Question For The Christians

[bornagainathiest]

Want some more, Ray?

 

(Don't care if you don't!)

 

Let's talk about Death and Hades. This deadly double-act crops up nine times in the New Testament.

 

1 & 2.

Matthew 11:23 and Luke 10:15

Jesus says that the city of Capernaum, "...will be brought down to Hades." In the original Greek (Koine) both Matthew and Luke use the word, 'hadou', meaning 'of-un-perceived' or 'unseen'.

So, Hades is clearly not the flaming, fiery hell that is the Lake of Fire, a.k.a., the Second Death, mentioned in the last chapters of Revelation. No, the meaning is quite clear. Those who are claimed by Death, fall asleep and are unperceived or unseen by those who are left behind - the living. Therefore, Capernaum is not going to go down to the Hell/the Lake of Fire. No. That city is to be taken by death and it's inhabitants will go down to Sheol/Hades and join all the other sleeping dead there.

 

3 & 4.

Acts 2:27 & 31.

"For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption."

"...he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades and did not see corruption."

In both cases, Hades is written as 'hadou'. Originally taken from Psalm 16, the writer is saying that his soul will not be abandoned to Sheol/Hades, the place where the dead sleep. He will be unperceived and unseen, like all the other dead, but he will not be abandoned and left there. This is because the Holy One (Jesus) will open up Hades on the Last Day. Therefore, just like Capernaum, we are not talking about the writer's soul being abandoned by God in the flames of Hell. No. That fiery, final destination comes after the sleeping dead have been raised from their unperceived/unseen condition. After, they have been re-clothed in new bodies of imperishable flesh and after they have been judged.

 

5.

Revelation 1:18.

"Fear not, I am the first and the last and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades."

"Hadou' again! Jesus holds the keys of Sheol/Hades and is the only one with authority to open up this sleeping place - the unperceived and unseen place.

 

6.

Revelation 6:8.

"And I looked, and behold, a pale horse! And it's rider's name was Death, and Hades followed him. And they were given authority over a fourth of the earth, to kill, with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by wild beasts of the earth."

'Hades' this time, not 'hadou', but the given meaning is still the same, unperceived or unseen. So those slain by sword, famine, pestilence and wild beasts will go down to Sheol/Hades, like everyone else.

 

7.

Revelation 20:13.

"And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done."

Now we come to it!

Everyone, from Adam onwards is raised and then judged. Death and Hades (rendered 'hades') are emptied and then, having served their purpose...

 

8.

Revelation 20:14.

"Then Death and Hades were thrown into the Lake of Fire. this is the Second Death, the lake of fire."

This is when the fiery torment of the damned starts and never finishes, Ray. Clear on that?

Oh and didn't I say that there were 9 examples?

 

Well then. Here's number 9, just for you.

 

9.

Luke 16:23.

"The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and lazarus at his side."

Here the word is rendered, 'hade' and it's translated as meaning unperceived/unseen, just like the other eight examples.

 

So, it's not an actual event Ray. It's not the absolute and perfect and literal truth. It's a story, told by Jesus as a warning. If it had been an actual event and the rich man had been in the Lake of Fire, the Greek text wouldn't have used the word, hade'. Hades means unperceived and unseen, the condition of being one of the sleeping dead. The Lake of Fire is the final, Second Death that follows Judgement. Are we clear about that now?

 

You are wrong in your literal take on this passage.

 

The rich man could not have been in the Lake of Fire because...

 

A. His five brothers were still alive. That would not be possible if this were post-Judgement. They would either be in heaven or in the flames, with him.

 

and..

 

B. The wording is wrong. The rich man in in the unseen/unperceived place of Sheol/Hades awaiting judgement. His torment is not actual. It's a warning to get your shit together before you die - before IT IS too late.

 

You are wrong. Deal with it.

 

BAA.

[rayskidude]

'Antlerman' timestamp='1290559073' post='624272']

'rayskidude' timestamp='1290429387' post='623846']

Actually, if you've followed along - you'd see significant differences between myself and Pentecostals.

