how to leave the ICC
SRauch4321
This message was supposed to be delivered to <hor...@nebula.ispace.com>,
but I've sent it twice, and their server bounced it. Apparently, they've
changed e-mail addresses, or something. I'm sending this over the
newsgroup in the hope that they might be able to read my reply. --Steven
Rauch SRauc...@aol.com
=====================================
> My husband and I have resently been aproached by members (disciples) of
the
> ICofC we are sceptic but after a week with them..they seemed not so
bad. I
> just read some of your information....I would like more! From what I
read I
> am very conscerned, what we read seems to be just the way they did
things,
> and in some case's word for word. Now we don't feel we can trust
them...
> and we feel sick. We would like some sugestions on how to break ties
with
> these people (the origanal couple is moveing, we hope that will make
things
> easier). I would like to be grounded again, the way I was 12 days ago!
any
> help would be a help.
> The Horning's
I know the ICofC makes itself look so good. At first, I pondered the
thought of attending a better church and being a better Christian. That's
why I got involved. But then, upon discovering their false teachings and
leadership abuse, I had to leave on the basis of the truth. There were
some emotional ties I had to break. Most were friendship ties. It was
easier to leave when I realized how the information on my "sin list" was
used against me when I resisted them. They even brought things up when I
told them I was leaving. This "sin list" info was supposed to be kept
confidential, but it clearly was not because things were mentioned when I
told them I was leaving. They were mentioned in a group of 5 people. It
made it easier to leave when I saw
that their friendships were only to get me recruited into their
organization. They do a psychological tactic called "love bombing" which
means you give the person all the attention and praises, so the person
will think he/she is important. What I'm trying to say is, their
friendships seem real, but when you confront the leadership, you'll see
how fake it really is. After I left, nobody ever contacted me. I've seen
nobody since. That's after they told me someone would call me in 3 weeks.
Yeah, sure they would.
Here are some things that can help you:
-- Run, do not walk, away from them!! They are a manipulating
organization.
-- Your "sin list" is not kept confidential. Other leaders in the
ICofC know about
you. Even non-leaders (if there really are any) hear about you
in leader
meetings.
-- Their friendships with you are made only for the purpose of
recruiting you.
-- Remember Galations 1:8-9.
-- You can visit my Web page at <<http://home.aol.com/SRauch4321>>
(without
the <>s, of course). I have a ton of ICofC information stored
there.
When I left, I tried to evangelize them; but, you don't necessarily have
to. If you feel the Lord is speaking to you, then go ahead. Do remember
that these people are very, very hard to convert. Be prepared. You
should just leave and tell them, "I don't want to get involved in your
cult." It looks like they don't have you that much entrenched since
you've only been there 12 days. Good luck. Get ready for them to say
things like, "Didn't we show you so much love? How can you leave us?" I
told them flatly, "Love is irrelevant if your doctrine is wrong." They
are taking advantage of their love-bombing tactic here. Then, get ready
for a threat of eternal damnation. It came as a shock to me when I heard
it. Now, of course, they view themselves as the only saved church in the
world. If you leave, they think you're leaving God. Still, it was
emotionally hard for me to hear this. So, get ready for them to tell you
that you're going to hell. "Enjoy life as much as you can, because when
it's over, it's over for you." (or something like that) In my response, I
told them that I could say the same thing to them. It would probably look
good for you (in their eyes) if you would be strong and rebuke them and
tell them strongly and bluntly that they are apostate and going to hell.
They're used to that sort of mentality. Oh well, just leave and be done
with it. Then, you can praise God, like I did, because He saved me from a
destructive cult. I'm still very grateful to Him for that! I will pray
for you that all goes well.
--Steven Rauch
SRauc...@aol.com
Starr
srauc...@aol.com (SRauch4321) wrote:
<major snippage to address this poing>
> -- Your "sin list" is not kept confidential. Other leaders in the
>ICofC know about you. Even non-leaders (if there really are any) hear about you
>in leader meetings.
I just fairly recently went through ICC classes (about 3 months ago).
Not only was I *not* asked to make a "sin list", the subject was not
even brought up. I *was* asked to "write a letter to God" talking
about how my relationship with Him was, how my sins had hurt him, and
where I wanted to go, but there was *no* specific mention of any "sin
list". We went over the sins of Galatians (which in reality are
pretty obvious). But other than that it really wasn't mentioned. And
anyone who thinks *anything* is private and confidential in this day
and age is rather naive, to say the least. Look at any political
campaign or anyone who is suddenly famous for whatever reason. Every
piece of dirt that can be dug up on them since they were in grade
school (they didn't share their seat at lunch time!) is dug up and
published with great glee by the rags that call themselves newspapers.
I believe, and this could be a local thing, that "sin lists" have been
done away with, especially after Al Baird was confronted with it on
national TV. That was a major PR faux pas for the ICC, one they
presumably don't want to repeat.
EOshiro
Judging from Al Baird's so-called "conflicting" responses about sin lists,
I can figure that probably the idea of sin lists were not created by top
ICC leaders. It was probably an isolated thing , created by a local
leader, that got misused. Al Baird had not heard of it prior to the first
interveiw, and then checked into it afterwards. (This is all speculation
on my part.) I think sin lists can be a useful tool if used properly.
Example: When I sat in on a study once, the person who was leading the
study asked the person studying to make a sin list. At the next study,
the leader took a quick look at the list and gave it back to the guy.
Then he asked him, "How long do you think it will take you to repent of
these sins?" His response was, "Not long." I think he was baptized
within a week.
But my point was that the leader didn't even consider "using the sin list
against him." There is a simple fact here: These sins have been
forgiven, and no longer have any power over you.
If someone "threatens" you with a sin list, they have forgotten that fact.
If you fear your sins being revealed, you have forgotten that fact.
Jason Choi
Steven Rauch (srauc...@aol.com) uttered the words:
: Here are some things that can help you:
: -- Run, do not walk, away from them!! They are a manipulating
: organization.
: -- Your "sin list" is not kept confidential. Other leaders in the
: ICofC know about
: you. Even non-leaders (if there really are any) hear about you
: in leader
: meetings.
: -- Their friendships with you are made only for the purpose of
: recruiting you.
I'm inclined to agree with Steven in practically everything he
uses to describe the Icofc, cos I was actually a member for around a years
time. This group is completley fake in what they do, and how they do it.
They will say what you want to hear in order to manipulate you into doing
what they want done. I've never regretted anything more in my entire life
than having completley wasted that year of my life with this blind group of
emotionally scarring, narrow sighted, twisted visionaries. All my
precious time and resources, down the drain. I'd say the only good thing
that actually came to pass was a better understanding of God.
First, nobody wants you to have an identity or to be an
'individual', they immediatley try to root this out of your inner core.
Can you fathom the emotional ramifications of this subtle phychological
trauma? Sheez, one would need to down some Prozac to get over the
demented perspectives this organization tries to instill in you.
The leaders are indeed insidious, anal retentive, conservative
manipulators who blow sunshine up your ass to get you to do what not.
Love is just a fascade, if anything, among their ranks. I know more about
the true depths of love and understanding than any one of their 'sharpest' members
Oh, and leaving, hah, you might want to A) chain lock your doors
B) Change your number, C) get a Rotweiler or a Pitbull to guard your front
yard, and D) Wear a disguise when leaving your home base. And if I
exagerate, then go join the group and see for yourself.
Upon joining, your expected to: A) give up your identity, B)
devote your hard earned cash to pay for church leader salaries C) Never
publicly display any negative emotions D) Pretend your in the 50's when
associating with members of the opposite sex E) Get every member in the
entire organizations permission to date a member of the opposite sex, and
only until they feel you are 'ready', regardless of how much you like
someone. F) The list continues on and on.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
Jason
-The mind is like a parachute, it only works when open
nancy
On Aug 05, 1996 05:49:49 in article <Re: how to leave the ICC>,Used properly for what?? Blackmail??
nancy
EOshiro
Nancy writes:
>'eos...@aol.com (EOshiro)' wrote:
>
>>I think sin lists can be a useful tool if used properly.
>
>Used properly for what?? Blackmail??
No, and I thought I fully explained that in my post.
Speaking from personal experience, I am one who never thought I was a "bad
person." I never had to make a sin list myself, but I think they could be
useful in helping a person recognize what their sins are, and how much
they are a part of their life. If you realize how much you've been
forgiven, you'll be more grateful. It's in the Bible.
Another way sin lists can be useful, (for instance, if the leaders know
the person's sins,) is that certain sins are more not as common and/or
harder to overcome. For instance, A disciple who used to smoke 5 packs a
day could help someone who's studying and is having a hard time quitting.
A leader could coordinate that. It would be an encouragement to know that
it's possible to overcome sins.
As I said before, blackmail is pointless, since all those sins are
forgiven anyway.
SRauch4321
> As I said before, blackmail is pointless, since all those sins are
> forgiven anyway.
Yes, but they can sure be powerful psychological tools. Let's not forget
that a "sin list" also lists current sins the person is trying to get
over. That's what I was told. "It will tell you how much progress you've
made, when we compare it later down the road." So, let's get rid of this
idea that it only concerns itself with forgiven sins. There's still a
psychological factor about forgiven sins, and the list includes present
ones.
I've had many people from around the world confirm my experience with the
ICC. They tell me they experienced the exact same thing. I hardly think
the "sin list" is a local thing. Maybe you just don't realize how it
allows your leaders to control you. Do you want strangers to know about
your personal affairs? Don't you realize how vunerable that makes you?
Excuse me for being too harsh. Maybe you didn't notice how they keep
tract of your "sin list."
(For crying out loud, when I was there, they wanted to know more personal
things about me, not including past sins. That sent off red sirens in my
head. Things of a personal nature are none of their business. When
people know about them, it makes me more vunerable. I'll choose who knows
those kinds of things about me (ie parents, close friends, girlfriend),
but not some complete strangers I just met from another church who want to
lead me into something.)
Mudpies
In article <4u71sa$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, eos...@aol.com (EOshiro)
writes:
>As I said before, blackmail is pointless, since all those sins are
>forgiven anyway.
Except if you are in the ICC ...
Michelle C.
"A heart held humble will level and light your way"
Scott W. Schreiber
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>As I said before, blackmail is pointless, since all those sins are
>forgiven anyway.
A list of sins of any type is something that could be used or "lorded
over" the poor guy who wrote it up and let someone else see it.
It also could produce doubt of that afforementioned forgiveness, and
anytime doubt is introduced into the heart concerning God and His love
and forgiveness, it is Satan, plain and simple, wanting you to think
"maybe God didn't forgive me for that...maybe I need to *do* more."
Doubt is an effective yet subtle tool of Satan, and I think any kind
of list of sin could make you doubt.
Chris Garland
srauc...@aol.com (SRauch4321) wrote:
>> As I said before, blackmail is pointless, since all those sins are
>> forgiven anyway.
>
Well, I for one think there is a lot of merit in confessing your sins.
However, I have a lot of problem with the lack of confidentiality. I've
heard people's sins bantered around the coffee table in the ICC like it
was nothing. This is plain wrong. Obviously, the confessions are being
used in a way other than what the bible tells us. James tells us to
confess our sins to one another so that we may pray for one another and
be healed. This scripture DOES NOT imply discussing someone's confessed
sins with other people, even if the best of motives are intended.
If I need help with a sin, I'll confess to *sally* and ask her to pray
for me. Scripture fulfilled. Sally then has no right (and, in fact, is
gossiping) if she tells someone else my sin, even if her intent is asking
them to pray for me. That's wrong. I see no biblical basis for everyone
having a transparent life to everyone else.
This is why I prefer confessing to a priest, who has made a vow of
non-disclosure.
Scott W. Schreiber
In article <4ub0bs$g...@news.ios.com>, chr...@village.ios.com says...
> If I need help with a sin, I'll confess to *sally* and ask her to pray
> for me. Scripture fulfilled. Sally then has no right (and, in fact, is
> gossiping) if she tells someone else my sin, even if her intent is asking
> them to pray for me. That's wrong. I see no biblical basis for everyone
> having a transparent life to everyone else.
>
> This is why I prefer confessing to a priest, who has made a vow of
> non-disclosure.
>
And it is why I prefer to confess my sin to the Lord. If I need prayer, I will
ask for it, but God is the only one who can really do anything about my
sinfulness, so I give it up to Him.
R. L. Measures
In article <4ub0bs$g...@news.ios.com>, Chris Garland
<chr...@village.ios.com> wrote:
> This is why I prefer confessing to a priest, who has made a vow of
> non-disclosure.
During the discovery phase of a recent trial in Detroit, it was found that
the RCC keeps written records of some confessions. In the Detroit case, a
pedophile priest was convicted and sent to jail. The confessional records
helped to corroborate the evidence and the witness testimony.
Confessional records also played a part in a plea bargain by a pedophile
priest in Louisana.
I know of a local case where the confession of a 19 year old female was
apparently revealed to other persons in the parish.
People will be people.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
Catherine Hampton
R. L. Measures (meas...@mail.vcnet.com) wrote:
: During the discovery phase of a recent trial in Detroit, it was found that
: the RCC keeps written records of some confessions. In the Detroit case, a
: pedophile priest was convicted and sent to jail. The confessional records
: helped to corroborate the evidence and the witness testimony.
: Confessional records also played a part in a plea bargain by a pedophile
: priest in Louisana.
: I know of a local case where the confession of a 19 year old female was
: apparently revealed to other persons in the parish.
: People will be people.
Yep, but unless I miss my guess, these priests were either excommunicated
or placed under severe penalties for this. I'm not Roman Catholic and
on most issues don't feel much need to stand up for them, but they
do take confidentiality of the confessional seriously. Look at what
happened in Lane County, Oregon a few months ago when a local DA had
an inmate's confession with his priest taped and threatened to use the
tape in a case against the guy. :( Roman Catholic authorities ranging
up to someone very near the pope in the Vatican came down on this DA like
a ton of bricks.
As to "The RCC" keeping written records -- wrong. Certain people IN
the RCC did so in this case. What they did was against every rule in
the Roman Catholic Church about confession/"the sacrament of
reconciliation."
I haven't run into a similar situation involving any Orthodox Christian
layperson or priest, but I know from experience how seriously the priests
I've confessed to take the sanctity of confession. They're considerably
more concerned about it than I am, to tell the truth. I don't feel safe
with secrets -- in my experience growing up in an extremely disfunctional
family, secrets were an invitation to blackmail. Just telling people
the truth and not trying to hide things took a significant weapon
out of any badly-intentioned person's hands.
But I have no doubt that my parish priest would go to jail and probably
die before repeating anything he heard during confession. I'd certainly
trust him, and any priest I know, further than I would any mental
health professional I've ever met, and I don't think badly of most
mental health professionals.
Sometimes your cynicism about all things religious gets old, Rich.
It leaves me, and probably others, wondering if you really can tell
the difference between an abusive religion and any other kind.
Catherine
R. L. Measures
In article <4ue18p$h...@nntp1.best.com>, ar...@nntp.best.com (Catherine
Hampton) wrote:
> R. L. Measures (meas...@mail.vcnet.com) wrote:
>
> : During the discovery phase of a recent trial in Detroit, it was found that
> : the RCC keeps written records of some confessions. In the Detroit case, a
> : pedophile priest was convicted and sent to jail. The confessional records
> : helped to corroborate the evidence and the witness testimony.
> : Confessional records also played a part in a plea bargain by a pedophile
> : priest in Louisana.
>
> : I know of a local case where the confession of a 19 year old female was
> : apparently revealed to other persons in the parish.
>
> : People will be people.
>
> Yep, but unless I miss my guess, these priests were either excommunicated
> or placed under severe penalties for this.
