markomalley

Shellon, A question for you: What's the percentage of pedophiles who were abused as children? (either sexually or through violence or both) Curious...

The key point I did let stand: the equivalence. But you're right and I pulled a dumba$$. (The problem with being an autodidact is that sometimes you let the perfectly obvious slip for the more subtle point) I do appreciate you pointing that out.

Now yer talkin:

Raf, of course you are correct. My post has been duly corrected.

Pros: a preposition of direction; forward to, i.e. toward (with the genitive case, the side of, i.e. pertaining to; with the dative case, by the side of, i.e. near to; usually with the accusative case, the place, time, occasion, or respect, which is the destination of the relation, i.e. whither or for which it is predicated). In this case it modifies the word theos -- used in the accusative case. So, the phrase could be rendered: "the word was moving toward God" Interesting thing, though...the next phrase (the Word was God). Word=God. God=Word. There is a tremendous amount of theological information in these three expressions: 1) In the beginning (arche) was the Word. That means that the Word was there before creation. 2) The Word was with (moving toward) God. 3) The Word was God. Equivalence... Probably more than you're looking for, but I hope it helps some... (on edit, to correct a stupid grammatical error that I hadn't thought about since the seventh grade...with hearty thanks to Raf)

You can have your opinion all you'd like Allan. However, it is curious, that a group who doesn't believe in the devil would still have this archaic rite: Rite of Exorcism And it's funny that we say the following prayer following each daily (not Sunday) Mass: St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in the day of Battle; Be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the Devil. May God rebuke Him, we humbly pray, and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God, cast into Hell, Satan and all the other evil spirits, who prowl through the world, seeking the ruin of souls. Amen What may confuse you is that the Catholic Church doesn't attribute literally everything that happens against one's wishes to the devil. We acknowledge that most of the time, sh&t happens. But, hey, what do I know???

I've had to un-learn so much that was ingrained through the PFAL series and collateral classes. I still find myself catching myself in little "Way-isms" from time to time. It is, in all honesty, surprising how insiduous the series actually was, even though its been so many years since I'd abandoned it.

LOL -- that pic sums up all the BS I heard when I came in. It actually came from a place called the "FMH Children's Club"

From vast experience in the military, I have learned this one jewel: Q: What's the difference between a fairy tale and a war story? A: A fairy tale begins: Once upon a time A war story ends: And that's the truth, no sh_it Good story, Jonny!

Bill, You know the answer already: the Pope is Catholic; therefore he's eveeeeeil. Don't you remember this training chart: Don't you remember: the Nazi's weren't evil: it was those darned Jesuits the Klan wasn't evil: it was those darned Jesuits the Commies weren't evil: it was those darned Jesuits Man, I think you're losing your memory in your old age! /sarcasm

Wordwolf: I wonder how many OTHER of "his" "literals" might match the Amplified Bible so exactly (implied question mark) Answer (IMHO/YMMV): As many as he needed to justify and validate his way of thinking.

Rascal, They say that true pedophilia is an actual sexual preference, like heterosexual and homosexual. (Or so I've read in a couple of sources). As such, it is about as curable as heterosexuality or homosexuality. Therefore, for their own good, they need to be locked away permanently.

True, a broken clock is right twice a day. I personally just have a hard time dealing with "Pat" pronouncing God's judgement on anything or anybody.

It's fascinating. Pat Robertson makes a pronouncement that you don't agree with and he's a fruitcake. He makes an announcement, just as radical, that you do agree with and all of a sudden he's a prophet from Gawd. Amazing.

One thing I'll say, I've met a lot of Methodist pastors throughout the years. 99% are really nice, caring folks. That's a lot more than I can say for other religious entities. Glad you are finding something that works for you.

Tom, None in particular that I'm aware of...other than the possibility that a record might be kept of the locations you search on...but even then I'm not sure it's keyed to you. Garth, LOL WW, I agree. Never installed it myself.

