socks

Dan Tochini's "Momentus" and other hot air propositions are a load of badly packed sputum delivered by a smiley faced lung whose mental interior is coated with the black tar of years of smoke. He's reinvented his spiel over and over, now into corporate-speak-personal-trainer-success blather. His intellectual visage moderately resembles a an undernourished possum's private parts wrapped in a condom sheet cake frosted with you-don't-wanna-know. If he would stop using the word "Christian" I wouldn't mind, but since day 1 in Sonoma County and then fanning out across the land, where now-L.A. I think - he's been on this mission to help others by bastardizing the message of Jesus Christ - where'd it come from and what qualifies his iluminations of grandeur to be worth cash money - is a good question. He, Loynn, Greaser - they deserve each other. Sales, baby. Sell it and they will buy. Back to a kinder gentler thread...........I just don't like to miss a chance to pack the search engines with a reference to Dan Tochini.

If Lay said it, consider the alternatives. Like if Lay said "the world is round", check it with a level. Just a thought. Yes, my own reaction to Spigrong's work is one of a reaction to his shoddy research - which isn't really any kind of research work at all but rather an imaginative narrative-on-a-theme that reads more like the lost 4th book of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy that explains exactly what the relationship of the Nazgul were to Sauron's illegitimate Orc spawn and if they survived into the next Generation of Men long enough to make it to the south Pole as has been postulated but which I personally think is PREPOSTEROUS, I mean come on, really?? ??. But also for me the topic of Paul and his various inclinations kinda requires a different way of looking at the available information (somewhere around here roams an Invisible Dan who is not often seen but sometimes heard who could speak to the relative layers of the man we know from these records as "Paul" , but not sure if ID is on prem). Some of the N.T. books attributed to him are most likely not written by "him", whoever that person of the books was - but rather are compliations written by later scribes. So who knows, maybe they thought he was gay.... you know, or maybe they were gay. There's no lack of gay possibilities and angles to consider here. Maybe I'm gay, thinking I'm not but really am, because I think I'm not, so oh sure, what better way to hide the secret message of my gayness than not thinking I am when I really am. Who'd've thought? Really, there's a lot of work to be done in the maybe-coulda-been category, lotta work my friend. No less inspired is the bible however, having said that, as frankly and IMO - we don't know "Paul" any better than we would know Rabbi Bob Scribe or whoever. I create a character profile and humanity from the information but as much as I feel a closeness to "Paul" and clarity into the humanity of the records I read.......it's really just information. I believe the true characteristics of the truth of the records can still open to us however and the "truth is out there" or in there, as you prefer. Either way and no matter what, I stand on the veracity of the scriptures and the truth of the accuracy of the original - Paul was NOT a goy. The evidence is clear, the vote is in and the tally is hmmm, tallied and stuff. No way he was a goy.

