Make your own E-meter: Syfytology

Do it yourself e-meter! An e-meter just an ohm meter. It measures the resistance in an object, add more heat, the resistance needle goes up. According to L. Ron Hubbard and $cientology this measures spiritual energy (thetans). You can buy your own version of the "e-meter" at a local hardware store, its mislabeled as a "multi-meter" generally, or you can buy mine for 2 easy payments of $599.99 and one VERY hard payment of $5,999.99 with calibrations every two years to ensure its holy-ohm integrity for a small fee.

St Maximus the Confessor on Pope Honorius and the Monothelite controversy

Pyrrhus: What dost thou say of Honorius, who clearly taught one will of Our Lord Jesus Christ in his letter to my predecessor?

Maximus: Who is a more trustworthy interpreter of such an epistle? The one that actually wrote it for Honorius, the one who at the time was still alive, and who, in addition to all his other virtues, illumined the whole West with godly dogmas? Or is it those in Constantinople who interpret it in accordance with the whim of their own hearts?

Pyrrhus: The one who actually composed the letter.

Maximus: This same person afterwards wrote for Pope John (who is among the saints) to Constantine, just after he had become Emperor regarding the very same letter of Honorius. He explained that:

"We say one will of the Lord, not of the Godhead and humanity, but only of the humanity. For Sergius hath written: 'As some say that the two wills of Christ are opposed, we in response write that Christ did not have two opposing wills, as of flesh and of spirit, as we ourselves have since the Fall, but one only, that which characterized His humanity by virtue of nature.'"
And the clear proof of this is the fact that he writeth of limbs and flesh [i.e. the Letter quoted Rom 7:23], which means that we cannot apply what he saith unto the Godhead. Straight away, in anticipation of objections, he saith:

"And if someone saith 'Why, when speaking of the humanity of Christ, did you not refer to the Godhead as well?' we reply, for the first part, that our answer was made to a specific question; and for the second part, that there, as ever, we have followed the practice of Scripture. For sometimes it speaketh concerning His Godhead only, as when the apostle saith 'Christ the power of God and wisdom of God', and sometimes concerning only His humanity, as when the apostle saith 'the foolishness of God is stronger than men', and what is weak in God is stronger than men."

Pyrrhus: My predecessor, misled by the pope's manner of writing, understood it in a somewhat naive fashion.
(The Disputation with Pyrrhus of Our Father Among the Saints Maximus the Confessor, Joseph P. Farrell, p.49-50)

St Maximus the Confessor commentary on 2 Corinthians 5:21

ST. MAXIMUS THE CONFESOR
AD THALASSIUM 42
On Jesus Christ, the New Adam Who "Became Sin"

Q. [285] How is it that we are said to commit sin and know it (cf 1 In 1:8), while the Lord became sin but did not know it? How is it not more serious to become sin and not know it, than to commit sin and know it? For the Scripture says, For our sake God made him become sin who knew no sin (2 Cor 5:21).

R. Having originally been corrupted from its natural design, Adam's free choice corrupted along with it our human nature, which forfeited the grace of impassibility. Thus came sin into existence. The first sin, culpable indeed, was the fall of free choice from good into evil; the second, following upon the first, was the innocent transformation of human nature from incorruption into corruption. For our forefather Adam committed two "sins" by his transgression of God's commandment: the first "sin" was culpable, when his free choice willfully rejected the good; but the second "sin," occasioned by the first, was innocent, since human nature unwillingly put off its incorruption. Therefore our Lord and God, rectifying this reciprocal corruption and alteration of our human nature by taking on the whole of our nature, even had in his assumed nature the liability to passions which, in his own exercise of free choice, he adorned with incorruptibility. And it is by virtue of his assumption of this natural passibility that he became sin for our sake, though he did not know any deliberate sin because of the immutability of his free choice.' Because his free choice was incorruptible, he rectified our nature's liability to passions and turned the end of our nature's passibility—which is death—into the beginning of our natural transformation to incorruption. In turn, just as through one man, who turned voluntarily from the good, the human nature was changed from incorruption to corruption to the detriment of all humanity, so too through one man, Jesus Christ, who did not voluntarily turn from the good, [287] human nature underwent a restoration from corruption to incorruption for the benefit of all humanity.

