markomalley

Note to mods: I put this in 'open' because I don't know for sure where else to put it. If you need to move it, feel free: HONG KONG (Reuters) - More than 800 Hong Kong residents have called on authorities to reclassify the Bible as "indecent" due to its sexual and violent content, following an uproar over a sex column in a university student journal. A spokesperson for Hong Kong's Television and Entertainment Licensing authority (TELA) said it had received 838 complaints about the Bible by noon Wednesday. The complaints follow the launch of an anonymous Web site -- www.truthbible.net -- which said the holy book "made one tremble" given its sexual and violent content, including rape and incest. The Web site said the Bible's sexual content "far exceeds" that of a recent sex column published in the Chinese University's "Student Press" magazine, which had asked readers whether they'd ever fantasized about incest or bestiality. That column was later deemed "indecent" by the Obscene Articles Tribunal, sparking a storm of debate about social morality and freedom of speech. Student editors of the journal defended it, saying open sexual debate was a basic right. (remainder snipped) That's a new twist, isn't it? Comments?

Interesting question, Raf: On one hand, we are called to forgive trespasses against us. "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." "Forgive and ye shall be forgiven." On the other hand, there are loads of references that state that an individual, confronted with his sin, who does not repent of that sin, should be shunned: "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." "you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." "As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him," and so on... So it seems to me that if the sinner acknowledges those sins (and he may need to be confronted), he is to be forgiven. But if the sinner is obstinate in his sin, after being confronted, he is to be put out (presumably until such time as he is suitably penitent). That's on an exterior basis. But, on an interior basis, it appears that we are to, at least inwardly, forgive all trespasses against us: "And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against any one; so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses." I would think that the resentment that one could hold inside from an unforgiven sin could become a roadblock for that one's relationship with God. As far as forgiving somebody's sins when those sins are not against you...why would one even need to do so anyway? If those sins are against the unity of the Church (the Body of Christ) or impact its peace and fellowship, then those verses about confrontation would apply, but otherwise, why would it be any of your business one way or the other? And as far as somebody acting as an agent for God...well, there are ample examples in the NT where the apostles were delegated that authority by Christ. Christian groups who believe in apostolic succession (e.g., the Catholics, the Orthodox, the Anglicans, the Lutherans) believe that this authority is passed down, via apostolic succession, to modern-day bishops who then empower priests to administer that authority (via the sacrament of penance). And there is scriptural evidence of that. (btw, if somebody wants to talk about apostolic succession, start a different thread) But I also acknowledge that this is not a universally held belief among protestants. Anyway, hope the above helps.

TWI is hardly the only group that employs this simplistic view on life.

BTW, one other note: in Prince George's County, Maryland, they banned smoking in all restaurants and bars. All indoor public places. Except one. The cigar lounge Skybox in Redskins Stadium. things that make you go hmmmmm.....

For an example of those who need that type of inquiry, please refer to this article in The Hill magazine. Whether you agree with them or not on the issue...if they're going to call themselves 'catholic' then they ought to act that way. Otherwise, drop the label.

Thanks for the still prayin' thing. It is making a difference...big time. Hey, look. I don't want to flaunt it either. But, darn it, it's legal! And, seriously, go to an anti-smoking legislative action website...and you will NEVER see them call to just making tobacco an illegal drug. NEVER. Why? The trial lawyers want those massive fees from litigation. The lawmakers want that tax money. Make it illegal and the cash flow stops to the trial lawyers and goes to the criminal prosecutors (who have a far smaller lobby in DC). Make it illegal and the tax dollars disappear. Seriously, though, if they come up with scientifically defenseable exposure limits on the smoke and make business owners meet those exposure limits, then I have no problem with it. Because it is up to the owner to decide how to comply with that law. If he wants to come up with a expensive filtering system, great. If he wants to have his employees wear HEPA masks, great. Or if he, the owner, wants to eliminate the source (read that ban smoking), that's great. But it's the owner deciding how to do it. Not the nanny state. And if a customer doesn't want to breathe it, the customer can go elsewhere. They say 70% of the population doesn't smoke. Restraunt owners and bar owners are not stupid: a lot of them already cater to that 70%. And if the government wants to ban smoking in government buildings, well, in that case, they're the owners. And it's their right to do so. But as to outdoors? Well, I say show me the money! In other words, exposure can be empirically measured. Hazard levels can be scientifically determined. If they can demonstrate, in a provable or repeatable method, that my smoking on a sidewalk or in a park is a hazard to somebody that's 6-10 feet away, then that's fine...so be it. Until that time...I say ban the public use of cheap perfume!

