Another Phony E-mail:

******************************************************

Read all of this one, it is interesting!! Read down to the very bottom highlighted in green, you don't want to miss this!

VERY INTERESTING-

1. The Garden of Eden was in Iraq.

2. Mesopotamia, which is now Iraq, was the cradle of civilization!

3. Noah built the ark in Iraq.

4. The Tower of Babel was in Iraq

5. Abraham was from Ur, which is in Southern Iraq!

6. Isaac's wife Rebekah is from Nahor, which is in Iraq!

7. Jacob met Rachel in Iraq.

8. Jonah preached in Nineveh - which is in Iraq.

9. Assyria, which is in Iraq, conquered the ten tribes of Israel.

10. Amos cried out in Iraq!

11. Babylon, which is in Iraq, destroyed Jerusalem.

12. Daniel was! in the lion's den in Iraq!

13. The three Hebrew children were in the fire in Iraq (Jesus had been in Iraq also as the fourth person in the Fiery furnace!)

14. Belshazzar, the King of Babylon saw the "writing on the wall" in Iraq.

15. Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, carried the Jews captive into Iraq.

16. Ezekiel preached in Iraq.

17. The wise men were from Iraq

18. Peter preached in Iraq.

19. The "Empire of Man" described in Revelation is called Babylon, which was a city in Iraq!

And you have probably seen this one. Israel is the nation most often mentioned in the Bible. But do you know which nation is second? It is Iraq! However, that is not the name that is used in the Bible The names used in the Bible are Babylon, Land of Shinar, and Mesopotamia The word Mesopotamia means between the two rivers, more exactly between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. The name Iraq, means country with deep roots.

Indeed Iraq is a country with deep roots and is a very significant country in the Bible.

No other nation, except Israel, has more history and prophecy associated it than Iraq.

And also, This is something to think about! Since America is typically represented by an eagle. Saddam should have read up on his Muslim passages...

The following verse is from the Koran, (the Islamic Bible)

Koran (9:11 ) - For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah; and there was peace.

(Note the verse number!) Hmmmmmmm?!

********************************************

The Qur'an Verse 9:11 reads:

"But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, they are your brethren in faith; and We make the communications clear for a people who know."

The E-mail is accurate until:

And also, This is something to think about! Since America is typically represented by an eagle. Saddam should have read up on his Muslim passages...

The following verse is from the Koran, (the Islamic Bible)

Koran (9:11 ) - For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah;

Quote

About the "Catholic" Church and local BC decisions...

If we consult a dictionary--or the Catholic Church--for the definition of the word "catholic" we find that "universal" pops up with great regularity. That WAS one of the great claims to fame for the "old" Catholic Church. That church has ONE leader and ONE set of underlying principles although local adaptations have always been allowed on the details of practice...but, of course, not on the underlying principles.

But, if what Carlene tells us is accurate (and I believe she is correct on the details), that universality has diminished considerably, and what remains at the most local of levels is apparently not really related AT ALL to the catholic Catholic Church.

At issue is nothing less than the infallibility of the Pope. Essentially, the Pope declared the Pope infallible. He can't be wrong. And THEN about a hundred years later, THAT Pope through the adoption of papal encyclical, Humanae Vitae ruled out birth control for all time.

That about covers it:

1--The Pope is never wrong;

2--The Pope has declared birth control wrong for all time.

If advice that people are hearing locally conflicts with what the Vatican says, then IMHO it takes a lot of fast and fancy logical tap dancing to reconcile the two. One is the official position of the Catholic Church and the other is--at at least at one link in the chain--dishonest.

What bothers me the most about this is the wink-wink-nudge-nudge bullshit that underlies the whole thing. A priest is responsible to the Church-Pope through his chain of command. Birth control is the HUGE elephant in the living room of the Catholic Church...and nobody is talking about it because considering changing it is considering questioning the infallibility of the Pope.

If people insist on (illogically, but who said religion has anything to do with logic) belonging to an organization the official position of which is that the way they choose to live their lives is essentially wrong and they will suffer eternal damnation, then they are certainly free to do so. But attempting to explain the duplicitous logic of THAT to those who also know the definition of "hypocrisy" will always prove fruitless (pardon the reproductive pun.)

Sue

:::an atheist veteran who won't join the American Legion because their motto is "For God and Country." For some reason, that decision seemed very simple to me:::

My own experience with the Roman Catholic church has been good. My own parents were not at all religious but they did have us baptised in the Anglican church (Episcopalian church south of the border); this was because my sibs and I were born during an era when employers still had the right to ask a candidate for his religion and Anglicans are always in good taste. Later on I was sent to a boarding school run by Anglo-Catholic nuns and I briefly "got" religion.

I chose to get married in the Roman Catholic church because it was important to my in-laws and my side of the family didn't care. The father who was officiating knew that I would be using birth control and said not a word against this, nor did he try to convert me. He did require that my husband to be and I attend a series of 6 lectures given under the auspices of the church to interfaith couples before our marriage. The father who gave these lectures opened by saying that he knew that he would be talking to individuals who were likely not deeply engaged in their own religions since otherwise they would not be choosing partners outside of their own faiths. The lectures themselves were a mix of psychology and sociology 101 and the method of presentation was both very loving and very interesting.

Of course I had been expecting something quite different back in 1972 when we came knocking on the church's front door, requesting to be married. And this interfaith initiative seems to have been one that may have been limited to my city.

It is also worth noting that the kind man who did marry us advised us against a nuptual Mass. He said that this would only alienate the bulk of the attendees, folks who were not Roman Catholic. As for my mother-in-law, it is impossible to think of anything I could have done for her that would have meant more at that time.

