主播大秀

You'd be surprised to learn how many British expats live in the LA area. I bump into Brits all the time here ...famous and otherwise... they come for the California sun and American lifestyle.

The expat population is served by a few British shops, a couple of which I frequently visit and have come to rely on - there's one in Santa Monica and one in San Clemente - they sell Cadbury's chocolate (which I'm addicted to), Shepherd's Pie mix, Salad Cream, tea and lots of other British-type things. It's a lifeline, man.

Obscene greed, have a thought for the Indian and African children that are being exploited to make football merchandise. SAD

I'd pay him anything he wants. I won't tell you what he'd have to do for the money though!

Billy #2
Generally in America, we don't exploit Indian and African children to manufacture our sporting goods and atire at slave wages under inhuman working conditions. We reserve that privelege for Hatians, Chinese, Phillipinos, and Indonesians. Enough of your false accusations.

David Beckham is exercising his inalienable right to pursue happiness in the California lifestyle. Everyone should try it once in their lifetime if they get the opportunity. I did it for almost five years from 1978 to 1982. Why did I give it up? I went broke or I'd still be there. It would have been much more fun had I been rich at the time. A million dollars a week is chump change to some of these clubs. What they lack in skill on the soccer field, they more than make up for in fan enthusiasm and their bottom line. However, I think David Beckham is in for a surprise. While he may become a big celeb among the soccer moms and kids who play the game, on the whole, despite being the most popular sport in the world, it's minor league in America. Most people won't know who he is and won't care when they find out. Golden balls won't be enough to win him fame in Hollywood. The more successful people in that provence have them made out of brass.

Are we suggesting a cap on how much someone should be paid for a job?

David Green- I certainly, damned-well hope not.

I agree with you, Jenny!!!

He is paid so much because he makes a lot of money for the people who employ him.

The real question is why so many are willing to pay to see celebrities do fairly meaningless things - like kicking a ball around a field - no matter how artfully?

Nice work if you can get it.

Re 4 Mark wrote:

"Golden balls won't be enough to win him fame in Hollywood. The more successful people in that provence have them made out of brass."

A challenge to the group. Serious question!

Anyone know the actual source of the association of 'brass' with 'balls'?

Cordially,
Michael

ps If you have to google for the answer that won't count!

Voluntary Simpleton #8
I feel exactly as you do. I hope you've included clerics among your list of society's meaningless overpaid parasites. At least sports provides an amusing diversion, in the tradition of gladiators and court jesters. Many people feel they are doing pennance just by going to church. Then they pay out money on top of it. I wondered what happened to his vow of poverty when I saw a priest on a plane headed for the same Carribean luxury cruise I was taking.

VS- That's very libertarian of you! I'm proud to say I agree with you for the first time ever! :-)

Michael #9
Be careful, you are approaching what may be a very prickly subject :>) Remember, there are no roses without thorns.

Re 12 Mark wrote: "Michael #9
Be careful, you are approaching what may be a very prickly subject :>) Remember, there are no roses without thorns."

I don't think so. What I am getting at is: 'It's cold enough to freeze ....."

Buy my question is to what does this expression refer?

Regards,
Michael

uh - oh,
Shiver me timbers!
michael is actually asking a question about (eek) thermodynamics.

The expression is "it's cold enough to freeze the balls of a brass monkey".

A brass monkey was some kind of frame used to hold cannonballs on royal navy ships in the days of sails and cannons. Due to the different thermodynamic properties of the brass monkey and the (presumably) iron/steel cannonballs - the mankey shrank more in the cold weather - and the cannon balls popped oout.

Bingo.

I didnt even say the word MacIntosh!

Aw Sh!t...

Just imagine this scene. In anyville USA, a bunch of guys are sitting around in a bar knocking back a few after work and they have an important football game on the TV. Half the bar is watching the game and some of them have money in betting pools at work riding on the final score. Then someone says, could you switch the channel to the soccer match, they've got David Beckham playing. Question...will the guy who asked make it to the exit door alive? In my culture, soccer is still an alien game of relatively limited interest.

Re post 14 Gee Dubyah wrote: "uh - oh, Shiver me timbers! michael is actually asking a question about (eek) thermodynamics."

BINGO!

Michael

Gay Christian Believer

I hope you dont mind me asking, but you speak about what you would have Becks do with you.

