Define a "Sharp" person?
LeMel HW
ICC'ers and Nons, what are "sharp" people?
Catherine Hampton
: >ICC'ers and Nons, what are "sharp" people?
: Any pointy-headed intellectual.
Three fingers pointing back atcha, I guess, Gintas.
<BIG wicked grin>
Catherine
Catherine Hampton
: ICC'ers and Nons, what are "sharp" people?
I don't know -- when I am weak-minded enough to start classifying people,
I at least pick a less lame designation than this.
Catherine
Gintas Jazbutis
In article <4t5d9a$9...@nntp1.best.com>, ar...@nntp.best.com (Catherine Hampton) wrote:
>: >ICC'ers and Nons, what are "sharp" people?
>
>
>Three fingers pointing back atcha, I guess, Gintas.
>
><BIG wicked grin>
>
>Catherine
I will neither confirm nor deny any allegations that I am
a pointy-headed intellectual.
Gintas
-------------------------------
Gintas Jazbutis
gin...@concentric.net
Starr
lem...@aol.com (LeMel HW) wrote:
>ICC'ers and Nons, what are "sharp" people?
the ones with the biggest knives....
:P
<puts hands in pockets, whistling....>
Scott W. Schreiber
ov...@aol.com (Ovum) wrote:
I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS!!
My Server must have missed the latest barage of Roger-mail! Maybe
it's AI........
Anyway...I would really really like it if someone could email me the
orriginal to this one...PLEASE.
>In article <rognmichD...@netcom.com>, rogn...@netcom.com
>(Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) writes:
>
>>Apollos became a significant figure in the Corinth Church of Christ
>>(affiliated with the International Churches of Christ) according to 1 Cor
>
>
>Roger,
>
>How can the ICC be affiliated with the 1st century church if it's doctrine
>was only discovered in 1979 (or was it 1986) by Kip McKean?
DJRTX
Just curious. Has anyone received a response from an e-mailed question to
the ICC's webmaster?
Joanne
Ian Euguene Charleton
On 29 Jul 1996, DJRTX wrote:
> Just curious. Has anyone received a response from an e-mailed question to
> the ICC's webmaster?
I mailed a whole slew of questions starting in late April/early May and
the only response I got was from a different address asking why I was
being pushy after I mailed a follow up email after three weeks of
silence from them. They requested that I mail it again, but as of yet,
no response. I can't say as I blame them, answering my questions
honestly would have blemished their all-so-important image too much.
I've pretty much given up on them to answer anything at all. I didn't
even get a dance lesson ;)
--Ian
nancy
On Jul 29, 1996 06:43:45 in article <Re: What About Simon Magus?>,
'eos...@aol.com (EOshiro)' wrote:
>ovum asks:
>>How can the ICC be affiliated with the 1st century church if it's
>doctrine
>>was only discovered in 1979 (or was it 1986) by Kip McKean?
>
>
>Yeah, I know, most of you don't agree with the concept, but that the
>premise the ICC works on.
So did Kip go to Jerusalem to find the first century doctrine, or to the
Vatican???
Or maybe he wondered around the catacombs of Rome, until it came to
him.....
nancy
Jeetendra Manghani
the Real Heretics Please Stand up_ by Bercot. He's discovered
quite a few interesting tidbits about the early church, that he's
come to the conclusion that modern day Christianity has strayed far
from what Christianity was meant to be. Very, very, very
interesting book.
Oh, you baptism folks, you should read it too, because it has some
very good insight about what the early Christians taught about
baptism and works. And this is written by a non-ICC member!
Jeetendra Manghani
member of San Diego Church of Christ
EOshiro
DAnder9518
In article <4ti4l1$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, eos...@aol.com (EOshiro)
writes:
Eric -- first of all, thanks for qualifying your response. It really
helps to keep things civil when you say "this is the premise the ICC works
on", instead of stating the ICC position as *fact*.
But consider the implications of this premise: If Kip truly
*rediscovered* the doctrine of the first century church, then for hundreds
of years there wasn't a "true" church. And the prophesies about a
"kingdom that will never pass away" or a church that "the gates of Hell
will not prevail against", have failed.
So you see that this *premise* produces inconsistencies. This is strong
evidence of a FALSE premise.
$.02,
Dave
EOshiro
Dave writes:
>But consider the implications of this premise: If Kip truly
>*rediscovered* the doctrine of the first century church, then for
hundreds
>of years there wasn't a "true" church. And the prophesies about a
>"kingdom that will never pass away" or a church that "the gates of Hell
>will not prevail against", have failed.