In the Roman Catholic church, the Sacrament of 'Holy Orders' is what makes
a priest a priest. Not even the pope can recind Holy Orders for any
reason whatsoever, including pedohilia, Catherine. In other words, once a
priest, always a priest. Needless to say, all three of the priests I
referred to are still priests, although two are currently incarcerated.
In the Louisana case, according to their own confessional records and
confidential internal memoranda, for at least 10 years, the church
hierarchy had known that Father Gilbert J. Gauthe, Jr. was having oral and
anal sex with altar boys. Over the course of Gauthe零 career, the RCC
hierarchy paid hush-money and concealed the problem by moving Gauthe to
parishes where his sexual proclivities were not known. This cycle of
child abuse continued until one courageous mother refused the hush-money
and took the priest and his church to court.
> Sometimes your cynicism about all things religious gets old, Rich.
> It leaves me, and probably others, wondering if you really can tell
> the difference between an abusive religion and any other kind.
>
In my opinion, pedophilia is an abuse. However, if you think otherwise,
Catherine, I support your right to that opinion.
A. James Quinn, a respected canon lawyer from Cleveland, Ohio, recently
advised the Roman Catholic church hierarchy in the U.S. to send files on
pedophilic priests to the Vatican Embassy in Washington, D.C. Under the
concept of extraterritoriality, embassies are technically foreign
countries--so they are immune to subpoenas from U.S. courts. Quinn零
legal advice followed the landmark Detroit, Michigan case where the court
was successful in subpoenaing church files on a pedophilic priest. The
Detroit Archdiocese paid a substantial settlement.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
SpeakerForTheDead
Catherine Hampton (ar...@nntp.best.com) wrote:
: : the RCC keeps written records of some confessions. In the Detroit case, a
: : pedophile priest was convicted and sent to jail. The confessional records
: : helped to corroborate the evidence and the witness testimony.
: : Confessional records also played a part in a plea bargain by a pedophile
: : priest in Louisana.
: : I know of a local case where the confession of a 19 year old female was
: : apparently revealed to other persons in the parish.
: : People will be people.
: Yep, but unless I miss my guess, these priests were either excommunicated
: or placed under severe penalties for this. I'm not Roman Catholic and
: on most issues don't feel much need to stand up for them, but they
: do take confidentiality of the confessional seriously. Look at what
: happened in Lane County, Oregon a few months ago when a local DA had
: an inmate's confession with his priest taped and threatened to use the
: tape in a case against the guy. :( Roman Catholic authorities ranging
: up to someone very near the pope in the Vatican came down on this DA like
: a ton of bricks.
[deletia]
: Sometimes your cynicism about all things religious gets old, Rich.
: It leaves me, and probably others, wondering if you really can tell
: the difference between an abusive religion and any other kind.
Just a bit to defend rich here. Reports of spiritual abuse are
not limited to fringe groups like the ICC. There are plenty of
resources for someone who considers themselves a "recovering catholic" or
a "recovering baptist"; groups like Intervarsity, the Navigators, and
Campus Crusade for Christ as far as I can remember, have all had numerous
claims of spiritual abuse levelled against them. Granted, the abuse is of
a different kind (I've spoken to one person who has taken part in a
group for recovering christians; her background was a mainstream
protestant denomination) and not quite as severe as what is experienced by
members of groups like the ICC, but in many cases some serious
psychological damage is done.
The usual reply is that there are accepted criteria by which we
can describe totalist groups. What this neglects is that most of these
criteria are found (to a lesser extent) in mainstream religions. What I'm
saying is that although not all religious groups are as destructive as a
group like the ICC, mainstream religions (most likely including the one
you're a member of) have hurt (emotionally/psychologically) and continue to
hurt a lot of people today.
Chris Garland
ar...@nntp.best.com (Catherine Hampton) wrote:
>R. L. Measures (meas...@mail.vcnet.com) wrote:
>
>: During the discovery phase of a recent trial in Detroit, it was found that
>: pedophile priest was convicted and sent to jail. The confessional records
>: helped to corroborate the evidence and the witness testimony.
>: Confessional records also played a part in a plea bargain by a pedophile
>: priest in Louisana.
>
>: I know of a local case where the confession of a 19 year old female was
>: apparently revealed to other persons in the parish.
>
>: People will be people.
>
>Yep, but unless I miss my guess, these priests were either excommunicated
>or placed under severe penalties for this. I'm not Roman Catholic and
>on most issues don't feel much need to stand up for them, but they
>do take confidentiality of the confessional seriously. Look at what
>happened in Lane County, Oregon a few months ago when a local DA had
>an inmate's confession with his priest taped and threatened to use the
>tape in a case against the guy. :( Roman Catholic authorities ranging
>up to someone very near the pope in the Vatican came down on this DA like
>a ton of bricks.
>
>the RCC did so in this case. What they did was against every rule in
>the Roman Catholic Church about confession/"the sacrament of
>reconciliation."
>
>I haven't run into a similar situation involving any Orthodox Christian
>layperson or priest, but I know from experience how seriously the priests
>I've confessed to take the sanctity of confession. They're considerably
>more concerned about it than I am, to tell the truth. I don't feel safe
>with secrets -- in my experience growing up in an extremely disfunctional
>family, secrets were an invitation to blackmail. Just telling people
>the truth and not trying to hide things took a significant weapon
>out of any badly-intentioned person's hands.
>
>But I have no doubt that my parish priest would go to jail and probably
>die before repeating anything he heard during confession. I'd certainly
>trust him, and any priest I know, further than I would any mental
>health professional I've ever met, and I don't think badly of most
>mental health professionals.
>
>It leaves me, and probably others, wondering if you really can tell
>the difference between an abusive religion and any other kind.
Rich, did you have some particularly bad experience with the RCC
personally?
R. L. Measures
In article <4uf94s$i...@news.ios.com>, Chris Garland
<chr...@village.ios.com> wrote:
> Rich, did you have some particularly bad experience with the RCC
> personally?
No. I was never a member of the RCC. Some of my friends have had
unpleasant experiences. I know a 15 year old ex-altar boy who seems to
have some problems with a local priest who suddenly got transferred
sans-explanation. One of my neighbors was molested by a priest when she
was 12. One of my sisters tried to become a nun/sister in the RCC's
Sisters of the Congregation of Saint Joseph. When she declined to
participate in the nonhererosexual, nocturnal activities in the convent,
it was shortly suggested that she leave.
I have been puzzled by RCC teachings since I was a boy, growing up across
the street from a RCC parochial school. For instance, how does a woman
bear at least seven children and yet qualify to be the 'Holy Virgin'?
Several decades later I wrote a book about organized religion. The RCC
played a major part in the book. The information on the pedophile
priests came from the research for the book.
The RCC is important because it brought about major changes in the
Christian faith during the third, fourth, and fifth centuries--changes
that most Christians and ICC-Christians would rather not hear about. For
a look at the history of the RCC, I recommend Peter DeRosa's *Vicars of
Christ*. Any organization that executed 330,000 people in public over
the course of its history is bound to be interesting. Some of those folks
were probably our ancestors, Chris.
A curious similarity between the RCC and the ICC is: DON'T EXAMINE OUR
TEACHINGS or you will surely burn in Hell forever and ever. I plead
guilty to being a curious guy--however, I sort of enjoy warm weather.
Besides that, if Heaven is going to filled exclusively with deceptive
people who judge and a guy who screams alot, I'd rather not be among 'em.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
Gintas Jazbutis
> The usual reply is that there are accepted criteria by which we
>can describe totalist groups. What this neglects is that most of these
>criteria are found (to a lesser extent) in mainstream religions. What I'm
>saying is that although not all religious groups are as destructive as a
>group like the ICC, mainstream religions (most likely including the one
>you're a member of) have hurt (emotionally/psychologically) and continue to
>hurt a lot of people today.
And likewise many atheist groups as well. Say, the communist
party.
Gintas
Gintas Jazbutis
gin...@concentric.net
Catherine Hampton
Rich, cut it out. You know that I'm an incest survivor. Your
comment would win awards in any competition of manipulative,
rude, sick things to say.
As to the Roman Catholic Church and priests, you know quite well
that a priest may be permanently barred from carrying out any
priestly duties and even excommunicated by the church, just as any
layperson can be. Priests can also be relieved of their vows,
and the very process is called "laicization". That these individuals
techncially remain priests appears to me to be beside the point.
I repeat what I said -- your attitudes toward religion in general
sometimes leave me thinking you don't know bad from good. I don't
think I've ever read a single positive comment from you about
any religious group or leader whatsoever. If I'm reacting that way
to a lot of what you say, perhaps you should consider the reaction
of others still in the ICOC. Many of them are there because they
love God and want to serve Him.
If they think your target is their faith in God, and not just an
abusive religious system, they will probably quit listening. And I
wouldn't blame them.
Catherine
ChrisGarland
cla...@blue.seas.upenn.edu (SpeakerForTheDead) wrote:
>Catherine Hampton (ar...@nntp.best.com) wrote:
>: : the RCC keeps written records of some confessions. In the Detroit case, a
>: : pedophile priest was convicted and sent to jail. The confessional records
>: : helped to corroborate the evidence and the witness testimony.
>: : Confessional records also played a part in a plea bargain by a pedophile
>: : priest in Louisana.
>
>: : I know of a local case where the confession of a 19 year old female was
>: : apparently revealed to other persons in the parish.
>
>: : People will be people.
>
>: Yep, but unless I miss my guess, these priests were either excommunicated
>: or placed under severe penalties for this. I'm not Roman Catholic and
>: on most issues don't feel much need to stand up for them, but they
>: do take confidentiality of the confessional seriously. Look at what
>: happened in Lane County, Oregon a few months ago when a local DA had
>: an inmate's confession with his priest taped and threatened to use the
>: tape in a case against the guy. :( Roman Catholic authorities ranging
>: up to someone very near the pope in the Vatican came down on this DA like
>: a ton of bricks.
>
>
>: Sometimes your cynicism about all things religious gets old, Rich.
>: It leaves me, and probably others, wondering if you really can tell
>: the difference between an abusive religion and any other kind.
>
>not limited to fringe groups like the ICC. There are plenty of
>resources for someone who considers themselves a "recovering catholic" or
>a "recovering baptist"; groups like Intervarsity, the Navigators, and
>Campus Crusade for Christ as far as I can remember, have all had numerous
>claims of spiritual abuse levelled against them. Granted, the abuse is of
>a different kind (I've spoken to one person who has taken part in a
>group for recovering christians; her background was a mainstream
>protestant denomination) and not quite as severe as what is experienced by
>members of groups like the ICC, but in many cases some serious
>psychological damage is done.
>
>can describe totalist groups. What this neglects is that most of these
>criteria are found (to a lesser extent) in mainstream religions. What I'm
>saying is that although not all religious groups are as destructive as a
>group like the ICC, mainstream religions (most likely including the one
>you're a member of) have hurt (emotionally/psychologically) and continue to
>hurt a lot of people today.
This is interesting mind-pizza, thanks. I am currently reading a book
about Marshall Tito and the former Yugoslavia. Interesting book. In it I
discovered that in 1941, Catholics in what was then called the
Independent State of Croatia slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Serbs
(Orthodox) simply because of the religious differences. Then, in the
early 1990s after the breakup of Yugoslavia, the Serbs (Orthodox) began a
systematic slaughter and persecution of the Muslims and, to a lesser
extent, the Croats (Catholics). The newspapers tried to dub this as
"ethnic cleansing", but that term is incorrect, because ethnically, the
Serbs, Croats and Muslims of the former Yugoslavia are identical. They
are all South Slav people. The only difference in them is their religion.
I bring this up because it is obvious throughout past history and the
history being made today that there has been abuse in all religions. But
that doesn't nullify religion. I think these historic abuses were caused
and implemented by people who were obviously not at all close to Christ.
While leaders may be involved in the abuse, the churches themselves are
not set up specifically TO abuse. We know that Christianity was never
designed to be an abusive religion.
In my opinion, a lot of the problems caused by Christianity throughout
the centuries have been caused by legalism. Trying to stimulate faith
through actions is just wrong. It is the cart before the horse. Our
actions should be a RESULT of our faith. When Churches (like the ICC
today) try to dictate actions instead of helping people grow their faith,
trouble always arises. People rebel against this, which is where
hypocrisy in the churches come in (as in, my church teaches this, but I
believe and act this way). Only through faith can we become like Christ.
Actions are a result, not the cause, of faith.
Interestingly, in the Didache, there is an instruction that says to avoid
fanatacism because it could lead to bloodshed.
Chris Garland
meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) wrote:
>In article <4ue18p$h...@nntp1.best.com>, ar...@nntp.best.com (Catherine
>Hampton) wrote:
>
>> R. L. Measures (meas...@mail.vcnet.com) wrote:
>>
>> : During the discovery phase of a recent trial in Detroit, it was found that
>> : pedophile priest was convicted and sent to jail. The confessional records
>> : helped to corroborate the evidence and the witness testimony.
>> : Confessional records also played a part in a plea bargain by a pedophile
>> : priest in Louisana.
>>
>> : I know of a local case where the confession of a 19 year old female was
>> : apparently revealed to other persons in the parish.
>>
>> : People will be people.
>>
>> Yep, but unless I miss my guess, these priests were either excommunicated
>> or placed under severe penalties for this.
>
>a priest a priest. Not even the pope can recind Holy Orders for any
>reason whatsoever, including pedohilia, Catherine. In other words, once a
>priest, always a priest. Needless to say, all three of the priests I
>referred to are still priests, although two are currently incarcerated.
>In the Louisana case, according to their own confessional records and
>confidential internal memoranda, for at least 10 years, the church
>hierarchy had known that Father Gilbert J. Gauthe, Jr. was having oral and
>anal sex with altar boys. Over the course of Gauthe零 career, the RCC
>hierarchy paid hush-money and concealed the problem by moving Gauthe to
>parishes where his sexual proclivities were not known. This cycle of
>child abuse continued until one courageous mother refused the hush-money
>and took the priest and his church to court.
>
>> It leaves me, and probably others, wondering if you really can tell
>> the difference between an abusive religion and any other kind.
>>
>Catherine, I support your right to that opinion.
This was uncalled for, Rich. How could you read Catherine's posts, which
reveal parts of herself, and make a statement like that? Are you just
trying to get a rise out of her? Inappropriate, if you ask me.
As for the RCCs handling of priests and pedophilia, I don't think there
is a person among us who will deny that it has been handled horrendously.
Personally, I think the problem stems from the non-biblical practice of
forbidding priests to marry, but thats not the point of this discussion.
While some priests have abused children, the vast majority do not.
Furthermore, the RCC system is not *set up* for abusive behavior the way
the ICC is, with its mandatory-assigned-one-over-one discipling
relationships, which I consider to be the primary source of abuse.
Catherine Hampton
: : Sometimes your cynicism about all things religious gets old, Rich.
: : It leaves me, and probably others, wondering if you really can tell
: : the difference between an abusive religion and any other kind.
: Just a bit to defend rich here. Reports of spiritual abuse are
: not limited to fringe groups like the ICC. There are plenty of
: resources for someone who considers themselves a "recovering catholic"
: or a "recovering baptist"; groups like Intervarsity, the Navigators,
: and Campus Crusade for Christ as far as I can remember, have all had
: numerous claims of spiritual abuse levelled against them.
Of course. Nothing done in a cult is unique -- what makes it a cult
is that it's done to the extreme and in combination with other
things. My problem with Rich is not that he criticizes other
churches. It's that his attitude towards them seems uniformly
cynical, jaundiced, and unwilling to believe that anything good could
come out of any of them.
