Eyesopen

In my experience domestic abuse cases run about 60/30/10. 60% of the time the man starts it, 30% of the time the woman starts it and 10% of the time it's a mutual slug fest. Now mind you this is only my experience in law enforcement for 17 years and in one County in one State. Statistics in other areas or country wide may be different. But I do agree with you that to be guilty until proven innocent is wrong (Well unless of course a person was actually caught in the act). What happens behind closed doors is a mystery most of the time, however a preponderance of the evidence often sheds light on an otherwise dark situation. All of us would like a level playing field in all areas of our lives. Unfortunately for us we are stuck in this world until Christ returns or we die, whichever comes first. Because of that we have to deal with the injustices that are here while not becoming part of the problem. A difficult balance to be sure. As far as a 'right to privacy' I agree as long as what a person or persons are doing do not in anyway endanger the well being of each other or others outside of the major parties. As Mr. Ham has said "it really does effect more people than just "you"." Again speaking from a very personal point of view and experience....he is absolutely right! I am not infering that you are abusive just following the train of thought. And thank you for answering me.

Well my sweet friend then stop surfing the gutter!

Does it have a bridge?

Believe what you like bro! "Ms Donna" doesn't need to be "evil" to be gay. If she is...well grand...at least she isn't living in a cover marriage with LCM. Be strong for her kids...kids generally respect a parent that is honest with them about their orientation. Now the rest of the stuff that comes out of Bizarro Way world I'm not even going to comment on because George already has said it...

I just had to laugh when I read those words. I'm lucky if I can find a frozen piece of fish, let alone any specific cut. hehehe I gets what I can.. Great looking recipe tho...gonna have to try it out. Might change the egg and flour to beer batter tho. I just love this forum!!

John, I do realize that the post in question was written in 2005 and written during the heat of an argument. And I do want to give you the benefit of the doubt so I am asking you just as Exie is, "do you really believe that?" I would add "still?"

Please someone tell me that John did not say this. Tell me I am misunderstanding...please.

Afraid? No my dear brother, I'm not afraid of "checking them out". TWI was not the first church that I walked away from but it will be the last. (It was my first cult. I guess that carries it's own kind of distinction.) I can see from a distance that it is not the type of "fellowship" that I would wish to be involved with. I dont have to walk back through the doors to see that much, but would I? Sure I would stop in to "see what I may see" but I can tell you with 100% certainty that I wouldn't stay.

Oldies you are a smart man, and I know that you have a big heart. So given those two things I am certain that you are not suggesting that these verses, regardless of how interpreted were rightfully used to justify the abuses that some wives endured at the hands of their husbands while in TWI. Are you? I love this line Mr. Ham. It is sooo "true"! :huh: :P

Hahahaha... On my knees to the porceline god...

I cant agree with you more. And I think that Mark would also agree that it is the responsiblilty of the leadership in any "Church" organization to make certain that the needs of all are being met. If they are claiming to teach biblical doctrine then they are also responsible to ensure that what they teach is biblically accurate. It simply cannot be the opinions of men, no matter how holy or godly they might think that they are. "The whole thing that got us into trouble with TWI in the first place was trusting a man to teach correctly." I love that line! And I submit that this idea of "trusting a man" is what has gotten mankind into trouble time and again in regards to religion. The admonition that Paul gave us was to follow in Christ's footsteps and to trust in God. We have not been told to follow in Paul's footsteps and to trust in man. Hence the reason that we need to search the scriptures daily to see if these things may be so. Both leaders and laymen alike must search the scripture. We are all of us responsible to a great extent for our own walk with God. We need to search the scriptures to make certain that what we are being taught is in fact the Word of God and not the word of man with a shiny veneer. Because as ASpot pointed out spotting the counterfeits is not so easy as it may sound.

My imagination flows towards "blowing" things...like chunks...

I'm not certain how long my stomach would hurt or if it would while I was drinking or just wait until the next morning.

So glad you could stop by Kathy dear. The last couple of posts have been a bit long. I am pleased that you would wade through them with us. I love you dear sister!

