dmiller

Weren't they in it for the bucks?? Here on earth? Not "treasure in Heavan"?? :D-->

Oak -- news flash -- yer a believer!! :D--> Maybe more so than those who claim to be so, by right of some "holier-than-thou-whatever-experience" that might have happened to them years ago, or even last night for that matter!!

Or maybe --- since they are delivering a "payload", one might call them "Expressives".

Hmmm. Good question. "Drivers" perhaps? --> :D-->

HA! You don't know Larry (one of the clients at the house I am at). :D--> He "challenges" both myself, and other staff daily, and though I get along with him quite well, there are often times when the totally unexpected happens, and "we've got a problem". --> He can be more "fractious" than any 5 GS folks put together in a small room with vpw, or lcm. Perhaps it's "coincidence" that I work with him daily. After handling, and dealing with his outbursts, Grease Spot discussions are a relief!

I might have been convinced of that, prior to 11/2 -- but not on 11/5.

Does Cindy! (that's the Mrs! to you!!) know about this?? :P-->

In a word --- Yes. :)--> Tanks!! ;)--> I think you're right.

"Organized and set in motion by God". Hmmm. Now that is a good question, and deals with the "sovereignty" of God --- whether He is in absolute control all the time, or whether He "sovereignly decided" to give men absolute freedom of will, while He takes a back seat to our decisions, and allows us to make our mistakes. I've been reading (off and on), THE GOD WHO RISKS, by John Sanders. There are some really interesting ideas in there that I had never considered before. Example --- God doesn't really know what we are going to do until we do it, because he gave us freedom of will -- although He has a pretty good idea of what our decision will be, since He is God. Well -- that flew in the face of all my Catholic/Jesus Freak/Pentecostal/twi/etc., upbringing -- but what he says makes sense, and looking at it in the perspective of your question --- I am unsure if it validates or negates the "no coincidence" theory I hold. So -- to answer your question, I really don't know. I am of the opinion that God does NOT "organize, and set in motion" every event, but when "coincidental things" happen in our lives, I do see it as Him getting involved, without affecting our freedom of will, to help rectify a situation that we got ourselves into. But as I said --- That's just an IMHO! :)-->

Geo -- Hey there, hi. One of those "coincidences" happened to me at a job site you referred me and another person to here, back in the early 80's. Guess I might not have told you about it, or maybe you just forgot about it. Either way, it was a serious accident at the work site. It's been a couple of decades by now. If you don't remember it, that's ok. I do. If the result had been just a coincidence, I might've forgotten about it by now as well.

--> --> ok -- whatever! -->

I do not believe in coincidences, simply because I believe there is a Power above us all, Who has nothing better to do, than look out for the likes of us. (That is a para-phrased rendition of my belief in God). Mea Culpa -- if that seems irreverant, but that is how I look at life, and honestly -- if it were not for this "lack of coincidence" that I so firmly believe in, I would not be here today. There have been quite a few times that I have cheated death, and I do not consider it a coincidence. It was not "coincidence" that certain things have happened at certain times, causing me to be one minute too late, or for that matter, one minute too early in a situation that really could of meant the end for me. I am not being dramatic here -- I act stupidly all the time, and it is by Providence alone that I can tell you this tonight. I can tell you about 4 serious car wrecks, where I walked away (literally) unscathed (I am talking roll overs here, not just a fender bender),and 2 very near misses where I knew what to do, yet did not. And that doesn't even include a few other instances where God was slapping my forehead, saying "Listen Up!" No -- I don't believe in coincidences. I knew (at the time) what I needed to do, yet me and my stupid brain said "Awww -- it's ok. Go for it". Well --- the short of the long of it is -- I'm still here, and the older I get, the more I ruminate about my past, checkered though it is. And the kicker about all this is -- imho I have done nothing to deserve this, I feel like I should be more productive for God, yet I am not. The things that have happened to me in the past could certainly be called a coincidence, but I -- as a bible believing person, choose to give the credit where credit is due. Every last time I was "saved" from one of these experiences, I always wondered (and still do wonder), "Why am I important?" "Why didn't I die?" "What is there for me to do?" Well --- the answer to that is I still do not know. And as you look at these words typed on an internet page, I know you don't see the intensity of what I have been through, but regardless --- none of it was any coincidence. I see it as Someone looking out for me. Things happen that cannot be explained, that I will grant you. But to lay it all in the lap of ambiguity --- No --- that I cannot do. :)-->