Where do you stand on mongamy and sex outside marriage?

If you dont want to discuss, no prob.

PB

Very clever, Michael! And clever of GW to spot it. You guys are really just sharper than brass javelins now, aren't you.

* 14.
* At 01:08 AM on 13 Jan 2007,
* Gee Dubyah wrote:

"The expression is "it's cold enough to freeze the balls of a brass monkey".

A brass monkey was some kind of frame used to hold cannonballs on royal navy ships in the days of sails and cannons. Due to the different thermodynamic properties of the brass monkey and the (presumably) iron/steel cannonballs - the mankey shrank more in the cold weather - and the cannon balls popped oout."

I'm afraid that's actually not true. It's a popularized myth. I suppose Michael might even call it a Historized Metaphor!

It is actually more simple than that. It is to do with actual brass monkeys. There were also expressions like "it would freeze the tail of brass monkey" etc.

There were also phrases for the other end of the scale like "hot enough to melt the nose off a brass monkey"

You can find all this on Wiki, but I didn't cheat - I had looked this up about 6 months ago when I decided to find out if the cannonball story was true or not!

Re 19

Egads could the young earther be right on this one? Maybe so! I did some research - I learn something new everyday.

Just goes to show that what you think you 'know' you maybe don't!. It pays to keep the power of doubt in your life .... thank goodness that doubt was a part of my 272 word credo. What's your excuse Gee? ;-)

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER
805 KIDDER BREESE SE -- WASHINGTON NAVY YARD
WASHINGTON DC 20374-5060

Brass Monkey

The word "monkey" is of uncertain origin; its first known usage was in 1498 when it was used in the literary work Reynard the Fox as the name of the son of Martin the Ape. "Monkey" has numerous nautical meanings, such as a small coastal trading vessel, single masted with a square sail of the 16th and 17th centuries; a small wooden cask in which grog was carried after issue from a grog-tub to the seamen's messes in the Royal Navy; a type of marine steam reciprocating engine where two engines were used together in tandem on the same propeller shaft; and a sailor whose job involved climbing and moving swiftly (usage dating to 1858). A "monkey boat" was a narrow vessel used on canals (usage dating to 1858); a "monkey gaff" is a small gaff on large merchant vessels; a "monkey jacket" is a close fitting jacket worn by sailors; "monkey spars" are small masts and yards on vessels used for the "instruction and exercise of boys;" and a "monkey pump" is a straw used to suck the liquid from a small hole in a cask; a "monkey block" was used in the rigging of sailing ships; "monkey island" is a ship's upper bridge; "monkey drill" was calisthenics by naval personnel (usage dating to 1895); and "monkey march" is close order march by US Marine Corps personnel (usage dating to 1952). [Sources: Cassidy, Frederick G. and Joan Houston Hall eds. Dictionary of American Regional English. vol.3 (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1996): 642; Wilfred Granville. A Dictionary of Sailors' Slang (London: Andre Deutch, 1962): 77; Peter Kemp ed. Oxford Companion to Ships & the Sea. (New York: Oxford University; Press, 1976): 556; The Oxford English Dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press, 1933; J.E. Lighter ed. Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang. (New York: Random House, 1994): 580.; and Eric Partridge A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. 8th ed. (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company): 917.]

"Monkey" has also been used within an ordnance context. A "monkey" was a kind of gun or cannon (usage dating to 1650). "Monkey tail" was a short hand spike, a lever for aiming a carronade [short-sight iron cannon]. A "powder monkey" was a boy who carried gun powder from the magazine to cannons and performed other ordnance duties on a warship (usage dating to 1682). [Source: The Oxford English Dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press, 1933.]

The first recorded use of the term "brass monkey" appears to dates to 1857 when it was used in an apparently vulgar context by C.A. Abbey in his book Before the Mast, where on page 108 it says "It would freeze the tail off a brass monkey." [Source: Lighter, J.E. ed. Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang. (New York: Random House, 1994): 262.]

