markomalley

Bethlehem, Judea —Authorities were today alerted by a concerned citizen who noticed a family living in a barn. Upon arrival, Family Protective Services personnel, accompanied by police, took into protective care an infant child named Jesus who had been wrapped in strips of cloth and placed in a feeding trough by his 14-year old mother, Mary of Nazareth. During the confrontation, a man identified as Joseph, also of Nazareth, attempted to stop the social workers. Joseph, aided by several local shepherds and some unidentified foreigners, tried to forestall efforts to take the child, but were restrained by the police. Also being held for questioning are three foreigners who allege to be wise men from an eastern country. The INS and Homeland Security officials are seeking information about these men who may be in the country illegally. A source with the INS states that they had no passports, but were in possession of gold and other possibly illegal substances. They resisted arrest, saying that they had been warned by God to avoid officials in Jerusalem and to return quickly to their own country. The chemical substances in their possession will be tested. The owner of the barn is also being held for questioning. The manager of the Bethlehem Inn faces possible revocation of his license for violating health and safety regulations by allowing people to stay in the stable. Civil authorities are also investigating the zoning violations involved in maintaining livestock in a commercially- zoned district. The location of the minor child will not be disclosed, and the prospect for a quick resolution to this case is doubtful. Asked about when Jesus would be returned to his mother, a Child Protective Services spokesperson said, "The father is middle-aged and the mother definitely underage. We are checking with officials in Nazareth to determine what their legal relationship is." Joseph has admitted to taking Mary from her home in Nazareth because of a census requirement. However, because she was obviously pregnant when they left, investigators are looking into other reasons for their departure. Joseph is being held without bond on charges of molestation, kidnapping, child endangerment, and statutory rape. Mary was taken to the Bethlehem General Hospital where she is being examined by doctors. Charges may also be filed against her for child endangerment. She will also undergo psychiatric evaluation because of her claim that she is a virgin and that the child is from God. The director of the psychiatric wing said, "I don't profess to have the right to tell people what to believe, but when their beliefs adversely affect the safety and well-being of others—in this case her child—we must consider her a danger to others. The unidentified drugs at the scene don't help her case, but I'm confident that with the proper therapeutic regimen we can get her back on her feet." A spokesperson for the governor's office said, "Who knows what was going through their minds? But regardless, their treatment of the child was inexcusable, and the involvement of these others is frightening. There is much we don't know about this case, but for the sake of the child and the public, you can be assured that we will pursue this matter to the end."

I suppose a theocracy under the Christian left would be ok, though...

Don't get me wrong. I wish that America was an authentically Christian country that truly espoused authentic Christian values. I wish that we would have been in the past. I do not propose that we pay reparations for the sins of our fathers. But I don't think we can arrogantly assert our Christianity as if it were a divine right. I think being a "Christian Country" is a huge obligation on those of us who are Christians. An obligation to live the gospel in our private lives and to inspire (not coerce) those around us to adopt those values in their lives, as well.

I will third washingtonweather and Belle on that book. Having said that, if your girlfriend is a committed TWI person, she will not be able to hear anything you say. Being involved with a TWI person is not the same as being involved with a Lutheran or a Methodist or even a Muslim. Live and let live is not part of TWI philosophy. Ask Belle. She can tell you far more about that than I ever could. I asked you how proficient you were in apologetics, not that you would try to convert her to Catholicism, but because you will need those skills to defend your own beliefs against the constant barrage they will receive from her and the other TWI people. They will use lies, half-truths, and distortions to try to convince you out of your faith. If you are really serious about staying with her, you had better be very strong in your own faith, because you are guaranteeing that it will absolutely come under strong attack. If they are not successful, I can also absolutely guarantee that her leadership will eventually demand that she make a choice: you or them. If she is a true TWI-er, you will lose. That's why I say the best thing you can do is to offer prayers for her conversion. I am not suggesting that the conversion be to Catholicism. But she is not in control of her own mind. She may seem that way but her lexicon and frame of mind sound, based upon your description, to have been totally twisted into the TWI mentality. She needs to have her mind freed so that she is capable of considering any evidence that you are able to present. Consider the basic elements of the Nicene Creed. I will assure you that she would become visibly agitated if you brought up any of the articles of that Creed other than the first article. She would probably start yelling and might walk out of the room if you brought up the Athanasian Creed. Shoot, in all likelihood, she would probably argue with the Apostle's Creed. Ask her about what she thinks of the directive shown in Matthew 28:19 (link). if you want to do an experiment. Before doing so, ask yourself if that verse should be at all controversial at all. Even if you are not serious in your faith anymore, you should check her reaction to the creeds and to that one verse. I think that you would find both reactions very illuminating. As I said, prayers for her conversion.