Oak -- Hey bro -- I respect both your opinions, as well as your questions. You deserve a better answer than that, so hang on. It's coming. :)-->

Why not?? --> :D--> :D-->

Now You've got me looking for a metaphysical one, that can help me measure those abstract meanings -- outside my personnal realm of experience!! :D-->

Baptist's believe in --- Trinity Jesus is God/Man Water Baptism Crucified on Friday, raised on Sunday Speaking in Tongues is a gift Holy Spirit is a 3rd person, not a power Catholics believe --- Trinity Jesus is God/Man Water Baptism Crucified on Friday, raised on Sunday Speaking in Tongues is a gift Holy Spirit is a 3rd person, not a power Assemblies of God believe --- Trinity Jesus is God/Man Water Baptism Crucified on Friday, raised on Sunday Speaking in Tongues is a gift Holy Spirit is a 3rd person, not a power Presbyterians believe --- Trinity Jesus is God/Man Water Baptism Crucified on Friday, raised on Sunday Speaking in Tongues is a gift Holy Spirit is a 3rd person, not a power Lutherans believe --- Trinity Jesus is God/Man Water Baptism Crucified on Friday, raised on Sunday Speaking in Tongues is a gift Holy Spirit is a 3rd person, not a power There is no difference between all these denominations mentioned above. With minor differences in their various beliefs, all believe the above, therefore are one, though they say nay. Even the Evangelicals believe the same crap, yet they declare themselves different from all the others too. --> If ya wanna be in a cult (though imho ALL THE ABOVE QUALIFY), join something like twi, or jw, that says Jesus Christ is not God -- and then rest on your laurels. You've arrived.

In the open forum, on the "coincidence" thread, 3cents had this to say about what I said there: Is this what you are talking about? Having looked at 3cents's reply, it is making sense to me, that we are trying to define that which we do not know anything about, by the finite standards that we either live by, or are accustomed to through acclimation. Me-thinks that our (my) "mental yardstick" you spoke of, is (seemingly) effective only to the person using it, since it measures the known against the unknown for each person. Yet the unknown holds so many undeterminable variables, it really is not possible to "measure" the unknowable by our individual yard stick, (comprised of our life experiences) -- therefore rendering our measurement of such (in the big picture) -- a non-entity. Now -- to answer your question about me forgiving myself, I can answer that in one word, despite all the philosophical arguements -- pro or con. That word is yes. While I have been forgiven for my sins by the Father, because of the finality accomplished by Jesus Christ, I realize that I have a daily battle to do, and my choices do make a difference in my personal place in Paradise. Because of the rewards given to believers for correct deeds, or the lack there-of because of in-correct deeds -- I try to choose to do the good thing, take the high road, speak less impulsively, condemn less, try to see the good in an ugly situation, be accomodating to those who I consider to be wrong in either action or speech, and realize that by my actions, I am doing good, or not. Am I always successful? No. Do I try? Yes. I try to "do unto others, as I would have them do unto me", realizing the old adage "what goes around, comes around". So yes -- I can forgive myself, since I understand that in my own limited way, I am trying to do what my "yardstick" tells me is best. And when the various occurances show up that happen to be "outside of the circle" that define me, and what I have gone through in my past, I am comfortable using that same measuring tool -- regardless of whether it is (philosophically) competent, or not. :)-->

CW -- too cool!! Thanks! :)-->

:D--> :D-->

Good thing there was no food on this plate. Otherwise, they'd a had to fill out an additional incident report on how much food was wasted, could any of that food have been washed off and served anyway, how much food was needed to replace the spilled stuff, how expensive was the food (ie - the meat vs. vegetables vs. potatos scale), how much "lost" time was involved in replacing a filled plate, and how much extra space in the garbage bag would be need to accomodate the spillage, since "uninvited trash" is not welcome at da Way! :D-->

LittleHawk -- I would be proud to come and pick fiddle, banjo, mandolin, guitar, whatever, while you drown some worms at Knob Creek! ;)-->

wwjla -- "anal retentive" was the word the teacher used -- I don't think it was part of the original study!! ;)-->

