125 total posts
(Page 1 of 5)
Some interesting names added to the egregious ones.
[Harvey, Kevin, Charlie and others.]
James Levine, Garrison Keillor, Harvey's brother and so on. A webclick site had 47 "stories" at last count, including our first female. [Hooray for diversity!]
As to your OP, James Levine's case may involve
the ongoing rape of a 14-yr-old boy decades ago, which is a step beyond internet titillation. Like the possibilities in Harvey's case.
And, no solution until hearts and minds change. Which will not happen as long as the changing is proposed and monitored by man himself.
That's a bit different
Rape is breaking the law.
Sexual harassment is not breaking the law.......as far as I know.
I'll guess.....your saying the fix is for everyone to follow your god.
We'd need to have a good definition of
sexual harassment and we'd need to be cautious and not try to apply today's standards to yesterday's thinking or culture. What was tolerable yesterday is not necessarily what is tolerable today. All you need to do is look at comic acts that would no longer be pass muster due to their being insulting to some group of people...even people who laughed at the same jokes back when. As for harassment, I'd say that the definition needs to show persistence after having been shown rejection. I'd also want to look very closely at the permissive sexual culture that has grown since at least the '60s. That culture changed from the men being the only gender permitted to take the lead in asking for dates to every day being Sadie Hawkins Day.
The Bible, 'the book Catholics gave the world',
says sexual impropriety of any kind is against the law, for those who treat the Bible as law.
"Now the works of the flesh are plainly seen, and they are sexual immorality, uncleanness, brazen conduct, idolatry, spiritism, hostility, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, dissensions, divisions, sects, envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and things like these. I am forewarning you about these things, the same way I already warned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit God’s Kingdom." Gal 5:19 ff.
Hmmm. Doesn't mention rape. Unless "things like these" covers it. What do you think?
You do need to get in your little jab, don't you?
Don't you realize how that can negatively affect a person's desire to read the remainder of your message in a neutral light? Then, you ask a question at the end. What willingness should a person have to answer your question and not notice and respond the punch that was thrown first? I only offer this observation in a constructive manner.
Steven, you've seen that phrase from me before.
I first heard it from Catholics when I would read - to them - from said Bible - a scripture they didn't know which contradicted a Church teaching. 'Well, you know we Catholics gave you the Bible ...' The rest is implied, '... and you don't even have a turned-around collar!.'
A few of them know they're referring to the medieval Council of Trent; even fewer know anything about its deliberations, although I encourage them to learn about that from one of their own at newadvent.org. Which you have also seen from me.
Anyway, why the complaint? In the post to which I replied you said, "We'd need to have a good definition of sexual harassment..." I gave you one for that and many other related offenses [against Jehovah anyway], with the reminder that they were coming from a source approved by your people.* My hidden agenda, if any, would have been to contrast your post - the tradition of men - with mine - the word of God. Mr 7:8. Which you have also seen before.
And your phrase "throwing a punch" says more about you than about me.
*Of course, I quoted from the NWT, in case James was eavesdropping, because it makes me happy to rile him. Your next step of course is to quote the same passage from the Douai or NJB so all can see the egregious liberties we've taken with Sacred Scripture.
And, you know we must have.
My comment was just to recognize that
what one hears from persons who claim to be Catholic doesn't make that an official teaching. I've never heard that statement, or anything close, made by a priest in front of his congregation. The "behind the scenes" history is discussed in our teachings but I've never heard the haughty statement you wrote except from a few laity during casual conversation in regards to origin of the assembled scriptures. FWIW, I've been taught that the best teaching we "regular" Catholics can offer is by our own example. Such is why I avoid aggressive types of debate. People don't want to hear "You're Wrong!" This tends to make them more defensive of their own beliefs than willing to listen to another person's. I'll also avoid flinging scripture back and forth. That goes nowhere as too much of the value of scripture is lost without reading or hearing it in proper context. My two cents...FWIW.
I can remember at least three times I've
heard 'We catholics gave you ...', and yes, it is fatuous. Three times at the door, and several more online. And, for the reason I stated.
You could have heard it from a priest, because it is Catholic teaching, in CCC. But, priests don't spend much time discussing the Bible. I know this from talking with their disciples.
"FWIW, I've been taught that the best teaching we "regular" Catholics can offer is by our own example." That is correct. You have been taught that. Jesus, your God, taught otherwise at Mt 7:21 ff. Scripture vs. Church teaching. And I dont
Second time stupid phone. Anyway, I've said enough
The rest of your reply is on equally flimsy ground. In the meantime, here's some recommended reading.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm on the Council of Trent.
