so to speak, to reduce purgatory time. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – There were 7 Sacraments from the beginning. The way they were celibrated may have changed, but they were always there.Many of the things you mention were carried over from Judaism. I realize your Bible is missing a few books, it was easy for the Protestants to gnore whatever didn’t fit in. The Sacrifice, note, there is only one Sacrifice is the same Sacrifice that was made on Calvary. It is beyond time and space. Every Mass brings us to the foot of the Cross. In pastoral practice many priests used the concept to help upset parents deal with the lose of a child. So, you endorse false teaching to help those grieving? I don’t consider it false teaching. It was not doctrine. If limbo does not exist it is false no matter what label you put on it. No Falcon. You seem to think Limbo is your ticket to destroy Catholicism. I assure you it is not. Many theological theories have come and gone. I’m sure if I knew what school you follow I could point out the same to you.

No, I am not so naive as to think the concept of limbo is the downfall of the Catholic church. Limbo is just another part of the way Catholics have been taught to think. Just another of many ways that the falsehoods are allowed to remain as part of coming from the church and just one more way that the sufficiency of Christ is lowered. Tell me your flavor of Protestantism, and a little bit of time, and we’ll see how different concepts have been replaced with more sound theology. Or….are you one of those people who are afraid to tell what flavor they are? Tell you what Falcon. Write out an outline of your beliefs. We’ll take it from there. I do not understand your "flavor" term. Not being obtuse, just want to be on the same page. What church did you get saved in Falcon?

Actually I was saved at a kitchen table back in the late ’70s. Was it baptist, church of Christ, or was it one of those nondenominational flavors that follows the Protestant school of thought but decided the early reformers had it wrong to?

It was actually at the start of a bible study hosted by a group called The Navigators. So, technically, the answer is non-denominational. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I understand you need to point fingers at the Church you left. I have been there myself. It makes it easier to ignore the pit in the bottom of your stomach everytime you think about what you have done. The doubts. It never goes away Falcon. You either learn to live with it, or you sit down and find out the real truth about Catholicism. I say this with love. I would be willing to discuss anything at all with you, if you are willing to open your mind and heart. I do not wish to convert you, I only want to show you what you missed the first time around. I will and do say the same to you. As much as you might think me attacking the Catholics, it is not, it is trying to shine a light on the darkness out of caring and move, not hatred and judgement. If you wish to shine light, you will not continue to post fundie lies to this group. Your sacrifices of the Mass was a large sign showing that you did not understand Catholicism as a Catholic, as it is a fundie deception. One can not shine light if he himself is in darkness. Remember to remove the plank in your eye first. Tell me Falcon, what was your experience with Catholicism? How long were you a practicing Catholic before someone convinced you that you were in error? Don’t give me any crappola about the Holy Spirit telling you because that would be a lie. Someone from somewhere whispered in your ear and that person was from this world, not heaven.

In truth, no one whispered in my ear. The whole family was Catholic, it was just part of the culture and life I grew up in. I really cannot pin it down to an event or a sudden awakening or anything like that. It just "felt" wrong to me. I could never fully wrap myself around the rituals, the notion that God would require us to worship in such a "confined" manner prescribed by the church. There was no big "Moment of Decision" it was a slow drift away from something that was totally unfulfilling to me. Empty and hollow ritual that seemed more focused on doing the right movements, chanting the right words, doing the prescribed ceremonies while all the time wondering why the priest had to speak in latin and not let us know what he was saying during mass. A lot of little things like that just felt wrong to me. It all just seemed to have no substance and to be more form and function instead of God. I wandered spiritually for several years. No church, no nothing except a feeling inside that God is real and "out there" somewhere. Even dabbled on the fringes of the occult for a very short time until I got the "Hell" scared out of, so to speak. Other than attending a funeral or marriage type thing I never set foot in any church for many many years. Then, through a set of circumstances with my first wife, and somewhat reluctantly, I found myself at that kitchen table with three other men that developed into an intensive two year long bible study. Tell me the truth if you have the guts,

By the way, just so you know. I have never lied to you nor will I ever tell you a lie. I am not wired that way and have no need to lie to you about myself or my convictions. Don’t give me any crappola….Tell me the truth if you have the guts, if not, you are wasting my time.

