socks

If I were to add a note to 1 Cor. 13 it would be "Love is not selective". Meaning, it doesn't discriminate between the lover, lov-ee, and who gets the lov-in'. Everyone's up for God's love, the things He does. The rain falls on everyone, the sun shines on everyone. What any person does with it, in it, is theirs to do. "Shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit given to us" - would be true, as a statement. By the H.S. given to us, God's love is shed abroad. And the forecast calls for rain, to paraphrase Robert Cray. I still think it's most true to think of 'agape', love, as a way to describe our actions and thoughts, the things we do. The things God does. Agape isn't so much a quantity of a thing, like a pound of agape, as I understand what the bible says about it. (special today - get some now!) Agape describes a quality, a way of doing things or thinking. "God is love" is a way of describing how God's nature is overall. If the question is - could a person use that line of thinking or doing things for wrong, or to abuse someone else? I think the answer could be "yes", but it wouldn't be love. Ing. It wouldn't be agape-ish to do so. For instance if I said "you shouldn't think about yourself first, you should think about others. Like me and what I want. Put that first, before what you want and that would be loving"... That sounds like what Paul's saying, almost. But it isn't. Paul isn't invoking the Love Rule or something, to get what he wants. He's describing behavior that could be towards anyone or anything, at any time. Love in and of itself doesn't create Patsies for God, or for someone else though. Acting as chapter 13 describes at any given point is in a context, a context of the rest of our lives. Like the "good Samaritan", who lost nothing by doing what he did. He gave and that was that. If the guy he helped came back and sued him later because he got sick at the place the Samaritan left him, would that negate the good the Samaritan did? Not in my mind, it would just mean the guy was an azshole. The moral of the parable wouldn't become "mind your own business", it would be "when you love, sometimes you'll end up helping azsholes".

Yeah, he's got the "legs" alright. I think he'll do well down the line. Reading up on him last year there were so many points about his life - I read a well to do dentist in L.A. offered him the dental work free of charge, which was of course an extravagant gesture to the tune of about 50K bucks. But I could appreciate it, reading how he described growing up adjusting his smile and mouth to not show his teeth. Anyone who's had that kind of problem can appreciate what that means. He had a lot going against him, and he's responded well to the opportunity. He isn't cool, nicer than he is polished. But he's good and he means it, and that counts for a lot. There's a lotta heart in a guy who'll ride in a parade done in his honor, and share it all with his Mom at his side in tears. I think people have wanted to give him his due because he's so blown away that anything like it would ever happen. If Jordin wins - she's 17, and a senior in high school! Have your hankie handy - and Kleenex!

Well, I can't comment on the robot analogy, but any chance to see Asimov's name in a thread is worth it. I did just pick up a copy of the first book in the "Foundation" series, having lost my collection at some point it seems. Great book, about 1/2 way through it. In the first Foundation book there's a community set aside on a distant planet to collect and record all of history's knowledge, in anticipation of a fall of civilization throughout the galaxies. Doing so is considered treasonous as it supports the fall of the current political system. It's allowed and assisted to appease those who believe that civilization is heading the wrong way, as well as to contain the movement. So it gets set up with a population of academics, only to find after the first 50 years that the original reason for it's being, while unknown to the participants, was for something else, something even more important and necessary. It's an interesting book, with lots of twists and turns. Pre-Star Trek, Star Wars and all of that, much of the future of sci-fi can be seen in the story line.

They're all good IMO. The reality of the reality show is that each week someone's going to be "last", and have less votes than the others. The biggest drag of that is that I don't get to hear them anymore when they go off. Like Phil, great voice, would have loved to see him sing some more. Melinda's got the voice, range and tone IMO to make it anywhere. Yeah, she's just another Gladys/Aretha/Whitney in the making, which is fine IMO as they are 3 of the finest singers and performers in recorded history. If Melinda ends up #11 or something in any list those women are in, she'll be doing fine. But they're all great and that's what I like about AI - it gets these people out of the woodwork and on TV and it's fun. They care, they're trying, they're doin' it, and one by one they'll drop off. "There can be only One" in the end of the show, but they all get their chance to shine if they're good. One thing I like about Blake is that he is fresh and brings a lot of music to the show that doesn't always get time. He's a pop singer, with a different flare. Best thing about last night for me was seeing Elliot back, dental work gleaming and singing. His new CD is getting good reviews and for good reason. He was one of the best things about last season IMO. He's got chops, tone and heart.

