Muhammad Ali, RIP

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Wed Jun 08, 2016 3:25 pm

That's a good idea Lars, with a different title hopefully.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 08, 2016 3:59 pm

Mark Aspam;1496719 wrote: 1. My understanding is that the RCC regards the EO churches as having valid sacraments and valid orders. What is your source to the contrary?Unitatis redintegratio, the Second Vatican Council's decree on ecumenism, which states: "... quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church ... men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect". What it means is that Roman Catholics can't validly accept the Eucharistic elements from an Orthodox priest and vice versa. They call it "imperfect communion" to distinguish it from outright opposition to heretics, it's a halfway house. By all means call it "friendly", just don't accept the bread or wine.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Wed Jun 08, 2016 4:28 pm

spot;1496724 wrote: Unitatis redintegratio, the Second Vatican Council's decree on ecumenism, which states: "... quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church ... men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect". What it means is that Roman Catholics can't validly accept the Eucharistic elements from an Orthodox priest and vice versa. They call it "imperfect communion" to distinguish it from outright opposition to heretics, it's a halfway house. By all means call it "friendly", just don't accept the bread or wine.Fair enough, but the RCC regards the EO worshipers as being validly communicated. They just don't - I guess - want a lot of crossovers, at least in what they view as the wrong direction.

With regard to Matrimony, however, the situation is more or less reversed. When a Roman Catholic and an EO marry, the marriage is usually performed at the EO church, usually with the RC pastor attending, though that is not required. (Editted: Maybe it IS required, I'm not sure.)

Know why that is? (Answer: the RCC considers the bride and groom to be the ministers of the sacrament of Matrimony, with the priest as the Church's official witness. The EO Church considers the priest to be the official minister. So by having the ceremony in an EO rather than an RC venue, everybody's happy!)

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Wed Jun 08, 2016 4:32 pm

LarsMac;1496721 wrote: Perhaps all the religious stuff could be peeled off to its own thread?If spot wishes to peel off I will do so with him - not all the way of course.

Off the subject, but here's something interesting: As I view this entry there's an ad on the right side for "PDF Converter HQ". It states:

"3 Easy Steps:

1. Click "Download"

2. Download on our website

3. Start merging you files" (end of ad)

Hey! you files! Start merging!

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 08, 2016 4:45 pm

Mark Aspam;1496719 wrote: 2. Well, I studied Luther's writings in high school, a LONG LONG time ago, but the comment I've never forgotten was his wish to **** in his pants and throw them in the devil's face. Not exactly theology on a very high level.
It may be that I'm mistaken about this, but I think not. The only source I can think of for what you claim here is a so-called "translation from the German", published long after Luther's death, for which no German original has ever been produced, which is still in print and described at Table Talk - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

I can't imagine how anyone could take it for anything but comic defamation. To reference it as something written by Martin Luther, when Luther's actual known works are so extensive, is a bit pointless.

Luther certainly wrote a lot about the Devil especially in his published sermons. He also frequently compared sin with dung, that having a biblical passage as authority.

If you do really think there's an authentic book by Luther - what you describe with "I studied Luther's writings" - which says what you claim, I think it's incumbent on you to show it. I'm quite sure your story came widely into English in the 19th century when William Hazlett reprinted the bogus English propaganda from the 1620s court of James Stuart.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Wed Jun 08, 2016 4:59 pm

spot;1496727 wrote: It may be that I'm mistaken about this, but I think not. The only source I can think of for what you claim here is a so-called "translation from the German", published long after Luther's death, for which no German original has ever been produced, which is still in print and described at Table Talk - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

I can't imagine how anyone could take it for anything but comic defamation. To reference it as something written by Martin Luther, when Luther's actual known works are so extensive, is a bit pointless.

Luther certainly wrote a lot about the Devil especially in his published sermons. He also frequently compared sin with dung, that having a biblical passage as authority.

If you do really think there's an authentic book by Luther - what you describe with "I studied Luther's writings" - which says what you claim, I think it's incumbent on you to show it. I'm quite sure your story came widely into English in the 19th century when William Hazlett reprinted the bogus English propaganda from the 1620s court of James Stuart.I will give you that one, I should have said that I studied EXCERPTS from his writings, one thing that I do remember, though not in detail, was his attempt to remove several books of the NT that in one way or another conflicted with his teachings. Any comments on that? As I recall he wanted to junk Revelation and several others.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 08, 2016 5:18 pm

Mark Aspam;1496729 wrote: I will give you that one, I should have said that I studied EXCERPTS from his writings, one thing that I do remember, though not in detail, was his attempt to remove several books of the NT that in one way or another conflicted with his teachings. Any comments on that? As I recall he wanted to junk Revelation and several others.
The books in the Vulgate which Martin Luther excluded from the Protestant Bible are called the Apocrypha. Protestants don't use the Cambrai or Jerome translations. English protestants tend to use the King James Version which, like most protestant translations, excludes the Apocrypha.