"Maybe, but in cases where an outsider is harassing you, a well placed cuss word could be exactly what is needed. " (Not in my world, the exact opposite of what you're implying is more likely) But....actually I think you've made a solid case for temperance with your examples. Now, let's avoid knee jerk reactions to the word "temperance". Moderation, forbearance, consideration and thoughtfulness - we've seen those words used thus far in this thread....I'm not talking about prohibition, why we should all be able to drink anything we want or the time someone drank a bottle of vodka and saw God. "Temper" our words and actions, mix in balancing elements to keep our words and actions on an even keel so as to be able to avoid extremes of anger and/or violence. Pretty much in our American culture today - not when our grand daddies plowed soy bean in the front 40 or 2000 years ago in the middle east but today - swearing, profanity, cussin', toilet talk, bad words and nasty language, that stuff - is used in different ways to mean different things, I think we all agree. When it's associated with, used with, attached to, an extension of - a confrontational situation, like say anger or conflict of some kind, it tends to - and this in America today not 30 years ago in Adolffs or while I was a WOW in Boote Kamp, Idaho or somewhere - but today.....it tends to capture and escalate that confrontation, that anger, that bad cha cha goin' on. Not everytime, not always without fail as if it were a principle like gravity or believing if I SIT and sit just right the clock will tick faster....but pret' near most of the time - If two people start cussin' at each other in anger, it's going to continue and potentially escalate the situation. Like being thirsty and drinking water - hmmm that's good, I'll have more the thirst is going away the more I drink the water. but now I gotta pee - y'know? It's not quantum physics. The angry curse words of profane origin and nasty badness feed the situation as it is. I think. IMO. To me, based on 60+ years of observation and participation. Crowley noted "do as thou wilt". I wilt to temper my verbal and physical and language to pursue a balance. I get angery, wiff off a choice word here or there. I don't try to baddass anyone like that these days - like the women in the parking lot, if you're staring down a barrel, well, more likely today, feeling a ping in the side of your neck before you black out - it's just not a good way to go. I live a pretty mellow life, overall. But as we all know, geez - there's 12 year old girls with black belts now all over the place. Tack some smack the wrong time, you're likely to be eating sneaker for lunch. I'm a lovah, not a fightah, but push come to shove I'm not going to get into a swearing festival with somebody or play spank-the-horsey for 5 minutes, it's going to have to be a drop-'em-now kind of deal, I'm too old to blow hot air posturing ans swearing at each other. That just seems lame. The Wayfers - ? Sequestered in a protected insulated world, inside/internal bullying and baddassing - totally different. And insulting, even for a thick skinned weel wart like me. Hey, if they can't take a little ribbing, f-k 'em. :biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

"Personally, I think articles like this are only intended to try to "normalize" homosexuality by attaching the label to our most revered heroes. " I agree. The effort to find a biblical character and make the case they were homosexual is so transparently forced. I don't begrudge the effort nor the interest. The screwy part to me is when a guy like Sporng admits he has created a scenario, one he admits is unlikely, and has overlayed it on the biblical records and then calculated results from it. He validates it as if he's mapping a trip to Canada from Arkansas as "go north thataway till you see snow" and then when he hits snow in Minnesota says "outta the car kids, we're here". In the Cotton Candy Land of I'm Right If I Think I Am.....he'd be in Canada alight, just not everyone else's Canada. Put another way it's hard to come back from somewhere you've never been. So goes Spaang. I agree that as a man of his background and training he knows better, he'd have to be aware he's winging it so I do wonder what his agenda is and what he gains from it. The other buggy thing about the whole broader discussion of this topic is that if one disagrees, they'll be labelled "haters" by some, and not having the "love of God" of by others. If one disagrees they're "yelling" at others and have "pride". :blink: Very weird, very weird. The understanding we have who "Paul" was is likely a composite understanding anyway with a few specific things known from Acts and Galatians. Focusing on "him" as if he were a person to be understood by every word attributed to him in the N. T. .... not a good idea IMO. Those who want Paul to be gay will make him gay. Fine. Frankly, respecting other points of view - ? Yes, but I don't respect everything and anything regardless of what it is. I'll listen to it once but if an idea or point of view seems whack to me, I'm not going to respect it, sorry. I'll try to be nice, and be respectful to the person but not ideas that are ill founded, indefensible and hmmmm, rather incoherent to begin with. What can I say? Just being honest.

Hmmmm.....flies hovering..... Language is a form of human communication and contact, a verbal gesture if you will. Basically, more or less but mostly more. We impact others externally through our language, communicate our thought and intent. Words that signify force - think about it. It's tempting to think that an aversion to "swearing" is an outcome of religious convictions but I don't think so. "god damm (sp)".... The "n" word.....one of the most volatile words in our language, today. I can guarantee there's no religious ties to how that would be interpreted by most people today. No religious convictions are required to demand that language reflect respect for others. Me, I'm not "afraid" of using certain words but I would use certain words carefully so as not to offend others unnecessarily. Living peacefully with others? How I speak and communicate is something I control - if I use language that will insult or offend others that's not acting responsibliy.... Unless I want to insult and offend. In that case, I get what's expected. The practice of swearing by Wayfer "Leaders" - an ignominious practice. Stupid, unnecessary and wihtout merit. There's no excuse for it, if there is I'd like to hear it specifically and how it benefited those involved. Say on, all who would.

