h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This is getting complicated because I still have to finish replying to your previous post and now I have a new one too and they are both interesting.

The home groups I have heard about are informal get togethers too. The problem with them, I gather, is either being bored by people with whom you have no affinity other than you go to church together or they just take up too much time.

The problem with sacrificing is the notion that killing a fatted calf and pouring out its blood can divert God's anger. This is very different from clearing one's communication channels with God for more effective prayer or living. The question ultimately comes back to _how/why_ did Christ's death on the cross avert God's displeasure with the human race and gain us eternal life/reconciliation/etc. The answer can be very dissatisfying. The alternative is to not treat the crucifixion as a sacrificial act but as something else.

BTW, I think that God is a determinist but I think that God is also a Pelagian!

The Nicene Creed is an interesting doctrinal statement but the Apostle's Creed is the key faith statement in my opinion.

Just when I think I'm kind of following where you're coming from, you write something that mixes it all up. The whole "God is a dispensationalist" idea is one that I wholeheartedly believe but thought you didn't or at least didn't completely. Maybe the clarification of perspective would be useful in your entry on dispensationalism. It certainly was revealing to me.

Yes, I too believe that God is both a dispensationalist and a Pelagian (inasmuch as I understand Pelagianism). There has to be a willful, voluntary acceptance of grace. Gods grace is offered freely to the entire world. Those that accept it (accept is too simple of a concept for the process) are saved.

So your friends are focusing on sacrifice as penance? To avert God's anger? Doesn't that negate the concept of repentance and forgiveness?
Do they think of Christ's sacrifice (another oversimplification) as unnecessary also? I haven't been able to put together an argument against sacrificial living based on what I've read so far. I'm sure its there I am just not following.

I think you should trust your catty instincts. I have not managed to put forward a good argument against sacrificial living. This is not for lack of trying on my part though.

Part of my problem is that I entirely agree with your lifestyle choice of sacrificial living. I occasionally give it a go myself. I think my problem is that I do not think of the choices required by that lifestyle as sacrificial but I find myself unable to adequately define what I _do_ mean by sacrificial. Which I will think about over the Easter Hols and get back to you for next Tuesday.

The God is a heretic idea is great. I think the problem is that if we reckon we have God's perspective on creation then we are heretical. God can have whatever perspective suits! We are stuck in a world where we make decisions (God doesn't need to), we can fail (God doesn't), we can turn towards or away (God can't ), we can't judge effectively (only God can fully disclose the purposes of the heart). Theologians who say "if God sees it this way so must we" lead us into all sorts of messes.

I will add the comment to the Determinism page (which I am still slowly updating).



PS: You may not get the Easter Bunny where you live. When I was about 15 Mum told me that the Bunny wouldn't be visiting our family any more 'coz we were all old enough. I told mum "Stuff this for a joke" and funnily enough the Easter Bunny still visits. Now, though, Mum and Dad join in the hunt. This year my 93 year old Grandmother will be looking under the roses as well. It takes her a while, but my feeling is she would prefer to have to look than be left inside because she is "too old". I doubt if the Easter Bunny is of pagan origin. My guess is that the pagans wouldn't have been that daft!

PPS: Did you know that the _chocolate_ Easter Egg is an Adelaide innovation? A fact with which to impress your friends.

I think you should trust your catty instincts. I have not managed to put forward a good argument against sacrificial living. This is not for lack of trying on my part though.

Part of my problem is that I entirely agree with your lifestyle choice of sacrificial living. I occasionally give it a go myself. I think my problem is that I do not think of the choices required by that lifestyle as sacrificial but I find myself unable to adequately define what I _do_ mean by sacrificial. Which I will think about over the Easter Hols and get back to you for next Tuesday.

The God is a heretic idea is great. I think the problem is that if we reckon we have God's perspective on creation then we are heretical. God can have whatever perspective suits! We are stuck in a world where we make decisions (God doesn't need to), we can fail (God doesn't), we can turn towards or away (God can't ), we can't judge effectively (only God can fully disclose the purposes of the heart). Theologians who say "if God sees it this way so must we" lead us into all sorts of messes.

I will add the comment to the Determinism page (which I am still slowly updating).



PS: You may not get the Easter Bunny where you live. When I was about 15 Mum told me that the Bunny wouldn't be visiting our family any more 'coz we were all old enough. I told mum "Stuff this for a joke" and funnily enough the Easter Bunny still visits. Now, though, Mum and Dad join in the hunt. This year my 93 year old Grandmother will be looking under the roses as well. It takes her a while, but my feeling is she would prefer to have to look than be left inside because she is "too old". I doubt if the Easter Bunny is of pagan origin. My guess is that the pagans wouldn't have been that daft!

