Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Raf

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    16,727

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    154

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Raf

    Suing ministers for sexual assault

    in About The Way

    Posted

    You know, I am simply not going to apologize for every time I mention or acknowledge a scenario that does not fit the one people went through in TWI. What leaders did in TWI was reprehensible and I have said that over and over and over again. The fact that in some OTHER context, some minister might respond to the advances of a perfectly mentally healthy parishioner and that situation would NOT constitute abuse, does not in ANY way detract from the culpability of what TWI's leaders did.

    At the same time, I could see why within the same church a statement like the one made by Pat Liberty would make more sense.

    Suing ministers for sexual assault

    in About The Way

    Posted

    quote:
    Originally posted by oldiesman:

    JustThinking,

    The name of Rev. Patricia Liberty was invoked as a reliable source in these matters. What does her viewpoint have to do with _legal_ responsibility or _legal_ liability? Why didn't you reprove the others for invoking her viewpoints, like you reprove me? Her views are irrelevant to your initial question. No matter, if her viewpoints are being considered in these matters, then all of her statements are fair game.

    AGAIN, agreed.

    Suing ministers for sexual assault

    in About The Way

    Posted

    quote:
    Originally posted by oldiesman:

    quote:
    Since clergy have a responsibility to set and maintain appropriate boundaries, those who are violated by clergy's inappropriate sexual behavior are not to be blamed even if they initiated the contact.
    Rev. Patricia Liberty

    I disagree with the above statement. Since a minister is blameable for participating in inappropriate sexual behavior, a participant also is blameable for participation, most especially for initiating it.

    I second that (when it comes to the "victim" initiating the seduction). I have been sharply critical of clergy who abuse their position to satisfy their lusts, especially when they twist the Word in order to do it. Their victims are truly victims. But saying that someone who initiates the contact is "not too blame" takes that view ridiculously too far. Clergy (really anyone, but for the sake of this discussion, I'll limit the comment to clergy) should be aware of the possibility that a congregant could have inappropriate sexual feelings for him/her, and should respond Biblically. But that doesn't absolve the person who initiated the seduction.

    quote:
    Rev. Liberty is supposed to speak for and be a representative of God. Ok, where does it say in the bible that folks who initiate inappropriate sexual contact should be given a free pass?

    Again, agreed.

    Mystic River

    in Movies, Music, Books, Art

    Posted

    George,

    Your review sounded just like mine.

    Except I thought all the acting was terrific, including Tim Robbins.

    Ok, I found my review. Maybe not just the same. But still...

    quote:
    As an acting vehicle, this movie must be seen. Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Kevin Bacon, Marcia Gay Harden and Laura Linney all deliver for director Clint Eastwood.

    As a murder mystery, its only flaw is that you can figure out the killer's identity almost from the first moment he/she appears on the screen. You spend your time wondering what the killer's motive was, only to find out you were wrong about the motive (but not the killer's identity).

    The mystery is good, but it's the acting that carries this movie.

    John Lynn responds

    in About The Way

    Posted

    quote:
    Originally posted by sky4it:

    Raf:

    Your comments:

    when Jesus said some standing there would be alive when the kingdom came,

    Doesnt that resolve itself from what Christ said what the kingdom of God would be? Ie(love joy and peace in the Holy Ghost), thus fullfilling when people recieved the Holy Spirit? I didnt remember if the scripture used the word Kingdom or not and didnt look it up either.

    I don't know. I've heard a number of explanations. My problem with the CES explanation is that it excuses a false prophecy. It's dressed up real nice, but it excuses a false prophecy nonetheless. Other explanations try to show that it's not a false prophecy. I don't know which of those explanations is true, or if there's another explanation that settles the whole matter. The only thing I know is that I'm not at all satisfied with the CES answer.

    John Lynn responds

    in About The Way

    Posted

    I want to clear that up, Def...

    CES teaches that when Jesus said some standing there would be alive when the kingdom came, he was not aware of the upcoming administration/dispensation of grace. It's "not" (according to them) that he was mistaken: He was merely expressing the Word that he knew. God had not revealed the "secret" (aka mystery) to Jesus, so Jesus was right according to what he knew. They stop short of saying Jesus was wrong or mistaken.

    My problem with this is that Jesus said he spoke the things his Father told him to say. Even in non-Trinitarian theology, Jesus would have to have been speaking presumptuously in order to make a prediction that later turned out to not come to pass.

    Step out into the street, Mr. Lynn.

    in About The Way

    Posted

    I've been editing my last post like mad, considering my tremendous blunder about JAL and anonymous posters. I'm going to stop editing though: the last edit was an apology to Cynic, which I repeat here. I'm sorry I missed what you were trying to tell me.

    I don't think it helped John to post that he wouldn't be posting. It gave ammo to people who say he's not interested in dialogue. I think he is interested in dialogue: just not here. That seems to go for named posters, and especially for unnamed.

    I think there's still plenty of reason to suggest that JAL won't reply: anonymity is just not one of those reasons.

    Anyway, sorry, and thanks, and ...

    I don't know. Wait?

    Step out into the street, Mr. Lynn.

    in About The Way

    Posted

    Cynic,

    quote:
    Raf,

    1. Look at the end of my first post. That ain't your name there.

    Yeah, well I'm talking to you.

    Public message board. If you don't want other people to reply, don't post it on a public message board.

    [CORRECTION: OOPS! I MISUNDERSTOOD. I owe Cynic an apology. Forgive me for not reading more closely. And P.S. nice to meet you].

