"go, sell all that you have and give to the poor..."

[mossrose]

I think there can be a path for reconciliation and restoration in some cases. But it shouldn't be easy just because even if a person is truly repentant there are still reasons that led to the problem that need to be resolved.

In my experience- though it is not by any means extensive- persons that are truly repentant will accept their 'penance' as it were, and those that are not will take offense at the idea it is necessary and walk away.

According to scripture there can be reconciliation, but not restoration to office. I agree with you at that point.

So many of the WoF ilk will not accept correction, and will continue on in their "ministry". Todd Bentley is a good example for that. He was caught in adultery, divorced his wife (whom I think he has since remarried) and supposedly repented, at which point he was "affirmed" by the likes of Bill Johnson of Bethel and many others, whose names I can't recall at the moment.

All believers are to lead exemplary lives, and no preacher/teacher is immune to the consequences.

[rogue06]

I think there can be a path for reconciliation and restoration in some cases. But it shouldn't be easy just because even if a person is truly repentant there are still reasons that led to the problem that need to be resolved.

In my experience- though it is not by any means extensive- persons that are truly repentant will accept their 'penance' as it were, and those that are not will take offense at the idea it is necessary and walk away.

Restoration is problematic. I guess it might matter what the issue was and how long it had been going on.

[Sparko]

I think there can be a path for reconciliation and restoration in some cases. But it shouldn't be easy just because even if a person is truly repentant there are still reasons that led to the problem that need to be resolved.

In my experience- though it is not by any means extensive- persons that are truly repentant will accept their 'penance' as it were, and those that are not will take offense at the idea it is necessary and walk away.

Yes, in some cases. But only if there is a lot of accountability and oversight in place. I think forgiveness is available and should be extended if the person is truly repentant, but restoration to their former office only in rare instances. It is very hard to trust a spiritual leader who has abused your trust before.

[CivilDiscourse]

Carpedm used to do that too. Rather than making a response clearer, it serves to make reading the responses more confusing, and replying to THAT post nearly impossible, especially when the first set of responses to the split up sentences is just a terse word or phrase.

Here is one of, probably, the most annoying ones I've had her do. I've re-created the post as it would look if she left everything in and just added her comments mid spot. I've made her comments red, and placed a box around individual paragraphs as written in the original post before she took a hatchet to them. I've placed strike throughs on comments that she chopped out.

(For context this was a thread where she was asking for condemnation of some guys comments, and I replied to her explicitly stating what the left does when someone asks them to condemn people calling for boycotts and punishments over speech: "It's their right". I've been in the process of explaining the difference between condemnation and calling for punishment (societal or state-sanctioned), at this point we've gone down to whether or not it was right to hang a Nazi newspaper man for his writings, which IMO hinged on whether he was writing as an official/semi-official part of the nazi machine.

---

I'll break it down for you, and why whether he was in an official capacity matters.

DiGenova is/was Trump's campaign lawyer. Do you a point?

Take a president's/prime-ministers press secretary. They are not standing at the podium giving their own opinion on the matters of the day. They are standing at the podium giving the administrations official stance. The opinions and speech are not their own. If the administration is engaged in genocide, and the press secretary is knowingly lying about, or engaging in the rhetoric about the genocide, they are legally culpable for that. They are providing an official mouthpiece to the administration and are an integral part of the criminal activity being done.

Streicher is complicated because it seems murky about what role he and his newspaper held. If his paper was, like the NYT to the democrats (just a sycophantic supporter) then his speech is protected, as it is his speech. If, on the other hand, it was closer to Air America, and was official propaganda, then it's not because it's then about his active knowing role in the criminal behavior.

I recommend you read up on Julius Streicher and then make an informed comment.

What do I mean by universal? It applies to everyone, and it applies to all topics. I make very few exceptions to that universal rule. If it is a "universal rule" [as you have previously stated] you cannot make exceptions to that rule.Those exceptions revolve around time and place immediate safety. (I.E. The classic "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" where historically, that shouting of fire can cause an immediate rush to the door causing deaths by crushing as people try to get to safety.) Note though that time and place immediate safety is not about the idea. Yelling "We should kill Jews" to an angry, tense mob outside of a synagogue could lead the mob to immediately cause havoc. Printing a column in a news paper saying the exact same thing, however, is not liable to cause that same immediate reaction, and is therefore not an immediate safety issue.

Oh dear, you have inadvertently excused Streicher from the Holocaust.

