prisonchaplain

"I told you to get back in that bottle, you troublemaker!" Well...that might not work. Seriously, people use to smoke like chimneys. The movie stars did it. It was cool. The genie was out of the bottle. In my life time it's changed from pervasive, to acceptable, to tolerable, to socially unpleasant, to where it is now almost considered a social disease. We've taxed cigarettes, in Tacoma, WA smokers must be at least 25 feet away from the entrance of any building open to public traffic. If we got serious about the huge social costs of premarital sex and cohabitation, I can envision it becoming something weak people do. The transition might not be as extreme as what happened with smoking, but I'm hopeful we could greatly reduce current rates. . That would be in excess of 95% in my region. In a general sense, there is a need for men to interact in healthy ways. Most men do not have close male friends. They do not have someone to "bounce things off of." It used to be men bowled in leagues, played cards, watched ballgames together, etc. I'm wondering if as we've become more isolated, we've become more skewed in our thinking. Sgallan, one of the reasons you're such a healthy parent may well be your heavy involvement with other wrestling parents. I'm not sure how society makes this happen, but I think a huge help in this problem would be for men to get together more. We can say things amongst ourselves that we cannot discuss with women. Well, of course she doesn't. Kudos to you for being a real man for your child. My brother in law had to do the same for his two children for several years because his first wife got hooked on drugs and bad behavior. In my responses I was grappling with the most common problems in our society...and usually it's primarily the men. Sgallan, my brother in law, and men like you shine because you are, unfortunately, the exceptions that prove the rule.

I've argued in this post that the demographics of the death penalty are somewhat unnerving. See what you think, and feel free to comment: <a href=\'http://www.prisonpolicy.org/prisonindex/deathpenalty.shtml\' target=\'_blank\'>http://www.prisonpolicy.org/prisonindex/deathpenalty.shtml</a>

But Ray, me thinks Prof. Robinson was speaking of Assemblies of God, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Evangelical Free, Salvation Army, Christian Missionary Alliance, Nazarene, Church of God, Church of Christ, Community of Christ, Seventh Day Adventist, etc. Do you think these kinds of evangelicals will be numerous in the Celestial Kingdom?

Things we can do to put families back together. 1. As a culture, more strongly discourage premarital sex and cohabitation. Premarital sex sometimes leads to premature marriages built out of necessity. While the guy ultimately "does the right thing" he resents it, and the foundation is week. Alternatively, the gal has the baby and is an instant single mom--aka broken family. Cohabitation leads to a higher risk of divorce after marriage. Sociologists agree on this. A pattern of "I can always leave if MY needs aren't being met" results, once again, in a poor foundation to the marriage. Sex ed. in schools should unapologetically stress abstinence. We parents should talk the talk here, and set the expectations. 2. Churches need to strengthen their men's groups and programming. Additionally, leaders may want to work at ways in which general church programming can be made more appealing to men. Often what happens is that since most attenders are women, the programming gradually becomes "feminine." When men do come, they feel awkward. 3. Parachurch organizations, like Promise Keepers, should be supported by church leaderships. Other forms of small group meetings for men to support each other, and be frank with each other, can be powerful. 4. When the worst happens, real men pay their child support, honor visitation promises and times, and try to bolster their children through the visits, not compete with or demean the mom. These are just some random thoughts. Hopefully there's something fruitful here.

I second Traveler's motion

I've made this same argument in the past. However, the Death Row numbers are way too skewed. The reality is a rich white guy who commits premeditated murder is signficantly less likely to garner the death penalty than a poor black man who does the same. If 10 white guys kill and 50 black guys kill, and only 2 white guys fry, but 48 black guys fry, something's wrong with the system. But it doesn't work that way. The Death Penalty is reserved for the most grievous crimes. And, the perpetrator's race is too signficant of a predictor to explain away. Like I said, I'm ambivalent. However, if it is true that there is some subtle unfairness built into the system, such that one group of people is significantly more likely to fry, then I've got problems with the system.

