Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
51.chemdoc posted on August 02, 2012 at 01:11 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
Only A's prospects do that.
barf. I'd just bothered to get excited about that guy too. Why couldn't he steal bases for the lord?
Exodus 20:15.
52.squatto posted on August 02, 2012 at 01:51 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
I read an article somewhere - sorry, can't remember or I'd link it - that said Hamilton's going through a divorce.
53.Cabbage posted on August 02, 2012 at 01:59 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
I always thought it was interesting that arianism died out, but the Copts have kept monophysitism alive for over a thousand years
Interestingly, the Copts themselves reject this label. They say that the greek word "miaphysite" accurately represents their belief, but that even they reject the absoluteness of monophysitism.
Both Rome and Moscow have been making overtures to the Copts for about two generations -- trying to bring them back into the fold. At least under the late Pope Shenouda, the Copts really didn't have any interest in reconsidering Chalcedon. But I think they're looking for friends these days, especially after all Christians got run out of Iraq and the Salafis are making a lot of noise in Cairo. They've got a lot of close ties with the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Russians are generally seen as friends and possible protectors (its like 1913 all over again!). But the Orthodox are more hardline on doctrines like this. Rome, on the other hand, is well-verse in absorbing particular churches and glossing over their heresies with massive documents that no one reads. They did that with some Nestorians not too long ago, and I'm sure they'd happily do so with the Copts. Plus its easier for the Roman church to finagle around something like the Council of Chalcedon.
Of course, as Stalin noted, the Pope does not command any divisions.
I'm not saying that if the Caliphate had taken over Lombardy in 642 then we would have Arian Christians around today, but I think it's entirely possible that if Islam had never happened (the largest counterfactual proposal I can think of) then the Copts would just be Orthodox Christians of one type or another.
There is probably some merit to that, but I don't know that it's quite so simple. Like the Nestorians in Persia, non-Christian empires were much more tolerant of Christian minorities if they were fighting with Constantinople (or later Rome). The Ancient Church of the East (now headquartered in Chicago, of all places -- don't they know that's in the Central Divisions?) didn't really become Nestorian until after the Syrio-Greek Nestorians were given refuge in the Persian Empire. Enemy of my enemy is my friend, and all that. Once there, Nestorianism became the main theological influence and was supported by the state (subsequently spreading to the Malankara Church).
I read an article somewhere - sorry, can't remember or I'd link it - that said Hamilton's going through a divorce.
No way.
As Josh's imaginary pal said, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
55.GregD posted on August 02, 2012 at 02:09 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
Both Rome and Moscow have been making overtures to the Copts for about two generations -- trying to bring them back into the fold. At least under the late Pope Shenouda, the Copts really didn't have any interest in reconsidering Chalcedon. But I think they're looking for friends these days, especially after all Christians got run out of Iraq and the Salafis are making a lot of noise in Cairo. They've got a lot of close ties with the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Russians are generally seen as friends and possible protectors (its like 1913 all over again!). But the Orthodox are more hardline on doctrines like this. Rome, on the other hand, is well-verse in absorbing particular churches and glossing over their heresies with massive documents that no one reads. They did that with some Nestorians not too long ago, and I'm sure they'd happily do so with the Copts. Plus its easier for the Roman church to finagle around something like the Council of Chalcedon.
If they can kiss and make up with Lutherans, then you would think Copts would be fairly simple.
I found Ron Washington's comments on this matter more interesting than Hamilton's. Lots of wink-wink type comments AND third-person references.
57.Cabbage posted on August 02, 2012 at 02:41 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
If they can kiss and make up with Lutherans, then you would think Copts would be fairly simple.
I wasn't clear. Not play nice together, reestablish communion. Most everyone gets along these days. It's pretty remarkable how much relations between Christians have improved over the past hundred years.
I mean, the Greeks and Latins spent nearly a thousand years bickering about things -- relations haven't been this good between Eastern and Western Christianity since before Charlemagne.
I also helps that everyone gets together to laugh at the Episcopalians.
