socks

Glad y'all enjoyed it! :)

So what was it Evan? My imagination is piqued - someone make the obvious connection of men in fishnet tights with men in tight spandex and do a paro-dee? Hopefully it wasn't taken down for being in "bad taste". Nothing could taste worse than the AOS show.

Agree, A la. This guy's got a great voice, and the band's good too. Gill's a favorite of mine, I've always thought he's a blues singer at heart, although he doesn't sing straight blues. Kind of like Hank Williams was. Jesse Colin Young (Youngbloods) has a voice like that.

This is a very rough live audio - anyone know who the singer is? Bliss is the name on Youtube, but never heard of them.

"...Voices down the corridor. Thought I heard them say..."

When someone asks you if you're a god, you say YES!!!

Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling. Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes...dead rising from the grave. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria.

Aw, Tom wouldn't smote a flo. Maybe it is time to just lay it down and get to it. The rest of this may be one big sack of wasted time. It's time to get serious. It's long overdue. Enough Alternative Lite rock already. It's time to spin some deep death cult metal madness. This all needs to go somewhere, sometime. Let's push it to the limit and see where it goes. That would be better than dikking around and being nice if it's not really meant. Let's just burn this mutherfuggin thing down one time and get it over with. Who's up for it?

With friends in a better day (with the great Jimmie Johnson from his band, on bass :) )

Brother James, in a different land, under a different sky>

Maybe we could get a "douche bag" smilie icon in the library? That would get some use, I'm sure. Point of fact - if WD or OM or someone figures that the claims, statements, accusations about certain events and topics are unproven and/or exaggerated, that's an opinion. Informed by, what - bunch of things probably. To some extent anyone not directly involved in the events, claims, statements, etc. is going to take that approach too, or should IMO. If it's new news to you or me, we should read and consider carefully, and not make too many assumpltions. I always assume a supportive position to the first hand account, that's where I have the access. Someone says "he hit me", I know what to do. Someone says "he hit them", it's less clear. "If I understood them correctly, they were told that person got hit and he did it". May not be clear what to do with that. This board deals with topics very broadly IMO - it provides information, some first hand, some on reliable authority, some heresay. Doesn't mean that any of what's written in any 3 are 100 percent true - the heresay could be truer than what the first hand account offers. I think overall, in general, again - it's wise to carefully consider what I read. And still (*ayaaahhhhaaawwwwn*) I always assume support for the injured. I'd rather be liberal in that rather than too restrictive. Stories may not jive, but there's no way to know that on this board a lot of the time. Sometimes, don't know about you but what I read I have no way of validating. It may confirm something I already know to be true or add to the stack of "evidence" but I think it's wise to be careful when building a conclusion. My 'pinion. Sue me.

I'm glad. :) A true leader doesn't have to accumulate followers. I posted a thread awhile back about a guy who started a banking system which gave out small loans to needy people. Little loans, pea shooter loans, 10-20 bucks apiece. This was in another country where 20 bucks is a lot. There were small amounts loaned to people, primarily women, so they could start these little businesses, buy some stuff, candy, food, whatever and resell it on the street. Or buy produce and resell it, or materials to make clothes and sell them. "Micro loans". He was awarded a Nobel prize this last year. He doesn't promote this form of banking as a way to make huge sums of money and knows it probably won't work well for the huge financial institutions. But it does work to help people who won't get any help otherwise. And people for the most part paid it back, with the small interest rates his bank required. If they didn't they couldn't get another loan and had to pay it back and get right before trying again. They got assistance and some direction so they could succeed. I think I read he said over 90 per cent of the loans were paid back. This was a way to leverage the large equities a formal bank could manage into the hands of the people in the most dire of circumstances, who really need it. I mean really need help. They can get started. They may never own a Levi Strauss or a Costco sized operation but they get a leg up starting out. To start, this guy travelled out into the rural areas of the country to reach people. He went to them, months, travelling, getting this thing started. His goal wasn't to make billiions, it was to try something radically different and moderately insane by most standards - reach out to those who really need it and do something that will actually help everyone, because if people can become self-sufficient they won't be a burden to the rest of the system around them. So he took people who weren't even on the face of the earth for practical purposes and helped to make them people, with a future, a roof over their heads. A shot. A phrase that fits any leader - "Be something to someone". Count. Do what you do best, to the end the work stands for something and someone. That's a profile I'd like to have.