PPS: Did you know that the _chocolate_ Easter Egg is an Adelaide innovation? A fact with which you can impress your friends.

Isn't the reason a heresy exists is that there is some basic kernel of truth that got messed up along the way?

Dispensationalism - God certainly knows ahead of time.
Arianism - Christ was definitely wholly man (as well as wholly God).
Pelagianism - We do need to make a choice (sometimes interpreted as works)
Iconoclasm - Think snake on a pole. Good beginning but totally abused by the people.

Until you get to golden plates visible to only one weird guy and other "divine" revelations heresies seem to be good concepts gone overboard. (Those other things aren't heresies anyway are they?) I think you humans tend to overthink things sometimes and that's why these guys like Arius get to adding little tidbits that turn truth into heresy. That doesn't excuse humans or felines from a little cognitive effort, just that caution helps.

I agree with your Theologians statement. A few year ago we had this huge What Would Jesus Do? (WWJD) movement. Kids were wearing wristbands with WWJD and all sorts of things. It is an okay question but maybe not the best one. I think we should ask what did Jesus tell me to do in this situation? Too many times we go for the what we think or feel rather than what the Bible actually says.

I wanted to clarify something about Easter Eggs, the Bunny and the name Easter. What I said in my post is that it should be questioned. That doesn't mean that I think they should be eliminated - just questioned. Recognising when a pagan practice has or does not have influence is important. I grew up with the Easter Bunny. Some years he was great and other years he was a bit stingy.(Little did I recognize the hard times my parents went through.) Never have I associated the Easter Bunny or Easter eggs as fertility-related. I didn't know the name Easter was pagan until a very fundamental preacher told me so. I am comfortable with including these so-called pagan icons in my Resurrection Day celebration. They don't interfere.

A different example is Halloween. I choose to celebrate very little of Halloween because I can see a direct fixation with death in much of the US celebration. I don't want any part of that so I don't celebrate it.

Obviously these questions get harder once you have children. I have none so the decision is more personal, less familial, although I should mention that Gordy and I talk about these sorts of things before we make decisions.

Thank God for Adelaide inventing the chocolate Easter egg which influenced the entire world thinking that chocolate was an essential part of every Easter meal. Amen!

Hope you have/had a great Easter. My family has disintegrated sufficiently that we don't do anything for Easter. It will be a church family event instead.

It sounds as if you get time off from work for Easter? Is it a national holiday or something that you take off personally?

I think Arius actually denied the divinity of Christ. Otherwise I agree with you. Most heresies are not totally without foundation from a particular point of view otherwise sensible people would never fall for them.

I hadn't realised that Easter was a pagan name until I read it here somewhere and you confirmed it. When I get home I will look up its etymology. The chocolate egg is a good symbol of new life but biologically unsound. If you watch a one year old eat chocolate you know what I mean.

We are safe from Halloween at the present. The supermarkets are pushing it desperately but the public are not buying it at all. It has never happened in Australia (or Europe) and it is very widely considered unsafe. The marketing dollar of multinational food conglomerates is powerful. I hope that it is not powerful enough.

To follow what the bible says (as opposed to what it means on sober refection) can lead to all sorts of problems. I don't think that GWBush should now demand all of SHusain's wives now that he has won (as you can guess, I am still working my way through Kings - I didn't get it finished before Easter!). However, I am being facetious.

We get Good Friday and Easter Monday as official public holidays. Christmas Day and Good Friday are total public holidays in these parts with virtually no trading allowed and with very minimal emergency service (plus cafes and transport services). I suspect that many heavy industries that operate 24x7 use the compulsory shutdown on these two days, in practice, to do maintenance. Walking through the streets on Christmas Day is really good since (virtually) everybody is at home. Lots of whole families do ordinary things since there is not much else to do.

This year (25 April) falls in the same week as Easter Monday. ANZAC day is our national war remembrance day. It means that we have had a 3 day working week this year and most people have taken it off (giving them 2 weekends and 3 public holidays + 3 days rec. leave = 10 days). Hence my posting rate has not been up to scratch.

Easter day was a tough one for me. I tryied to get to church by 4:30am but I was half a hour late (not entirely my fault - I was up by 4). I got to bed again by 1am the next morning. However, I did get to sample some very good South Australian wine in the course of the day (+ 3 church services - 6, 8 and 10).