It has often been claimed that the "brass monkey" was a holder or storage rack in which cannon balls (or shot) were stacked on a ship. Supposedly when the "monkey" with its stack of cannon ball became cold, the contraction of iron cannon balls led to the balls falling through or off of the "monkey." This explanation appears to be a legend of the sea without historical justification. In actuality, ready service shot was kept on the gun or spar decks in shot racks (also known as shot garlands in the Royal Navy) which consisted of longitudinal wooden planks with holes bored into them, into which round shot (cannon balls) were inserted for ready use by the gun crew. These shot racks or garlands are discussed in: Longridge, C. Nepean. The Anatomy of Nelson's Ships. (Annapolis MD: Naval Institute Press, 1981): 64. A top view of shot garlands on the upper deck of a ship-of-the-line is depicted in The Visual Dictionary of Ships and Sailing. New York: Dorling Kindersley, 1991): 17.

Regards,
Michael

ps JK EXCELLENT point you made about historized metaphor which is apparently what this expression is and what I had done to it. Bravo!

pps: Now maybe I can stump you on your belief about the earth being only 6000 years old? If you are ready for my question I will post it here.

Re 18:

"Very clever, Michael! And clever of GW to spot it. You guys are really just sharper than brass javelins now, aren't you."

John:

Looks like JK is smarter than both of us! But then I believe he is a brilliant 2nd year physics student.

Look how quickly he recognized 'historized metaphor'. He learns fast!

Now if we could only get the bible literalists to realize that most of the stories in the bible are probably historized metaphor which they continue to believe as historical fact we might get to a deeper understanding of the bible and its 'truth'. Even I have made this mistake!

What say ye, John?

Regards,
Michael

ps: Maureen is loving this!

* 21.
* At 01:45 PM on 13 Jan 2007,
* Michael N. Hull wrote:

"Now if we could only get the bible literalists to realize that most of the stories in the bible are probably historized metaphor"

Most and Probably? You don't sound very sure!!

I personally can't understand how someone can believe in God but yet not trust Him to deliver His message to people plainly. Do you really think God planned this whole bible thing as a diversion so that only the most intelligent people could decipher what God wants them to believe?

Re post 22 JK wrote:

"I personally can't understand how someone can believe in God but yet not trust Him to deliver His message to people plainly. Do you really think God planned this whole bible thing as a diversion so that only the most intelligent people could decipher what God wants them to believe?"

JK: I don't think God has a typewriter. He does deliver His message plainly but it is beyond the literal. See for example this 5 minute video ....

Regards,
Michael

This is a question for all of the literal creationists and young earthers.

I have 2 clocks that tell me that the Earth is older than 6,000 years.

The first is my Y chromosome DNA and the second it the presence and absence of certain radioactive nuclides.

How do you dispute these two clocks as described below?

Clock #1

Changes in the Y chromosome act like a clock and the more changes there exist between you and me the further back in time we share a direct ancestor. As scientists we are able to look at the DNA pattern on the male Y chromosome which passes from father to son without any mixing of the genes from the female lines as occurs with the other chromosomes. The Y chromosome mutates very slowly over time (the rate is known) and when populations stay in one area for thousands of years a mutation in that population spreads through the population in later generations and becomes an identifying marker for that group of individuals.

I belong to the Haplogroup I group which means that I came from the M89 marker Middle Eastern clan which migrated over thousands of years through the Balkans and eventually spread into Central Europe among other places. However, about 25,000 years someone in the European group mutated and gave rise to the M170 marker and this marker became prevalent in that European group of men. (M168 鈥� M89 鈥� M170). The last ice age forced the Europeans into the Iberian peninsula, the Balkans, and the part of Europe that is now Italy. While there the M170 European males experienced more mutations.

For example, the group in the Iberian peninsula mutated at marker M253 and are now classified as Haplogroup I1a (M168 鈥� M89 鈥� M170 鈥揗253). Haplogroup I1b in the Balkans about 15000 years ago became defined by the P37.2 marker. (M168 鈥� M89 鈥� M170 鈥� P37.2)

As the ice caps retreated these particular populations headed north again to colonize present day Northern Europe and the British Isles. I belong to a recently defined Haplogroup I1C, I have a particular marker that identifies me this way 鈥� the record is right there in my Y -DNA. My DNA clock matches the clock that the climatologists have developed for the evidence of the ice ages and my DNA clock also matches that of archaeologists who study human artifacts.

Haplogroup I is associated with the Gravettian culture of Paleolithic Europe. My subclade, I1c, occurs in parts of Northern Ireland and Western Scotland, as well as in the Northern Germanic parts of Europe. Like I1a, I1c took refuge from the Ice Age in Iberia. So I am a sub group of that Iberian population.

