Joe, I know it is so hard for you to look back on the past, so don't. Look for what God has for you in the future and pray you have learned from your past. I am praying for you and I love you very much. Aunt Jenny
Hello Joe, I am Chuck Hall. Mike and Mary are good friends of mine. Mike and I are best friends from back when we worked at AT&T. I have heard your story from them and have prayed for you and Mary's family in the past and will continue to do so. God is good so keep the faith.
I agree, this is very interesting stuff, and it sure makes me think as well.
I'm not calling for people to protect and nurture the old system. Rather, in order to let it die on its own, we need to leave it behind, not fight it, because fighting means we're still part of the old system.
And when I say, don't fight against it, I'm also saying, don't fight for it.
You ask how we decide what is truly righteous and what is not. I am basing my arguments on the Sermon on the Mount, found in Matthew 5, 6, and 7. In those chapters, Jesus tells us to do good, do good, do good, and even in the face of evil, to still do good.
This is a high calling. And I believe it is the only way we can really leave the old system behind. Because the old system uses evil (force, prison, guns, death, coercion) to suppress other evil. This is necessary in this world, because so many people only resort to evil. But if we resort to evil to suppress evil, then we are not rising above it to truly reach the good.
So yes, maybe the laws in the USA are indeed too restrictive, but they are based on a national or state negotiation, trying our best to avoid hurting each other on a coarse national level, which ends up making blunders on the fine grained level of the individual. But if we rebel against this with an evil revolution of force, we will most likely find that we just replaced one evil system with another.
This is primarily what I was replying to: the lines that I quoted promoting the breaking of laws and destruction of statutues. This may have been poetic language that I took too seriously, and if so, my apologies to Kyle. But I think there is a vital difference between stating the truth that harm is happening, vs. fighting against it to stop it by force. It's one thing to state that the law is hurting us and should be changed. It's another to break that law and fight against those that are trying to enforce it.
I would support a re-examination of the age of consent laws in North America. I think we promote staying in "childhood" longer and longer these days, which is not necessarily to our benefit. But I also think that more freedom in this regard requires more maturity on the part of citizens, and I'm not sure we're heading in the "more mature" direction on a national level. Would more freedom cause more pain and hurt in general? I don't know, and I'm not in a position to know. But I think it is a serious question that should be answered during any re-examination. And it probably should be seriously considered, and if possible, answered, by anyone calling for change.
If the "old system" is so bad doesn't it make sense to rebel against it? Why protect and nurture something that is clearly not working. All of this is man made. Who gives any man the right to decide on the future of another?
How do we decide what is truly righteous and what is not? Most countries have some sort of cut off point for when you stop being a child and become an adult. How do we decide what that age is? Can it be that"one age fits all?" In South Africa where I live the age for consentaul sex is 14 for girls and 16 for boys.
Sounds young doesn't it? In the USA one would face a stiff prison term if one attempted to to have consentual sex with a girl so young. Yet our women grow up to be happy fulfilled successful members of society without all the emotional scarring and trauma that appears to afflict American women.
Hey Joe,I also am a friend of Mike and Mary's from Charlotte we also use to go to church together.I read your blog and can understand how we can be convinced of things when we are broken and searching.We are in a spiritual warfare every day.God allows us to go through things to bring us to Him and allows others to know He is real.I think your blog will help others and always remember God will make a way.Keep our faith and continue to know that God is in control.Be blessed. Becky Barton
Hi Joe, My name is Catherine, and I am a friend of your sister, Mary. We used to go to church together, when she lived in Charlotte. As I read your story, I could not help but think of the story of Joseph from Genesis 39:19 - Genesis 50. Joseph was forced into many bad situations, ending up in prison, however later we see God's plan unvieled and see that God used every one of those bad situations to lead up to the saving of many lives. One of my favorite verses is Genesis 50:20. "You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives." I hope you will be encouraged to know that you, (beings God's man, in the place of incarceration) can be used for great things, for God's glory, and by sharing your faith, may result in the saving of many lives. I was blessed by your story, thank you for sharing it. Be blessed today, “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” 1 Peter 2:9
hey joe never heard the real story, never thought u would ever do anything like this. sometimes we get messed up with the wrong people, and dont realize it until it is 2 late. but god will always be with us and help us as long as we believe in him.joe the truth will come out ,one day and god only knows that. so we will keep praying on hope that this will come to a end soon, until then i love u and praying that god will help put a end 2 all of this. love u joe, wayne
Thanks for your steady stream of blog posts. I may not be able to respond to every one, but I read them eagerly.