If he can't tell the difference between the Roman Catholics and the
ICOC, I would assume he may have just had a bad experience with the
Roman Catholics. But when I see the same attitude towards all
churches and all religious leaders -- and when I realize I haven't
ever heard him say anything good about any of them -- something
smells wrong.
And when an attempt to bring this up results in being accused of
supporting pedophelia, I KNOW something's wrong. :(
Catherine
Catherine Hampton
ChrisGarland (chr...@village.ios.com) wrote:
: This is interesting mind-pizza, thanks. I am currently reading a book
: about Marshall Tito and the former Yugoslavia. Interesting book. In it I
: discovered that in 1941, Catholics in what was then called the
: Independent State of Croatia slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Serbs
: (Orthodox) simply because of the religious differences. Then, in the
: early 1990s after the breakup of Yugoslavia, the Serbs (Orthodox) began a
: systematic slaughter and persecution of the Muslims and, to a lesser
: extent, the Croats (Catholics). The newspapers tried to dub this as
: "ethnic cleansing", but that term is incorrect, because ethnically, the
: Serbs, Croats and Muslims of the former Yugoslavia are identical. They
: are all South Slav people. The only difference in them is their religion.
Not quite correct. The Croats are first cousins to both the Serbians
and Bosnian Muslims ethnically -- there is some real difference. There
never was such a thing as Serbo-Croatian; there are two closely
related languages, Serbian and Croatian, a fair percentage of whose
vocabulary is shared. Native speakers on one language can generally
understand the gist of what a speaker of the other language is saying.
But they aren't by any means identical, any more than Spanish and
Catalan, or Danish and Icelandic.
The Serbians and Muslims are the same people -- the only difference is
that during the reign of the Ottoman Empire the ancestors of the
Muslims converted to Islam. (Amazing, I know.) <wry grin>
If you believe either the Bible or modern physical anthropology,
though, we're all related if you go back far enough. Any ethnic
differences are a matter of time and degree. So whether you consider
two groups separate ethnically or not depends on where you draw the
line in the end....
: I bring this up because it is obvious throughout past history and the
: history being made today that there has been abuse in all religions. But
: that doesn't nullify religion. I think these historic abuses were caused
: and implemented by people who were obviously not at all close to Christ.
: While leaders may be involved in the abuse, the churches themselves are
: not set up specifically TO abuse. We know that Christianity was never
: designed to be an abusive religion.
Nor was Islam, for that matter. A quick perusal of the Qur'an will
give you a picture of an upright, just, loving and merciful God whose
great desire is to build his servants into worthy beings and give them
joy. And, in spite of this picture of God, there are some abusive
jerks who are Muslim. I've encountered a couple lately. :( There are
also at last two Islamic cults -- religious groups which meet Lifton or
Singer's criteria for mind control. You've all probably heard of at
least one of them -- the Nation of Islam. (Yes, Farrakhan's group.)
Anyone looking at Islam through the lens provided by the Nation of
Islam will get at least as skewed a view of Islam as he would looking
at Christianity through the lens of the ICOC, or (perhaps more
accurately) the Aryan Nations. :( Unfortunately, when you have a
religious or political ideology in the hands of human beings, you
will get abuses. From time to time, you will get a pattern of abuses
that fit the description of a cult. But that doesn't mean the belief,
or all human organizations associated with that belief, is cultlike,
or tends toward abusing people, any more than all families tend
toward being abusive just because some are abusive.
: In my opinion, a lot of the problems caused by Christianity throughout
: the centuries have been caused by legalism. Trying to stimulate faith
: through actions is just wrong. It is the cart before the horse. Our
: actions should be a RESULT of our faith. When Churches (like the ICC
: today) try to dictate actions instead of helping people grow their faith,
: trouble always arises. People rebel against this, which is where
: hypocrisy in the churches come in (as in, my church teaches this, but I
: believe and act this way). Only through faith can we become like Christ.
: Actions are a result, not the cause, of faith.
: Interestingly, in the Didache, there is an instruction that says to avoid
: fanatacism because it could lead to bloodshed.
:) Not just in the Didache -- the writings of the Church Fathers are
full of warnings against fanaticism. The early church knew what it
was talking about on that subject, too -- it existed in such constant
peril and insecurity that only the Holy Spirit Himself could have
protected it from turning into a death-seeking, or death-dealing,
mob.
Good point.
Catherine
ChrisGarland
Rich, the RCCs teachings are published and sold in every major bookstore,
and most minor ones too. It is called the "Catechism of the Catholic
Church", and the church encourages people to read it to understand the
church. Some of your concepts are way, way off base.
I do not doubt your sister's experiences. As I said earlier, I believe
these type of things occur because of the non-biblical teaching of
celibate priests. Nuns, on the other hand, make a decision to be virgins
all of their lives -- that's the whole point of being a nun. Anyone who
breaks that vow is reprimanded. There is no organized Catholic leader
lesbian-nun consipiracy going on, Rich.
R. L. Measures
In article <4ug871$h...@news.ios.com>, Chris Garland
<chr...@village.ios.com> wrote:
> meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) wrote:
> >> Sometimes your cynicism about all things religious gets old, Rich.
> >> It leaves me, and probably others, wondering if you really can tell
> >> the difference between an abusive religion and any other kind.
> >>
> >In my opinion, pedophilia is an abuse. However, if you think otherwise,
> >Catherine, I support your right to that opinion.
>
> This was uncalled for, Rich. How could you read Catherine's posts, which
> reveal parts of herself, and make a statement like that? Are you just
> trying to get a rise out of her? Inappropriate, if you ask me.
Catherine wonders if I can tell the difference between an abusive church
and a non-abusive church. I say that pedophilia is an abuse. Catherine
took issue with this. I take issue with Catherine. Sure, I knew that
Catherine was from a family where this problem occured. A similar problem
occured in my family for three generations. Catherine Hampton is
brillant. She is one of the more knowledgable people I have met. She
writes well. Catherine is the LAST person on this NG that I would have
guessed would support the Roman church in the matters of pedophilia and
confessional records.
I will take issue with ANYONE who supports an organization that aids and
abets pedophiles. If Mother Theresa showed up here and supported the
Roman church in this matter, I would take her to task, no holds barred.
Catherine's position is even more puzzling because I mentioned nothing
about her own Orthodox church, which, to the best of my knowledge and to
its credit, does not have the problems under discussion. Additionally,
the Roman church and the Orthodox church have been adversaries for the
past 942 years.
> As for the RCCs handling of priests and pedophilia, I don't think there
> is a person among us who will deny that it has been handled horrendously.
> Personally, I think the problem stems from the non-biblical practice of
> forbidding priests to marry, but thats not the point of this discussion.
i agree that enforced celibacy (1123) is probably a factor, Chris.
In the twelfth century, Peter Comestor wrote:
"The devil never harmed the church so much as when the church herself
adopted the vow of celibacy."
> While some priests have abused children, the vast majority do not.
> Furthermore, the RCC system is not *set up* for abusive behavior the way
> the ICC is, with its mandatory-assigned-one-over-one discipling
> relationships, which I consider to be the primary source of abuse.
I agree that one-over-one discipling is a serious type of abuse. To its
credit, the RCC abandoned the malpractice of one-over-one discipling.
However, the RCC continues to teach priests that children simply outgrow
sexual abuse and that no lasting damage is done. The church also teaches
priests that it is more sinful to have sex with a woman than to have sex
with a child. [references available] The RCC teaches children that to
tell on a priest means they go to hell. You won't find this in any
written material. It's strictly a verbal teaching. Shades of the ICC?
The Father Gauthe case in Louisana goes to the heart of the issue.
According to its own confessional records, for ten years, the RCC knew
that Gauthe was having oral and anal sex with altar-boys. Each time
Gauthe was caught during the ten years, he was quitely moved to yet
another unsuspecting parish and more boys were molested. If the
courageous mother had not done the right thing, Gauthe would have very
probably continued to have had sex with altar-boys. The bottom-line is
that the RCC stupidly continues to aid and abet pedophile priests.
There has NEVER been a case where a pedophile voluntarily stopped
abusing. The only fix is to throw the rascals out, Karol Wojtyla.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
Carol2180
In article <measures-090...@term2-20.vta.west.net>,
meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) writes:
> For
>a look at the history of the RCC, I recommend Peter DeRosa's *Vicars of
>Christ*. Any organization that executed 330,000 people in public over
>the course of its history is bound to be interesting. Some of those
folks
>were probably our ancestors, Chris.
And for a well-rounded perspective, perhaps you should read "Catholicism
and Fundamentalism: The Attack on Romanism by Bible Christians" by Karl
Keating (Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1988)
\
R. L. Measures
In article <4ugigd$q...@news.ios.com>, ChrisGarland
<chr...@village.ios.com> wrote:
> I am currently reading a book
> about Marshall Tito and the former Yugoslavia. Interesting book. In it I
> discovered that in 1941, Catholics in what was then called the
> Independent State of Croatia slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Serbs
> (Orthodox) simply because of the religious differences. Then, in the
> early 1990s after the breakup of Yugoslavia, the Serbs (Orthodox) began a
> systematic slaughter and persecution of the Muslims and, to a lesser
> extent, the Croats (Catholics). The newspapers tried to dub this as
> "ethnic cleansing", but that term is incorrect, because ethnically, the
> Serbs, Croats and Muslims of the former Yugoslavia are identical. They
> are all South Slav people. The only difference in them is their religion.
I agree, Chris. Presumably the Muslims and the Croats have better PR
agents than the Serbs have. Talk about war crimes. What about the crimes
committed during WW2. When a Muslim leader found out that the Nazis were
gassing Jews at Auschwitz, he wrote a letter to Adolph Hitler stating that
he could send volunteers to help gas Jews. Hitler replied that he already
had enough workers, but thanks for asking.
> I bring this up because it is obvious throughout past history and the
> history being made today that there has been abuse in all religions. But
> that doesn't nullify religion. I think these historic abuses were caused
> and implemented by people who were obviously not at all close to Christ.
> While leaders may be involved in the abuse, the churches themselves are
> not set up specifically TO abuse. We know that Christianity was never
> designed to be an abusive religion.
I agree. However, the Christianity of today bears little resemblence to
the things the "Teacher of Righteousness" taught during his lecture/tour
in the first century.
> In my opinion, a lot of the problems caused by Christianity throughout
> the centuries have been caused by legalism. Trying to stimulate faith
> through actions is just wrong. It is the cart before the horse.
Yes. Yes.
>Our actions should be a RESULT of our faith. When Churches (like the ICC
> today) try to dictate actions instead of helping people grow their faith,
> trouble always arises. People rebel against this, which is where
> hypocrisy in the churches come in (as in, my church teaches this, but I
> believe and act this way). Only through faith can we become like Christ.
> Actions are a result, not the cause, of faith.
>
> Interestingly, in the Didache, there is an instruction that says to avoid
> fanatacism because it could lead to bloodshed.
Yes, and the Didache (as well as the Book of John) is at odds with the
post-third century Christian belief that "Christ" was some kind of
paganesque ritual-cannibalistic sacrifice.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
R. L. Measures
In article <4ui4s7$b...@news.ios.com>, ChrisGarland
<chr...@village.ios.com> wrote:
> meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) wrote:
snip
> >A curious similarity between the RCC and the ICC is: DON'T EXAMINE OUR
> >TEACHINGS or you will surely burn in Hell forever and ever. I plead
> >guilty to being a curious guy--however, I sort of enjoy warm weather.
> >Besides that, if Heaven is going to filled exclusively with deceptive
> >people who judge and a guy who screams alot, I'd rather not be among 'em.
>
> Rich, the RCCs teachings are published and sold in every major bookstore,
> and most minor ones too. It is called the "Catechism of the Catholic
> Church", and the church encourages people to read it to understand the
> church. Some of your concepts are way, way off base.
READING the *Catechism of the Catholic Church* is one thing. EXAMINING
the teachings of the RCC is something entirely different, Chris. RE: 'way
off base': If you are talking about my comment about the Virgin Mary, do
you believe that a woman who had at least seven children according to the
Book of Matthew, is still a virgin?
> I do not doubt your sister's experiences. As I said earlier, I believe
> these type of things occur because of the non-biblical teaching of
> celibate priests. Nuns, on the other hand, make a decision to be virgins
> all of their lives -- that's the whole point of being a nun. Anyone who
> breaks that vow is reprimanded. There is no organized Catholic leader
> lesbian-nun consipiracy going on, Rich.
I did not say that there was any such conspiracy. I reported the events
that took place. . . . Women can have fully orgasmic sex with each other
for life and still technically be virgins, Chris.
Are you familiar with the Vicki Long case in Atlanta?
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
ChrisGarland
Rich, you know *DARN RIGHT WELL* that Catherine doesn't support
pedophelia. And you know *DARN RIGHT WELL* about what she was speaking.
YOUR COMMENT TO HER WAS OUT OF LINE, and she deserves an apology from
you.
I appreciate your passion against pedophelia in the RCC, but that doesn't
give you the right to attempt to manipulate her, which is *exactly* what
you were doing. Talk about cultic practices.
Catherine Hampton
Thanks, Chris.
Rich, he's right. You are being a jerk. You know exactly what
I believe about pedophelia, since I have been the victim of one.
I objected to what appears to me to be your evident bigotry against
religion and religious organizations in general. Your response
appears to me to indicate one of two things:
1) You are indeed prejudiced against religious organizations,
refuse to pretend otherwise, and don't believe there is
anything wrong with your attitude.
2) You took offense at what I said, since you believe it is obvious
you are not prejudiced against religious organizations, do not
acknowlege that I had cause to think otherwise, believe I had
no right to say this in public, and are being as offensive as
you possibly can in return.
Frankly, I don't see any other options in interpreting your behavior.
If you want to suggest one, I'll listen.
Otherwise, as I told you once before when you started getting offensive,
stop it if you wish to continue the conversation. Otherwise, I will
simply do what I have done with others who have been intentionally
abusive and manipulative on this group -- I will killfile your
posts and ignore your existence. Your current behavior, as far as I'm
concerned, places you in the category of J. Courtney Garrard or
Emjay -- undeserving of attention.
Catherine
ChrisGarland
I'd like to add that there is nothing more that current ICC members like
to see is the group of us *fighting.* While none of us ascribe to
groupthink like they do, Rich's fanatacal behavior is hurting our
efforts. Cool it.
ChrisGarland
My "way off base" comment was towards your post as a whole. While I
don't dispute the events that happened, you tend to be, I don't know,
sensational in your approach, as if you are trying to get a reaction
from people. I find that repulsive. Case in point, your here-to-for
unrepentent comment to Catherine Hampton.
I have never, ever said that I agree with everything the RCC teaches.
However, I refuse to get in a debate with you about all of this,
because your agenda appears to be other than simply dealing with the
ICC, which is the topic of this newsgroup. You appear bent on
discredieting Christianity as a whole. You are certainly entitled to
your viewpoints; I suggest you start a newsgroup on it. However, this
is a.r.c.b.c. I'm not going to discuss these issues any further on
the newsgroup with you.
R. L. Measures
In article <4uioli$1...@news.ios.com>, ChrisGarland
<chr...@village.ios.com> wrote:
> ar...@nntp.best.com (Catherine Hampton) wrote:
> >Thanks, Chris.
> >
> >Rich, he's right. You are being a jerk. You know exactly what
> >I believe about pedophelia, since I have been the victim of one.
I cited two court cases where the RCC aided and abetted pedophile priests.
In both cases the courts discovered that the RCC had confessional records
and internal memoranda proving that both men were pedophiles with lengthy
histories --and yet the pedophiles were still abusing RCC children as much
as ten years later.