My point exactly OaKs. Any reference to someone as a VPster Vershipper is going to be extravagant and hyperbolic. Maybe even uberbolic. That's the point. It's a way to label someone and put 'em down a couple pegs but not based on the matters being discussed. You idolize VPW because you agree with him and think he was right. About something. You worship him. You wish he was still the MOG. You're an idolater. BS. That's not what you were talking about exactly dmiller, but it's in the same ballpark I think. Waybrain is another one. I picture people running around grabbing their hair and slapping their foreheads. "Get out of my brain! Get out of my brain!!!" I mean, geez, even when someone uses a word or phrase they used in the Way they get concerned, and feel they have to qualify using it. Is it because they're afraid they'll be labelled WAYBRAINED???? It's just another way of doing what everyone complains they didn't like. "You're out of fellowship. You're possessed! Hey, you've got friends...don't talk to him, he's in Hog Country, he's plowing the Back 40, he's tripped out."

Food fight!

A man's wisdom gives him patience; it is to his glory to overlook an offense. A hot-tempered man must pay the penalty; if you rescue him, you will have to do it again. Being a discussion board, things do get discussed here don't they? It's difficult to separate an idea from the mind that bears it. What's it mean? What else does it mean? There are some points of contention, basic ones, that will go round and round on this board forever. They're not compatible and don't meet somewhere down the line to agree to disagree. Apparently if people are going to enter into these discussions they're going to have to accept a certain amount of acrimony. As a general rule I think that's accepted, a by product of the open discussion. (Look at the phrase "vp worshippers" and the like is a very distasteful one as delivered. I'm sure those so branded wouldn't consider themselves so. But it's the term generated to label certain people because of their opinions, which in most cases don't actually involve worshipping vp) A little bit of that goes a long way. I don't personally entertain large extended doses of that, anywhere. I certainly wouldn't here. I don't think it's healthy. It doesn't advance my thinking, my well being, my views big or small. Yet I do contribute some harsh, direct opinions at times, harsh if you're on the opposite side certainly. There's a very simple reality that actually goes to one of the points thats often made around here - no one's got a gun to anyone's head, making them write what they write. We choose. I choose. You choose. They choose. We make our own world, but we never do it alone. Others are involved. Working through, with, managing our relationships, is what it's all about. I'm not an expert, so I don't have a "magic bullet" I pull out of my ear to make every interaction successful. Muddling along long enough though this is what I've picked up.

Well, we see Jesus choosing fishermen , tax collectors, regular "folks". In His day Jesus would have been looked on by many as a Rabbi, a teacher with students, followers. Interestingly, He chose his followers initially and they told others. Jesus lived with these people and formed an extended community around His activities. They travelled, ate, slept, came and went, carried on their affairs from day to day. Later His followers followed the same model of a community, sharing and living cooperatively around their faith. They looked amongst themselves and chose others to serve as needed. When the community grew to be large they determined collectively to find amongst themselves people who could help. The help was needed in direct service to those in the community who needed it - elderly, widows, those who had no means of support, no family to assist them. Basically they looked out for and took care of each other, "fellowshipping" around their common faith and belief in God and Jesus Christ His son, the risen Redeemer. The key leaders that get written about in Luke's Acts were, in fact, men and women of personal conviction who were personally committed to the message they taught of Christ. f you believe it as written, there's a huge difference between what they lived and what a lot of church leaders live today, namely that theirs weren't primarily "teaching" ministries. Yes, they taught but that was a means of spreading the basic message of Christ. The "work" of the "ministry" wasn't solely teachers and maintenance of the material. There was a lot of action around their building and living as a community, a group of people with interests and needs. Paul did the same, his travels were to spread the "gospel" and to help establish a growing and diverse group of churches. I don't think Acts is the "only" way to do things, it's the way they did things. it does form a history though where we can see how this whole thing got started. To my mind the expansion of the message of the gospel is slowed down and can even be hindered if all the effort expended by a church and it's "leadership" is on the business affairs of setting up a "church". That can be done but it shouldn't become a purpose in and of itself. If the primary function is to "spread the gospel" you don't need a huge physical operation to do that IMO. People spread the gospel, always have. The "church" business should primarily focus on the cooperative effort of all the participants in helping and assisting the community of people that make it up in real, tangible ways - socially, economically, spiritually. There is also the capability for each participant to share directly with their extended community that way, the people that a church is actually trying to reach - real, tangible expressions of the love Jesus said would exemplify His followers. Feed the hungry, help the poor, relieve the sick, lift the spirit. There's a 1,000 ways to lead and no one has to appoint or train or follow. They just involve helping.