In "A Prison World" you write:
"The laws are your chains And you must break them to be free."
In this poem, "Sexual Liberty", you write:
"The Statute is a rapist And the statute must be destroyed."
And yet in the same poem, you write:
"Freedom must be negotiated."
As I see it, the current laws are the result of that negotiation. Much negotiation over many years. And these laws change over time. Divorce laws get more permissive. Laws against homosexuality get repealed. Women get the right to vote. Etc. etc.
But it also goes in the other direction. The Geneva conventions are written down. Child and slave labour are outlawed. New regulations are made in the financial industry. Etc.
I think it is somewhat obvious that the law is not the solution, but neither is the abolishing of the law. For in order to prevent the harming of others, it makes sense to have the negotiations recorded in advance, in order to have something to use against evil.
But does it make any sense to have corruptible humans design their own laws? The very basis of this system predetermines a shifting, changing, malleable code of laws that are not perfect and may unfortunately infringe liberty too much until they are later fixed. But the alternative of no laws does not look much better to me, at least not until we ourselves are all changed so that we don't require laws anymore.
Wouldn't it be better to advocate and describe, and most of all, live, a better system, rather than to call for the destruction of the old?
Any better system than the old must not use the same old methods. It is better to let the old system decay and destroy itself than it is to bring it down by revolution only to build the same old system again using slightly tweaked technology.
Rebellion is the same as the old system. That's why the old system is so bad.
Just read your "Catholic Talk" post. I think you have some good points there. I admit I had linked the scandals with the idea of celibacy as well, but I think you may have convinced me otherwise. Thanks.
As a side point, I believe celibacy is explicitly spoken against in the Bible. That is, celibacy should not be mandatory. It is merely encouraged by Paul as a better choice, but not as a mandatory way of ministerial life. I'm not sure where the Catholic Church got this notion. The 1 Timothy 4:1-3 passage seems to settle it for me.
But as for your conclusion in your post, I don't agree. You write:
"Let's go back to the early Church. Bishops were elected by the populace. The pope was elected by the populace."
When I think back over the history as recorded in the Bible, there are not many elections. Indeed, when people tried to usurp power in a democratic way, this was punished in the Old Testament (see Numbers 16). Not only did the "men of renown" get punished, but the people, when they complained, were punished as well.
Why? I think it's because, as you say, the church is not a democracy. God picks His leaders, not the people, nor a select few.
Noah wasn't elected. Abraham wasn't elected. Moses wasn't elected. Samson wasn't elected. Gideon wasn't elected. The prophets weren't elected. John the Baptist wasn't elected. Jesus wasn't elected. The one apostle that was sort of elected to replace Judas falls off the pages of history about as fast as he got on them. Paul wasn't elected.
The big leaders in the church are chosen by God, not by man. And for me, that calls into question the whole idea of a "pope."
As for deacons or bishops, these were chosen by the people, but on the instructions of the twelve disciples, who gave the qualifications required. (Acts 6) But these positions were ones of service, not lording it over the people. (Mark 10:42-44)
If there is a need to call for democracy in the church, then I think that very need is a sign of trouble in both the leadership and the congregation. The people who work hard at service are naturally highly esteemed by the people who witness the work. These are real leaders. The kinds of people who nobody wants to replace because they are already bending over backwards to do good for those under them. (This is true not just in the church, but everywhere.) But if the "leaders" need to be replaced by some democratic process because either they are abusing their power or the people want a piece of the action, then as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:3: "for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?"
In other words, if democracy is the solution, then the church has bigger problems. There should be no force or power to fight over, because the rule of the church is to love one another.
MY NAME IS CHRISHAUN "CECE" AKA "HONEE BEA" MCDONALD, AND I JUST READ YOUR LETTER... MY LOVE AND PRAYERS GO OUT TO YOU IN THIS CRISIS THAT YOU'RE IN. I KNOW THE FEELING TO BE OPPRESSED, BUT NEVER COULD I IMAGINE HAVING TO SPEND MY WHOLE LIFE BEING IN THAT TYPE OF ENVIRONMENT. TO FEEL NOT YOURSELF, BUT MORE LIKE PROPERTY OF THE STATE. YOU INSPIRE ME TO FIGHT HARDER IN THE CASE I'M DEALING WITH NOW. SO THAT WE AS INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE CAN ALSO HAVE THE SAME RESPECT AS THOSE WHO FEEL THAT WE ARE WORTH NOTHING. I LOVE THAT YOU'RE SUCH A STRONG PERSON, AND YOU GIVE ME HOPE TO GIVE TO OUR FUTURE GENERATIONS. PLEASE NEVER STOP LOOKING FOR WAYS TO GET OUT BECAUSE I'M SURE THERE IS A LOOP HOLE SOMEWHERE IN THIS. BUT IN BETWEEN TIME, I WILL BE FIGHTING THE CAUSE FOR US WITH THIS CASE, AND FOR THE FUTURE.