OMG!! If I ever make it to a weenie roast guess what I'm bringing? Haaaaahahaha

"I had noticed Mark that many denominations are now offering Bible study groups of one form or another and I think that is absolutely wonderful! It gives people more choice" I don't think choice has much to do with it. In no case am I aware of a small group being considered as a replacement for the normal liturgy, rather it is considered a supplement to the regular service. Well I wasnt sure how to respond to that post (taking the length into consideration so I'll try this. First off I understand your desire to use the word "supplement" instead of 'choice" Perhaps in the church that you attend that word is more correct but in the context that I was speaking "Choice" was correct. I was referring to choices between those Churches that offer a more diverse "package" as opposed to those that do not. "I think that the body of Christ actually works better when every part of the body does what it is supposed to be doing. (I am being a bit sarcastic here but it is not aimed at anyone in particular). The body of Christ has many different parts for a reason." And you are echoing the thoughts of St. Paul, as written in 1 Cor 12 Funny that is the scripture that I was thinking of when I wrote that line. I do not feel compelled to quote scripture for every comment that I make that reflects or echoes the scripture. I'm sorry if this confuses anyone. "But many of those parts have been stiffled for so very long." Here, on the other hand, I think we diverge in our opinions considerably 1 Cor 12:18 But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired You'll note that the above says that God has placed the members, not that the members figured out for themselves which body part they'd want to be. Much of the 'stifled' feeling that I've seen throughout my life is from people who want to struggle against God (albeit they likely don't recognize this) and where/what God wants from them in their lives. If a person wishes to walk in the footsteps of Christ, then should he do as Christ did? John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me How many times did Christ express those thoughts throughout the Gospels? How about St. Paul (e.g., Phil 1:21, <span style="FONT-STYLE:italic">For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain</span>) If Jesus did not come down from heaven to do His own will, if Paul's very existence is Christ, then maybe I should consider living for Christ rather than for what I perceive to be my own satisfaction/ self-fulfillment. So perhaps these people who feel stifled should, rather than attempting to become a member that they, in fact, aren't called to be, should strive to be the best that they can be where God placed them? Actually the reference was not to the people stifleing themselves but rather being stifled by the Churches that would not offer a more diverse manner in which to know God. IMHO a church that only teaches men for example how to study the Bible or how to minister to people or whatever the man behind the pulpit is supposed to do and does not offer that same instruction to women does in fact "stifle" the members of the body. God put them there we know that, but he also gave them free will to walk away from the Church or Churches that do not fullfill their needs (in former years they would have been and were murdered for doing just that but today women have rights as well). In this manner I think that the Churches that offer a more diverse program often are the places for those that are seeking more, such as myself, ASpot and Bramble and many others. None of us could have taken our rightful places in the body had TWI or others who were willing to teach women were not available. I know that you are not saying for us to just be happy with "our lot in life" so I will not come unglued at how abrasive that comment was to me. I will give you the benefit of the doubt concerning that comment. "For so many year the major churches have monopolized not only religion but the basic thought processes and decision making processes of people." Consider this for a minute if you would, using the analogy of the Body. As it is, thereare many parts, yet one body. Not multiple bodies, just one 1 Cor 12:24b-26 But God has so composed the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior part that there may be no discord (or schism) in the body but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am ofApollos," are you not carnal? "It is a shame that the 'major churches monopolize religion. Christ has ONE body and we are all members of that ONE body. Because there is the illusion put forth of having multiple bodies (churches), there is not the feeling of having ONE body. We are separated from each other and not in accord. Each man follows God, not according to the will of God, but according to the man's own vain imaginations. And that is little better than idolatry monopolized... the basic thought processes and decision making processes of people" A person's religion has a primary responsibility for helping the people form and develop their consciences so that doing the will of God rather than the will of man is the norm. It's how we avoid getting a "reprobate mind." (cf Rom 1:28). And when the conscience is formed, the thoughts and the decision making process will be impacted. If a person's religion doesn't do that, I would submit that the religion is not doing it's job. (Whether you agree with the content of the formation or not is a separate issue, I am merely talking about the importance of forming the conscience w/o regard for the content of that formation) We agree here that organizations such as TWI would not even have a true marketplace had the Churches been doing their jobs adequitely. "For example a community could become conditioned to believe and think that only men were allowed to go to school past the age of 12. Women could only attend until they were 12 and then they were to go home and pursue more womanly endeavors. So if they saw or heard of somebody even thinking of doing it differently then they would think badly of that person. Not only that but they would not endeavor themselves to go beyond what they "knew" to be right." Obviously, I would think that the example is backwards and ignorant. However, I don't know that the principle, in of itself, is necessarily bad. If a community has inculcated modesty, would it be improper to apply societal pressures to maintain modesty? How about monogamy? How about respect of private property? It was just an example, and one that was supposed to be obsurd enough to draw a point. "So it was with Bible study for so long in the churches of our world. Look for example at Martin Luther (not King or Jr) In Rev Luther's time the Bible was not written in the language of the people. He helped bring about that change." Actually, Luther was not the first one to translate the scriptures into the vernacular. The first example that should be considered is the