I can't say that I believe that the true church doctrine actually ever
completely disappeared (or got deformed too much), since I don't know the
history of every church on Earth. For all I know, it could have been
perfectly preserved in some isolated "lost" town in the middle of nowhere,
Europe. Besides, I've never been entirely clear on those quoted phrases
you used. I mean, weren't certain things given in the Mosaic law
described as "everlasting?" Also, I've heard the argument that if the
Catholic church was so wrong before Martin Luther came along, where was
the church before that?
DJRTX
I neglected to mention I e-mailed a question to the ICC's webmaster a few
weeks after the ICC's web site appeared. To date, there has been no
response. What is perplexing is my question requested information which
would settle a disagreement between myself and someone else, where I was
actually *defending* the ICC!
Joanne
Scott W. Schreiber
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>Also, I've heard the argument that if the
>Catholic church was so wrong before Martin Luther came along, where was
>the church before that?
Which just goes to show you that "The Church," "The Kingdom," "The
True Church" are all things that are NOT visible to man. There is
absolutely, positively NO WAY that ANY group can claim to be the
exclusive organization following God and doing it right. You can't
label it ICC and say it's "the kingdom." It may consist partly of
some members of the Kingdom of God, but it is not the sole Kingdom of
God. There are others who are not ICC members who ARE in the Kingdom
of God.
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
Scott W. Schreiber (sco...@nhr.com) wrote:
: ov...@aol.com (Ovum) wrote:
: I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS!!
: My Server must have missed the latest barage of Roger-mail! Maybe
: it's AI........
: Anyway...I would really really like it if someone could email me the
: orriginal to this one...PLEASE.
: >In article <rognmichD...@netcom.com>, rogn...@netcom.com
: >(Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) writes:
: >
: >>Apollos became a significant figure in the Corinth Church of Christ
: >>(affiliated with the International Churches of Christ) according to 1 Cor
: >
: >
: >Roger,
: >
: >How can the ICC be affiliated with the 1st century church if it's doctrine
: >was only discovered in 1979 (or was it 1986) by Kip McKean?
The 'doctrine of the ICC' is simply the Old and New Testament. We simply
believe in following only the Scriptures as God's Word. Okay, maybe
"affiliated with the International Churches of Christ" can't be supported
by the historical record. But if they find "Disciple=Christian=Saved" in
some Dead Sea Scroll manuscript, we'll see who has the last laugh! :)
Roger Poehlmann
member, SF Church of Christ
(International Church of Christ)
R.L. Measures
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960729...@jove.acs.unt.edu>,
For a comparison, Ian, you could write to the Vatican and ask them why
they don't go back to the way things were before 1123 when priests could
marry?
Authoritarian sects are simply not set up to answer YOUR questions. They
are set up to give YOU the questions AND the answers.
--Rich--
805-386-3734
DAnder9518
In article <4tkqqs$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, eos...@aol.com (EOshiro)
writes:
>>But consider the implications of this premise: If Kip truly
>>*rediscovered* the doctrine of the first century church, then for
>hundreds
>>of years there wasn't a "true" church. And the prophesies about a
>>"kingdom that will never pass away" or a church that "the gates of Hell
>>will not prevail against", have failed.
>I can't say that I believe that the true church doctrine actually ever
>completely disappeared (or got deformed too much), since I don't know the
>history of every church on Earth. For all I know, it could have been
>perfectly preserved in some isolated "lost" town in the middle of
nowhere,
>Europe.
Not according to Kip:
"When you preach who is really saved: that you gotta have faith, you
gotta repent, you gotta *become* a true disciple of Jesus, and then you
gotta be water immersed . . . that excludes all other denominations, . .
. everybody else that's out there."
Kip McKean, "Preach the Word," August 1995.
Tracy Kreckman
In <4tkqqs$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) writes:
>Dave writes:
>
>>But consider the implications of this premise: If Kip truly
>>*rediscovered* the doctrine of the first century church, then for
>hundreds
>>of years there wasn't a "true" church. And the prophesies about a
>>"kingdom that will never pass away" or a church that "the gates of Hell
>>will not prevail against", have failed.
>
>I can't say that I believe that the true church doctrine actually ever
>completely disappeared (or got deformed too much), since I don't know
the
>history of every church on Earth. For all I know, it could have been
>perfectly preserved in some isolated "lost" town in the middle of
nowhere,
phrases
>you used. I mean, weren't certain things given in the Mosaic law
>Catholic church was so wrong before Martin Luther came along, where
was
>the church before that?