 

You're both in the sandbox playing with the same toy, arguing who's playing with it the right way.

 

I'd say that you've failed to grasp some significant issues.

 

And don't give me some crap about you being guided by the spirit to tell you your right. Your arguments are from your reason, not your soul.

 

Actually, my answers arise from my soul, my reason, guidance sought from the Holy Spirit & Scripture, and the science of hermeneutics.

 

What if orthodoxy itself hijacked Christianity itself? Ever consider that?

 

I have - and I rejected that theory.

 

[How do you] measure faithfulness? Dogma allegiance?

 

rayskidude asks > Lemme ask you this - How do you measure faithfulness in atheists? Or those who agree with your religion? Is it possible to even be a faithful Ex-C? If so, howso?

 

First, you avoided an answer. I expect one.

 

And I fully intend to give an answer, I just wanted to ask you whether any and all belief systems carry some level of adherence for those who claim to be "true believers." I believe this to be so, every system must have standards to be upheld. No standards = no authenticity.

 

How do I measure faithfulness - dogma? Yes, but dogma by itself is insufficient. There are certain non-negotiable truths in Christianity, which if one does not hold to such, they cannot make an honest claim to be a Christian. About 100 years ago, Christians of several denominations set forth some 'fundamentals' > inspiration of the Bible, virgin birth/Deity of Christ (which implies the Triune Godhead), vicarious death of Jesus Christ to pay for sin, physical resurrection of Jesus from the dead, and the physical return of Jesus Christ to Earth to render judgement are notable.

 

But in addition to correct orthodoxy, there must be ortho-praxy. Christian conduct is a non-negotiable. This is why the Reformers stated that church discipline was characteristic of the true church. They stated that preaching God's word - for belief and practice - and participating in the church sacraments were also necessary elements of a true church. I would hold to such standards of Christian conduct. SO true Christianity requires correct views of God, Man, the Bible, salvation, the Church, and earnest Christian conduct aiming toward the goal of Christlikeness and the virtues of faith, hope & love - with the greatest being love.

 

What I consider faithfulness, is being true to yourself in the sincere pursuit of understanding and peace

 

This is so subjective and nebulous as to have no real meaning. And I would consider 'being true to yourself' as selfishness, almost by definition.

 

Selfishness in the sense of believing that being true to some dogma, some tenet of faith, some interpretation of some mythical book of absolute Authority (which is your true god it seems), is going to secure your place amongst the angels in this god's holy city where he has prepared a special place just for you - you, you. You. That is not faithfulness. That is narcissism.

 

Our salvation - since its basis is the grace of God - mainly displays God's glory. That He can take wicked, rebellious, selfish sinners and make them trophies of grace for all eternity - WOW! But additionally, our salvation achieves our own eternal good, as well. God's glory and Man's good - both are realized by salvation through Jesus Christ.

 

Faithful to truth that leads to love. That is Life.

 

That, my friend, is Biblical Christianity.

[rayskidude]

 

What is "historic orthodox Christianity"? Nicene Creed or something else? Just curious.

 

Plz see my post above to Antlerman. If you want more specifics, plz lemme know.

[rayskidude]

Hello Ray! It's that time again. That time I promised you. The time when I show from scripture just how far you've deviated and fallen from a true understanding of God's word, Mr. 'True Believer'.

 

Serious question Ray! How can you possibly find out what God's will is and how you can please Him with your life if you can't even understand His written Word properly? If your understanding is stunted, blunted and distorted by your relentlessly literal take on scripture, how can you be living the true life that God wants for you?

BAA.

 

What amazes me - is you keep denigrating my 'supposed' literalism; and then you proceed to take words like > sleep, up, Hades, etc with an exactitude that is baffling. And if you were at all familiar with the OT prophecies about the future Kingdom of Zion, you would know that a political theocracy is what the disciples in Acts 1:4-8 were looking towards.

 

Again - and plz don't chicken out on me this time - what Christian seminary, and which recognized Biblical authorities, champion this theology you consider orthodox?