A bit confrontational and defensive are you? When I get a little cranky I find it helps to remember I am not perfect and that I need to let my own thoughts go and listen to God. Galatians 5:22-23 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control;" Ciao, Falcon #### To reply via email remove "7" from address #### # Failure is not an option # # It comes bundled with the software #

Response:

in limbo because they have not been baptized? There is no such thing as Limbo anymore. They did away with it. It is still open, the church has not ruled on it one way or the other. They do not say it exists, but then they do not say it does not exist. You are free to choose on your own. Though I believe the current trend is to not believe.

See, this is a good example of what I wrote in a previous post. I was taught as a child that Limbo existed. No one ever said that it wasn’t church doctrine. They just told us about it as if it were a fact, and we believed. That about sums up all of my catholic education. They told us stuff, we believed it, and it’s only now that I’m CeCe — I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use. –Galileo Galilei

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Oh here we go. Another Catholic that has seen the light. I don’t deny that it was taught for many years. I deny that it was ever Catholic doctrine. You do understand the difference I hope. Sure there is a difference, no denying that. But it was taught nonetheless and many have believed and that is not to be denied. Just because it is not doctrine does not mean the teaching is any less false. You do understand, I hope. Having spent some time growing up in very Catholic Ireland, I know that many there would not have told the difference between something the priest taught and doctrine. Most accepted the words of a priest as almost infallible. If a priest said it then it had to be believed. Know I know many Catholics these days are more educated in their faith, but I still wonder how many things catholics take as doctrine which actually are not.

Probably way more than you think. I went to 12 years of catholic school in the States and I was not taught anything about doctrine. They do not teach this stuff. They also don’t make a point of telling you that what they teach may or may not be doctrine, as you pointed out is the case in Ireland. My experiences have not been much different. The only catechism we studied was the Baltimore Catechism and that is written for children only. We didn’t use it past the third grade (8 years old). It seems to me that the only catholics who are educated in this stuff are those who actively sought to learn about it. It is not offered in the schools, it is not offered during the homilies at mass, therefore a large percentage of us are very unaware. CeCe — I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use. –Galileo Galilei

Response:

in limbo because they have not been baptized? There is no such thing as Limbo anymore. They did away with it.

It is still open, the church has not ruled on it one way or the other. They do not say it exists, but then they do not say it does not exist. You are free to choose on your own. Though I believe the current trend is to not believe. — Alan Ferris eligo, ergo sum Atheist #1211 EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div. When the only colour is black – the only sound the broken bell THEN talk to me about why. Spike Milligan www.arcerland.com ICQ UIN: 12811297

Response:

Oh here we go. Another Catholic that has seen the light. I don’t deny that it was taught for many years. I deny that it was ever Catholic doctrine. You do understand the difference I hope. Sure there is a difference, no denying that. But it was taught nonetheless and many have believed and that is not to be denied. Just because it is not doctrine does not mean the teaching is any less false. You do understand, I hope.

Having spent some time growing up in very Catholic Ireland, I know that many there would not have told the difference between something the priest taught and doctrine. Most accepted the words of a priest as almost infallible. If a priest said it then it had to be believed. Know I know many Catholics these days are more educated in their faith, but I still wonder how many things catholics take as doctrine which actually are not. — Alan Ferris eligo, ergo sum Atheist #1211 EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div. When the only colour is black – the only sound the broken bell THEN talk to me about why. Spike Milligan www.arcerland.com ICQ UIN: 12811297

Response:

in limbo because they have not been baptized?

Response:

in limbo because they have not been baptized?

There is no such thing as Limbo anymore. They did away with it. CeCe — I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use. –Galileo Galilei

Response:

"CeCe" wrote … in limbo because they have not been baptized? There is no such thing as Limbo anymore. They did away with it.

+ They did? + Tell me it aint so…… + Where was I when it went away?

Response:

Ping: Pete

admin — Sun, 27 May 2001 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Cracker worshipping is BLASPHEMY. PERIOD. God is NOT put into a cracker by any man and subsequently worshipped, including your feeble minded polish actor pope. Sola Scriptura says: Take. This is my body. This is my blood. Checkmate, goodbye.