I think Dave's point is this: God is omnipotent and has the power to
fulfill His promises, and is more powerful than Satan. It would not
make sense that the "true church" would lie dormant somewhere for so
much of human history, causing so many in the last two thousand years
never to have the chance to come to a saving faith in Jesus Christ. It
would (and has) been a powerful force of change since the advent of
Christ. Although it would be a thin argument, because the Catholic
church was so prevelant in the first millenium AD, one might reason
that there were a significant number of people in it who were saved.
Personally, I believe that although there are many stumbling blocks in
the Catholic church, if someone has truly repented of their sins and
trusts Jesus with their whole heart for their salvation, they'll be
saved, whether Catholic, Protestant or whatever.
Tracy
Chris Garland
Rich, there are plenty of Catholic web sites where priests WILL give you
answers to a lot of your questions. I learned a great deal about the RCC
from priests on these sites. There are even Catholic chat rooms on AOL
with priests as the monitors.
This is entirely different from ICC leadership, which refuses to answer a
single question posed at their web site. Your comparison doesn't hold
water.
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
Chris Garland (chr...@village.ios.com) wrote:
: meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R.L. Measures) wrote:
: >In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960729...@jove.acs.unt.edu>,
: >Ian Euguene Charleton <iec...@jove.acs.unt.edu> wrote:
: >
: >> On 29 Jul 1996, DJRTX wrote:
: >>
: >> > Just curious. Has anyone received a response from an e-mailed question to
: >> > the ICC's webmaster?
: >Authoritarian sects are simply not set up to answer YOUR questions. They
: >are set up to give YOU the questions AND the answers.
: This is entirely different from ICC leadership, which refuses to answer a
: single question posed at their web site. Your comparison doesn't hold
: water.
I don't have any personal experience with "authoritarian sects". As a
7-year member of the ICC, I have seen thousands of people come to church
services, ask all kinds of questions, and receive answers, usually from
the Scriptures.
What, you think that Kip, all the evangelists and elders sit around a big
table with computer monitors all day answering questions like, "So what
does the ICC teach about baptism?", "Where's the New Testament,
non-Pauline epistle that mentions tithing, huh?", and "Can you please
FedEx me the last five years of financial documentation for all the ICC
churches (with original expense receipts) so I can more effectively
persecute your church?"
I just don't think so.
Scott W. Schreiber
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>What, you think that Kip, all the evangelists and elders sit around a big
>table with computer monitors all day .....
{big time snipped}
IMO That was a pretty stupid response.
If they aren't going to answer questions, why put a place on the page
to ASK them in the first place?!?!
BTW, I have asked doctrinal questions of an Anabaptist webmaster, and
I suppose if they had any members like you Roger, they might be able
to view them as persacutory questions. Anyway, I was given the
courtesy of a prompt and VERY thourough answer.
ATredway1
I guess a sharp person is someone who appears to be in control of their
lives. For the most part they are intelligent, finacially stable,
sociable.
Ian Euguene Charleton
On Wed, 31 Jul 1996, Roger/Michelle Poehlmann wrote:
> What, you think that Kip, all the evangelists and elders sit around a big
> table with computer monitors all day answering questions like, "So what
> does the ICC teach about baptism?", "Where's the New Testament,
> non-Pauline epistle that mentions tithing, huh?", and "Can you please
> FedEx me the last five years of financial documentation for all the ICC
> churches (with original expense receipts) so I can more effectively
> persecute your church?"
I don't believe that they just sit and wait on our inquiries to come in,
but the very least they could do is answer our questions. If they
weren't going to take the time to answer our questions, why provide the
email address? Just for my own personal curiosity, would you please
define persecution in your own words?
--Ian
Starr
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
<snip>
>What, you think that Kip, all the evangelists and elders sit around a big
>table with computer monitors all day answering questions like, "So what
>does the ICC teach about baptism?", "Where's the New Testament,
>non-Pauline epistle that mentions tithing, huh?", and "Can you please
>FedEx me the last five years of financial documentation for all the ICC
>churches (with original expense receipts) so I can more effectively
>persecute your church?"
Rog, how would you know what questions were asked? You're assuming
again...
