quote:

Originally posted by MogtheDog

Mog the Dog here.

Ahhhh...a Studebaker! I drive a 1965 Studebaker Daytona. I know it's not an Avanti, but it's a fine Mog-mobile nevertheless.

MTD

Yowie! I had a 1963 Daytona, 2 door, with a V8. Walking by a driveway one day in 1975, I saw it parked there and the owner happened to walk out and I said to him, 'Hey, you want to sell the Studebaker. It looked abandoned, actually. He said, Yeah. I said, How much? He said, give me $50. I gave him $50 and drove the thing for 2 years. Sold it to a kid down the street who immediately crashed it into a pole and crushed that wonderful Mercedes-style grill. Oh, the horror!

You have the last Daytona Studebaker. Likely made in Canada at the time. Good shape all around should bring upwards of 5 grand nowadays.

quote:

You have the last Daytona Studebaker. Likely made in Canada at the time. Good shape all around should bring upwards of 5 grand nowadays.

Mog the Dog here.

Yes, my Daytona is from Hamilton, Ontario. She's a real beauty.

MTD

Doug Spaulding.

This about covers it:
http://www.letusreason.org/poptea3.htm

quote:

Originally posted by Doug Spaulding:
Mog is a rather "PRNDL"-coloured doggy.

Or is that brindle?

Woof!

---------------------------

Braling II - You're right. My Studebaker's shift pattern is P-N-D-L-R.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil Knox:
This about covers it:

Yeah, it covers it alright - so does manure.

It's about time someone attacked biblical literalism!

Looks like this webmaster also dislikes Robert Schuller and Norman Vincent Peale.

I'm intrigued that the bishop is rocking your boat enough that you go out and look these things up.

According to Bishop Spong, he seems to be a possible practicing homosexual. As well as condones multiple sex partners even inside marriage. Thinks Paul the Apostle was a latent homosexual.

What kind of fool do you think the rest of us are, Spaulding?

Sponge, I mean Spong, sounds like a cult leader. I wonder if we're acquainted with any members?
Actually, I feel genuinely sorry for these folks, but also sad for what sincere seekers of Truth encounter these days when they investigate Christianity.

Q: Your piece about Christian art was helpful. I've often thought about how Da Vinci's "Last Supper" has influenced our view of that biblical story. I know many who believe it happened just as his painting depicts it. I had a discussion recently with a friend who was put off by my assertion of the possibility of women being at the Last Supper, if indeed there was such an event. He said, "Oh, sure, there were women — the ones who were serving the food." I said, "No, there could likely have been women followers and friends of Jesus who were there." He dismissed the possibility, and I'm sure he takes the Da Vinci piece as literally true. As for the Last Supper, of course, John's gospel doesn't even include that story. So, I agree with your premise that Christian art has been a powerful force in giving us our images of Jesus and his life. Thank you for your insights.


A: I tested the insight about art influencing theology at a conference in Nova Scotia recently and had it reconfirmed. In the minds of most Christians, the Last Supper looks like the Leonardo DaVinci portrait.

The biblical facts are that Paul is the first to mention the Last Supper in ca. 56 CE in the First Epistle to the Corinthians (chapter 11). For Paul these things are noteworthy: 1) It is not a Passover meal; 2) It is dated by Paul as happening "on the night in which he was handed over." That is the first mention we have of the idea of a betrayal, for the words handed over were later translated as betrayed; and 3) Paul has no sense that this "handing over" came at the hands of one of the 12. That was the extent of our knowledge about the Last Supper until the writing of Mark in the early years of the 8th decade.

In Mark, the Last Supper becomes a Passover meal and occurs on the night before the crucifixion. Judas has now been identified with the act of betrayal and that new tradition is written into Mark's text. An earlier biblical story, about a traitor named Ahithophel, has shaped Mark's narrative. Ahithophel betrayed King David, who was also known as "the Lord's anointed," or as the messiah, even though he too ate at the table of the king. Matthew and Luke both follow Mark's story line and name the Last Supper as a Passover meal and include their version of the Ahithophel story.

When we come to the Fourth Gospel, the story line changes. The Last Supper is not a Passover meal. For John it comes the day before the Passover. John wants to portray the crucifixion itself as coinciding with the slaughter of the Passover lamb.

None of the gospels suggest that anyone but the disciples were present. However, that doesn't commit us to much since the number of disciples appears to be a later messianic designation to portray Jesus as the founder of the new Israel and since the old Israel had 12 tribes, Jesus is made to have 12 disciples. The gospel writers, however, do not agree on who the 12 were.