More serious percussion, Steve Jordan skinning it, some snappin' guitar and of course, the great Jimmy Johnson bearing gifts of xxx rated bass. <br> <br> <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/naUdueljRas?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Yes, I was a seeker, sought Him both night and day. Asked the Lord to help me, He showed me the way. <br><br> With assistance from some mighty fine singers and the great Jimmy Johnson on bass, Taylor tells it nicely. <br><br> <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ifEUn1AxDYo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And to add - VPW would shoot off about anything that got under his craw.....at the Way Nash, on Corps Night, The Woods, or in meetings there or on the field. Sometimes it was fine, sometimes it seemed like he was just goin' off as we say, for no good reason, because his pride had taken a hit or was just being vindictive. Generally he was short on the use of profanity but knew how to make a comment sting or cut. An interesting case study there. He could be insulting and offensive without ever dropping an "F" bomb, or a S--t storm. Whatever the case he NEVER went to completely external audiences and spoke or taught. His presentations were always in-house, planned and run by Way representatives. He'd pretty much always say whatever he wanted to anyway regardless but I think it's good to remember that he always did internal facing teachings and meetings, speak to Wayfers and their guests.

To sort out the red herrings from the sushi - Defining "swearing" from the bible doesn't relate to the topic directly or even indirectly. I guess there's some historical fuzz that informs the modern use of the word 'swearing" when it's used to mean what we might loosely call "bad words" but the fact that the biblical definition of swearing to an oath is different than.......well, it's a silly point IMO. As an adult I try not to allow or disallow what I do or say based on what someone else does or doesn't do or say. Ya gotta set your own standards be they from the bible, or whatever, understand what you do and why and then act thoughtfully. I missed most of the Cuss Bucket era of Craig's. He was straight as an arrow language wise when I first met him and for years after. Maybe this reflects an area he was being told he need to "loosen up in if he was really going to minister to God's people". :biglaugh: Obviously it was successful as he's been cursed to he ll and back by more people than I'm sure he ever thought possible. Mission accomplished. If this is still happening at the Way it's only because it's a captive audience. They can hide at the Way Nash and do whatever they want. They can rub possum pe e on their waffles and eat them with their toes. In public? Different story, isn't it? It's a social cultural thing IMO, and what the words mean and are intended to mean when they're said. Using certain words in contexts where the people around are offended.... DUH. Only a boorishly oafish gumball would insist on using language that is offensive to his or her audience. As if to say, I'm going to offend you by this language I'm using and that's GOOD, because I'm making a point.....or I should be free enough to say whatever I want.....or hey, YOU are the weirdo being offended.......or....or.....or..... At the end of the day - if someone insists on using language offensive to their audience, they get what's coming to them. It should come as no surprise to anyone that if you pull out the stuff like that you know that will shock or insult someone - guess what - You're going to get what's coming to you.

Boop bip bip boop bip bip, yeah. <br> <br> <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/PStzQW6XVkM?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Must be that time again. Still satisfies in the way that only an absolutely crystalline moment of authentic clarity can, give or take. <br> <br> <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ao-Sahfy7Hg?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Wasn't all that long, but it was worth the wait. Same one for a long time now. <br> <br> <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Fme0YpQMW5o?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I don't know about anyone else but that's the first time I've seen that idea for using a tag for that...........awesome. If this is something completely new, cheers, kudos and the next free Beer is on me. Very very cool! /sarcasm on/ ..........That's really funny. Thanks. I wish there were a tag like that that would render a universally accepted text enhancement - maybe wavy italics. What would "droll" look like? It's an interesting proposition, what would a sarcasm font look like? There's a gazillion fonts as it is - there must be something that would work or something that would catch on. Good topic, and would agree.

That's why I do kinda prefer "Genius Love Diety", as I completely understand what it means and frankly can agree wholeheartedly any time it's applied to me. It's the only one like that though. There used to be an animated show in TV - "Dinosaurs" - really funny, in the tradition of the characters and plot of The Flintstones and The Honeymooners from years ago. The "family" had male and female parents, and three children including a Baby, named "Baby". The father had a name, "Earl" but whenever Baby would talk to the father he'd call him "Not the Momma". Which I thought was a really ingenious use of a name that was more than a label or reference, but a really cool view into Baby's understanding ot it's world. What's this got to do with fundamental names and labels? Nothing. Or maybe............everything. Or maybe nuttin'. Or maybe everything.