DJRTX
On 31 July 1996, in article <4tou23$1...@guitar.sound.net>,
kcs...@echo.sound.net (Starr) writes:
You are quite right, Kim. My simple e-mail question to the ICC's webmaster
involved a discussion on whether or not the ICC is/was using an occultic
symbol -- an upside down cross -- on a flier from an ICC congregation (as
well as on the older and newer version of the UpsideDown musical's video
jacket).
I wrote that I thought (I also had been told) it referred to Peter's
allegedly asking to be crucified upside, in a position other than that
which Christ was hung. My friend said differently. All I asked for was
clarification, and I received none. :-(
Joanne
I-Chun Lin
DAnder9518 <dande...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4tkqqs$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, eos...@aol.com (EOshiro)
>
>>completely disappeared (or got deformed too much), since I don't know the
>>history of every church on Earth. For all I know, it could have been
>>perfectly preserved in some isolated "lost" town in the middle of
>nowhere,
>>Europe.
>
>
>"When you preach who is really saved: that you gotta have faith, you
>gotta repent, you gotta *become* a true disciple of Jesus, and then you
>gotta be water immersed . . . that excludes all other denominations, . .
>. everybody else that's out there."
>
>Kip McKean, "Preach the Word," August 1995.
The "true doctrine" that was taught in the Boston Church of Christ as
of 1987 was: "hear, believe, repent, confess, baptism." We were NOT
taught that you gotta *become* a true disciple of Jesus before you are
baptized. In fact, before I was baptized, I told Henry Kriete that,
although I *wanted* to be fully committed to Christ, I was not yet at
that level. Henry -- who was an evangelist at the time -- responded
that Christianity is like the army: one first enlists, then trains;
baptism is like becoming enlisted. He believed that because I had the
*intention* to be committed to Christ, I was ready to be baptized.
And Henry did baptize me.
Henry's position at that time WAS the official position on salvation
according to the Boston Church of Christ. When one considers Kip's
current doctrine on salvation, it is, indeed, a doctrine that excludes
all other demonimations -- including his own, prior to 1986. So if
the ICC considers its current doctrine to be the only true church
doctrine, then in fact it (Boston, Chicago, London, Johannesburg etc.)
was NOT a true church as of 1986.
[Ms.] I-Chun ("ee-CHUN") Lin
i...@leland.Stanford.EDU
Ovum
In article <4tq090$k...@wisdom.Stanford.EDU>, i...@leland.Stanford.EDU
(I-Chun Lin) writes:
> When one considers Kip's
>current doctrine on salvation, it is, indeed, a doctrine that excludes
>all other demonimations -- including his own, prior to 1986. So if
>the ICC considers its current doctrine to be the only true church
>doctrine, then in fact it (Boston, Chicago, London, Johannesburg etc.)
>was NOT a true church as of 1986.
Wow...this would mean there's almost NOBODY alive in the world today more
than 10 years old in Christ!!!
"Things That Make Ya Go Hmmmmm"
Jani A Heinonen
Hey! Don't forget basketball! ;^>
--
Jani Heinonen | A wanna-be (al)chemist at the University of Helsinki
jzhe...@rock.helsinki.fi | Finger for public PGP key
Catherine Hampton
Jani A Heinonen (jzhe...@cc.helsinki.fi) wrote:
: In <4tosfm$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> atre...@aol.com (ATredway1)
: writes:
: >I guess a sharp person is someone who appears to be in control of their
: >lives. For the most part they are intelligent, finacially stable,
: >sociable.
: Hey! Don't forget basketball! ;^>
Yeah -- talk about a sign of =lack= of intelligence.....
<running REAL fast> ;>
From what I can tell reading this thread, "sharp" to most people means
someone who hasn't got many problems which will require time, effort,
and understanding from the church. :( Looking at what Christ did,
one could almost theorize that Christians should intentionally pick
the people who aren't sharp to reach out to first. After all, didn't
Christ tell His disciples not to invite their neighbors for dinner,
because they would reciprocate and the disciples would then have their
reward. Instead, they were to invite the poor, blind and lame, so
that God would reward them. :>
I don't actually believe the Lord was telling us to discriminate
=against= people because they happen to be wealthy, attractive,
intelligent, articulate, or have gifts valued by human society. But
He most decidedly told His followers not to discriminate in their
favor because of this, or discriminate against those who lacked thees
gifts. "For My ways are not your ways, neither are my thoughts your
thoughts...."
Under the mercy,
Catherine
EOshiro
"Sharp?"
Someone with integrity. When they say they'll come, they'll be there.
