tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post2350989082117921506..comments2024-03-29T10:36:51.511-04:00Comments on My perspective -- What Constance thinks: BLATANT LGBT ASSAULT ON FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS BY HOUSTON, TEXAS MAYOR!Constance Cumbeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07181096121385621574noreply@blogger.comBlogger154125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-55736054058396839052017-12-20T08:05:14.988-05:002017-12-20T08:05:14.988-05:00There is nothing complimentary in this world, but ...There is nothing complimentary in this world, but make sure that you Buy facebook reviews merely from the valid sources for profitable acceptance online. <a href="https://www.boostfollower.com/buy-facebook-5-star-ratings-reviews/" rel="nofollow">facebook reviews</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09620340137704372039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-60149590244001719532015-04-16T17:27:15.348-04:002015-04-16T17:27:15.348-04:00Ken Wilber? Ken Wilber? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-33902784536236346872014-12-10T00:42:02.758-05:002014-12-10T00:42:02.758-05:00Ken Wilber is a major New Age guru. His disciples...Ken Wilber is a major New Age guru. His disciples have reportedly included such as Al Gore. Note it is spelled "WILBER" and not WILBUR. Almost everything you hear of as "integrative" stems from his writing and influence, including "integrative medicine."<br /><br />The movie you refer to is a documentary made about the New Age Movement in the early 1980s. It was very well done. You can now find and download it from Youtube.<br /><br />ConstanceConstance Cumbeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07181096121385621574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-22951164700696226402014-11-18T12:28:04.093-05:002014-11-18T12:28:04.093-05:00http://cumbey.blogspot.com/2006/08/new-age-pathway...http://cumbey.blogspot.com/2006/08/new-age-pathway-to-paradise-1983_14.html<br /><br />where is this movie?<br />What can you say about Ken Wilbur?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-68111098498980156452014-11-06T14:18:34.580-05:002014-11-06T14:18:34.580-05:00Jesus said BOTH. That His words were flesh and blo...Jesus said BOTH. That His words were flesh and blood AND He performed the first Eucharist and said that those who do the will of The Father in Heaven are the ones who inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, you can partake of Him both ways, and in theory you can't partake of His literal Flesh and Blood unless partaking of and acting on His words first.<br /><br />This isn't Roman Catholic, this is reported from the mid 100s AD this is original church doctrine before Rome went into schism and kept some truth and added some error.Christine Erikson (aka Justina)https://www.blogger.com/profile/11594093718714798117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-12581299665305407772014-11-06T13:20:56.658-05:002014-11-06T13:20:56.658-05:00"Eat of his flesh and drink of his blood"..."Eat of his flesh and drink of his blood" meant His Word, not literally. <br /><br />But you will get plenty of nonsense from Catholics and her EO (basically the same thing) because they are filled with rituals claiming favor. <br /><br />NONSENSE!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-62995938695668768442014-11-06T10:47:10.676-05:002014-11-06T10:47:10.676-05:00Christine sits in a lofty place in her mind as hol...Christine sits in a lofty place in her mind as holier than thou in all this, as you so rightly call it, nonsense. ("I have to teach you people..")<br /><br />She actually has the audacity (God open her eyes) to preach to us but I do not see the Bible (the whole counsel of God just the whole counsel of her churches writings and rituals and her own add-on interpretations) upheld, it is just her take on the Bible instead. And the Holy Spirit does not bear witness that she is actually in the faith once delivered to the saints. Talk is cheap. It must be, because she affords so much of it.<br /><br />She is rogue and fringe in belief and practice by things I gather from what she speaks of herself. She has religion and gobs and gobs of that (and has my pity because she has no freedom in Christ). <br /><br />All she really needs is Jesus so the Holy Spirit can humble her and teach her rightly, and then and only then, she will actually make sense and edify hearers. <br /><br />Many here just have to bypass her posts because they really distract from what are the real topics. She wears out her welcome here when she should just stay home at her own blog and preach to her hearts content there but we are not so fortunate as that......Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-63985113244454034322014-11-06T10:13:32.143-05:002014-11-06T10:13:32.143-05:00"a eucharist "consecrated" by a pro..."a eucharist "consecrated" by a protestant or other, without apostolic succession of ordination and consecration and without belief in the Real Presence and without intent to call Jesus into the bread and wine, is probably just bread and wine."<br /><br />And you are probably talking nonsense!<br /><br />Ordination? Peter and John wrote in the New Testament that all Christians are priests.<br /><br />Apostolic succession? Not in my Bible.<br /><br />"This is my body, this is my blood" - is in my Bible and we never deny it, we just differ on what it means.<br /><br />"do you not understand?"