Ray, now There you go again, thinking that a record of someone saying something to someone else is a record of someone saying something to you. In this case, the record shows that our Lord was telling His apostles that [they] would receive power or authority when the Holy Ghost came to [them]. And while someone else may also receive power or authority from the Holy Ghost by the Holy Ghost coming to them, it does not mean that you have received power or authority from the Holy Ghost by simply believing the Holy Ghost has come to you, or that the Holy Ghost only comes when He wants to give power or authority to someone else. Perhaps the following citation will help. Emphasis in bold is mine. And Jesus came and spake unto them saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and earth. Matthew 28:18 Any discussion about who has authority or power is mute. The authority belongs to Jesus. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Ray, your big question right now would be, "Who is Jesus addressing?" My answer, "The disciples." Your point, "So, this command is for the disciples, not you." My rebuttal: Teaching THEM to obey all things whatsoever I have commanded you... The things which Jesus told the eleven disciples to do, he wanted those 11 to pass on to their disciples, who would pass them on to their disciples, etc. etc. These commands of the Bible are for all disciples, not just the eleven. They are for me, and yes, for you, Ray--and for all who read these posts and would want to follow Jesus. See the reference above (Matthew 28:18-20)--also known as the Great Commission. Jesus wants all to be saved. He wants his message to go to the ends of the earth. Somehow the idea of Jesus and the disciples casually "occasionally" making other disciples, does not mesh with the whole idea of a GREAT COMMISSION. You send out 60,000 missionaries a year. My group has about 1400 full-time, about 30K clergy, and we have empowered all 33 million of our adherents to take part in this great work of being discipled and of making disciples. There's no exclusivity or elitism in this great work. Okay, we won't say Jesus told the disciples to do that. Instead, we'll say he told the disciples to go and make everyone who will respond into disciples, and then empower all who will respond to do likewise, and that they all would teach whatever JESUS commanded. Ray, you are a lot pickier than Jesus is. "Whosoever will, may come." "The workers are few...pray for laborers...the fields are ripe unto harvest." There's too much to do, and too few people to do the work, for me to embrace the gatekeeper role you seem to find for the church. Jesus wanted the gospel message and work to expand, not to be limited. A key obstacle is that I'm not convinced there is one human organization that adaquately qualifies as being the true church of Jesus Christ, to the exclusion of others. If this concept of a gatekeeper church is taken too far, it could result in idolatry (requirement to revere the object (organization) rather than the one around whom it is organized (Jesus Christ). In other words, my focus for truth and exclusivity is not on THE CHURCH of Jesus Christ, but rather on THE JESUS CHRIST of the church.

My comment here might be worthy of a whole new string, but here it is: There is not one true religious organizational structure that serves as a gatekeeper between Jesus and humanity. There is one true universal church--but it is made up of the followers of Jesus, not the followers of a human organization, regardless of how accurately it may reflect God's truths. Snow has often asked me this question, so I'll offer to you as well: what are the minimum true doctrines one must agree to before s/he is saved? In other words, if grace is not sufficient, if accepting the "true gospel" is required, how close do you have to get? Again, salvation--and I know your church teaches this--is through Jesus Christ, not through something called "the true Christian church." The church offers community, education, support, a forum to love God's people, a means of uniting with other believers to work towards fulfilling the Great Commission. While there certainly were/are apostates and heretics, and while the Church (first 1000 years or so), and the churches have had failures and disappointments, I am much more optimistic about my fellow believers from roughly 70AD - 1820-30AD than you are. So, if I have not received a testimony from the Holy Ghost that the BOM, D&C and PoGP are modern revelations, and I am asked about them, and respond that to this point God has not revealed to me, nor to the Christian community at large the authority of these writings, where does that leave me? Am I merely wrong, as I understood Prof. Robinson to suggest? Or, will I be held accountable for teaching false doctrine? If the second is so, what do you believe that judgment will entail? You've touched upon a distinctive of my own church. So, I'll share it. Ray, have you spoken in tongues, as the Spirit gives utterance? For, this is the initial physical evidence that one has truly been baptized in the Holy Ghost. Throughout the book of Acts, when the Holy Ghost is poured out, the sign of speaking in tongues is either specifically mentioned, or it is implied. In one case, when Gentiles are baptized in the Holy Ghost, Jewish believers if this is even possible. The apostles reply, we know they have received the Holy Ghost, for they spoke in tongues as we did. So, this questioning of who has and has not received the gift and baptism in the Holy Ghost can go multiple directions. You are correct. However, the LDS Church often cites its growth as a sign of God's blessing, if nothing else. To see a ragtag group of "wrong side of the track" Christians who probably numbered in the low 1000s in the 19-teens have grown to be the largest non-Catholic Christian grouping...well could we not rightly say it may be a sign of God's blessing? Amen to that. Christian missionaries have brought literacy, schools and universities, hospitals, liberty from the caste system for India's untouchables, food, shelter, and a simple gospel of salvation by grace through Christ, throughout the world. Furthermore, Wycliff Bible translators believes it will have translated the entire Bible into every language in the world by 2038. I could go on, but you get the point. For all your disagreements with non-LDS Christian doctrines, the churches have done much that is good.