Australia doesn't celebrate Halloween... Sounds nice. It has become almost as big of an event here as Christmas and definitely bigger than our Thanksgiving or Easter. People put fake tombstones in their yards and hang clothes stuffed to look like bodies in trees. Stores sell orange lights that people string all over. If it was just carved pumpkins and trick or treating I wouldn't be so repulsed but it isn't anymore.

The latin culture has a day of the dead as well. I don't think its the same day as Halloween. They generally have a lot of anguished looking skulls and skeletons with ghastly flowers. - Yet another reason to live happily in the middle of nowhere.

At the Easter dinner I was able to watch a two year old eating a chocolate covered strawberry. I think I can imagine a one year old with a chocolate egg. Defintely something for fastidious a fur-bearing feline to avoid.

I think one of the areas that we cross wires is that I assume that for someone to read the Bible they must also internalize it and ask what it means. To you those are clearly two different things. What you say is precisely what you mean - no more and no less. You're absolutely right, of course. Laura Bush would be a bit put out if GW decided to add a couple of Saddam's wives to the family. (Talk about the brown ones... Did you ever hear that quote from George Sr?) Meaning is particularly important when dealing with OT stuff that was revealed more fully in the NT.

Your writing about Christmas got me thinking. Sometimes we go sledding on Christmas but its mid-summer there right? You don't have the snow tradition that goes with our Christmas so I'm guessing that some of the American "classic" Christmas programs are a bit weird. I suppose that we northern hemisphere folks have been inflicting our backwards seasons on you since TV and movies became commonplace. What is a traditional Australian Christmas?

You went to three services on Easter? Voluntarily? You are truly unusual. We only have one at our church but we tend to pack the house. It went well this year with nice music (not too much of it) and good preaching.

Speaking of Australian wine, my brother-in-law introduced me to your fine exports several years ago. They are typically my first choice. Your church serves real wine right? But you don't get to drink a glass of it do you? I mean, don't you do the sip from a shared cup thing? We get grape juice, of course, in little plastic cups that are handed out by deacons. (Some Baptists deny that the wine of the Bible was alcoholic. - What hooey.)

Well I hope you can enjoy your time off. The US supposedly has the fewest national holidays of any industrialized country. We do get Memorial Day off in May. I think it would be comparable to your ANZAC. That is our first national holiday after New Year's Day.
By then, we're definitely ready for it.

The Australian lack of Halloween seems to more desirable every time you talk about it. I really hope the big stores don't win on this one. The Mediteranian traditions I suspect are true reflections on life and death built by societies that invented decimation as a technique to keep an army fighting.

A one year old with a chocolate egg is a pleasure to behold. The child's father sugested that next time the child is given chocolate, the child should be put into the bath before being given the chocolate rather than afterwards. The amount of water used is the same but it would save the mess. A child being born in a chocolate egg would be messy beyond belief. I can't imagine the mother being that fond of the idea either. I shall stop this thought now... ArrrrgHHHHHhh! to late - we canna save the universe cap'n, it's just tooo horrible (scots accent, start treck voice etc).

The whole biblical reading vs interpretation thing is too hard for me. I did a reading course and realised that people cannot read (including well educated people with difficult degrees) - they cannot read what the author _actually_ wrote. It is weird. As a result I tend to distinguish between inspiriation by the Spirit to the author of the biblical passage and the inspiriation by the Spirit of the reader. The author and reader can fight it out when they get to heaven. When you said several weeks ago (in this or another thread) something like that direct inspiration stoped when John put down his quill after writing the Book of Revelation, it stuck in my mind. You were also referring to the works of the ecumenical councils and the pronouncements of the Pope (aka Bishop of Rome) but the principal (to my mind) is the same.

I do think it would be funny if GWB turned up home with a "Honny, guess what General X brought home for me!"

Don't do a lot of sledding over Christmas. I have only ever seen snow on the ground once (big trip, very young, tall mountains). It is mostly mid 30C sometimes less/sometimes more. Usually we do the chook and ham thing but crayfish, salad and cold meat is not uncommon. All of our christmas cards have snow on them. It is total cultural weirdness, five year olds in 40C heat singing "dashing through the snow".

Does my church use real wine! On the last Sunday before Advent, there is a big giving ceremony where everyone from the congregation brings it forward and puts it around the Holy Table. That supplies us for the year. It is a substitute for people bringing and offering gifts from home each week for the thanksgiving. A nice idea that doesn't really work on some levels but it is better than doing nothing.

