markomalley

Who's interpretation of what the word says? Yours? the Viksters? Jerry Falwell's? Benny Hinn's? And don't EVEN try saying "no private interpretation!" There are more than 8,000 sects who all say they believe in "no private interpretation" and all say they subscribe to "sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia" -- that's pretty far away from "one body..."

Blog: abbreviated use of Web log (an online journal or diary)

Thanks for bringing this back up mstar, Here's an article on it: Girl in vegetative state reported to improve DSS says it has no plan to remove feeding tube By Patricia Wen, Globe Staff | January 19, 2006 A day after the state's highest court ruled that the Department of Social Services could withdraw life support from a brain-damaged girl, the agency said yesterday that Haleigh Poutre might be emerging from her vegetative state. DSS also said it has no immediate plans to remove her feeding tube. ''There has been a change in her condition," said a DSS spokeswoman, Denise Monteiro. ''The vegetative state may not be a total vegetative state." Monteiro said Haleigh is breathing on her own, without the ventilator she has depended on for four months. Monteiro also said that doctors at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield elicited responses from Haleigh during tests performed yesterday. They will begin more medical tests today to determine her neurological activity. Further tests, Monteiro said, could show whether Haleigh is going to be ''a miracle child." Monteiro said that doctors did not tell DSS, which has custody of Haleigh, that her condition had changed until yesterday afternoon. She also said the agency's decision to seek court approval to remove life support was based on the ''best diagnosis that we thought we had at the time." Monteiro declined to give further details about the condition of Haleigh, an 11-year-old Westfield girl who had been on breathing and feeding tubes since she suffered a beating last September, allegedly by her adoptive mother and stepfather. Last fall, doctors described Haleigh as being in a persistent vegetative state and ''virtually brain dead," district court records said. Physicians said her brain stem was severely injured, leaving her unable to think or feel and in an ''irreversible coma," according to an opinion Tuesday by the Supreme Judicial Court. Many neurologists say it is rare for a patient with severe brain-stem injuries to fully recover from a persistent vegetative state that lasts for more than a month. Sometimes, patients can partially recover, such as showing increasing responsiveness to touch by frowning or moving their hand, said Dr. Steve Williams, chief of rehabilitation medicine at Boston Medical Center. But rarely do these patients fully recover so they can communicate, feed themselves, and live ordinary lives, he said. He added, however, that the recoveries, when they happen, are more likely with children than adults. ''There's more plasticity to their brain," he said. ''There's potentially other areas of the brain that can take over." Allison Avrett, Haleigh's biological mother, said yesterday that she saw improvements in a hospital visit last week, but was convinced by doctors and DSS workers that hand movements that she had seen were involuntary. When Avrett visited Haleigh yesterday morning, Avrett said she again observed movement that caused her to reconsider her previous view that Haleigh was better off if allowed to die. Avrett said she cannot give any more details about Haleigh, because the DSS has told her not to discuss the case. John Gamelli, a family friend from Westfield, said he was told by Avrett yesterday that Haleigh was able to respond to commands, such as releasing an object from her hand when she was asked. Gamelli said he is holding back from celebrating this as a sign that Haleigh will fully recover. But he expressed frustration that DSS, which acknowledges missing signs over the past few years that Haleigh was being abused, had now possibly made the wrong call about the removal of life-support systems. ''Right now, things just don't make sense," he said. In the Western Massachusetts town where Haleigh was raised, some had compared her case to that of Terri Schiavo, a Florida woman who was on life support for 15 years before a court ordered her feeding tube removed last spring. She died 13 days later at the age of 41. Schiavo was deemed by doctors to be in a persistent vegetative state, breathing on her own with her eyes open, but unconscious. Her parents, who sought to keep her alive, had insisted she sometimes responded to stimulation. Her husband said she would have wanted her feeding tube removed. Before yesterday's disclosures, Haleigh was thought to have more serious brain damage than Schiavo, in part because she was not breathing on her own. Haleigh was brought unconscious to Noble Hospital in Westfield last Sept. 11. Afterward, doctors diagnosed traumatic brain injuries and many bruises in various stages of healing. In the past few years, the DSS had received more than a dozen complaints from people whom the agency has declined to name, saying Haleigh was being neglected or abused, but social workers said many of the injuries were self-inflicted or childhood mishaps. On Sept. 20, Holli and Jason Strickland, the girl's adoptive mother and stepfather, were arrested on child abuse charges. The adoptive mother was released two days later, and within hours, was found dead with her grandmother. Police continue to investigate the deaths, but say it seems to be a murder-suicide. In October, DSS officials, saying that Haleigh's medical condition was hopeless, won a juvenile court order to have her ventilator and feeding tube removed. Jason Strickland, who could face murder charges if Haleigh dies, filed a motion to keep her on life support. On Tuesday, the Supreme Judicial Court rejected Strickland's claim to be a ''de facto" parent, saying it was ''unthinkable" to give a say to someone who allegedly helped put Haleigh in a coma. The justices also gave DSS authority to remove Haleigh's breathing and feeding tubes. Jack Egan, a Springfield lawyer for the girl's stepfather, said yesterday's medical news confirms their view that DSS was too hasty in determining that Haleigh's condition was irreversible. He noted that DSS asked the courts to withdraw life support after Haleigh had been in the hospital for less than a month. source: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachus...ted_to_improve/

