dmiller

Hey all -- this is something I just learned from an "in-service" that I had to attend through work, and found it pretty interesting. The topic was "working with people", and doing it successfully by A.) figuring out what "type you were; and B.) figuring out what "type" others were, and inter-acting accordingly. There is no right or wrong, the following words put you into a category that describes you. Nothing more, nothing less. Here you have it: From research by the Wilson Learning Center -- there are 4 basic personality types, and they are as follows: Drivers, Expressives, Analyticals, and Amiables. Now -- below are 4 groups of words. Underline each and every word you feel applies to you personally, regardless of which group they are in. So, underline all the words that apply to you-- further explanation will follow. :)--> 1) Determined, Decisive, Efficient, Assertive, Task-Oriented, Leader, Dominant; 2) Personable, Dramatic, Gregarious, Enthusiastic,, Impulsive, Popular, Outgoing; 3) Serious, Orderly, Cautious, Fact-driven, Thorough, Systematic, Detail Oriented; 4) Agreeable, Respectful, Supportive, Cooperative, Reserved, Patient, People Oriented Now -- circle the group that has the most underlined words in it. Whichever group you circled, is basically what you are (personality-wise). Group 1 = Drivers Group 2 = Expressives Group 3 = Analyticals Group 4 = Amiables Now -- let me write out the analysis for each of these groups. :)-->

Looks like a great spot to me. With all that is offered there, this should be made a week long gathering! ;)-->

and name it. -->

That is not acceptable to me either, (though Lord knows I'm as guilty as the next for having engaged in such). Blind acceptance is the antithesis of analysis, just as over-analysis is the antithesis of analysis. The blind acceptance can be considered infra-red, and the over-analysis can be considered ultra-violet, and guess where plain old analysis sits?? Right. There in the middle. On an even keel. Not extreme on either end. Could be even described as balanced. To be overly skeptical, or cynical isn't my cup of tea. Having been involved with the extreme ends of fanaticism as far as religion is involved, I find it very comforting to "ride out the storm" by questioning all things, accepting some, discarding others, and having a bone left to chew on, after it is all said and done.

DrtyDzn -- so true. Kinda like the dog chewing the bone so much, there is nothing left. Well -- as you say, to each their own. I for one would not mind "chewing" the bone a little bit, but I would like to have something left afterwards, and not just a bunch of fragments left over from "worrying" over it so much.

Socks --- :D--> :D--> :D--> plus: 1 to teach that the Word takes the place of the absent light bulb.

Hotel for the adults, houseboat for the kids! :P-->

What The Hay --- Good post. Not trying to throw a monkey wrench into it, or even play devil's advocate, but here is something I have always wondered about, concerning "born of the wrong seed". Vp taught that the devil can come up with nothing new on his own, he only copies. Now - if that is true, how could someone be "born again of wrong seed", thousands of years before it was possible to be "born again of right seed"? I tend to believe that the advo only copies (an example would be in Exodus 7, at Pharoah's court, when the sorcerer's copied Moses' miracles, but didn't do anything he didn't do). I know Cain was "of the devil", and Jesus told some people that they were of "their father the devil", so that just compounds the uncertainty given what vp taught about the devil's originality -- which I think has some merit to it (not because vp said it, but because there are examples in the Word of such). So -- what do you think?? Was the "seed" that caused these folks to be on the wrong side of the fence something different than what is available to us today, as far as being born again of Holy Spirit? Or was it the same thing, or was it allegorical? I don't know. There are some people who are so totally evil, one has to think that since their malevolence transcends human nature, some sort of spiritual connection is there. Leastways I do. This is a question I have had for almost 30 years now. It has yet to be answered.

How does the mog change a light bulb? --> He just holds it up, and lets the world revolve around him. :P-->

Just remembered I had this link to Vine's Dictionary as well.

Glad to share them! Also, you can go to the Blue Letter Bible, and on the left side of the home page, there are more study tool items that you can check out, from their menu bar.

And one more -- if I may. ;)--> This Bible Dictionary is another good online source of info as well. Now -- I'll be quiet. :)-->

And Here is another site for Strong's concordance, as well. Very useful. :)-->

Kit -- great link. Thank you. :)--> An online source that I use frequently for verses, and such, is Word Study Tools, from the Logsdons@Home Site. It is from aol, so I don't know if it is accessible for all, but the Word Study is a great site for looking things up.