(I am running out of time!)

We get 13 public holidays a year. Yay!

You know, I read this at work and laughing out loud tends to get me more noticed than I want. Babies and chocolate.... Not that I would discourage something funny. Some days it is really helpful.

Inspiration of the writer versus the reader is one of those things that I just have to go, "Yup." It makes sense. Looking at the way we've chatted over the dispensationalism entry proves how differently I can read what you've written. I have to believe that when one is seeking the guiding of the Spirit and reading the Bible that God is directing the understanding at least to a degree. Not that I can't totally mess it up but its the right start. I can't imagine someone bothering to read the Bible if they weren't seeking the Spirit but I guess, now that I actually think about it, it probably happens all of the time. (Imagine a cat lying in a sun puddle with a particularly enigmatic expression. Translate-blank look.)

The post you were referring to was the one initiated by Insight. Unfortunately I think I was a bit too definite because they never responded back. (shrug) It isn't that I disagree with everything that happened after the Apostolic writings. It's just that I am far more inclined to challenge the degree of accuracy.

I wanted to ask you about Papal decrees. I heard a news report a while ago that talked about the Pope possibly declaring Mary as the Co-redemptrix. You are Catholic, right? (It was that or another form of Orthodoxy- of which I'm clueless.) So do you buy into the whole Mary-worship thing? You never mention her in your writing. If you don't how would you deal with a Papal decree like that? Aren't Papal decrees supposed to be equal to the Scriptures?

Imagine GWB, a conservative Baptist, trying to explain that he "had to" accept her as a gift... "Really Laura, it wouldn't be politically correct to turn her down. I'd offend the entire Arab region." Bill Clinton would be torn up with jealousy. "Sure _he_ gets the girl. Where _is_ the *%!&% blue dress now?!?" (Did you know Monica has a TV show now? Yet another one not to watch.)

I looked up at a temperature conversion website to find out what 30 and 40 degrees C were. Oh my. Our hottest days are about 38 C and we get to that temp only 2 or 3 days a year. They usually come with very high humidity so its stifling. Our average summertime temperature is 27 C. This winter we averaged about -9 C for the month of January. That is typical. Overnight lows are much colder. I was frostbitten from getting stranded and having to sprint to a house - about a hundred yards - but it was long enough when the wind chill was -54 C. Comfortable - where we set our thermostats - is 21 degrees. I had no idea Adelaide was so hot. I thought, because you were on the bottom of Australia that you had more moderate temps. I was wrong.

So Australia doesn't use the English system of measurement? Funny that we kept it and you didn't.

What is chook?

Chook is chicken.

I have a number of problems with the papacy - the principal one is his heresy of primacy. I argue (as does a lot of the orthodox/catholic world) that no one bishop has the sole right to the discernment of the Spirit. The apostles didn't believe that any one of them could discern the will of God alone and I don't see why the Bishop of Rome should think differently.

The Mary thing is all a bit hard. One person pointed out to me the other day the theological motivation for the immaculate conception (i.e. Mary's having been born of a virgin). It was so Christ was born without having a sexual parental link with Adam and Eve and hence was free of Augustine style original sin. It looks like a silly argument to me, but the Roman church seems to like it. I don't think the Pope will declare Mary a co-redemptrix, it will be too silly.

One thing about the outcomes of ecumenical councils and the decrees of the Papal court is that, on the whole, they are normally the result of a lot of work and careful prayer. Rarely do they spring out of thin air. There is the famous "infalibility" decree of the 1800's which tried to formalise the heresy of primacy. But in general these agreements (which have, usually, been faily widely accepted) have brought religion and theology forward rather than backward. I supose my view is to find out what is really being said, on what basis and then make up my own mind. I have met some people who have been trained at the Vatican and they are bright, well informed bunnies.

Australia went metric in about 1965 (it was staged over a few years, money, measurements etc). Since then we have been fighting battles over paper sizes on Microsoft computers. What is it about American Letter that every device and document quietly switches back to it overnight?

Chook is chicken.

I have a number of problems with the papacy - the principal one is his heresy of primacy. I argue (as does a lot of the orthodox/catholic world) that no one bishop has the sole right to the discernment of the Spirit. The apostles didn't believe that any one of them could discern the will of God alone and I don't see why the Bishop of Rome should think differently.

