dmiller

Flat is missing the John Beargrease Sled Dog Marathon. :(-->

Hey Jard -- Happy Birthday!! :)-->

:D--> :D--> :D--> Does "Water off a duck's back" say anything about Mike's posts, and my take on them?

Everyone has a *dark side*. E-V-E-R-Y O-N-E.

My thinking about this subject was simply the lack of Potiphar's wife's name, and the implication that the sin was more important than the person who might have been the perpetrator of such. I never meant to single out one account, and claim that it was representative of all accounts in the bible. This one struck a chord with me -- and I just tossed it out here for general comment. The subject is obviously much larger than what I posted, and right now -- I am not willing to do a *Word study* on all the mis-haps, etc., that took place, in similar circumstances. My thoughts are not (were not) ill towards anyone. I was just curious what others thought.

:)--> . . .

Mike -- no I don't *fear* you. I also don't read all of your posts, simply because these tired old eyes can't handle it anymore. I will say this -- I admire your dedication (I used to have it too); I admire your zeal ----- (I used to have it too); I also think that both your dedication and zeal are misguided. Now -- let me qualify that. Pfal had some good things to offer, but it was not the *end all* when it comes to doctrine. Docvic was a *tool* (if you will), and he taught some good stuff, and he taught some questionable stuff, and he taught some bad stuff. Unfortunately -- he got caught up in the *world* that he preached against, and that (for me) pretty much negated the effectiveness of whatever he might have had to say. Also -- everything he taught came from someone else. Plain and simple. Perhaps he *coagulated* all the various doctrines into one -- and pfal was the result -- but to call that *God-breathed*, and worthy of more attention than the Bible is not only ludicrous, but blasphemy as well -- since it elevates the words of man, above those of God. Now -- I'm not going to *burn you at the stake* for saying such, but I will disagree with what you are propounding. We've been through all this before, so I need not go into the details, nor do you need to *remind* me that God's Word is now *re-issued* (as it were) via pfal. If you want to hang on to pfal -- I say God bless, have a great journey, and I'll see you on the other side. I for one, have little use for it, and am thinking that God is a lot bigger than pfal. Wish you did too. ps -- I make it a point to be polite, and courteous (sp?) because I often find myself opening my big yap before I know the facts, and then have to swallow words I have spoken!

Excie -- I skimmed through all this stuff -- and want you to know that I am praying both for your situation, and that little goalie of yours. :)--> David

Mike --- this is just an IMHO, but I think it is something for you to think about. You have so closely connected yourself to pfal, the *rev* given to VP, and his books -- that I think (again -- just my IMHO) that all attacks against your ideas, *teachings*, whatever you want to call them -- are translated by you as an attack upon yourself. Granted foks have called you names, but over-all --- I have seen more dissent with what you say, rather than dissent about who you are. Th only problem we (I) have -- is your lack of willingness to take a total view of things (Wierwille included), and look at it from an over-all perspective. In all honesty -- talking to you about pfal is pretty much the same as talking to an LDS person about the book of Mormon. They hold their book in very high regard too, and when stacked up against the bible -- guess which one is on top?

Ps --- and if you want to attend a really weird communion service -- visit any Kingdom Hall. The Jehovah Witness' will pass around a plate full of bread wafers, and then a glass of wine -- And every last person passes both the plate, and the glass on to the next person without taking any bread off the plate, or taking a sip of wine. To them --- if you partake, that means that you are one of the 144,000 who are going to *Heavan*, and since none of them deem themselves *worthy* - they pass both the plate, and the glass on to the next person - who does the same.

The wedding party was one thing, the *communion* service was quite another. Gayity at the first, solemnity at the second. I for one would have a very hard time going to a communion service that was a *party*. The dinner Jesus *initiated* communion at, was the last time He said He would drink wine, until the Kingdom of God comes (Luke 22:18) -- and given the fact that it was Gethsemane that He went to afterwards, speaks of the lack of levity at the situation. If a party is held at a communion service -- I'm of the opinion that it would be following that described in I Corinthians 11:20-29.

John -- right -- and her actions were given the more *recognition*, since she was never named either. Like I said -- since Potiphar's wife was only mentioned as that, I think it was the the *wife* aspect being called attention to, rather than the person, emphasizing the temptation rather than the person behind it. Joseph certainly stood for God, but by doing so, he also did not betray Potiphar's trust when he decided to not give in to temptation. And since Joseph was a MOG -- he had two "employers", not one. He kept the trust of them both.

When life hands you lemons, reach for the tequila and salt. ;)-->

Mike -- I have only disputed your *ideas*, and not you yourself. You are obviously *sincere*, but remember -- SINCERITY IS NO GUARENTEE FOR TRUTH! :)--> Geez -- who was it that said that?? -->

:D--> Great analogy! No limit to either the fish or glimpses of Divinity caught.