Thus my DNA clock agrees with the clock of the ice ages. 6000 years ago one of my ancient grandfathers was in fact slowly moving north from present day Spain.

Clock #2

Radioactive elements decay by half lives. After 1 half life, 50% of the element remains, after 2 HLs, 25% remains, after 3 HLs, 12.5% remains etc. After 10 half lives only 0.1% of the element remains.

What does the data below say about the age of the earth?

Listing of Persistent Nuclides by Half-life

Nuclide... Half life (yrs)... Found in Nature?
50V... 6.0*10 power of 15... Yes
144Nd ... 2.4*10 power of 15... Yes
174Hf... 2.0*10 power of 15... Yes
192Pt... 1.0*10 power of 15... Yes
115In... 6.0*10 power of 14... Yes
152Gd... 1.1*10 power of 14... Yes
123Te... 1.2*10 power of 13... Yes
190Pt... 6.9*10 power of 11... Yes
138La... 1.12*10 power of 11... Yes
147Sm... 1.06*10 power of 11... Yes
87Rb... 4.88*10 power of 10... Yes
187Re... 4.3*10 power of 10... Yes
176Lu... 3.5*10 power of 10... Yes
232Th... 1.4*10 power of 10... Yes
238U... 4.47*10 power of 9... Yes
40K... 1.25*10 power of 9... Yes
235U... 7.04*10 power of 8... Yes
244Pu... 8.2*10 power of 7... Yes
146Sm... 7.0*10 power of 7... No
205Pb... 3.0*10 power of 7... No
247Cm... 1.6*10 power of 7... No
182Hf... 9*10 power of 6... No
107Pb... 7*10 power of 6... No
135Cs... 3*10 power of 6... No
97Tc... 2.6*10 power of 6... No
150Gd... 2.1*10 power of 6... No
93Zr... 1.5*10 power of 6... No
98Tc... 1.5*10 power of 6... No
153Dy... 1.0*10 power of 6... No

Data taken from Table 3.2 鈥楩inding Darwin鈥檚 God鈥� by Kenneth R. Miller

Regards,
Michael

It seems to me that the dispute between the bible literalists and the metaphorists makes the difference between Protestants and Catholics pale by comparison. Isn't it something worth fighting over? As an atheist, I will be happy to sit on the sidelines to cheer both sides on, and may the more purposeful Christians win.

They say a good lawyer never asks a question to a witness on the stand that he doesn't already know the answer to (I've been totally absorbed by Rumpole.) We've been through your genetic heritage once before. You know what answer the literalist young earthers will give, they'd say you don't understand how to read the clocks. All of the indicators of time were set by god 6000 years ago so as to give us the readings we get today. You've made a mistake by projecting them backwards to a time before time began...six thousand years ago....on a Tuesday. Perhaps god's purpose was to throw you off the track to test your fidelity to his word. He wants to segregate the true believers from those who distort and dilute his message. What are you going to believe, the evidence of your own eyes and the logic of you mind or the word of god as written in the holy bible? Your answer may determine if your soul is saved or you go to hell forever, just ask Wilder Smith. Listening to his lecture, he made it clear that unless you are ready to explain to the heathens that biochemical reactions are reversible and therefore prove god's existance, you're going straight to hell when you die. Have you forgotten that? Yessireeee Michael, straight to hell. No detours throgh purgatory any more either. I wonder what happened to people before biochemists came along and found that out. Do you suppose Moses or all those Popes went straight to hell too?

Mark & Michael-

1) The whale fingers... either God created the whale to LOOK as though it is a progress in evolution, or evolution occurred.

2) The stars in the sky... either God made the light instantaneously arrive on earth even though we know it would take millions of years for that to occur, or the universe really is billions of years old.

3) The Grand Canyon... either God cut through his newly formed creation to create this effect, or the Colorado River formed it over millions of years.

4) The fused chromosones in human DNA... either God created humans the way they are and made it LOOK as though two chromosones have fused at some point in evolutionary history, or evolution occurred.

5) The clocks Michael mentions.... either God created it to seem that way only several thousand years ago, or scientists are right about the origins of the universe and of life as we know it.

Really, folks: whose batting average are YOU going to stake your worldview on? The answers here are so obvious, only a fool or someone self-deluded by their adherence to traditional religious ideas could fail to acknowledge them.