I think that's a great idea anotherDan. Rattle off a few thoughts, some relevant, some not - My sense from observation, participation and indeed using the Bible as a reference, is that the most effective thing a person can do for anyone else is 1.) keep their own chit together 2.) participate in a cooperative way with their immediate associations (family, friends, neighbors) where the interests of others are considered and 3.) Look for ways to help others succeed in life with their endeavors. I think the requirements from Timothy mentioned provide a baseline for what a person seeking involvement with others should aspire to, if not meet. When I look at what Timothy lists in these terms there's some specific mention of a person who watches over and looks out for others within their community. In fact it's really no big whoopdee doo, when you look at it on the one hand, it's a person who would by most evaluations be a pretty good dude or dudette, but they don't have to have halo's or a list of Certified Miracles to their credit. They're just good people, reasonable, honest, loving people. Those people are those things already and would be with or without being designated in an "official" capacity. They're the people they are and those things make them good candidates for any number of things. But they don't put on their Good Cap to be a "leader". Certainly in the scenario that Timothy and Titius point to that person would be all the more mindful of the need to keep it right and real. I feel that some people will feel a particular "calling" or purpose in their life to dedicate some or all of their lives to continued service and involvement with others. Key and critical to that endeavor is the personal vision and passion if you will that the person has. People enter positions for all kinds of reasons, not all bad ones. The motivation in any case shouldn't be personal gain though. It should be fulfillment. A passion is something that a person does regardless of what comes back to them. They do it because they want to, love to, "have" to. When we work one-to-one with each other if someone screws something up, you say so. A helper may need help. A "leader" may need direction and guidance. When a person is set off from the group they're involved with and is placed in a position "higher than they ought", that person's dead meat if it cuts them off from the day to day interactions with people that allows for honest communication between everyone. To my eye the real potential to be of service to others is in the day to day interactions. If the "preacher" or pastor of position isn't involved in the day to day lifestyle and culture of his community he or she is at a disadvantage, their interactions may not be real, authentic but instead be manufactured - meetings, counselling sessions, teaching events. That stuff may have it's purpose but it's removed from the day to day activities of the group. People leave what they're doing and do those things. That's fine but those kinds of things serve a specific purpose. Life isn't a series of scheduled special events. A a lot of good - maybe the most good - is done throughout normal daily life. It's really just common sense IMO.

I found what was for me, a perfect reading bible - it's a "big print" version Nero. Got it at Borders bookstore onsale for 20 bucks. Bound, leather cover. Don't recall who publishes it, could look later if you're interested. It was a great value. The bible itself isn't that large and fit into my old "wide margin" bible carrying case. What's awd is that the print doesn't actually seem "that" huge, y'know? It's a good size to my eye. Anyhoo, I'm not sure what type of bible you're looking for. This one was perfect for what I needed, specifically for regular reading.

Hi Chatty! That's where forgiveness could be looked at, outside of a system of justice where there's wrong done, wrong determined and judged, wrong righted and a final declaration of a satisfactory outcome. (That still doesn't completely guarantee "forgiveness" in the "heart" of the offended or that it's everl received in kind.) From God's standpoint, restitution was required, and Christ was that. It could be described as an offense that's "unforgivable" in that there was no way for the offender to make it completely right per the requirements without Christ. Christ forgave as God forgave, while on earth it's where we see Christ literally forgiving as God forgives. So we have an example there. Basically God provided the means for forgiveness to occur, and has offered it. We are "forgiven" in Christ, even if we don't accept it, it's extended in that the restitution was made. We're also surrounded all the time with situations where restitution isn't possible in full for any number of reasons. ?

Forgiveness, "forgiveness", may represent the only practical way to bring to people back together into a desired relationship when the relationships taken a hit, been damaged or broken. Restitution is often considered a requirement for forgiveness but again - practically speaking - it might not accomplish anything other than replace what was taken or damaged. Someone doing something to another, a wrong, and then saying they're sorry and wanting to make it right is certainly desirable, but the other side of the coin may never get flipped. Forgiveness may or may not be extended. Restitution and recognition isn't forgiveness. I might think of restituton as "justice". So if restitution is made, is forgiveness the just response? Is it part of justice? I guess what I'm thinking is - if I take forgiveness out of a dynamic process between two people's interactions and just treat it as a standalone concept, I think it ends up differently than if I apply it to a circumstance like we seem to be discussing, where there's wrong done, etc. and forgiveness is defined in light of that. If restitution is required and it's accomplished, then is forgiveness the required response? If restitution isn't accomplished, is forgiveness a just response? God hasn't forgiven without restitution- "redemption" was accomplished through Christ. As a recipient I benefit by "grace". But in God's system it seems that things had to be made right. Once that's done it's God's responsibility to extend forgiveness through grace, or so a lot of us believe. What if God held grudges? I'm pondering that because I think as humans we may mean well, but true "forgiveness", even in the best of all worlds and where justice has been served may not be forthcoming regardless of what's done. Choice and action has to be taken by someone who can do it. If they can't or don't want to, it's not going to happen no matter what. That being the case whatever is expected from forgiveness won't happen unless a person wants to extend it and can, in a real way. Where a breach has been realized both sides have thiings to do to "forgive". ?