Do this in *MEMORY* of me, yes, good riddance to you and your Cracker worshipping. Glad I could point you down the right path. Peace of Christ be with you. — Fish <

- The Melchizedek Fraud Which is The Catholic Church

admin — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

I was somewhat hasty in the prepration of my initial post. Its lack of clarity has caused the usual respondents to draw erroneous conclusions. Consequently an amended comment is resubmitted to the newsgroups. My apologies for any inconvenience. THE OFFICE OF PRIEST & THE MELCHIZEDEK FRAUD http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/checksum.html#WORK In the Chapter entitled ‘Is God Particular?’ http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/particular.html#KABBALAH we examined the notion that within Orthodox Christianity, there emerged a theological conception that ‘humans are a microcosm of the universe and that which is shared, the essence of all things, is God.’ [John Scotus Eriugena (c.810-c.877); Ref: History of Mysticism - http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/mind.html#HISTORY ] Such a view of the Transcendent Nature of God http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/destitute.html#COSMOLOGY drew its impetus from an evolutionary development in the theological schemas of the day. Most popular amongst them and that which were still deployed by the time of St. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1275 CE – http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/octahedron.html#MARRY), was the angelic mystical schema proposed by the 6th century theologian Dionysius the Areopagite (Pseudo-Dionysius). Dionysius originated the distinction between cataphatic and apophatic theology and in his treatise, ‘The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy’, sought to establish angelic orders of intelligences which were reflected in the structure of the earthly church and presupposed to formed a continuum between God and the believer. These they typically classed into three Hierarchies, appointing them their respective offices in the performance of the word and will of God: First Order (Those closest to God); Second Order (Composed of the priest-princes of the court of heaven) and the Third Order (Constituted by the ministering angels). [Davidson, Dictionary of Angels, 1967] Pope Innocent III in his 1198 CE mystical treatise on Empire and Papacy, seeming draws upon these mythological allegories when he accordingly defines the Papal authority, as "The creator of the universe set up two great luminaries in the firmament of heaven; the greater light to rule the day, the lesser light to rule the night. In the same way for the firmament of the universal Church, which is spoken of as heaven, he appointed two great dignities; the greater to bear rule over souls (these being, as it were, days), the lesser to bear rule over bodies (those being, as it were, nights). These dignities are the pontifical authority and the royal power. Furthermore, the moon derives her light from the sun, and is in truth inferior to the sun in both size and quality, in position as well as effect. In the same way the royal power derives its dignity from the pontifical authority: and the more closely it cleaves to the sphere of that authority the less is the light with which it is adorned; the further it is removed, the more it increases in splendor." ['Pope Innocent III on Empire and Papacy 'The Moon and the Sun' Sicut universitatis conditor. Ep. i, 401, October 1198 P.L. ccxiv. 337. Mirbt, no. 326; Ref: Courtesy Michael Scheifler's Bible Light - http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/vatican.htm ] It is the understanding of the metaphysical nature http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/philadelphia.html#METATHESIS of these transcendent hierarchies intrinsically conveyed by priestly orders of service and systems of exegesis which provides the opportunity to piece together one of Scriptures and the Dead Sea Scrolls biggest puzzles: "You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers, who have received the law by the direction of angels and have not kept it. When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at with with their teeth. But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and said, ‘Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!." [Acts of the Apostles 7:51-56] There is no doubt that the Christian Theology on this priestly order is intrinsically connected to King David’s 365-day solar calendar and its 24 orders of priestly service: "And David {well-beloved, dear}, son of Jesse {gift; oblation; one who is – http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/keyofdavid.html#MERARI }, was wise, and a light like light of the sun, and learned, and discerning, and perfect in all his paths before God and men. And Yahweh gave him a discerning and enlightened spirit. And he wrote psalms: three thousand six hundred; and songs to be sung before the altar over the perpetual offering of every day, for all the days of the year: three hundred and sixty-four; and for the sabbath offerings: fifty-two songs; and for the offerings of the first days of the months, and for all the days of the festivals, and for the Day of Atonement: thirty songs. And all the songs which he spoke were four hundred and forty-six. And the songs to perform over the possessed: four. The total was four thousand and fifty. All these he spoke through the spirit of prophecy which had been given to him from before the Most High." [11Q5 - 11QPsalms Col. XXVII:2-11, DSS BRILL 1998:1179] Who or what is the Priestly Order of Melchizedek? "Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. For He testifies: ‘You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.’ For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God." [Hebrews 7:11-19] Sufficient Dead Sea Scroll fragments remain to be able to obtain and extrapolate the essential theological elements. The Priestly Order of Melchizedek appears comprised of an elite priestly class: "Praise the God of all the august heights, all (you) eternal holy ones, those second among the priests of the inner sanctum, the second council in the wonderful dwellings among the seven…among all those having knowledge of eternal things. And exalt him, you chiefs of the princes with his wonderful portion. Praise the God of gods, … you seven priesthoods of his inner sanctum… height, seven wonderful territories, in the regulations of his sanctuaries, the chiefs of the princes of the wonderful priesthoods of Mechizedek?" [11Q17 - 11QSongs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, DSS BRILL 1998:1213] – dolf Which is our point. The Catholic Church has been teaching what the Apostles taught for 2000 years. It’s you Protestants who claim to be ignorant of what the Apostles taught, not us. I’m not sure what that entirely says about your claim to be both Christian and ignorant–Perhaps it implies a state of spiritual medocrity and hypocrisy.