> >I objected to what appears to me to be your evident bigotry against
> >religion and religious organizations in general. Your response
> >appears to me to indicate one of two things:
> >
> > 1) You are indeed prejudiced against religious organizations,
I am indeed prejudiced against religious organizations that do negative
things.
> > refuse to pretend otherwise, and don't believe there is
> > anything wrong with your attitude.
IMO, there is something wrong with people who ignore abuses. The RCC has
been ignoring this problem for untold centuries and it is ignoring this
problem as I write this. William F. Buckey, Jr. wrote a scathing
editorial that appeared in the *LA Times* shortly after the *60 Minutes*
segment on the 'boy brothel' in New Mexico. Subsequently, Karol Wojtyla
appointed a papal commission to study the matter. That was about a year
ago, and so far nothing.
> > 2) You took offense at what I said, since you believe it is obvious
> > you are not prejudiced against religious organizations, do not
> > acknowlege that I had cause to think otherwise, believe I had
> > no right to say this in public, and are being as offensive as
> > you possibly can in return.
As I said before, I believe you have a right to say it. You backed an
organization that has aided and abeted, for untold centuries, the very
thing that you detest, Catherine. The rude, sick thing is sexual abuse of
children.
> >Frankly, I don't see any other options in interpreting your behavior.
> >If you want to suggest one, I'll listen.
> >
> >Otherwise, as I told you once before when you started getting offensive,
> >stop it if you wish to continue the conversation. Otherwise, I will
> >simply do what I have done with others who have been intentionally
> >abusive and manipulative on this group -- I will killfile your
> >posts and ignore your existence. Your current behavior, as far as I'm
> >concerned, places you in the category of J. Courtney Garrard or
> >Emjay -- undeserving of attention.
So that was his real name. I wonder what the J. stood for? Say......you
don't suppose. Nahhh.
> >
> >Catherine
>
> I'd like to add that there is nothing more that current ICC members like
> to see is the group of us *fighting.* While none of us ascribe to
> groupthink like they do, Rich's fanatacal behavior is hurting our
> efforts. Cool it.
Yeah, but Roger the Dodger probably needed a break from tap dancing,
Chris. // If reporting on relevant court cases is fanatical, I'll plead
guilty. Someday I hope to be able to report on a court case involving the
'really bold' 'Prophet' who screams a lot. He lives about 45 miles down
the coast from me, so it would be an easy commute.
It seems to me that the original issue involved records of confessions
made to disciplers/DPs. My point is that the ICC isn't the only culprit.
The Michigan and Louisiana court cases proved it to my satisfaction.
Subsequently sending such records to the Vatican Embassy in Washington DC
proves it beyond reasonable doubt.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
R. L. Measures
In article <4uioh3$1...@news.ios.com>, ChrisGarland
<chr...@village.ios.com> wrote:
Case in point, your here-to-for
> unrepentent comment to Catherine Hampton.
>
snip
> I'm not going to discuss these issues any further on
> the newsgroup with you.
----
A review of the events that led to this schism:
srauc...@aol.com (SRauch4321) wrote:
> -- Your "sin list" is not kept confidential. Other leaders in the
>ICofC know about you. Even non-leaders (if there really are any) hear
about you
>in leader meetings.
-----------------------
In article <4ub0bs$g...@news.ios.com>, Chris Garland
<chr...@village.ios.com> wrote:
> This is why I prefer confessing to a priest, who has made a vow of
> non-disclosure.
-----------------------
I knew of evidence that the ICC is not the only sect that keeps records of
confessions. The CoS and the RCC do so.
My reply:
During the discovery phase of a recent trial in Detroit, it was found that
the RCC keeps written records of some confessions. In the Detroit case, a
pedophile priest was convicted and sent to jail. The confessional records
helped to corroborate the evidence and the witness testimony.
Confessional records also played a part in a plea bargain by a pedophile
priest in Louisana.
I know of a local case where the confession of a 19 year old female was
apparently revealed to other persons in the parish.
People will be people.
-------------------------
Catherine Hampton writes:
As to "The RCC" keeping written records -- wrong. Certain people IN
the RCC did so in this case. What they did was against every rule in
the Roman Catholic Church about confession/"the sacrament of
reconciliation."
snip
Sometimes your cynicism about all things religious gets old, Rich.
It leaves me, and probably others, wondering if you really can tell
the difference between an abusive religion and any other kind.
-------------------------
*******************
SIDEBAR: The court cases, as well as A. James Quinn's subsequent legal
advice, show that the keeping of confessional records is not an
abberation by some misguided individuals in Michigan and Louisiana--it is
a standard part of RCC internal policy. // Catherine is suggesting that
the RCC is NOT an abusive religion. . . . Can I tell the difference
between an abusive organized religion and one that isn't? If an
organized religion has a lengthy history of facilitating pedophilia, the
only way it could NOT be classified as abusive would be if pedophilia
were NOT an abuse. . . . Can Catherine tell the difference between a
religion that is abusive and one that is not?
*********************
My reply:
In my opinion, pedophilia is an abuse. However, if you think otherwise,
Catherine, I support your right to that opinion.
A. James Quinn, a respected canon lawyer from Cleveland, Ohio, recently
advised the Roman Catholic church hierarchy in the U.S. to send files on
pedophilic priests to the Vatican Embassy in Washington, D.C. Under the
concept of extraterritoriality, embassies are technically foreign
countries--so they are immune to subpoenas from U.S. courts. Quinn零
legal advice followed the landmark Detroit, Michigan case where the court
was successful in subpoenaing church files on a pedophilic priest. The
Detroit Archdiocese paid a substantial settlement.
-----------------------
Chris writes:
My "way off base" comment was towards your post as a whole. While I
don't dispute the events that happened, you tend to be, I don't know,
sensational in your approach, as if you are trying to get a reaction
from people. I find that repulsive. Case in point, your here-to-for
unrepentent comment to Catherine Hampton.
I have never, ever said that I agree with everything the RCC teaches.
However, I refuse to get in a debate with you about all of this,
because your agenda appears to be other than simply dealing with the
ICC, which is the topic of this newsgroup. You appear bent on
discredieting Christianity as a whole. You are certainly entitled to
your viewpoints; I suggest you start a newsgroup on it. However, this
is a.r.c.b.c. I'm not going to discuss these issues any further on
the newsgroup with you.
-------------------------
THE END
Postscript: So there we have it, folks. Roger and EO are rolling on the
floor laughing so hard it hurts. Their disciplors are still sending in
weekly updates to their sin-lists. Catherine is offended because I
still think she erred by implying that a church which facilitates
pedophilia is not abusive. Chris is offended because I offered court
evidence that the RCC's so-called confidentiality of the confessional is
hardly as advertised. As to the accusation that I am anti-Christian---we
will all have to wait for Judgement Day for the call on that one.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
Catherine Hampton
Chris -- I don't consider Rich to be "us" in this instance. If
anyone is foolish enough to enjoy the sight of me treating him
according to exactly the same standards as I have others on this
newsgroup who have been abusive, they need to acquire some better
critical thought skills. Calling yourself an opponent of an
abusive organization and then behaving abusively is inappropriate
behavior and deserves to be called by its proper name.
After a private email from Rich, I believe that he did what he did
intentionally and with malice aforethought. I have therefore told
him to send me no more email and have killfiled his posts.
Catherine
nancy
Rich,
You wrote:
>Catherine is offended because I still think she erred by implying that a
church which facilitates pedophilia is not abusive.
was raised Roman Catholic, went to school taught by Fransican brothers, and
was never molested, nor was his brother or sister. Remember, a few bad
apples don't spoil the whole bunch!!!
Now, there is an organization, with its headquarters here in Cambridge, MA,
which does faciliate pedophilia. They are NOT affiliated with the RCC.
Perhaps you've heard of NAMBLA-North American Man Boy Love Association.
Even the militant Gay groups don't want to be associated with them, but
have been forced to allow them to march in the gay pride parades!!!
>Chris is offended because I offered court evidence that the RCC's
so-called >confidentiality of the confessional is hardly as advertised. As
to the accusation >that I am anti-Christian---we will all have to wait for
Judgement Day for the call >on that one.
like your anti establishment!!!
nancy
ChrisGarland
You know what, Rich. GROW UP. I hadn't relized until this moment how
manipulative you are. There's a career for you as an ICC evangelist. You
know perfectly well that neither Catherine or I are "offended" at your
accusations above. You are a word-twister and a liar.
As far as I'm concerned, you are killfiled. When you decide to return to
the realm of treating human beings decently, I may consider reading your
posts again. Until then, buzz off, buddy.
ChrisGarland
Furthermore, how do you expect anyone to believe your accusations against
the RCC when you quite obviously twist truths and words for your own use,
as you did with my and Catherine's posts. Therefore, you have no
credibility in my eyes, and I'm shaking the dust off my feet....
Scott W. Schreiber
Chris, Catherine, in all neutrallity, consider the following:
"Internet spamming is like amateur radio jamming--i.e., the payoff for
the spammer or jammer is to get attention. When someone makes a
comment on arcb-c, either positive or negative, about a spam it
rewards the spammer for his efforts."
Don't you think this makes sense?
ChrisGarland
Yes it does, Scott, and thanks. I get your point.
R. L. Measures
In article <4ul81q$c...@news.ios.com>, ChrisGarland
<chr...@village.ios.com> wrote:
> As far as I'm concerned, you are killfiled. When you decide to return to
> the realm of treating human beings decently, I may consider reading your
> posts again. Until then, buzz off, buddy.
Alas, killfiled by two of my favorite authors. I thought I knew them well.
Verily, I say unto you, citeth not court cases or legal opinions that
reveal the abusive hidden practices of the Roman church--lest they turn on
you and rend you.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
Catherine Hampton
: >Catherine is offended because I still think she erred by implying
: >that a church which facilitates pedophilia is not abusive.
This is an outright lie which Rich knows is a lie. I am offended
because he accused me of supporting pedophilia. I have told him
so in exactly those words. I have stated that here in exactly
those words.
I unfortunately happened to see this because I forgot to tell
my newsreader to kill articles with quotes from this person. I'm
making that edit now; I don't have the time or mental energy to
waste dealing with this. God help anyone who finds this "supporter"
on his side. :(
Catherine
EOshiro
Steven Rauch writes:
>Yes, but they can sure be powerful psychological tools. Let's not forget
>that a "sin list" also lists current sins the person is trying to get
>over. That's what I was told. "It will tell you how much progress
you've
>made, when we compare it later down the road." So, let's get rid of this
>idea that it only concerns itself with forgiven sins. There's still a
>psychological factor about forgiven sins, and the list includes present
>ones.
Those sins ARE forgiven. The ICC doesn't teach that all of your sins will
miraculously be out of your life once you are baptized. Only that they
are forgiven. And will continue to be forgiven as long as you continue to
confess and repent. (Are those works?)
>I've had many people from around the world confirm my experience with the
>ICC. They tell me they experienced the exact same thing. I hardly think
>the "sin list" is a local thing. Maybe you just don't realize how it
>allows your leaders to control you. Do you want strangers to know about
>your personal affairs? Don't you realize how vunerable that makes you?
>Excuse me for being too harsh. Maybe you didn't notice how they keep
>tract of your "sin list."
I don't think I said sin lists were only a local thing. But since I
believe in Al Baird's sincerity, I don't believe that sin lists were
started by top ICC leadership either. Just to clarify, is your use of the
word "you" specifically refering to me, or just a
generic-collective-someone other than me-type of "you?" Because if you
are refering to me, no, I don't realize it. I know I have posted before
that I never had to write down a sin list. I don't understand what I (or
anyone, for that matter) have to be ashamed of, anyway. I've stated that
I believe that a sin list would have no power over me anyway. I've also
already said what I think proper and improper usage of sin lists is. And
I can honestly say that I personally know no one who would use sin lists
in such a destructive and deceitful manner.
>(For crying out loud, when I was there, they wanted to know more personal
>things about me, not including past sins. That sent off red sirens in my
>head. Things of a personal nature are none of their business. When
>people know about them, it makes me more vunerable. I'll choose who
knows
>those kinds of things about me (ie parents, close friends, girlfriend),
>but not some complete strangers I just met from another church who want
to
>lead me into something.)
So much for a family atmosphere.
Michelle (mudpies) writes:
>In article <4u71sa$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, eos...@aol.com (EOshiro)
>writes:
>
>>As I said before, blackmail is pointless, since all those sins are
>>forgiven anyway.
>
>Except if you are in the ICC ...
Sorry, but I really couldn't think of another way to say this. Either I
don't understand what you're talking about, or you paid no attention to
the post you just quoted from.
Scott writes:
>And it is why I prefer to confess my sin to the Lord. If I need prayer,
I will
>ask for it, but God is the only one who can really do anything about my
>sinfulness, so I give it up to Him.
So what, the prayers of your fellow Christians have no power? You're not
the only person to ever struggle with sin (though it may feel like it
sometimes), and other people may have overcome some of those sins. They
may be able to offer practical advice on the subject.
Rich (I'm assuming) casually remarks:
>Besides that, if Heaven is going to filled exclusively with deceptive
>people who judge and a guy who screams alot, I'd rather not be among 'em.
You know for what was obviously intended as as knock against the ICC, it
sounds a lot more to me like a knock against God.
For those of you who confess to a priest, I'd like to ask you a question:
After your confessions, does your priest give you any suggestions on how
to help overcome these sins (other than prayer)? (This is not a knock at
priests.)
R. L. Measures
> Rich (I'm assuming) casually remarks:
>
> >Besides that, if Heaven is going to filled exclusively with deceptive
> >people who judge and a guy who screams alot, I'd rather not be among 'em.
>
> You know for what was obviously intended as as knock against the ICC, it
> sounds a lot more to me like a knock against God.
Close, EO, but you don't win the teddy bear--even if you are a fellow Mac
user. It is wakeup call about the icoc-god of deceit. A knock against
the God of truth and light--I don't think so. Christians who judge? Give
me a break. That trip takes a totally awesome dose of thought-stopping.
> For those of you who confess to a priest, I'd like to ask you a question:
> After your confessions, does your priest give you any suggestions on how
> to help overcome these sins (other than prayer)? (This is not a knock at
> priests.)
Some do. The tired, old story about Catholic girls doin' the wild thing
on Friday nights and going to Confession on Saturdays is myth. The true
sign of repentance is to stop repeating past errors--however, IMO, there
is no substitute for forgiving others--up to the point of feeding a pearl
necklace to the neighbor's pot belly pigs that have just devoured my
garden. You can read about it in Matthew if you like.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
Scott W. Schreiber
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>Scott writes:
>
>>And it is why I prefer to confess my sin to the Lord. If I need prayer,
>I will
>>ask for it, but God is the only one who can really do anything about my
>>sinfulness, so I give it up to Him.
>
>So what, the prayers of your fellow Christians have no power?
I left the whole thing there so you could read it again EO.
Read it again..."If I need prayer, I will ask for it"
IF I feel that I need prayer support, I will ASK FOR IT! I deeply
appreciate it when people pray for me, I just don't think that I need
to sit down and say "I need you to pray for me, I'm having a hard time
with XXX." All I need to ask is for them to pray for me, and when
they say "God, I'm praying for Scott, that you would help him in his
hard times" God knows.
R. L. Measures
> Rich, you know *DARN RIGHT WELL* that Catherine doesn't support
> pedophelia. And you know *DARN RIGHT WELL* about what she was speaking.
> YOUR COMMENT TO HER WAS OUT OF LINE, and she deserves an apology from
> you.
>
> I appreciate your passion against pedophelia in the RCC, but that doesn't
> give you the right to attempt to manipulate her, which is *exactly* what
> you were doing. Talk about cultic practices.