The Revelation of St John of Patmos appears in every bible, Roman or Protestant. You'd have thought that if it was intended by anyone to be excluded as apocryphal then it would have been, I've never heard of its exclusion being considered.

None of the apocrypha were ever considered part of the NT, they're all books from the end of the Old Testament. Bel and the Dragon, Esther, Tobias, that set of books.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Wed Jun 08, 2016 5:29 pm

spot;1496730 wrote: The books in the Vulgate which Martin Luther excluded from the Protestant Bible are called the Apocrypha. Protestants don't use the Cambrai or Jerome translations. English protestants tend to use the King James Version which, like most protestant translations, excludes the Apocrypha.I think I have you here, I'm quite certain that the original KJV included the so-called Apocrypha. For some reason Calvinists disliked these books so an alternate version of the KJV, excluding the Apocs, was prepared for them. You might check it out. With regard to today's KJV, well, it's pretty much out of date regardless of one's affiliation, though I would guess that editions with and without are available.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 08, 2016 5:40 pm

The KJV was revised in 1885, that's when the Apocrypha were officially dropped by the committee - I doubt you can blame Calvin for the exclusion that late on. There are King James versions before 1885 without, there are versions post-1885 with, it depends on which publisher you buy from. It's no more obsolete than Jerome's Latin, or the Douay-Rheims translation into English (which pre-dates the King James Version and which I thought the Roman Catholics still used). The versions I tend to refer to are the New International, the RSV, the KJV, and I quite like the single-handed versions by Monseigneur Ronald Knox - an interesting Roman Catholic priest - and Moffatt, a Scot. Depending on who I'm reading to I'd read from Moffatt, the KJV or the New International.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Wed Jun 08, 2016 6:05 pm

spot;1496732 wrote: The versions I tend to refer to are the New International, the RSV, the KJV, and I quite like the single-handed versions by Knox - a Roman Catholic translator - and Moffatt, a Scot. Depending on who I'm reading to I'd read from Moffatt, the KJV or the New International.My choices are the Good News Bible for casual reading, The Anchor Bible for serious research. Latest editions of both, of course.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 08, 2016 6:07 pm

The King James version is no more obsolete than the plays of Shakespeare. They're both equally influential in the way the English language developed, and supreme examples of how to use it.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Wed Jun 08, 2016 6:24 pm

spot;1496734 wrote: The King James version is no more obsolete than the plays of Shakespeare. They're both equally influential in the way the English language developed, and supreme examples of how to use it.To untangle the KJV one might need an help meet.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Wed Jun 08, 2016 6:30 pm

It is obvious that I am being given the finger ! Considering the OP poster introduced the thread in respect for Muhammad Ali on his death, it surprises me greatly that the OPer has spent most of the thread debating pros and cons of various different religions and completely disregarding the original subject. Oh and thank you Lars for using your Mod. facilities to move the debating posts to their own thread, leaving Muhammad Ali's contributory posts as they should be, in respect for an amazing man and athlete. I have not got those facilities any more, Lars, so there is nothing I can do except complain.

You are supposed to be 'so proper' spot, but you seem to have shown your true colours by taking the thread right off topic and have totally 'dissed' me. Shame on you.

I wonder what guest readers think of this thread .

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Jun 08, 2016 6:41 pm

G#Gill;1496736 wrote: It is obvious that I am being given the finger ! Considering the OP poster introduced the thread in respect for Muhammad Ali on his death, it surprises me greatly that the OPer has spent most of the thread debating pros and cons of various different religions and completely disregarding the original subject. Oh and thank you Lars for using your Mod. facilities to move the debating posts to their own thread, leaving Muhammad Ali's contributory posts as they should be, in respect for an amazing man and athlete. I have not got those facilities any more, Lars, so there is nothing I can do except complain.

You are supposed to be 'so proper' spot, but you seem to have shown your true colours by taking the thread right off topic and have totally 'dissed' me. Shame on you.

I wonder what guest readers think of this thread .

Actually, Gil, reading back through the thread, it would seem it was never really intended to be about Ali, but only use him as a catalyst for the religious thing.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Wed Jun 08, 2016 6:56 pm

G#Gill;1496736 wrote: It is obvious that I am being given the finger !Be thankful it's not a trigger finger. Seriously though, it's spot's thread and both Lars and myself have also suggested moving it.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Wed Jun 08, 2016 7:04 pm

LarsMac;1496737 wrote: Actually, Gil, reading back through the thread, it would seem it was never really intended to be about Ali, but only use him as a catalyst for the religious thing.

In which case, Lars, why the heck title the thread "Muhammad Ali RIP". Mind you we all know that spot is a law unto himself and he is "never wrong". Even mods turn 'blind eyes' and make excuses for various transgressions that he may make ! Sorry, Lars, but that's the way it seems !