Therefore the Lord did not know "my sin", that is, the mutability of my free choice. Neither did he assume nor become my sin. Rather, he became the "sin that I caused"; in other words, he assumed the corruption of human nature that was a consequence of the mutability of my free choice. For our sake he became a human being naturally liable to passions, and used the "sin" that I caused to destroy the "sin" that I commit. Just as in Adam, with his own act of freely choosing evil, the common glory of human nature, incorruption, was robbed—since God judged that it was not right for humanity, having abused free choice, to have an immortal nature—so too in Christ, with his own act of freely choosing the good, the common scourge of our whole nature, corruption, was taken away. At the resurrection of Christ, human nature was transformed into incorruption because his free choice was immutable. For God judged that it was right for man, when he did not subvert his free choice, once again to recover an immortal nature. By "man" here I mean the incarnate Logos in virtue of the fact that he united to himself, hypostatically, the flesh animated by a rational soul. For if the deviance' of free choice introduced passibility, corruptibility, and mortality in Adam's nature, it only followed that in Christ, the immutability of free choice, realized through his resurrection, introduced natural impassibility, incorruptibility, and immortality.

Hence the mutation of human nature over to passibility, corruption, and death is the condemnation of Adam's deliberate sin. Man was not created by God in the beginning with such a corrupted nature; rather, man invented and knew it since he created deliberate sin through his disobedience. And clearly condemnation by death is the result of such sin. Yet the Lord took on this very condemnation of my deliberate sin, that is to say, the passibility, corruptibility, and mortality of our nature. [289] He became the "sin" that I caused, in terms of the passibility, corruptibility, and mortality, and he submitted voluntarily to the condemnation owed me in my nature, even though he himself was blameless in his freedom of choice, in order to condemn both my deliberate "sin" and the "sin" that befell my nature. Accordingly he has driven sin, passion, corruption, and death from human nature, and the economy of Christ's philanthropy on my behalf has become for me, one fallen through disobedience, a new mystery. For the sake of my salvation, Christ, through his own death, voluntarily made my condemnation his own, thereby granting me restoration to immortality.

In many ways, I think, it has been shown in this brief discussion both how the Lord became sin but did not know it, and how humanity did not become sin but did commit and know sin—both the deliberate "sin" which man committed first, and the subsequent natural "sin" to which the Lord submitted himself on humanity's account, even when he was completely free of the first kind of sin. So according to the intended purpose of the text as we have rendered it here, and respecting the proper conceptual distinction between the two meanings of "sin," it is by no means better to commit and to know sin than to become sin. For the former "sin" incurs separation from God, since free choice voluntarily rejects divine things; but the latter "sin" may very well hinder evil, since it does not allow that wickedness of free choice that is based on the infirmity of nature to advance into concrete action.
(translated by Paul M. Blowers and Robert Lewis Wilken, On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ, pp. 119-122)

Addressing homosexual (gay) arguments (again)

Who hates gay people the most? The people that support them and encourage them for what they do.

I have had a couple of gay friends and they don't pretend there's is anything healthy or right living the gay life and they make an effort not to. One of them saw the gay pride parade in San Francisco--she was ashamed to be gay because of it. Homosexuality spreads disease, nothing healthy about gay sex at all. The only POSSIBLE benefit of homosexuality is "population control," the problem is that could be done with celibacy, furthermore, if population control is really a serious problem--then suicide should be encouraged (strangely enough many gay rights supporters also support Physician assisted suicide in my experience) for ANYONE.

 

Gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with the civil rights movement of the 60's. Gay people can be black or white, there's no threat to gay people voting, buying groceries, getting medical treatment, and getting work. No one can tell that you are gay just by looking at you, unless YOU want to make it obvious. In fact, I remember when there was anti-black push back during prop 8 since black people overwhelmingly voted to ban gay marriage.

 

Historically, the main purpose of marriage was ALWAYS procreation. In recent years, it has been substituted for money and a tax break by some, who have no business marrying, but at least with straight people they still have the possibility of creating children, even if they are incredibly old there is a long shot of a possibility. Marriage laws even before gay marriage implied procreation since blood tests were often STANDARD in many places to test for STD's. Opening up marriage to homosexuals devolves marriage to largely a form of legal prostitution where the purpose of marriage is financial stability. Marriage laws declined decades ago with divorce being made easier to get, and with the rise of feminism and contraceptives divorce rates shot up. Also, there have been some suspect studies that try to suggest gay people raise children better than straight people, which is absurd, we already know how terrible single parenthood works, why should two men with no woman work better? The homosexuals I've talked to argued they will have a FRIEND step in for that role--in other words a "step-mom" meaning they KNOW the kid will need something they are incapable of giving them.