John

When you talk about fools self deluded by adherence to traditional reoligious ideas, may I ask if you inlcude yourself in this category.

I mean, you actually describe yourself as within the camp of the latest development in the evangelical movement, a type of new evangelical if you like;-

So do you have traditional religious ideas of not?

PB

PB- Tradition plays no part in my doctrinal understanding of Christianity, and I'll tell you why.

When I was about 14 years old, I began to realise that it was ridiculous to adhere to certain beliefs merely because they happened to be part of a religion passed down to me. I realised that if I had been born into a family of Muslims, my belief system would have been entirely different, and I therefore decided that one approach, and one only, was going to adequately ensure that what I believed was the right thing to believe.

That one thing was to take the approach of Descartes (whom I was introduced to in a book called Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder) and completely dismantle everything I believed, to start with a blank slate, if you will, and to be skeptical about everything that I couldn't prove from scratch. This process was long, infuriating and remains in place today. Some traditional ideas came back, but they came back on their own merits, not because they were traditional. What I believe today is radically, diametrically different to what my parents instructed me to believe as I was growing up.

You mention postevangelicalism. I've used that word to describe my approach to Christianity, but it bears little resemblance to the movement your wikipedia entry describes. I'm also a pluralist, meaning that I do not feel a need to convert Muslims to Christianity; their approach to understanding God is almost as fraught with error and potential as is mine. I understand the bible very differently, and some people (including William Crawley) have said they think I'm probably more of a reluctant liberal than any kind of evangelical (even a postevangelical!).

Which brings me to my question to you PB in the 'Faithworks opposes Lords Protest' thread. It remains open, and you still haven't answered. :-)

I'll tell you one question you still havent answered yet either John.

You are writing a book outlining seven "secrets" the church does not want you to know that I and my circle of friends would agree with 99%.

On what authority can you say these seven secrets are true if you have no canon?

PB

Re 29:

John:

I will answer this question a little later today or tomorrow. Do you want the post to go in the Faithworks thread (probably better for consistency) or here?

Michael

PB- I've said it before and I'll say it again: you and your friends would not agree with the contents of my book. It defends universalism and pluralism and would destroy the canon. It suggests a huge overhaul of the concept of marriage, while at the same time permits sex between unmarried partners and sees no problem with gay relationships. You would not agree with it.

That said, you ask a question about authority that would take a long time to answer. The first part of the answer is that one needs to discover these things for oneself, instead of simply adhering to a belief that it's all found helpfully in a sixty-six book manual. I'm sure once you read my book you'll be in a better position to argue about it. Until then, my simple request is that you answer a simple question! Are you going to use the fact that I haven't written you an essay on inspiration and authority (which is what would be required to properly answer your question) as an excuse not to answer mine, which is a simple, self-contained multiple-choice?

Michael- If William posts anything in the next couple of days, the Faithworks thread will go into archives, so we can continue here, if you'd like. I can repeat my question to PB for convenience also, if you have an opinion on it.

Here is the scenario:

1) Scholars find The Secret Gospel of Mark.

2) They verify that it is the authentic second part of Mark's Gospel.... validated authentically written by Mark.

3) It contains the section described by Michael's post #9 wherein Jesus spends a night with a young man naked.

As I see it, PB has three main options of response:

A) "I would exclude Mark from the canon because it contradicts the rest of Scripture."

B) "I would include Mark but interpret the part about Jesus having gay relations differently."

or

C) "I would accept it and reinterpret the other parts of the bible to match my new approach to homosexuality, which is that Christianity and homosexuality are compatible."

It's multiple choice, or fill in the blank... I'll accept a valid answer that's not one of my three answers. But so far, PB hasn't given one answer because he doesn't like the question!

John Wright #32
Anything to save religion from an untimely death? It must be difficult. The smarter you are, the more convoluted the manipulation has to be in order to be credible. For the simplest of minds, they just read the bible like a child's bedtime fairy tale and take it at its word. The big bad wolf is the big bad wolf and that's that. To the more educated, they have to invent metaphors in order to reconcile the obvious child like imbicilities if it is taken literally with what they know the real world is actually about. But for those truely gifted, even that is not good enough. It must be entirely re-invented to make any sense at all. Congratulations, only you know how hard it is to fool John Wright. But is he really convinced?

