Larry N Moore

Yea, but you're making it even more complicated. What is good? What is bad? What is the "baby"? What is the "bathwater"? If you say: "It (the baby) is good." You're not really saying what is good -- you're only describing the quality of some unknown noun because both the terms baby and bathwater only represent some other nouns. Additionally, I don't see how it follows that you should "dispose of the good along with the bad." If your toes have developed gangrene (as a result of frost-bite) do you cut your entire foot off just because your toes are bad?

Here's a thought. If it's true that VP got his info from the works of Leonard, Bullinger, Stiles and Kenyon how is it that "so many splinter groups are basing their ministries" on the work of VP instead of those fellows? Why couldn't it simply be that they are basing their ministries on what they BELIEVE is true? I've read many of the writings of CES (for example). Browsed their Web-page and have come away with the sense that if anything they've abandoned a few of the doctrinal teachings of VP. Even if I don't agree with some of their "new and improved" versions of doctrine I can still say they're at least trying to approach it honestly.

Yes, I agree that "we sometimes assume others . . . ." I suppose there's really nothing wrong with that but, I think it's important that we're all on the same page that Roses is on or she/he might not get the answers sought. Unless she/he clarifies what is meant by the analogy at best we can only filter it through our own opinion of what the analogy means. In Roses OP you have two entities (or nouns) mentioned. 1. TWI 2. the word. It's easily discernible from just the second sentence that Rose is no longer associated with TWI (the bathwater -- or the environment). Yet Rose is "thankful for the word (baby)" she/he learned while in the environment of TWI. Should she/he throw away the baby (word) that's she/he is thankful for just because she threw away the bathwater (TWI) that she's not thankful for? I just don't see the sense in throwing away something you're thankful for just because it was immersed in something you're not thankful for.

Why would someone do that? (Bump).

:) Well to each their own. (If there was one I would insert a "clinking glasses" emote here -- absent that -- Cheers!). And goodnite.

Well, ok. If I didn't like you and think you could handle my responses I probably wouldn't. I know. You did it twice. Do you like your coffee black? I like mine with French Vanilla creamer. :)

Dooj, with all due respect I could take you chastisement a little more seriously if you weren't directing it all at me. If a person wants to skip over subsequent posts in their eagerness to get their 2 cents in I call that -- well -- ignorant. Go drink your cup of coffee.

Dooj, it's very simple. If rascal had taken the time to pay attention to what followed after Dot made her point and a few other comments were made and then a voice of reason came along -- You -- and called for a time out and the subsequent comments were light-hearted or fluff (if you prefer) then perhaps she might not have GONE THERE with her post that amounted to nothing more than "stirring the pot" again. I can only surmise that either she didn't bother reading the posts from the point of Dot's last post or he deliberately choose to GO THERE and try to start a ....ING CONTEST. Could I have ignore it. Sure. But obviously SHE has some need to attract attention to HERSELF. I was just giving HER what she seemed to crave. Attention. In any case this has all become moot if in fact she follows through on her intent to put me on ignore. Problem solved. :)

Well, gee whiz Dooj. I did warn rascal not to "pass the basket" 'cause I might spit in it. He chose to ignore my warning. :)

Yep. That must be it. I'm clueless (even though you're the one who obviously lacks reading comprehension skills).

Well, the way I "see" it is -- there was nothing "earnest" in your question at all. Especially when you say the following crap:". . . . worse trying to deliberately derail the progress being made with inane talk about golf....WHY of WHY would you begrudge someone the kindness of a sympathetic ear?? WHY would you try to shut the people up whom are doing the ministering?? Why would you deliberatly obstruct the goodness of what is being accomplished by God on this thread??? You guys just don`t see how cruel you are...it is bewildering....I can only surmise what it is in you that causes such callousness...such blindness to the harm that you cause." The only "progress" I saw was people attacking people for having different points of views. THAT AIN'T PROGRESS!!!!!!! Furthermore -- I at no time during my tenure here accused ANYONE of lying about their experiences while in TWI. If you can find one such accusation made by me then I owe an apology to THAT PERSON. I owe you nothing and nothing is what you're going to get. And finally -- Don't preach to me about what a Christian is or does to show they are a Christian. You've been weighed in the balances and have come up on the light side. In other words -- I don't give a rat's a$$ what you think a Christian is suppose to do. Stick that crap where the sun don't shine.

Speaking of being rude: Don't you think it's rude to join a live chat and walk away from your fellow chatters just to make another pointless point?

Yea, I know you have "points" to make. The way I "see" it though is your current "point" is pointless. But don't let that (the way I see it) stop you from babbling. I'm not being charged a price of admission to be entertained by you.

I can't think far enuf ahead to make any plans. Just waking up and deciding to get out of bed in the morning is enuf to deal with. I'm game, if he is. I can't remember how close (geographically) we are. Today I played at the Big Met in Cleveland, OH. First time I ever did and I must say -- it's one of the better courses I've played on.

Ain't had enuf yet, Rascal. :) You've just got to stir that pot up. Preach it brother! But don't pass the basket around. I might spit in it. :)

:) Well, it's Roses analogy but if she wants to switch it to the one I mentioned that's ok. The point is still the same. But then again -- if you're a vegetarian -- that one won't work either.

Oh. Ok. That whole section is a head scratcher (no pun intended). It seems to me that he's using that custom to make a broader point (remembering that the Corinthians were a mess when it came to customs) -- and that being -- "You guys focus on such trivial things when what really matters is that God is the head of us all. Why can't you all get along? Your contentions are more shameful than a woman not covering her head."

Well, I thought Roses was referring to the Word. If she/he was referring to TWI I think she/he obviously already threw that "baby" out.

That you do. Sometimes I don't and I end up stepping on toes. I should have paid more attention to Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. ;)

Why is it that whenever someone quotes this verse they overlook the verse following the whole passage that states "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." Seems to me that Paul is saying -- If you're going to argue over the length of a woman's hair or over her head being covered then know this -- It's no longer applicable in this present time.

:) I know. Sometimes you feel like a nut. Sometimes you don't. Btw -- I hear squirrels are tasty critters. Would you know if that's true? ;) There's never anything wrong about expressing your opinion and you expressed it quite nicely. Can we let out our breathe now Dooj? :) (Btw -- that was very special of you and timely).

rosestoyou. Your analogy is one I've heard before -- along with the one about "Chew on the meat and spit out the bones." If the "baby" is dead (doesn't work for or make sense to you) then toss it out. It's only then that you'll be able to fit anything else into the bathtub. But if the baby is still "alive" (works for or makes sense to you) then you would be foolish to abandon something that helps you through life. TWI isn't the only organization that claims to have a "baby." You can still take the "baby" to those other organizations if mutual support of and/or praising the "baby" is what you're looking for. And some may see the "baby" and want to help you nurture it also. Bottom line -- do what you feel comfortable and right about and don't worry about what others think. They don't have to walk in your shoes.

To assume (because I attempted to lighten things up a bit) that I don't sympathize with her pain makes you an a$$. Get off you f****ing high-horse my dear.

Good freaking grief! You ain't "got" nothing my dear. And you definitely ain't paying attention -- at least to WWolf and one of his "sermons" he's so fond of laying on me.

I'm sure he can. But should he have to? Possible. Obviously, if that was the case he achieved that purpose. But what the heck do I know. He might choose to clarify what he meant or he might choose just to ignore this whole pot-stirring porridge. I wouldn't blame him if went with the second choice. I should go back to talking about golf and those big balls. I'm working on my believing as we speak. ;) :)