markomalley

The Bible that I trashed with a bunch of graffitti (oh, excuse me, notes) is sitting in a landfill someplace. One thing I discovered: I cannot STAND the KJV wording. Somebody talked me into thinking that it was the best translation (grrr) and I convinced myself that I wanted to use it for years and years. So now I use my RSV as the 'readable' version for enjoyment. For those who still DO use their Bibles with all of the annotations, consider this: those "notes" are, in many cases, left over stuff from TWI. If you have any questions about whether TWI taught something correctly or not, looking at a TWI-amended Bible is maybe not the smartest thing in the world. After all, if you see a little 1c next to a usage of Holy Ghost, you are going to subconsciously THINK about Wierwille's breakdown of the differences in 'meaning' of pneuma hagion. If you see a 'literal according to usage' pencilled in the margins of your Bible, you will think about it...either consciously or subconciously. My suggestion: get a 'clean' Bible. Read it without notes for a while (a couple of months). If you find yourself reading a 'literal according to usage' in a passage, force your brain to stop it! If your brain substitutes a Wierwille-inspired word substitution (for example "praying in the spirit = speaking in tongues"), discipline yourself to NOT do so as you read (in other words, just read what's actually THERE, not what somebody else has told you as what it really MEANS). The point: if, after a couple of months of this, you might find it useful to 'rework' some of those 'literals according to usage' to see just how literal they are. After all, we all have brains, we may as well use them independently!

You know, it's terrible when people depend upon spell check.

The Bible has depth at so many levels that I honestly do not believe that it is possible to understand it completely. I believe that it can be understood at various levels of understanding, but it is a very arrogant and unlearned person that says he totally understands the Bible. As for me, I understand the Bible at a certain level. I see some of what I don't understand, also (but some probably completely escapes my notice). Like others have noted, though, I needed to put a moratorium on the scriptures for a few years after leaving TWI. I also had to un-learn a lot of error that was taught me by TWI. THe biggest one I remember is learning the "literal according to usage..." another one is the attempt to make different words synonyms that weren't actually synonyms. But the most important thing was the development of a relationship between our Lord and myself and nuturing that relationship. Allowing God to enlighten me, rather than dependence upon my own, very limited, intellect in mastering God's words. (the approach that I believe that was encouraged by TWI and some others). I did learn that I could study the Bible in depth, as a result of my association with TWI. I did learn how to use a lot of the reference materials in the time I was associated with TWI. Credit given where credit is due. However, there is a lot that I had to unlearn. I needed to unlearn the fact that Bullinger, although highly learned, was quite biased in the references he developed. TWI presented Bullinger as providing objective truth...(except on the Trinity, which we all "know" he didn't believe in, but just couldn't express that disbelief. Sort of like Luther...) I had to unlearn that. Bullinger was but an example. Wierwille's works were, when I was in, treated as some of the most masterful reference works ever developed and were considered objective truth. Obviously, they weren't. I had to unlearn both the Bullinger and the Wierwille "private interpretations" that they interjected into the Bible. Even after all of this, I had the recognition that I could understand the Bible...at least at some level...but it took a lot of work on the part of others to bring me to a level of humility where I could actually let God teach me through His words, vice me trying to be smarter than God through my study and mastery of His words.

Oh, the parents DEFINITELY taught the children. The question is not did the parents teach the children, but WHAT did the parents teach the children. If you are a God-fearing, Bible-believing parent who teaches your children the depths of God's Word every day, but live in a manner that is in direct opposition to Sacred Scripture, you are teaching your children. If you have some contorted form of personal theology that twists the will of God into knots, you are teaching your children. If you keep porn around your house for your children to peruse, you are teaching your children. If you have multiple sex partners and parade them around your children, you are teaching your children. If you have no respect for the property of stores or the property of your neighbors, you are teaching your children. OR if you take up your cross and follow Christ, loving God and your neighbor with all your heart, you are also teaching your children. But what is the lesson? First, it would be helpful to look the context of the quote: Mal 2:14 ... Because the LORD was witness to the covenant between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Mal 2:15 Has not the one God made and sustained for us the spirit of life? And what does he desire? Godly offspring. So take heed to yourselves, and let none be faithless to the wife of his youth. Mal 2:16 "For I hate divorce, says the LORD the God of Israel, and covering one's garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless." The overall context of Malachi 2 is talking about the faithlessness of Israel. Given the context of Malachi 2, it's apparent that the answer to "Why does God hate divorce?" is that it breaks a covenant...and has huge spiritual implications that go far and beyond the loss of the relationship. The impact on the kids is an impact, but it is hardly the full impact. On this part, we are in full agreement!