Ryan, Are you still Catholic or were you just raised Catholic and have moved on since that time? If so, how experienced are you in apologetics? I ask the above two questions because this devilish movement will try to strip you of your faith. If you remain in association with this woman, she will try to lure you into this group at some point or another. Either you or she will have to make a choice: your faith or your friend...her faith or her friend. If you truly care about this girl, you need to offer prayers for her conversion. That's the best thing you could do for both of you...IMHO/FWIW/YMMV.

Garth, In this case, your endorsement is the last one I'd want..... ;) The point I'm trying to get at is that, while the words could arguably be called Christian and while a good number of the people in the country were undoubtedly Christian, the actions taken by the country could hardly be called Christian...throughout the country's history. And, yes, I understand your deist vs Christian argument and don't really want to go there. But the way I see it is that many people (and no I am NOT pointing my finger in any one direction or at any poster(s) in particular) who call this country a "Christian Country" do so, rather than in an expression of Christian ideals, but as a justificaiton to be allowed to do as they would. A sense of arrogance trying to place this country above all others. That's what aggrevates me to no end. How DARE such a person claim that God would honor THIS country above another country with Christians in it? I would really like somebody to justify, using the Bible, the American revolution. I cited a number of verses in my earlier post to show that a revolution, particularly for the reasons of that revolt, could hardly be justified based on scripture. I would really like somebody to justify, using the Bible, the discrimination that one supposedly Christian sect gave to other, supposedly Christian sects. Be they Catholic, Baptist, Quaker, or Anabaptist. I would really like somebody to justify, using the Bible, the treatment of the aboriginal peoples of this country throughout our history. I would really like somebody to justify the slave labor condoned by the country for decades. And no I'm not talking about the import of slaves. I'm talking about the treatment of immigrant labor. I would really like somebody to justify, using the Bible, American imperialism, particularly since the Spanish-American war. Of course, I don't even want to go with the current, post-modern trends that characterize our current society. Actions speak louder than words. And those actions, at least as far as my limited knowledge of the Bible are concerned, can't be justified as Christian. But those actions were what formed us as a country.

I think that a person can sincerely apologize for offending somebody, while holding his position on an issue. "I apologize if I offended you." It could be that somebody did not communicate his ideas properly, with the appropriate sensitivity, or whatever. Or that somebody spoke when he should have simply remained silent. A person could also do that without sincerity. But the same person could, without sincerity, apologize unconditionally. God knows the hearts of men. I don't.

In answer to your question, though, I'd say that there is no way that the fabric of our nation underpinned by Christianity. Look at the origins of the British in this country. There was a colony founded at Jamestown as an Entrepenureal venture. (Gold) There was another colony founded by a cult who were trying to escape religious persecution. But what did they do after they got here? They persecuted those who were not part of their religion. The origins of the country as a State are hardly scriptural. We revolted against unjust taxes. That is hardly scriptural. Didn't St. Paul call on us to pray for kings and all that are in authority? (1 Tim 2:1-2) Didn't Christ, himself, say "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." (Mark 12:17) In any example in the Bible, at least those that I'm familiar with, there was but one example of a revolt against a lawful government: that is the example of the Maccabean revolt (See the 1&2 Maccabees). But that revolt happened as a result of the Greeks forbidding Jewish worship and mandating that the Jews bow down before Greek gods. Hardly the same circumstance as that which was the basis for the American revolt. Then, let us look at Manifest Destiny. Once again, I would like to see a scriptural basis for that. The treatment of the aborigenes could hardly be categorized as "Christian" treatment. The founding of California as an American State could hardly be counted as Christian. And the beat goes on. Again, a neutral examination of this country's history could hardly result in a characterization of the country being a "Christian" country. Now don't get me wrong, I am not stating that our society does not have a lot of Christian influence. I am not stating that there is a lot of Christian culture built into many of our laws. I am not stating that there are not a lot of Christians in it. But it's a big jump to go from that to stating that this is a "Christian Country."