The question is very good, very honest. I love it! no pun intended. I have made the statement at times, that if I could do some of this stuff just ONCE I'd be happy, game over, let's have some fireworks. We had a discussion going on the topic of forgiveness couple years ago, where I had to say that this particular thing is one of the most difficult things to do, and seemingly near impossible. So I would wonder why Jesus would even bother. Look at the world he lived in as it is today in the middle east. It's an old joke, heard somewhere, can't remember the whole thing, but the punch line goes "what a surprise those guys in the middle east are ticked off. Who ever heard of a Muslim holding a grudge?" Or a Christian. Or a tree hugging Environmentalist. It does seem to be the human way, ingrained in the nature of life. Hurt, hurts. Pain is experienced, endured, requires healing. Later it's remembered. It's just the way it is. Why even consider forgiving something and trying to "love", that's already over and done with? If it really ever is? Jesus explains the nature of God's "love" in action right in that verse though: He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get Sun goes up, sun goes down. Rain falls, ground gets wet. That the world goes the way it does day after day is "God's business" Jesus says. What we do with those things is our business. And as we know even the sunniest day can be the path of darkness for someone who chooses that way. Can we be like that? Good question, and some thought provoking stuff. Here.

Greetings! Was I a sock when you posted? I think I was! Very very interesting question. Welcome "back", by the way. One observation - defining "agape" as unconditional "love" is a little limiting, IMO. Using that as a definiton, or the longer one the Way taught, doesn't capture the whole of what it means to love, be it any of the greek words (agape/phileo/eros). It's a part of it, but tends to be too flat in and of itself. It needs some meat on them bones, some rubber where it's hitting the road. Other stuff Jesus said about love - You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Paul also said - Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. Those things do have some traction, I think. To love in this way could be described as "godly", or "divine". It certainly seems to be of a higher level than the normal things that run through our minds a lot of the time. But when we're at our best, as parents to our children, caretakers to our families, contributors to our communities - when we're doing it more than saying it, it's very attainable, very human, almost normal. Demanding, yes. I picture it as - to aspire to these kinds of things, to attempt to think or be that way is to live as if everyone deserves to be treated so. At some point, everyone does. Or did. Or could someday. Maybe. It's a little corny, very much idealistic, but for me it's to see the essence of the value of another human as the life they have. That commodity is rare and precious. Only those who have it, do. When it's gone, it's gone, period and nothing replaces it. Life in and of itself is something incredibly hard to imagine, I certainly can't really imagine what it would be like to not be alive. But - we know at some point that's coming. Given that we may or may not be coming back this way again, it doesn't seem unreasonable to leave the best tracks we can. If nothing else, something that would be worthwhile remembered or found, if anyone were to look.

Absolutely a great tune, there. Thanks, it's good to hear it. "I've walked in a lot of places I never shoulda been, But our Messiah, He will come again."

That's my belief, Mark. Says it well. Jesus said "Father forgive them, they don't know what they're doing". I would say the highest form of living we can aspire to is to forgive others. It's always appropriate, it's up to us to decide if and when we're going to do it. Forcing ourselves or each other to "do it" doesn't work. That's not forgiving. Life is a roller coaster ride for a good part of the time, and a lot of screaming, spewing and cursing goes along with it. People do weird things when their lunch is coming up. If a person was face to face with God and admiring his latest universe-in-the-works or whatever, would they deliberately swear at Him and curse Him? Of course not. He's God, I'm not, I'd be nice. But people do that all the time, to each other, to the world we do see. Then people wonder why things don't go so well. There's plenty of people that have done me wrong in some form or another over my life and don't think twice about it and probably wouldn't consider seeking restitution with me. I don't give a ratz asz if they do or not. If I feel or felt restitution was justified and the right thing to do, I'd pursue it. If not, I would think about letting it go. I think the most important form forgiveness can take is when it doesn't seem appropriate or deserved. I may not play Dominoes with them ever again but I can get on knowing that I'll be the better person for dealing with it in my heart and settling the matter for myself. If the clouds ever clear, we have a foundation to work from, start over, whatever. At least I try. Everyone has their bad moments, in which case you may want to clear the room. Hey, nobody's perfect!