Someone who's honest. Open with their life.
Someone who's searching. They realize they need something othere than
worldly things.
Or, to put it another way, the opposite of "dull." :-)
Martin Hinves
sco...@nhr.com (Scott W. Schreiber) wrote:
>ov...@aol.com (Ovum) wrote:
>I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS!!
>My Server must have missed the latest barage of Roger-mail! Maybe
>it's AI........
>Anyway...I would really really like it if someone could email me the
>orriginal to this one...PLEASE.
>>In article <rognmichD...@netcom.com>, rogn...@netcom.com
>>(Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) writes:
>>
>>>Apollos became a significant figure in the Corinth Church of Christ
>>>(affiliated with the International Churches of Christ) according to 1 Cor
>>
>>
>>Roger,
>>
>>How can the ICC be affiliated with the 1st century church if it's doctrine
>>was only discovered in 1979 (or was it 1986) by Kip McKean?
I do not know if Roger will answer this one but I shall answer it.
I do not claim to speak for Roger in this case but from what I was
taught of ICC doctrine.
You see Kip is rediscovering and restoring 1st Century Christianity.
The ICC claims that at a certain time (which changes which ever leader
I talk to but seems to be after the bible was written) Christianity
changed from what Christ taught.
"Blame it all on Nicea" as one said to me.
The ICC is restoring that Christianity.
Now as Kip "reveals" things they are not new discoveries but what the
Christians of the 1st Century did that we have forgotten. Kip gets
"revelations" and suddenly things that were not allowed are (teachers,
etc ) or what was taught changes (new baptism definitions, shepharding
couples for example).
IN my own personal veiw it looks very much like a decision is made and
then verses are looked up to back it up.
For instance no church in the bible was "reconstructed" yet the ICC
has this doctrine, and how the ICC does it is ludicrous.
Yet reconstructions allow the ICC to maintain control or in some cases
establish it.
Remember that by ICC doctrine what they are doing is RESTORING 1st
Century Christianity, the fact that their "church" bears no
resemblance to how early Christianity was or enacted is a vital point.
Another point to look at is the preponderance of OT reasons and
explanations in what should be an NT theology.
It is as if the new doctrine of salvation through Grace that Jesus
preached has been forgotten and the law keeping and works based
beleifs of the Old testament have risen again.
But I digress <G>.
Now I know from study and archeology etc that around the 2nd- 3rd
Century Christianity in the Middle East became a political and social
force.
When it entered the political ring a marked emphasis changed.
I personally think that as man himself has changed over the centuries
that reinventing the wheel as the ICC claims to be doing can be used
both in a positive and negative aspect.
However I see much negativity in the way that they do it.
Martin Hinves
Martin Hinves
Ian Euguene Charleton <iec...@jove.acs.unt.edu> wrote:
>On 29 Jul 1996, DJRTX wrote:
>> Just curious. Has anyone received a response from an e-mailed question to
>> the ICC's webmaster?
>I mailed a whole slew of questions starting in late April/early May and
>the only response I got was from a different address asking why I was
>being pushy after I mailed a follow up email after three weeks of
>silence from them. They requested that I mail it again, but as of yet,
>no response. I can't say as I blame them, answering my questions
>honestly would have blemished their all-so-important image too much.
>I've pretty much given up on them to answer anything at all. I didn't
>even get a dance lesson ;)
>--Ian
I am still waiting for the answer to my questions I sent them the day
after they came on line...
I guess they have yet to learn the meaning of true customer service
<G>
Martin
RICK & SARAH BAUER
Was Matthew the tax collector "sharp?" Jesus called him to be a
disciple.
Why does the leadership tell there members to recruit the sharp
people, sometimes they focus only on those types. Did Jesus do
that? Did the Apostles?
Sarah
R. L. Measures
In article <4tnj84$m...@news.ios.com>, Chris Garland
<chr...@village.ios.com> wrote:
> meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R.L. Measures) wrote:
> >In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960729...@jove.acs.unt.edu>,
> >Ian Euguene Charleton <iec...@jove.acs.unt.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> On 29 Jul 1996, DJRTX wrote:
> >>
> >> > Just curious. Has anyone received a response from an e-mailed question to
> >> > the ICC's webmaster?
> >>
> >> I mailed a whole slew of questions starting in late April/early May and
> >> the only response I got was from a different address asking why I was
> >> being pushy after I mailed a follow up email after three weeks of
> >> silence from them. They requested that I mail it again, but as of yet,
> >> no response. I can't say as I blame them, answering my questions
> >> honestly would have blemished their all-so-important image too much.