Sounds more like you than me. After all, I quote the Early Church Fathers, not ancient greek homosexuals, when talking aobut my religion. [snipped for context]

Response:

The Office of New Testament Priest by James Akin In both Old and New Testaments, there are three ranks of priests, which are commonly referred to as the high priests, the ministerial priests, and the universal priests. At the time of the Exodus the high priest was Aaron (Ex. 31:30), the ministerial priests were his four sons (Ex. 28:21; the sons were Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar, the first two of which were killed for abusing their priestly duties), and the universal priests were the people of Israel as a whole (Exodus 19:6). Prior to this time, there had been neither a high priest nor had God elected all of Israel as universal priests. There was only the ministerial priesthood, which appears to have resided in the firstborn male of each family. The existence of the pre-Aaronic ministerial priesthood is shown in Exodus 19:22 and 24, which differentiate the priests from the people but occur before the establishment in the Aaronic priesthood in Exodus 28. The fact that the ministerial priests were held by the firstborn is suggested (though not proven) by the exchange of the priestly tribe of Levi for the firstborn of Israel in Numbers 3. In any event, the three-fold model of the priesthood which was in use at the time of Aaron was carried over into the New Testament and thus we find there also a high priest, ministerial priests, and universal priests. In the New Testament age the high priest is Jesus Christ (Heb. 3:1), the ministerial priests are Christ’s ordained ministers of the gospel (Rom. 15:16), and the universal priests are the entire Christian people (1 Peter. 2:5, 9). So the Bible clearly states that all Christians are priests (1 Peter 2:5, 9), as the Catholic Church clearly teaches for all who bother to read its teachings, see Catechism of the Catholic Church 1141-4, 1268, 1305, 1535, 1547, 1591-2 on the common priesthood. But the Bible also said the same thing about the Israelites (Ex. 19:6), yet this did not prevent there from being a separate, ministerial priesthood even before the Law of Moses was given (Ex. 19:22, 24). Furthermore, since the top, Old Testament office of high priest corresponds to Jesus, the New Testament high priest, and since the bottom, Old Testament universal priesthood corresponds to the New Testament universal priesthood, the middle, ministerial priesthood in the Old Testament corresponds to a middle, ministerial priesthood in the New Testament. This priesthood is identical with the office of elder. In fact, the term "priest" is simply a shortened, English version of the Greek word for "elder" — presbuteros — as any dictionary will confirm. This is any some Old Catholic translations render the word as "priests" where Protestant Bibles have "elder." For example, in the Douay-Rheims Bible (the Catholic equivalent of the King James Version) we read: "For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldst ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee" (Titus 1:5). "Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil, in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man; and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him" (James 5:14-15). We also see in the New Testament that the functions of the Old Testament elder — who served in the synagogue — have been fused with the functions of the Old Testament priest — whose served in the temple. We can see the fusion of the two concepts in Romans 15:15-16. In the New International Version of this passage, we read: "I have written you quite boldly on some points, as if to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty [literally, "the priestly work"] of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit." Paul tells us that because he has been given a calling as a professional minister of Christ, he has a priestly work of preaching the gospel so that the Gentiles may be an offering — a sacrifice to God. This is not something only he has. Every elder in every church has that same "priestly work" of preaching the gospel. So Paul here conceives of the office of the New Testament minister as a priestly office. Notice that the hearers of the gospel in this passage are not depicted as priests, but as the sacrifice to God. Paul draws a distinction between himself and his work of preaching the gospel, and his readers and their duty of hearing it. It is the minister, not the congregation, who is here pictured as priest. A second passage revealing the fusion of the offices of Old Testament elder and Old Testament priest is Revelation 5:8, where we read: "And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints." Here we have the