The Mary thing is all a bit hard. One person pointed out to me the other day the theological motivation for the immaculate conception (i.e. Mary's having been born of a virgin). It was so Christ was born without having a sexual parental link with Adam and Eve and hence was free of Augustine style original sin. It looks like a silly argument to me, but the Roman church seems to like it. I don't think the Pope will declare Mary a co-redemptrix, it will be too silly.

One thing about the outcomes of ecumenical councils and the decrees of the Papal court is that, on the whole, they are normally the result of a lot of work and careful prayer. Rarely do they spring out of thin air. There is the famous "infalibility" decree of the 1800's which tried to formalise the heresy of primacy. But in general these agreements (which have, usually, been faily widely accepted) have brought religion and theology forward rather than backward. I supose my view is to find out what is really being said, on what basis and then make up my own mind. I have met some people who have been trained at the Vatican and they are bright, well informed bunnies.

Australia went metric in about 1965 (it was staged over a few years, money, measurements etc). Since then we have been fighting battles over paper sizes on Microsoft computers. What is it about American Letter that every device and document quietly switches back to it overnight?

Chook is chicken.

I have a number of problems with the papacy - the principal one is his heresy of primacy. I argue (as does a lot of the orthodox/catholic world) that no one bishop has the sole right to the discernment of the Spirit. The apostles didn't believe that any one of them could discern the will of God alone and I don't see why the Bishop of Rome should think differently.

The Mary thing is all a bit hard. One person pointed out to me the other day the theological motivation for the immaculate conception (i.e. Mary's having been born of a virgin). It was so Christ was born without having a sexual parental link with Adam and Eve and hence was free of Augustine style original sin. It looks like a silly argument to me, but the Roman church seems to like it. I don't think the Pope will declare Mary a co-redemptrix, it will be too silly.

One thing about the outcomes of ecumenical councils and the decrees of the Papal court is that, on the whole, they are normally the result of a lot of work and careful prayer. Rarely do they spring out of thin air. There is the famous "infalibility" decree of the 1800's which tried to formalise the heresy of primacy. But in general these agreements (which have, usually, been faily widely accepted) have brought religion and theology forward rather than backward. I supose my view is to find out what is really being said, on what basis and then make up my own mind. I have met some people who have been trained at the Vatican and they are bright, well informed bunnies.

Australia went metric in about 1965 (it was staged over a few years, money, measurements etc). Since then we have been fighting battles over paper sizes on Microsoft computers. What is it about American Letter that every device and document quietly switches back to it overnight?

Hmm lots of the one reply. Me thinks I have discovered a way to tripple click on the pppoosssttt mmmeeesssaaagggeee buttton.

As a non-Catholic attempting to understand Roman Catholicism the primacy issue is a big deal. It appears to me that the Pope claims a greater importance than any other believer and that the Roman Catholic church ascribes it to him.

A big difference between protestant and Catholic religions is the concept of the priesthood of the believer. You sound as though you believe in the priesthood of the believer. You read scripture rather than expecting someone to act as an interpreter for you. I don't think you've said whether you pray directly to God or whether you pray through a saint. I believe that, being redeemed by Christ, I can speak directly to God. I don't have to pray through anyone or to anyone other than the Father, as Christ instructed in the Lord's prayer.

I think that I have been told things that are not precisely true about things like absolution, confession and last rites. The RC practices seem to provide an intercessor, other than Christ, between man and God. Is that really true?

By the way, I don't think all writings subsequent to Revelation are hooey. We rely heavily on the decisions of the church fathers (for lack of a better phrase) and I agree that their work is, for the most part, well thought out and insightful, maybe even divinely inspired. It is the claim of divine inspiration that makes me take a second sniff. When a Pope claims that his words are of the same importance as scripture I get concerned. That doesn't sound much different to me than the Prophet in Salt Lake City or David Koresh.

The answer to your last question is that it is a plot. We Americans think that by insidiously sneaking in a default -that overrides all of your preferences- to our favorite paper size (driven by what? the size of the rollers on a 50 year old paper mill?) you will come to appreciate what is truly a superior product and end up preferring it (even though you can't buy paper in that size). Nah... It's that Microsoft thinks the world really is made up of dummies therfore you didn't mean what you entered as preferences today, or yesterday, or the day before.
Have a Nice Day and thank you for choosing Microsoft.

The heresy of Primacy is probably the biggest issue preventing the unity of the Christian Church. I am convinced the Romans have got it wrong. However, I don't claim a special position in discussions about devine revelation (otherwise I could be the Bishop of Rome ).

I think you will find the idea of the priesthood of the believer is universal doctrine in all normal churches but it is not always taught. There is a difference between what the Roman's do in Rome and what they do elsewhere. Probably IBM has the same trouble with its sales team.