Check this guy out and see if this makes y'all smile. Monte Montgomery is a Texas guitarist, from Fredericksburg, TX. Saw him at a July 4th concert on some lake out there a few years, and he was ma-ghty fahn. Asking the universal question... :)

Interesting question, Raf. Some thoughts, I'll shoot out. Couple verses come to mind - 2 Cor. 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Trespasses appear (in 'the greek') in Matt. 6:14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. Trespasses means mistakes, errors, missteps. Sin - big topic. What it is, etc. A condition of man, the natural state of man? My impression of the definition of sin is that it relates to what mankind does, in the form of transgressions against God, disobedience whether through ignorance or deliberate acts. I've often thought about the record of Adam and Eve and what they "did" and what "happened" afterwards. The capacity to transgress was within them, obviously. It was brought out by temptation. So a question comes to mind - would man sin if not given the option, if not tempted? Would it be inevitable or no? Neither one of them in the story are painted to have much of a problem getting confused about the right thing to do pretty quickly. My take on Cor. 5:19 is that the "word of reconciliation" allows those who know what God has done in Christ to take that message to others. God reconciled through Christ, trespasses not imputed but forgiven. So - it isn't that there was no restitution being made, rather that there was and Christ made it for us. I don't see that "we" can step into that - there's a direct line from God to Christ to us and our involvement doesn't do anything. We're the ones being forgiven. We can forgive others as God did in Christ, after that example. Doing so doesn't bring that person forgiveness from God, that I see. This may sound kind of stupid but - I do think it goes a long way for setting the environment for that to happen though, where a person comes to God through Christ and is reunited with God through Christ. By forgiving as He has forgiven, we see the example of it. Anyone who's been forgiven through Christ has a reason to do that - from the standpoint that we accept it as a "free" gift. Freely received, we can easily see how it would be expected that we would freely give, then. As Christ illustrated in the parable of the man who owed the debt, and was "forgiven" what he owed, then turned around and made demands of those who were in debt to him. That was judged wrong of him to do, since he'd had his own debt wiped clean, it was expected that he'd act in kind.

Nice tune, hey Chatty? Needless to day, Donald Fagan and Walter Becker have some tunes. The Larry Carlton comments are kinda cool too. Found this on u-toob, a collection of photos and a Paul DeLay tune that was put up. What a great sound waysider! He really does sound great.

The Dansters , talking shop, "Deacon Blues":

For the parents, you might spin "In My Life" by the Beatles. Add a little slo-mo, and some closeups, and you'll be handing out hankies. Purple Haze, Hendrix...no, that's no good. Red Rubber Ball, by the Cyrkle?

My pleasure YayYay! The store is responsible to provide what it advertises. The free will part of all this is an absolutely essential ingredient in what Jesus Christ taught, and what I read in the N.T. The decisions made by me have to be from "the heart" right? That's where God looks, what He "sees". How can I do that if I'm being coerced, pestered, hassled and generally bugged by someone else to do whatever it is they think I should do, something that is supposed to emanate from my "heart"? What's heart felt about someone doing something because you've made them do it? It's said that "love encourages". Encouraged, I can decide. Constrained, I can choose. Forced, I just get whatever it is over with. Love is the ultimate drop of water hitting a rock, 59 bazillion times, until it smooths out a space to fill. "That was easy - and I decided it all on my own!" I am living proof of this and that's no joke. I am absolutely the product of the loving encouragement of my wife. Finally, the edges start to smooth. I am convinced that nothing is more powerful, more consistent, more outright frightening in it's strength and yet more soothing than the heart that won't give up loving. Love laughs, soothes and unravels with hidden hand the hopelessly tangled ball of life that this one can become at times. When the will is led by love our choices become ... interesting. Regardless of our experience with the Way or with anyone or anything I highly encourage giving it a shot. Find someone you care about and try it if you haven't in awhile. It's really the only Way.

Agreed, Hamm. It's permissible to have a cow if the milk's sour. IMO. Momentous? I think that's where that joke got started...."Hey, I think this milk is bad...smell it and tell me what you think..."

"It takes two to tango". Don't it? I can be responsible for deciding to buy a carton of milk. The store's responsible to sell me a carton that's fresh and drinkable. If it's sour, what would you do? Take it back, get a refund? Another carton of milk? Give the store a piece (small or large) of your mind for selling spoiled milk? There's two sides to the responsibility coin, I think if we insist one only one we can't get a true fix on what it means to have free will and to act on that will. It isn't always going to be ALL my fault nor always ALL someone else's. It will depend onthe circumstances. IMO it's wrong to say that because we have free will and can decide what we want to do that we are always fully responsible for the outcome of our choices. We're not. It ain't rocket science, philosophy or theology. If the dates on the carton's good and the milk's bad, who's to blame?

Great overview G-Tech, thanks. At my company we use Net Op Guest/Host to access users systems. Inside a secured network it works great. Strong Passwords, can't agree more. A combination of numbers, letters and characters works well. Many people have trouble with remembering their passwords built that way - a tip I offer is to use a version of the email format - A2007@Vol123 or A7002#LoV321 and where the numbers and letters are more random, of course. That, and changing it regularly to alternate between certain combinations can help remembering. I have heard that gotmypc is useful in certain situations, briefly and for specific uses. Are there others that could be recommended too?