I'm only half way joking. And you'll note that I said cheap perfume. I can't count the times I've had to hold my breath in the elevator on the way up (or down).

Tell you what? I want to start a movement to ban cheap french wh0re perfume in the workplace. Stuff gives me a headache...makes my eyes water and makes me sneeze. OMG when I am in an elevator with a woman who has doused herself, I am almost dead by the time I get to the eighth floor. And at work, the windows can't open up so that I can't get fresh air. Not only does it offend, it has got to be a hazard since it gives me such a bad reaction. Let's ban Charlie, Tommy, Brittney, JLo, and all that other cheap trashy stuff! The use of them is in no way medically indicated. They have so many hazardous chemicals in them it's not even funny. And they cause allergic reactions in some. But, wait, no. We don't want to ban it. Let's get the trial lawyers to start lawsuits against the perfume companies. Let's get local governments to ban their use in restaurants and bars and workplaces. And let's apply a tax on it that triples the price. We'll say that we are using it to educate kids about the disgusting nature of cheap perfume. And maybe if it's expensive enough, young girls won't get into the habit of hiding poor hygiene by adding different smells. What do you mean, there's no scientific evidence to back me up? What do you mean that I'm being a prude? Well, I'll hire some scientists and get them to write a report that backs me up! After all...how many people out there who die were exposed to secondhand perfume. Want some backup? Make a lab rat swim in the stuff...inject the junk in it's bloodstream...you can force cancer on it. There was once a study that said that peanut butter causes cancer in lab rats. If a person wants to wear cheap, trashy perfume in the privacy of her own home, that's ok...as long as there are no kids around. But NOT in public. OK, I'm done ranting now.

Hey, smoking Nazi! Here's a suggestion. Since it is so evil and smells so bad and is so dangerous, then why not just make the stuff an illegal drug? (sorry for the interruption, I had to have a cigarette) Until that time, shaddup! But, you know what? It'll never happen. Nobody, NOBODY out there says: let's make cigs an illegal drug. Why? Because they like the taxes. If you don't like the smell of cigarette smoke coming from a nearby car...roll your window up. If you don't like the smell of ciagrette smoke coming from a pedestrian, change your pace so that you are upwind...or slow down so you are well behind the person. If you, as a customer, are offended by cigarette smoke in a restaurant or bar, then go someplace else and, on your way out, tell the owner that you'll be back when he/she bans smoking in his establishment. There are LOTS of places that voluntarily ban smoking (and if a business owner decides to do so in his establishment, I"m all for it) If you, as a taxpayer, are concerned about the health about somebody who works in a restaurant or bar, then do something real...insist that the government enforce ALREADY EXISTING exposure limits for airborne hazards for their employees. The EPA already has exposure limits on hazardous chemicals. Those exposure rates can be measured and controlled. Employees are in more REAL danger from exposure to airborne caustic soda from the dishwashing chemicals than they are from ciagrette smoke. But I see no call from the anti-smoking nazis to put vent-a-hoods in the dishwashing areas. Why? Because you LOVE the tax money.

That's the point I'm getting at here. A group has the right to set its norms, be those norms attitudes or behaviors. A person who violates those norms does so at the possible cost of being sanctioned from the group in question. As to the Inquisition, I don't know about then...only about now. A person could inwardly doubt a tenet of Catholic doctrine and would only have to answer to God for not holding to the Faith. There is no Inquisitorial power around that would ever reach that person or would ever think to question that person. I honestly doubt that we were dealing with a force so sophisticated that it would have been able to detect thought crime, a la Orwell's 1984. According to current Canon Law (the written norms for the Catholic Church), a heretic only suffers from a public sanction if he makes the heresy "scandalous." In order for it to be "scandalous," other people have to be involved. Essentially, the heretic has to broadcast his heresy in such a way as to decieve the faithful or draw some others away from the Faith. In other words, a 'behavior' is involved. Yes, that behavior stems from an 'attitude,' but the 'attitude' itself, if it remains private, cannot result in a public sanction. From what I understand, that was, in essence, what happened in the old days, as well. Now, there may have been, and probably were, instances where a person ended up in the hands of the Inquisition based upon false evidence (neighbors or enemies seeking to settle scores). There may have been, and probably were, instances where a person ended up in the hands of the Inquisition because of the corruptness of an individual inquisitor. It would take very little convincing to convince me of that. It would take equally little convincing to state that other tribunals were equally corrupted in the middle ages...whether Catholic, Protestant, or secular. Of course, our police and our courts are totally incorruptible today, right? Just ask the Duke Lacrosse team. But look, also, at the example that you gave me earlier: - Secrecy. If somebody violates the secrecy of the coven, they will likely be excluded. In the modern day of the Internet, their rep will follow them. Sure, maintaining secrecy is a behavior. Granted. But valuing secrecy is an attitude, a belief. That common belief held in that group is, although very informally, a doctrine. Sure, you won't see it written anywhere...but either everybody knows it or it is taught. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that you guys have a specific set of doctrines, or dogmas that must be accepted without doubt. I wouldn't be that foolish. But I am trying to illustrate that the norms of behavior, with their underlying attitudes, are not that much different than the dogma that makes up other groups. And that those characteristics, in their most generic sense, are essentially universal. After all, ever take a civics class in school? (What is that, other than trying to impart catechesis necessary to have a doctrinal foundation?...or to put it in a more secular way, to help the students develop an appreciation for the values needed to be good citizens)