 

Also, if marriage is such a bad move, why extend this right to gay people? I had a friend that was divorced, he said "don't ever get married, if you had a business and marriage was a business contract--NO ONE WOULD SIGN IT." And why is marriage called a right at all? Not just anyone can marry, single people cannot marry, obviously, they're denied any possible benefit from marriage. Also, governments have reserved the right to DENY even straight people from marrying if one of them has a venereal disease. http://www.nolo.com/…/marriage-requirements-licenses-ceremo… Also, even if someone is a right it does not mean it should be given out indiscriminately, certainly the right to bear arms should not be given out indiscriminately--otherwise it would be just as legal for a felon to have one as a police officer. A person that serially marriages old people for their inheritances SHOULD be prevented from ever having a marriage license. Gay marriage runs on the wrong idea that ALL DISCRIMINATION is wrong, which is not true--those were some examples of GOOD discrimination.  Furthermore, what's getting a piece of paper from the government have anything to do with LOVE? How does the government allowing gay marriage make "love win"? How does saving money by filing jointly "prove love"?

 

Also, gay rights supporters argue homosexuality is NATURAL, because there are lots of gay animals. And there are! We also see rapist animals--there's a rapist seal raping a penguin of indeterminate sex a few years ago. Another similar story about a research recording the perverse acts penguins practiced--so shocking they were not published, and he wrote in Greek to disguise it. This shows us that animals rape and perform "bestiality"---does this also mean that rape and bestiality are therefore natural, and therefore should be supported and defended legally? We know there is incest even among high animals in nature. We know monkeys have wars and kill each other---so war is natural too. We have seen animals seemingly kill themselves, torture their prey, practice infanticide and polygamy (lions)--therefore all of those should be just as equally legal and defended. Anyone, who defends gay sex/marriage but is disgusted by bestiality or polygamy should learn to empathy with us who find gay sex and marriage equally disgusting. Also, its foolish for gay rights support to insist any man that has 'sex' with a man, or woman that has 'sex' with a woman was born with those tendencies, some people are bisexual, and some people admit they wanted to TEST out being gay and were not always that way.

 

Concerning the "born that way argument." Even if there was to be found some genetic, hard wired basis for homosexuality, that does not necessarily justify it, or mean it should receive legal recognition.

 

Oxford scientists suggest rape might be genetic, lets say it is, then what does this mean?

I suppose since these people are "BORN THAT WAY", it ought to be tolerated and laws changed? This Oxford scientist suggests sexual offenders (even straight ones) has "genetic factors" that make them more likely to be "convicted of sexual offense."

 

'We are definitely not saying that we have 'found a gene for sexual offending' or anything of the kind. What we have found is high quality evidence from a large population study that genetic factors have a substantial influence on an increased risk of being convicted of sexual offences,' said Professor Seena Fazel of Oxford University's Department of Psychiatry, an author of the paper. 'It tells us something about why if we take two sets of brothers, whose backgrounds might look identical, one set has a higher risk of sexual offending than the other – a large proportion of this difference is likely to be due to genetic factors. http://www.ox.ac.uk/…/2015-04-09-sex-offending-genes-more-i…

 

Not to mention genes for aggression.

 

If people are born with all sorts of messed up genetics, does being born with these messed up genetics necessarily justify morally the actions that may seem to come "natural" from them?

 

Also, the fact homosexuality is difficult to "cure" or "treat," does not justify it, there are other sexual disorders, even involving children that are generally recognized by modern day psychology as not being "curable," but only treatable.

Can pedophilia be treated?

Yes. Although most experts do not think a person's feelings of pedophilia are curable, therapy may help them manage those feelings and not act on them.--WebMD 

 

We already know through the CDC that in the USA gay men account for 2/3rds of the new HIV cases. So why promote and accept it?

 

Finally, gay marriage is built on a faulty idea of what "love" is. Its based on the population definition that its a feeling, rather than having it focus on a legitimate deep concern for another person, making it hardly different than lust. The idea that love is telling someone what they want to hear, not necessarily what they NEED to know. People NEED to know gay sex is wrong.

 

Most of all, homosexuality is wrong because it goes contrary to revelation received by God, which tells us the natural use for man, is for men and women to have sex within marriage. Homosexual advocates know the Bible is clear about homosexuality being a serious crime in the bible, so they seek a number of pathetic excuses include "shellfish eating is a sin too," "it only condemns abusive gay sex," or "homosexuality is never really mentioned," "divorce is a sin too" (implying we need to look the other way on homosexuality too) among other things. Yet, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Romans 1 are clear about homosexuality. Some try to bring up Jesus never mentioning it. Jesus did mention marriage being for a man and woman, and he did mention the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Furthermore, even if Jesus doesn't mention it, does that automatically validate it? Jesus did not overtly mention rape, or forbid torturing animals, does this mean its all okay?

 

Anyone that supports gay sex or even sodomy among straight people, or just stays silent on the issue--HATES these people and has no concern for them. If your friend was going to take a drug that would wreck their life would you be silent about it not wanting them to feel bad, or would you discourage them? If you would do the first--you're an a$$, not a friend.