WordWolf

Oldiesman, pg-1, 5/19/04, 10:45am. Cute. The original context of that statement was legal, to someone who is NOT a member of the organization, in regards to specific legal issues pertaining to the laws of the US. If it was not a question of legal authority pertaining to the laws of the land, the original exchange would have gone something like this: Organization: we claim title to all uses of this word! Surrender it! Person: Up yours! It's in the dictionary. Organization: We cite our authority over you! Person: I am not a part of your group, and I am not on your property. You have no legal authority, and I deny you have any other kind, since I'm not a member! Organization: You must do what we say! Person: Bite me! Organization: Everyone! This is a wicked, wicked man! Person: Call me whatever names you want, I'll do the same. Organization: *fumes and leaves* That was what WOULD have happened if this was NOT a legal issue. That having been said, that statement, delivered as-is, is now fair game for discussion in the context of the CURRENT thread and topic. [The above was edited to adjust for an edit of the original post.] That leaves the question of the poll. The question was: "How much authority can twi-or ANY religious organization-be said to wield over its followers?" Therefore, on-topic discussions can properly include: twi any religious organization psychological issues sociological issues Bible issues religious issues self-help/recovery issues political issues (if chosen very specifically to be germane) consequences of refusal conformity issues rebellion issues societal issues as a whole Any other post would be legal, but completely off-topic for this specific thread. "How much authority can twi-or ANY religious organization-be said to wield over its followers?"

This question is NOT directed at people who were never part of their organization, nor is it directly aimed at those no longer in it. (If you assault a member, you commit a crime. If you trespass on private property, you can be thrown off grounds. These are legal issues pertaining to the laws of the US, the state of Ohio, etc.) This is addressing people while they are in the organization. (Either now, or once when they were in.) How much authority can twi-or ANY religious organization-be said to wield over its followers? [Edited to boldface the question.]

Those leaders claiming to fairly represent their constituencies in secular legislatures and meetings should not abuse their offices by using them as tools to procure sexual favours and commit adultery. Even the US Congress admits that, and some people consider it an offense worthy of removing someone from political office over. Those people claiming to lead in God's name and in God's authority ought to behave in a manner consistent with the ordinances of God, and especially be an EXAMPLE of such principles in action. They should especially honour their bonds of marriage, and seek not to offend God by violating his precepts by committing fornication out of wedlock. They should seek Godly ways of avoiding temptation, and not seek ways to please their flesh ("conspiracy to sin".) Finding themselves in positions of direct temptation, they should exit that situation swiftly and seek to avoid it henceforth, not behave opportunistically, as if they found a dollar on the street. So-called Men of God ought not to do such things. Christians all over the world have NO difficulty understanding this, and seeing it easily from Scripture. No compelling Biblical argument has been presented as to why adherents to vpw, twi or pfal should seek to exempt themselves from Biblical exhortation and doctrine. No significant argument has been presented claiming to be Biblical that defends such behaviour. It seems that only places like twi and David Koresh's Branch Davidian group outside Waco have claimed that their groups are Christian and their leaders are entitled to have sex with their followers, even disregarding marriage vows. (Koresh claimed he was now married to all the females in his group....so all the women in his group belonged to him. He also claimed he was the messiah, the King of Kings.) I'm not saying that all the other groups are NECESSARILY right, nor that twi's doctrines are NECESSARILY wrong or in harmony with the Branch Davidians on all points. Being in the majority is not a guarantee of correctness. However, when one IS in the minority, it behooves one to be clear that one actually has a good reason to dissent, that the majority doesn't see something that one does not. In this case, it is specifically one thing. So-called Men of God ought not to do such things, nor seek to excuse such things. It has been agreed that some other people have sinned in the commission of certain acts. The people who committed them, in some cases, have PREFACED their comments by saying they sinned in their own actions. That is an issue that was already agreed-upon, LOUDLY. Why it is still coming up over and over as a topic for discussion, therefore, CANNOT be because it is in contention. It must be another reason-was the previous discussion forgotten so quickly? Was it deliberately ignored? Do the same statements brought back distract from an uncomfortable or ugly truth? The two points that are still under contention is how much consent and responsibility is in the hands of the victims, and how much responsibility is in the hands of the perpetrators. For example, drugging someone and having sex with them while they're out is a crime in the eyes of the law, and will send you to jail. It is considered that the person drugged and unconscious was not able to consent, and that the drug was given to circumvent refusal, i.e., you knew they'd say no, so you took away their chance to ask. In that respect, it resembles forced rape in that the person's ability to consent is removed physically. If a woman takes a shortcut crosstown thru Central Park at night, dressed up for a night out, and a rapist leaps out and rapes her in Central Park, the court will NOT accept "well, she knew the risks of walking in the park at night" as sufficient reason to exonerate the rapist. If the defendant says "well, she was asking for it", he's pretty much guaranteed his case is lost. Those surviving rape and molestation need to understand what led up to it and what happened, and why someone chose to victimize them. (It's often nothing to do with lust for sex, but a lot to do with abuse of power.) They don't need to hear "it's your fault for not running out of the room" very often, at least, nothing I've ever read indicates this is a legitimate therapy tool.