 

My beliefs are in line with Southern Baptist, Presbyterian, evangelical, Lutheran-Missouri Synod, etc seminaries. Men such as John MacArthur, DA Carson, Doug Moo, John Piper, CJ Mahaney, Mark Dever, Al Mohler, Alistar Begg, Ligon Duncan, Erwin Lutzer, etc.

[rayskidude]

What 'dogma'? There's no groupthink going on here, we - the ex-C's - are all self determinists - I don't give a flying fuck what Antler or Ouro or Desert Bob or anyone else believes, they sure as hell don't need my approval, and I would never presume to give it, as I have no basis to do so (just as I don't need or desire THEIR approval). The farther I get from it the stranger Xtianity becomes.

 

Was Jeffery Dahmer a self-determinist? I'm pretty sure he was.

[rayskidude]

'rayskidude' timestamp='1290429387' post='623846']

How do you measure faithfulness in atheists?

 

This is the single most asinine question I've ever seen anywhere on any message board.

'Faithfulness' to what? To self determination maybe? ray is just a total idiot, I almost feel sorry for him. Except he's an asshole and all.

 

First - lemme correct you. I am the Most Annoying Christian, the MAC. SO plz address me as such - and I prefer "the Big MAC." So, just like Barbara Boxer didn't like being called "ma'am" - 'cuz she worked so hard to become a senator, and she insisted on being addressed as such - well, I ask for that same courtesy. Thank you.

 

Thank you also for using the superlative 'most' when referring to my post. I work hard at this, and it's good to be rewarded.

 

Secondly, are you saying that self-determinism has no standards at all, regarding anything?

 

Or are you saying your self-determined standards are so low that even you can keep them - thus the question is moot.

[rayskidude]

Anyone who holds to the fundamentals of historic orthodox Christianity is fine. Most Baptists (SBC, GARB, independents, etc), Presbyterian Church in America, Orthodox Presbyterians, most Anglicans outside the USA, the Sovereign Grace Fellowship, many southern Methodists, most independents, most Reformed churches, most Wesleyan churches, Lutheran - Missouri & Wisconsin synods, - all these preach the Gospel. And many Pentecostal churches do, as well.

 

Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. As we head into the holiday season - I would invite any and all to our church in the Chicago area. We're independent.

In the case when you have a version of Christianity where they preach the false gospel, do they (members) know that they are wrong?

 

If they knew they were wrong, why would they remain in that church? I left Roman Catholicism because I saw so much that was inconsistent with and/or in opposition to the Bible.

 

IS there something else you're seeking in this question?

[rayskidude]

What is "historic orthodox Christianity"?

Nicene Creed or something else? Just curious.

 

Happy Thanksgiving Day to one & all - hope all y'all have a great day.

 

I'll spend some time in the word & prayer - then play flag football with buddies from church, then eat a delicious meal, then watch pro football, then take a nap, then eat a turkey sandwich & pumpkin pie, then watch more football.

 

 

Yeah, and I'll read some more in Augustine's seminal work, De Trinitate.

[agnosticator]

Our salvation - since its basis is the grace of God - mainly displays God's glory. That He can take wicked, rebellious, selfish sinners and make them trophies of grace for all eternity...

 

Appeasing a god's wrath with human sacrifice isn't unique to christianity. What is unique is the one-sided cynical view of human nature, and that only a select and tiny minority of humanity reaps the reward beyond death. The true goal is to display power, and make humans trophies of suffering. What's grace (and love) got to do with it?

[Deva]

What is "historic orthodox Christianity"? Nicene Creed or something else? Just curious.

 

Plz see my post above to Antlerman. If you want more specifics, plz lemme know.

 

No need. I have got it, you are obviously a protestant fundamentalist. So much the worse for you.

[Ouroboros]

In the case when you have a version of Christianity where they preach the false gospel, do they (members) know that they are wrong?

 

If they knew they were wrong, why would they remain in that church? I left Roman Catholicism because I saw so much that was inconsistent with and/or in opposition to the Bible.