Septuagint, the translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek (the vernacular for those people who read it). That happened several hundred years before Christ. St. Jerome translated the scriptures (both OT and NT) from the original languages into Latin in the 4th Century AD. Latin was the vernacular at that time in the Western Roman Empire. The scriptures were also translated into Coptic (the vernacular in NE Africa) around the second century. As to modern languages, many scriptural translations existed prior to Luther's version, originally printed in 1522. There are translations dating from the 13th and 14th century. In fact, the Douay-Rheims Bible, a Catholic translation, was completed in 1609...the Rheims NT was published in 1582! (The King James version was published in 1611). I didnt say he was the first example just an example. I thought that others who might read this thread would have a better understanding of a man that is at least fairly commonly known by all. One thing to consider is that Gutenberg hadn't invented the movable-type printing press until 1450. So prior to that time, the Bible would not have been in the hands of the populace, anyway, as the cost of the book would have been out of reach of all but the most wealthy. Availability was not the point. The point was that it took someone breaking away from the dominant Christian Church of the time to bring about a change that IMO should have been initiated by the Church. "Eventually the church that he had fought against saw the wisdom of this idea." This topic is way too deep for a derailment of this thread (I would be happy to discuss it, but it would take far too long here). I would refer you to http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/w...five.html" target="_blank" title="Luther's 95 Theses">Luther's 95 Theses though, and ask you to show me which one of those theses discusses the wisdom of the people spending time studying the Word of God in their vernacular. (Hint: you won't find it) I have my own copy of the 95 thesis thank you. I know what they do and do not say. Again...not the point. "But it was the habit of thought pattern that kept so many wonderful men of God blind in this regard. It was not something that they did intentionally. I am certain that the original intent was not to keep the Bible or the understanding of the Bible out of the hands of the people. But that is ultimately what happened." Keep in mind that most people wouldn't have known to do with a Bible even if they had one. Most people were illiterate, and I do mean MOST. Luther didn't fix that. Nor did Calvin. Nor did Zwingli. They preached to people who responded to their preaching. This was not only the situation during the middle ages, it has been that way from the beginning and, even in Europe and the US, was that way up until the 20th Century. (Though the movement toward universal literacy started during the 19th Century and, in fact, continues to this day) I think that you will find that a huge portion of the world is still illiterate but does this stop missionaries from trying to teach? "That thought pattern was loosened with the different translations of the Bible but ultimately some still taught that the average layman was not capable of truly interpreting the meaning of the Bibles teachings. That thought, that habit of thinking silently infused itself into the fabric of the basic theologies of many denominations. The manifestation of that thought was the lack of Biblical study offered to any but the very young for indoctination purposes or the ministers or clergy class but seldom to the layperson in the middle." First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation It sounds to me that laymen interpreting the Bible for themselves is sort-of discouraged in Scripture, as well. Remember, above, where I discussed "one body"? All the schism that has happened in the past 500 years is as the result of 'one's own interpretation.' After all, why in the world are the "Free-Will Baptists" not in total fellowship with the "Southern Baptists" or the "General Baptists" or the "United Baptists" or the "Primitive Baptists" or the "Independent Baptists" or the "Missionary Baptists," etc., etc., etc.? And I could go with any number of denominational 'families' for that. There has been much discussion on this board concerning that little bit of scripture. The bottom line was that VP did not present a correct translation of it. Besides as you and I have both know God wants us to come to an accurate knowledge of the truth. As far as separate denominations and many Churches is concerned...I dont disagree with you in the slightest. But you might disagree with me when I say that not one religion today is the ONE that has all the truth. "As I said this is not a bash on anybody or any denomination at all it just seems like the logical procession of a prevailing thought pattern that I for one am glad to see is quietly dying. I also think that as ASpot has so eloquently pointed out that none of us probably set out to be in a cult. (See my tag line below) Most of us didn't wake up one morning and realized that we had become a part of the monster that we had set out to destroy. But the teaching had crept into the web of our brains and had fermented into a vile concoction that we must now sift through to find the remnants of our innocent selves. Wow I have gone on for quite some time and I apologize for such a long post. Mark I agree that filled a need that was lacking perhaps because the Churches did not do their jobs either correctly or efficiently. I'm still thinking on the Ordination thing." I understand that this is not a bash on a particular denomination...and I also recognize that many of us are still trying to figure out where we're at in regards to the subject of religion/spirituality. I, hopefully, offer a slightly different perspective than some others. You do offer a different perspective that I really do welcome. Your knowledge of history is impressive. I would love to sit and talk with you about it someday. Although I do realize that this is not the time or the place for such a thing. I hope that you do not take any of my responses as a direct insult to you or what you said, mostly I just wanted to clarify what I had said. You might notice that I have no denominational ties at the moment and dont see any on the horizon. I am just enjoying learning about all of them. A quest that began before I entered TWI, that can now continue....

Welcome to the Spot Katy. Do not hesitate to ask just about anyone anything that pops into your head, but do be certain that you really want to know the answer first. I can see that you are already familiarizing yourself with the available reading material and information. Good luck with your coworker.

Heeheheheeheee...I'm sorry I find it amusing that you apologize for a short post and I apologized for such a long one. What a pair we are. Hahaha

Outstanding symbolism ASpot! I couldn't have said it better myself.