If they can kiss and make up with Lutherans, then you would think Copts would be fairly simple.
Well, the disagreements with the Copts have about a thousand year head start on the disagreements with the Lutherans, and it was a thousand years of deep cultural and geographic divisions.
Homer: Bring back our kids you Cyprus splitting jerks! Turkish Captain: Just for that, we keep your children! Homer: Will you raise them christian? Turkish Captain: Coptic Christian. Homer: No!
That always makes me laugh a lot, for reasons I've never quite worked out.
60.GregD posted on August 02, 2012 at 03:35 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
I wasn't clear. Not play nice together, reestablish communion. Most everyone gets along these days. It's pretty remarkable how much relations between Christians have improved over the past hundred years.
Lutherans (not Missouri Synod) and Catholics are planning a joint commemoration of Luther's theses and are on track--though it could still be f*ed up--to establish joint communion
61.Cabbage posted on August 02, 2012 at 04:18 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
Lutherans (not Missouri Synod) and Catholics are planning a joint commemoration of Luther's theses and are on track--though it could still be f*ed up--to establish joint communion
Wouldn't that just mean these Lutherans are becoming Catholic? Rome isn't gonna recognize some Lutheran Ordinate like they did for the Anglicans.
62.Jay Z posted on August 02, 2012 at 06:33 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
I wasn't clear. Not play nice together, reestablish communion. Most everyone gets along these days. It's pretty remarkable how much relations between Christians have improved over the past hundred years.
Lutherans (not Missouri Synod) and Catholics are planning a joint commemoration of Luther's theses and are on track--though it could still be f*ed up--to establish joint communion
I'm Lutheran, and I'll pass. Catholics have too much communion for my taste. Communion at weddings, communion at funerals, communion at everything.
I kid, of course. I understand the Catholic approach, it's just a different approach. People can have friendly differences.
63.Jay Z posted on August 02, 2012 at 06:34 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
I wasn't clear. Not play nice together, reestablish communion. Most everyone gets along these days. It's pretty remarkable how much relations between Christians have improved over the past hundred years.
Lutherans (not Missouri Synod) and Catholics are planning a joint commemoration of Luther's theses and are on track--though it could still be f*ed up--to establish joint communion
I'm Lutheran, and I'll pass. Catholics have too much communion for my taste. Communion at weddings, communion at funerals, communion at everything.
I kid, of course. I understand the Catholic approach, it's just a different approach. People can have friendly differences.
64.Jay Z posted on August 02, 2012 at 07:34 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
I wasn't clear. Not play nice together, reestablish communion. Most everyone gets along these days. It's pretty remarkable how much relations between Christians have improved over the past hundred years.
Lutherans (not Missouri Synod) and Catholics are planning a joint commemoration of Luther's theses and are on track--though it could still be f*ed up--to establish joint communion
I'm Lutheran, and I'll pass. Catholics have too much communion for my taste. Communion at weddings, communion at funerals, communion at everything.
I kid, of course. I understand the Catholic approach, it's just a different approach. People can have friendly differences.
65.dr. scott posted on August 02, 2012 at 07:45 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
A hairshirt is like a batting donut for the soul.
brilliant
66.GregD posted on August 02, 2012 at 08:49 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
Wouldn't that just mean these Lutherans are becoming Catholic? Rome isn't gonna recognize some Lutheran Ordinate like they did for the Anglicans.
I assume it would mean Catholics extending to Lutherans what they extend to Eastern churches, saying they can take closed communion at Catholic churches as long as their home church approves.
The Greeks and Latins spent nearly a thousand years bickering about things
Yeah, and that whole sacking of Constantinople thing in 1204. So petty the Greeks couldn't get over that.
69.Xander posted on August 03, 2012 at 03:48 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
Seems like post #2 (which happened to be written by me) nailed it:
He stopped doing dip a few weeks ago right? There you go. He's probably going through all sorts of withdrawals. He'll be fine.