RSS
I agree, this is very interesting stuff, and it sure makes me think as well.
I'm not calling for people to protect and nurture the old system. Rather, in order to let it die on its own, we need to leave it behind, not fight it, because fighting means we're still part of the old system.
And when I say, don't fight against it, I'm also saying, don't fight for it.
You ask how we decide what is truly righteous and what is not. I am basing my arguments on the Sermon on the Mount, found in Matthew 5, 6, and 7. In those chapters, Jesus tells us to do good, do good, do good, and even in the face of evil, to still do good.
This is a high calling. And I believe it is the only way we can really leave the old system behind. Because the old system uses evil (force, prison, guns, death, coercion) to suppress other evil. This is necessary in this world, because so many people only resort to evil. But if we resort to evil to suppress evil, then we are not rising above it to truly reach the good.
So yes, maybe the laws in the USA are indeed too restrictive, but they are based on a national or state negotiation, trying our best to avoid hurting each other on a coarse national level, which ends up making blunders on the fine grained level of the individual. But if we rebel against this with an evil revolution of force, we will most likely find that we just replaced one evil system with another.
This is primarily what I was replying to: the lines that I quoted promoting the breaking of laws and destruction of statutues. This may have been poetic language that I took too seriously, and if so, my apologies to Kyle. But I think there is a vital difference between stating the truth that harm is happening, vs. fighting against it to stop it by force. It's one thing to state that the law is hurting us and should be changed. It's another to break that law and fight against those that are trying to enforce it.
I would support a re-examination of the age of consent laws in North America. I think we promote staying in "childhood" longer and longer these days, which is not necessarily to our benefit. But I also think that more freedom in this regard requires more maturity on the part of citizens, and I'm not sure we're heading in the "more mature" direction on a national level. Would more freedom cause more pain and hurt in general? I don't know, and I'm not in a position to know. But I think it is a serious question that should be answered during any re-examination. And it probably should be seriously considered, and if possible, answered, by anyone calling for change.
If the "old system" is so bad doesn't it make sense to rebel against it? Why protect and nurture something that is clearly not working. All of this is man made. Who gives any man the right to decide on the future of another?
How do we decide what is truly righteous and what is not? Most countries have some sort of cut off point for when you stop being a child and become an adult. How do we decide what that age is? Can it be that"one age fits all?" In South Africa where I live the age for consentaul sex is 14 for girls and 16 for boys.
Sounds young doesn't it? In the USA one would face a stiff prison term if one attempted to to have consentual sex with a girl so young. Yet our women grow up to be happy fulfilled successful members of society without all the emotional scarring and trauma that appears to afflict American women.
My name is Catherine, and I am a friend of your sister, Mary. We used to go to church together, when she lived in Charlotte.
As I read your story, I could not help but think of the story of Joseph from Genesis 39:19 - Genesis 50. Joseph was forced into many bad situations, ending up in prison, however later we see God's plan unvieled and see that God used every one of those bad situations to lead up to the saving of many lives. One of my favorite verses is Genesis 50:20. "You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives."
I hope you will be encouraged to know that you, (beings God's man, in the place of incarceration) can be used for great things, for God's glory, and by sharing your faith, may result in the saving of many lives.
I was blessed by your story, thank you for sharing it.
Be blessed today, “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” 1 Peter 2:9
Thanks for your steady stream of blog posts. I may not be able to respond to every one, but I read them eagerly.
In "A Prison World" you write:
"The laws are your chains And you must break them to be free."
In this poem, "Sexual Liberty", you write:
"The Statute is a rapist And the statute must be destroyed."
And yet in the same poem, you write:
"Freedom must be negotiated."
As I see it, the current laws are the result of that negotiation. Much negotiation over many years. And these laws change over time. Divorce laws get more permissive. Laws against homosexuality get repealed. Women get the right to vote. Etc. etc.
But it also goes in the other direction. The Geneva conventions are written down. Child and slave labour are outlawed. New regulations are made in the financial industry. Etc.