That's right. It is possible to be wrong and still believe you're right.

 

So how about a person who is in a false Christian cult, totally convinced that he's right, will he go to Heaven or Hell?

 

Or let's make it more personal, let's say I was wrong. I am convinced that I'm not. I am convinced that Christianity is false, so I don't believe in it. Will God send me to Hell anyway?

 

IS there something else you're seeking in this question?

My question is to make you think about how twisted your God's "justice" is.

[SirPhoenix]

The answer they would give to that is that they aren't God and they don't think like his greatness since they are lowly sinners. Total bullshit. I know I felt like shit when I used to give answers like that.

[Legion]

So much the worse for you.

so much the worse for you

the speech from our lips

could have been like dew

you didn't want relationship

you stood in your cage

and gave words as they were law

consumed with your rage

you thought you were tall

And you never saw my hope

could'a been something new

but you had to be a dope

so much the worse for you

 

so much the worse for you

so much the worse for you

so much the worse for you

[bornagainathiest]

Hello Ray! It's that time again. That time I promised you. The time when I show from scripture just how far you've deviated and fallen from a true understanding of God's word, Mr. 'True Believer'.

 

Serious question Ray! How can you possibly find out what God's will is and how you can please Him with your life if you can't even understand His written Word properly? If your understanding is stunted, blunted and distorted by your relentlessly literal take on scripture, how can you be living the true life that God wants for you?

BAA.

 

What amazes me - is you keep denigrating my 'supposed' literalism; and then you proceed to take words like > sleep, up, Hades, etc with an exactitude that is baffling. And if you were at all familiar with the OT prophecies about the future Kingdom of Zion, you would know that a political theocracy is what the disciples in Acts 1:4-8 were looking towards.

 

Again - and plz don't chicken out on me this time - what Christian seminary, and which recognized Biblical authorities, champion this theology you consider orthodox?

 

My beliefs are in line with Southern Baptist, Presbyterian, evangelical, Lutheran-Missouri Synod, etc seminaries. Men such as John MacArthur, DA Carson, Doug Moo, John Piper, CJ Mahaney, Mark Dever, Al Mohler, Alistar Begg, Ligon Duncan, Erwin Lutzer, etc.

 

 

 

No, Ray...

 

...I won't play chicken with you.

 

Asking me to divulge where I learned this stuff is simply your underhanded way of deflecting this thread where you want it to go - away from the obvious and glaring errors I've shown to run right thru your theology.

 

I don't care what amazes you, what you find baffling or anything else except your overdue response to my challenges.

Nor am I in the least bit fazed by your pathetic appeal to such (so-called) Christian luminaries. (Yawns.)

 

No, instead, let's keep our focus squarely on the stack of quotes, refutations and questions that I've put in your 'In' tray.

 

Answer them.

 

BAA.

[centauri]

...SO true Christianity requires correct views of God, Man, the Bible, salvation, the Church, and earnest Christian conduct aiming toward the goal of Christlikeness and the virtues of faith, hope & love - with the greatest being love.

Those so-called "correct" views are subjective and have no validation outside the confines of cult dogma.

"True" Christianity is a chimera, existing in the minds of believers that always classify themselves as true Christians.

That is narcissism.

Christianity is replacement and revisionist theology that contradicts God's word by claiming God's standards were defective and needed to be replaced by a new system.

[bornagainathiest]

Rayskidude to BAA, 10:25 am, Nov 19.

"Seriously - where did you learn this wacky theology? Is this from Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copelend, Kenneth Hagin, & Jim Bakker?" No, Ray. Answer the challenges put to you.

 

Rayskidude to BAA, 7:41 pm, Nov 19.

"Again I ask a simple question - what is the Christian school which promotes such poor hermeneutics and who are the Christian authorities/theologians who teach these wrong-headed notions?" No, Ray. Answer the challenges put to you.

 

BAA to Rayskidude, 06:57 am, Nov 20.

I may not be a Christian any more, but one thing I will do is to protect these people from ravening wolves like yourself. Don't ask again.