    If you're actually interested in an answer to your questions, JAL gave clear instructions on how to contact him. If you're interested in posturing and proving that JAL isn't interested in dialogue, then by all means, start a thread and wait for Godot.

    My post to you was meant in kindness, Cynic. I didn't mean to criticize you, only to point out that if you posted to actually get an answer, there's plenty of reason to believe it ain't gonna work.

    quote:
    2. I think JAL did dismiss a portion of the 9th chapter of Romans on CES' old message board.

    Fair enough. I don't remember that, but if you do, that's good enough for me. It deserves an answer.

    quote:
    3. Due to the heat on this forum for big-weenie ex-TWI figures, some other forum might be better for the discussion.

    I could be wrong, but calling him a "big weenie" might not be the best way to engender the good will for a serious response to your (very valid) questions.

    Hi! It's the real me - John Lynn

    in About The Way

    Posted

    quote:
    Originally posted by sky4it:

    Raf:

    I really didnt like (Galen's A CES member?) remarks to me. (It reminds me of the same tactics of other groups, you = devil me = saint) Accusing me of projecting anger fear and hatred. Certainly I will admit I could have used a few less adjectives, but that also makes you look less concerned about the topic than you really are. So then what happens? You get ignored.

    Why is it Raf, that when you disagree in principle with the obvious, that you get accused of degrading remarks (anger fear and hatred) in bountiful excess far greater than what you intended?

    Why does the paranoia (for lack of a better word) run so deep?

    Sky,

    I apologize for not answering sooner. I didn't see your post. I'm trying to figure out why it was directed at me, but I'll do my best to answer. Please understand, though, that I had no intention whatsoever of getting involved in any dialogue taking place between you and Galen.

    I think Galen's a sincere guy. He and I disagree often, but always respectfully.

    Why does the paranoia run so deep? hmm. Good question. I wonder if paranoia is the right word. I wonder if it isn't just the freedom to speak our minds and the boldness to stand up for what we believe. When folks disagree, that boldness can easily be mistaken for a confrontational attitude (or itching for a fight).

    Sometimes I find I need to remind myself (or have friends remind me) that in the most heated of flame wars, I'm dealing with a human being. and that we are equally prone to misunderstanding each other.

    Anyway, I don't know if that answers your question.

    Step out into the street, Mr. Lynn.

    in About The Way

    Posted

    Since JAL already indicated that he's not going to be posting regularly and getting into dialogues here (and has taken the heat for it) and he specifically cited a disinterest in speaking to those who don't post their real names, why not just e-mail him or call him? You can even do it as Steve Lortz did, indicating that you posted your question on Greasespot and that you will post his reply.

    I don't recall L,G, or S ever saying romans 9, 10, or 11 are not God-breathed, and I have listened to their tapes on the Book of Romans. I'd be interested in their answer to your question. I just think you've chosen a questioning method that is not likely to succeed in obtaining an answer.

    Hi! It's the real me - John Lynn

    in About The Way

    Posted

    quote:
    I will probably not spend much time reading or answering a bunch of posts, but will give you my email address (jalces@aol.com) and home (317-849-5707) and office (317-255-6189) phone numbers in case you really want to communicate with me. I'm not much for communicating with those unwilling to identify themselves, although I have often done so when I felt it would serve them. I prefer the personal touch of the phone over email, so as to better experience one another's hearts.

    Better?

    Hi! It's the real me - John Lynn

    in About The Way

    Posted

    As much as I'd prefer John engage folks publicly on this and other threads, I have to take exception to some sentiments expressed here...

    quote:
    As far as John Lynn....I can tell how much folks REALLY mean to you....we aren`t even important enough to read and respond to...

    Luvya Rascal, but sheesh! The man gave his friggin phone number! How many of us have done that? Anyone who wants to take it up with him can do so. You wanna know my phone number? look it up; I ain't postin it on no message board!

    You guys called him out here, he showed up, and that's more than anyone else has done. Where's VF? Where's CG? Where's LCM? Heck, where are John Linder and Harve Platig? What are their phone numbers?

    JAL:

    If you read this little bit of advice: stick around for about a week. Take some time to respond and tangle for a little bit. It might be fun. Then go back to what you were doing before. You won't be the first or the last to have done so.

    God Bless You. (That's addressed to all of you).

    Raf

    Hi! It's the real me - John Lynn

    in About The Way

    Posted

    quote:
    I did a bit of reading on your site last night before bed. Will read more later. I have a question that I'd be interested in hearing the answer to. I noticed that you now refer to the return of Christ as "The Rapture". Why do you now use the more common term for that occurrance? Just curious.

    I hope you don't mine me taking a shot at this...

    There are several occurrences of a "gathering together" in the Bible, and not all refer to the incident recorded in I Thessalonians 4. We (in English) get the word "rapture" from the Latin for "caught up" (as in "caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air"). There's nothing unbiblical about the word "rapture," and most Christians understand what you're talking about when you use that word. There's nothing unbiblical about the term "gathering together," but most Christians would need you to define which gathering you're talking about.

    So to avoid an utterly unnecessary bit of confusion, why not just use "rapture"?

    That's the logic as I see it.

    Four Years Ago

    in About The Way

    Posted

    That's true wonder. It's like those people who complain about pedophile priests. I mean, most Catholic priests are not pedophiles, and most Catholic bishops have not hidden or excused pedophile priests. So obviously, it's not a problem that needs to be addressed.

    Thanks for helping me see the light, wonder.

×
×
  • Create New...