AN APOLOGY?
Consider the thousands of people out there, including some of my friends,
who were molested by priests. There is ample evidence to show that the
RCC has helped, and continues to help, such priests stay in business by
quitely moving them to distant parishes when a problem arises. Keep in
mind that pedophilia is something that can NOT be cured, Chris. Keep in
mind that the church NEVER warns the distant parish that their new priest
has a history of molesting children. Keep in mind that the church teaches
priests that it is more sinful to have sex with a woman than to have sex
with a child. Keep in mind that the church teaches priests that children
simply outgrow such experiences and suffer no lasting effects as adults.
---I cited court cases and a legal opinion from an RCC attorney which
shows that the church has been aiding and abetting abusers, as well as
keeping records of confessions. IMO, this puts the Roman church in the
abusive category. Catherine says I am wrong and that the church is NOT
facilitating child abuse. There are thousands of victims of priests who
know only too well that the church facilitates child abuse. IMO, anybody
who persists in denying this well-established fact owes these people an
apology, Chris.
Sure, I know that Catherine doesn't support pedophilia--but she does
defend an organization that facilitates it. This puts Catherine and Rich
on opposite sides of the field of battle.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
EOshiro
Rich writes:
><snip>The tired, old story about Catholic girls doin' the wild thing
>on Friday nights and going to Confession on Saturdays is myth.<snip>
Of course that isn't to say that some don't do it...
If that's a myth, then so is the one about all ICC members being
overbearing, love-bombing, works-focused, deceitful, cult members.
EOshiro
Scott writes:
>IF I feel that I need prayer support, I will ASK FOR IT! I deeply
>appreciate it when people pray for me, I just don't think that I need
>to sit down and say "I need you to pray for me, I'm having a hard time
>with XXX." All I need to ask is for them to pray for me, and when
>they say "God, I'm praying for Scott, that you would help him in his
>hard times" God knows.
Well, you've read your Bible. You do what you think will work best.
RICK & SARAH BAUER
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
> snip>
> I don't think I said sin lists were only a local thing. But since I
> believe in Al Baird's sincerity, I don't believe that sin lists were
> started by top ICC leadership either.
<snip>
The practice of having potential converts make a sinlist was
instituted by the top level leadership back in Boston sometime in
the '80s. The justification for such a practice was to help the
individual understand the impact of their sin. That the sins on
one's particular list put Jesus on the cross. The problems began
when those sins were shared with other people without the author's
knowledge. Thus a breach of confidentiality began and is continued
to this day.
Why did Al Baird say the a sinlist that was shown to him on 20/20
was "absolutely wrong," but then several months later on Inside
Edition say, "a leader has to know his people?" Why did Al
condemn the sinlist, then condone it? Was it wrong to breach
confidentiality until he found out that Gordon Ferguson, Elder/Teacher,
Boston was the instigator of such a breach?
Sarah
nancy
On Aug 12, 1996 21:38:27 in article <Re: how to leave the ICC>,
'meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R. L. Measures)' wrote:
<snip>
>who were molested by priests. There is ample evidence to show that the
>RCC has helped, and continues to help, such priests stay in business by
>quitely moving them to distant parishes when a problem arises.
priests repented and were sent to programs and thought to be cured.
I don't believe it can be cured, however, only recently have doctors
realized this. However, people convicted of it still get released from
prison after a short sentance, and, in Massachusetts, until about a month
ago, they didn't even have any kind of registry for sex offenders. So, you
could be living next door to one, and you, the neighbors, the police
wouldn't know, unless someone told you.
The point is, that it's taken a long time for people to acknowledge
pedophelia is incurable, and, like society, the RCC is just beginning to
come to terms with it too.
>Keep in
>mind that pedophilia is something that can NOT be cured, Chris. Keep in
>mind that the church NEVER warns the distant parish that their new priest
>has a history of molesting children. Keep in mind that the church teaches
>priests that it is more sinful to have sex with a woman than to have sex
>with a child. Keep in mind that the church teaches priests that children
>simply outgrow such experiences and suffer no lasting effects as adults.
The church teaches that sex outside of marriage is a sin period!!
nancy
R. L. Measures
> Rich writes:
>
> ><snip>The tired, old story about Catholic girls doin' the wild thing
> >on Friday nights and going to Confession on Saturdays is myth.<snip>
>
> Of course that isn't to say that some don't do it...
If a Catholic girl tries this, a properly-trained priest isn't going to
keep saying: do a dozen Hail Marys---see you next Saturday. A friend of
mine tried this with a Catholic priest. On the third 'Saturday' he told
her to stop coming to confession if she was willing to change her
behavior.
> If that's a myth, then so is the one about all ICC members being
> overbearing, love-bombing, works-focused, deceitful, cult members.
Nah. I have witnessed the carefully scripted love-bombing. I have
witnessed the deceit. However, I didn't find them overbearing--but then
I've been around lots of car salesmen. I don't think the icc can be
justly described as a cult. There are just too many different kinds of
cults. I would describe the icc as a neo-authoritarian control-culture
club, dominated by a short-fused charismatic "Prophet" who screams a lot
and seems to have a Napoleon complex.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
EOshiro
Rich writes:
>> If that's a myth, then so is the one about all ICC members being
>> overbearing, love-bombing, works-focused, deceitful, cult members.
>
>Nah. I have witnessed the carefully scripted love-bombing. I have
>witnessed the deceit.<snip>
...of every single member? I don't think so. Any more than you know
every single Catholic girl.
R.L. Measures
In article <4unb6a$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
> . . . But since I
> believe in Al Baird's sincerity, I don't believe that sin lists were
> started by top ICC leadership either. . . .
On 20/20 Al Baird, or possibly some dead-ringer imposter, said he would
lie for god's kingdom. Al proved this irrefutably to everyone's
satisfaction by telling different stories at different times in front of a
video camera. Totally awesome prevarication. Al is not someone I would
believe in, EO. After the Al Baird embarrassment on national TV,
sin-lists went into hiding but they did not go away. Sin-lists have been
an essential part of the discipling movement since it's beginnings in the
early 1970s. Sin-lists are the key to the control the sect achieves over
individuals. Sin-lists also provide ammunition for fabricting a
semi-plausible 'explaination' why someone (who came to their senses) left
'god's kingdom'--as 9 out of 10 members eventually do.
============================================================
Getting back to the original question of how to leave the ICC?
------------------
My Suggestions:
1. In the middle of a large meeting, rise, walk to the front of the
group, in a loud voice say something like "this can not be God's Kingdom,
I'm outta here--or words that effect--and walk out. It's important to let
others know that this is YOUR decision. Remember, it's important not to
show anger or use profanity--and don't be flippin' anyone off as you go
out the door. If you feeled compelled to have some fun, say 'get behind
me, Satan' in a stentorian voice just before you close the door (gently).
2. If you agree to any type of a post-exit meeting with 'god's leaders',
it will probably be something like Chapter 6 in *Dante's Inferno*. .
When a friend attended such a meeting, she cried and sobbed for hours
afterward. Two years passed before she would talk to me about it. If
you guessed that god's leaders' had deceived her as to what the meeting
would be about---congratulations. Somehow, 'god's leaders' had convinced
her that she was really leaving God. It never dawned on her that
deceptive people are more likely to be working for the other guy than than
to be working for the God of truth and light.
If you get a post-bailout phone call from any ICC member, immediately ask
for permission to tape record the conversation. That should scare the
hell out of 'em so they won't bug you.
And last but not least, try looking up some of your old friends. If they
were real friends they will still be your friends--unlike the
ersatz-friends you had in 'god's kingsom' who will cut you loose at the
drop of a hat.
--Rich--
805-386-3734
R.L. Measures
In article <4ul36f$k...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
n1...@usa.pipeline.com(nancy) wrote:
> Rich,
>
> You wrote:
>
> >Catherine is offended because I still think she erred by implying that a
> church which facilitates pedophilia is not abusive.
>
> Uh,uh!!! I really don't think the RCC facilitates pedophilia. My husband
> was raised Roman Catholic, went to school taught by Fransican brothers, and
> was never molested, nor was his brother or sister.
Most Catholic children are not molested by priests or nuns. Some Catholic
children are molested by priests or nuns. I know people in both
catagories. The two court cases I cited show that the church moves known
pedophiles to new parishes instead of firing them. The church never warns
the new parish about the new guy. To me, that IS facilitating
pedophilia. What would you call it, Nancy?
>
> I don't think, IMHO, that you are anti-Christian per say, but you sound
> like your anti establishment!!!
>
Perhaps. Of course a person could be anti-Christian and still call
him/her self a Christian. With 300 or so 'Christian' sects, a Christian
vs. Christian war could break out at virtually any moment--except during
the World Series, of course. For example, the 'true Christian' sect (the
ICC) reviles the other 299 Christian sects and relegates them to eternal
torment in Hell. The problem isn't unique to so-called Christianity. In
Islam, there are 79 sects--some of whom would like nothing better than to
spend the afternoon slaughtering each other for al-Lah.
"... ...religion must be the cause of unity, harmony and agreement among
mankind. If it be the cause of discord and hostility, if it leads to
separation and creates conflict, the absence of religion would be
preferable in the world." --Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith, page 247. .
--Rich--
805-386-3734
Smlleecat6
Nancy wrote:
>Perhaps, the church is more forgiving than most people. Perhaps these
>priests repented and were sent to programs and thought to be cured.
>I don't believe it can be cured, however, only recently have doctors
>realized this. However, people convicted of it still get released from
>prison after a short sentance, and, in Massachusetts, until about a month
>ago, they didn't even have any kind of registry for sex offenders. So,
you
>could be living next door to one, and you, the neighbors, the police
>wouldn't know, unless someone told you.
I was in a class with a guy who is a therapist at Bridgewater Treatment
Center (a correctional facility with a wing for sex offenders). He said
that sex offenders can recover and in fact he says that it is easier to
rehabilitate a sex offender than a substance abuser. Personally, I don't
agree with him for one second.
nancy
On Aug 13, 1996 13:28:29 in article <Re: how to leave the ICC>,
'meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R.L. Measures)' wrote:
>In article <4ul36f$k...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
>n1...@usa.pipeline.com(nancy) wrote:
>
>> Rich,
>>
>> You wrote:
>>
>> >Catherine is offended because I still think she erred by implying that
a
>> church which facilitates pedophilia is not abusive.
>>
>> Uh,uh!!! I really don't think the RCC facilitates pedophilia. My husband
>> was raised Roman Catholic, went to school taught by Fransican brothers,
and
>> was never molested, nor was his brother or sister.
>
>Most Catholic children are not molested by priests or nuns. Some Catholic
>children are molested by priests or nuns. I know people in both
>catagories. The two court cases I cited show that the church moves known
>pedophiles to new parishes instead of firing them. The church never warns
>the new parish about the new guy. To me, that IS facilitating
>pedophilia. What would you call it, Nancy?
That sure sounds like society in general Rich, like I said, until recently,
pedophelia was a "dirty little secret". In fact, when they got out of
prison, or rehab or whatever, pedopheliacs didn't even have to notify the
police when they moved to a new town. Finally, society AND the church are
coming to terms with it and admitting it does exsist, and it is incurable!!
>>
>> I don't think, IMHO, that you are anti-Christian per say, but you sound
>> like your anti establishment!!!
<snip>
>--Rich--
>805-386-3734
nancy
Carol2180
continued quote from article by Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.:
"Comparing the Boston movement group to former Catholics tests the
hypothesis that former members of cultic groups rate the group negatively
simply because they are disaffected. If this hypothesis were true, former
Catholics and former Boston movement members should be equally critical of
their groups. My hypothesis was that, although departure from a group may
bias one's perceptions to some degree, this bias is not so great as to
prevent former members of abusive groups from providing relatively
objective opinions on those groups. I also hypothesized that former
members of the Boston movement would exhibit higher levels of
psychological distress and would show considerable agreement about having
experienced many of the concrete practices for which the Boston movement
has been criticized.
Heightened Distress Shown
The results, which involved statistical analyses too complex to go into
here, supported my hypotheses. Boston movement subjects scored higher
("higher" meaning the results were statistically significant) than
InterVarsity subjects on five measures of psychological distress (general
symptomatology, depression, anxiety, dissociation, post-traumatic stress)
and higher than former Roman Catholics on two measures of psychological
distress (depression and post-traumatic stress).
Former Boston movement subjects -- in both components -- rated their group
much higher on the Group Psychological Abuse Scale than did either former
Roman Catholics or InterVarsity graduates. Not surprisingly, former Roman
Catholics rated the Catholic Church as less benign than InterVarsity
graduates rated their group. I say "less benign" because the average
global rating of former Catholics on the GPA Scale was still well below
the score separating abusive from nonabusive ratings. The GPA mean
(average) scores for the two Boston Movement groups were 105.60 and
108.50. The means for former Catholics and InterVarsity graduates were
65.26 and 46.91, respectively. The abusive/nonabusive midpoint score is
84; that is scores above 84 indicate the subject is rating abuse items as
generally characterizing the group and below 84 as generally not
characterizing the group.
Former Boston movement subjects also disclosed extensive personal
experience with concrete practices for which the group has been criticized
(this measure included 120 ratings, so only a small number are reported
on here). In a section of the measure that inquired into recruitment
deception, subjects gave an average rating of 1.82, with 1.00 indicating
the statements reflecting deception were definitely true and 2.00
indicating the statements were probably true. Members' subservience to
leaders/disciplers was especially conspicuous. ...continued Part 3
\
Carol2180
In article <4uf82d$a...@netnews.upenn.edu>, cla...@blue.seas.upenn.edu
(SpeakerForTheDead) writes:
> Just a bit to defend rich here. Reports of spiritual abuse are
>not limited to fringe groups like the ICC. There are plenty of
>resources for someone who considers themselves a "recovering catholic" or
>a "recovering baptist"; groups like Intervarsity, the Navigators, and
>Campus Crusade for Christ as far as I can remember, have all had numerous
>claims of spiritual abuse levelled against them. Granted, the abuse is
of
>a different kind (I've spoken to one person who has taken part in a
>group for recovering christians; her background was a mainstream
>protestant denomination) and not quite as severe as what is experienced
by
>members of groups like the ICC, but in many cases some serious
>psychological damage is done.
Actually, there is a study that has been done -- and I'm going to quote
here directly from and article written by Michael D. Langone, Ph. D.
(Exec. Dir. of AFF):
"Boston Church of Christ Movement -- Study Reveals Cultic Group's Abuses"
This study, which forms part of a series of studies my colleagues and I
are conducting, investigates the nature and level of psychological
distress of former members of the Boston Church of Christ (International
Churches of Christ) movement and their evaluations of the psychological
abusiveness of that group. (the movement has been very controversial on
many campuses in the U.S. and in Europe. It is often considered one of the
fastest growing cultic groups in the world.) The study had two components,
one in which subjects were seen face-to-face and one in which subjects
received questionnaires through the mail.
Testing Instruments
The study attempted to overcome some serious methodological limitations of
previous empirical work in this field through the use of: (1) a
standardized battery of psychological distress and background measures,
compiled by a research team at Ohio University and Wellspring Retreat and
Resource Center (only subjects seen face-to-face received this test
battery); (2) an objective measure of psychological abuse (a kind of
"cultism" scale), the Group Psychological Abuse Scale, which my colleagues
and I reported on in Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 11 #1; (3) a measure
that asked subjects to rate their personal experience and opinions about a
long list of concrete practices for which the Boston movement has been
criticized (only subjects receiving mailed questionnaires completed this
measure); and (4) two mainstream comparison groups -- graduates of
InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (a campus ministry) and former Roman
Catholics.