During the 1920s as a member of the Party he was regularly called upon to make speeches but despite his activity as a speaker, journalist, and politician, he was not a particularly influential Nazi after 1925. However, he was loathed by others in the Party and in 1940 [after the outbreak of WW2] a tribunal investigating Streicher's infamous behaviours and illegal actions found him "unfit for human leadership". His future survival therefore rested solely with Hitler, who acknowledged Streicher's friendship and his usefulness in the past. However, Hitler decided to remove him from office and Streicher retired to Pleikershof, his country estate outside Nuremberg. However, he continued to publish Therefore for the rest of the war and all the horrors of the Final Solution and the murder of some eleven million innocent souls, Streicher was under a form of house arrest in the Bavarian countryside. He took no part in any military activity or in the atrocities.

What legal responsibility does a speaker have based on the actions of others? I never mentioned any legal responsibility you have introduced that topic. Barring the immediate time/place exceptions noted above. None. Are they morally responsible? Thank you for agreeing with me that the speaker/writer bears some moral responsibility for the actions taken by others in response to the speaker/writer's words.

We appear to have gone full circle and have returned to my earlier comment that with words come consequences. Yes. But moral culpability is not legal. Let's go back to your example. The lawyer said that. The next day, someone murders Krebs. Did the lawyer cause him to do that? Did the bubble of online angry content the guy surround himself with cause him to do that? The lawyer's comments didn't occur in a vacuum, so can you actually point to the lawyer and say "it was his comment that caused it" as opposed to the angry voices out there? Go back to the John Hodgkinson who shot up the congressional baseball practice. No public official said that people should kill congressmen, but at the same time there was alot of general angry rhetoric aimed at republicans. Who has the blood on their hands for that politically motivated shooter?

As for condemnation? Condemn all you want.

---

Ironically, the first reply of hers is most telling because I make a comment, and spend an entire paragraph explaining what I mean. She uses the original comment, removes the explanation, and then asks me if I have a point that I'm making (which was right there in the paragraph she removed).

[rogue06]

---

Ironically, the first reply of hers is most telling because I make a comment, and spend an entire paragraph explaining what I mean. She uses the original comment, removes the explanation, and then asks me if I have a point that I'm making (which was right there in the paragraph she removed).

That is something I've run across more than once. She'll remove my answer from a response (quoting everything around it), and then demand an answer acting like one wasn't provided.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Edited for accuracy.

You apparently hold to the positions that [a] Acts recounts attested historical events and [b] this text was written by an eye-witness to those events.


Neither of those positions is correct.

[CivilDiscourse]

That is something I've run across more than once. She'll remove my answer from a response (quoting everything around it), and then demand an answer acting like one wasn't provided.

Yes. And while it was a pain, re-building the original post showing her chops, cut-ups, and omissions when she replies shows how much she cherry picks and isolates stuff that should go toegether.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

This sort of ganging up on a person and taking derogatory and denigrating potshots about them at length as if they are not there is pubescent and potentially cruel.

Have you not realised yet that there are [apparently adult men] posting here who still exhibit the mentality of twelve year old boys?

Either that or there are some individuals who have some very unhealthy fixations about me.

I would recommend that they seek out professional help.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The Science of physics and a scientist's personal morality (excepting a few areas like personal integrity wrt the scientific work itself or the willingness to devolop horrible weapons ) are orthogonal. Personal morality and Christian faith simply are not, they are fully interconnected.

The point I am making is that you cannot dismiss a person's academic credentials because they are an unpleasant individual or someone with disturbing habits. The two are not connected. Richard Wagner was a remarkably unpleasant man but he wrote some wonderful music. Winston Churchill suggested gassing the Arabs and expressed racist views. Does that detract from his war-time leadership of Britain?

I would also remark that the term "pornography" is thrown about a lot in the USA for things that in Europe would not even raise an eyebrow.

I do not know the details of the images Pervo had on his computer but I do know that some people in America considered Sally Mann's photographs of her own children to be "pornographic" and for some individuals the merest fleeting glimpse of genitals or a nipple or a naked child throws them into paroxysms of horror and causes them to scream "pornography".

I do often consider that, rather like beauty, pornography is in the eye of the beholder.

[Sparko]

The point I am making is that you cannot dismiss a person's academic credentials because they are an unpleasant individual or someone with disturbing habits. The two are not connected. Richard Wagner was a remarkably unpleasant man but he wrote some wonderful music. Winston Churchill suggested gassing the Arabs and expressed racist views. Does that detract from his war-time leadership of Britain?