Now you've gone and done it, Rhino!

The famous Hanel Oratorio, The Messiah. But what tells me it's Christmas is when I hear the following chanted in church at midnight on the 24th: Octavo Kalendas Januarii Anno a creatione mundi, quando in principio Deus creavit coelum et terram, quinquies millesimo centesimo nonagesimo nono: A diluvio vero, anno bis millesimo nongentesimo quinquagesimo septimo: A nativitate Abrahae, anno bis millesimo quintodecimo: A Moyse et egressu populi Israel de Aegypto, anno millesimo quingentesimo decimo: Ab unctione David in regem, anno millesimo trigesimo secundo: Hebdomoda sexagesima quinta juxta Danielis prophetiam: Olympiade centesima nongentesima quarta: Ab urbe Roma condita, anno septingentesimo quinquagesimo secundo: Anno imperii Octaviani Augusti quadragesimo secundo: toto urbe in pace composito, sexta mundi aetate, Jesus Christus aeternus Deus, aeternique Patris Filius, mundum volens adventu suo piisimo consecrare, de Spiritu Sancto conceptus, novemque post conceptionem decursus mensibus, in Bethlehem Judae nascitur ex Maria Virgine factus homo: NATIVITAS DOMINI NOSTRI JESU CHRISTI SECUNDUM CARNEM! But that's just me...

So could we then say that they liberally interpreted according to misusage?

One has to allow the transformation. That little buggaboo about free will. (By the way, the conformed to the world should be translated "conform yourself to this age") -- conform is in the middle voice, while transform is in the passive voice. The word "but" simply means "but" You conform yourself to the current age or you allow yourself to be transformed

Great post. But one little thing I'd like to correct for you is that "renewing" is (yet again another) mistranslation in the King James Version. The Greek word for "renewing" is the word "anakainosis." It is a noun. As used, it is in the Dative (indirect object) case. It means a renovation, renewal. The related verb is "transform," which is used in the passive voice. The bottom line is that is that you are being transformed (by a source unnamed) by the renovation of your mind. The renovation of your mind is the "what" that occurs when the transformation (action) takes place. It is reasonable to imply that the entity doing the transforming is God. This is not to say that the Christian shouldn't control his thinking...but that the renovation (renewal) of the mind is something accomplished for the Christian (enabling that control of the thinking) is accomplished FOR him, not BY him.

We can see that ck is already doing his thing. People simply need to hit "ignore" when he passes their tolerance level. Eventually he'll just be talking to himself. (Most chat room software packages have an "ignore" feature, as well...if it exists, that feature could be used for that medium, as well)

Thanks, Thomas

Oh, btw, as a point of clarification: There are no longer 9 planets; only 8. Pluto behaved poorly and was given a stiff reprimand and a demotion by the International Astronomical Union. Hope this doesn't destroy anybody's theology!

The bash-ee sounds pretty cool, for a Muslim, that is: "MELBOURNE - A board member at the Melbourne Islamic school which recently expelled students for desecrating the Bible has been bashed by an armed man claiming to be Jesus." How many Muslims have you heard of who would expel students for desecrating the Bible? Most I have heard of would expel students for _not_ desecrating the Bible. (Good for him!)

"Literal According to Usage" epitomizes exactly what you're talking about, T-Bone.

I have one piece of advice: Use the ignore button

Others could quote TWI's take on the subject better than I. My take on the subject is as follows: Col 1:24 (RSV) "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church," I believe that a Christian who is in the circumstance you cite can gain tremenous solace and, in fact, strength from understand what is said in the above verse of Holy Scripture.