I guess I don't understand your motive
It could appear that, when not gaining ground in the attempt to win someone over to your perspective, you look to find some kind of fault with them. As for hearing that 'We catholics gave you ...', I can understand why that could happen. Consider that, at some point in a discussion that only one party has any interest in having, one will seek a way to end it...the nuclear option? IMO, to show who gave "The Bible" in a physical sense is an unnecessary thing to argue. We may has well fight over who gave us pizza.
I know it may sound gratuitous but I respect those who actively seek to spread their faith. In my own church, I've heard priests say likewise. I've also heard (and strongly believe) that each of us has our own mission in that respect as we've all been differently gifted. Spreading one's faith can be done in many ways...both actively and passively. As magnets do, some people have a side that attracts and another that may repel.
OK, Steven, back to you.
My post with the notorious single-quote made no attempt to 'prove you wrong'. I was answering your cogent comment about the need for useful definitions of sexual misconduct. I gave you an answer from 'the book etc. etc.'
In a reply, that never acknowledged the quote or its possible utility to the OP, you yourself stated that 'the book etc. etc.' was "fatuous". I agreed then and now.
THEREFORE, shouldn't any further grousing about it be directed to your co-religionists?
>IMO, to show who gave "The Bible" in a physical sense is an unnecessary thing to argue."
Again, a better knowledge of your Church's own history would show you that this is naïve at best. Read the history leading up to Trent. [It's Reformation-driven, did you know that?] And, the physical sense was addressed by Paul, at Rom 3:1,2.
Again, a better knowledge of your CCC would show you that it is, in fact, not 'argued' any more. For you, it's dogma.
It's true there are many ways of spreading one's religion. We began house to house; still do. Lu 5:42; Acts 20:20
We also use books*, recordings, the internet, whatever reaches people. Mt 24:14 And, this is all the result of taking seriously what churches have long called and recognized as "the Great Commission" of Mt 28:19,20. Would it be wrong interpretation to call it a commandment?
One method we have never used is that of Urban II or Innocent III.
*It has been said that the codex, a book-like device that replaced manuscript rolls even before Gutenberg, was invented by Christians to aid their work. Perhaps. They were certainly early adopters.
I'll repeat. I don't understand your motive
or objective. All I'm saying in my comments is that, if you are wanting to win people to your side in a debate/conversation as to which of the long list of church options is best, I feel that the methods you've often shown here will prove to be counter-productive. I'm going to give you a bizarre and completely made up scenario to explain. Here goes...
Let's say a man covets his neighbor's wife and wants her leave her husband and win her for himself. Lets also say that the woman loves her husband dearly and will defend him against those who would claim he's faulty. Do you think this covetous neighbor guy would be wise to brag about his own righteousness and poor mouth the husband's character at every opportunity? Do you think he could win her over using this MO? I don't...and neither would I understand what his game plan could have been.
My own righteousness?
I cite the Bible. That's my assignment. From Jesus, from the Bible.
You are invited [again] to do the same.
What do we commonly call an issue that's vitally important? "A matter of life and death." The Bible deals with matters of life and death. It isn't a contest to 'choose from a list'. Its a matter of learning all we can about (1) Jehovah and (2) the one he sent, Jesus. John 17:3.
Do you have anything to share with us about either of them? We would like to hear it. It's a matter of life and death.
You just stated the truth on doctrine of Jehovah Witness
"It could appear that, when not gaining ground in the attempt to win someone over to your perspective, you look to find some kind of fault with them."
Personal attacks when their doctrines of error are rejected.
Personal attacks? Moi?
You sadden me, little Jimmy.
What was tolerated years ago may not be tolerated today.
Back to my OP, should we go backwards in time to punish people who have broken today's standards?
People are losing their jobs and careers for doing something years ago that is not allowed today.
As best I can answer
You wanted to discuss punishment for crimes or acts of impropriety that came to light later rather than sooner. Excellent question. The answer must include the knowledge of someone that such an act was committed and when it was reported. It would be best if this could be discussed using examples. Obviously, broken laws that include violence against a person should be reported immediately and, if not done as such, will need an explanation as to why if reported later. Excuses about. Fear of losing one's job is often cited in cases that involve employer/employee issues. I would need to listen to each case rather than apply some blanket policy. The ones that would be really difficult would be those that appear to have a revenge motive rather than one of making things right. Those that involve a person seeking monetary compensation cannot be lumped into the same category as the rest. How often does it appear that one person's receiving a monetary award triggers a flurry of additional lawsuits. "Hey...she got money....I want money too." These situations make a solution more complex. As for changing standards, I'd probably opt for treating this the same way we treat laws. We can't punish a person for not stopping at an intersection yesterday when the stop sign was placed there today.