By the way, this has been studied. According to a 2001 survey of current students, 9.6% report having been the victim of teacher sexual misconduct. Apparently, a slightly higher number of alleged student victims were female (56%) than male (44%), with a corresponding percentage of alleged perpetrators being male (57%) versus female (43%). Approximately 28% of the incidents reported were same-sex, with 15% being reported as male-male and 13% being reported as female-female. Documentation of a number of studies can be found here: http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/m...view/report.pdf So I guess the bottom line is that we should stop talking about it and re-evaluate our own primative social mores -- the incidence of it is so common, it must be natural!

WFTV.com Former Teacher On House Arrest For Sex With Student POSTED: 6:37 am EST January 20, 2006 INVERNESS, Fla. -- A former Citrus County high school teacher accused of having a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old female student has been sentenced to two years of house arrest. Amy Gail Lilley, 36, pleaded no contest Thursday to a charge of lewd and lascivious battery of a child under 16. She also has been sentenced to eight years of probabtion. Circuit Judge Ric Howard agreed to what he called a significantly reduced sentenced based on statements from Assistant State Attorney Rich Buxman and Lilley's attorney, Michael Blackstone. "The natural parents disagreed over what should be done," Buxman said. "Both the ... father and victim didn't want charges filed. The mother wanted prison." The judge denied a request from the girl to talk to Lilley and ordered the two not to have contact. The girl's father said he believes his daughter "is not a victim. (I believe) two people fell in love." The affair occurred last fall at Lilley's home and in Orlando, investigators said. Lilley's personnel file shows she graduated from Lecanto High in 1987 and went to work there as a business education teacher in 1993. She also coached girls softball at the school. As a condition of her probation, she has to permanently give up her teaching certificate and undergo counseling as a sexual offender. Please note the bolded text carefully...

Who said it sounded like a rock star's demands? Well, here are a few of them: Bon Jovi Snoop Dogg (the stuff starts on page 2) Janet Jackson Yup, sounds really familiar!

I agree with you fully. (Well, daughter instead of son, but, you know) But the way that TWI would have put it is that this love was an inferior form of love and could only be phileo love (unless those people were properly indoctrinated by TWI so that they could manifest the love of god in the renewed mind in manifestation -- where's that barf smiley????) Something wrong with that picture Something else wrong...I had more lexicons than Bullinger when I was in TWI... yet I deferred to Bullinger's definition and disregarded all of the others...

