Jbarrax

Jailhouse Rock When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bay...

ARGHH! That's it. I would have guessed it another day or two. :-)

Couldn't have said it better Steve.

vaguely familiar, but I can't recall the title.

@ Steve. Well said my friend. The balance of the Spirit and the Bible is what keeps me rooted in Chrsitianity. If I didn't speak in tongues, the truth of the resurrection would be subject to doubt. Since I know by the spirit and my experience of God's love and salvation and power, I can see contradictions in the Scripture without jettisoning belief in God and Christ. @ CMan. Quite right. It's the give and take of this august forum that allows us to grow together. Didn't someone once share here that Paul's method of teaching was a dialogue much like this? I thought we were, WW until Geisha left in a huff. Now I'm not so sure.

Ah yes, how kind of you to insinuate that I am just not being humble enough? I'm catty, you're kind. But of course, why didn't I see that? I don't judge people who disagree with me. Steve, CMan, and Todd all disagree with me on certain topics. I'm fine with that. What I find insulting is your assumption that I am in some way spiritually inferior because I disagree with you. Notice that I haven't taken any of them to task. They are able to express their opinions without insulting everyone else at the same time. On this planet where you posted this just yesterday; emphasis added. So according to you there only one "right result" of reading the Bible. Your words clearly communicate that, if anyone disagrees with you, that person is not right because they are not humble. Call it kindness, if you will, but in my humble opinion that is an arrogant assumption on your part. I never said you made that up. Of course you can offer your opinion. I'm merely pointing out that the manner in which you offered it seems judgmental and arrogant. Actually I don't. I chose that verse because it's a rather simple example of an apparent contradiction. Most of the others involve complex topics like grace vs works, or one "dispensation" vs another or one writer's perspective vs another writer's perspective. This one is pretty simple because it's the same writer discussing a simple, factual topic. It's one that can be discussed without being derailed by competing interpretations and dogmas. It's a simple matter of the factual account not squaring with itself. The truth that Paul was converted on the road to Damascus and became a powerful Apostle for Christ is not affected. That was the point. Quite the contrary. I keep and open mind when I read and change it when I see things that contradict what I believed before. If you ask around or take some time and read some of the other things I've posted you'll see that my beliefs are rather fluid. That's not the mark of someone who approaches truth with hard coded preconceptions. So everyone who doesn't agree with you is an extremist whose beliefs are an affront to Christianity? I think Waysider would call that statement a false dichotomy. If my beliefs had swung to the extreme, I'd be an atheist who says the Bible is completely devoid of truth. I'm simmply no longer convinced that the Scripture is perfect in every detail. To call that a prideful affront to Christianity is obviously judgmental and arrogant. But at least now you're being honest about it. :-) I don't intend to chase you off. But if you can't engage in a mature exchange of ideas, perhaps you'll be happier elsewhere. Your call of course.

Here again is the automatic tendency to judge those who disagree with us as being somehow less spiritual, less humble than we are. I don't have time at this moment to rebut your post point by point, but I find it annoying that you seem to presume that I am somehow arrogant, prideful, etc. simply because I recognize the fact that different verses disagree with each other. I chose the passage in Acts because it's a relatively simple one. There are many others like this throughout the Scripture that are in conflict. The Bible says a great many things. Among these is the exhortation, "come, let us reason together.". If the Scripture invites us to approach it rationally, we cannot be summarily condemned for engaging our reason when we read it. How does letting the Bible 'read you' resolve a factual conflict between what Luke wrote in chapter 9 versus what he later wrote in "chapter 22"? Nonsense. I find it sadly ironic that someone who espouses humility automatically condemns those who disagree with her viewpoint. Are you the Anointed one through whom the Most High now speaks?

Winter is here again O Lord Haven't been home in a year or more I hope she holds on a little longer...

Waysider beat me at the buzzer. :-)

Hi PAT. Good observations. I agree that it was in that session of PFAL that most of us were talked into shutting off our minds. VP specifically told us to quit thinking. That's the point at which we were mentally disarmed. Do you know what website we're on Johniam? Do you know the context of the name of this domain? Apparently you've never heard LCM bellow that if we left the protective confines of the "household", we'd be " a greasespot by midnight". We were threatened with destruction by "the adversary" if we didn't follow the accepted doctrine.

I did.

The WOW program, like most TWI initiatives, was a mixed bag. To the extent that committed people with a genuine heart to love God and serve Christ volunteered and gave it their best effort, good things happened. To the extent that shallow people blindly following suggestions from "leadership" or pursuing a career path used it as a means of gaining approval, status or some other carnal objective, bad things happened. Sometimes tragic things. I don't really think this phenomenon is specific to TWI. I'm sure Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Roman Catholics have a similar range of experiences with their missionary or seminary programs. God is merciful and blesses people with humble hearts, even those who are mixed up in corrupt organizations. The underlying problem with the WOW program is that the people who administered it did so with a level of deceit that undermines the stated nature of the program. Making assignments by throwing darts and tossing coins is a far cry from getting revelation from God as to where to send people. Refusing to remove or discipline someone who was sexually abusing his or her "family" members is blatantly irresponsible for a so-called Christian organization. (or any group that claims to follow and represent Jesus Christ). It would be nice if the current leadership at TWI learned from past mistakes and managed it honestly and humbly, doing their best to see that God's will was done and that the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ was the program's first and highest goal. But, based on past performance, I doubt very much that will happen.