> >> I've pretty much given up on them to answer anything at all. I didn't
> >> even get a dance lesson ;)
> >>
> >For a comparison, Ian, you could write to the Vatican and ask them why
> >they don't go back to the way things were before 1123 when priests could
> >marry?
> >
> >Authoritarian sects are simply not set up to answer YOUR questions. They
> >are set up to give YOU the questions AND the answers.
>
> Rich, there are plenty of Catholic web sites where priests WILL give you
> answers to a lot of your questions. I learned a great deal about the RCC
> from priests on these sites. There are even Catholic chat rooms on AOL
> with priests as the monitors.
Karol Wojtyla, a.k.a. the infallible Vicar of Christ, says that the
subject of why priests can no longer marry is off-limits.
I once had a Q and A session with a Catholic priest. I asked him a number
of questions. He said he did not know the answer to any of my questions.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
R. L. Measures
> The 'doctrine of the ICC' is simply the Old and New Testament. We simply
> believe in following only the Scriptures as God's Word. Okay, maybe
> "affiliated with the International Churches of Christ" can't be supported
> by the historical record. But if they find "Disciple=Christian=Saved" in
> some Dead Sea Scroll manuscript, we'll see who has the last laugh! :)
>
RE: The Dead Sea Scrolls: Some of the documents found in Cave 4 talk
about the person you erroniously call Jesus. His followers called him the
'Teacher of Righteousness'. His given name was Yeshua. From what I have
been able to learn, nothing like "Disciple=Christian=Saved" is mentioned.
The idea that folks could be miraculously 'saved' by a ritual
cannibalistic sacrifice did not exist in Christian churches until the
fourth century. In the first century, the only churches that subscribed
to the notion of ritual cannibalistic sacrifice were pagan churches.
If a church were following the doctrine of the Old Testament, it would be
collecting 10% The church to which you belong typically collects 20%,
Roger.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
Starr
ar...@nntp.best.com (Catherine Hampton) wrote:
<snippage>
>I don't actually believe the Lord was telling us to discriminate
>=against= people because they happen to be wealthy, attractive,
>intelligent, articulate, or have gifts valued by human society. But
>He most decidedly told His followers not to discriminate in their
>favor because of this, or discriminate against those who lacked thees
>gifts. "For My ways are not your ways, neither are my thoughts your
>thoughts...."
Actually, I believe that Jesus said it was harder for a rich man to
enter the kingdom of heaven that it was for a camel to go through the
eye of a needle (yes I'm paraphrasing but I think I got the gist of
it) So by actually seeking "sharp" i.e., famous, rich, well-educated,
popular, charismatic people the ICC is either a) saving the most hard
to be saved; or b) doing what even Jesus said was nearly impossible;
or c) deliberately going after the people who would give them the best
PR.
What's the vote?
Chris Garland
What he said was that priests will not be allowed to be married, case
closed. However, you are free to speak about it all you want -- it just
won't get you anywhere, because the Pope's not entertaining any further
arguments on the subject. Big difference.
By the way, infallibility is often misues. The Pope's statement about
priests marrying was not an infallible statement. He only speaks
infallibly (i.e., the Catholic church believes that Christ will not allow
them to be led astray in moral and ethical topics) when he speaks 1)
ex-cathedra (from the authoritative position as first among the bishops);
2) speaking about a moral or ethical teaching; and 3) when the topic is
already in mass agreement by the global Bishops. The last time the Pope
spoke infallibly was about 50 years ago, on the subject of the
Assumption.
Didn't say I believe any of this -- just clarifying things for you.
>I once had a Q and A session with a Catholic priest. I asked him a number
>of questions. He said he did not know the answer to any of my questions.
Then he was an idiot, and unfit to lead. The biggest problem I have with
Catholicism is the fact that many priests are unfit for leadership
BECAUSE they are unmarried and haven't led a household (as in biblical
commands).
EOshiro
kcstarr writes:
>Actually, I believe that Jesus said it was harder for a rich man to
>enter the kingdom of heaven that it was for a camel to go through the
>eye of a needle (yes I'm paraphrasing but I think I got the gist of
>it) So by actually seeking "sharp" i.e., famous, rich, well-educated,
>popular, charismatic people the ICC is either a) saving the most hard
>to be saved; or b) doing what even Jesus said was nearly impossible;
>or c) deliberately going after the people who would give them the best
>PR.