To add: The information posted above as to Coco's birthday experience also touches on another known but unsubstantiated story that may have relavance to your original query Jonny, namely the "Coco Is Dead" theory. Another version of the Birthday-Pond fiasco tells of the duck attack lasting quite a bit longer, and being the cause of her demise that day. Sadly, all those who remember it said they had no idea of the danger otherwise they would have done something. That version covers Tic rescuing Coco, but tragically, too late. To quote one first-hand witiness who wished to remain anonymous - "She weren't movin', that's for sure. But with all the hubbub and ducks flying and all, it was hard to tell". At this point the details become vague - little is known as to exactly what happened to Coco in the minutes immediately following. At the dinner meal however, "Coco" made an appearance to the joy and relief of all, apparently good as new if a little worse for the wear. Eye witness accounts of those at the meal remember however that Tic was noticably "cold" to the blanketed Coco, almost as if "he didn't recognize her", according to one person. Others observed that the poodle they were presented with appeared a bit larger and with thicker fur than they remembered, although that was attributed to the water, etc. Questions lingered only for a short while, and soon it was Coco-business as usual. Yet, this odd version of the incident was recalled by more than one of those present that day. Inquiries to local pet shops and breeders who might still have some record of poodle-oriented transactions at that time turned up nothing, however this interesting and perhaps chilling fact is known - a local shop in Wapakaneta, the "Poodle People's Pound", was known to breed and sell small, white poodles, which were very popular for a time there. All records were destroyed in the late 60's during a fire of suspicious origin and today there is a gas station and convenience store where the shop once stood. Also of note: interestingly just a few short years later this topic resurfaced during the "Paul Is Dead" phase of The Beatles, which became known to some as "another counterfeit" being foisted upon the world, but to what aims or purpose? Even those who believed it can't say for sure.

dmiller's account, while possible, is IMO unlikely. All those years ago (it was at an ROA after a late night teaching), I thought I stepped in a puddle going to my tent, when in reality -- it was a poodle I stepped on. While doing my research I discovered a bit of information that seemed trivial at the time but may actually discount this possiblity - namely that Coco had a great fear of water, in all forms, due to a young-pup experience at the Way Pond on her 2nd birthday. At that time, in the early years of the Way, it was traditional for those who had birthdays to be thrown into the Way Pond, all in good fun. Coco's experience was hardly that however. Despite repeated claims to not being able to swim Coco was in fact thrown into the south-west part of the pond, all paws flying. Unable to reach the bank Cocoa was then attacked by several of the resident ducks who mistook her for a small rodent. (no doubt the white color of her fur proved to be an attractant). Apparently the onlookers took several minutes to recognize that Coco was in danger, during which time she was pecked and poked without restraint until Tic, in a moment of courage and at no small risk to his own safety plunged into the pond and pulled the postrate and barely breathing poodle to shore. Thus, Coco was saved that day and a lasting relationship was forged between the two canines. (although due to peer pressure one kept hidden for many years). Coco's fear of water, although not well known, accounts for the fact that she was seldom seen outside during inclement weather, and then only under the shelter of an umbrella. dmiller's poodle-puddle account would place it following one of the well known shower storms that blew through central Ohio during the ROA. Anyone who attended those events can attest to the large puddles and areas of free standing water that would pepper the grounds. That being the case, it is highly unlikely Coco would have been anywhere near those areas. What or who was the victim in dmiller's story, I can't say. However this information may put that ghost to rest for you, sir. (However as a matter of historical interest and full-disclosure I would like to include it in my appendix, with permission of course). I hope this has helped. (also thanks for the spelling information Watered Garden - it would seem that although the poodle's name seldom appeared in print, that Coco would be in fact the correct rendering. Thanks!)

Actually, Jonny, you've opened up a real can of worms here. BIG can o' worms my man. I've been working on this for a long time and was planning on publishing my entire work later this year, to be titled "Darkness In Ohio - The Cocoa Conspiracy". For years I researched this topic, only to have one door after another slam shut as soon as I mentioned or even hinted that I was looking into the question of Cocoa and what happened all those years ago. It was as if a veil of fear hung over the very word "poodle" and to even speak it was barking up the wrong tree. When the truth comes out, a number of questions will be answered: -Cocoa's true gender...female? ... or was she...??? -What exactly was the relationship of Tic and Cocoa? -"The Dog Pen" ... canine quarters or doggie love den? I won't say more now, but needless to say fleas will be hopping when this baby hits the stands!