<br /><br />Probably not; you write plenty here that I do not understand. Let others judge the reason...<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-7772243182689702642014-11-06T09:13:07.187-05:002014-11-06T09:13:07.187-05:00The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship: An ...The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship: An Examination of Epistemic Autocracy, From the 19th to the 21st Century looks like a good read on amazon.com listening to an interview with the authors http://fringeradionetwork.com/the-bruce-collins-show-102114-guests-the-collins-brothers/<br /><br />scroll down to podcast: play in new windowChristine Erikson (aka Justina)https://www.blogger.com/profile/11594093718714798117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-38665721135956618912014-11-06T06:50:37.738-05:002014-11-06T06:50:37.738-05:00that said, a eucharist "consecrated" by ...that said, a eucharist "consecrated" by a protestant or other, without apostolic succession of ordination and consecration and without belief in the Real Presence and without intent to call Jesus into the bread and wine, is probably just bread and wine. Christine Erikson (aka Justina)https://www.blogger.com/profile/11594093718714798117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-51076518050210754512014-11-06T05:12:27.730-05:002014-11-06T05:12:27.730-05:00You did ask me which to drink when you said "...You did ask me which to drink when you said "But you've forgotten which is which....Christine, do you really mean to say that it matters WHICH cup you drink rather than whether you drink?"<br /><br />that part of the question was built into the whole statement.<br /><br />The issue of can't remember or don't know which is which is a key part of the question. <br /><br />Given the matter has NOT been hashed over, and wasn't raised in Moses' time and brought to God to clarify, we are thrown back on our own ability to figure it out. <br /><br />rule no. 1 when in doubt don't. <br /><br />rule no. 2 context is driver both immediate context and larger overall context incl. similar passages.<br /><br />What part of all references are in context of DEAD sources of blood do you not understand? <br /><br />What part of Eucharist as Body and Blood of Christ is not prohibited by this or by the primal rule tied to letting us eat meat at all, or the Apostles' immediate successors wouldn't have been teaching this, and they were teaching it is the real Body and Blood of Christ, or writers in the mid second century wouldn't teach it,<br /><br />do you not understand?<br /><br />not consuming fat is first referenced in Torah in connection with the fat over the kidneys which is reserved to God or thrown out. So this must be read as reference to this. <br /><br />no blood.....fish are excluded from this rule since they are mostly dead before being cut up and eaten. locusts ditto. (locusts were allowed.) Sap is blood of plants and serves the same function and is their "life" like the blood is the life of the animal, so "blood" is not an absolute, it is limited to the context of mammals and birds. (reptiles weren't allowed.)<br /><br />So since CONTEXT excludes the rule about blood from applying to anything but animals and birds (and reptiles now that we can eat them), CONTEXT is indeed relevant, and you can note the fact that CONTEXT is about animals killed for food, so CONTEXT presupposes dead animal, <br /><br />AND WHAT DOES THE LAW SHOW US? that animals are only PARTLY for our use, not ABSOLUTELY. Also the sanctity of blood is given as the reason, blood is given to make atonement for sin.<br /><br />Well, at that last point....Jesus' Blood has been given to make atonement for our sins, and eating that Blood in a sacred context is not going to be treating it as common, while most eating done for food purpose or pleasure, is not treating blood as sacred.<br /><br />Again, if Justin Martyr having learned from Christians found that The Eucharist is considered to have become the real Body and Blood of Christ, and wrote this AD 150, and St. John died a little after AD 100, and St. Irenaeus reported this and was disciple of a disciple of St. John the Apostle,<br /><br />then clearly the earliest church taught this and saw no conflict, yet dictated that meat without any exsanguination was not acceptable. So clearly they did not see a conflict.Christine Erikson (aka Justina)https://www.blogger.com/profile/11594093718714798117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-20869865621923818942014-11-06T04:15:09.450-05:002014-11-06T04:15:09.450-05:00I didn't ask which cup of blood to drink, I as...I didn't ask which cup of blood to drink, I asked whether it mattered which. If the Noachide covenant was the context for Leviticus 3 then Noah would also have been commanded not to eat fat.<br /><br />What part of "Do not consume blood" as a regulation for Jews do you not understand?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-61835416141425652612014-11-05T22:11:50.422-05:002014-11-05T22:11:50.422-05:00I'm not a Jew and we are talking about the Euc...I'm not a Jew and we are talking about the Eucharist, and the Jews were not operating in locations where tapping a vein for blood from a cow during a drought to drink something was being done, so I doubt anyone ever thought about it. If presented with this practice, they would probably do the typical Jewish (and Eastern Orthodox) thing, you got four people you got five opinions.