>
>What's the vote?
Keep in mind that Jesus did not turn the man away, but gave him the
ultimatum, "Your money or your life." ("I'm thinking, I'm
thinking!"--Jack Benny)
How many other "impossbile" things does the Bible account to? A city
falling after people marched around it and blew horns. A woman turning
into a pillar of salt. The blind, sick, lame, and even *dead* being
restored instantly.
Zacchaeus, the vertically-challenged tax collector, certainly didn't sound
like a poor man.
And besides, Jesus never said the camel had to be alive, much less in one
piece. :-)
EOshiro
I'll say this first: I hav no idea what the ICC web page does with the
e-mail it receives.
However, I'm guessing that it's not practical to answer everything that
comes in. Not any more than it would be for the Bill Clinton to respond
to everything he gets. In both situations, questions and comments could
arise into and endless e-mail debate. I doubt the person/people who reads
the ICC mail has the time to do that, and I'm sure the president doesn't
have enough time to answer all of his mail.
Assuming it would end up being constructive and efficeint, I think it
might be a good idea for the ICC to refer people with questions to an ICC
member who could answer them. However, I have no idea how practical this
would be. I'd say there are only 3 or 4 ICC members who have the time to
post here on a regular basis.
But if this is a genuine concern, I suggest making more noise about it.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Or, in Biblical terms, "The persistent
widow receives justice." (Luke 18:1-5)
Martin Hinves
meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R.L. Measures) wrote:
>In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960729...@jove.acs.unt.edu>,
>Ian Euguene Charleton <iec...@jove.acs.unt.edu> wrote:
>> On 29 Jul 1996, DJRTX wrote:
>>
>> > Just curious. Has anyone received a response from an e-mailed question to
>> > the ICC's webmaster?
>>
>> I mailed a whole slew of questions starting in late April/early May and
>> the only response I got was from a different address asking why I was
>> being pushy after I mailed a follow up email after three weeks of
>> silence from them. They requested that I mail it again, but as of yet,
>> no response. I can't say as I blame them, answering my questions
>> honestly would have blemished their all-so-important image too much.
>> I've pretty much given up on them to answer anything at all. I didn't
>> even get a dance lesson ;)
>>
>For a comparison, Ian, you could write to the Vatican and ask them why
>they don't go back to the way things were before 1123 when priests could
>marry?
>Authoritarian sects are simply not set up to answer YOUR questions. They
>are set up to give YOU the questions AND the answers.
>--Rich--
>805-386-3734
What is 6 times 7 ?
Starr
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>kcstarr writes:
>>Actually, I believe that Jesus said it was harder for a rich man to
>>enter the kingdom of heaven that it was for a camel to go through the
>>eye of a needle (yes I'm paraphrasing but I think I got the gist of
>>it) So by actually seeking "sharp" i.e., famous, rich, well-educated,
>>popular, charismatic people the ICC is either a) saving the most hard
>>to be saved; or b) doing what even Jesus said was nearly impossible;
>>or c) deliberately going after the people who would give them the best
>>PR.
>>
>>What's the vote?
>Keep in mind that Jesus did not turn the man away, but gave him the
>ultimatum, "Your money or your life." ("I'm thinking, I'm
>thinking!"--Jack Benny)
<snip>
>And besides, Jesus never said the camel had to be alive, much less in one
>piece. :-)
I concede the point. :) (although it would have to be an awful
*small* piece of that camel.....) :->
I take from your answer you vote a) or b) ?
Chris Garland
The "eye of the needle" was the name of a gate in the wall around the
city of Jerusalem. It was called this because it had been built in
earlier times, and part of it was buried below ground. Therefore, it was
a small gate in height. When a camel loaded with provisions had to pass
through the gate, its provisions had to be removed, and the camel would
crawl through. Then the provisions were repacked on the other side.
Therefore, a camel entering through the eye of a needle is *not*
impossible; just requires a little finesse. NOTE: the stuff was put back
on the camel; not given to the church!
Scott W. Schreiber
Chris Garland <chr...@village.ios.com> wrote:
>The "eye of the needle" was the name of a gate
Maybe I'm being picky here.....
Jesus said "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of
**_A_** needle..." not the eye of _the_ needle. One is a very teeny
hole, the other is a gate.
Chris Garland
mistake. Remember what the bible says about arguing over words and
geneologies....