Comparison Group
The former Innter Varsity subjects were expected to have viewed their
group experience favorably, whereas the former Catholics were expected to
have more negative view of their group. Continued in Part 2 (my
server clips posts!)
\
Carol2180
>You know what, Rich. GROW UP. I hadn't relized until this moment how
>manipulative you are. There's a career for you as an ICC evangelist. You
>know perfectly well that neither Catherine or I are "offended" at your
>accusations above.
I have to agree with them, Rich.
\
Carol2180
In article <measures-110...@term2-1.vta.west.net>,
meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) writes:
>
>Verily, I say unto you, citeth not court cases or legal opinions that
>reveal the abusive hidden practices of the Roman church--lest they turn
on
>you and rend you.
>
>
That's not their point, Rich and you know it and I know it.
\
Carol2180
In article <measures-100...@term1-22.vta.west.net>,
meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) writes:
>However, the RCC continues to teach priests that children simply outgrow
>sexual abuse and that no lasting damage is done. The church also teaches
>priests that it is more sinful to have sex with a woman than to have sex
>with a child. [references available] The RCC teaches children that to
>tell on a priest means they go to hell. You won't find this in any
>written material. It's strictly a verbal teaching. Shades of the ICC?
What?! Let's see the references, please. One of the valuable things
about this newsgroup is that while we do share our stories, these do
become written down! And a lot of the real criticism that happens here is
backed up by the movement's own written (or audio taped) materials. This
stuff on"it's strictly a verbal teaching" simply doesn't hold as much
water ... and especially from someone who is telling someone else's
accounts....you said you were not RC, right?
\
Carol2180
For example, 92.5% of subjects said they had personally been told to
"trust the group and its leaders over the members' own thoughts and
opinion;" 57.5% said they had had to "get permission from your discipler
before going on single dates when beginning a dating relationship with
someone" (this 57.5% probably doesn't include those who did not date and
for whom the question was not applicable); 27.5% had been told "to break
up a dating relationship with a nonmember;" 77.5% said they had been
"admonished or rebuked for making an important decision without seeking
advice from their discipler;" 87.5% said they had been told that "to
question, criticize, disobey or distrust group leaders is to do the same
to God;" 87.5% had been told that "if a person is not being discipled he
or she is not a Christian." 82.5% had been "chastised because they fail to
imitate their discipler or other leader."
Variation in Negative Evaluation
On the other hand, the negative evaluation of the movement, though strong,
showed some variation. Although 45% were told that "to be especially close
to their family is to be sentimental," 25% said they were not told this;
27.5% said "they changed their life goals in order to conform to the
group's goals," but 32.5% said they did not; 55% said that "members
experiencing any emotional or psychological distress are told that
nonmember professionals should not be consulted," but 20% said this
staement was not true. These variations probably reflect: (1) the
capacity of former members to make discerning judgments in rating scales
(very few paint a sterotypically negative picture of the group); and (2)
objective differences in the local environments of different Boston
movement centers. One former leader of the movement, for example, says "We
tried not to repeat any of the abuses we had seen in Boston in Nashville
and we think we were successful. . . The newspaper articles constantly
talked about the abuses of Crossroads and Boston, but they could never
actually pin anything on us and we intended to keep it that way" ("A
Diary: Why I Left the Boston Movement" by S. M. Condon, 1991).
This study is by no means definitive. We do not know how representative
the volunteer subjects were of the wider population of former Boston
movement members. We have not studied current Boston movement members. We
do not know if similar studies of other controversial groups would produce
similar results. The study's sample size, though adequate, should be
larger. Therefore, I caution readers not to do what some cult apologists
have done, that is, to make more of research results supporting one's
point of view than the science warrants. This study is one brick in a
promising edifice of empirical research studies that are underway,
planned, or dreamed about. I hope that in a few years my colleagues and I
will have supplied several more bricks for that research edifice."
*******End of article ********
By the way, if any of you former members would like to take part in that
research, you can communicate with Dr. Langone on AFF's web site at
http://www.csj.org
\
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
Carol2180 (caro...@aol.com) wrote:
: similar results. The study's sample size, though adequate, should be
: larger. Therefore, I caution readers not to do what some cult apologists
: have done, that is, to make more of research results supporting one's
: point of view than the science warrants. This study is one brick in a
: promising edifice of empirical research studies that are underway,
: planned, or dreamed about. I hope that in a few years my colleagues and I
: will have supplied several more bricks for that research edifice."
: *******End of article ********
: By the way, if any of you former members would like to take part in that
: http://www.csj.org
Carol, it appears to me that Dr. Langone is trying to conduct a
fair-minded test, one which is not reliant upon skewed data. However, by
soliciting for research subjects on this newsgroup, you are going to
attract ex-members who are on the most extreme fringe. As a seven-year
member, I have known many people who have left the church, only a few are
openly critical of people in the church, and even fewer of the church
in general. Additionally, those who had left the church at one point
and have been since restored and are disciples in the church, are
excluded from your subject pool.
Roger Poehlmann
member, SF Church of Christ
(International Church of Christ)
R. L. Measures
In article <4usqst$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, caro...@aol.com
(Carol2180) wrote:
True, Carol. Some of my friends are RC, which is probably how I became
interested in the subject. I have had some interesting, lengthy
discussions with them--some of whom say that they think I would make a
good priest. This blows me away. .............................pausing
until Carol stops laughing...............................
RE: references:
The info on what the RCC teaches its priests:
Wilkes, Paul. "Unholy Acts." *The New Yorker*, June 7, 1993. As I
recall, the information you are seeking is around page 70. For additional
information see: Berry, Jason. *Lead Us Not Into Temptation*, ISBN
0-385-47305-2. A caveat: this book is not for the faint hearted. I have
not finished reading the book.
The info on confessional record keeping: (the ICoC connection)
I do not have the court records from the Detroit, Michigan case or the
Vermillion Parish case in Louisana. Both cases were widely reported in
newspapers. The *Times Picayune* in Vermilion Parish, Louisana was the
newspaper that broke the story about Father Gilbert J. Gauthe, Jr. . The
church sued the paper for libel. This action initially discouraged other
newspapers from picking up the story. The church零 libel suit was dropped
after the story was picked up by the *Los Angeles Times* and other major
newspapers. [The *Los Angeles Times* recently added an Internet
archive. <http://www.latimes.com> ] A HBO movie--*Judgement*--was made
in 1990 about the Gauthe case. At one time I had a copy. Let me know if
you are interested and I'll see if I can locate it. *Lead Us Not Into
Temptation* provides information, as well as giving numerous references
that may be useful to you. There are 14 glossary references to canon
lawyer A James Quin (who is also an Auxilary Bishop). I am not sure that
the book discusses Quinn's legal advice to subpoena-proof the
confessional records of pedophile-priests by sheltering them in the
Vatican Embasy in Wahington. I recall reading about this in some sort of
clergy-watchdog periodical. if need be, I can search a file folder I keep
on such things.
The info on: tell on a priest and go to Hell is a difficult thing to
prove beyond a shadow of doubt. None of the conversations I had with
Catholic children were taped--and even if they had been, it could easily
be argued that it's all hearsay. Sure, I have run into plenty of kids who
make things up, as you no doubt have, Carol, but 'Tell on Father--burn in
Hell' sounds to me more like adult chicanery than kid imagination. //
Mike Wallace of *60 Minutes* did a videotaped interview with some minor
RC girls in Santa Fe, New Mexico that may be helpful to you. [CBS News
Dept.,, 555 West 57th Street, New York, NY 10019]. // I have a copy of
a RCC training manual for high school students that equates one type of
telling the truth with 'bearing false witness against thy neighbor'. I
can scan it and e-mail a GIF file of the relevant pages if you want.
------------------
IMO, unlike the ICoC, the RCC CAN be fixed. Here's my shopping list:
Optional vow of celibacy, women clergy, confess publicly that pedophilia
is incurable, eject known pedophiles, establish pedophilia reporting
center for RC kids on the Internet. let women control their own
bodies--for starters. .
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
R. L. Measures
In article <4uktbn$m...@nntp1.best.com>, ar...@nntp.best.com (Catherine
Hampton) wrote:
> Chris -- I don't consider Rich to be "us" in this instance. If
> anyone is foolish enough to enjoy the sight of me treating him
> according to exactly the same standards as I have others on this
> newsgroup who have been abusive, they need to acquire some better
> critical thought skills.
------------------------
For the benefit of foolish persons in need of better critical thought skills:
In e-mail, she threatened to persuade my Internet service provider to
kick me off the Internet. .
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
R.L. Measures
In article <4ur3oq$h...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, smlle...@aol.com
(Smlleecat6) wrote:
------------------
I live about four miles from Barry Street in Camarillo, CA. Amy Sue Sykes
used to live on Barry Street. She was four years old when she was
kidnapped from her fenced front yard by Theodore Frank, a man who had
molested over 250 children, according to his diary. Theodore Frank had
just been "cured" of pedophilia in the State of California's
state-of-the-art treatment program for sex offenders at Atascadero, CA,
and released. According to the Ventura County Coroner, Theodore Frank
used a pair of Vise Grip® pliers to destroy Amy Sue Sykes female parts
while she was still alive. When there were no female parts left, he
strangled Amy Sue and dumped her body in some weeds about 50 miles to the
east. Amy Sue left this world in the 1970s. It was a landmark case.
Psychotherapists across the land spoke out. Virtually all of them said
that pedophilia is NOT curable.
The RCC has firsthand knowledge that pedophilia is NOT curable--they have
the confessional records that prove it--safely stashed in the Vatican
Embasy, thanks to lawyer A. James Quinn.
There are few things that get me pissed off. Killing my cats is one, Mr.
Coyote. Defending pedophiles is another. Rising to the defense of
organiaations that aid and abet pedophiles is another way to get me pissed
off, Catherine Hampton.
--Rich--
805-386-3734
SRauch4321
I was highly involved in InterVarsity during my undergraduate years. For
5 years, I sat on my chapter's exec. I led Bible study 5 times (i.e.
weekly for 5 14-week semesters). Later, I was Bible study coordinator for
my chapter for 2 years, and chapter president for a year. I attended
every Fall and Spring semester state-wide conference I could. In 5 years,
I think I only missed two. I even went to Urbana '93, IV's international
missions conference. The reason I'm telling you this is because I feel
I'm an authority on the topic of InterVarsity.
For one thing, InterVarsity is not a church and does not claim to be one.
It's a para-church organization. In other words, it helps students in
their spiritual lives during the week at campus, but wants them to attend
Sunday morning worship at any given local church and be involved in a
local church. My chapter had people from many local churches in
practically every denomination. InterVarsity is inter-denominational. My
chapter had Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, Catholics, etc. InterVarsity
is such a loose-knit organization, when it came to denominational
differences, we totally dropped them and left them alone. It was a
hands-off approach. We had Bible studies just for the purpose of lifting
people up spiritually. Those inductive Bible studies were open-ended. It
was nothing like the legalism and pressure seen the ICC. To even suggest
a similarity between InterVarsity and the ICC, to me, is mind-boggling.
They are complete opposites. (I was involved in the ICC for 2 months.)
The ICC wants to engulf and devour the poor soul who doesn't know any
better.
Campus Crusade is very similiar to InterVarsity. I know a little about
them and see absolutely no problems with them. Now, there are some cult
groups on college campuses masquerading around like legitimate Christian
para-church organizations. Perhaps the writer was thinking of them and
got them mixed up. BTW, that bit about cultic groups on campus
masquerading like legitimate Christian organizations, sound like a
familiar cultic group to you?
--Steven Rauch
SRauc...@aol.com
Scott W. Schreiber
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>However, by soliciting for research subjects on this newsgroup, you are going to
>attract ex-members who are on the most extreme fringe.
Yeah? What about the extrenist members?
R. L. Measures
In article <4usqvb$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, caro...@aol.com
(Carol2180) wrote:
> In article <measures-110...@term2-1.vta.west.net>,
> meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) writes:
>
> >
> >Verily, I say unto you, citeth not court cases or legal opinions that
> >reveal the abusive hidden practices of the Roman church--lest they turn
> on
> >you and rend you.
> >
> >
>
> That's not their point, Rich and you know it and I know it.
>
Sure, I was insensitive to Catherine Hampton. If I had it to do over, I
would do it differently. Instead, I should have asked Catherine to
explain why she feels that an organization. which has been shown in two
courts of law to aid and abet pedophiles, is not an abusive organization.
On the other hand, it appeared to me that Catherine was insensitive to the
plethora of children who have been victimized by this organization's
pro-abuser policies. In my mind, Carol, sending a known, pedophile
priest to an unsuspecting, unwarned, new parish invites comparison to the
sending of smallpox infected blankets to unsuspecting American Indians,
which is also an irrefutable fact.
One of the more interesting aspects of this donnybrook is that Catherine
Hampton is currently trying to convince other people to boycott me.
Thanks to her impressive knowledge and writing skill, Catherine Hampton
has indeed become a powerful leader on arcb-c. Perhaps even powerful
enough to successfully *mark* someone who criticizes one of Catherine's
sacred cows. ...
Will Catherine succeed in marking R.L. Measures? Will Catherine be Great
if she can pull this one off? . . . . . Stay tuned for the next exciting
episode.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
Carol2180
In article <4uv7og$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, srauc...@aol.com
(SRauch4321) writes:
>Campus Crusade is very similiar to InterVarsity. I know a little about
>them and see absolutely no problems with them. Now, there are some cult
>groups on college campuses masquerading around like legitimate Christian
>para-church organizations. Perhaps the writer was thinking of them and
>got them mixed up. BTW, that bit about cultic groups on campus
>masquerading like legitimate Christian organizations, sound like a
>familiar cultic group to you?
>
>
I think you misunderstood the article. The author recognizes InterVarsity
as a legitimate campus ministry group -- and does not look at it as a
cult. That's why he used it as a control group. He was trying to show
that people who leave benign groups -- or "graduate" from them" may have
some criticisms, but do not consider them abusive like people who leave
the ICC. There certainly is NO aspersion cast on InterVarsity!
\
James Winter
Roger (rogn...@netcom.com) wrote:
>by
>soliciting for research subjects on this newsgroup, you are going to
>attract ex-members who are on the most extreme fringe.
untrue! We just happen to be more vocal about it than others. Most
ex-members do not want to have *any*thing to do with the ICC because
it brings back too many painful memories.
>I have known many people who have left the church,
I bet you have! What was that about "the revolving door" a few
conversations back?? A wise man once said "We are about a mile wide
and about a foot deep" in reference to the ICC.
BTW, it seems that the same "extreme fringe" character trait could be
applied to you Roger, except within the ICC instead of outside of it.
I knew many members that were much more understanding and loving than
you appear to be.
Gary
Gary Winter
(former member Fresno CoC, a planting of Roger's SF CoC)
R. L. Measures
In article <rognmichD...@netcom.com>, rogn...@netcom.com
(Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
> Carol2180 (caro...@aol.com) wrote:
> : similar results. The study's sample size, though adequate, should be
> : larger. Therefore, I caution readers not to do what some cult apologists
> : have done, that is, to make more of research results supporting one's
> : point of view than the science warrants. This study is one brick in a
> : promising edifice of empirical research studies that are underway,
> : planned, or dreamed about. I hope that in a few years my colleagues and I
> : will have supplied several more bricks for that research edifice."
> : *******End of article ********
> : By the way, if any of you former members would like to take part in that
> : research, you can communicate with Dr. Langone on AFF'sȰ web site at
> : http://www.csj.org
>
> Carol, it appears to me that Dr. Langone is trying to conduct a
> fair-minded test, one which is not reliant upon skewed data. However, by
> soliciting for research subjects on this newsgroup, you are going to
> attract ex-members who are on the most extreme fringe. As a seven-year
> member. . . . . .