In any organizational setting you are free to evaluate what you are taught. As to being involved in an organization that practiced M&A, shunning, or the like for committing 'thought crime,' well, I am not trying to justify that organizational behavior. Consider university education. The majority of instructors that I've run into are such that you are free to conclude differently than what they have, provided you have a logical and factual basis for your disagreement. Having said that, I've run into a couple (literally the vast minority) who demand students parrot them. Does the behavior of the minority of instructors mean we should scrap higher education?

Cowgirl, I know that you're a big fan of MIDI music (for embedding in posts). You can get some good MIDI's for free from this site: http://www.classicalarchives.com/ For $25 a year, you can also download a really good selection of live recorded music as well. BTW, there are 18 versions (MIDI and recorded) of Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring on that site...

Lone Wolf, You bring up some interesting points, Without a doubt, the basic unit of worship is the family. No argument there at all. The Apostle Paul is likewise a tremendous example. But I don't think it's reasonable to call on each and every Christian to model himself after the apostle. He was called on to live a life on the road. Likewise, I see no evidence that he had a wife and/ or children as a responsibility. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that he was single and remained so throughout his ministry. I think the implications provided in your statement, Paul is supposed to be our example as Christians and I never see Paul congregating with the same old bunch of believers day in and day out, year after year. He taught, ministered, and then moved on, keeping in touch by letter and the rare visit, when possible, puts unrealistic and, in fact, unscriptural pressures on individual Christians and on Christian families, as a unit. Throughout the Acts of the Apostles, there are numerous examples of families being evangelized and converted with no mention of them beginning to live as transients, moving from place to place. There are specific references in the apostles letters to the churches in Corinth and Ephesus that also outline relationships within family units. Likewise, no mention of living as vagrants, not having any consistent fellowship with other Christians. On the contrary, there is a hierarchy identified within the apostles letters: bishops, presbyters, and deacons being specifically called out and serving the Christian body in each city. The apostle's letters to Timothy and Titus list extensive qualifications for those called to serve in those positions. Again, no specific call in any of these qualifications to be itinerants. Having said that, I do believe that it is incumbent upon parents to be the primary teachers of the faith to their children. I also believe that it is the primary job of the husband to teach his wife (I know that this is not politically correct, so sorry if that offends). Exercising those responsibilities implies that it is ultimately the responsibility of each Christian to have as full an understanding of the faith as is possible, given the Christian's individual ability. However, I do not know any of us who has gained a full understanding of his faith by direct revelation from God. All of us have learned from somebody, in some fashion. Even somebody who only knows the faith via a Gideon's Bible stolen from a hotel room. The typesetter who works in the print shop used by Gideon's ministry, the Sunday School teacher, the theological text author, the priest, the minister, the rabbi, the translator of the English Bible version used, the instructor in an adult class: somebody, somewhere has had an influence. Has taught something, either directly or indirectly. And that person, no matter what role filled, has a grave responsibility before God for what he imparts. Parents are the primary teachers (in word, in deed, or both). But to say that parents are the sole teachers is ridiculous. And unscriptural. Do you have a Strong's Concordance? Do you have a Companion Bible? Do you use an online scripture site? Then to say that you have solely taught yourself is not exactly accurate. Yes, you would have done more than being spoon fed information in a class repeated 10-20 times, but you're not truly a "lone wolf." The only way that you'd truly be a "lone wolf" is to have received the sum total of your knowledge by direct revelation... Don't get me wrong. I agree that each of us must be responsible for what we know and what we teach. We must evaluate what we're taught before inculcating that information as "veritas." But none of us can truly say that we are completely self-sufficient, totally non-dependent upon others, including others outside our own family. But there is a middle ground between unrealistic arrogance and surrendering one's own free will. FWIW IMHO YMMV

Anothen, If you're still looking, you're in my prayers.