"I suggest you repeat the experiment of looking at you extended thumb, first through one eye, and then through the other. How can you draw the logical conclusion from these two images alone that your thumb is not actually in two different places?" Hmmm....how I am able to do that is what makes them non-contradictory. The same ways I know I'm not not you or someone else, for that matter. When I look in a mirror, how do I know there aren't two of me? Or are there....? Sometimes that guy's a little leaner around the edges...he may be happier. It's hard to say. But I'm definitely not buying into the way he dresses. I dress snappier than that. My purpose wasn't to go into a Webster-war, rather to observe my impression of what seemed to be how "contradiction" is being discussed here in context. That's a moving target too, as expected in discussions. And this is a good one, I'm enjoying the read. I'm sure there's also many nuanances to the meaning of that word, many many many. Labels?..... are pretty limiting, I try to draw the line there. "Fundamentalist" means nothing to me, I don't even know how to apply it. I probably should but I don't travel enough in these circles to use it or even hear it used, unless I'm around it's use, as in TV, media, etc. I suppose anyone who would call themselves by that term would know what it meant but to someone like me it would still reguire explanation. Most other labels too IMO. Although I always accept "Genius Love Diety" if it's forced upon me.

Robes! Yes, the robes, the robes. I got one, a gift from the finest folks any fellow shipped with, and it was much appreciated. While I appreciate the need for formal settings, it got kinda tweezey in this category the last few years I was around. It had been moving that way for a long time and finally got to where it was going, the apex being a couple hundred men and women promenading through the Big Top Tent at Corps Week like a flank of lost Druids hired to perform in the Wapakoneta Drama Queen Production of the Magical Waltz of the Walnuts. Or something. For me those Corps ceremonials were always something that were really really good. As soon as they were over. An indulgence granted begrudgingly but hey, it was a small price to pay for the privilege of sitting on a hard metal chair in a stinky tent, sweating under 10 pounds of gray and black fabric. Who wouldn't like that? Coco may have had the best deal going though - good food, good treatment and none of that "chase the stick" stuff Tic was always into. All Coco had to do was fluff it up and stay out of the way and 'sall good.

Back in the day, there was a kind of medieval formality for formal meetings, "etiquette", protocols, etc at the Way. You'd see the wives of various luminaries, "Trustees", "cabinet staff" at larger meetings with an "escort", someone to accompany them to the meeting because, I dunno, in some form of formal formalities that's what's done, women don't show up at an event alone, you see it in social events, political stuff, and of course presidential kinds of events and the VPster was El Presidente and things like that had a way of escalating in the Way as a sign of prestige and it also included other wives too. Given that VPW or Craig or whomever might be teaching, preaching or presentin' or otherwise be busy with incredibly important business that required their attention they couldn't be bothered with a spouse, too busy and important, so their wives would come to these larger events - picture opening of ROA or some large class - with someone to bring them to their seating and sit with them. An "escort". Harve was in fact her escort at Emporia, apparently to make sure that Mrs.W wouldn't have to walk from one place to another alone as in some alternate universe that would be inappropriate. Or I don't know, maybe she got lost easy. Incredibly quaint, unnecessary and out of place it was one of those efforts VPW made to try and bring the Way's status up to - I dunno, some level of importance he held in his mind I guess. To me, it kind of characterized that have a tea-party-ladies-that's-what-women-do 50's mentality that mixed into Wayfer culture and an effort to inform the activities with the same kind of hoo haw that the Big Boys do. Amongst a group of people who all basically knew each other it set a level of formality to events that seemed just - weird, to me, for want of a better word. Yet I suppose it had it's function and helped to up the game for all us neanderthals who could manage to get to things without a guide and just sit down and thought that was okay. The Coco Chronicles thread was a hoot, agreed.