----------
Interesting stuff. Thank you, Carol G..
WARNING: 'SPIRITUAL PORNOGRAPHY' FOLLOWS:
Roger--RE: 'skewed data': Dr. Langone had two choices. He could have
solicited current members or he could have solicited ex-members. IMO I
think he made the best choice. Current members are handicapped by the
thought-stopping techniques that the ICC sect employs. When I read your
posts, Roger, it is apparent to me that your logic is influenced by
thought-stop.
The curious aspect of thought-stop is that persons who have been
substantively thought-stopped have no idea whatsoever that don't have both
both oars in the water. In other words, even if Roger reads this, Roger's
logic unit will killfile it automatcally and little or none of it will
register--without Roger ever being aware of it. .....
Last night on NBC's Friday *Dateline*, a segment on Dr. Lenz's
ersatz-Buddist sect was presented. The interviewer was well-read and
'loaded for bear]. He asked questions that would trap Lenz in his own
prevarications. It worked beautifully. The Son of Man was right again.
Everything that defiles a guy comes out of his own mouth. Curiously,
Lenz does some of the things that some people discuss on a.r.c.b-c.
Control of members wallets, sex lives, friends, relationship with family,
choice of books. Lenz also uses thought-stopping techniques. I could see
curious similarities between Lenz's and McKean's (ESFJ) personalities--as
well as the apparent attempt of both men to confirm male competence.
Dr. Phyllis Greenacre studied the histories of a number of famous
impostors. She concluded that the impostors were not simple liars. They
were men who had an extraordinary conflict between reality--and what they
wished reality to be. ."The sense of reality is characterized by a
peculiarly sharp, quick perceptiveness, extraordinarily immediate keenness
and responsiveness, especially in the area or the imposture. The sense of
reality is, however, impaired." [Phyllis Greenacre: "The Impostor"
Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 27:359 382 (1958)]
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
SRauch4321
> I think you misunderstood the article. The author recognizes
InterVarsity
> as a legitimate campus ministry group -- and does not look at it as a
> cult. That's why he used it as a control group. He was trying to show
> that people who leave benign groups -- or "graduate" from them" may have
> some criticisms, but do not consider them abusive like people who leave
> the ICC. There certainly is NO aspersion cast on InterVarsity!
Well, ... I wasn't responding to that article. I responded to the post
the article was responding to. It was at the top of the article part 1.
--Steven Rauch
SRauc...@aol.com
R. L.Measures
In article <4v4dj1$p...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
robs...@ix.netcom.com(ROBBIN VUGRNICK) wrote:
Nicely done. However, I take issue with the following:
> - After love bombing, total withdrawal of love (how cruel).
To the best of my knowledge, the sect does not withdraw love. ICC love is
scripted love. The sect turns it on and off like the switch on an
electric pump. They switch it on to pump the mark up. Then they switch
it off. This keeps the mark off balance and that makes him/her
vulnerable. It's sort of like baseball. The pitcher throws an occasional
brush off pitch to keep the batter off balance--which helps the pitcher to
stay in control.
I do not believe it is cruel to withdraw ICC-love. It's like taking back
the gift of counterfeit Hundred Dollar Bill. It doesn't really matter
because it has zero value.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
ROBBIN VUGRNICK
This posting may be long, but I would like to give my overview of the
ICOC. It would be great to hear overviews from others whether you are a
member or nonmember. I am not sure if members have the courage to tell
us the negatives of the ICOC.
I grew up in the COC. I now attend a congregation which simply calls
itself the Southside church to stress nondenominational desires but we
are still part of the COC thread.
I am not a minister, have a regular job, and I do my best to support my
church. When in college I did participate in campaigns for Christ (door
knocking). I always thought this was a bit ineffective.
I had some involvement with the campus ministries of the crossroads
movement and went to some crossroads type services (early beginnings of
the ICOC). My impressions of the ICOC comes from these early
experiences, this newsgroup and the ICOC home page. If I include a “*”
before my comment, I have a feeling my impression may be wrong. I feel
I can back up my impressions with scripture and with other
documentation in most instances.
Impressions of the ICOC - THE GOOD! (As in many organizations)
- Belief in the inspired word of God.
- Belief in the fact and meaning of the death and resurrection of
Jesus.
- Desire to spread the news of Jesus throughout the world.
- Goal to have native churches led by native leaders.
- Commitment of members to sacrifice for their cause.
- Model for strong families built on ethics and love.
- Ability to help people change - drug addicts, alcoholism etc.
- Love bombing (see section on hate bombing in the UGLY part).
- *inspirational heart felt worship.
Impressions of the ICOC - THE BAD
- Valuing people differently based on their talents (sharp people?).
- Arrogance of leaders and members which is so “unchrist like”.
- When good is done for others, there is so much bragging and show
you wonder if it is done to help or gloat.
- *No room for the shy, mentally ill, or depressed.
- Believe that growth = God’s acceptance.
- Use scriptures out of context to express command or fact.
- Use scriptures which imply thought as command or fact.
- Belief that uniformity of thought is unity.
- *Equate an emotional high as love for God.
Impressions of the ICOC- THE UGLY
- After love bombing, total withdrawal of love (how cruel).
- Hate bombing of non ICOC christians, or non conformers.
- Belief that commitment to God = commitment to men.
- Try to limit God’s grace from non ICOC christians (how cruel).
- Abuse the teachings of Jesus for their own means.
- Abuse the teachings of Paul who preached Jesus.
- Apply pressure to women and men’s hearts without concern for
spiritual and physical harm that can be done.
- Place the intimate lives of young people in the hands of young
disciplers who have the power to abuse and lack experience and
wisdom.
These are my impressions, and for my life, I stand with Paul when
he said (I Cor: 4:3-5) “I care very little if I am judged by you or any
human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. My conscience is
clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges
me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the
Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will
expose the motives of men’s hearts”(NIV).
I pray that the motives of my heart are pure and the Lord blesses
each of you in your journey through life.
In Christ
Rob Vugrnick
(Just a Christian)
ROBBIN VUGRNICK
>I do not believe it is cruel to withdraw ICC-love. It's like taking
back
>the gift of counterfeit Hundred Dollar Bill. It doesn't really matter
>because it has zero value.
>
>--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
Unfortunately, the person receiving the counterfeit love thinks it is
authentic. The hurt comes when they find out it is not.
It is better to never have been loved, than to think you have, and
find out you were simply used.
Gintas Jazbutis
I am sure that, while there are some people who are
artificial in their love, others are genuine. The same
was true in the NT, and is true today of all churches. Some
people are in it for the money, or power, or whatever.
Oh, BTW, I am making an introductory offer on this
incredible new product: Bible Tissue. Now you can
catch up on your bible study in the privacy and leisure
of your bathroom. All books available, in individual rolls
or in packages. Send cash only, please.
Gintas
Gintas Jazbutis
gin...@concentric.net
R. L.Measures
In article <4v79kn$j...@herald.concentric.net>, gin...@concentric.net
(Gintas Jazbutis) wrote:
> In article <4v6cjj$r...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
robs...@ix.netcom.com(ROBBIN VUGRNICK) wrote:
> >
> >>I do not believe it is cruel to withdraw ICC-love. It's like taking
> >back
> >>the gift of counterfeit Hundred Dollar Bill. It doesn't really matter
> >>because it has zero value.
> >>
> >>--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
> >
> >Unfortunately, the person receiving the counterfeit love thinks it is
> >authentic. The hurt comes when they find out it is not.
True enough, Rob. However, within a year or so most ex-members seem to
come to their senses and the hurt begins to fade.
> > It is better to never have been loved, than to think you have, and
> > find out you were simply used.
> >
>
> I am sure that, while there are some people who are
> artificial in their love, others are genuine. The same
> was true in the NT, and is true today of all churches. Some
> people are in it for the money, or power, or whatever.
Good point. While there undoubtedly are some people in the ICC who love
unconditionally, group-think pressure within the juggernaut eventually
converts them to people who conditionally love--i.e., ersatz-love.
> Oh, BTW, I am making an introductory offer on this
> incredible new product: Bible Tissue. Now you can
> catch up on your bible study in the privacy and leisure
> of your bathroom. All books available, in individual rolls
> or in packages. Send cash only, please.
>
> Gintas
Totally awesome Bro Gintas. Put me down for a dozen of these incredible
little beauties. Your one book per roll idea was great. Feel free to
rebuke me for suggesting that the whole NT could have gone on one roll.
Obviously, printing small size type on porous paper would never have
worked right, even with the new fast-drying inks.
What do you think about sending a case of complementary rolls to KNN?
......... Maybe they would mention it on their Web site.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
Starr
meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) wrote:
> Sure, I was insensitive to Catherine Hampton. If I had it to do over, I
>would do it differently. Instead, I should have asked Catherine to
>explain why she feels that an organization. which has been shown in two
>courts of law to aid and abet pedophiles, is not an abusive organization.
No, the point was that you were out of line. Plain and simple.
<snip>
>Will Catherine succeed in marking R.L. Measures? Will Catherine be Great
>if she can pull this one off? . . . . . Stay tuned for the next exciting
>episode.
Totally insulting, rude & uncalled for. No more, no less. Exactly
like Kevin Dirks calling me the "Starr of the Group" (Remember that
one?)
Rich, give it up.
Kim
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
R. L. Measures (meas...@mail.vcnet.com) wrote:
: In article <rognmichD...@netcom.com>, rogn...@netcom.com
: (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
: > Carol2180 (caro...@aol.com) wrote:
: > : similar results. The study's sample size, though adequate, should be
: > : larger. Therefore, I caution readers not to do what some cult apologists
: > : have done, that is, to make more of research results supporting one's
: > : point of view than the science warrants. This study is one brick in a
: > : promising edifice of empirical research studies that are underway,
: > : planned, or dreamed about. I hope that in a few years my colleagues and I
: > : will have supplied several more bricks for that research edifice."
: > : *******End of article ********
: > : By the way, if any of you former members would like to take part in that
: > : research, you can communicate with Dr. Langone on AFF'sȰ web site at
: > : http://www.csj.org
: >
: > Carol, it appears to me that Dr. Langone is trying to conduct a
: > fair-minded test, one which is not reliant upon skewed data. However, by
: > soliciting for research subjects on this newsgroup, you are going to
: > attract ex-members who are on the most extreme fringe. As a seven-year
: > member. . . . . .
: ----------
: Interesting stuff. Thank you, Carol G..
: WARNING: 'SPIRITUAL PORNOGRAPHY' FOLLOWS:
Yes, do watch out, it might cause you to lust after being more
spiritually-minded.
: Roger--RE: 'skewed data': Dr. Langone had two choices. He could have
: solicited current members or he could have solicited ex-members. IMO I
: think he made the best choice. Current members are handicapped by the
: thought-stopping techniques that the ICC sect employs. When I read your
: posts, Roger, it is apparent to me that your logic is influenced by
: thought-stop.
Sorry, my thoughts stopped two sentences ago. Maybe it's all the big words
and no pictures. ;)
My argument was with the method by which ex-members are now being recruited,
not that fact that they were used to create a study. If you look at the
whole pool of those who left the ICC, say, in 1990, you will find
ex-members who:
(a) strongly agree with what the ICC is doing and have been restored and
are current members today
(b) agree with what the ICC is doing but are not members today
(c) are neutral and couldn't care less
(d) are neutral but still interested in the going's on
(e) disagree with what the ICC is doing
(f) strong disagree with what the ICC is doing.
And maybe there are some additional categories that you free-thinkers can
come up with. My thoughts are stopped up, and I'm going to have to take
some Correctol. :)
What percentages are in what groups is a matter of debate. However, the
people posting on this newsgroup are from (d), (e), and (f) primarily.
They even vastly outnumber the *current* members of the church! It is
laughable to think that they represent a cross-section of ex-members and
so data should not be collected from this biased pool.
I am giving Dr. Langone the benefit of the doubt that he has
participation from all 6 groups in his current study. However, to
continue the research with a group skewed with (d)'s, (e)'s, and (f)'s
will only result in a biased study with a predictable result, and would
therefore be inconclusive to say anything about the ICC as a whole. By
Dr. Langone's own words, he is concerned with making a contribution to
science rather than rubber-stamping a preformed conclusion.
ROBBIN VUGRNICK
Roger
Don't you think you ignore the bad & ugly parts of your church because
of the good that you think it does? Do you not think that your system
has any opportunities to hurt, abuse people? Are people asked to leave
the ICC because their level of committment does not meet the standard?
Is there room in the ICC for the mentally ill, depressed, shy or
personalities that are different than the leaders?
Below is the same as my previous post.
TriciaAZ
In article <4v4dj1$p...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
robs...@ix.netcom.com(ROBBIN VUGRNICK) writes:
<snip>
>
>I grew up in the COC. I now attend a congregation which simply calls
>itself the Southside church to stress nondenominational desires but we
>are still part of the COC thread.
I think this is a good effort on the part of your church. The restoration
plea was great for its time ("let's get rid of all denominational labels
and just be Christians only, and let's get back to the Bible as the source
of our doctrine"), but it has now the added implication of "but let's go
to MY church, since MINE has been trying to get back to the Bible and get
rid of divisive labels, and YOURS hasn't". There needs to be a renewal of
the restoration plea for this generation, where each professing Christian
will renew fellowship with other Christians no matter what denominational
label the person's church has.
<snip>
>Impressions of the ICOC - THE GOOD! (As in many organizations)
<snipped a lot of good things>
>- Love bombing (see section on hate bombing in the UGLY part).
I'm glad you put this in the "good" list. We used to call it, "Greeting
the visitors and making them feel welcome." It is not some deceptive
practice, but the flip-side of it makes it seem so. I've visited many
churches and know that as a newcomer I might have a lot of people come up
and meet me. I don't mistake this for deep friendship, and I prefer the
attention to being ignored. I've been "love bombed" recently in the CofC
and the ICOC, and years ago in a Baptist church (we were Catholics and
thought they were exceptionally friendly, and I still hold that
impression). I've been ignored in the church I was going to as a teenager
when I visited again after a semester break from college, and ignored
again in one CofC that I talked my sister into visiting while she lived in
Charleston (they weren't like my home congregation, so I was disappointed,
especially because my sister was understandably unimpressed).
<another snip>
>Impressions of the ICOC - THE BAD
<snip of some bad things>
>- *No room for the shy, mentally ill, or depressed.
This wasn't always the case. And even now I know of several shy people
who have found a place in the ICOC -- one shy person that I know in the
ICOC has been in (starting in a campus ministry group) for about 15 years.
I have been a shy person most of my life, and aside from suggestions that
I needed to "share more in the Bible Talk", I enjoyed being in the
pre-ICOC-type ministries.
As for those who are mentally ill or depressed, I think that the current
ICOC (in the same way as the ministries that preceded it) is just unable
to handle the special needs of these people. Aside from the need to stop
treating the mental illness and its symptoms, or the depression and its
contributing factors as sin, the ICOC would do well to welcome these
people to its fellowship and worship, as well as helping them to see the
need to get professional care.
<snip>
>Impressions of the ICOC- THE UGLY
>- After love bombing, total withdrawal of love (how cruel).
I agree.
Patricia Putman
(just a Christian in a Baptist church)
DAnder9518
> If you look at the
>whole pool of those who left the ICC, say, in 1990, you will find
>ex-members who:
>
>(a) strongly agree with what the ICC is doing and have been restored and
>are current members today
>
>(b) agree with what the ICC is doing but are not members today
>
>(c) are neutral and couldn't care less
>
>(d) are neutral but still interested in the going's on
>
>(e) disagree with what the ICC is doing
>
>(f) strong disagree with what the ICC is doing.