Thanks to all for the good wishes. It turned out to be a somewhat successful Lent for me. Luke 9:23 "And he said to all, 'If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.'" Giving up GSC for Lent turned out to be a very valuable spiritual endeavor for me. I was getting far too wrapped around the axle about things that really don't matter one way or the other. We can see from a quick scan of the threads started in my absence that not much has changed. TWI is still a spiritual hole. VPW still was a womanizer and a plagerist. Politics are still the same. People still have needs that they'd like intercessory prayer for. The skeptics think it's all a bunch of BS. And, according to some, Jesus is not the Second Person of the Trinity...according to others, He is. People still argue their points of view, some more effectively than others, and only on the rarest of occasions is somebody actually convinced that he should change his mind about any one issue one way or the other. Regardless of the issue. And I think that this is the biggest thing I got out of this year's Lenten exercises. That it really just doesn't matter one way or the other. It is what it is and neither my brilliance nor my logical skills nor my superior use of rhetoric is going to change anything. And so maybe rather than becoming all puffed up with my own genius, I should humble myself before God and let God's will be done rather than the will of M. O'Malley. And perhaps I should take My Lord's advice (And he said to them, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."). Perhaps I should concentrate on being a fisher of men more so than a hunter of men. In other words, just to cast the nets and whoever responds, responds. Rather than tracking my prey with my innate skills and overpowering that prey with superior strength and/ or firepower. But, to repeat, I do appreciate the good thoughts, well wishes, and prayers this Lenten season.

Happy Easter to all!

I'm sure all of the ex-Catholics on this board can empathize with the concept of giving something up for Lent. Lent is supposed to be a time of spiritual reflection and self-denial that many Christians participate in order to mentally and spritiually prepare themselves for Easter. As I'm sure is common knowledge, today is Fat Tuesday...the day when families are supposed to clean the yummy stuff out of their kitchens in preparation for the Lenten fast. In previous years, I would have done up some long post explaining the history of the fast and the scriptural basis for it. But I understand that the vast majority of you either already know about it or aren't interested or both. So I won't waste my time in writing, your time in reading, or Paw's bandwidth in posting. A lot of people give up beer, candy, cigarettes, soda pop, and so on for Lent. Some folks use it as an excuse to go on a diet. Me, I like to examine my conscience and see what has been drawing me away from God and see about abstaining from that for a while. (Yes, I'll give up something dietary, also, but that's easy) Without a doubt, the first thing that aggrevates me is the news. As may appear to be a surprise to those that view the 'tacks board, it's not so much the Congress thing, but the world in general that is really aggrevating. So the news is going off for the next few weeks. The next thing is wasting a whole bunch of time on message boards. Not just this one. I waste literally hours a day that could be far more constructively used in almost any other pursuit. So message boards are also on the list for the next few weeks. Including this one. Bottom line is that I will most likely see you all sometime in April. Enjoy. Talk among yourselves.

The bottom line, Abigail, is that I've tried before to get access to DSM-IV before online and have not been able to find it. Only secondary sources, like Wikipedia. While I can get direct access to ICD-10 straight from the WHO. But the second (and more important) reason is this: I can think of no culture in history where sexual relations with a baby or a young child (pre-pubescent) has been tolerated. However, in cultures, throughout the ages, where homosexual behavior has been tolerated/embraced, a subculture of active (adult)/ passive (adolescent) homosexual relations has been rather commonplace. This includes the ancient Persian, Greek, Roman cultures. In those cultures, it was common to see adult men with adolescent boys. Even to this day, in some middle eastern cultures, anal intercourse between adult men and adolescents is not seen as a sin (even though homosexuality between adults is seen as a grave sin in those same cultures) Because of the nature of the offenses, that's what I thought of when I initially saw the data. You have to admit from seeing it, that there is a distinct cutoff and that, starting at age 10, the numbers of victims rises sharply. The point is that if the problem is not seen as a 'homosexual problem,' but as a pedophilia problem, they will be seeking the solutions to the wrong problem.