Amen to that, Jerry! :)-->

I just learned a new word --"misogyny". CW -- how can Paul be accused of that? I know I need new glasses, but I haven't seen that in evidence in the bible. What am I missing? -->

Roy --- Great point! I love it! :D--> Any teachers in here?? And if there are, did you ever assign something called homework??? :D--> And if you did, did you actually expect students to have to "crack the book and study"?? ;)--> And did you teach the entire semester's lesson the first day, in one class period telling all you knew about the subject? You hit the nail on the head Roy! :)--> "The flower unfolds, petal by petal, before it's full beauty's beheld" author unknown

Song -- so that makes Paul a sinner, right? When was the last time you read Romans 3:23? --> Guess that puts all of us in the same boat as Paul. So he is just like the rest of us, or rather, that makes the "rest of us" just like him -- take your pick for the semantics, it says the same thing.

Jsamuel --- Sounds like you prefer "selective reading". :)--> "He was condemned by a just jury." This "just jury" met between 11:00pm, and midnight -- on a monday I might add. What "just jury" meets so late at night? I've heard it taught that it was illegal for "court" to be held at night. "The top religious echelon voted in a lawful assembly. There were no false witness nor liars present, dare ANYone say." --> Now you are contradicting Matthew 26:59-65. "He was challenged to save himself and he could not. Not impressive at all." Could not, or would not?? Now you are contradicting Matthew 26:53, 54 -- and I will dispute that it was most impressive to have help available, and not to call on it. Verse 54 gives the reason for his "less than impressive response" - as you say. "He reproached well respected and loved men. Lawyers, religious leaders. He ate with sinners. Known sinners." "Those that are whole, do not need a physician." :)--> "He was responsible for babies dying. Yes how many hundreds of babies could have been saved if not for his birth?" --> --> --> "He divided families!!! He divided father and daughter!!! (Check the Gospels on this one) Yes Jesus of Nazareth separated many. He was a separist." Abraham Lincoln did the same by his emancipation proclamation, freeing slaves. Was he a "loser" too? "Just one man or woman's opinion here. Mine counts as one as do yours. Nothing more, nothing less. God bless." God bless you too. :)--> :)--> :)-->

I thought that Minnesota was one of the few places that had snow and cold that time of year. Seems to me, anything south of Chicago should be good weather-wise. ;)-->

I have a hard time believing in "coincidence".

Now you are getting into the topic of God's sovereignty. Suppose He chose to NOT reveal everything in one book? Suppose He chose to fragment "dictation", according to how He chooses to act, and tell, in His own Soveign manner, and dispense such informaton into different books?? I am still of the opinion that: Matthew --- Is Jesus the King Mark --- Is Jesus the Servant Luke --- Is Jesus the Man, -- and John --- Is Jesus the Son of God Looking at various scriptures in each of these gospels, it is readily evident that there are different sides of Jesus Christ that are brought to the forefront, that are not apparent in some, or any of the other gospels. For sure -- God could have said it all in one sentence (obviously), yet He did not. I (for one) will not question His Sovereignity, in not telling all in any one book of the bible. :)--> If He chooses not to do so, what business is that of ours??

Sounds like she didn't just "Bobbitt", but took most of it!!

You're right Geo -- the political application can go both ways. Now getting serious -- here is a quote I got from the Truth or Tradition site, and the IOT thread Jeff mentioned. This is most evident in the book of Acts, 2:11b -- where it says "We hear them speak the wonderful works of God." How come the folks present then and there, never heard "My Children ......etc." ? --> Speaking in tongues magnifies God, and the interpretation should reflect such. In other words, after one speaks in tongues, the interpretation should be a praise to God for what He has done for people individually, or mankind as a whole. Evidently, the folks in Acts 2 did not need someone to interpret, but does that make tongue's interpretation (these days) different than what was heard back then by the other folks who needed an interpreter?? I don't think so. Tongues are not a message from God to beleivers. Tongues are a message to God thanking, and praising Him for all He has done. The interpretation should reflect such, if it is to line up biblically with what is described in Acts, the first time it happened. And the "interpretation" doesn't need to be "word for word" to match the "tongue". Dan. 5:25-28 show this most graphically, since there are only 4 words on the wall, yet there is a longer "interpretation". Granted this is OT, and sure because of that, "it doesn't count", --> and of course -- this was long before tongues with interpretation -- so it certainly can't apply to us today. But I for one will not throw out the principal behind it. Take a look at Acts 2 (remember the importance of first usage??), and see what speaking in tongues was all about. Then take a look at what docvic taught about interpretation, line the two up, and see if they fit. I've got a spare hack-saw here, if anyone needs to shave some corners off of their previous thinking. :)--> (I'd loan you my personal one, but the blade is dull from over-use).

Sorry, George. That was too good to pass up!