twenty-four heavenly elders (presbyteroi) depicted as offering incense to God in bowls, just as the Old Testament priests did with their own gold incense bowls (Num. 7:84-86). It is especially important to note that this was a function only priests could perform, as indicated a few chapters later, in Numbers 16, which records the story of Korah’s rebellion. This story concerns precisely the issue which is before us today: Whether the fact that all believers are priests means that there is no ministerial priesthood. Korah said it does mean that, and he gathered a rebellion against Moses and Aaron to usurp the priesthood from them. Numbers 16 says: "Now Korah . . . and Dathan and Abiram . . . took men; and they rose up before Moses, with a number of the people of Israel, two hundred and fifty leaders of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men; and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said . . . ‘You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?’ When Moses heard it, he fell on his face; and he said . . . ‘In the morning the LORD will show who is his, and who is holy . . . Do this: take censers . . . put fire in them and put incense upon them before the LORD tomorrow, and the man whom the LORD chooses shall be the holy one. You have gone too far, sons of Levi! . . . [I]s it too small a thing for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the congregation of Israel . . . would you seek the priesthood also? Therefore it is against the LORD that you and all your company have gathered together; what is Aaron that you murmur against him?’" (Num. 16:1-11). After this you can guess what happened. The men loaded up their censers and tried to offer incense before the Lord, but God caused the earth to open its mouth and swallow up Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, then he caused fire to come out of the Tabernacle and swallow up the two hundred and fifty men offering incense, showing that they were not to be priests, not the ones to offer incense, even though God had said that in one sense the whole congregation were priests. Thus, in the Old Testament God was willing to kill people that are not priests who offer incense to him. So when we see the elders (presbyteroi) doing so in his heavenly temple, we must infer that they are priests. A fusion of the office of elder and priest has taken place. Scripture takes the distinction between clergy and laity very seriously. Both Old and New Testaments warn people against assuming an office to which they have not been ordained. For example, I direct your attention to Jude 11, a verse most people gloss over when they read the book. That verse discusses various wicked Church leaders and states, "Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error, and perish in Korah’s rebellion." It is therefore possible for people, even in the New Testament, to perish in Korah’s rebellion by usurping the office of the priesthood. And notice that it is not only those who actually perform the priestly duties that are subject to death, but those who follow those that have usurped priestly duties. God also killed those lay people who merely supported Korah and his pseudo-priests. Moses also had to intercede to keep God from killing those in the congregation who merely supported Korah, even though they did not themselves offer incense. Later, when the people grumbled after Korah was dead, Moses again had to intervene to stop God from killing them all, but almost 15,000 of them died anyway for being followers of Korah. It is against this sin that the book of Jude warns us, because the same thing can happen in the New Testament age. We cannot confine the warning against Korah’s rebellion to the Old Testament age. Jude tells us it was going on in his day as well. Just as Korah, Dathan, and Abiram came along and said, "Hey, in Exodus 19 God said we are all priests, so we don’t need a ministerial priesthood; we can do that ourselves!" today people come along and say, "Hey, in 1st Peter God said we are all priests, so we don’t need a ministerial priesthood; we can do that ourselves!" Finally, we can see the fusion of the offices of elder and priest in the fact that the church is a combination of the Old Testament synagogue (where the teaching occurred) and the Old Testament temple (where the sacrifice occurred). The New Testament church incorporates both of these elements, with the liturgy of the word (teaching) and the liturgy of the Eucharist (sacrifice), which has been the structure of Christian worship since the first century. This brings us to the principle sacrifice of the New Testament priesthood, which is the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper. To see the … read more »

Response:

Have you done any studies on the cultus of Melchizedek?