Old saying - "if you pick it, it'll bleed". You know, when your Mom would say - well, my Mom never actually said that. In fact, I heard it from a guy, talking about tuning a guitar. When you're tuning a guitar, at some point a guitar's as in tune as it's going to be - that guitar, that time, right there - and you can fiddle with it all you want and it'll just go bad to worse and back again. So the application of the "old saying" was - that's as good as it's going to get. Let's play. My Mom actually did say things like that though - I'd get a scabbie and it would itch and she'd tell me don't mess with it, let it heal. She had this powder, some kind of stuff she could put on any kind of cut or scrape and indeed, if you'd leave it alone, it would heal. But it would itch from time to time. Back in the day when Band-Aids were in those little tin cans she might put one or three on the area. I'd test it, just shy of actually picking at it, look at it, check it. Peek at it. Rub it, scratch around it. Have someone inspect it. Thinking back now it seemed I must have had at least one or two on a leg and/or arm my whole childhood from something or other. Bicycle skid outs were a biggie. Then the Day of Removal would finally arrive, when by all reckonings the Wound was healed. The accepted wisdom was to yank it off in one quick peel. I preferred the scratch and lift method, but that didn't always sell. So one way or the other it would come off and there would be a fresh little scar. Most of them aren't visible anymore. I'm not sure what, if anyything this has to do with the topic but after all that typing, reading back, I'm sure I had something in mind at the start. Whatever it was I'll assume it's represented here and leave this up.

Sticking with stuff, important. Layin' it on down the line, one foot at a time. It would be one thing if at some point God said "Here's 96 years. When and where do you want 'em? All in one lump or spread out in pieces? Fill out the form and be sure to get the back, everybody misses that. Keep a copy and someone will be in touch. Thanks!" We don't get to plan it like that, we just show up. One day we're not here, next day we're here. Meter's running. Having experienced guidance helps. Trust is a biggie too. Trust based on another's reputation and the experience of others with them. Through my own experience with them.

There's definitely some common themes thus far. Thanks for all of your thoughts, there's a lot to consider here.

Practical Input - a really big-screen plasma TV, a refrigerated keg cooler, and maybe some Barcaloungers would be a big improvement. You'd like the church we go to, when we do. They put in seats that are kind of like theater seats, with little cup holders. There's a pretty nifty cafe' set up in the back side room of the church where you come in and they serve coffee. They have doughnuts and fruit, so every service is kind of a brunch deal before hand and after, and then most of the people that drink coffee bring it to their seats for the service. I wish I still drank coffee regularly, it seems a practical way to do it. The services are structured but pretty informal by most standards. It's an open opportunity to come in and enjoy the whole deal without having to conform to any great extent to expecations which the average person showing up wouldn't know anyway. Very causal, rather civilized even.

More - a true leader leads by example not calling myself a real leader genuinely gifted (and I dont mean that in some hokey sense).... spend alot more time just doing the right thing as a natural course of their life than talking about it or worse yet dictating to you how to better your life.. unassuming, down to earth, and easily approachable the person who can recognize and detect the strong and weak areas in people life and mission. and take the necesary action to direct each to become the best they can be . the leader is the one who can be the one who works with what they got recognize it for what it is and make it good for all involved! a true "born leader basicly just enjoys people and desires for them to grow and be "good" at what they do in an area... and the side effect is the leaders are then respected and loved and turn into "leaders". we all lead really maybe it is to make a difference. I Timothy 3: V2(A)An overseer, then, must be above reproach, (B)the husband (this would include fidelity, imo) of one wife, ©temperate, prudent, respectable, (D)hospitable, (E)able to teach, 3(F)not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, (G)free from the love of money. 4He must be one who (H)manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity. (My take in that last phrase, regarding dignity, would exclude tyranny/dictatorship).