I'm not. Not hardly. But I've had to look this stuff up over and over and over and over again. and so had to get familiar with it. (as far as the priest scandal stuff) As to the general-purpose theology stuff, I am not an authority, either. But I find it very interesting and like studying it.

Always a pleasure...

If you look up in 'open,' the placemark for the thread is still there.

(The chart didn't turn out as well as I wanted, but I hope the point gets across) Clay, She keeps bringing it up. Anytime something Catholic is mentioned. Can't discuss a point of doctrine or a current event without her coming up mentioning priests buggering boys. I suppose I could ignore her, but I know she's got some real hurt inside from the issue.

The International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition (published by the World Health Organization) identifies pedophilia (F65.4) as, A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age On the other hand, ephebophilia has been defined as a sexual preference in which an adult is primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to pubescent adolescents. (The WHO also defines adolescence as between 10 and 19 years) Here's the difference: pedophiles are, by defnition, mentally ill. Ephebophiles are just plain pervs. 1350 1300 x 1250 xx 1200 xx x 1150 xx x xx 1100 xx xx xx 1050 xx xx xx x 1000 xx xx xx xx 950 xx xx xx xx 900 x xx xx xx xx 850 xx xx xx xx xx 800 xx xx xx xx xx 750 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 700 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 650 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 600 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx x 550 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 500 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 450 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 400 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 350 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 300 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 250 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 200 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 150 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 100 x xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 50 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx <50 x x x xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Above is a chart showing the age of first incident for all cases of reported abuse. Source. There are pedophiles involved, no doubt, but you can see for yourself where the problem lies.

Wasn't my idea! I think it should go in 'soap opera'

And why does a tape series like "Girls Gone Wild" (featuring young girls barely legal) sell so well? And why are 12-16 year old girls especially desired for prostitutes? (Keep in mind, pedophiles would want babies and little children: 5-6 year olds) And why do female teachers seem to be taking a liking to middle-school boys? Again, it isn't pedophilia...pedophilia is a distinct disease from liking young pre-teens and teens. But if you can figure out the above, I'd say that you might be able to figure out why some priests want to prey on 10-17 year old (mostly) boys (mostly).

Bull. Pure and simple. If the majority of children abused were 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 you might have a point. But the majority (over 80%) of the children abused were boys. And the majority (over 75%) of the boys abused were over 11 or older. If your theory held ANY water whatsoever, the average age of the victims would be far younger and the distribution would be far closer to 50/50. There are pedophiles...but the problem here is one of predatory homosexuals, pure and simple.

Garth, seriously, consider it for a second. Whether you agree with it or not, you understand that Catholic doctrine states that homosexuality is 'gravely disordered,' right? You do understand that 80% of the reported victims were male, right? You also understand that more than 3/4 of the reported victims were over the age of 11, right? Orthodoxy: The word orthodoxy, from the Greek ortho ('right', 'correct') and doxa ('thought', 'teaching'), is typically used to refer to the correct theological or doctrinal observance of religion, as determined by some overseeing body. Had the bishops and the seminaries under their control been orthodox in the screening of seminary candidates, they would have, at least attempted to screen out individuals suffering from the 'grave disorder' of homosexuality. Had the seminary rectors been orthodox in their administration of discipline, they would have booted individuals acting on that 'grave disorder' out of the seminary when it came to light that such things were going on. (Not that it went on in all seminaries, but enough of them). And had the bishops/ directors of religious institutes been orthodox in their management of priests within their dioceses, they'd have recognized that a priest, once he's displayed that 'grave disorder' in action, particularly if manifested to a young boy, shouldn't ever be put in a position of having a 'near occasion of sin' again. Would that have gotten rid of ALL the problem? Frankly, no. But let's say that, through the candidate screening process and through eight years of seminary training, they identified and eliminated (from training...) 75-80% of homosexual men trying to enter the priesthood. It would figure, then, that the number of perpetrators of the actual abuse would be similarly reduced. And thus, the number of victims would likewise be reduced. (BTW, no I am not asserting there would be a 1:1 relationship here, but there can be no doubt that it would be reduced). Likewise, had the bishops, once appraised of an incident of abuse, acted in an orthodox manner, the serial abusers (a small percentage of all the priests accused of abuse) would have likewise not been returned to a situation where they'd have the 'near occasion of sin.' Would that have gotten rid of serial abusers? No. But it would have prevented the problem of a priest being identified, shipped off to treatment, and then returned to parish ministry. All told, would the abuse problem be gone? Of course not. But, chances are it wouldn't have been nearly the problem that it became. As to the steel in the spine...that addresses the ability and willingness to go in and clean up a lot of messes that exist. Not Father Rambo...Bishop Rambo... (Or maybe Monty Python's rendition)