I don't know that the Way didn't want that incident known, or did anything to hide it. Obviously it was a sensitive situation and I'd expect care would be given to the concerns of everyone involved. I don't remember much of the details around it however. To recap my own illustrious and vital opinions on this part of the discussion: How people handle their own business is a personal decision, of course. Every incident between people wouldn't be cause to call the police or find some civil authority to get involved to arbitrate or take control. There has to be some judgment involved and people have the privilege of making their own decisions about how to handle things. The law of the land applies to all - local, state and federal as well as whatever the social norms are in our own spheres of activity. When our actions fall outside those laws and standards we may well expect to encounter confrontation and enforcement, that's part of the system we live in and why we have laws and standards. They're not always fairly applied or even make sense in all situations - which is why it's always best to stay out of the gray areas as much as possible and certainly stay within the law of the land at the minimum. The Way had a closed corporation mentality to it's own problems and issues, for all of it's years. That' lack of outside influence is IMO a major reason as to why it failed and appears to continue to do so. They make the rules, they enforce them, or don't as they see fit. They're not accountable to anyone outside their own authority - they think - and that's how they act. They've always had an "us versus everyone else" mentality, where God is on their side and anyone who differs is on the "Devil's" side. That lack of connectivity to the outside world has created an environment that is what I'd call "high risk". It depends on the reliability and consistency of specific individuals, "leadership" and to a degree the individual member who makes decisions within the framework of doctrine that they're taught. When that fails - and it always does and always will at some point, the "weakest link" principle goes into effect and dominoes up and/or down the organization. There haven't been sufficient protections and back ups built into the system to reinforce failure when it occurs, instead they expect that if everyone believes God and everyone does the right thing as they've been instructed everything will be alright. Once we look at how all that sets up and works in real time, it can be seen to be VERY high risk and even dangerous. I'm not suggesting it's dangerous trusting in God, or using the Bible as our standard - but rather that The Way obviously doesn't have the ability to live that way responsibly and make it work. That's painfully clear by the snowball of conflict, problems and failure that have followed it throughout it's history. People do well sometimes, sometimes efforts succeed, there's good work done at times but overall, the foundations of how it works as an organization aren't sound enough to allow for measurable growth, progress and success. I doubt anyone outside of the Way Nash today would consider it a successful endeavor and anyone outside the Way Nash won't be allowed access into what they do, how they do it and who does what to either understand or contribute - so it's a running cycle of failure IMO. Good enough for those who don't get too involved and don't let them get too tight a hold on them. How this relates to the "WOW" program -well, my involvement was nearly 40 years ago - all of this regurgitation I'm coughing up is old fish wrap and doesn't really mean much of anything. I'm not even sure why I'm writing this now, to be honest. To theorize on how someone whipping out a pistol in a group and what would be the right thing to do - I dunno, I don't know if I would call the police to be honest. I might, it would depend on the people and circumstance. I can see some people would and that would be fine by me if they felt threatened - don't see how you couldn't feel threatened. Why would anyone think it necessary to do such a thing? Me, I can promise you then or now, it would get ugly real fast, once I'd disarmed the person. If I couldn't I'd get away from them. I don't treat that kind of thing lightly, never have, never will, it's not a joke or a social faux pas or a so-what deal. I'd do whatever I could to beat the crap out of them just on principle for doing such a stupid thing. I'm an old guy, I don't have the energy for anything that would take too long, it would be quick and conclusive, guaranteed. Put it this way - pull a gun in front of a Police Officer, just to make a point - and see what happens. Report back with the "war story" on that one and how it was appropriate and wasn't a problem. God - this is so interminably long I can't even remember what time I started. Why do I do this? Perhaps a smiley will pull it all together. Yeah, that works.