Howdee! Been away for a bit - getting caught up - how's it be? :)

2 cents - I subscribe to a somewhat qualified version of freedom of will/"choice": freedom= n 1: the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints 2: immunity from an obligation or duty will = n 1: the capability of conscious choice and decision and intention and choice = 2: the act of choosing or selecting I think we seldom act out of true "freedom" as adults. Children, maybe to an extent, but as children it seems we learn how to choose and ultimately narrow down (rightly so) the range of our "freedom". That is, we develop obligations, duties, "restraints" of various kinds we accept and within that range we make choices. A somewhat old saying talks about "choosing the lesser of two evils", for instance. Another newer saying goes "Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil". The reverse could be true - ? - choosing the lesser of two goods is still choosing good but maybe not one quite as ideally suited to the matters at hand as another choice might be. "Appropriate" to a situation might craft what becomes "good" in any given choice where others are involved for instance, whereas a decision made without consideration of others might be "right" but not "good". ("loving"....?) Making truly free choices by our own independent will is difficult I think because of how we are made to live, in community and cooperation with others. Still, true freedom of will/choice is possible, if not always practical. I'd probably phrase it as always possible, but not always probable or maybe "likely".

Hey waysider - that chill in the air is hell defrosting - saw Tommy T and Preston T a week ago, and their band. They're doing so well and it was great to see them. It had been way too long, believe me, missed those guys over the years. Jammed together on a tune. It was a real pleasure. e - me if you get a sec. :)

That's about the size of it to me too, Loner. Way doctrine teaches you'll be "rewarded" according to how "much" of the "Word" you're "faithful" to. Italics provided, as those word would require some definition I think. "Rewards" = how good of a life you will have in the future, after the return of Christ and the gathering together. Somewhere down the line anyway, you'll be living a life based on what you believed of the bible in this one. "much" - based on what you knew, the amount of it that you knew. "Word" - accurate bible information. "faithful" - an interesting term - Way doctrine implies a continuous faithing, so to speak. If you knew and were faithful at one time, but developed a different understanding of what they taught you at one time - you're S.O.L. A little doesn't go a long way, in the Way. You need to stack up some seniority to have tenure. If you leave their nest, you're a bad bird. Faithful to the Word means faithful to accepting the knowledge. --- That's using normal English, and is probably very debatable by a Wayfer. But - IMO one of the downfalls of putting such an emphasis on knowledge is that it takes the shine off behavior. Knowing something that's right becomes more important than doing something that's right. Again - Wayfers' would argue against that. But action does speak louder than words, and what do Wayfers do? Only one thing is considered worthwhile to do. Ask any B.O.T. member or whatever they consider a high-ranking officer of the Way that can quote their doctrine to you and speak with authority on it and they'll tell you - the only thing they're required by "God" to do is "speak his Word, accurately divided". That's it. Doing it is another thing entirely. To Wayfers speaking the Word is doing the Word. That's it. There's plenty of things for Wayfers to do in regards to that one thing and it accounts for and amounts to the incredibly one-dimensional, flat, somewhat inhuman lifestyle they've come to represent. They don't do anything really worthwhile with what they know, other than respeak it to each other and the odd person who will listen to what they have to say. It's much easier to preach to the choir though, so not that many birds outside the nest get any worms, which may be a good thing. ------ To me, faith is a very individual thing, not the least bit blind. Acceptance is a matter of choice. Once a choice is made, movement flows in that direction. Blind means nothing is seen. I'd describe it as - different people can see different things when they look, and some don't see anything at all. No two people can have the same faith, even if they have it towards the same thing IMO. The relationship to the other thing - in this case God, Jesus Christ, the bible, writings thought to be inspired, etc. - is individual and one-to-one. How those things that are chosen and pursued respond will be completely unique to that individual, even when the response is the same, I think. It has to be - I'd compare it to two people drinking water from the same glass. Goes in a similar way, goes out a similar way, but what the water does inbetween is entirely different for both people. Similarly what a person does with what they choose to believe is going to determine the quality of that in their lives, to a great extent. Christians say, typically, they're "followers of the Lord Jesus Christ". That being so, there would be a lot of things to do. Speaking "the Word" would be one. Doing it would absolutly have to follow, since that's what Jesus did with what He knew. He did stuff. Lots of stuff.

That's a good nutshell of how I view it LoneMc. There's a lot to look at, in an out of the present Old and New Testaments. "The Bible" canon we have forms a core of writings to focus on.