One final note: Mark, Matthew and Luke all say that Jesus had female disciples who followed him all the way from Galilee. These female disciples were with him in Jerusalem. The leader of the female disciples was Mary Magdalene, who is portrayed as a chief mourner at his tomb in John.

It is inconceivable to me that if there was in fact a Last Supper, whether it was a Passover meal or not, these female disciples would not have been present.

No one knows for certain, including Da Vinci. However, it was the Da Vinci painting that caused one wag to suggest that the final words spoken by Jesus at the Last Supper were, "All you fellows that want to be in the picture come to this side of the table."

- John Shelby Spong

quote:

Originally posted by Nard Kordell:
Per these Religious Postings~
_______________________________

Somebody 'looking in' now and then on these back-and-forth postings might reason to themselves, "This is why I never ever argue Religion!"

And they'd be right.

Must you lay things on the table if you want to be clear? You better believe it!!

Myself, I come from a Roman Catholic background. I knew before 8 years old that I had a lot of sin in my life.

You say, 'Whatta you mean you knew it?'

Well I knew 'sin' was keeping me from myself, from things I loved, from a clear mind. From enjoying my youth. From understanding relationships. Eventually, years and years later, I found out it's possible for things to be turned around.

Doug Spaulding writes that he has enough theological learning to have earned a degree in Theology. He has intellectualized stuff and studied enough to discern the whereto and wherefores of so much history that many of us would sit in the farthest back row of his study group hoping not to be called on to contribute something.

But Doug seems to say 'sin' don't matter that much, or, more precisely, it ain't what it seems, or it's been ill-described by a group of catholic hierarchy and.... well, the reasoning goes on and on and after awhile who cares about hearing about sin one way or another? Sometimes I think Doug has studied 'stuff' until there is an odious swarming from all sides of the very nature of the fallen human condition. Hence, thru this giant magnifying glass of investigation, the flaws in people's motives and intentions, the prejudices, the lies, the greed, excels. And truth pales?

I don't know Braling II's background, but he seems to have captured the essence of what God says in his word.

Personally, I don't give a hoot what 4th century council made up the Nicene Creed, or some of the other Roman Catholic doctrines; or what early church fathers ate for lunch that week. Or who argued what before whom, or what or where or how. What I am interested in is these things:

• That it's not my behavior that defines if I am a sinner or not. It is that I was born in that condition. "I am born a sinner", as King David explains, "from my mother's womb".

• Know that I can't put myself together. Or to save me from myself. I need my Creator's Instruction Manual.

When I long ago read a passage in Ray Bradbury's writings, one of those passages that grabs you and shakes you and you walk around for a half afternoon wondering how is it that you can feel so beautiful while the world seems to go on without knowing anything... I didn't question how the stuff was written, who all conspired together, or just what phrases or words were hijacked and entered into the context of the story, or omitted. Instead, I took pleasure in the effect it had on me. It seemed to nearly change my whole outlook for a while. Sometimes, even a long, long, long while longer. I was more interested in..."What was it that I was experiencing? Why was it so gosh darn... beautiful? Why was it so wonderful? Why did it make me want to seek out the creator of what I had read?"

When I read scripture, when I read that the Holy Spirit will lead me into truth, the very beauty of what is written prompts me to think that..no man with even a pen of all the greatest minds of the world combined, could come up with what it is saying is real and genuine.

And, thus, I am not interested in the human authors that penned scripture. I am interested in the author who moved the mind and hearts of men to pen. The author who is God.

So...

With such different points of origin, so many points of view in the pursuit of scriptures, no wonder some may think...'Heck, you won't get me into any religious discussion.'

It's not hard to understand why.



__________________________

DOUG SPAULDING~

When Bishop Spong starts talking about free sex, it's the time to put up the hand and say WHOA!

This is the most diabolical, insidious, hellish avenue to eat out the soul. No wonder this Spong guy has so many ideas that are wrong. That is what sin does to the intellect and heart and mind and soul. It warps it. You get skewed.

This is NOT an indictment. This is the reality what happens when you play around with pornography, sexual partners, homosexuality, lesbianism. It conflicts directly with the mind that God originally intended for man. The world is filled with these kind of people. Paul addresses them. Other writers of the scripture addresses it. Spong seems to think otherwise. No wonder.

Nard, last spring I was traveling toward the ocean on 595 by the Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport when I saw in my rear view mirror a black car and I just knew that it was an Avanti.
When the Avanti passed me I gave the driver a high sign as to it's being in perfect shape.