Bramble: And that would be a norm. That's the point. The norm is silence. The sanction for violating that norm is 'getting a rep as an oath breaker.' Oakspear: Sounds like a Unitarian Universalist church. You are right with your subsequent statement about being an infiltrator; however, one who was in such a group and then was subsequently converted could also apply. Although either could be correct, that was the situation to which I actually was speaking.

Time for a bulk reply ;) Bramble, you said: From reading your posts, I understand a whole lot more about Wicca than I did a couple of years ago.But one point: for those Wiccans who practice their faith in groups (covens or whatever), you are saying that there are no norms? In other words, a person could be a member of a group (again, coven, or whatever) and then spout Southern Baptist doctrine about witchcraft? And trying to convince others within that group that the Southern Baptist view is the correct view? There would be no sanction against such a person? The person would be able to continue as a member of that coven or whatever? Rhino, you said: The average Joe wouldn't be the one gone after by an inquisition of whatever kind. Those who are trying to undermine the faith are those who are (or at least should be) the ones that are the subject of inquiry. Eyesopen, you said: Bingo!You then said: Research is a good thing. Particularly if you use a diversity of sources in accomplishing that research. Templelady (Maureen), you said: I would intuitively think the same as you, but for some unknown reason there are those groups who feel that it is their mission to do so and to, imho, undermine the group with which they are associating. In the Catholic Church, included are those groups who want the Church to change her position on abortion, those who want the Church to change her position on female ordination, those who want the Church to change her position on any number of items...none of which are possible even if the Church was inclined to do so (as they would require a change in fundamental dogma that goes FAR beyond the change that those heretics want). Why they just don't join a group that they agree with is beyond me. To ALL: The bottom line is that a group has the right to establish norms and then to apply some sort of sanction against those who seek to undermine that group through violation of those norms. That's a fact. Whether you talk about a religion, a non-relgious social gathering, a nation-state, an educational institution, or whatever. You may not like interrogation techniques of the past. I sure don't. But they were used. By almost all groups...if not literally all groups. Is that a function of the specific group? Or is that a function of the time in which those techniques were used?

You are right that the Spanish Inquisition had some unique characteristics. The fact that the Inquisitors were under control of the National government, vice directly under the control of Rome, some of the corruption with which it was plagued (from time to time), etc. But I wonder how many of the tales of horror were the result of fact and how many of them are just part of the 'Black Legend.'

Don't take the wrong point here... Were you trying to correct corruption or were you trying to change fundamental doctrines? (e.g., teach TWI that they were in error with their JCNG doctrine...) If, by saying "change TWI," you mean something along the lines of the latter, then you're agreeing with what I am saying. If you are talking about correcting the behavior of certain leaders who were abusing their posistions, then that is not at all the same thing.

I absolutely agree with the above. And if a person doesn't agree with Catholic doctrine...then don't be Catholic. And if a person doesn't agree with Baptist doctrine...then don't be a Baptist. And if a person doesn't agree with Wiccan doctrine...then don't be a Wiccan. And if a person doesn't agree with Atheist doctrine...then don't be an Atheist. Regardless of the group, if you don't agree with the doctrine of the group, then don't be a part of that group. Whatever you do, don't pretend to be a 'believer' and then work to undermine the core tenets of that group's beliefs... See, Garth, GSC is a pluralistic society. We don't have a set doctrine except for don't attack others. If you violate that one doctrine, then you'll likely end up (at best) shunned (i.e., the 'ignore' button) or at worst exiled (banned). Any societal group has its norms (doctrines) to which people are expected to adhere. And those societal groups have the right to defend themselves against those who would violate those norms. I don't care if you're talking about a community, an Elks lodge, a bridge club, or a church. Hopefully those groups have some sort of a judicial process to assure that the accused is not wrongly sanctioned. Because if you don't, you just have lynchings. (Or the TWI equivalent: M&A) And that was (and is) the purpose of the Inquisition: to provide that eccleastical court to deal with accusations. And, by the way, it exists in every Catholic diocese to this day in the form of the diocesan tribunal (the guy you have to go to in order to have a marriage annulled). And it exists in a lot of other denominations in varying forms. And, as I said earlier, it's a good thing.