Unfortunately, no I don't. Although the poll results would tend to nullify the allegation that I cited, because I cannont correlate the responses to the religious preference of the respondents, it's hard to determine if the larger number of "Christians" responded "go easy" vice "hang the b@st@rd." I was hoping to have had more verbal responses in order to be able to do that. But maybe some folks would weigh in on why they voted the way they did...

What you say is factual. I would submit, though, that his attorney is simply posturing in order to get him a better plea deal. Of course, that is just my jaded opinion. Despite that, the poll question was: select which sentence you would pass on this person (if he pleads guilty in court). The if puts it in the realm of the hypothetical. After all, it doesn't say: "the b@st@rd's guilty. Pass sentence on him." White Dove, the reason I even started this thread was based on a statement another poster made on the "forgiveness" thread currently floating around in the "Doctrinal" forum: I seriously doubt that those who post platitudes about forgiveness would be willing to proactively forgive all criminals and immediately free them. I doubt that many would suggest that paroled rapists or molesters be forgiven to the extent that they should be removed from sex offender lists. I was curious in a real world case how some people would act in a situation where: genuine repentence on the part of the alleged offender was demonstrated (clearly not a case of "jailhouse" repentence...he would not be in his current situation had he not contacted the victim) recidivism has neither been proven nor alleged (22 years since the only alleged incident...not what one would call a 'repeat offender') In other words, of all the criminal cases I've heard of in recent memory, this guy would be worthy of some Christian forgiveness. I was curious to see the reactions of some Christians and non-Christians to the case. To see if the abstract 'forgiveness' concept would be translated into something concrete here, or if they'd lean more toward 'throwing the book at him.' Just to see if there is any hypocricy involved here or not. Obviously, we don't have all the facts: just the details that some media outlets have chosen to provide. So we can't make a realistic judgement, but there've been enough folks who have weighed in to provide some sense of our attitudes toward a real-world example of repentence and accountability. This will be an interesting case to follow, though...to see how the situation actually resolves in time.

OK (reeling from the slapping around I've just gotten) I defer to your far superior expertise and withdraw all my ignorant comments. The film is obviously a superior film and is not targeted to the unwashed masses, like me, who are simply not sophisticated enough to recognize it's true quality. I never claimed to be an art critic: I just know what I like and what I don't like. Mea culpa. Mea culpa. Mea maxima friggin culpa

Wasn't trying to make your point, but was pointing out that I already mentioned the point you stated. Didn't say you were. Not sure of Reikilady's belief systems, but hadn't you stated that your beliefs were closer to neo-Paganism? Not that it matters, but that's at least what I remember.

I always thought the song "Won't Get Fooled Again" was particularly appropriate for GSC. ("Meet the new boss...same as the old boss...")

(I despise the quote function on this board) I refer you to my category #1 of anti-theist: 1) The first type is the equal-opportunity basher. They truly believe that any sort of religion or belief in a deity is dangerous and, for the survival of humanity, they must do their parts in destroying all reference to religion. For the most part, these folks are equal-opportunity bashers. It matters not whether the bashee is a Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jew, or Pagan, they'll bash whenever the opportunity arises. (Bolding added) BTW, Please pass my regards onto Reikilady...haven't seen her post for a while. Please let her know that at least this one theist had high regard for her consistent kindness shown on this board.

I fully concur with the non-thinking bigotry. I don't think that is exclusive to what is normally called a cult, but extends to all segments of society when one lets another do his thinking for him (includes a lot of politics as well IMNSHO) Nice to see you around again...you were missed...

Raf, It's been a long time since I've wasted $50 on going to a movie, I don't care how good. So I am no judge on the quality of the movie. I am simply talking about commercial success. What I see is a movie that is being propped up and pushed by the critics and by the media. It won the Golden Globes best drama -- not an award usually garnered by a small, limited release flick. The previous two years: the Aviator, Lord of the Rings, both of which grossed well over $100M. I'll admit that sometimes the Golden Globes don't go to commercial successes, but at least in my memory, I can't think of the last time that the Best Drama award went to a low budget, limited release flick like this one. And to get four of them? I don't buy it (literally) As to it's numbers and theaters going up: look at the press the movie has been getting. They couldn't pay for the advertising that they are getting for free as the result of its news coverage. That's been going on since the film opened. Again, I said so in my first post on this thread and will repeat it again: I haven't seen the flick. I am not judging the flick for it's artistic merit one way or the other. The genre of the flick is not one that I appreciate...so I have no interest in seeing it (and won't comment on its tastefulness one way or another) I just find it funny that a relatively limited release flick (very limited in its original weeks, as you point out), is being placed up there on a pedastal. I think there is some very sly marketing going on here...