Whoops! I found my way back to Rants and Raves! I think it should be re-named Rants and Raves about anything except POLITICS, RELIGION AND BIRTH CONTROL. That way we won't hurt so many feelings and make so many enemies!:confused:

Actually, although the subject matter in this section drifts into what one of my literature profs called The Big Questions, I don't think that anyone of us has been trampling on anyone else's feelings. I suspect that we are all aware that we are dealing with sensitive material and that we wish to examine these topics in a dispassionate manner. Your concerns are understandable, however. The most interesting topics are often the most loaded. My hunch is that what we are trying to do here is step away from the spin that so often accompanies these issues, particularly when they are being dealt with by political machinery.

Once again, Green, you hit the nail on the head. We're relieved to be able to have a voice here, without having to worry about being politically correct and without the usual experience of discussing such passionate subjects in a room where someone with opposing views is trying to shout us down.

It is very interesting to read comments and stories that push someone else's buttons. Many people will not discuss these topics because of their controversial nature. It's nice to hear personal stories and gain insight on a particular subject that we might not otherwise be privy to.

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading everything that has been posted here on Rants & Raves, and I've enjoyed being able to tell my stories too.

Thanks for the kind words, Bjean.

If we consult a dictionary--or the Catholic Church--for the definition of the word "catholic" we find that "universal" pops up with great regularity. That WAS one of the great claims to fame for the "old" Catholic Church. That church has ONE leader and ONE set of underlying principles although local adaptations have always been allowed on the details of practice...but, of course, not on the underlying principles.

But dictionaries that I checked mentioned another word

broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal.

Of broad or liberal scope

Yes: liberal.

I guess my definition of liberal and the dictionary's definition must be different. I do find the Roman Catholic Church more Liberal on some issues than the Pentecostal Church, but they are more conservative on other issues.

As far as people either keeping away from this thread or not joining in, I wish more people would state their opinions. While some may feel insulted or attacked, I WOULD HOPE that any one particular post would be judged in the context of the surrounded posts and not taken as an affront because the poster's purpose or intent might not be obvious (using that one post as a bar).

Amen T.O.M.! I have been guilty of jumping into the middle of a discussion elsewhere at LBT and after my post the silence was deafening. (so to speak)

Catholic=Liberal? Even the dictionary changes the definition of words from time to time.

But dictionaries that I checked mentioned another wordYes: liberal.

.

I'm sure you have found many definitions of the word "catholic." But, I'm pretty sure that the term "universal" is...well...catholic among them.

As you may have observed, the etymology of the word is:

Middle English catholik, from Middle French & Late Latin; Middle French catholique, from Late Latin catholicus, from Greek katholikos universal, general, from katholou in general, from kata by + holos whole.

Please note that I didn't say that "universal" is the ONLY definition...I said it pops up with great regularity.

I noted that you didn't say that "Universal" was the only definition.

That was why I said "another word": Liberal.

I have argued with many people when I have said:

"A Square is a Rectangle,

But,

A Rectangle is not a Square."

Subtle differenced make all the difference.

Huh? Is it too late for me or am I just the lame brain I seem to be right now? A square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square. Huh?

Huh? Is it too late for me or am I just the lame brain I seem to be right now? A square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square. Huh?

A square always has four sides of the same length. But a rectangle can be shaped like a football field...

A square is always a rectangle, but a rectangle is not always a square.

Duh. Well I thought a rectangle never had four sides the same length. Thus, a square couldn't be a rectangle and a rectangle couldn't be a square. Hmmm. And I thought I did pretty well in Geometry. Guess I'm too far removed from the 9th grade.

Duh. Well I thought a rectangle never had four sides the same length. Thus, a square couldn't be a rectangle and a rectangle couldn't be a square. Hmmm. And I thought I did pretty well in Geometry. Guess I'm too far removed from the 9th grade.

Definition of a rectangle is a 4 sided parallelogram with right angles and opposite sides equal. In other words: 4 sides, 90 degree angles, opposite sides equal.

A square has all of those features, so it is a rectangle. It just has one more feature which is that consecutive sides are also equal.

There is no rule saying that a rectangle can not have all 4 sides equal. Most don't, but some can and those are squares.

How about?: a Harley Davidson is a motorcycle.

But a motorcycle is not a Harley Davidson.

Or

Bill is a boy, but a boy isn't Bill.

A girl is a human, but a human isn't a girl.

A jet fighter is a plane, but a plane is not a jet fighter.

A dollar bill is money, but money is not a dollar bill.

Bjean is a member of LBT. But a member of LBT is not BJean.

What I was trying to show in the last post is that when someone says, "I have a dollar bill", I know they have money. But when someone says, "I have money", I don't know if they have a dollar bill.

When someone says "I am riding a Harley Davidson", I know they are riding a motorcycle. But when someone says, "I am riding a motorcycle", I do not know that they are riding a Harley Davidson.

If someone told me, "BJean replied to your post", I would know a member of LBT had responded to my post. But if someone said, "a member of LBT had responded to your post", I would not know that it was BJean who had responded.

Words have power. Punctuation can change the meaning of the words as can the order used.

See, I told you this was a place to read and learn. I am surprised to learn that a rectangle can have four equal sides. Far out.

All of your other examples were quite clear. I am very guilty of using unreferenced pronouns. Just ask my DH - who is fond of pointing out each and every case of my constructing a sentence containing unreferenced pronouns. He'll thank you, I am sure.

Words are powerful; so are feelings. If one wishes to convey a feeling, she better use well constructed sentences, that is, if she wants any sympathy. Huh? Can feelings be conveyed? Should I have used express instead of convey? See, I'm just a silly twit wanting to communicate via the written word and I just didn't spend enough time conjugating sentences when I was in the 9th grade. Forget college. I had a couple of lit classes and that was about it.