EOshiro
Chris G. writes:
>The "eye of the needle" was the name of a gate in the wall around the
>city of Jerusalem. It was called this because it had been built in
>earlier times, and part of it was buried below ground. Therefore, it was
>a small gate in height. When a camel loaded with provisions had to pass
>through the gate, its provisions had to be removed, and the camel would
>crawl through. Then the provisions were repacked on the other side.
Very interesting. Thank you.
>Therefore, a camel entering through the eye of a needle is *not*
>impossible; just requires a little finesse. NOTE: the stuff was put back
>on the camel; not given to the church!
But that was a little pointless.
Scott writes:
>Jesus said "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of
>**_A_** needle..." not the eye of _the_ needle. One is a very teeny
>hole, the other is a gate.
I lean toward that version, myself. It fits in with other examples of
hyperbole Jesus used. Like faith the size of a mustard seed will move a
mountain.
Chris Garland
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>Chris G. writes:
>
>>The "eye of the needle" was the name of a gate in the wall around the
>>city of Jerusalem. It was called this because it had been built in
>>earlier times, and part of it was buried below ground. Therefore, it was
>>a small gate in height. When a camel loaded with provisions had to pass
>>through the gate, its provisions had to be removed, and the camel would
>>crawl through. Then the provisions were repacked on the other side.
>
>Very interesting. Thank you.
>
>>Therefore, a camel entering through the eye of a needle is *not*
>>impossible; just requires a little finesse. NOTE: the stuff was put back
>
>>on the camel; not given to the church!
>
>But that was a little pointless.
Pointless? I've heard this scripture misused by the ICC many times to get
people to surrender everything to the church, and used against them if
they hold back. I don't think its pointless at all.
>Scott writes:
>
>>Jesus said "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of
>>**_A_** needle..." not the eye of _the_ needle. One is a very teeny
>>hole, the other is a gate.
>
>I lean toward that version, myself. It fits in with other examples of
>hyperbole Jesus used. Like faith the size of a mustard seed will move a
>mountain.
Lean all you want. It was understood when Jesus spoke the words what he
was talking about.
EOshiro
Chris G writes:
>sco...@nhr.com (Scott W. Schreiber) wrote:
>>Chris Garland <chr...@village.ios.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The "eye of the needle" was the name of a gate
>>
>>Maybe I'm being picky here.....
>>
>>Jesus said "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of
>>**_A_** needle..." not the eye of _the_ needle. One is a very teeny
>>hole, the other is a gate.
>>
>Yeah, I'd say your being picky. The gate was called Eye of A Needle. My
>mistake. Remember what the bible says about arguing over words and
>geneologies....
Either way, I'd hate to be the camel. :-)
Gintas Jazbutis
In article <4uci35$3...@news.ios.com>, Chris Garland <chr...@village.ios.com> wrote:
>eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>>Chris G. writes:
>>
>>>The "eye of the needle" was the name of a gate in the wall around the
>>>city of Jerusalem. It was called this because it had been built in
>>>earlier times, and part of it was buried below ground. Therefore, it was
>>>a small gate in height. When a camel loaded with provisions had to pass
>>>through the gate, its provisions had to be removed, and the camel would
>>>crawl through. Then the provisions were repacked on the other side.
>>
>>Very interesting. Thank you.
>>
>>>Therefore, a camel entering through the eye of a needle is *not*
>>>impossible; just requires a little finesse. NOTE: the stuff was put back
>>
>>>on the camel; not given to the church!
>>
>>But that was a little pointless.
>
>Pointless? I've heard this scripture misused by the ICC many times to get
>people to surrender everything to the church, and used against them if
>they hold back. I don't think its pointless at all.
>
>>Scott writes:
>>
>>>**_A_** needle..." not the eye of _the_ needle. One is a very teeny
>>>hole, the other is a gate.
>>
>>hyperbole Jesus used. Like faith the size of a mustard seed will move a
>>mountain.
>
>Lean all you want. It was understood when Jesus spoke the words what he
>was talking about.
>
Some 11-th century monk made up the concept of there being
a gate called the needle. He couldn't accept the idea that
Jesus meant a simple needle, the kind with which you sew.
Source: _How to Read the Bible for all it's Worth_.
Gintas
Gintas Jazbutis
gin...@concentric.net
R.L. Measures
In article <measures-030...@term2-14.vta.west.net>,
meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) wrote:
-------------------------------
Roger Poehlmann seems to be somewhat less than eager to address these issues.
--Rich--
805-386-3734