It's funny then, that we don't hear from many people in category (b.)
I guess they must be vastly outnumbered by the people in categories (e)
and (f)!
---->Dave ; )
Gareth
>A curious similarity between the RCC and the ICC is: DON'T EXAMINE OUR
>TEACHINGS or you will surely burn in Hell forever and ever. I plead
>guilty to being a curious guy--however, I sort of enjoy warm weather.
>Besides that, if Heaven is going to filled exclusively with deceptive
>people who judge and a guy who screams alot, I'd rather not be among 'em.
>--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
Interesting reading Rich,
I would agree with you on this.
According to the above are the RCC and ICC then saying DON'T EXAMINE
OUR TEACHINGS because they have something to hide or is it because
they are looking for people who do not question authority - gulible
people?
I have seen what happens to people who are brain washed, it's a very
sad and evil thing to do. God gave us free will but such "leaders" of
cults take this away.
Gareth
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
Gareth (Gar...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: >A curious similarity between the RCC and the ICC is: DON'T EXAMINE OUR
: >TEACHINGS or you will surely burn in Hell forever and ever. I plead
: >guilty to being a curious guy--however, I sort of enjoy warm weather.
: >Besides that, if Heaven is going to filled exclusively with deceptive
: >people who judge and a guy who screams alot, I'd rather not be among 'em.
: >--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
: Interesting reading Rich,
: I would agree with you on this.
: According to the above are the RCC and ICC then saying DON'T EXAMINE
: OUR TEACHINGS because they have something to hide or is it because
: they are looking for people who do not question authority - gulible
: people?
The ICC doesn't say this at all; in fact, we preach Acts 17:11 from the
start, where the Bereans listened eagerly to Paul preach the gospel and
then examines the Scriptures every day to see if it was true.
: I have seen what happens to people who are brain washed, it's a very
: sad and evil thing to do. God gave us free will but such "leaders" of
: cults take this away.
Yes; cults are a bad thing, and I am very happy and thankful to God not
to be in one.
R.L. Measures
> ... ...rather than rubber-stamping a preformed conclusion.
>
At long last, something that Roger Poehlmann and I agree on.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
R.L. Measures
Destructive cults do not use brain washing techniques.. This was what the
North Koreans did to American captives during the Korean War in the early
1950s. Brain washing is old-hat these days, Roger. Modern, destructive
cults use sophisticated thought-control techniques. ICC-bailouts have
told me they felt like they emerged from a fog bank when they left. The
last such person had been in for over ten years.
......Like SpeedyŽ says: "Oh, what a relief it is."
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
Carol2180
In article <8407285...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk>, Gar...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk
(Gareth) writes:
>>A curious similarity between the RCC and the ICC is: DON'T EXAMINE OUR
>>TEACHINGS or you will surely burn in Hell forever and ever. I plead
>>guilty to being a curious guy--however, I sort of enjoy warm weather.
>>Besides that, if Heaven is going to filled exclusively with deceptive
>>people who judge and a guy who screams alot, I'd rather not be among
'em.
>
>
Sorry, Rich, can't agree on this one. People are encouraged to examine
RCC teachings.
\
ChrisGarland
>: >TEACHINGS or you will surely burn in Hell forever and ever. I plead
>: >guilty to being a curious guy--however, I sort of enjoy warm weather.
>: >Besides that, if Heaven is going to filled exclusively with deceptive
>: >people who judge and a guy who screams alot, I'd rather not be among 'em.
>
>
>: Interesting reading Rich,
>
>: I would agree with you on this.
>
>: According to the above are the RCC and ICC then saying DON'T EXAMINE
>: OUR TEACHINGS because they have something to hide or is it because
>: they are looking for people who do not question authority - gulible
>: people?
>
>The ICC doesn't say this at all; in fact, we preach Acts 17:11 from the
>start, where the Bereans listened eagerly to Paul preach the gospel and
>then examines the Scriptures every day to see if it was true.
Roger, I believe that the author of this post was referring more to
*questionning* the ICC doctrine and/or *outsiders* having access to ICC
teaching all at once, instead of having that bad tasting medicine spoon
fed only as people can swallow it.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would accuse the RCC of hiding its
teachings, since they have a book published with it available in every
bookstore. Doesn't seem like hidden doctrine to me. As far as
*questionning* it; you can question it all you want. You won't get thrown
out for questionning it, either. I question RCC doctrine all the time;
sometimes I get a satisfactory answer, sometimes I don't. When I don't, I
find someone else who can give me one. Not once has anyone said "you're
being divisive and prideful for questionning this." Incidently, that is
EXACTLY what the ICC says to people who question their doctrine. I've
even walked away from conversations with RCC apologetics (including
priests) sharply disagreeing, yet no one has excommunicated me, or even
alluded to it. I'm allowed my own opinion.
jeff chambers
On Thu, 22 Aug 1996, Roger/Michelle Poehlmann wrote:
> Gareth (Gar...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
> : >A curious similarity between the RCC and the ICC is: DON'T EXAMINE OUR
> : >TEACHINGS or you will surely burn in Hell forever and ever. I plead
> : >guilty to being a curious guy--however, I sort of enjoy warm weather.
> : >Besides that, if Heaven is going to filled exclusively with deceptive
> : >people who judge and a guy who screams alot, I'd rather not be among 'em.
>
> : >--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
Hello. I read your comments with some interest. I will say nothing of
the ICC, as I know nothing about it. But, I must disagree with your
statement concerning the RCC. My friend, I have become Catholic recently
after having searched and examined many denominations. I was taught not
only that I have the option of questioning the teachings if something
seems amiss, but that I am indeed obligated by my conscience to do so,
even if my conscience leads me against the teachings of the Church. In
reference to this, it seems to me that the greatest reforms within the
RCC have come from men like Erasmus of Rotterdam, men who made their
voices heard from within the Church.
Jeff Chambers
Jani A Heinonen
>The ICC doesn't say this at all; in fact, we preach Acts 17:11 from the
>start, where the Bereans listened eagerly to Paul preach the gospel and
>then examines the Scriptures every day to see if it was true.
Yep. And after they have studied the Scriptures [in the ICC], they'd
better agree on everything with God's Leaders(tm) or they'll roast-n-toast.
--
Jani Heinonen | A wanna-be (al)chemist at the University of Helsinki
jzhe...@rock.helsinki.fi | Finger for public PGP key
EOshiro
Jani writes:
>In <rognmichD...@netcom.com> rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle
Poehlmann) >writes:
>
>>The ICC doesn't say this at all; in fact, we preach Acts 17:11 from the
>>start, where the Bereans listened eagerly to Paul preach the gospel and
>>then examines the Scriptures every day to see if it was true.
>
>Yep. And after they have studied the Scriptures [in the ICC], they'd
>better agree on everything with God's Leaders(tm) or they'll
roast-n-toast.
Let's see...If they really ARE God's leaders (no TM), and they're RIGHT,
roasting-n-toasting just might be a distinct possibility.
But as usual, the straight reading of a statement is not at all what it
implies.
ChrisGarland
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>Jani writes:
>
>>In <rognmichD...@netcom.com> rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle
>Poehlmann) >writes:
>>
>>>The ICC doesn't say this at all; in fact, we preach Acts 17:11 from the
>>>start, where the Bereans listened eagerly to Paul preach the gospel and
>>>then examines the Scriptures every day to see if it was true.
>>
>>Yep. And after they have studied the Scriptures [in the ICC], they'd
>>better agree on everything with God's Leaders(tm) or they'll
>roast-n-toast.
>
>Let's see...If they really ARE God's leaders (no TM), and they're RIGHT,
>roasting-n-toasting just might be a distinct possibility.
This raises some serious questions. What about God's leaders in the first
and second centuries, who formed the creeds and actions of God's church
-- shouldn't they be obeyed? Wouldn't the same fate befall us if we fail
to obey them? I'm speaking about men like Polycarp (martyred around
156a.d), the former Bishop of Smyrna, and the like.
These men already were establishing the traditions and liturgies that are
found still today in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, and did so on
the authority of their office of leadership, and based on scriptures.
These were devout people who were martyred for their faith -- not
"hypocritical liars whose consciences have been seered as with a hot
iron." They urged -- no, commanded, obedience to the scriptures (in
fact, Polycarp, in his letters, urges the "study" of Paul's letters for
all Christians), yet they practiced some of the things that the ICC
condemns all other churches for today. For example, Polycarp went up to
Rome prior to 156a.d. to seek a settlement from the Bishop of Rome of a
dispute that was going on among the bishops. The eastern bishops wanted
to celebrate Easter coincidently with the Jewish Passover, the western
bishops wanted to celebrate it always on a Sunday. It was generally
understood that the authority of the bishop of Rome would be accepted;
that bishop decided that they would agree to disagree, and that Easter
would be celebrated on two separate occasions. (Incidently, Polycarp was
referring to the church as the Catholic Church as early as 150a.d., for
those of you who claim Catholicism came into existence in the fourth
century.)
My point being, if Kip and his group claim that the church leaders have
authority (as they do claim, evident by their exercising of that
authority), then they need to submit to the authority of the original
church leaders, NOT form a new denomination.
R.L. Measures
In article <4vsf6j$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, caro...@aol.com
(Carol2180) wrote:
> In article <8407285...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk>, Gar...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk
> (Gareth) writes:
>
> >>A curious similarity between the RCC and the ICC is: DON'T EXAMINE OUR
> >>TEACHINGS or you will surely burn in Hell forever and ever. I plead
> >>guilty to being a curious guy--however, I sort of enjoy warm weather.
> >>Besides that, if Heaven is going to filled exclusively with deceptive
> >>people who judge and a guy who screams alot, I'd rather not be among
> 'em.
> >
> Sorry, Rich, can't agree on this one. People are encouraged to examine
> RCC teachings.
>
I have an RCC training manual--*The Commandments*--for high school
students that suggests otherwise on p. 105. However, the manual is
pre-Vatican II, so the situation may have changed, Carol.
If the church was really open to having its teachings examined, then why
did the church wage a 35 year no-holds-barred battle to prevent the
publication of the 1st century documents found in cave 4 at Qumran?
........(Baligent, Michael and Leigh, Richard. *The Dead Sea Scrolls
Deception*, Summit Books,1991, ISBN 0-671-73454-7.)
If the church was really open to having its teachings examined, then why
did it burn the Library of Alexandria to the ground shortly after it
started teaching the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in 325CE?
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
STEVE55533
In article ,> >In rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle
> Poehlmann) >writes:
> >
> >>The ICC doesn't say this at all; in fact, we preach Acts 17:11 from
the
> >>start, where the Bereans listened eagerly to Paul preach the gospel
and
> >>then examines the Scriptures every day to see if it was true.
> >
> >Yep. And after they have studied the Scriptures [in the ICC], they'd
> >better agree on everything with God's Leaders(tm) or they'll
> roast-n-toast.
> Let's see...If they really ARE God's leaders (no TM), and they're RIGHT,
> roasting-n-toasting just might be a distinct possibility.
> implies.
I think we need to look at each case individually. If you were lucky by
being under a good leader, you could disagree in a lot of instances, and
lived by what you believed if you had shown your scriptural basis. If you
were not so lucky, there were numerous possible causes for negative
reactions. There were instances when the followers simply didn't want to
do what was given. Scriptural disagreement was just a convenient excuse,
for the individual really couldn't come up with a point-for-point counter
argument. However I must admit that there were times when preconceived
notion influenced the leader more than it should. If you were doing "well
spiritually", you tend to get a better listening ear. If you didn't have
any "bad attitude", your scriptural basis seemed more scriptural. If
there was no hand-down from the upper leadership as to how to deal with
you, your leader tend to have a more open mind. Basically, the scriptures
come secondary to the circumstance.
My point in saying these is to ask people in the movement to slow down in
their judgment of any situation. I know you are supposed to judge those
in the church (I Cor 5:12-13). But in your judgment, you need to
demonstrate Jas 1:19. By doing so, you may be able to persuade the
reluctant folks through your eagerness to listen and your empathy. But of
far more serious consequence, you will practice the I Cor 5:12-13 instead
of the Rm 2:1. For now, use the consequence of Rm 2:1 as your motivation
to slow down. I know you try your best, but Rm 2:1 is still Rm 2:1. I
know many of you may not even comprehend what I say. To such people, my
only recourse is to tell you that "your best simply isn't good enough."
This is the classic line you used on the nonchristians. Don't ever lead
God uses it on yourself. Just slow down. I am speaking from my own past
down fall. I don't guess; I know that if you slow down you will
eventually gain a better grip on how to effectively counsel people without
you yourself unknowingly incurring God's wrath.
Steve Hoang
steve...@aol.com
Bob Queenan
R.L. Measures wrote:
> If the church was really open to having its teachings examined, then
> why did the church wage a 35 year no-holds-barred battle to prevent the
> publication of the 1st century documents found in cave 4 at Qumran?
> ........(Baligent, Michael and Leigh, Richard. *The Dead Sea Scrolls
> Deception*, Summit Books,1991, ISBN 0-671-73454-7.)
> If the [RC] church was really open to having its teachings examined,
> then why did it burn the Library of Alexandria to the ground shortly
> after it started teaching the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in 325CE?
Come on, Rich! I might wonder about the scrolls question, although the
RCC was certainly not the main problem in publishing the documents. But
to drag up actions in 325AD and claim they represent the position of
the RCC in 1996AD is pretty far fetched.
R.L. Measures
(Incidently, Polycarp was
> referring to the church as the Catholic Church as early as 150a.d., for
> those of you who claim Catholicism came into existence in the fourth
> century.).
During the first half of the 15th century, the Church of Rome changed its
name to Roman Catholic Church.
The basis of modern Catholicism--i.e., the Mass--could not have existed
without the Holy Trinity. The Holy Trinity did not exist until 325AD.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
ChrisGarland
The Holy Trinity did not exist in *doctrinal* form until 325 AD, but has
been in existence since the beginning of time. Read your bible. And the
first mass was said by Jesus himself in the Upper Room the night before
he was crucified. That was, say, about 325 years Prior to 325 A.D.
ChrisGarland
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>DAnder9518 (dande...@aol.com) wrote:
>: In article <rognmichD...@netcom.com>, rogn...@netcom.com
>the wolves that be. Total non-members have been attacked when they
>have posted positively about the church. Really, you guys ought to run
>political campaigns; there's one critic of the church whose very *name*
>is 'mudpies'.
Roger, if you feel you are being persecuted, obey scriptures and shut up
and turn the other cheek. Where is whining in there? As others have so
distinctly pointed out to you,you are not being persecuted, you are being
opposed. YOU oppose people every day on this newsgroup.
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
DAnder9518 (dande...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <rognmichD...@netcom.com>, rogn...@netcom.com
: (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) writes:
: > If you look at the
: >whole pool of those who left the ICC, say, in 1990, you will find
: >ex-members who:
: >
: >(a) strongly agree with what the ICC is doing and have been restored and
: >are current members today
: >
: >(b) agree with what the ICC is doing but are not members today
: >
: >(c) are neutral and couldn't care less
: >
: >(d) are neutral but still interested in the going's on
: >
: >(e) disagree with what the ICC is doing
: >
: >(f) strong disagree with what the ICC is doing.
: It's funny then, that we don't hear from many people in category (b.)
: I guess they must be vastly outnumbered by the people in categories (e)
: and (f)!
No, they are simply ripped to shreds whenever they have posted here by
the wolves that be. Total non-members have been attacked when they
have posted positively about the church. Really, you guys ought to run
political campaigns; there's one critic of the church whose very *name*
is 'mudpies'.
Roger Poehlmann