I think you're right. :-)

Interesting. In his book "The Two Ways of the First Century Church" David Anderson makes the same argument. In his case, it comes up midway through the book and I've always felt that it became a tangent that derailed his original thesis. I don't know if he borrowed that from Mauck or vice versa. Anderson's book was written in 1989. I think I have the last printed copy, but it's available online.

I can't speak for Waysider, but IMO, the problem with this is that you're not actually answering the original poster's question. If I post a question about..say for instance...whether WOW assignments were made by throwing darts or tossing coins, and a bunch of people respond by saying what a blessing it was for them to go WOW, those responses don't answer my question. They may be related, but if those are the only replies posted, the question remains unanswered and the forum community has failed the person seeking information. Even worse, such responses may be perceived as deliberate obfuscation. The reason these kinds of responses to this particular question annoy me is because they're the kind given by Fundamentalists who don't want to address the fact that there are contradictions--actual, not apparent--in the Bible. In my opinion, stating that God is inviolate and cannot be held to human ideas of logic and reason is just as much of a dodge as TWI's assertion that contradictions were apparent, but not actual. Thanks to your more recent posts, I see that you and Steve don't hold this position. We all agree that the Bible has contradictions in it, but that doesn't deprive it of spiritual or doctrinal value. I'm not so sure about some of the others...except of course for CMan and Sir Guessalot. You guys are about as far away from fundamantalism as one can get. :-)

Sorry, I lost track of my clue. Here's another line. Old Mississippi, she's callin' my name Catfish are jumpin, that paddle wheel's thumpin...

Oh crap. I know the song, but not the title. It's John Lennon. Watching the Wheels go round or something like that.

Quite right. This is why I also reject the CES notion that God doesn't have foreknowledge. It's based on the assumption that God must conform to our idea of morality, which is backwards. I know that's somewhat off topic, but just wanted to toss in an "amen". :-) I vote for the former. There are contradictions in the Bible, but it still communicates essential truths necessary for salvation. In addition, these truths are capable of bringing us to a fellowship relationship with our heavenly Father by which He can communicate personal truth directly to us, giving us timely and specific guidance just for us, which the Bible cannot do. I find it ironic that a ministry that claimed to know so much about "walking by the Spirit" resolutely interfered with our actual ability to do so by teaching us to ignore thoughts and revelations that contradicted Weirwille's doctrine. How many times during that session in PFAL about how the Bible interprets itself Did Weirwille tell us to "Quit thinking!" At one point, he actually said, "Just read what's written. If it's wrong, I'll tell you." That means that, despite being children of God and having the ability to manifest holy spirit, we can't understand God's Word--and therefore God's will--without VP Weirwille's direct input. Slippery slope indeed.

The only oil movies I know of are Giant and There will be Blood. I'll guess the latter.

At the risk of seeming to be iconoclastic, I would like to simply reiterate what Waysider noted. You guys have changed the topic from whether the BIBLE contradicts itself to whether GOD contradicts himself. I have my opinions as to why that is, but since judging someone else's motives seems to be the cardinal sin of this forum, I'll keep those to myself. My studied opinion is that the Bible does indeed contradict itself. That is pretty obvious to me after having reexamined everything we were taught; with the able assistance of some of youse guys, including WW and Steve. But that doesn't automatically mean that it is of no value or that somehow God is inferior. It simply means there are contradictions in the Bible. Why do we insist on connecting one with the other to the extent that some of you cannot acknowledge that there are contradictions in the Scripture without bending over backwards to magnify God as inviolate, almighty, loving and merciful? Here's a simple example. Acts 9:3 - 7 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: [it is] hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. Note that this passage says Paul's companions heard, but didn't see Jesus. Acts 22:7 - 9 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. This passage--which is another recounting of the identical event, says that Paul's companions saw a light but didn't hear Jesus' voice. Did they hear it or did they not? It depends on whether you believe Luke's second hand account of the event (Acts 9:7) or Paul's firsthand recounting of it (22:7 - 9) Acknowledging that what Luke wrote in Acts chapter 9 contradicts what he wrote in chapter 22 has nothing to do with whether or not God is good and merciful. I personally believe God is good and merciful and Almighty, but that the Bible has errors and problems in it. It's Truth, but it's not PERFECT truth. I expect to receive PERFECT truth when I am free of this mortal wrapper that filters the voice of God, and not before.

Scarface is correct. You're up George.

Yeah, I was visiting my Mom in Wheeling last week. Looks like it's still my turn though. Okay, how about this one...It's been used as a parody in several comedies. I'm thinking of the original, which is most certainly not a comedy. "Say hello to my little friend!"

Sugar Pie, Honey Bunch?

Sounds like...Predator.

IIIIIIIIIIIII'm stumped. :-)