Well, it's highly unlikely that a homosexual man would molest boys. It's also highly unlikely that a heterosexual man would molest boys. But, within that scope, it's far more likely for a heterosexual man to molest girls than a homosexual man. Common sense, so far, right? Then why is it so incorrect to say that it's far more likely for a homosexual man to molest boys than a heterosexual one?

You can see my response to that. But yes it does. The vast majority of the incidents of abuse are homosexual in nature.There's two ways you can look at it. Maybe it's because they want to change. Maybe it's a predatory thing (a bunch of males being in close proximity...also having unescorted access to young teenaged boys). The military also seems to attract its share of gays too. Again, a bunch of guys housed together in a close environment. Trouble is, according to Church teaching, the condition of being homosexual is considered to be 'gravely disordered.' Not sinful (unless acted on), but like a mental disease. You know that the official manual of psychology, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, classed homosexuality as a mental disease up until the 1970s. Then they became 'enlightened.' Bottom line is that I don't know how the mind of a 'gravely disordered' person operates. That's a good point. You raise some very valid points. The hierarchy does a pretty pitiful job of handling the issue of homosexuality in religious orders. Religious orders are called to be pretty well self-disciplined within their "rules" which have been approved by the Vatican. There are some religious orders that, from all accounts, are very good and holy orders. There are some that need to be purged. Not only for homosexuality, but for many other incidences of violating Church doctrine in many areas. Again, as I said before, the vast majority of cases of abuse in the Catholic Church were homosexual in nature. As I said, above, in my post to excath, the problem of child molestation is largely dependent on the local bishop. They were always kept very private, though, no matter how they were handled. There are, thankfully, a remarkably few cases like the case of the priest that excathedra's family was subjected to (a serial abuser). Like 100 priests out of 4-5000 with cases against them. The vast, vast majority involved a priest who had one incident in his life. Likewise, the bulk of the incidents were dealt with quietly, but they were dealt with. (During the 70s and 80s, the belief in the psychological community was that this was a problem that could be treated and cured. I believe that they have, since then, gotten a lot smarter. But because of that, a lot of the 'dealing with' the situation involved treatment and then returning the priest to ministry after the shrinks said that he was cured). The problem is that they weren't screening out homosexuals out from the seminary...and largely didn't do so through the 70s. JPII re-issued guidance shortly after he was elected that re-iterated the position that homosexuals must not go into the seminary. And yes, the Church is very private about problems. Maybe too private. But the problem in these days is that if they air their dirty laundry in public, there are socres of people, including not a few here, that would lick their chops in anticipation. On the other hand, it would be better that accurate information is out there so that the inaccurate information can be balanced by facts. So I don't know. But some good points.

