I'm kinda surprised that someone who is Rh negative would be given a transplant from an Rh positive donor. They wouldn't be given transfused blood from them (although it works in the other direction OK). Anyone understand why she got an Rh+ liver?
@tegjack- This is a pretty old thread by now, so I doubt anybody is reading, but I'd like to correct a couple things in this comment of yours:
"but also note that “Immaculate Conception” doctrine does NOT mean Mary and Joseph never engaged in intercourse, even prior to said conception. "
1. First of all, Immaculate Conception doctrine has NOTHING to do with either virgin birth or Christ. This is frequently confused by non-Catholics. What it concerns is Catholic dogma that Mary herself was born *free from the stain of original sin*. It means that because she was destined to be Christ's mother, she was given the unique (well ditto for Christ as well) privilige of not having the original sin carried down from Adam & Eve's disobeyance of God (this is what people have washed away at Baptism). Mary's parents conceived her "the old fashioned way", by the way -- nothing unusual there.
2. Actually, yes, Catholics do believe that Mary was "ever virgin" and that she and Joseph never engaged in intercourse, before or after Christ's birth. The Canon of the Mass includes phrases to this effect.
I'm not stating any of this to advance or debate Catholic theology or say "my beliefs are better than your beliefs" or whatever... just wanted to clear up misconceptions about exactly what Catholics do believe.
Salsa beat me to it. I get annoyed when people misuse "acronym" when they really mean "abbreviation". It isn't as bad as using "less" for "fewer", but it still gets my fur up.
Those stupid Guardasil genital warts vaccine commercials "I want to be one less" over and over drive me bonkers.
@Jimbo- You wrote: "The bible clearly states that Marry [sic] and Joseph had other children"
Please give us Chapter, Verse and what translation (King James, Douay-Rheims, whatever).
I think you will find a couple "brother of the Lord" references, but again, what is translated into English as "brother" comes from the original Greek "adelphoi", which has a pretty broad meaning. It sounds like you found something MUCH less ambiguous. Please share it with us, b/c I don't think Bible scholars in any camp have come up with something so definitive to exclude all the other possibilities I touched upon.
Reservoir Tavern, Boonton (well, OK it's Parsippany, really), NJ does a *perfect* NY Neapolitan. The atmosphere sucks, the service is fair at best, good luck getting a seat if it's busy and you aren't a regular (they seriously play favorites with seating), and the pizza is expensive. But IS to die for. Go at lunch (less crowded) or order it for take out and rob a bank on the way to pick it up. It will be worth every penny and the risk of lifelong incarceration.
For what it is worth, the meaning of "adelphoi" *IS* ambiguous. It can mean biological brother, half-brother, close relative, cousin, or even "brothers in spirit", the fraternity sense of the word.
You have to be pretty ignorant to be absolutely certain that 1 (of several) modern definitions of the English "brother" is what the writers intended when they wrote "adelphoi" in Ancient Greek.
Catholic theology teaches that the "brothers" mentioned are not fellow offspring of Mary. They are either cousins of the Lord OR they are children of St. Joseph from an earlier marriage and are thus step-brothers of Christ -- the precise nature of the relationship is uncertain other than they are not children of Mary. Catholic tradition (note this is tradition, not formal theology) holds that Joseph was considerably older than Mary and a widower, probably having children from the earlier marriage.
The "Gospel of Thomas" while interesting from an historical point of view of studying early Christian beliefs, was never a part of the New Testament Canon and was probably written quite a while after the 4 accepted gospels.
@billy- I think the (ahem) American perception of Canadians depends on whom you poll and where they live. I live in upstate NY, with Toronto as the nearest major city (getting to NYC would take 2x as long), so my own view is a bit skewed. I've travelled in Canada a lot and know the differences among the maritime provinces, Quebec, southern Ontario, the Plains, the western provinces, &c. are like night and day. I doubt most (ahem) Americans realize the distinctions, though.
@billy- I'm not a Canadian, but that has always irked me as well. It seems odd that on American game shows, Canadian contestants are usually described as being from "Montreal, Canada" or "Toronto, Canada" instead of the respective provinces. For large cities like these, one would suppose that they should leave off the "Canada" in fact (and probably the province as well, but maybe that is asking a lot). It just sounds REALLY dumbed down for the lowest common denominator viewer.
For European readers, is the practice of identifying one's place of origin via "city & state" (or province) mostly a North American one? How does it compare in the UK or continental Europe? e.g. I suppose someone from a well-known city like Frankfurt might just say "Frankfurt" rather than "Frankfurt, Hesse", "Frankfurt, Deutschland" or "Frankfurt, Hesse, Deutschland", but what about for a little town? Would a German tell a Frenchman he hails from "Kleinstadt, Hesse" (fictional little town) or "Kleinstadt, Deutschland"? Is the state so important as it is in North America? I dunno... I suppose it all depends on the history of the nation and the autonomy of the varied "states" (or whatever they call divisions in that country.