The truth is Jesus (John 14:6). The Bible explicates that truth. Jesus died for our sins, but he also said that what's necessary for the Master may be necessary for the servants--after all we are not greater than He. Sure enough, all but one of the disciples died in the service of Jesus. The one, John the Revelator, was exiled to a prison island. We're not commanded to look for death, or seek martyrdom. However, those blessed to partake will receive special rewards. It is a gift from the Father. I remember one WWII vet, who was a POW. He was badly beaten by his captors, because the discovered he had a contraband New Testament. When he woke up from his beating, three days later, he asked, "Why Lord?" The response? That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; Philippians 3:10 KJV

Wise prison chaplains do not take strong positions on this topic (unless they're against). And, quite frankly, I'm ambivalent. However, from a Judeo-Christian perspective, the 100% accuracy standard was never realistic or achievable. Yet, the Mosaic Law called for execution. So, I'm not certain one can argue from a strictly religious standpoint against state-sponsored executions. On the other hand, my own concern is that there seems to be pretty clear indications that the darker your skin color and the skimpier your bank account the more likely you are to be a victim of a mistaken decision. In contrast, wealthy light-colored folk who are as guilty as they get can often present a calm "professional" court demeanor, and can afford lawyers who know how to muddy the facts, so that they end up serving life or less.

Feel free to offer your defenses or explanations!

I guess I should just do some research. That's my problem! Here's the root of my ignorance. I haven't done any research. My three years at an accredited graduate school amount to naught. Far better for me to find out which school gr88t has been doing his serious work at. Can I borrow your matchbook, so I can get that address? (Note for those too old to remember...matchbooks were a source of mail order diplomas in the good old days. Today you need to access enterprisemission.com for such institutions of higher learning). Silly me. I might have considered consulting Hebrew or Aramaic scholars, or perhaps going to a public university website, and checking the Middle East studies department, or some other such wasteful technique. All I needed to do was see what Guru Hoagland says about it I sure hope you're not into some reconstituted Hale Bopp cult. I don't know about refuting it, but I did find a use for it. If you go to the site and rapidly move the sidebar up and down it seems to be a great optical exercise. It's also a good way to show adolescents what happens when they abuse drugs or alcohol (you're vision gets blurry...you might end up producing really obscure websites) Science Fiction + Adolescence + Hype + Misplaced Trust + a burning desire to grasp for the infinite while not embracing the one true and living God = enterprisemission.com

Yeah, but it was too long. Here's the stupidest brief joke in the world: Why did the monkey fall out of the tree? ...He was... DEAD!

This from the same woman who responded to my riddle, "What is funnier than a clown?" (correct answer = two clowns) with, "Your face!"

Sure I do. Plait lets me handle the frivolous malcontents. First, I'll grant you equivalent evidence. From the basis of pure science one could just as easily speculate that we were designed by superior aliens as easily as s/he could that it was a Creator God. Second, I readily admit that my faith in the Creator is primarily a faith, though there is some evidence that points my way. Are you willing to admit that Hoagland and you profer speculations about aliens "seeding" our planet that could only be insisted on as a matter of faith? His name is I AM THAT I AM, but Moses was told just to say "I AM" had sent him. The Hebrew form of his name is most directly translated as YHWH, I believe. Our best guess is Yahweh, though Jehovah is the common English butcher of the name. I talk to him whereever I am. Surely you've heard of the omnipresence of God? We debunk science-fiction presented under the guise of serious work, and images that foster more speculation than conclusive evidence of anything. I never proposed that I have proof that Christianity is the one true religion. I said you should look to the creator, rather than creation. You should.

As clarification, I do not believe churches should be restricted from engaging in this type of activity. I'm not suggesting I would lead a church in this way, but I do not want the government to have the power to prevent churches from "speaking the truth to power." Even in the Old Testament, one primary role of the prophets was to warn the king about "thus sayeth the Lord." This hurts me more than it does you (or Pres. Chavez). Robertson is a charismatic leader. People associate him with the likes of me. And what he suggested was beyond foolish. Furthermore, he did not properly distance himself, or recant his comments--even at one point suggesting he was misquoted (he wasn't). So, yes, shame on him. If he does not do some serious self-evaluation, his remarks might relegate him to notoriety, despite many of the positive things he has accomplished. I don't disagree. I'm just not certain this was the "yelling fire in a crowded movie theater" scenario. If it was, perhaps the best solution is to prosecute him on that basis, rather than further muzzling people of faith.