Interesting. Happy reading! About 5 minutes ago - and this is no joke, seriously - I was trimming my 'stache and the name "Harve Platig" crossed my brain. When those kinds of random thoughts cross my mind for no seeming reason, I simply pray briefly for it or the person and move on. If nothing sticks, that's it. So I did and that was it. I sat down and opened up GS, saw your thread and had to laugh myself. Reason - when I thought of ol' Harve I briefly remembered the nickname he had from certain mischiefs at The Way who shall now go unnamed, when he was Mrs. W's "escort" there for a spell, back in his Way Corps days. He had the curly hair look popular in the 70's and had cut it by that time, and the nick he got was "Coco with a tie"..........it never caught on but there was that blank lap dog look that kind of brought the Coc'ster to mind I guess. So then when I saw this reference I had to chuckle. Apparently the Coco Mind Meld lives.

johnster, the fascination is the way you paint this topic - how people can deal with these kinds of situations by using resources "outside" the in-house, inexperienced outreach group and you refer to that as "government intervention" and jump to saying that such actions mean that people can't be free to handle their own affairs privately. You placed it in a context that's completely out of context. I believe it was in 1979 when I heard through the Way Trunk office about a WOW family where one of the men had shot another person, I believe it was a person in the WOW family. When I heard about it, I recognized the person as someone I'd known from years before, a very nice guy and the last person I'd have ever expected to hear of doing something like that but clearly he had. I'm sorry to say I don't recall if the person shot was killed, I don't believe so but I don't remember all the details now. It was really a shock and sad to say the least. To be honest I don't remember the details of what happened and why, I don't think I ever learned the whole story. It was a terrible incident and completely outside anything that anyone at the Way or within the WOW program would have expected or perhaps even thought possible, yet it happened. These kinds of things aren't "war stories". Kids having adventures. Not when there's violence and shooting. It's not stylish psycho babble to say that one's "boundaries" and personal rights are important and need to be respected. It's common decency and a matter of simple respect for other people. In the Way leaders argued against "moral" judgments and supposedly elevated "the Word" as the "standard". There were people who used that to advantage. If you said you simply didn't "like" something or thought something was "wrong" that wasn't good enough - you had to have a verse, a teaching reference, a dammed greek lexicon to get them to even listen and even then they'd wiggle and argue if they wanted to be right and do whatever it was they wanted to do. Then they'd tell you you were possessed, obviously, for questioning their filthy self righteous right to always be right. When someone who's been "taught the Word as it hasn't been known since the first century" needs a bible verse to be told to behave in a manner that's loving, caring and respectful to others - they're probably not going to listen to that bible verse. The manner in which many of the so-called "leaders" of the Way handled common day to day matters fed this kind of image and people picked up on it - they would see them shining it on when confronted, side stepping issues and it was easy for others to assume the same behavior. But the WOW families should have been places where people could learn together and have a decent year in the program. Hopefully the Sowers bunch have learned from some of these lessons. If they haven't it's their own dammed fault, they've got enough tenured gray hair in that group that's for sure. I'll assume better from them and wish them the best.

Well.....I just don't get it either. It seems that where the topic started around the WOW program that the Sowers have initiated and has swung around to various sides of that topic - which would seem natural - we're suddenly reading that for a group of people - "Christian" ambassadors - out to spread the Good News, live life and learn better how to live in harmony with themselves and their community......... and what I would hope would be extreme examples of un-Christian, unloving, basically screwball actions and in some cases illegal behavior.... and the idea that to call the police - "report it" - in the case of some nut wielding a gun at people - is out of line and equal to "government intervention"......:o:doh: Pull a gun on me and you'd better HOPE the government intervenes because that will NOT be tolerated. Firearms - that's a no-go, no free pass, no nothing. The fact that this kind of insanity was allowed to exist on any level for any amount of time, to be handled "in house", is ridiculous. At the least you disarm the idiots, pack them up and get them the h away. But doing it that way there IS a risk because anyone who feels they can pull a gun out and try to bad as s people with it is likely going to run aground somewhere down the line and then YES, you will know the horror of having NOT been a part of helping anyone but an enabler of the damage. Some of this crap isn't in a range I'd expect your average person to handle. Some stuff you can talk through and get on with it but me, we're not going sit around and sing Amazing Grace and renew our minds to the Word if you pull a gun or exhibit violent behavior or insist on being a major pain in the butt because you think it's funny or worse yet, "God told you" to do it. It's not funny and if He did tell you to do it He'd better show up on your behalf with a golden rainbow or it's going to stop quick.