On another occasion my wife were on the Turnpike heading north toward West Palm Beach when I saw a car approaching and then, too, I knew that it was an Avanti and alerted my wife to the fact as she had never seen one. It went roaring by us and what a sight!

Dear Friend Nard,
While I respect your intentions, I thoughly disagree with the premise that Man was born into sin. A dog does not need a manual to be a dog, it watches other dogs and becomes a dog. Our closest relative in the animal kingdom, the chimpanzee, also does not need such a manual to know how to be a chimp. There are agressive chimps and non-agressive chimps. The Bonobos create peaceful comminities with co-dominant males and females in charge. Unlike other chimps, the community of Bonobos operates not with a violent-driven ethic, but an ethic that can be described as "make love - not war." When chimps in this society become agitated, they don't engage in bloody fights; they diffuse their divisive energy by having sex. (1)

If the community is established to care for all members regardless of parenting then all memebers will receive love and the necessary nurturing to achieve a proper adult behavior consistent with their genetic programming. Our so called Heathen indiginous peoples around the world have known this and live in a happier society than Western Man can achieve, peaceful, loving each other and handling disputes in a democratice manner in a council of elders, etc. No manual was necessary to correct any inbred defect, or sin. Sin is a definition that can be changed to reflect the thinking of the time, and is used to control the people by making them feel less than God-like and therefor needing help in the form a salvation, for which they pay a price to someone who provides the service.

Balderdash. We are God-like at birth, look at any newborn and see what I mean. The pure innocence is very evident and only after exposure to the thinking of adult humans in what ever society they are born into do they become corrupted with the prejudices of their parents. We already "come unto me as a little child" at birth. If we were allowed to learn love and not hate from our fellow man we would remain closer to the God-like state in which we arrived in life. Sex is not sin. Hurting someone for sex, or putting one's self ahead of another person for the pure gratification of the sexual urge may be sin.

I believe we need to start to emphasize the positives and not set up false problems that then need solving by religious solutions. I am a Man, and I was given a mind to use for the betterment of myself and my fellows, male and female. The Golden Rule is the only manual that I need. I will treat you as I would like to be treated, with fairness, love and understanding. There is no absolute truth in this life other than that change is permanently in operation. Hurt not that ye be not hurt.

(1) From: The Biology of Belief , Unleashing the power of consciousness, matter & miracles by Bruce Lipton, Phd.

biplane1~

Yowie! & Zowie!

The ultimate AVANTI was the 1963, wedge design.

The 1964 incorporated the odd square headlights, but kept the wedge design. There was no 1965. Studebaker moved to Canada and didn't take the Avanti along. The 1966 came out as a partnership of Neuman and Altman, South Bend Indiana Studebaker dealers. Alas, they dropped the wedge design and made the car straight from front to back. Unfortunate. After that there was a succession of owners.

The last attempt to re-ignite the Avanti (around 2007) was by some hot shot in Cancun, Mexico, a multi-trillionaire who thought he'd revive the Avanti with a blast of the original design and lots and lots of glamorous bling. (Check out the very gala events in Cancun, Mexico in the link below under 'NEWS&EVENTS') Something certainly happened there!!! The underworld came in or the corrupt cops or both and he is probably sitting in some dungeon in Venuzuela now. His vast and beautiful showroom probably run by a den of some drug cartel by now.

http://www.avantimotors.com/
___________________________

patrask~

Thanks for your reply and sentiments. This thing about man being born into sin comes from the old prophets of the Old Testament (like King David), as well as all the New Testament and Jesus Christ Himself. Maybe the problem of defining sin will help. Taken from the Greek (or is it Hebrew?) 'sin' is a term in the game of archery. If you commit a sin in archery, it simply means you missed the mark, you missed the bulls-eye. You "sinned." Scripture took up that term to mean you are born with the inability to know God, for one, and if that ability is available to you, it is because God put it there. Yourself, a sinner, means without God you miss the mark.

Other references to sin are that you grow old and die. There is war in the soul. There is war between people. There is malice, anger, jealousy, etc etc. The list is...endless? That is all a product of missing the mark, or being born into missing the mark, sin. Basically what it's saying is that left to himself, man has no ability to know God. When God gives man intuition of Himself, or the conscience to seek God, or anything that drives a person to understand his Creator, it is God that put it into man, not man being born with that knowledge. Scripture writes a lot about that. In the New Testament it says unless God first put the desire into your heart to seek Him, you will never do so. (Now, if someone doesn't look at scripture as inspired by God, or just man-made, none of these explanations will help!)