I think it is somewhat obvious that the law is not the solution, but neither is the abolishing of the law. For in order to prevent the harming of others, it makes sense to have the negotiations recorded in advance, in order to have something to use against evil.
But does it make any sense to have corruptible humans design their own laws? The very basis of this system predetermines a shifting, changing, malleable code of laws that are not perfect and may unfortunately infringe liberty too much until they are later fixed. But the alternative of no laws does not look much better to me, at least not until we ourselves are all changed so that we don't require laws anymore.
Wouldn't it be better to advocate and describe, and most of all, live, a better system, rather than to call for the destruction of the old?
Any better system than the old must not use the same old methods. It is better to let the old system decay and destroy itself than it is to bring it down by revolution only to build the same old system again using slightly tweaked technology.
Rebellion is the same as the old system. That's why the old system is so bad.
The kingdom of God is within us.
Just read your "Catholic Talk" post. I think you have some good points there. I admit I had linked the scandals with the idea of celibacy as well, but I think you may have convinced me otherwise. Thanks.
As a side point, I believe celibacy is explicitly spoken against in the Bible. That is, celibacy should not be mandatory. It is merely encouraged by Paul as a better choice, but not as a mandatory way of ministerial life. I'm not sure where the Catholic Church got this notion. The 1 Timothy 4:1-3 passage seems to settle it for me.
But as for your conclusion in your post, I don't agree. You write:
"Let's go back to the early Church. Bishops were elected by the populace. The pope was elected by the populace."
When I think back over the history as recorded in the Bible, there are not many elections. Indeed, when people tried to usurp power in a democratic way, this was punished in the Old Testament (see Numbers 16). Not only did the "men of renown" get punished, but the people, when they complained, were punished as well.
Why? I think it's because, as you say, the church is not a democracy. God picks His leaders, not the people, nor a select few.
Noah wasn't elected. Abraham wasn't elected. Moses wasn't elected. Samson wasn't elected. Gideon wasn't elected. The prophets weren't elected. John the Baptist wasn't elected. Jesus wasn't elected. The one apostle that was sort of elected to replace Judas falls off the pages of history about as fast as he got on them. Paul wasn't elected.
The big leaders in the church are chosen by God, not by man. And for me, that calls into question the whole idea of a "pope."
As for deacons or bishops, these were chosen by the people, but on the instructions of the twelve disciples, who gave the qualifications required. (Acts 6) But these positions were ones of service, not lording it over the people. (Mark 10:42-44)
If there is a need to call for democracy in the church, then I think that very need is a sign of trouble in both the leadership and the congregation. The people who work hard at service are naturally highly esteemed by the people who witness the work. These are real leaders. The kinds of people who nobody wants to replace because they are already bending over backwards to do good for those under them. (This is true not just in the church, but everywhere.) But if the "leaders" need to be replaced by some democratic process because either they are abusing their power or the people want a piece of the action, then as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:3: "for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?"
In other words, if democracy is the solution, then the church has bigger problems. There should be no force or power to fight over, because the rule of the church is to love one another.
MY NAME IS CHRISHAUN "CECE" AKA "HONEE BEA" MCDONALD, AND I JUST READ YOUR LETTER... MY LOVE AND PRAYERS GO OUT TO YOU IN THIS CRISIS THAT YOU'RE IN. I KNOW THE FEELING TO BE OPPRESSED, BUT NEVER COULD I IMAGINE HAVING TO SPEND MY WHOLE LIFE BEING IN THAT TYPE OF ENVIRONMENT. TO FEEL NOT YOURSELF, BUT MORE LIKE PROPERTY OF THE STATE. YOU INSPIRE ME TO FIGHT HARDER IN THE CASE I'M DEALING WITH NOW. SO THAT WE AS INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE CAN ALSO HAVE THE SAME RESPECT AS THOSE WHO FEEL THAT WE ARE WORTH NOTHING. I LOVE THAT YOU'RE SUCH A STRONG PERSON, AND YOU GIVE ME HOPE TO GIVE TO OUR FUTURE GENERATIONS. PLEASE NEVER STOP LOOKING FOR WAYS TO GET OUT BECAUSE I'M SURE THERE IS A LOOP HOLE SOMEWHERE IN THIS. BUT IN BETWEEN TIME, I WILL BE FIGHTING THE CAUSE FOR US WITH THIS CASE, AND FOR THE FUTURE.
SINCEREST LOVE AND GRATITUDE,
HONEE BEA