<br /><br />In the situation you describe, Jew or Christian, not knowing which is which the solution is don't drink. <br /><br />Since the issue is how the animal died (and normally you don't eat live animals) the blood from the animal alive when it was taken but became road kill sometime later, would probably be okay. <br /><br />This is not really an issue outside of the vampire community which I haven't tagged bases with in a long time. The average Christian not Orthodox doesn't know about the blood prohibition and wouldn't think about the issue. There is as someone put it a small despised Christian contingent in the vampire community. Perhaps one gal I met online who is Orthodox would think about it, she couldn't get through Holy Week without meat preferably raw I assume. I used to struggle through it anyway, but over time actually was able to keep the major fasts incl. Lent, though keeping to some convenient ancient canons forbidding fasting on Sundays and monastic custom no fasting on Saturdays, I don't keep the weekends of Lent.<br /><br />On Holy Saturday I can feel the bad feeling coming on no trace of animal product at all for six days not just five. <br /><br />aLways been a loner, never a part of a community but got a good education explaining some oddities about myself online starting about AD 2000 or 2002. Of course most of these people, whether sanguinarians, blood drinkers, or psy vamps, energy feeders, are not Christian, so I got in a lot of theological disputes. the vampires are more tolerant than the pagans and witches, I don't recall being kicked off a vampire egroup maybe one, mostly I drifted away, but I was eventually kicked off almost all pagan and witch egroups I was on, originally planning to lurk and ask the occasional leading question, but couldn't let some anti Christian garbage especially the ignorant type go unanswered.<br /><br />That's why I said "here we go," when this discussion started.<br />Christine Erikson (aka Justina)https://www.blogger.com/profile/11594093718714798117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-54853288339297832742014-11-05T18:42:47.703-05:002014-11-05T18:42:47.703-05:00Three cups of blood. One taken from an animal that...Three cups of blood. One taken from an animal that had its throat cut. The second taken from an animal that was alive at the time but since died after being hit by a car. The third taken from an animal that is still alive. But you've forgotten which is which. And you are a Jew bound by Leviticus 3:17 which states only that ""It shall be a statute for all generations forever in all your dwellings, that you do not eat fat or blood."<br /><br />Christine, do you really mean to say that it matters WHICH cup you drink rather than whether you drink?<br /><br />When you get to heaven you can explain it to God.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-60529029009561653282014-11-05T14:25:56.798-05:002014-11-05T14:25:56.798-05:00there are also some Christian militias forming aga...there are also some Christian militias forming against Islamic State aka ISIS aka ISIL attacks in the Middle East, and against Boko Haram in Africa, pray for their success. In a photo of one Middle Eastern Christian Militia some women are involved also. 35% of the Kurdish combat forces in Iraq and Syria are women.Christine Erikson (aka Justina)https://www.blogger.com/profile/11594093718714798117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-13834125482430718532014-11-05T13:56:29.794-05:002014-11-05T13:56:29.794-05:00incl. the Kurds in your prayers, Kobane part of Ro...incl. the Kurds in your prayers, Kobane part of Rojava one kind of socio economic experiment, the Iraqi segment is another kind, both staunchly secularist and safe places for Christians, both under islamic state fire.Christine Erikson (aka Justina)https://www.blogger.com/profile/11594093718714798117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-65368278644377605872014-11-05T13:38:08.546-05:002014-11-05T13:38:08.546-05:00yes I am in obedience to what He said.yes I am in obedience to what He said.Christine Erikson (aka Justina)https://www.blogger.com/profile/11594093718714798117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-16718591247786630312014-11-05T11:17:36.511-05:002014-11-05T11:17:36.511-05:00Wordy and explaining the unexplainable. By faith, ...Wordy and explaining the unexplainable. By faith, folks, by faith.<br /><br />This dialogue is getting nowhere.<br /><br />My question is: while busy trying to do all this explaining, is your life surrendered to this wonderful Lord in obedience to what He has said? A life lived loving Him first and my neighbor as myself does all the explaining Jesus wants from us and what others can see is real.<br /><br />How are you doing there? (or is it all just words?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-36302561541688055762014-11-05T10:08:50.542-05:002014-11-05T10:08:50.542-05:00What part of all this is in context of DEAD animal...What part of all this is in context of DEAD animals wherever it appears, not just Leviticus but elsewhere in Torah given to Moses AND in Noah AND in Acts Apostolic Council do you not understand?<br /><br />no one ate anything living except maybe too hungry when fishing and the fish still flopping and small. <br /><br />CONTEXT IS DEAD ANIMALS not living things, so blood from the living is not at issue.<br /><br />Besides, Jesus pre Incarnate gave the Law so He can adjust it at will.