But if you reject the notion of sinful man, that is your freedom to do so. From a biblical perspective, you attempt to take the place of God in respect to power over yourself.

As to chimpanzees and manuals of how-to, much of the animal and insect kingdom runs on instinct, which I know little of. But scripture is intriguing in where they write that the kingdom of creatures other than man DID NOT want to be subjected to man';s fall from Grace, into Sin. It says, they fought against it, in so many words. Figure that one out. It says they eventually relented and became subject to man. But they groan now in their subjection, waiting for a day of the Sons of Man. In other words, when man is freed from sin, so will they. I could take this further, scripture does. It says ALL of creation is subject to the destroying elements of sin. But animals cannot be judged for their behavior like man because they are instinctual creatures who don't know how else to behave.

As to Heathen indiginous people around the world who live happier than Western man, scripture writes about them as well.
It says that to those people are given a conscience and an intuitive awareness of a Creator behind the majesty of mountains and the sky and the world around them. And they have no excuse should they trample across those intuitive understandings of God.

Per your comment of salvation:
If there is no need of help for salvation, as you state, there was no need, therefore, for Christ to be born and live a perfect life, go thru all the temptations that Adam and Eve had undergone and behave correctly, and walk on and thru that invisibly thin walkaway of actions, behaviors, relationships, words, thoughts, emotions, that curled around the negative, deathly winds of this world to come out untainted and unable to be touched by sin or even physical death. His life, thus, would be useless.

As to your comment about God-like at birth...look at a newborn..
Well, scripture is very harsh about emotionally, spiritually, physically, damaging a child. Christ himself remarked..."You must be like a child to enter the kingdom of God." Children have all the innocence that reflect someone truly innocent. But David, King David said, I was conceived in sin, and from the time I was in my mother's womb, I was a sinner. This subject really can get complicated and take up a lot of megabytes of room,......



______________________________

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Nard Kordell,

This is exactly why you need midrash to understand the scriptures. The very idea that an unborn fetus is tainted by sin is ludicrous!

Doug Spaulding~

You've fallen for a cult. Why have you intellectualized the scriptures into oblivion and the historic Christianity into mishmash? I was, myself, in a border-line cult. Lot of good and honest people caught up in a single personality. Cults expound something seemingly so dramatically real and genuine that we are drawn into a world that has fringes of untruth and a framework most rotten.

You'll have to work all this out yourself, of course. I see the biggest trap Spong has set up is the sexual one. It is the most disillusional producing one to be engulfed by.

Q: How do you respond to Christians who say they live their lives according to God's plan for them, and that all the things that happen in their lives are because God wanted them to happen? My daughter-in-law is pregnant with her fifth child, which is sad considering her financial situation, as well as all the problems the world faces today in caring for its growing population. She says they are having babies because it is God's plan for them. My husband and I wonder if they will finally take responsibility for their lives and the lives of their children and decide on a form of birth control before number six is created. They say they totally trust God and rely on God to decide everything! Isn't this just a cop-out, an immature response by someone who can not or will not take responsibility for themselves? They say they are being faithful Christians and everyone should live the way they do. For them there is only one path.


A: Of course it is a cop-out. It is also an expression of religious dependency that marks the person as significantly childlike and immature. Her argument, if you have presented it fully and fairly, is also quite irrational. Since God gives us hair that grows, are we correct to argue that cutting it violates God's plan? If we take medicine when we get sick, does that violate God's plan for us to be ill?

Sexual intercourse, not God, produces babies. Does one imagine that God wills a dozen children for some, while demanding sexual abstinence for others? Would not effective family planning that requires responsible decision making be a better alternative for everyone?

Many parts of the Christian Church like dependent, childlike members. That is why many church leaders exhort us to be "born again." When we are born again, we become children anew. Perhaps what we need to do is not to be born again but to grow up!

Your daughter-in-law and her husband have used religion, a very juvenile version of religion I might add, to delude themselves into pretending that that passive dependency is actually a virtue. I think those who claim that their path is the only pathway to God are both arrogant and idolatrous. They have attributed to their frail, human definition of God some ultimate significance. They have made an idol out of their own creation. They have also assumed that their limited human mind can define the indefinable.

Religious words cover a great deal of neurotic and even psychotic behavior. One should not be intimidated by that, even when it occurs in the life of a loved family member.


- John Shelby Spong