The idea of praying to the saints for them to intercede is something I have never really come to grips with. I personally don't do it. I have friends who put forward convincing arguments why it is a good idea. I tend to think that heaven can be heaven, God can be God and I will try to avoid to many assumptions about things not of this world. The RCs fundamentally believe that Christ is our Intercessor with God in heaven (a quick read through their prayers for the day (collects) will show how little imagination they have shown regarding this point).

As for anyone claiming spiritual inspiration for any idea, I have no problem about that provided they are open about it, explain themselves thoroughly, provide their scriptural base, are consistant with the "fathers" and don't claim the gift of perfect discernment in the same breath. I have updated the first paragraph of the Gnostic regarding this very idea.

Hmmm.



PS: The paper size thing is an effective conspiracy - except that everybody knows that it is happening. All Windows computers I set up have Microsoft as their owner. It saves arguments later.

Do you really enter Microsoft as the company on your computers? That's a stitch.

Going back to Mary and the concept of immaculate conception, it is an idea that I had never heard of until a few years ago. It was during a Catholic bashing session (only half-way kidding) and I was amazed. Understand that I've always believed that Mary sinned and needed a Savior as much as anyone else. Scripture implies that she had sex and subsequently children. "Joseph didn't know her until after Jesus was born." (Implies that he did eventually know her. But I didn't go back to my 10-translation Greek interlinear to make sure that the "know" meant sex rather than some other meaning of know.)

The Catholic concept that she remained a perpetual virgin is very foreign to someone who has read about Jesus's mother and brothers visiting Him. I was told that Catholics believe that Mary never had any more children and that the brothers referred to in Scripture were actually half-brothers or cousins. I guess that position is supportable in a stretch but I've never been able to figure our why it was necessary. What does it matter if Mary was sinful? How is the picture changed by Mary's alleged immaculate conception? God made Jesus to be fully God and fully man. His God-ness is certainly capable of intentionally never succumbing to sin. (Your theory about original sin as a choice works particularly well in this scenario.)

What are your friends reasons for praying to a saint? Can you think of any Scriptural support for the idea that prayers to anyone other than God are condoned by God?

One last Catholic question, Why keep relics? The basillica at Notre Dame has a relic room. It seems almost occultic to see all these little emblems pinned onto red velvet with hunks of who knows what part in the middle. They even have this doll lying on a bed that supposedly is the same size as the bones of the saint stuffed inside her. It definitely seems bizarre to someone from a bare bones walls and pews background.

Okay, maybe it wasn't the last question. Transubstantiation - you really believe that it physically changes into Christ's body and blood after you eat it? And you're okay with that?

I hope you don't mind me asking you these questions. I'm learning a lot from you that is reshaping the way I think of Catholicism. Our conversations are helping me to find common ground that I wasn't aware existed. Thanks.

Regarding spiritual inspiration, I agree that people can be inspired today, and can claim to have been inspired as long as, as you say, they are very clear and not contradictory to Scriptures, etc. I will probably always be a bit suspicious of claims of inspiration for specific acts. "God told me to give my groceries to her." Real situation, and then my friend who gave her groceries away mooched food from me. Hmmm. Did God? It never resulted in further contact. I figure the lady that got the groceries decided my friend was a nut case and went out of her way to avoid her. Something I eventually did as well.

I haven't looked at your work on heresies lately. I've been lurking in some mindless conversations to offset stuff here at work. I'll take a look again soon.

I have no real answers about the Mary stuff. I have never studied it. Montana Redhead may well know a lot about it. One aged feminist friend of mine says (smugly) that if it does nothing else, it gets men out of the picture.

Praying to saints sort of makes sense if you consider them to have eternal life with God in heaven. In that case they have joined with God in perfect union (or something) and can hear those who pray - presumably this is what it means to be in heaven, joined with God and being in perfect union. Anyway, if you run with the Universal Church, on earth and in heaven (militant and triumphant) then you may get some milage of out it all.

On to the question of transubstantiation! The original meaning was not that the molecular material changed but that the inherent nature of the bread and wine changed. To recap. Modern reductionism disassociates breadiness from bread and wininess from wine. We say we can have bread that is not like bread (and we can prove it with chemical analysis) or that we can have stuff that we thought was bread but isn't. This is new and quite a silly way of thinking about bread (but makes sense in genetics and Linaeian systems of biological classification).