Re Post 32

鈥淗ere is the scenario: 1) Scholars find The Secret Gospel of Mark. 2) They verify that it is the authentic second part of Mark's Gospel.... validated authentically written by Mark. 3) It contains the section described by Michael's post #9 wherein Jesus spends a night with a young man naked. As I see it, PB has three main options of response: A) "exclude Mark from the canon because it contradicts the rest of Scripture." B) "include Mark but interpret the part about Jesus having gay relations differently." Or C) "accept it and reinterpret the other parts of the bible to match my new approach to homosexuality, which is that Christianity and homosexuality are compatible."

John: Rather than rehash in my own words things that I am comfortable considering I will throw out some quotes from 鈥淭he Templar Revelation鈥� that seem to be supported in other books that I have read e.g. books by Bart Ehrman and books on the Nag Hammadi discoveries. So a lot of the text below is pulled from this book.

Although the NT canon has never been officially closed, I think for all intents and purposes nothing at this point will ever be added or removed. So I think options A and B are not available.

Regarding option C the whole question of the sexuality of Jesus will probably be more widely discussed and considered as more historical research on early Christian writings become widely read and understood. Some of the sexual practices that existed in the time of Jesus 鈥� 鈥榟ieros gamos鈥� 鈥� sex with the temple priestess - were not considered 鈥榓bnormal鈥� in that day. The 鈥榟ieros gamos鈥� was the ultimate expression of what is termed 鈥榯emple prostitution鈥�, where a man visited a priestess in order to receive gnosis 鈥� to experience the divine through the act of lovemaking. The original word for such a priestess is 鈥榟ierodule鈥� which means 鈥榮acred servant鈥�.

For example, I would accept that there could have been a sexual relationship between Jesus and Mary the Magdalene. (She supposedly gets her name from the town of Magdala but I think Margaret Starbird is correct in her books from a study of gematria that 鈥榯he Magdalene鈥� was in fact a title and there is quite a strong likelihood that she was the 鈥榝emale鈥� second-in-command to Jesus.) Significantly very few Gospel characters are named like Mary (the) Magdalene, and of that handful the two that leap from the page are Jesus the Nazorean, and John the Baptist.

If anyone created a fantasy 鈥楳ary Magdalene鈥� it was the (Catholic) church. The image of her as a repentant whore has nothing to do with her story in the canonical gospels. The character in the New Testament is quite different from the one conjured up by the Church. Apart from the Virgin Mary, Mary Magdalene is the only woman mentioned in all four gospels. It was only when the Church became a formalized institution 鈥� under the influence of Paul 鈥� that the role of women was minimalized.

After the somewhat backhanded compliment accorded to her in the Gospels (every other woman who is mentioned by name in the canonical Gospels is defined by her relationship with a man, as wife of, or mother of) she is never mentioned again in the Acts of the Apostles or in the writings of Paul until one reads the Gnostic Gospels. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the four Gospels of the New Testament (NT) effectively marginalize her, while the 鈥榟eretical鈥� writings emphasize her importance. The NT grudgingly implies that she had a major role in the Jesus movement but the Gnostic Gospels openly proclaim her preeminence. In them she is literally Apostle of the Apostles. She is acknowledged to be second only to Jesus. In the Gnostic Gospels it was not Peter who was Jesus鈥� second-in-command but Mary Magdalene.

According to the Gnostic Gospels Peter hated and feared her. There is something else about the Gnostic Gospels that makes them explosive where the Church is concerned 鈥� in the Gospel of Philip it states that Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on the mouth. It was in 325 CE that the Council of Nicaea met to debate which out of many books would be included in what was to become the New Testament. The Council established that only four Gospels would be included in the NT and rejected over 50 other books. The rejected material became synonymous with heresy.

The case for Jesus being married has been cited by several modern commentators, but the Gospel鈥檚 silence on the subject does have another possible interpretation. He could have had a sexual partner who was not his wife, or had been through a form of marriage that was not recognized by the Jews. It must be remembered that the heretical tradition stressed that Jesus and the Magdalene were sexual partners, not that they were husband and wife. The Gnostic Gospels either referred to her as Jesus鈥� concubine or consort, or were careful to use such ambiguous words as their 鈥榰nion鈥�.