Chew on this awhile.
Jehovah's Witnesses add "Jehovah" into the New Testament!
The New World Translation adds "Jehovah" into the New Testament 237 times, where there is absolutely no ancient manuscript evidence of any kind to support it.
Even the Watchtower admits this to be true! "no ancient Greek manuscript that we possess today of the books from Matthew to Revelation contains God's name in full." (The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever, Watchtower booklet)
While the Hebrew Old Testament does contain YHWH many times, the Greek New Testament, NEVER uses the name of God YHWH. In words JW's would understand: "Jehovah is never found in the New Testament, but was added by the Watchtower society to support their false doctrine."
When you point this most significant fact out to Jehovah's Witnesses, they first think you are a liar. Then second, they thoughtfully twitch in stunned wonder as to how this could possibly be true. Then third, they run off to "the higher ranking" to learn that what Christians first told them is in fact true! Finally they are told the most bizarre lies by "the higher ranking".
After JW's have recovered from the initial shock that the Greek New Testament NEVER uses the word "Jehovah" (YHWH), the answer is even more shocking and disturbing, than the original news!
Chew on this
What does your post have to do with my post?
Get off the pulpit, put your religious beliefs aside, stop using the forums to answer things with what might be man made fiction.
Oh, you must also mean the "secular" pulpit too
You getting dizzy up there proclaiming it? Has nothing to do with your post, missed the line up, should be under dpruner's post.
Yes I am getting dizzy.
When someone post an answer as fact that makes no sense until you figure out it's not fact it's a religious belief.
Then you have to figure out which religion this person follows before you can translate the answer.
Please go easy on him, Bob.
He's laboring under delusions that have been fed to him.
Also, he's responding to me, as I knew he would when I riled him. Just like Pavlov's dog.
Anyway, we've heard worse, from men with real power. Hitler, Stalin ...
I did not mean to pick on James.
I was just pointing out that answering a question with a religious belief may not make much sense to another person who does not have those beliefs.
It does not matter if you are catholic or muslim or other.
Right. No blind faith.
As this man said. "present [yourselves, to God] as ... a sacred service with your power of reason." And in another place, "For God did not give us a spirit of cowardice, but one of power and of love and of soundness of mind." Rom 12:1; 2Tim 1:7.
Power of reason and soundness of mind. And this man was the one who had probably the best education of all the early Christians.
Now, here's what I've done. I've posted an answer as fact, that is, I've quoted accurately from a third party. [Please check the accuracy for yourself.] It's clearly, not covertly, a religious teaching, it's from the Bible. You know by now what religion I belong to.
So, do you agree that the statements apply to AND agree with your questioning of blind faith? Do you agree that you and Paul believe that reason and soundness of mind are good things?
Do you agree that this isn't enough to make you a believer BUT that you have indeed found something of practical use in the Bible?
I'm not a religious type.
I'm skeptical of anyone who pushes out an answer based on their religion.
Perhaps their answer is true or perhaps it's based on man made fiction.
When these religious types can prove to me that their god exist then I will join.
Don't tell me.....show me.
Showing you is a step by step process,
not likely to succeed, since you reject the steps.
You tell me that you won't accept something on blind faith.
In your life you've accepted many things by reasoning on information with [we hope] a sound mind.
This man, Paul, says he did the same thing.
But Paul happens to be speaking of his religion, so you 1) won't accept his statement and 2) won't see its equivalent to yours.
You are remaining in your comfort zone, which is the mainstream response.
As far as I can tell
Religion is based on words on a piece of paper and maketing hype.
You bought into it, I did not.
You spent a lot of time studying the area.
Now you want to display your knowledge by pushing out post that require me to chase passages or terms in your religion.
Post facts.....not your beliefs.
I have a question
If someone told you some unusual event they could not arrange would happen in a week, and gave you particulars on what it would encompass, and there was no way man could have deliberately caused it, such as Yellowstone exploding or an asteroid strike, and then it actually happened as he foretold. Would you then believe what he'd said, especially if he came a second time and told you something else that would happen AFTER that?
If I had first hand knowlege of it
If I read about it on a piece of paper about an event that occurred 2000 yrs ago then I become a skeptic.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 5)