It's rated R, Kong is PG-13. So your point is taken. Well, then a valid comparison would be to Hostel. Now, Hostel has only been open since Jan 6th, yet it's already grossed $37M. And, again, without all the free publicity. How about the 40 year old virgin? Also rated R. By 1-1/2 months, it had grossed $96M. Again, no free publicity. Your point is taken with Kong, but there are plenty of other "valid" comparisons.

Just for curiosity's sake, In your opinion, if a person was in a cult: - does that mean that he should permanently recuse himself from expressing disapproval of another person's choices? - does that mean that he should permanently recuse himself from expressing a potentially controversial opinion? - does that mean that he should permanently recuse himself from expressing an opinion at all? If not, for how long must one, in your opinion, recuse himself before his opinion is valid? (Oh, btw, my opinion about this movie is that it is a 'chick flick.' I don't do 'chick flicks,' whether homosexual or heterosexual in orientation...so any opinion will be strictly second hand) So how successful is it (a good, valid measure)? Well, it has been showing since 12/9/2005. According to Box Office Mojo, (http://www.boxofficemojo.com) it has grossed $32.8 million. It is showing in 683 theaters. That works out to an average of $43K per theater (gross). Another high-class movie, King Kong, which opened on 12/14, has grossed $204 million and is on 3,278 theaters...which is about $62,333 per theater. So what does that tell me? Brokeback Mountain may be a "better" movie, but, by any measure, it obviously isn't terribly popular with "the unwashed masses." (At least, a horrible movie like King Kong is blowing it away) Now, when I learned communications, I learned that it is the responsibility of the sender to get his message across. It's apparent that the "sender" of this communication has failed, despite the rave critical reviews and awards. I guess the people are just too stupid to recognize quality when they see it.

This shows the value of some of the old fashioned/ old world customs: in this case, not leaving a man and a woman alone unchaperoned. While you are absolutely correct, Abigail, that 'no' means 'no,' had they not been allowed to be in that position (alone in a college fraternity bedroom), then the incident wouldn't have happened in the first place. Any male who is intelligent enough to watch the TV news should know that he should respected an explicit 'no.' Frankly, since the late '70s, any male should respect the implicit 'no' had his prospective partner not given a definitive, unambiguous 'I wish to have sex with you now--This consent may or may not apply in a few minutes and so you must renew this consent arrangement periodically. Proceed at your own risk.' Of course, the simplest and best solution is not to get in that situation in the first place, as I said earlier.

Just for argument sake (I'm just posing a question, not trying to start an emotional fight here) In the above verse, define "us" -- is it a universal "us" (as in everybody, all of mankind)? Or is it a defined class (e.g., all Christians, all members of the Church of Rome (and no I DO NOT mean the Roman Catholic Church) -- to whom the letter that contains this verse was written? If you say 'us' is said in a 'universal' sense, please justify that assertion. (I ask because in a letter written by an individual to a group, the use of the first person plural would normally include the author and the addressees only). If you cannot define it simply through the lexical definitions of the words in the statement itself, then it must be a synthesis of multiple thoughts into a single thought. If you say it is referring to a defined class (as in "Christians" or "Romans"), then that is a condition. The statement is conditional upon being a member of that class. I mention this because Belle initially asked, " I can't for the life of me come up with a specific chapter & verse or other origin of the teaching." My response was "I believe that you will find that these terms are not explicitly defined or explicitly stated in the Bible, but are inferred through other statements. Syntheses of a bunch of other statements." As I recall, Bullinger defined agape in this way and VP picked it up and ran with it. But I don't see any of the others who do so. Strong's defines it as 'brotherly love, affection' as does Thayers, as the the BLB, as does the Lidell Scott Lexicon (they also use the word 'fond'). Now, for brevity sake, I won't re-type all the Thayer's entry or the Lidell Scott entry (there is no more detail), but the term 'love of God in renewed mind in manifestation' or 'unconditional love' or whatever is simply not present in any other reference other than Bullinger (and that is based on my memory). So I'm with Belle, here...I don't want to assume here at all... My point: if it's a synthesis, it's an interpretation. Probably a very accurate one, but it is not a definition. If it's a definition, so be it. I'm from Missouri on this: show me. To repeat, I'm not saying that the assertion is incorrect! But let's check into it to make sure we're not making an assumption where we should be making a deduction!!!!