<br /><br />Since Justin Martyr's testimony is that The Eucharist was considered the Body AND BLOOD literally of Christ, that it becomes so after the Eucharistic prayers, in the first generation after the last Apostle died, clearly the early Church which forbade eating meat with blood in it "things strangled," again, something dead, something strangled, did not see a conflict.Christine Erikson (aka Justina)https://www.blogger.com/profile/11594093718714798117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-10896214888026258392014-11-05T10:03:42.849-05:002014-11-05T10:03:42.849-05:00Christine, the contact for Leviticus 3 is sacrific...Christine, the contact for Leviticus 3 is sacrifice, not the Noachide covenant. The fact that fat is mentioned in Leviticus but not to Noah shows that these passages, while containing some overlap, are not to be taken together. What part of "It shall be a statute for all generations forever in all your dwellings, that you do not eat fat or blood" do you not understand?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-67654830787386453292014-11-05T09:38:49.888-05:002014-11-05T09:38:49.888-05:00The context in ALL cases, Noah incl. as I said, FR...The context in ALL cases, Noah incl. as I said, FROM WHICH THIS COMES ULTIMATELY, is blood from dead animals. <br /><br />And no fat has to be somewhat limited, the specifics on this elsewhere in the Law had to do with fat over the kidneys, I double marbeled meat was the issue. The fat over the kidneys was part of what was to be burned in a sacrifice, and forbidden therefore in general to be eaten. <br /><br />But this law goes back to Noah, just like circumcision goes back to Abraham.Christine Erikson (aka Justina)https://www.blogger.com/profile/11594093718714798117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-31206781846362132062014-11-05T04:27:30.225-05:002014-11-05T04:27:30.225-05:00Christine, I'm not referring to the covenant w...Christine, I'm not referring to the covenant with Noah. It's Leviticus 3:17: "This is a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall not eat any fat or any blood."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-45942058964058142014-11-05T00:11:28.219-05:002014-11-05T00:11:28.219-05:00I remind you, that Justin Martyr was of a time tha...I remind you, that Justin Martyr was of a time that he learned from people who learned from The Apostles themselves, and spoke koine or street lingo Greek as a first language, and interpreted is or represents as being symbolon in the Greek sense<br /><br />not an empty sign like the letters of an alphabet put together to REFER TO something, <br /><br />but a reality that EMBODIES something, which is why the Creed is called "the Symbol of The Faith," the embodiment and identity of the Faith.Christine Erikson (aka Justina)https://www.blogger.com/profile/11594093718714798117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-51545063092293841322014-11-05T00:08:29.201-05:002014-11-05T00:08:29.201-05:00Here we go. All references to not eating blood is ...Here we go. All references to not eating blood is in context of eating the meat of dead creatures with blood in it (or rather, since ALL blood can't be gotten out, without pouring out what can be poured out, AND THIS APPLIES TO US CHRISTIANS AS PER NOAH AND THE APOSTOLIC COUNCIL IN ACTS AND AT LEAST TWO CANONS AFTER THAT, "things strangled" things killed without ANY exsanguination incl. poultry whose necks were wrung, not cut off).<br /><br />While no effort to exsanguinate fish is mentioned, the focus would be on animals that bleed easily. One could argue fish are exsanguinated in process of fileting them, but a fish can be roasted whole and the focus is animals not fish.<br /><br />This being the case, the issue is DEAD animals. That means blood taken from a LIVING animal as some African tribe in NE Africa does, without harming the animal, is okay. <br /><br />Because the point is, that the animal IS NOT OURS EXCEPT ON LOAN AND NOT OURS TO ABUSE IT IS NOT ALL FOR US. Blood is poured out to God. Abuse beyond killing with minimal suffering and using the dead remains is implicitly forbidden.<br /><br />Now, JESUS WAS ALIVE DURING THE FIRST EUCHARIST AT THE LAST SUPPER when He would have miraculously duplicated flesh and blood into the bread and wine, invisibly.<br /><br />AND HE IS ALIVE AGAIN NOW, so Eucharists with His Body and Blood are not in violation of this rule. <br /><br />And the early church kept this rule, and did not see a conflict, so regardless of whether Jews would agree with distinction between blood of the dead and blood of the living, this is how they must have seen it, or Justin Martyr would not have said AD 150 that the bread and wine is not ordinary common bread and wine, but after the Eucharistic prayers are said over it, it becomes the very Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.Christine Erikson (aka Justina)https://www.blogger.com/profile/11594093718714798117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-65759850579329265492014-11-04T08:07:07.473-05:002014-11-04T08:07:07.473-05:00"the understanding that He meant materially t..."the understanding that He meant materially true is documented in AD 150 by St. Justin Martyr and AD 180 by St. Irenaeus."<br /><br />They're not necessarily right, are they? His own PHYSICAL flesh and blood BEFORE the Crucifixion?<br /><br />It doesn't smell or taste like it to me, and I've had permission at a Catholic Mass (in extremis). Moreover the Law of Moses forbade Jews to consume blood (Lev 3:17); is Jesus going to go against the Law given by His Father? Whatever His words meant, it isn't that.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com