Instead if you treat bread as a whole: the idea of the thing and its presentness and it substance and its usefulness and its come-from-ness and its going-to-ness, life in general gets easier. The substance of bread becomes like the substance of an argument: not its molecules (or words in the case of the argument) but its point (don't take my word play here too far!!).

So what does it mean to transubstantiate the bread? The Eucharist/Thanksgiving is a common meal. It is the Body of Christ. We are the Body of Christ. Christ was crucified was incarnated (i.e. made flesh). The bread remains bread but it breadiness is augmented by Godiness. It must feed the body and the soul. So the whole bread is changed because a part of the whole has changed.

You can do what you like with this idea. Over time (especially when people chose to stop coming to Holy Communion in the 6th Century - despite pleas from the bishops of the day) people got superstitious about it all and made up all sorts of ideas that are still around today. A healthy dose of scepticism and a loose grasp of philosophy (Plato will do) works wonders.

So where do I stand? Well, more or less near what I have written. I don't agree with the Lutherans who just pour the wine back into the bottle at the end of the service (Cranmer tried to introduce the practice into the Anglican church in 1549 but struck a lot of resistance). But I don't agree with getting too precious either. Reserving Holy Communion is fine, but the act of communion includes giving thanks not just whipping out some pre-consecrated bread. For the sick and dying (those who can't be there) and who are part of the community, even though they can't be there for the thanksgiving of the community, sharing in the meal (maybe days after) is a wonderful part of Christian life.

I like these questions. I have to think about some of them very hard and even have to read stuff to find answers sometimes. I take your word on the Bible pretty much on face value (a weakness in my background that I am endeavouring to improve).

One of the motivations for the reform of the church in the 14th Century (and later) was that the Roman Catholic church had some very good theology and appalling liturgy and teaching (not to mention Imperial politics and morality). The reformers took the theology and brought it up front but the RCs had never lost it and still teach it. However because they rarely admit to mistakes they don't teach it effectively. Finding common ground between all Christian churches (theologically) is quite easy.

The points of disunity are principally sacramental theology, primacy and liturgical practice. There is other stuff there, but I would call these three as the biggies.

Unfortunately, my heresy entries are getting in need of rewrites as I keep working in new stuff.

I've thought about trying Montana Redhead on a few questions but she seems very busy - not chatty - so I've hesitated. Maybe I will after I finish the Loyola stuff she directed me to.

I find militant feminism annoying. Why want men out of the picture? To me, the need to prove myself equal indicates that I find myself lacking. It is really something felines rarely struggle with.

Praying to saints... That is a big assumption. I don't read anything about complete union with God, fellowship yes, but not union. In fact what little I do know makes me lean toward the idea that we retain our own identities and personalities just without the propensity for messing up that we (I) currently have. I guess we'll find out.

So the bread stays bread but, because of its use, it takes on the substance of God? If it was made but never put into use as communion bread it would be no big deal but to use it as communion bread means that, even though it is just bread, we treat it with reverence? I can understand that although I don't see that it is necessary. We just chuck the leftover bread when communion is over. I think the reverence with which you treat so many things is just not a part of my training. To you, touched by God is worthy of reverence. To me, only God is worthy of reverence. I think both might be right in some ways. Incidently, communion bread is the only gluten food that I eat. I just can't not partake. (To use a very clumsy double negative. The converse didn't seem as emphatic.)

What do you do with the leftover bread and wine? And you do use a common cup right? That they wipe after every person drinks? I'm not sure that's worse than little plastic cups of grape juice but it just sounds so chummy. (And like a good way to pick up a cold sore.)

I asked Gordy why the college he attended didn't include more teaching from the pre-reformation church fathers. He said that they are taught but mostly at the graduate level. He has a bachelor's in church ministry and so the concentration was on Bible, Greek and various methods. (I even took a class on how to be married to a pastor. As if a cat would ever be able to keep her claws in long enough to be married to a pastor. He was a pastor for 2 1/2 years but, thankfully, Gordy is happier now as a carpenter.)

I know that Augustine is widely taught in Baptist colleges. Gordy got City of God and Confessions for Christmas to expand his knowledge. (I got the rest of the Alan Dean Foster series that I wanted and the Lord of the Rings DVD. Tell you my priorities?)

There is a movement in fundamental Christian churches toward offering a liturgical service. Seems it feeds a need. Isn't that interesting?

Fortunately the particular lady to whom I was refering is not particularly militant but very persistant (and has a habit of thinking ideas through to their logical conclusion - which annoys some militant feminists beyond belief). She also has a good sense of humour and is quite devout.