Heyman:
Rangers superstar Josh Hamilton's personal issue that he referred to in a recent interview has come to light, and word is it regards his recent inability to kick the chewing tobacco habit. Hamilton spoke recently about his disappointment in himself about an undisclosed personal matter, and sources say the tobacco is what he was talking about -- and possibly a little bit about his disappointment in not being as disciplined at the plate in recent weeks, too.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 2 of 2 pages
< 1 2Exodus 20:15.
Interestingly, the Copts themselves reject this label. They say that the greek word "miaphysite" accurately represents their belief, but that even they reject the absoluteness of monophysitism.
Both Rome and Moscow have been making overtures to the Copts for about two generations -- trying to bring them back into the fold. At least under the late Pope Shenouda, the Copts really didn't have any interest in reconsidering Chalcedon. But I think they're looking for friends these days, especially after all Christians got run out of Iraq and the Salafis are making a lot of noise in Cairo. They've got a lot of close ties with the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Russians are generally seen as friends and possible protectors (its like 1913 all over again!). But the Orthodox are more hardline on doctrines like this. Rome, on the other hand, is well-verse in absorbing particular churches and glossing over their heresies with massive documents that no one reads. They did that with some Nestorians not too long ago, and I'm sure they'd happily do so with the Copts. Plus its easier for the Roman church to finagle around something like the Council of Chalcedon.
Of course, as Stalin noted, the Pope does not command any divisions.
I'm not saying that if the Caliphate had taken over Lombardy in 642 then we would have Arian Christians around today, but I think it's entirely possible that if Islam had never happened (the largest counterfactual proposal I can think of) then the Copts would just be Orthodox Christians of one type or another.
There is probably some merit to that, but I don't know that it's quite so simple. Like the Nestorians in Persia, non-Christian empires were much more tolerant of Christian minorities if they were fighting with Constantinople (or later Rome). The Ancient Church of the East (now headquartered in Chicago, of all places -- don't they know that's in the Central Divisions?) didn't really become Nestorian until after the Syrio-Greek Nestorians were given refuge in the Persian Empire. Enemy of my enemy is my friend, and all that. Once there, Nestorianism became the main theological influence and was supported by the state (subsequently spreading to the Malankara Church).
No way.
As Josh's imaginary pal said, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
I wasn't clear. Not play nice together, reestablish communion. Most everyone gets along these days. It's pretty remarkable how much relations between Christians have improved over the past hundred years.
I mean, the Greeks and Latins spent nearly a thousand years bickering about things -- relations haven't been this good between Eastern and Western Christianity since before Charlemagne.
I also helps that everyone gets together to laugh at the Episcopalians.
Well, the disagreements with the Copts have about a thousand year head start on the disagreements with the Lutherans, and it was a thousand years of deep cultural and geographic divisions.
Turkish Captain: Just for that, we keep your children!
Homer: Will you raise them christian?
Turkish Captain: Coptic Christian.
Homer: No!
That always makes me laugh a lot, for reasons I've never quite worked out.
Wouldn't that just mean these Lutherans are becoming Catholic? Rome isn't gonna recognize some Lutheran Ordinate like they did for the Anglicans.
I'm Lutheran, and I'll pass. Catholics have too much communion for my taste. Communion at weddings, communion at funerals, communion at everything.
I kid, of course. I understand the Catholic approach, it's just a different approach. People can have friendly differences.
I'm Lutheran, and I'll pass. Catholics have too much communion for my taste. Communion at weddings, communion at funerals, communion at everything.
I kid, of course. I understand the Catholic approach, it's just a different approach. People can have friendly differences.
I'm Lutheran, and I'll pass. Catholics have too much communion for my taste. Communion at weddings, communion at funerals, communion at everything.
I kid, of course. I understand the Catholic approach, it's just a different approach. People can have friendly differences.
brilliant
You get threads on monophysitism!
Yeah, and that whole sacking of Constantinople thing in 1204. So petty the Greeks couldn't get over that.
Heyman:
link
But when I kissed a Copt down on 34th and Vine,
He broke my little bottle of Love Potion Number Nine.
Page 2 of 2 pages
< 1 2You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.