It's perfectly okay and right for an organization or household to handle "something" itself/themselves..... But as the great philosopher Harry Callahan said - a man's got to know his own limitations. (applies to women too). I believe the quote you're taking exception too: Had this guy gone on to do something horrific then I'm sure we would have read in the paper how he once threatened 3 christian missionaries with a loaded gun. And people would have thought "that's where it should have stopped, why didn't they report it?" To answer your question - As far as me/mine/us goes - yes. Absolutely. If you pull a gun on me, I'm going to call in the authorities, the police, you-name-it, immediately. Threaten me and not back off, same. Threaten my family, ditto. Do me or mine harm, authority-r-us, you're going to feel like the captain of the Titanic just before it hit the iceberg and he said "Is that ice I see over the-----" Now - given the response time for 911 can be slow, I'm not going to wait, I will "handle it" myself but that may be a bad option for all involved. As a "WOW" I would never have tolerated the kind of behavior described here - and guns? Forget it, no way, you're out. You're reminding me of Graeser and Lynn, who have said they like to 'drop bombs' here and other places where they can mess with people. Basically - they're as s holes and I'd love for them or others of their ilk to do that in person face to face but they prefer to duck and hide and mess with people online, rather than engage in a discussion. In person you could grab them by the collar and wring their buck teeth out, but online, you can't. Just sayin' - their methodology is similar to you, here. so what is it with you - why do you deliberately digress and deliberately switch to topics where you can attack - as you switch off topic. Do you drink, are you medicated? I'm not kidding or being sarcastic, I'm trying to get a better view of what your thought processes are, so I can participate in your comments.

Hiding message are why we study God word 2 Tim 2:15 is why study God's word to give meaning to ourself or our-lives I have not known any person that has not had to handle the thought of lust of one of same gender in their life at least once because I am talking an ideal of homosexual not the act to not do we have to think about it even for half second how other one known the different from being homosexual than not you had the thought any your pride will not let you be honest with it :blink: If you mean that thinking about it and what it is and realizing that I'm not - has something to do with anything, sorry, I don't get it. But not to worry, I have no pride preventing me from discussing the topic and what I have thought of it which is to realize that I'm not homosexual. I make no excuses or explanations, other than that. In fact, and I'm not the only one like this - I often have to check in with my wife to ask if another person is considered "good looking" and why. It will be obvious from what I see on TV or read here and there that so and so is now being considered the latest heart throb. I look at them and don't see that aspect of who they are or see them in that way. I don't know, maybe it's me - but when I look at another man I don't get the same emotional/physical triggers as I would with a woman. Men, males, don't register with me that way. I look at my son for instance who is considered "good looking" and I would say that although he's a very modest young man he's been told that all his life by women of all ages. Apparently it's a combination of how how he looks and his "eyes" together with a very caring and kind heart. Chicks dig him. But when I look at him I think yes, he's a fine fit male sample and I love him dearly as my son but I simply don't register it the same way as women do. It is obvious seeing how most women react to him that there's an attraction that occurs that's different from what men have, but probably not all men. I won't attempt to speak for everyone, everywhere, that would be facetious on my part. Perhaps there are variances in the natural build of a person, social and cultural considerations. I don't look at all women and have the same emotional and physical reactions to every single woman, the same way. I see my wife one way, others other ways. For that matter and from what I've read and been told - all men who are attracted to other men physically - "homosexual" - aren't attracted to all men the same way all the time. It's not as if - if you're "gay" all men "look good". Some there's an attraction, others not so. Also - "lust" would be defined differently than "natural attraction". An inherent physical attraction to another isn't "lust", or finding another person attractive isn't "lust" where there's sexual arousal. The fact that you haven't known any person that has not had to handle the thought of lust of one of the same gender "at least once" might just mean you need to meet more people. I'd have to ask the question how you've validated that - did you ask everyone you've known in your life and they told you or has everyone you've ever know told you? I normally don't talk with others about what we do or don't "lust" after. Do you? I'm just curious how you're so sure of that statement. To be blunt, I can't see any requirements that "everyone" would for that matter. Why would everyone need to or have to, what standards are governing that? I think overt assumptions and a lack of honesty and clarity around this topic fuels a lot of hmmm, B S, to be blunt. Not that you're slinging it here and now. I have no agenda either way, so I'm just making observations. And yeah, I don't see that it makes much difference either way whether Paul was gay or downright depressed. How that person in the N.T. dealt with his own personal limitations and conflicts has served to offer a unique and powerful view into human transformation and transcendence. And 2 Tim. 2:15 isn't why I study the Word of God but that's another topic.