 

BAA to Rayskidude, 10:27 am. Nov 22.

I won't be bullied, pushed around, sidetracked or shouted down by you. I have answered your questions and refuted your points. Now it's time for you to answer the questions put to you - all of them.

 

BAA to Rayskidude, 06:27 am, Nov 23.

Please answer and refute what I've written here Ray. Also the other stuff, in previous messages. I'll have some more for you soon, so hurry up!

 

Rayskidude to BAA, 05:25 am, Nov 25.

"Again - and plz don't chicken out on me this time - what Christian seminary, and which recognized Biblical authorities, champion this theology you consider orthodox?" No, Ray. Answer the challenges put to you.

 

 

Looks like Ray's 'ducking' out again, so perhaps Antlerman is right in his duck imagery!

 

BAA.

[Ouroboros]

Looks like Ray's 'ducking' out again, so perhaps Antlerman is right in his duck imagery!

Christianity is a form quackery, so yeah.

[bornagainathiest]

Looks like Ray's 'ducking' out again, so perhaps Antlerman is right in his duck imagery!

Christianity is a form quackery, so yeah.

 

Appropriate, when you consider that the lynchpin passage of Ray's argument (Lazarus and the Rich Man) is found in the Gospel of St. Luke - the Doctor!

 

Quack! Quack!

 

BAA.

[Ouroboros]

Quack! Quack!

LNC and Ray are a pretty pair-of-ducks. (paradox, get it? )

[Antlerman]

'Antlerman' timestamp='1290559073' post='624272']

Actually, if you've followed along - you'd see significant differences between myself and Pentecostals.

 

You're both in the sandbox playing with the same toy, arguing who's playing with it the right way.

 

I'd say that you've failed to grasp some significant issues.

I'm well aware of both sides of the argument. They are only significant issues to you because you are on the same playing field as them. Grey Duck, Brown Duck, Red Duck? They are all Ducks. You're arguing ducks. My questions are more about the significance all water fowl, and the existential nature behind all forms.

 

You're arguing over the best coloration and proper duck calls. These are insignificant to me. I don't care about specific ducks' mating rituals or pond domination over other duck species at this point. What is significant to me, appears to be nothing you are capable of seeing because you're still one of the flock of ducks. Your reality is a duck reality.

 

And don't give me some crap about you being guided by the spirit to tell you your right. Your arguments are from your reason, not your soul.

 

Actually, my answers arise from my soul, my reason, guidance sought from the Holy Spirit & Scripture, and the science of hermeneutics.

Then there is something wrong going on.

 

What if orthodoxy itself hijacked Christianity itself? Ever consider that?

 

I have - and I rejected that theory.

I have as well, and I fully believe that there was no one single Christianity in the beginning, but many variations that became woven and stitched together by the winning political parties. I accept that as truth that the evidence supports.

 

The problem is for you, you now think you have the answer and refuse to look further. That assures you being stuck in a religion, and not growing beyond into more. That what is that "something wrong" in you approach I just mentioned, and the fact grace can't shine and see beyond your worship of dogma is proof of that.

 

And I fully intend to give an answer, I just wanted to ask you whether any and all belief systems carry some level of adherence for those who claim to be "true believers." I believe this to be so, every system must have standards to be upheld. No standards = no authenticity.

Bunk. I believe that authenticity produces the standard. Not the other way around. It doesn't matter what symbolic structure you hold. It is before and beyond them all. That is something you cannot see because of your focus on doctrines, symbols, systems. You say truth comes from the right system. I say truth emerges, and systems are about sustaining the current order, and less about emerging truth. That said however, in authentic religion, that truth can emerge and it always surpasses the system itself. Surpassing it ultimately to the point the system no longer supports. Hence, why I left your system.

 

How do I measure faithfulness - dogma? Yes, but dogma by itself is insufficient. There are certain non-negotiable truths in Christianity, which if one does not hold to such, they cannot make an honest claim to be a Christian.