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Jun 08, 2016 7:52 pm

G#Gill;1496739 wrote: In which case, Lars, why the heck title the thread "Muhammad Ali RIP". Mind you we all know that spot is a law unto himself and he is "never wrong". Even mods turn 'blind eyes' and make excuses for various transgressions that he may make ! Sorry, Lars, but that's the way it seems !

Well, I certainly cannot devine the reasoning behind the ploy.

And, I'm neither turning a blind eye nor making an excuse.

On another note, The planned Tribute to Ali seems to have hit a unusual snag.

Spokesman Bob Gunnell dismayed free Muhammad Ali memorial tickets being sold

Given the supply-and-demand factor for about 15,000 seats in the arena, some ticket holders immediately looked to cash in, going online offering to sell theirs to the star-studded event. Former President Bill Clinton, a longtime Ali friend, will eulogize the champ, who died last Friday at 74 following a long battle with Parkinson's disease.

Gunnell denounced the profiteering as a "despicable act" that's illegal.

"It is deplorable that some people are trying to profit off of the solemn service as we celebrate the life of Muhammad Ali," he said.

I'm just reporting what I read. And I find little in the content of the discussion worth pursuing. I'll just be moving on, then.

Ali deserves better, I think.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:38 am

G#Gill;1496736 wrote: It is obvious that I am being given the finger ! Considering the OP poster introduced the thread in respect for Muhammad Ali on his death, it surprises me greatly that the OPer has spent most of the thread debating pros and cons of various different religions and completely disregarding the original subject. Oh and thank you Lars for using your Mod. facilities to move the debating posts to their own thread, leaving Muhammad Ali's contributory posts as they should be, in respect for an amazing man and athlete. I have not got those facilities any more, Lars, so there is nothing I can do except complain.

You are supposed to be 'so proper' spot, but you seem to have shown your true colours by taking the thread right off topic and have totally 'dissed' me. Shame on you.

I wonder what guest readers think of this thread .
I suggest you look at post#14, Gill. That's where the history of the Reformation entered the thread. It's not my post. All I've done since with regard to the history of the Reformation is to respond to that post and follow-ups from Mark.

My opening post said that Ali, in his time and place, performed the same role that Luther had played and that Solzhenitsyn had played when confronted with abused power. Mark seems not to have liked the comparison but I didn't make it to annoy anyone.

I ignored your intervention since it's plainly nothing to do with me that the thread was derailed but you're intent on criticizing me for the derailing. I've got used to it, it's water off a duck's back. You want me to react and allow yet more derailing? I think not.

Go back and check every one of my posts. It's not my doing.

The reason I've not split the thread is that my old ISP has cut my line, wrongly; my new ISP's engineer is in Helston until late afternoon; and I'm online by tethering to my cellphone over a 3G connection which is a bit like going back to V.32 dial-up.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Jun 09, 2016 7:15 am

Having thought about it some over coffee, this morning, I'm against splitting the thread off. The mechanics of thread evolution have always fascinated me a bit.

But, perhaps creating a new thread from a couple of the posts, might take the Luther discussion off on it's own and let it develop.

I don't think that the topic drift was intended as a disrespect to Ali, at all. On the contrary, to suggest that Ali had the historical impact of the likes of Luther and Solzhenitsyn, well, that is quite the compliment, I think.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu Jun 09, 2016 12:15 pm

Just for the heck of it.

The Telegraph

Post by **spot** » Fri Jun 10, 2016 1:50 am

Muhammad Ali funeral: Tens of thousands to say farewell in Louisville - BBC News

The town will come to a standstill, by the look of things.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Jun 10, 2016 1:14 pm

spot;1496776 wrote: Muhammad Ali funeral: Tens of thousands to say farewell in Louisville - BBC News

The town will come to a standstill, by the look of things.

That's because once the toll of the Church bell begins, everyone goes back to their corners.

magentaflame · Post by **magentaflame** » Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:02 pm

Wouldnt call Ali a decent man, but he certainly turned the world on its head and was a household name in my home when i was a child in the seventies.

Remember when his wife turned up in Manilla and ripped through him because the phillipine president told him that his. "Wife" was as beautiful as his own? .....turned out it was his new girlfriend.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Jun 19, 2016 7:41 am

magentaflame;1497204 wrote: Wouldnt call Ali a decent man, but he certainly turned the world on its head and was a household name in my home when i was a child in the seventies.

Remember when his wife turned up in Manilla and ripped through him because the phillipine president told him that his. "Wife" was as beautiful as his own? .....turned out it was his new girlfriend.

So what?

magentaflame · Post by **magentaflame** » Thu Jun 23, 2016 10:09 pm

Something to do with his wife not knowing he was on the game in the first place i reckon.

ZAP · Post by **ZAP** » Mon Jun 27, 2016 11:39 am

FourPart;1496796 wrote: That's because once the toll of the Church bell begins, everyone goes back to their corners.

:)