I surprised myself by only biting two bullets, and taking no hits. I figured an ordained pentecostal preacher had little hope of surviving such a game. I'd further mitigate my results by adjusting my definition of an atheist as being only potentially so based purely on faith, since the test attempts to point out that just as monetheists can arrive at their convictions based upon some evidence mixed with some faith, so atheists do likewise. On the other hand, I'll either have to firm up my research on theistic evolution or take a hit next time. Overall, a fun test--as promised.

There are three causes for such accusations. #1. Lack of trust. Many evangelicals and Mormons do not trust each other. We believe the worst of each other. So, when you're nice you're buttering me up. When you're mean you're showing your true stripes. #2. As Blomberg admits, much evangelical apologetics material is simply out of date, or of poor quality to begin with. Yet, most evangelical laypeople do not have the training or knowledge to discern this reality. #3. The language barrier is subtle but huge. Mormons and evangelicals share a similar vocabulary, but often attach different meanings to words. Additionally, Mormon and evangelicals have vastly different assumptions about the nature of God, creation, and the plan of salvation. So, when we speak to each other, or read each other's writings there's often a disconnect. We know what it's suppose to mean (using our own theological lenses), but we sense it's not the same. Quite often it isn't. Then we wonder if we're being intentionally deceived, or what is going on. Again, the answer is different meanings for certain theological words, and different assumptions about the grand scheme. The solution is time and patience. Robinson and Blomberg can write as they do because they've learned each other's languages, theological assumptions, and, to a lesser extent, histories. Yet, even with this knowledge, I sensed the two occasionally struggled to full understand each other. However, if we're to "love one another," then struggle we must.

I hate to make an over-the-top response to this, but I have some similar sounding quotes: "Political parties have nothing to do with religious problems, as long as these are not alien to the nation, undermining the morals and ethics of the race; just as religion cannot be amalgamated with the scheming of political parties." (56) "Worst of all, however, is the devastation wrought by the misuse of religious conviction for political ends." (57) "Therefore, let every man be active, each in his own denomination if you please, and let every man take it as his first and most sacred duty to oppose anyone who in his activity by word or deed steps outside the confines of his religious community and tries to butt into the other." (58) The speaker is Adolf Hitler. If calling for the assassination of the leader of one country and saying another's health issues are brought upon him by God is not political, I don't know what is. Thank God (and I mean that sincerely and reverently) that the IRS was not allowed to go after the Abolitionists or the Civil Rights activitists. As people of rigorous religious practice, I would think most here would realize that faith that is meaningful will, of necessity, effect our work, our play, our family life, and yes, our politics. In American democracy (democratic republic for you purists) everyone gets a say in the public arena--even right-wing Christians. Even Pat Robertson. While the speech was reprehensible, Robertson was not plotting an actual assassination, nor would anyone have taken his words as marching orders. I gotta ask you, don't you value freedom of speech?

I used to teach English conversation in South Korea. One time a student suggested that I take the TOEFL--just for fun. "No Way," I said. Even if I get a perfect score, students will say, "Well, yeah...he's a native speaker." BUT, if I get anything less, they'll wonder if their teacher is truly qualified. My guess is that a real scientist would not want to debate a sci-fi writer who's lost the ability to distinguish questionable fiction with reality because: A. It would give the writer a false appearance of credibility. Note how Hoagland already uses his invite to entertain some NASA employees at the equivalent of what we call a "lunch and learn," to suggest he's a highly revered consultant. B. Hoagland is probably a good public speaker, who knows how to work a crowd. True scientists often are not proficient at translating what they do into laymen's terms, much less doing so with persuasion and humor. Bottom-line: Gr88t, quit looking to phenomena from creation to revere, and look instead to the on Creator, the one true and living God.