So yes, you consider being faithful to the system to be the measure of faith in God. That is actually believing in the structure as God. That is actually, idolatry in the true sense of the word. Your religion, defines God and is the measure of you faith. You would be unwilling to hear any voice that doesn't fit your system. That is not Faith, that is religion.

 

About 100 years ago, Christians of several denominations set forth some 'fundamentals' > inspiration of the Bible, virgin birth/Deity of Christ (which implies the Triune Godhead), vicarious death of Jesus Christ to pay for sin, physical resurrection of Jesus from the dead, and the physical return of Jesus Christ to Earth to render judgement are notable.

And these agreements of man's committees defines God for you and your experience of God. What a shame. You are confirming every single criticism I have of why what you preach is a snare of man's religion, and not liberation of Spirit; not salvation.

 

You cannot love beyond your thoughts, your ideas of truth as defined as you have just stated.

 

(continued....)

[Antlerman]

They stated that preaching God's word - for belief and practice - and participating in the church sacraments were also necessary elements of a true church. I would hold to such standards of Christian conduct. SO true Christianity requires correct views of God, Man, the Bible, salvation, the Church, and earnest Christian conduct aiming toward the goal of Christlikeness and the virtues of faith, hope & love - with the greatest being love.

You don't see the dangers of prescribing conduct in the name of your God to create a system supporting false righteousness? The truth of the matter is, love is the measure, not doctrines or subjective, cultural notions. "Love works no ill".

 

It appears you define your righteousness as "correct doctrine, and following the church's bylaws on proper conduct." About sum it up?

 

How do I define it? Love. Being, and becoming Love. And that requires moving beyond these structures you have joined to define truth for you. Moving beyond into Truth which transcends all systems, and can not be held or prescribed through any. It is through direct access as the Source and Fulfillment of All.

 

What I consider faithfulness, is being true to yourself in the sincere pursuit of understanding and peace

 

This is so subjective and nebulous as to have no real meaning. And I would consider 'being true to yourself' as selfishness, almost by definition.

It doesn't surprise me you can't hear this.

 

Selfishness in the sense of believing that being true to some dogma, some tenet of faith, some interpretation of some mythical book of absolute Authority (which is your true god it seems), is going to secure your place amongst the angels in this god's holy city where he has prepared a special place just for you - you, you. You. That is not faithfulness. That is narcissism.

 

Our salvation - since its basis is the grace of God - mainly displays God's glory. That He can take wicked, rebellious, selfish sinners and make them trophies of grace for all eternity - WOW! But additionally, our salvation achieves our own eternal good, as well. God's glory and Man's good - both are realized by salvation through Jesus Christ.

This is pure anthropomorphizing within mythological structural doctrines. Man's sin and God's grace. Doctrinal materials. I have already demonstrated man's nature as possessing the Divine (when you made up some "imprint" theory which I shot down and you never replied to). Is it "God's Glory" that its all about? Not in the sense you would frame it in your anthropomorphic deity sort of way, but I would say that Divine Light is in all as Source and Summit, from and to.

 

We are part of that, and as it says in the Bible itself that you and other worshipers of Orthodoxy over God don't grasp, "Let your light so shine before men." Is it to show God, to draw men to God? I believe all of creation reaches and moves toward that Fulfillment. I believe it's what drives all emergent matter, life, and mind. It is that Omega point, that attraction that everything moves towards. And as those who have higher mind, they can in fact display higher degrees of that light. But you just take it to mean, you low and God high. All things seek to become God. That drawing to is also a drawing down into.

 

I don't suspect you will understand any of that. But I'd could be happily surprised if you did hear.

 

Faithful to truth that leads to love. That is Life.

 

That, my friend, is Biblical Christianity.

As opposed to Orthodoxy? Because orthodox doesn't produce the fruit one should expect.

[Ouroboros]

A duck on a cross(ing).

 

 

And a duck walking on water.

 

 

Praise Donald!

[Antlerman]

A duck on a cross(ing).

 

 

And a duck walking on water.

 

 

Praise Donald!