Follows is an article from an e-mail newsletter I receive. It brings up some really good points for anybody using Google Desktop to consider. My apologies for posting the whole article, but I didn't see the info up on the web to hyperlink for those who might be interested: Google Desktop raises security questions By M. E. Kabay Recently Google announced an additional feature to its popular Google Desktop search engine - the ability to store indexing information remotely, on Google's own servers. The description includes the following explanation: "Search Across Computers makes the following files searchable from your other computers: * Web history (from Internet Explorer, Firefox, Netscape, and Mozilla) * Microsoft Word documents * Microsoft Excel spreadsheets * Microsoft PowerPoint presentations * PDF files and Text files in My Documents "Note: Your HTTPS Web history will never be shared with your other computers, whether or not you allow indexing HTTPS items on one of your computers." The explanation goes on to say: "In order to share your indexed files between your computers, we securely transmit this content to Google Desktop servers located at Google. This is necessary, for example, if one of your computers is turned off or otherwise offline when new or updated items are indexed on another of your machines. We store this data temporarily on Google Desktop servers and automatically delete older files, and your data is never accessible by anyone doing a Google search. You can learn more by reading the Google Desktop privacy policy." The privacy policy dated Oct. 14, 2005, details how Google collects information about searches, customizes advertisements, aggregates information, and provides details to law enforcement or uses the data in fraud-prevention processes. Reader Jon Chorney, systems administrator at Master, Sidlow & Associates in Wilmington, Del., sent me the following thoughtful analysis of liability issues for corporate employees contemplating use of Google's Search Across Computers. * * * If I were to use that tool to remotely access any computer with confidential data (think healthcare, investments, etc.), it seems that I would compromise any precautions put in place to comply with applicable legislation. This is true no matter how secure the method I choose to connect to the remote computer. Although Google may swear that access will be limited, no one with any care for confidentiality would want to place their trust in unvetted staff at another organization. In February, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) issued a press release warning that Google's new tool would greatly increase government access to private information using a subpoena against Google instead of a warrant against an individual - a drastic reduction in the burden of proof required for such access. So the implications of Dell pre-installing the tool on computers that it sells to business are, in my view, serious indeed and underline the need for strong, enforced policies regarding software installed on a business computer. * * * Mich here again. With respect to Jon's concern about unvetted staff, I note that Google's Privacy Policy states: "We take appropriate security measures to protect against unauthorized access to or unauthorized alteration, disclosure or destruction of data. These include internal reviews of our data collection, storage and processing practices and security measures, as well as physical security measures to guard against unauthorized access to systems where we store personal data. We restrict access to personal information to Google employees, contractors and agents who need to know that information in order to operate, develop or improve our services. These individuals are bound by confidentiality obligations and may be subject to discipline, including termination and criminal prosecution, if they fail to meet these obligations." To the extent that we trust Google to follow its own rules, these are encouraging assertions. However, many other commentators have noted that although the configuration of Google Desktop allows exclusion of specific directories from the search domain, few novices will pay attention to this security feature. Any system with Google Desktop using the Search Across Computers feature must be considered compromised until proven otherwise. Security administrators beware. This is hardly the first piece of info I've seen that call Google desktop into question. In fact, if you're interested in reading a few of them, you can click for articles on one site regarding that application. Desktop searches, toolbars (such as AOL, Google, Yahoo, etc.), and so on all provide information to third parties when you use them. Consider yourself cautioned!

TOLEDO -- Merrill Keiser, Jr., is a trucker by trade, and he's hoping his next journey takes him all the way to Washington. His goal is a seat in the US Senate, but first he has to make it through the primary that will determine which Ohio Democrat will be the November ballot. The Fremont man is causing some controversy with one of his beliefs. He tells News 11 homosexuality should be a felony, punishable by death. "Just like we have laws against murder, we have laws against stealing, we have laws against taking drugs -- we should have laws against immoral conduct," Keiser says. Keiser has no political background. He says the only reason he's running as a Democrat is because that's how he was registered the last time he voted. (remainder snipped) Source: WTOL TV Any wagers on how well he'll do in the May primary?

The transparency is a marked difference between how this Methodist church runs and how TWI ran. I, frankly, don't agree with the decision made by the members of this council, but the fact that the decision is being done in a transparent fashion is an important feature and something that could be emulated by more groups. The other issue to note is that the pastors here appears to be employees. They are being informed and are desireous of a change. This also is a marked difference between TWI and this Methodist Church. (Having said that, I thought the Methodist Church ran like the Episcopal Church...that is that the clergy was appointed by and located by the bishop of the area...so that is educational for me) One thing I don't like seeing, however, is that apparently the issues raised are apparently based upon financial concerns and no mention is made of the impact on the pastor's vocation to shepherd his flock, even an assurance that it will make little or no difference. Suppose the pastor chooses to locate in a house 20 miles from the church? He may be happy to endure a commute every day, but what if there is an emergency requiring his presence (e.g., if a parishoner is dying and calls for his/her pastor, a situation calling for some crisis counselling, or whatever)? Presumably the parsonage is located very near the church, which one would assume is pretty well in the center of the parish. This may not be the case if the parson moves his parsonage a good distance away. (caveat: I realize that this may not be an issue in smaller towns, but in larger cities it could very well be an issue). Now maybe Methodists don't really pay much attention to their pastors with the exception of funerals, weddings, and Sunday services, I don't know. But I always had the impression that clergy had sort of a 24X7 responsibility. So, Belle, you asked>>>>>>>