The Catholic Church may not have wanted its members to know about the true relationship between Jesus and Mary, which is why the Gnostic Gospels were not included in the New Testament. According to the Gnostic Gospels Jesus gave the Magdalene the title 鈥楢postle of the Apostles鈥� and 鈥楾he Woman Who Knew All鈥�. The Gnostic Gospels were rejected by the Church Fathers for reasons of self preservation, for these writings presented a very different image of Christianity, one that it would not be in their interests to support. Not only do those suppressed books tend to stress the importance of Mary Magdalene (and the other women disciples), they also present a religion that had its roots 鈥� unlike that of the NT books 鈥� in Egyptian theology.

Regards,
Michael

Michael- I enjoyed reading the information you gave and I've been aware of some of it... I myself have no problems with the idea that Jesus and Mary had sexual relations for example, but people like PB are invested in a theology that would suffer greatly if such were found to be the case.

And that was basically the reason I wanted PB to answer this question. The question about the canon, answered as options (A) or (B) in my scenario, were intended to give PB the options of 2nd or 3rd century Christians - he had carte blanche to tell me what he would have done with the canon had he been able to.

What irony. The most advanced physicists and the most educated theists both trying to weave a tapestry of truth from strings. I wonder whose falls apart more easily.

Re Post 36 Mark wrote:

"What irony. The most advanced physicists and the most educated theists both trying to weave a tapestry of truth from strings. I wonder whose falls apart more easily."

Mark: We do get your position! You really don't have to keep repeating it after every post. Accept us for the fools that you think we are and get over it. Come down out of the stands onto the playing field and add something in a non judgemental fashion on which we can have an exchange of views.

I recall that John asked Maureen to do something to raise the tone of the blog rather than express exasperation with you. (S)he tried and was unsuccessful and now from my point of view the onus is on you. There is nothing worse than being ignored especially if you do have something useful to add which I believe at times you do.

Regards,
Michael

Michael N. Hull #37

"Accept us for the fools you think we are and get over it."

Why Michael, I did that with your first posting. What made you think I hadn't? :>)

Very interesting reading but not much about "But -- really -- is anyone worth a million dollars a week for kicking a football around a stadium?"

Re 39:

I guess what something is worth is what someone is prepared to pay for it.

The sexuality of Jesus and temple prostitution was much more interesting and it fitted right in with post 3 ;-)

Peace,
Maureen

I wouldn't mind hearing Jenny #3 elaborate on what she had in mind ;)

yawnnn....

too busy

PB

Ignoring the rudeness of PB's last entry and taking his comment as a sign that he will never answer, I'll tell you how the question I posed in post #32 demonstrates the ludicrousness of his position.

My point is that PB (and other evangelicals that share his worldview) is not prepared to read Christian history for what it is, and is not prepared to read the bible with regard to how it was formed. In the example of the Secret Gospel of Mark, the removal of which many scholars think left a truncated version of Mark's gospel, it doesn't matter whether or not that is the case. It only matters what approach one is taking.

Had PB replied that he would (A) "...exclude Mark from the canon because it contradicts the rest of Scripture," we now have a prime example of how the rest of the canon was devised: from hundreds of books down to only 27 in the New Testament. A process of filtering, not on the basis of relevance or date or authorship, but on the basis of someone's idea of internal consistency. By removing the parts they didn't like, certain key figures in the history of Christianity created a 'canon', a grouping of ancient texts by early Christians which became the only ones they gave new generations of Christians to read. Ah... what a good, honest search for truth.

Had PB replied that he would (B) "...include Mark but interpret the part about Jesus having gay relations differently," we now have an exegetical discussion. But since we don't have the part about Jesus having gay relations, we'll never have to have it, and PB will only ever have to appeal to the fact that it's noncanonical to have a clear position on it. If it's noncanonical, it's doesn't have the authority of God. If it is canonical, then it's been cleared by the historical figures I talk about above. Ah.... what a good, honest search for truth.

And finally, had PB replied that he would (C) "...accept it" and change his view on homosexuality in the light of the portion demonstrating that Christ himself had gay relations, we'd be dealing with a different PB. No wonder he didn't want to answer the question!

What's my point? My point is that the idea of a canon, like the idea of a church denomination, is a means by which people have sought to control the adherence of Christians to certain beliefs and doctrines - indeed, it constitutes the very definition of Christianity for many people. My point is that if Christians really want to understand their faith and develop it in a manner which regards truth as the highest priority, they will not be indoctrinated from a pulpit, nor will they be content with the choice of book made for them by historical figures through the ages. They will ask questions not with the aim of defending their position in the turret on the fort of their worldview, but with the aim of building a good doctrine from scratch.