Communion Recipe for Duckian Services:

 

Ingredients

 

* 1 6-pound duck

* 2 medium shallots

* 1 2-inch piece ginger, peeled and sliced

* 1 1/2 teaspoons coriander seeds, cracked

* Kosher salt and freshly ground pepper

* 3 tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil

* 4 cups low-sodium chicken broth

* 1 cup ruby port

* 1 bay leaf

* 6 dried black figs, stemmed and halved

* 2 tablespoons cold unsalted butter, diced

* 1 teaspoon red wine vinegar

 

Directions

 

Place the duck breast-side up on a cutting board. Remove and reserve the giblets and discard the liver. Break down the duck and score the breasts.

 

Puree the shallots, ginger and coriander in a mini food processor. Season the duck legs and the meat side of the breasts with salt, pepper and 2 tablespoons of the ginger mixture. Cover and refrigerate the duck and the remaining ginger mixture while you make the stock.

 

Make the duck stock: Trim the excess fat from the duck bones and chop into 6 to 8 pieces. Heat 2 tablespoons olive oil in a Dutch oven or large pot over medium-high heat; add the bones, reserved wings and giblets and brown, turning occasionally, about 25 minutes. Add the broth and enough water to cover the bones. Bring to a boil, then reduce to a simmer and cook, uncovered, about 3 hours, skimming as needed. Strain the duck stock and skim off any excess fat from the surface. (The stock can be made a day ahead. Just cover and refrigerate.)

 

Preheat the oven to 375 degrees F. Place the duck legs on a rack in a roasting pan with 1/4 inch water. Roast until brown and crisp, about 1 hour 15 minutes.

 

Meanwhile, heat the remaining 1 tablespoon olive oil in a medium saucepan over medium-high heat; add the reserved ginger mixture and cook, stirring, until browned, 5 to 7 minutes. Add the port and scrape up any browned bits from the pan with a wooden spoon. Boil until the mixture looks like wet sand. Add 3 cups of the duck stock and the bay leaf and simmer until the liquid reduces by about three-quarters, about 45 minutes. Strain into a separate saucepan. Add the figs and heat until plump, about 2 minutes. Whisk in the butter, season generously with salt and pepper and add the vinegar. Keep the sauce warm over low heat but do not boil.

 

Scrape the ginger mixture off the breasts. Heat a medium skillet over high heat. Place the breasts, skin-side down, in the skillet and cook until the fat begins to render and the skin is golden brown, 1 to 2 minutes. Pour off the fat. Reduce the heat to low and continue cooking, removing the fat as it renders, until the skin is tight and golden, 15 to 20 minutes. Increase the heat to medium-high, flip the breasts and cook until the meat is lightly browned but still medium-rare, 1 to 2 more minutes.

 

Thinly slice the breasts and cut the legs in half. Divide the meat among plates and top with the sauce and figs.

 

This sounds seriously tasty. I would consider converting to Duckinity if this was served on Sunday services. Wouldn't you? Hear the Quack of the Lord and mightily flap your wings towards salvation!

[bornagainathiest]

They stated that preaching God's word - for belief and practice - and participating in the church sacraments were also necessary elements of a true church. I would hold to such standards of Christian conduct. SO true Christianity requires correct views of God, Man, the Bible, salvation, the Church, and earnest Christian conduct aiming toward the goal of Christlikeness and the virtues of faith, hope & love - with the greatest being love.

 

So Ray, I've challenged the correctness of your 'True Christian' view of God, Man and the Bible. Note that - challenged. Past tense.

 

I've directly challenged your claim to have the correct Christian view of where the personalities of the dead go, how Christians will enter heaven and what will happen on Judgement Day.

 

Now answer the challenge.

Answer the questions put to you. Show the logic of your arguments. Demonstrate the validity of your claims. Refute my criticisms. Cite chapter and verse and explain how these support you.

 

You have a lot of work to do and any further requests about where my theology comes from will be met with the same answer as before. No!

 

No more evasions, delays or dodges, please.

 

BAA.

[Ouroboros]

Divine duck makes you dodge dreadful destiny.