With the left overs, they are normally finished on the day (you setout as much as you need, or think you will need). If someone is sick some is set aside. A small amount of consecrated bread is set aside for hospital vists and other unexpected contingencies.

Tests show that it is quite hard to catch things from a common cup because:
1) silver is anti-bacterial (not merely passive)
2) the wine is about 20% alcohol (standard fortified wine)
3) the cup is wiped and turned (it takes about a minute before it faces someone again).
Very few people catch stuff. Also people who have a cold normally dip their bread into the wine rather than drinking from the cup.

From what I have seen (and heard), being a pastor of a church without the rigid structures of the Romans, Episcopalians, Lutherans or Othodox churches must be very hard unless you are wildly successful. Over-organisation can have its benefits including rules about houses, income, holidays, pastoral support (for the pastor), worship resources etc. Mind you there are problems too (am not saying it is all Elision Fields, but it would be more comfortable for the Pastor's cat). In any case, I understand woodwork is a good alternative career for Christian pastors.

But to the subject of transubstantiation! Why shouldn't something gain real significance because it has been the object of special attention? We all know that birthday cakes (once they have had candles lit and Happy Birthday sung) are totally different beasts to normal cakes - even those made with the same recipe (or prior to Happy Birthday being sung over them). The rules of ownership, rites for cutting them, the complete consumption of them (a normal cake may be forgotton when you go on holiday and go mouldy but a birthday cake gets packed and comes along too). Maybe the rites around birthday cakes and how they are set aside for special use by a sacred community (the family) are different for you, but I believe that most families have similar rites for things (and not just for children).

So how does this apply to Communion. I would argue that like with Birthday Cakes where the significance rests entirely with the family, the significance of the bread and the wine in the Eucharist rests with the family of God, the Church Universal. That is, it is a doing-thing that God has given the church and is meaningful to the people. It's holiness comes from God because God ordained it. The significance of the three layered approach to defining the body of Christ (bread, people and person) is up for grabs.

I suppose a question to be answered is how does a birthday cake become special? I am much older than 7, but I still have very special feelings about my cake (I am no longer quite as possesive which is a good thing). Is it the song, the candles, the ritual, the sense of family/friendship, the fact that it is _my_ birthday? I can't say that I rightly know. The spirit that moves through the ritual is real enough and the cake picks up some real, if indefinable, qualities that it does not lose (I hope this analogy is working for you).

I think that sanctification which is common in the Judeo-Christian tradition, comes close to the heart. Putting something/someone aside for God's use is not a novel idea. The item, though, is for God's work amongst God's people (not for God alone: what would God do with a whole Sabbath, let alone an entire nation's worth of them?). So having taken aside bread and wine for God's use for God's people, it is invested with significance by God's people (all very biblical). The same extends fairly to birthday cakes: the cake is set-aside for its special purpose, ritually dedicated in good will and shared between everybody for desert/afternoon-tea (despite the desires of young birthday boys who would like rather a lot left over for personal consumption later).

Is God really present in the Thanksgiving or is an agreement by those present to set aside the bread/wine (birthday cake) for its special purpose?

I don't know the answer to this whole question (neither did Elizabeth the First). I personally believe that the Law of the OT did come from God and by each person attempting to fulfill it they did the work of God. Christ came and DID fulfill the law. Doing the new actions arising from the NT also make us righteous with God: and these too are doing things, not just knowing things (hence the problem with hypocrisy and Gnosticism). So I am prepared to argue (and also prepared to back away from this I am saying) that God is at work in these doingnesses and it isn't a simple agreement between those present. By not working on the Sabbath (in a meaningful way) did one join with God and participate in God's rightousness? I don't know, this is a hard question to answer.

I commented in one of my other posts that Primacy and sacramentalism (this stuff) were two of the big issues preventing Christian unity. It is a real issue because there is no good reason for being a sacramentalist even if you understand it.

On the question of Christmas presents, I think you won. Confessions (which I have not read, but mean to) is a frustrating book I am told. LotR is really cool. I haven't seen the Two Towers yet (there is one cinema still showing it somewhere round here). I am not going to see it if I cannot see it properly. I might have to wait until the Return of the King and see it then - it will be re-released, surely.

The rise of liturgical services in pentecostal churches is really interesting. Coming from a liturgical background (youv'e guessed?), people keep saying in meetings "Young people want bands and to blow away all that stuffiness". Half of the people at my church are ex-Pentie and keep saying no!