Do I care? The Apostles taught this, just look at the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The problem with you, Dolf, is that you think if the same word is used in two different cultures from centuries apart, it must be the same culture. That’s as much of a lie as anything else I’ve ever seen. Ted – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Which is our point. The Catholic Church has been teaching what the Apostles taught for 2000 years. It’s you Protestants who claim to be ignorant of what the Apostles taught, not us. I’m not sure what that entirely says about your claim to be both Christian and ignorant–Perhaps it implies a state of spiritual medocrity and hypocrisy. Sounds more like you than me. After all, I quote the Early Church Fathers, not ancient greek homosexuals, when talking aobut my religion. [snipped for context]

– Theodore Michael Seeber Coo! he’s the remedial beer. Check out the

Response:

Have you done any studies on the cultus of Melchizedek? I ask this because one of the earliest order schemas was that of the early 6th century theologian Dionysius the Areopagite (Pseudo-Dionysius). His Celestial Hierarchy was the most influential treatise in Christian angelology and received added authority when adopted many centuries later by Thomas Aquinas, which he articulates in his Summa Theologica. Generally ancient authors define nine orders as the Ennead of these celestial spirits, of which, only the last two ‘Archangels and Angels’ were regarded as having human contact: 1 – Seraphim {Uriel – Fire of God, Regent of the Sun}; 2 – Cherubim {Jophiel – ?}; 3 – Thrones {Japhkiel – ?}; 4 – Dominions {Zadkiel – Righteousness of God}; 5 – Virtues {Haniel (Simiel, Onoel, Hamiel, Anael) – Glory or Grace of God/He who sees God; Reputed to have transported Enoch to heaven}; 6 – Powers {Raphael – God has healed, Angel of healing, science and knowledge}; 7 – Principalities {Camael/Kemuel – Personification of Divine Justice}; 8 – Archangels {Michael – Who is as God?, Tutelary Prince of Israel, Angel of repentance}; 9 – Angels. According to the another Dionysian work, The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, the angelic orders are reflected in the structure of the earthly church and therefore form a continuum between God and the believer. These they classed into Three Hierarchies, appointing them their respective offices in the performance of the word and will of God: First Order (Those closest to God); Second Order (Composed of the priest-princes of the court of heaven) and the third order (Constituted by the ministering angels). [Davidson, Dictionary of Angels, 1967] It is the understanding of these hierarchies as priestly orders of service and systems of exegesis which provides the opportunity to piece together one of Scriptures and the Dead Sea Scrolls biggest puzzles? Who or what is the Priestly Order of Melchizedek? "Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. For He testifies: ‘You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.’ For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God." [Hebrews 7:11-19] The Priestly Order of Melchezidek appears comprised of an elite priestly class: "Praise the God of all the august heights, all (you) eternal holy ones, those second among the priests of the inner sanctum, the second council in the wondeful dwellings among the seven…among all those having knowledge of eternal things. And exalt him, you chiefs of the princes with his wonderful portion. Praise the God of gods, … you seven priesthoods of his inner sanctum… height, seven wonderful territories, in the regulations of his sanctuaries, the chiefs of the princes of the wonderful priesthoods of Mechizedek?" [11Q17 - 11QSongs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, DSS BRILL 1998: 1213] There is no doubt that the theology of this priestly order is intrinsically connected to King David’s 365-day solar calendar and its 24 orders of priestly service. Sufficient fragments remain to be able to obtain and extrapolate the essential theological elements. – dolf Which is our point. The Catholic Church has been teaching what the Apostles taught for 2000 years. It’s you Protestants who claim to be ignorant of what the Apostles taught, not us. I’m not sure what that entirely says about your claim to be both Christian and ignorant–Perhaps it implies a state of spiritual medocrity and hypocrisy.

Sounds more like you than me. After all, I quote the Early Church Fathers, not ancient greek homosexuals, when talking aobut my religion. [snipped for context]