Oh, by the way, you weren't expecting to hear that answer on this board, were you?

Well, I, for one, fully support the concept of the Inquisition. (you do know what that concept is, right?) I don't support the excesses of the Inquisition in Spain. But, on the other hand, I also don't support thousands of English Catholics being executed for not giving supporting the Anglicans. I don't support thousands of German Catholics being put to death for not converting to the Lutheran Church. I also don't support the Puritans in this country burning alleged "witches" at the stake. And, by the way, I wish that the modern-day equivalent, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, would act a little more "inquisitive" than it does.

Thanks all for the prayers (well, in the case of Garth, good thoughts ;) ) It frustrates me in that what I am having to do is gather evidence...correspondence, e-mail, testimony, etc., to build a case against the individuals. Then turn it over to our corporate counsel for appropriate packaging...and then the fireworks begin. Essentially the way to stop the attacks is to attack back...and go for the jugular. What makes it tough is that this is the DC area. There is a lot of politics involved... I think the worst part about this is the level of frustration that this particular contract has given me (and those who work with/ for me). Far more than a $30M contract should. And the feeling of being trapped. Got the mortgage. Got the kid in school. Got the wife with good access to the best medical. Just walking out is a huge price. There are several particular intricacies in the way that life is arranged that increase the feeling of trapped-ness (including finding other employment in this area) until my daughter turns 16, gets her drivers license, and can start driving herself to school (her HS is a good distance from the house). And that feeling of being trapped makes it all far worse. Again, thanks for the prayers in this.

I personally wouldn't mess with Ocean City, Maryland, under the best of circumstances. (I can say that as a Marylander...) But if you haven't been there before, check into Lancaster County, PA. (Amish country) It is a really neat place to go, particularly if you've never been there before. Peaceful. Lots of crafts. Train museums (including a nice steam engine ride...the Strassburg RR). Good outlet mall. No TWI. Also, you are within an easy drive of Philly (Liberty Bell, authentic cheese steaks), Easton (the original Crayola factory), and Hershey (CHOCOLATE!!!) From OH, it's a pretty easy drive down the PA Turnpike.

There are times I love my job. There are times I hate my job. I enjoy my job when I am able to guide things, be able to help people out, when I perceive I am able to make a difference. I have been able to get people employment, able to help out some disadvantaged small businesses, and been able to help American soldiers at the same time. I am able to get great satisfaction from that. I hate my job when I have to deal with people with hidden agendas. When folks question my personal integrity or the integrity of those who work for me. When I see people trying to slip the blade between my ribs in order to reach my heart. I am in such a circumstance right now. I am faced with a couple of folks who are trying to undermine my company and me on a personal basis. They have impuned the integrity of my employees. They have impuned my integrity. Their allegations are false. I am able to conclusively (in a court of law) prove this. My bosses (all the way to the very top) know that the allegations are false. As a CYOA (cover your own a$$) I have kept them fully informed throughout the period. To the point of being accused of being paranoid...but the paranoia turns out to be fact... I can defend my people...my company...myself. But the only way that I can do so (to my knowledge) is through utterly destroying our accusers. Ruin their careers. Ruin their lives. Ruin their reputations so that they can never do this to anybody else again. Possibly put one or both in jail. And this would be all with verifiable, unrefutable fact. No allegations. No rumours. No innuendo. Like I said, court of law time. I used to have the killer instinct. Formerly, I would and could and have done this...gone for the jugular without concern where the blood may spatter. But I've found I've changed in the past few years. I see the point of martyrdom. I see the point of turning the other cheek. I see the point of sacrificing your self and I agree with it. If it was just me...I'd offer myself as the sacrificial lamb. Because I really don't like hurting people anymore. Even if they hurt me first. But there are others who depend upon me for their livelihood. If it were just me or my family, that would be one thing...but it isn't. There are several people who will be directly affected (as in losing their jobs) and there will be many more who might lose their jobs depending upon how the aftermath would be handled (the casual word of a particular congresscritter who has his thumb on this thing could have direct impact on a whole bunch of contracts far beyond this little $30 million dollar contract). This sucks. I don't want to destroy people...but I am faced with little or no alternative. I consider myself a Christian. And Christians don't do this. But I don't see an alternative. I know this is cryptic. Sorry for that...but Google watches. It's dirty as h3ll. Not me. Not my folks. Not my company. Just the situation. I don't like it, had I known it was going to go this way, I wouldn't have gotten in the situation in the first place. But hindsight is 20/20, right? I need your prayers. For me...for wisdom and for my sanity. For my family for having to deal with me. And for all others concerned. God knows all the truth. Just because I am only able to give the sketchiest of details doesn't mean your prayers won't be effectual...it just means that you have to trust God as you pray. Thanks in advance for the most effectual help you can provide. Prayer.