Interesting perspective, Steve. I'd agree with Pat that what the two eyes see isn't contradictory by definition - they don't lead to logical opposite conclusions. Or if they did we'd have pretty strange vision. :) They're just two views of the same thing, and all things being equal (or close to it) in the physicals they're not actually that different. But in a very real way they are, in fact different views of the same thing, in that we don't find (or seem to have yet) repetitions of the same thing at the same time in our physical world. Any instance of anything is it's own instance, and when it comes to individual consciousness, be it the brain, soul or whatever we refer to it as I find that really thrilling as a basic understanding of existence as it is. Moreso that within ourselves we have many separate, individual instances of our own consciouness going on at once, and being blended into a single state of perception. Life is a beautiful awesome thing, and thanks to this thread for that reminder. It's a cool angle on this though, got me thinking how the result of blending the two views into a single perception is done through the nerves and into the brain where the two become one, more or less. Yet, our own processing of that will include many other things at any given moment - we may see something and do the "double take" or "rub our eyes" and take a second look at something. We may think "am I seeing what I think I'm seeing?" That's an incredible process right there and without that ability to question and process our own memories and all of our sensory perceptors at a given moment - we'd have trouble maintaining any understanding of anything On the topic(s) - I don't know that I believe "God" can contradict , for the kinds of reasons that geisha notes. If God is God and by definition maintains and retains the kind of sovereign supremacy we read about in the O. T. then God makes the rules, to put it bluntly. If in a given scenario God were to say, change the rules, that's within His purview to do so. From my human perspective I might see logically opposing outcomes - I think I have to accept that 1. I may not have all the information I need to blend it all into one composite view that "makes sense", 2. I may not have enough information to actually construct and understand what "makes sense" with the blended view that I do have, and 3. It may not be within my own purview to understand or judge what God would do or not do. The example of our eyes and vision is illuminating I think in that vision is a learned thing - it comes together over time from our infancy on and our bodies learn to "see" in a single vision. As you state Steve, we are learning as we go, and we can expect progress, one would assume. In fits and starts and smooth transitions at other times but we do learn. The Bible? Big topic there too - I like the mention of the Book of Enoch as a way to consider what is "the Word of God". I tend towards the canon we have today but consider that God, in times past and present, is constantly revealing Himself to us and through us and that "the truth" is all around us all the time. I'm a Bible guy and won't pretend to understand the variances I see and others I no doubt don't but am trying to approach it in the manner described here.

As for Spong...? He's a dweeb, sorry, he's just not on my radar. His write includes this: Obviously there is no way to know for certain the cause of Paul's anxiety prior to that moment of final revelation in the Kingdom of Heaven. But that does not stop speculation. The value of speculation in this case comes when a theory is tested by assuming for a moment that it is correct and then reading Paul in the light of that theory. Sometimes one finds in this way the key that unlocks the hidden messages that are present in the text. Once unlocked, these messages not only cease to be hidden but they become obvious, glaring at the reader, who wonders why such obvious meanings had not been seen before. Hidden messages? Why do there have to be hidden messages that need to be unlocked? What if I were to read the epistles speculating that Paul is not gay? What hidden messages reveal themselves then and what theoretical conclusions can be made? Spong struggles with the language of the epistles and the profile he takes from them about Paul as if that Paul is unusually conflicted in such a way and to an extreme that he needs to be understood in ways that will explain them. I don't know why to be honest. I don't know what's driving Spong, it may be good it may be bad - it might just be his own internal battles and conflicts with the general state of humanity which can yield some pretty horrible results. It can also yield some very good things too. Whatever's driving him I dunno but when I read about people looking for and finding hidden messages in the bible - dunno.