You know, this sort of reminds me of an exaggerated version of the "no debt policy" thread that was on top here about a month ago. The conclusions that I drew from the 'no debt' policy are pretty much the same as the conclusions that I am seeing here. That is that the Corps program took a perfectly valid concept and totally perverted it. OK, so to make it more clear this time, I'll spell out my point explicitly: it appeared to me that VP wanted to create his own religious order that would be totally accountable to him. Nothing inherently wrong with that, in of itself (in other words, had VP believed and taught a legitimate theology that actually was designed to worship and serve God rather than his own perversions, the Way Corps could have been a good thing). The similarities between religious orders and the Corps: - Both were expected to be under obedience: if "leadership" gave an order, the members of the order/ the Corps were expected to follow that order -- go here, go there, start this project, stop this project, etc. - Both were expected to place their commitment to God above all other commitments: material wealth and other temporal considerations were not to be a factor when considering the commitment. - Both were expected to have a certain 'authoritativeness' in their presence. If "sister joan" said something in regards to God, the laity would give her statement a lot of credence. If "Corps grad joan" said something within her twig, the 'leaves' of the twig would be expected to give her statement a lot of credence. - Both had certain 'charisms' (missions). Religious orders are, in large part, organized through common interests: some would be teaching orders, some would be hospital orders, some would be orders working around service to the poor, some would be contemplative orders. The Way Corps, if I remember my history correctly, were all supposed to be teachers: but, at least at some period in time, weren't they also supposed to ingrain themselves in different segments of society? (I know that later on, they became TWI's version of the Geheimstaatspolizei (Gestapo), but initially, that wasn't the case, was it?) But here's where it -- to my understanding -- got screwed up with the Corpse. (Please keep in mind that a lot of these observations are from real, live people I talked to, reading a lot of you all here, and reading a lot of documents...I fully acknowledge that none of this is from first hand experience -- so feel free to correct where I have it wrong) - In religious orders, the members are all single. There are no family ties to bind them. In the Way Corps, many were married, many had families, and most ended up that way a few years after graduation. St. Paul, in 1 Cor 7, correctly pointed out that families would prevent folks from being able to fully follow in his footsteps. How many lives were screwed up simply as the result of the fact that a Way Corps person was married (with or without children)? What I mean by this is that a directive that, to a single person solely focused on serving God w/o concern for the things of this world, would be reasonable, would be totally irresponsible when given to a person with a spouse and children? - In religious orders, the members have all taken a vow of poverty. They have no personal property. Coupled with the fact that most Way Corps people ended up married (with or without kids), how much did property cause an internal conflict within the individual Way Corps person? House (mortgage or long-term lease), car(s), etc.? And if those things DIDN'T cause a conflict, was that individual (likely married) Way Corps person taking care of his/her family responsibilities properly? - In religious orders, the members take a vow of celibacy. (Yes, I know it doesn't always work out that way, but they do take that vow and most are faithful to that vow) Celibacy is, from all understanding, hardly a consideration for the Way Corps. From what I've gathered, the teaching was that sex was perfectly OK "if you were spirtual enough to handle it." From what I've read on gsc alone, there have been a number of female corps members who were apparently selected for the role because some "MOG" wished to use them sexually. I've read here about at least one suicide that resulted from that type of relationship. I've heard of one who was pressured into having an abortion. And so on and so forth. Sex was often used as an enticement. Sometimes used as a weapon. What kind of complications happened as a result of not having celibacy as a requirement? (Again, I encourage you to read 1 Cor 7:33-35 before passing judgement on me) -- at least for a defined period of service. So, like I said, it appeared that VP was taking a model that almost eerily resembled certain religious orders...a perfectly good model that has Biblical foundations...and twisted and perverted it with the result being a lot of folks whose lives ended up hurt through the process. And, as with all my posts, it is IMHO and is FWIW. Of course, YMMV.

Oaks, It worked.

I know this was up on Drudge, but we always have SUCH fun with these Pat Robertson threads, I felt it necessary to post this: Television evangelist Pat Robertson said Monday on his live news-and- talk program "The 700 Club" that Islam is not a religion of peace, and that radical Muslims are "satanic." Robertson's comments came after he watched a news story on his Christian Broadcasting Network about Muslim protests in Europe over the cartoon drawings of the Prophet Muhammad. He remarked that the outpouring of rage elicited by cartoons "just shows the kind of people we're dealing with. These people are crazed fanatics, and I want to say it now: I believe it's motivated by demonic power. It is satanic and it's time we recognize what we're dealing with." Robertson also said that "the goal of Islam, ladies and gentlemen, whether you like it or not, is world domination." (remainder snipped) Source: AP Comment: I'm no friend of Islam, but sometimes I think he is just a little too blunt, wouldn't you say? OK, have at it!

Since you like everything so much, why don't you keep going back, CK? Sounds like you found the place you want to be...

Whether or not they misrepresented the commitment for the Way Corps, I wouldn't know. I never sat through the Corpse training. One thing I do know, though, is that all Christians are called to a lifetime of service consistent with their stations in life. Note the caveat, consistent with their stations in life. Also, please note I said service, not unpaid employment or slavery. So the tag line, a lifetime of service, to me sounds entirely reasonable. But from what you tell me, the reality had only a marginal resemblence to to the tag line.

AmazinGrace, I said my piece in post #5 on this thread (click the link to go to the post). Although I said it to SunnyFla, I think it has some info that may be applicable to you, as well.