My shot at it (let's see how many people I can p1ss off... If something is truly out of your control, then IMHO free will doesn't apply. But, there are, on the other hand, bad decisions that can lead up to something being out of your control. For example, if you are slipped a mickey in your cool-aid that you drank during a break at work and end up being raped, obviously the being raped is not something that you could control. OTOH, if you are a gorgeous blonde and go alone into a hotel bar in the middle east and strike up a conversation with a nice Saudi prince, get slipped a mickey, and wake up in his bed, you have to take some responsibility for the situation. Not the getting raped, but for putting yourself into a vulnerable position. It depends (again, IMHO). We all have the responsibility for keeping our brains turned on and operational at all times. If you are an adult of normally sound mind and you turn your brain off, then you bear some responsibility for turning your brain off. If you are a child and raised in to believe that the sky is pink, then, of course you are not responsible for that. If you are not of sound mind, the same applies. OTOH, when you cook a frog, you raise the heat in the pot slowly. That was what the course structure in TWI was like (at least during my tenure in the '80s). It started off light, started raising some questions about standard Christian doctrine (e.g., those crucified with Christ -- btw, take a look at this post in the thread, misquoting Jesus, for reference about four crucified...it will open your eyes big time!), and then started with stranger and stranger things until, all of a sudden, the only truth in the world was TWI and we'd better by golly obey that MOG! In such a situation, I think that the responsibility for free will, while not eliminated, is seriously mitigated. Probably not as many as some others who post here...my judgement was impacted as a result of TWI brainwashing...thus impairing my ability to exercise free will. But other than some poor judgement, I can't say that I ultimately was stripped of free will. I think the following may be of assistance. First of all, the past is the past. Leave it there. If you cursed God or hurt your neighbor, ask God for forgiveness. If you are Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopal, Orthodox, or Coptic, go to confession. Otherwise, do whatever your belief system calls on you to do. Accept the Divine Mercy of God. Allow Him to forgive you (and believe me, that is a lot harder than it sounds) And move on. But then resolve within yourself to not let somebody else control your mind...and therefore control your actions. Resolve to verify what you hear in the news. Resolve to verify what you hear in church. Resolve to verify what you hear from a friend or relative. You know the Catholics, in the "Act of Contrition" prayer, have one phrase that is particularly applicable: to avoid the near occasion of sin. What it means is that, if you can at all control the circumstances, don't put yourself in the situation that can result in the sin. e.g., If you have a drinking problem, stay away from booze. If you have a sex problem, stay away from porno and singles bars. If you have an aggressive driving problem, change your commute times. If you have a child abuse problem, don't be alone with a child. If you have a murder problem, get rid of the guns in the house. If you have a brainwashing problem, stay away from cult meetings and classes. and so on. (Of course, we know that not everybody follows the above simple advice about the near occasion of sin) Hope the above helps.

And coming up this fall on Fox Television: "The Simple Life in Jail"

OK Garth...whichever.

I get my CF bulbs from Ikea (they are significantly cheaper there then elsewhere that I've seen). When a regular bulb burns out, I replace it with the corresponding CF bulb. The only exception being where I have a dimmer already (only a couple of places). I am, in no way, a greenie. But I am a cheapskate and lazy. (In other words, I like paying less for electric and I hate changing bulbs)

Garth, Again, for the nth time, try to understand. I'll type slow this time so you'll get it, maybe. I said that communism is inherently atheist. I did not say that atheism is inherently communist. (As I alluded to in my prior post, we are talking on a philosophical basis A->B # B->A in general terms. In other words, just because A implies B does not necessarily mean that B automatically implies A. If you go back to the original statement I made on the matter, you will find that I said, "The only places in the modern world where heresy is a crime is in some (not all) Muslim countries (just try importing a Bible or Rosary into Saudi Arabia if you doubt me) and in (officially atheist) communist countries." That statement was not an attack on atheism. It was an attack on communist countries...that happen to be atheistic. Period. I realize that you are an evangelist, Garth. But maybe you should evangelize on a different thread. I am not trying to undermine your faith and there is no need for you to be an apologist for it on this thread.