It's a brilliant statement, isn't it? Obviously from a very logical, thoughtful and honest mind. It pretty much sums up what I feel. Sorry if you don't agree._TWI has no power over you except that which your actions allow. -Zixar_ Ok, perhaps I should NOT expect better of you than that. The example I gave WAS straight out of pfal, and I know we both thought that specific instance had merit. (I've seen that verse used to justify missionary work, also.) The lesson was that statements must be understood in their CONTEXT, and, isolated from them, may be completely misrepresentative of the original speaker or even common knowledge. You're deliberately ripping it out entirely from its context to make it appear as if Zixar was saying the same thing you are saying, and endorses your opinion. That's entirely NOT what he did. In case you're wondering, Shaz endorsed my use of her quote... did Zixar endorse your use of his?

Let me clarify that. The context of my sentence was that they REWROTE the origin of Venom for the cartoon, and THAT's the origin I cited and you confirmed (the cartoon origin). The comic(616, Marvel continuity) origin of Venom goes as follows: Spiderman was one of the heroes kidnapped by the Beyonder for the Secret Wars. Spiderman lost the use of his webshooters when Reed Richards needed all the electronics to assemble an device that allowed them to channel more power thru Iron Man's armor so he could blast a tunnel clear of the mountain range the Molecule Man dropped on them. Spidey's costume later took a lot of damage in the fighting. When they were inside one of the bases later, Reed had used one of the alien devices to make new costumes for people. Spidey went in later and tried to figure out which device did it. He ended up with the black costume, which imitated the Spider-Woman they met there (from the kidnapped suburb of Denver). He later discovered the costume had built-in webshooters, and that it would follow his commands-opening a pocket, swiching to short sleeves, appear as normal clothing. He discovered even later that it wasn't a costume, but a symbiotic lifeform that was living off his life-energy. It proved vulnerable to sonic attacks, and Reed Richards got it off Spiderman with a sonic blaster. When it escaped containment, it went after Spiderman again. He got free of it by risking permanent damage to his hearing and jumping inside a church belfry while the bells rang (he'd never make it to Reed in time.) It crawled off, dying, and would have died there, but Eddie Brock was downstairs, praying for absolution or something, and it merged with him. That's the Venom in the comic books. (Don't ask me about Carnage-that was just a stupid idea.) Then again, most of the kids who think they know the X-Men only know them from the cartoon and movies, not the comics, even the hatchet job that hack Austen did on them. So, it's almost a foregone conclusion that the kids will ALL say the cartoon origin is the "correct" one.

Oldies, Please stop isolating Zixar's quote out of its context. The context was the affects of the organization itself on someone who currently rejects their claims of authority, as regards to their actions in a court of law. Isolating it OUT of that context is as honest as using the "I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance" verse as a missionary verse while ignoring the next verse says "you shall break them with a rod of iron...". You know better than that, and I'd expect better of you than that.

The cartoons rewrote the Venom origin, so I see no reason for the movies not to. I think John Jameson or some other astronaut was connected with its arrival from space. Hey- the X-Men cartoon rewrote the M'kraan crystal saga, which makes sense. That thing can injure small children trying to understand it.

Mike, On an auto-parts message board, would you accuse the posters of being obsessed with their cars and thinking of nothing else, if that's all they posted about? No, that's what the board is FOR. That's them using the board for its intended purpose. If there were many claims that users found the carburetor of the 1952 Ford Snowhopper to be inferior and problematic, would you accuse them of focusing on negatives? (Maybe I shouldn't ask...)

Sounds to me like another case where there were more blessings on the field than at headquarters. Then again, NY in general periodically made rude gestures in the direction of conformity. Not that we weren't tricked plenty of times, just that you had to be subtle-overt pressure to conform gets a knee-jerk reaction in the Big Apple and points nearby. (I can't speak for what went on upstate, but the Spanish fellowships were NYC all the way.)