MJ --- I agree with ex70's completely. You're right about the plan part of it though. Without a plan, no one would know what is needed to be done -- but the "rules" that might be enforced by the driver, only impede us amiables, since they get in the way of our doing the job the best way we see fit. :)--> The order part will fall into place, as the job goes smoothly, without a bunch of rules to follow. The benefit of each category is as follows (think of this in terms of working for a company in an office, or working like I do - in a group home): Driver --- provides leadership, makes hard decisions, and can take charge of a "fractious" bunch of workers. Drivers will see to it that results are arrived at, yet they have little to do with actually accomplishing them. They depend on the other 3 categories to "shoulder the burden". Expressive -- adds levity to any situation, and takes the "work" out of it. Their high energy makes others want to do their best, and they can convincingly get others to do what will "be the best" for the orginazation. They see, and offer to co-workers the bigger picture, without all the structure offered by the driver. Drivers will go along with this, realizing that it does accomplish results -- though not as fast as they would like. Analytical -- while boring, and introverted to drivers and expressives -- both realize that the analytical person happily pores over facts and figures to produce a "map" that will provide direction for them to follow. The actual searching of documentation is something that neither driver, nor expressive are willing to do, so they count themselves lucky to have someone in their camp to do the "dirty work". Amiables -- they couldn't care less about what type of person they work with, until one of their co-workers do something wrong. Amiables have a "chip" bag on their belt, and when a wrong by a co-worker is done, chip!, a chip is added to the bag. Since they "go along to get along", they rarely say anything, but they have that "chip bag", on their belt -- representing all past injustices done to them. They are more than willing to do any and all things, recognizing leadership, flamboyant ways of doing things, and even acknowledging the need for "facts and figures", but don't get in their way as they try to do their job. You'll get chipped!! Drivers provide direction; Expressives add the fun; Analyticals provide info for all -- and; Amiables do most of the work, and don't complain. There are the different personalities, and how they all (if taken as a whole), can benefit each other.

So --- how do you all rate? ;)--> :)--> As I said --- there is no right or wrong.

Drivers ---- They are agressively confident, impatient, and strong willed. Analyticals, and Amiables call them pushy “SOB’s”. The work style of the Driver, is a leader who take’s charge. tells and gives orders and is into control. They are result driven creatures, who make fast desicions, and are only selective listeners, who do not like concensus desicions. These are folks who will go to a 30 minute meeting, and expect to be done in 20 minutes. Being on time, and getting things done quickly are paramount to them. Drivers feel that rules apply to all but themselves. Expressives ---- Fun-loving, outgoing, and impulsive folks. They are dramatic in lifestyle, and love freedom. Analyticals, and Amiables call them crazy, and in need of drugs to calm them down. The work style of the Expressive person is high energy, usually disorganized (though seeing the “big picture” of things), and always having fun first. These folks make fast desicions, and not always based on facts, cause they are too busy having fun. They are never on time, since fun takes precedence. Expressives feel there are too many rules. Analyticals ---- These folks appear shy, and seldom outgoing, since they are analyzers. They are perfectionists, who demand facts and documentation for everything. They love spread sheets, and any other document that can chart, explain, or refute -- all based upon documentation. They are cautious, accurate, and thinking things through, always asking questions, so as to have more documentation. Drivers, Expressives, and Amiables all consider them to be anal-retentive. Analyticals think that there are not enough rules, nor enough facts. Amiables ---- These are friendly, warm, and patient folks, who are very people oriented. They will “go along, to get along”, showing a passive inclication towards the rest of the world. They are always co-operating, and team players. They are the “worker bees”, who if given just a small bit of praise, will work endlessly for that which will benefit all. Analyticals regard them as wimps, and Drivers and Expressives see them as “road kill”, though all 3 of these categories acknowledge that the “Amiable” is the one who will get the job done. Amiables hate rules. There should be no rules - since everyone should get along without them. Despite these definitions, it was taught that all these folks work to make a complete organization, and if you are going to be able to work with others successfully, recognize yourself for what you are, and recognize others for what they are. FYI --- I was a solid "amiable". :)--> I try to get along with everyone. Does it show? ;)-->