David, As much as I respect you and appreciate your POV, I think you're (as opposed to your...ok, socks?) all wet on this one. I don't like ckmeon any more than anybody else here. I'm certain that you know why, if you recall a number of his posts from his "pre-ban" days. But, you know, I don't recall that he has ever threatened somebody here. The worst I recall that he did was to defend an indefensible, to deny reality of the abuses that were perpetrated by the principle proponent of that belief system, and to attack other people's beliefs when those beliefs didn't line up with his belief system. When I started reading Waydale, I just thought that TWI was a good organization that went bad under the leadership of LCM. I would have been taken aback had I heard any kind of allegation from VPW. I had NO CLUE of what happened in the 90s (as I'd left prior to that time). It wasn't a matter that I was still a member of a splinter group...I'd already gone back to the Church before that time...but I still was really clueless about what I was involved in. Frankly, had somebody asked me what I thought of Victor Paul Wierwille, I would have said he was a great teacher with a tremendous vision...for a Protestant. I was wrong. But it took me a while to fully process and, frankly, to believe a lot of what I'd read. And I was only involved for a few years. Not like some here who grew up with it and had seen that as their only reality. Bottom line is that, regardless of how much of an a$$hole ck is, I think that the proper response is to feel sorry for him and to pray for him. If his posts are too aggravating, individual gsc members can ignore him (a nice feature of this board). If he crosses the line and threatens people, well, I am one to think that this is a message board...what in the world is he going to do in reality? Not like he's going to be able to get his dad to come over and beat somebody up...not like he can 'actually' stalk a member... The boy clearly needs help. Condemning him to the outer darkness of being banned is not going to achieve that help. The title of this thread, "GSC --- People helping people" is a nice title. But you don't help people by kicking them out. At least that's my opinion. Of course my opinion counts for nothing. The only opinions that matter are those of the owners and managers of this site.

Thanks, Garth, I don't think I would have known it was Pawtucket's site, not Doowap's, without that hint. ;) And the reference to irony referred to my choice of words in the title and in the opening post. Not in the videos, at all. Frankly, I find the videos to be very sad. And if the child was a little Baptist girl condemning all the rest of the non-Baptist world to h3ll, or a little Muslim girl singing about how she wished to be a suicide bomber when she grows up (such videos exist), I would find it equally sad.

Delete* the thread if you want. You're the mod, not me. I did place warnings on both links that I posted that stated there was course language involved. So if somebody who will be offended by course language clicks on the links, then, well, that's like somebody who is offended by porn subscribing to the Playboy channel and then complaining about its content. I do think those two videos are an interesting study to see how some adults (yes, the vast minority) program their hatred into their children/ nieces/ nephews/ pupils, etc. I think it is a good lesson for those of us who are parents...on the influence of other adults in our childrens' lives (after all, the second link linked to a video of her uncle, not her dad). I don't recall where in this thread I stated that I found the videos humorous. Irony was employed in my opening post (see disclaimer 1b in my signature block), but employing ironic language is not synonymous with finding something humorous. I see that others found it rather funny... and a couple of posters on the thread apparently approve of her message. So as to it being extremist, well, isn't that in the eye of the beholder? (Unless, of course, you are accusing those posters of harboring extremist views, as well) But apparently you don't find it funny. You do find it offensive. You find it extremist. However, it's obvious, based on the other responses on the thread that your opinion is not universally held. This board is, after all, private property and freedom of speech is contingent upon the discretion of the moderators. In other words, it's your board, not mine. But I've seen a lot of things that have personally offended me (do a search on the terms "pope" "RC" etc., and you will find tons of examples). I haven't hit the alert button. Why? Just the fact that somebody's statement offends me, doesn't mean that it should be suppressed.* The only time it should be suppressed* is if it violates community standards. The rules of the board are here. I don't see taste limitations, viewpoint limitations, or any other sort of content limitations in those rules, other than that personal attacks are prohibited. But, in the final analysis, you set the commuity standards, not me. So the bottom line is that this is your board, not mine. You set the community standards for this community. You want to move this thread to 'tacks because you feel the content is political, I won't complain. You want to delete* this thread, feel free, you won't hear a whine out of me...it's your board. Shoot, if I personally offend you enough, you're within your rights to ban me or even to make me an un-person (by purging all my posts from the database)...and nobody remaining would have the slightest right to complain. But if you're going to start deleting* threads based on the thread's content (especially when there have been no personal attacks on the thread), then I, for one, would appreciate you posting what are acceptable (and/ or unacceptable) topics someplace readily accessible for those who start threads. That way the rest of us will know what those community standards are. *Note: the terms delete and suppress were used vice censor. Only governments can censor.

If you liked the 8-year old, you will LOVE her uncle: CAUTION: THE LINK HAS SOME COURSE LANGUAGE You've been warned.