Luk 18:18 And a ruler asked him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Luk 18:19 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. Luk 18:20 You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.'" Luk 18:21 And he said, "All these I have observed from my youth." Luk 18:22 And when Jesus heard it, he said to him, "One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." Luk 18:23 But when he heard this he became sad, for he was very rich. Luk 18:24 Jesus looking at him said, "How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God! Luk 18:25 For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Luk 16:13 No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." Luk 16:14 The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all this, and they scoffed at him. 1Jo 2:15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If any one loves the world, love for the Father is not in him. (All verses from the RSV) Of course, this interferes with the lifestyle of the holy (barf) and famous (they wish).

That is a fascinating question, Belle. I would submit that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to find that statement that explicitly says it or a statement that even infers it. There is a distinct difference in meaning among the following statements: - The Will of God is contained in the Word of God - The Word of God contains the Will of God (yes, the above two infer different things) - The Word of God has the Will of God - The Will of God can be found in the Word of God - The Word of God is the Will of God To illustrate the differences, you need to use some Venn diagrams (set theory): Each statement consists of two circles. One representing the Word of God. One representing the Will of God. - In the first statement, the "Will" circle is smaller than the "Word" circle and is completely encircled by it. (Mathematically stated: "Will" Í "Word") - In the second statement, the "Word" circle is smaller than the "Will" circle and is fully encircled by it. (Mathematically stated: "Word" Í "Will") - In the third and fourth statement, the two circles partially intersect. (Mathematically stated, "Word" Ç "Will") - In the fifth statement, the circles are exactly the same size and are completely coincident. (Mathematically stated, "Word" º "Will") And, yes, this is with respect to verses that state that the Word of God is the truth, that the Word of God abides, that it does not come back void, etc. But if somebody can prove me wrong, I'm all ears.

Note the verbiage in the poll question: if he pleads guilty.

This is a highly unusual rape case. Please read the story fully... A Charlottesville judge set bond at $30,000 Tuesday for a Nevada man charged with raping a fellow University of Virginia student nearly 22 years ago. William N. Beebe appeared in Charlottesville Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court for a bond hearing after flying from Las Vegas to turn himself in to Virginia authorities to face the rape charge. Beebe was taken to the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail until he can post bond and turn over his passport to police. "Mr. Beebe has been fully cooperative with authorities," his lawyer, Rhonda Quagliana, told Judge Edward DeJ. Berry. Prosecutors fought to have Beebe locked up, pointing out that he faces life in prison if convicted. In September, Beebe wrote a letter of apology to the woman he said he "harmed" as a student at UVa in 1984. That woman, Liz Seccuro, responded to his letter with an e-mail, sparking a correspondence that lasted for weeks. During that correspondence, Beebe appeared to acknowledge that he raped Seccuro, but Quagliana has since said that no rape occurred. Seccuro, a 39-year-old event coordinator living in Connecticut, has gone public with her account, saying Beebe, a stranger, grabbed her and raped her inside his room at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house. Beebe will be living with a friend in Richmond while he awaits trial. A preliminary hearing date has been scheduled for March 24. Link for this story: http://www.dailyprogress.com/servlet/Satel...&path=!news Other related stories: http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local...local-headlines http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satel...s=1045855934842 What I find unique about this story is the following: (In another story it stated) There was no rape kid done on the woman at the time. She did not pursue a criminal case when the incident happened. There is no indication anywhere that this incident, which happened in 1984, was repeated at any time since that one occasion. The defendant came forward, unsolicited, and apologized to the victim. The victim did not contact him; he was not under any sort of investigation whatsoever. In fact, it was his apology letter, forwarded by the victim to the Charlottesville VA police, that led to his arrest. If his lawyer is to believed (ahem), the defendant has fully cooperated with authorities. So what do you do under the circumstances? On one hand, it is a rape. Rape is clearly wrong and needs to be punished. On the other hand, the incident happened 20 years ago and the only reason it is being pursued is that the defendant felt sufficient remorse to formally apologize and ask forgiveness of the person he hurt (to my feeble mind, that sounds like just about as close to genuine remorse as one could find. Is mercy, under the circumstances, applicable?