But then, PB's probably too busy to do that.

John

as you well know I have already answered these points at length in another entry but you are not engaging with me on what I have said...

PB

PB- I told you why your concerns were irrelevant, and you didn't get back to me.

Jenny #3.
You'd have to pay him $250 million. He's demonstrated he'll do anything for that kind of money for five years, even play for a third rate team in the soccer Siberia of Southern California. Have you got that kind of money Jenny? Then you have only one alternative. Move to the Los Angeles area, buy an SUV, raise a daughter who is interested in playing soccer, and stand in line with about 100,000 other soccer moms and wait your turn until you are called. I'm sure you could find a man you'd think even prettier than David Beckham who will also grant you your every wish and prayer for half that money and a lot closer to home too. If you haven't got that kind of money either, then as I see it, you'd better go out and kiss a lot of frogs...and pray you find the right one. There are a lot of us out there.

It simply confirms for me how plain stupid the Americans can be. The guy is history, in football and in every other respect. They are welcome to keep him and his ugly wife!!!

John Wright - your profile says ur a radio host. What's the link to your show? I'd love to hear this for myself.

Robert Brussels #47
You don't understand, it's not about football, it's about making money. For the people who are shelling out this dough, he's a financial investment from which they expect generous returns. Even though only a small percentage of Americans are interested in soccer, a small percentage of a very large number still adds up to big bucks. Will he generate the expected returns or will he be an investment flop? Only time will tell. I'll bet they're banking on the squealing gushing teenage girls and their squealing gushing mothers to attend matches and market products to. I'd bet on whole lines of items targeting women like lines of cosmetics, sports gear, even clothing. I think it was President Harrison in the 19th century who said; "the business of America is business." It's still true today.

Robert Brussels #47
You don't understand, it's not about football, it's about making money. For the people who are shelling out this dough, he's a financial investment from which they expect generous returns. Even though only a small percentage of Americans are interested in soccer, a small percentage of a very large number still adds up to big bucks. Will he generate the expected returns or will he be an investment flop? Only time will tell. I'll bet they're banking on the squealing gushing teenage girls and their squealing gushing mothers to attend matches and market products to. I'd bet on whole lines of items targeting women like lines of cosmetics, sports gear, even clothing. I think it was President Harrison in the 19th century who said; "the business of America is business." It's still true today.

Robert Brussels- Well put and very much clarified for me. My immediate thoughts are it's disgusting for anyone to even want to earn that sort of money. But then when you think seriously about it, it all depends on whether you would sit counting the money or do something useful with it. Bill Gates is a good example. A lot of people call him a scrooge for having so much but they dont realise just how much he has given back to society through his philanthropic ventures.
Who knows what Mr and Mrs Beckham do with their wealth but I just hope that they realise they wont have true happiness holding onto it.

knuckles, I think you're jealous of the man. You wish he is no happier than you are. Where I live most people admire those who earn a lot of money, they are people to be emulated. What he does with his money is his business but if money isn't everything, it sure beats whatever is in second place. The US promises the right of the pursuit of happiness and for many people that means making and speding money, the more the better. I like that idea a lot myself.

Knuckles- I've been poor, and I've been rich. Rich is better.

Mark- Jealous? no way jose. You dont get my point mate. A lot of people are Jealous of him i've no doubt, but i'd rather have the friends that I have now than the ones that loads of money would bring along. Not to mention the change in lifestyle, begging letters, security threats, attempted kidnapping of family etc,.
To me money isn't everything, just to have no worries about bills would be enough to be honest. My point is that I hope the Beckhams follow the lead of the like of Bill Gates and others.

And John I'm still waiting for the link to your radio show?

The nature of the Beckhams philanthropy is to throw a party for the rich and famous at Beckhaming Palace, I don鈥檛 see him going to the main roads and inviting the social outcasts the poor and downtrodden of society to his extravagant parties which is only a godless display of his riches. Only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.

I think beckham should of stayed at man.utd but sir alex should of not done what he did but man.utd are the best no other team can win the premiership now we can go all the way.david is the top at free kicks when man.utd played against europe when ronaldo took the free kick i bet david was happy with that banger i was happy :)thank you luv u david lol xx