Theopolitan

I'm finding that there could be an ethics violation. I have the address of the organization of which he serves as a dean. I will write to them.

Knowing what I do about the situation, I would have to say the neutral counselor didn't uncritically accept the daughters' narratives, and it was only three sessions into the process. But though I think I could win you folks over to the parents by divulging certain info, my question isn't about who is right and wrong. My question is, did the pastor, as a professional counselor himself, violate ethics by interfering with the efforts of another? There's no question his actions lack integrity, but I'm wondering if there is a professional counselor here who could tell me if there is a code of ethics that he violated.

I don't know. I'm told family counseling was his suggestion, and everyone agreed on the counselor. He was biased to start with, and it seems the pastor had been entertaining talk about the sessions and ventured his opinions about their effectiveness.

I know a couple who was in family counseling with two of their grown daughters. They and their daughters attend separate churches. It had become evident that the daughters' pastor was interfering with the work of the counselor, and through his interference was instrumental in the girls' decision to abandon counseling after only three sessions. This has left the couple devastated. Both the pastor and the counselor are professional counselors. Is there an ethics violation on the part of the pastor, and is there any recourse for the parents?

All I can say is . . . you chose 'im. Whining about it now won't help.

Great thread. I'm bumping this to the top!

Nope. It's not a marriage. It's adultery. If they couple in their hearts truly repent of their sin, then, yes.

Ditto!

I would apologize for disturbing the peace and turn it down.

I'm looking for sheet music for this old Shaker hymn. http://www.amazon.com/Shaker-Songs-Want-Sh...55&sr=102-1 (I've already been all over the Web.) Anyone have an old Shaker hymnal with this in it?

My quick reply would be, "How do you know?"

This is excellent advice, and in line with Rom 13:14, But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof. I would venture further and advise you to turn off the TV and radio, and put the CD's and MP3 players away. Spend at least a month without all the sensual stimualtion and open the Bible. Read stories of great Christians. Get a job that requires you to work with your hands, or volunteer manual labor for the Christian missions in your region. Find another outlet for all this energy you have. Those who are advising you that this is "just natural," are forgetting that it is the fallen nature, and not at all the way your Father in Heaven desires you to see women. Bless you for your candor.

Some people just aren't letter writers. Keep sending him cards and letters. I'm sure he appreciates them.

This is a national promise and not an individual promise, but it's still a good promise.

I agree mostly with what the others have posted. I interpret it more strictly. "Congress shall make no law . . . This by design left it open for the states to have state-established churches, and a majority of the 13 original colonies had government churches when they ratified the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment was imposed upon the states in 1947 through an application of the 14th Amendment in Everson vs New Jersey (A misapplication in my opinion). The schools periodically dismissed for religious education and were bussed to the churches and back to school. This case was the first time the "separation of church and state" was argued as an interpretation of the First Amendment. Of course, I think we'd be better off doing things as they were originally framed: State senators were elected by the state legislatures. Property ownership was a prerequisite for voting privileges. No income taxes. Just to name a few.

It is good for a man not to touch a woman . . . let every man have his own wife, and every woman her own husband. 1 Cor. 7:1 & 2. Keep up the "good work" !

We are not justified by love, we are justified by grace through faith. NOT of works, lest any man should boast. You cannot effectively have one without the other. Faith without love is fanaticism. Love without faithfulness is foolishness. Just as Law cannot exist without Grace for that would be tyranny and Grace cannot exist without Law for that would be anarchy. One is not supposed to be exclusive of the other. Love is a gift of God that is to be treasured and may well be His greatest gift but it is not supposed to supercede. What do you mean by "above" then? In your OP you stated that works of love were required to enter into heaven, and that God's forgiveness was contingent upon our forgiveness of others. (Both patently false statements. We are not saved by works, whether of love or any other kind, we are saved by faith alone.) So what do you mean by "above?" Do you mean is love more efficacious than faith? The answer is still no.

Before I referred anyone to "The Star of Bethlehem," I researched some of the criticisms of his theories. One work that frequently popped up was Michael R. Molnar's The Star of Bethlehem: The Legacy of the Magi. Molnar assumes that since Babylon was hellenized after the Alexandrian conquest, that their astrology would be based on Greek thought. It's a non sequitor, of course. Simply because Western society has been darwinized

You don't think maybe the problems Israel is having is because they are unbelievers? More than that, they call Christ the illegitimate child of Mary and a blasphemer. And God's on their side? Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him. Psalm 2:12.

So none of this judgment is for the 40 million plus murdered babies, nor the legitimization of sodomy, nor for the general sensuality and iniquity and just plain moral impurity permeating American society? It's all about our foreign policy concerning a nation of unbelievers? Hmmmmmm...

The tongue is our most unruly member.

I've been jonesin' for a good, new Christmas movie.

If a birthday party causes my brother to stumble, then I will celebrate no more birthdays. Economically, though, aren't birthdays just another reason to pick a man's pocket? (That's the Scrooge in me talking.)

Not at all. The presenter, Larson, is neither a theologian nor an astronomer. (He's a lawyer.) So, it's pretty much in terms that the layman can understand. He made some unsubstantiated, yet reasonable, assumptions concerning the Magi and one or two points of Scripture, but as far as what he presents concerning the behavior of the stars and planets 2000 years ago are beyond dispute. I googled some criticisms about his presentation, and there were only one or two secular folks that took issue with his assumptions and recommended a book called, interestingly enough, The Star of Bethlehem : The Legacy of the Magi by a professional astronomer, Michael R. Molnar. Judging by the reviews, it sounds like he's saying basically the same thing as Larson. I ordered the book. A couple of other folks wanted to quibble about the time of Herod's death. I think Larson is on to something. One more thing, the music's outstanding!

We are not justified by love, we are justified by grace through faith. NOT of works, lest any man should boast.