Sudo, I have wondered about that as well. I would think that a typical non-theist would just consider references to any sort of deity as being silly and unworthy of comment. Of course there are the Pat Robertsons and Jimmy Swaggerts of the world who just beg to be harrassed, but those are a completely different case. However, from my experience, the vast majority of non-theists I've run into are more live-and-let-live unless directly engaged. I remember this colleague of mine who was an agnostic: the only way I knew this was that when ever somebody said, "Thank God...", he would chime in and say, "Yes, Thank Good." I view that type of attitude as being more typical. (He passed away last summer from cancer...and, although both he and his wife were agnostics, they had a very nice military funeral presided by a Protestant chaplain...something I considered to be a class move, even in death) I personally believe those who are driven to constantly vocalize their beliefs can be categorized in one of three ways: 1) The first type is the equal-opportunity basher. They truly believe that any sort of religion or belief in a deity is dangerous and, for the survival of humanity, they must do their parts in destroying all reference to religion. For the most part, these folks are equal-opportunity bashers. It matters not whether the bashee is a Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jew, or Pagan, they'll bash whenever the opportunity arises. 2) The second type rejects all expressions of God, but concentrates on one religion in particular. In this country, we normally see this expressed as anti-Christian thought. Despite their rejection of religion, in general, they will fully support the expression of non-target religions, leaving all their venom for the one God (or set of gods) they have selected for eradication. While the first group considers religion, in general, to be dangerous, the second considers the one religion to be far and above more dangerous than any other. From my experience, the majority (but not all) of people have some personal reason for holding these views (for example, a relative fell subject to a faith healer and, after wasting all of her money on "seed-love gifts", died anyway) and wish to destroy the veneration to the (non-existent) god who they blame for the problem. 3) The third type, in my opinion, actually believes in a deity, but does not wish to do so. Therefore, they seek to repeatedly convince themselves through this technique. (And the fourth type, which are non-theists as opposed to anti-theists, and have already been discussed) Of course, nobody can be pigeonholed into any one category (unless they are simply a caricature) and will display a combination of the above categories. You know the funniest thing to me? To hear a self-avowed atheist say "G*d dam*" or some other such epithet. But to me, anti-theists are the funniest people. Because unlike non-theists, they battle against something whose existence they deny. BTW, once again, for the record, I don't care if a person is a theist or not. Their business. I'd rather be more 'live and let live,' if I had my preference.

I believe that you will find that these terms are not explicitly defined or explicitly stated in the Bible, but are inferred through other statements. Syntheses of a bunch of other statements. For example, 1 Jo 4:8, 4:16 both say "God is love" And of course, there is Jo 3:16 "For God so Loved the World" And Eph 2:1-4 dead in trespasses and sins...God in his great mercy where he loved us... Jn 15:22 "love one another as I have loved you" and so on And I believe you'll find the same with the others you cite. Syntheses... being synthesized into "Unconditional love"