Now let me paraphrase and read between the lines, to see if I understand Prof. Robinson and the Traveler correctly. Prof. Robinson has become good friends with evangelical scholar, Prof. Blomberg (Denver Seminary). Additionally, he has consumed enough evangelical writing, that he "knows the language." Ultimately, he's convinced--and here the Traveler concurs--that most evangelicals, because of their hunger to serve God and love people, perhaps in the life to come, will respond favorably to the offer of conversion, which will be provided as a result of a baptism for the dead done here. Have I understood correctly? I have a short comment about salvation, and this issue of "what if they did not know?" First, there is no doubt that Mormonism neatly solves this difficult question in a way no other faith does. On the other hand, evangelicalism may be more nuanced than most believe. Yes, there are some who say, no way but Jesus...if you did not know, you were not predestined or chosen. However, many others, myself included, suggest that there may be more hope than that. My personal experience came when someone close to me committed suicide. What made this especially confusing for me spiritually was that he had come to my church the week before, and had made a confession of faith...this totally out of the blue. So, was he truly saved? Did he "endure to the end?" Or, did he just go through this act to give me hope and make me feel better? I prayed about it, and after about three weeks got my answer: God is just. So...is he in heaven or not? GOD IS JUST. Is he in hell? GOD IS JUST. In other words, do I trust God? Do I trust this loved one to him? On the Day of Judgment there will be no objections. All will agree that God was just and merciful. Furthermore, Romans 1 suggests that there is a general revelation of God that all have access to. Perhaps we'll be judged by how we respond to what we know? Granted...Mormonism's answers are easier. But are they true? What I know for sure is that God is TRUE. Jesus is TRUE. For now, that's good enough for me.

Hey, I wouldn't roll my eyes at science writers. L. Ron Hubbard managed to start a brand new religion (Scientology), enlist a cadre of Hollywood elites, inspire some really bad movies (what was that Battleship Earth thing with John Travolta?), and be a catalyst for some really sober, intelligent discussions about psychiatra (ref. Tom Cruise). I'd say Hoagland may have some potential--just not in actual science.

I thought I understood a lot of things when I first came to this site. However, it is safer to respond to what people say, rather than what I think they believe. You have clarified yourself. Here's a thought. God can do what he needs to himself, but he has chosen to use his creation to accomplish his work amongst us. I grant you that it is possible that he would limit himself to using the LDS Church, with the faithful amongst its 12 million. However, I'd rather believe he was using the faithful amongst the roughly 2 billion souls that compromise the greater Christian community. We know that many so-called Christians are not. They name the name, but Jesus will say to them one day, "Depart from me, I never knew you." This is likely true, even in the LDS church. I'm guessing that curse will be from failure to truly embrace his love, not from failure to align with the most accurate church. I'd simply point out that Prof. Robinson (BYU) has argued that terms like apostate, abomination etc. are reserved for corrupt creeds and those who willfully elevate them above Holy Scripture. He suggests that sincere Christians themselves are simply wrong on some teachings (such as the restoration). 100-500 million Pentecostals/Charismatics who call themselves Spirit-filled, because they have received the gift of the Holy Ghost...all wrong. Yes, it's possible. I'm wondering what this means for them. Can they get into the terrestial kingdom and live forever with Jesus, even though they claim to have something from God, and they don't? The key verse Jesus spoke, in terms of authority, was in Acts 1:8. He said we would receive power (authority) when the Holy Ghost comes on us to be his witnesses. He wants us to win souls, not set up a hierarchy. He told would-be leaders to grab a towal and wash feet. He said whoever wants to be great should serve. I am part of a royal priesthood, a holy nation. I belong to a good fellowship--one in which most of the people and leaders are simply hungry to serve God, to win souls, and to love--not by might, nor by power, but by God's Spirit, as Zecharia informs us. John 14:6 says Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. I know the LDS church believes this, and that there are parallel verses in the Standard Works. And yet, the church would take on the role of gatekeeper. You want to get to the Father, go through the Son. BUT...if you want to get to the Son, you must come through us. You might help me get, but I'm not sure it HAS to be your church leading the way.

I said he was called that Son of God, not that he used that term for himself. John 3:16: For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son...

My main difficulty with the death penalty is that wealthy fair-skinned types seldom get it, while men of color but not means, disproportionately do get it. It may not be inherently wrong, but the way our states carry it out has the appearance of being out of balance. Yes, and it raises up armies for defense--armies charged with killing people. Except that there was a death penalty in the Mosaic Law, and God's people were often ordered to fight against the immoral Canaanites. So, that "no murder" command seems to be geared towards people killing out of criminality, anger, or negligence. It's cheaper to house them than to execute them. On the other hand, should we continue to keep alive individuals so dangerous, the present a threat to the correctional workers who manage them (the really bad guys)? Yes. Lifers still have prison chaplains that can point them to God.