Ex, As I have said to you before on other threads, I do feel very sorry for you and your family. I think the abuse you had to tolerate and the treatment you had to endure (primarily the neglect) from your hierarchy is reprehensible at best. I would have never brought that stuff up as I don't recall whether you had brought it up publically on the forum before. (I'm trying to speak circumspectly so that if you later on decide to edit your stuff out of your post, I won't be violating any confidential information) But your family's troubles epitomize what I see as being wrong with the Church in the past decades. Heterodoxy. Everybody KNOWS what is in the Bible about homosexuality. Everybody KNOWS what the Church has traditionally taught about it as well. We can argue back and forth whether or not the Bible means it or not, but the bottom line is that it is real clear to anybody what is taught. But for some reason, in the post-war era, the hierarchy in the Church, particularly in this country, decided to get all nice and warm and fuzzy and decide that the Vatican didn't mean it when it said homosexuals shouldn't be ordained priests. After all, since they're going to be celibate anyway, who cares, right? And where did that lead us? Well, excath, I think you can answer that one far better than I can... And JPII put in corrections to fix the situation shortly after he was elected Pope. They were followed some places. In fact, in time, I'd say most places. Unfortunately, there were a number of bishops (Law, Mahoney come to mind in particular) who decided that they didn't need to consider their promises of chastity and obedience to the Holy Father and disregarded clear instructions. As a result, a few years ago, an official apostolic visitation (consider that the Vatican's Inspector General team coming in) went and visited all the seminaries in the US. Why? #1, to make sure they were screening seminary candidates properly and #2, to make sure that they were teaching them properly how to be priests. Religious institutes are even worse! (In fact, the only reason why the stats make it appear that the incidence of abuse among diocesan priests is worse than the incidence of abuse among religious priests is the opportunity, in my opinion) (Having said that, the incidence of abuse have gone down since JPII was elected and put in those reforms. The levels now are about the same or maybe a bit lower than the levels seen in Protestant and Jewish groups...and considerably lower than in the public schools, by the way) And it's not just that...it's the quality of relgious education out there. The textbooks the kids have to study are pitiful. A high degree of the teachers out there are morally unqualified, not just educationally incompetent. A bulk of Catholic Colleges out there are out-and-out heretical. JPII published an apostolic exhortation titled Ex Corde Ecclesia, which directed certain actions that had to be taken by Catholic colleges in order to retain their status. Among those is that the educators in those institutions had to sign a pledge to teach matters of faith and morals in accordance with the Magesterium of the Church. A surprising number of those colleges and their faculty refused to sign the documents. And where were the bishops? Noplace to be found (they were busy attending rallies supporting illegal immigration or something else along those lines). The Holy Father gave the bishops the tool they needed to do their job and the bishops just plain refuse to do so. Again, not all of the bishops. And, thanks be to retirement age, a shrinking number of bishops, but it's out there. And I think it is an absolute miracle that with the characteristic of a large number of bishops out there that they haven't succeeded, at least on the national level, to change the doctrine taught by the Church. But they haven't. And God willing, they won't. You know what's the problem? Heterdoxy. Heterodoxy caused your family's woes. Pure and simple. You know what the fix is? Orthodox bishops with some steel in their spines being appointed. And I know you don't agree...and I know that doesn't make you feel any better... And I wish that there was something that could be done to undo what happened to your family. And I don't blame you for feeling the way you feel. But that doesn't really change anything, does it?

Theoretically, if two monogomous males were virgins when they started doing each other and were faithful throughout their life, then I'd reckon you would be right. You can take a look at the statistics on exactly who has HIV and you will see that I am pretty close to being right. (I just don't have time to give the link now, but I believe it's on the NIH or the HHS dot gov websites someplace. As to transfusions, that makes up a tiny, tiny percentage...as is transmission from any other form of contact. As to needle use, again, one has to take a look at the behaviors of the people passing the needles. Bottom line is that if, in an ideal world, people did those two things I suggested (not that I'm the originator of the suggestion), the vast, vast, vast majority of cases would be eliminated. And the remaining cases would drop off dramatically as they are secondary to those two causes. Cynic, Short answer: Latin Rite: both sometimes Eastern Rite: both always I have to run so don't have time for a full answer. I would be happy to provide it for you if you're interested (start a thread please). Have to run. Daughter has to be at church for the Rite of Election for her confirmation. Sorry.