Regardless -- He sees the heart behind the work. :)-->

Joseph -- Man Of God For His Day And Time --- knew how to reject temptation, and called adultery for what it is -- a sin. There are others (cough!) --> who got the same temptation, and managed to *spiritualize it*, saying that spiritual adultery is what is meant, rather than physical. Certainly -- what Joseph faced was in the Old Testament, but now we have the New Testament which has *higher standards of learning* for those of us enlightened (these days), so it couldn't mean the same thing , right?? However -- I seem to remember hearing the OT is FOR OUR LEARNING, (or sumthin' like that). I find it (not so ironic) that the physical sin of adultery in OT times, is the same one found in the NT times, but now with a different label (these days) -- for the convenience of those *preaching* on the topic today, while engaging in the practices of old. Joseph was a MOG, and dealt with the temptation, accepting the imprisionment that followed, and never gave in to the temptation itself. To him -- the Word Of God WAS THE WILL OF GOD. He never *jacked* it around to fit his own definition of what was *convenient* for him. It is interesting to me, that Potiphar's wife is NEVER named. She is always called "Potiphar's wife, his master's wife, or she" in Genesis. That to me says something. For those of you who know Bullinger"isms" more than I do, I would say that this is an emphasis by ommision of her name, yet also emphasis by calling her *Potiphar's wife*, *his master's wife*, or just plain *she* -- and with no name given -- it is her status as wife being emphasized, that Joseph refused to violate. Thought about putting this in the Doctrinal Forum, but since it deals with the MOG (then and now), it seemed more appropriate here. Just some thoughts I've been mulling over. The lack of her name, and the designation as *wife* "only" got me thinking the other day, and was looking to see what anyone else might think. Too bad the modern day MOG's can't see the pattern.

Satori -- ya think!!?? Saw a story on serial killers on a cable show several months ago, and they mentioned this guy btk prominently. He would taunt the police with "souveniers" of his *conquests* (photos of victim's drivers licences, etc.) through the mail, would call up a radio personality, give hints live on air, all sorts of stuff. CNN said tonight that he was still the prez of his church, and tomorrow they (CNN) will be talking to the radio personality that btk chose to talk to exclusively back when this was all going on. There are not enough expletives invented to adequately describe this &%^#*@#, and the evil he carried out.

BTW --- UncleHairy. This is a great thread! You're taking me back to when the *good old days* were really good. Thanks! :)-->

UncleHairy said: Then Belle said: And skyrider replied: To all of which I say AMEN. :)--> In the mid to late 70's, there was a lot of care and love going on for those who were in hurt and *our* actions were done in spite of twi, not because of them. It doesn't take a class, or a set of books to learn about manifesting the Love of God to someone in need. Once was a time when the Word did rule supreme (in the hearts of "grads"), but twi did an effective job of stifling that --- making sure they received the credit for deliverance's because of their teachings, rather than giving the glory to the Healer. I had one similar incident happen to me (going door-to-door as a visiting wow in a different town), where a woman we prayed for received healing deliverance also. We mentioned a "local fellowship" (twig), and gave her the address. We forgot to get hers, or even her last name! :D--> We told the local wow's about her, but with no last name, or any address, we couldn't tell them where she was. Never did find out if she showed up at the twig or not. We were (ahem! cough!) mildly castigated for not being *on top of it*, but that was about all that happened to us. Her healing was real, whether or not she showed up at twig. It happened because of God, not twi.

Ex10 -- I'm over it. Really --- I am. :)-->

However -- the *bright* side of our company is -- it's hard to find good folk who are willing to give *complete care* to those that need it, so I'm guessing we get a little more *lattitude*, and are not let go as easily. We wipe butts. We don't kiss them. :D--> :D-->

HCW -- sorry for your loss. :(--> You said: It is the same here in Minnesota, and with the company I work for -- which is a health-care company, dealing with folks who have disabilities. There is an *at will* for the company (to get rid of unwanted employees), but all our employees are required to give 30 days notice, should they decide to quit. The *office* can do it on an instant's notice, but we as employees cannot. As in Ohio -- the company I work for can terminate you for any, or no reason. Kinda sucks, but that is the way it is. :(-->

Sudo -- I am the one lone vote for dial-up, simply because I download nothing from the internet, and as long as I can connect to links that others provide in various forums, I'm happy. Any music I listen to, is here at the house, I don't care for "streaming video", or "audio", and I mostly only go to forum sites. We use a computer at work, and we have cable there, but that is only to facilitate access to the phone, while the computer is running, and when the computer is running -- it had best be work related! ;)--> I'm on aol here at the house, and never get any pop-ups at all. After signing on to aol, I come into the GSCafe via Internet Explorer, and never have to deal with pop ups here either. Occassionally -- I will get an IM from some aol *troller* looking for a response, but that is about it for me. so -- yea -- I'm happy with dial-up, but if I used this thing for more than a "cheap long distance telephone", I would be following the votes offered so far, by others more knowledgeable than I! :)-->

Shellon -- sounds like you have ridden with herbiejuan. Are the marks of your fingers still in his dashboard, from where you were gripping it? ;)-->