@Scott- Yeah, I know the ROY G BIV one too, but as I'm a bit of an Anglophile (& history geek), I like the one UK kids know (Richard Of York...) better. It kills 2 birds with one stone -- I shall never forget he was defeated (by the Lancasters).
And what the hell is a "roy-g-biv" anyhow? Coming up with a nonsense word as a mnemonic is weak.
This is a pretty old thread by now, so I doubt anybody is reading, but I'd like to correct a couple things in this comment of yours:
"but also note that “Immaculate Conception” doctrine does NOT mean Mary and Joseph never engaged in intercourse, even prior to said conception. "
1. First of all, Immaculate Conception doctrine has NOTHING to do with either virgin birth or Christ. This is frequently confused by non-Catholics. What it concerns is Catholic dogma that Mary herself was born *free from the stain of original sin*. It means that because she was destined to be Christ's mother, she was given the unique (well ditto for Christ as well) privilige of not having the original sin carried down from Adam & Eve's disobeyance of God (this is what people have washed away at Baptism). Mary's parents conceived her "the old fashioned way", by the way -- nothing unusual there.
2. Actually, yes, Catholics do believe that Mary was "ever virgin" and that she and Joseph never engaged in intercourse, before or after Christ's birth. The Canon of the Mass includes phrases to this effect.
I'm not stating any of this to advance or debate Catholic theology or say "my beliefs are better than your beliefs" or whatever... just wanted to clear up misconceptions about exactly what Catholics do believe.
Those stupid Guardasil genital warts vaccine commercials "I want to be one less" over and over drive me bonkers.
You wrote: "The bible clearly states that Marry [sic] and Joseph had other children"
Please give us Chapter, Verse and what translation (King James, Douay-Rheims, whatever).
I think you will find a couple "brother of the Lord" references, but again, what is translated into English as "brother" comes from the original Greek "adelphoi", which has a pretty broad meaning. It sounds like you found something MUCH less ambiguous. Please share it with us, b/c I don't think Bible scholars in any camp have come up with something so definitive to exclude all the other possibilities I touched upon.
Or maybe Kiefer Sutherland just runs on ethanol when he's behind the wheel. hic. burp.
You have to be pretty ignorant to be absolutely certain that 1 (of several) modern definitions of the English "brother" is what the writers intended when they wrote "adelphoi" in Ancient Greek.
Catholic theology teaches that the "brothers" mentioned are not fellow offspring of Mary. They are either cousins of the Lord OR they are children of St. Joseph from an earlier marriage and are thus step-brothers of Christ -- the precise nature of the relationship is uncertain other than they are not children of Mary. Catholic tradition (note this is tradition, not formal theology) holds that Joseph was considerably older than Mary and a widower, probably having children from the earlier marriage.
The "Gospel of Thomas" while interesting from an historical point of view of studying early Christian beliefs, was never a part of the New Testament Canon and was probably written quite a while after the 4 accepted gospels.
I think the (ahem) American perception of Canadians depends on whom you poll and where they live. I live in upstate NY, with Toronto as the nearest major city (getting to NYC would take 2x as long), so my own view is a bit skewed. I've travelled in Canada a lot and know the differences among the maritime provinces, Quebec, southern Ontario, the Plains, the western provinces, &c. are like night and day. I doubt most (ahem) Americans realize the distinctions, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hung
Yeah, I know it's know it's Korea and not Red China, but you get my drift.
Thanks for posting the link -- I hadn't heard the story.
"Maltby -- who lives on state benefits and got engaged in November -- said her choice of lifestyle might seem unusual but was harmless."
Now there's a shocker. She's on the dole. Your tax dollars... er, pounds sterling, hard at work. Living in the welfare state is sweet, huh?
I'm not a Canadian, but that has always irked me as well. It seems odd that on American game shows, Canadian contestants are usually described as being from "Montreal, Canada" or "Toronto, Canada" instead of the respective provinces. For large cities like these, one would suppose that they should leave off the "Canada" in fact (and probably the province as well, but maybe that is asking a lot). It just sounds REALLY dumbed down for the lowest common denominator viewer.
For European readers, is the practice of identifying one's place of origin via "city & state" (or province) mostly a North American one? How does it compare in the UK or continental Europe? e.g. I suppose someone from a well-known city like Frankfurt might just say "Frankfurt" rather than "Frankfurt, Hesse", "Frankfurt, Deutschland" or "Frankfurt, Hesse, Deutschland", but what about for a little town? Would a German tell a Frenchman he hails from "Kleinstadt, Hesse" (fictional little town) or "Kleinstadt, Deutschland"? Is the state so important as it is in North America? I dunno... I suppose it all depends on the history of the nation and the autonomy of the varied "states" (or whatever they call divisions in that country.
Yeah, I know the ROY G BIV one too, but as I'm a bit of an Anglophile (& history geek), I like the one UK kids know (Richard Of York...) better. It kills 2 birds with one stone -- I shall never forget he was defeated (by the Lancasters).
And what the hell is a "roy-g-biv" anyhow? Coming up with a nonsense word as a mnemonic is weak.