So, the biology of wolves tells them something people should have already learned.... Leaders ought not to abuse their office.

Semi-derail.... I object to protraying adulterers and abusers of their offices as "wolves". Wolves are organized in one of two ways: loners and packs. Loners are solitary and have no social structure since it's just them. Packs are run by an alpha pair who has authority over the pack. When mating season comes, the alpha pair are the only wolves that breed. The biology of wolves ensures the "lesser" females usually do not go into heat, and those who do are sent on an enforced vacation until season is over. (They can then rejoin, or stay away, or form a new pack or whatever.) The males don't mate out of season, and other than the current alpha, none of them do IN season. So, in plain English, wolves are monogamous, and do NOT have sex with subordinate wolves by virtue of their office. Some corrupt leaders, on the other hand......

Mike, 5/17/04, pg-2. I added asterisks for the various products we're being peddled.

Yes, and some fiction writers make it a point to be as accurate on weapon use as possible, as well.

Good point about the likeness. It's Dr. Otto OCTAVIUS, though. Just so you know. Personally, I think he's one of many characters whose time has passed for most stories, but that's one guy's opinion. It's not like I'm following Spiderman or anything...

_It does not make one whit of difference if the women were willing or unwilling, abused or prostitutes. The point is it was FLAT OUT WRONG for so-called "Men of God" to do these things....

Rascal, you're looking for the last post on page 3, and the entirety of page 6 of this thread. Page 6 is where he tries to minimize culpability to a degree by misdirection and adding "Amazing familiarity" to an account in the gospels. That's also where he attacked Raf for calling him on that last point. (Nothing like a good personal attack to distract from the main body of a discussion.) Mind you, I don't know if, strictly speaking, he can be said to have "defended" the evildoers who abused their offices. I think he served that purpose by distracting from the main discussion, which may FUNCTIONALLY serve the same purpose while FACTUALLY doing something else.

If she doesn't, she lacks internet access. Everybody comes here.....

I suspect one of the reasons Bullinger's Greek Lexicon might be out of print is there are so many computer programs and websites that provide the same service....

It's usually a surprise to outies to find out just how good the quality of a lot of the commercially-available Christian stuff is. I already had some idea, since my original thinking was to supplement twi stuff with the best I could find OUTSIDE twi, and thus benefit from both. However, I underestimated how good the best stuff is. For example: want a concordance? A Bible Atlas? Interlinear? Lexicon? Manners and Customs of the Bible? Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies? All of those are easily purchased thru any Christian bookstore, or any good secular bookstore. They'll order it for you if it's not in stock. Bullinger's books, too-the Companion Bible, How to Enjoy the Bible, Number in Scripture, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, the Wonderful Cloud of Witnesses, and others are all in the same places-and some are viewable ONLINE, no order needed. Saw Lamsa's Bible on sale at Barnes & Noble. Kenyon's books in a Christian bookstore. I've also found books as good and better than similar efforts would have been on different subjects of interest-no relying on the skills and weaknesses of ONE team of writers or photocopiers. How about Stiles and Leonard? Where do we find their books, folks?

In terms of COMMITTING sin, that hardly forms a barrier between him and sin. The first Adam lacked this "sin nature", was theoretically-and practically- capable of sin, but it was not in his "nature" to sin. However, when tempted, he DID sin. So, freewill allows the POSSIBILITY of sinning. Angels fell for sinning as well, you know... The first Adam had a choice, sinned, and failed. The second Adam had a choice, obeyed, and succeeded.

Yeah-reality sure hit like a brick wall THERE, didn't it?

Glad2B -- last time I was on their site, they had _NOTHING_ to offer for sale. This, of course, is a change from the old days. Back then, there was little to really offer people, but there WAS plenty for sale. I don't know why they're so adamant on closing themselves off from this potentially-lucrative market when the money's been such a motivator in the past. Maybe they're just going thru the motions at this point....or maybe their biggest fear is of their goods being compared to those of other Christians right now, and looking like yesterday's news.

Imbus, pg-10, 5/14/04, 11:29pm. Well, the quick way is to quote the original post like you did, leave the html tags in (the things at the beginning and end that say 'quote'), and erase-carefully- whatever you're not referring to. I like to cite the person's name and the date/time of the post before the first html tag, just so people can go back and review the original themselves. I like Tom's idea of reviewing someone's posts yourself and making up your own mind.

Welcome to the cafe. I'd give you a few tips, but it seems you can find your bearings pretty well without me. :)-->