I would also remark that the term "pornography" is thrown about a lot in the USA for things that in Europe would not even raise an eyebrow.

I do not know the details of the images Pervo had on his computer but I do know that some people in America considered Sally Mann's photographs of her own children to be "pornographic" and for some individuals the merest fleeting glimpse of genitals or a nipple or a naked child throws them into paroxysms of horror and causes them to scream "pornography".

I do often consider that, rather like beauty, pornography is in the eye of the beholder.

Surely you can find someone else to support your interpretation? Or are you saying there is only one other person who agrees with you?

Also, reading his excerpt, it is clear he holds the bible in contempt as do you, as a mere "story" with made up characters. Someone who takes the bible so dismissively isn't likely to dig deep into any motivations and more likely to just see what he wants to see. As do you.

You (and Perv) appear to read the bible eisegetically rather than exegetically.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Surely you can find someone else to support your interpretation? Or are you saying there is only one other person who agrees with you?

Also, reading his excerpt, it is clear he holds the bible in contempt as do you, as a mere "story" with made up characters. Someone who takes the bible so dismissively isn't likely to dig deep into any motivations and more likely to just see what he wants to see. As do you.

He was a reputable and respected scholar. It is self evident that you and others here do not like anyone who challenges your preconceived beliefs.

However, many scholars do not view these texts with the reverence that you give to them. They are just ancient literary sources. No different from any other ancient source material

You (and Perv) appear to read the bible eisegetically rather than exegetically.

You have those two terms the wrong way around:

Exegesis: critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, especially of the Bible

Eisegesis: an interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text [My emphasis]

Hence so many of you retroject your own views and interpretations back on to texts written thousands of years ago and for entirely different societies and cultures.

[Mountain Man]

This sort of ganging up on a person and taking derogatory and denigrating potshots about them at length as if they are not there is pubescent and potentially cruel.

Are you seriously white knighting for a blatant troll like Hypatia_Alexandria?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Are you seriously white knighting for a blatant troll like Hypatia_Alexandria?

Subtext: You disagree with my opinions!

[Mountain Man]

You apparently hold to the positions that [a] Acts recounts attested historical events and [b] this text was written by an eye-witness to those events.

Answering these in reverse order: I never claimed Acts was written by an eyewitness, I said it was written in the manner of an eyewitness (as opposed to an omniscient narrator), and second, it is, in fact, a recounting of attested historical events as Luke himself states in his previous letter to Theophilus:

Scripture Verse: Luke 1:1-4

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

© Copyright Original Source

It is also a fact that Luke's contemporaries, which included living eyewitnesses, accepted his writings as accurate and authoritative and worthy of preservation by the early church.

Surely if Richard Pervert was the Einstein of Biblical scholars you make him out to be, he would know this and would present a critique that is more sophisticated than the sort of trash that could be seamlessly inserted into the Skeptics Annotated Bible.

[Sparko]

He was a reputable and respected scholar. It is self evident that you and others here do not like anyone who challenges your preconceived beliefs.

However, many scholars do not view these texts with the reverence that you give to them. They are just ancient literary sources. No different from any other ancient source material



You have those two terms the wrong way around:

Exegesis: critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, especially of the Bible

Eisegesis: an interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text [My emphasis]

Hence so many of you retroject your own views and interpretations back on to texts written thousands of years ago and for entirely different societies and cultures.

No I used them correctly. You are reading into the text what you want to see in order to confirm your bias (eisegesis) rather than letting the text speak for itself in context (exegesis). You like to take bits of the bible in isolation and try to use them as proof-texts to bolster your preconceptions, rather than taking the verse as a piece of a comprehensive whole. You strain at gnats. The bible is clear that being rich is not a problem. The problem is making money more important than God, making it an idol. And there was no directive to give everything to the church in Acts. It was all voluntary. They shared and helped each other. The context of Acts 5 as well as the actual text makes it clear that the problem was lying to God about giving the whole price to the church. They could have kept whatever part they wanted if they were just honest about it. They could have said, "We have sold this land and we are giving half to you" and that would be fine. But they lied and said they sold the land and gave the entire amount to the church when they kept some for their selves. It was an attempt to appear more pious and giving than they actually were. They were hypocrites. And one thing the bible does say over and over is that God doesn't like hypocrites.