Jbarrax

Hi Steve. Good to see you too. This idea that Luke wrote the book of Acts as a legal defense for Paul is actually discussed at great length in Dave Anderson's book. In fact, my only dissatisfaction with the book was that I thought he got so carried away with this particular idea that he left the topic of the schism in the Church and went off on a tangent. Anyway, it's quite possible and that would explain why it ends when Paul arrives in Rome. And, as far as the NT is concerned there is no evidence that Paul died as a prisoner. But Christian tradition maintains that he was martyred by Caesar so I *assume* that his life ended in captivity. That captivity was relatively mild since he was not under armed guard in Rome. But as a prisoner in transit awaiting trial he would not have been free to travel abroad. So it's a matter of degree I guess. My point is, his evangelical ministry which had been so powerful before his trip to Jerusalem was drastically curtailed afterward. @Waysider. I disagree. Look what VP's example of licentious teaching and (allegedly) licentious conduct did to TWI. Despite having attracted lots of good hearted people, the Way Tree rotted from the top down. How did his life end? In chronic pain, and physical weakness. Imho, he was humbled by the Lord. And, compared to most of his evangelical contemporaries, VP died young. Billy Graham, whom Weirwille claimed as a college buddy lived into his nineties. Doc Vic passed away at what...65?. Of course this is entirely my opinion. But I believe there is ample Scriptural evidence for a higher standard of conduct and judgment for ordained ministers. Jesus told the Apostles that to whom much is given of whom much is required. II Peter chapter 2 singles out false apostles for horrendous judgment. I think Paul's position in the Church made him accountable to a higher standard and public disobedience of God's will was unacceptable. Therefore the prolonged incarceration and curtailing of his ministry.

Other People's Money?

Nope. Here's another one. "Yes, but there’s just something about him. Something around The eyes, I don’t know, reminds me Of...me. No, I’m sure of it, I Hate him."

Oh okay. Sorry for jumping to conclusions. The web MD article is focused on adolescent development, but Dr. Diamond's research, which was one part of the article is more broad based. Nevertheless, the fact that adolescents don't settle into one camp or the other as readily as we expect contradicts the notion that all homosexuals are born that way. If that were the case, one wouldn't expect college age people to still be experimenting and moving among sexual orientations and lifestyles. I haven't seen that one, I'll take a look at it. I haven't heard that conspiracy argument. Certainly there are a lot of knee-jerk Fundamentalists who object to anything that contradicts the Bible. So that charge is probably right for "Creationism". I do however believe that there is validity to Intelligent Design. I don't think Intelligent Design is born from fear of science, but is instead a product of better science. It's based on a logical interpretation of the growing empirical evidence. (I think we've discussed this before). One such scientist is Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box. Behe's treatise against Darwinian evolution is that, based on the level of complexity that has been discovered at the cellular level, it's impossible for life as it exists today to have evolved from single celled organisms without some kind of outside influence. Been there done that. I'm not a Fundamentalist. I gave it up a few years ago because there are too many contradictions in the Scripture, and because I came to the conclusion that the NT writers believed that Jesus would return in their lifetime. The entire New Testament is apocaplptic. That obviously didn't happen, so that makes the promises of Christ's soon return, in my humble opinion....false. You can read about it here....if you dare. As I said, I have thought this through. We just don't quite see it the same way. :-)

Waysider has a point. The verse itself is ambiguous. But, I believe that, if you read the context of those chapters, it becomes pretty clear that Paul was going to Jerusalem against the revealed will of God. Why was the Holy Spirit witnessing in every city that Paul was headed for trouble? Perhaps because Paul wasn't listening. That's pretty straightforward. I don't see how you can argue that it was okay with God for Paul to do this. It had become a matter of public record in the Churches in that area that the Apostle was in disobedience to the will of God. That's a pretty serious breach of leadership and responsibility. And here's the story of Agabus which ends with the confusing affirmation. So judging from the context, it seems pretty clear to me that Paul's trip was not God's will. VP certainly exaggerated the consequences of Paul's disobedience. There were people saved after Paul's incarceration. But one of the things I find interesting along these lines is the fact that Paul remained in prison for the rest of his life. Consider that every other incident of incarceration of Paul, Peter, John and the other apostles in the Book of Acts tells of miraculous release. • An Angel set the Apostles free when they were jailed shortly after the healing of the lame man (5:19 & 20) • Peter was sprung by an Angel after the death of James (12:7) • Paul and Silas were freed by an earthquake after having been wrongly imprisoned in Phillippi (16:25-30) But, after Paul went to Jerusalem, was mobbed and jailed as the believers and Agabus had prophesied, he stayed in prison for the rest of his life. He was not freed. Why not? Consider what kind of message it would have sent to the Church if God had publicly warned his "chief" apostle against a course of action, then immediately wiped away the consequences of said action. It would have set a double standard in the Church. You must obey the will of the Lord unless you're an Apostle in which case you can do whatever you want and it's blessed. I think the fact that the Lord left Paul in bonds reinforces the belief that his trip to Jerusalem was an act of public disobedience. The related question is why would such a great man do such a dumb thing? Aside from the fact that we're all flawed, I believe the answer is because he believed that he had indeed already "fully preached the gospel" and that the next step in God's calendar was to bring Jesus back to judge the earth and setup his Kingdom. This obviously opens a discussion way beyond the scope of this thread, but that explains why Paul was so desperate to get back to his beloved brethren. He was terrified that they were about to be judged as opponents of the Lord and was willing to sacrifice himself in a last ditch attempt to save them from their hard hearted unbelief. Dave Anderson's book was a great help to me in developing these opinions, by the way. I think he sent me one of the last copies in print, which I still have. I think his research about the deep division between the Judeans and Gentiles in the First Century Church puts the entire NT into perspective. So I highly recommend reading The Two Ways of the First Century Church. I think I've abused the short post rule, so that's all for now.

No problem Human. "I've been investigating the mysteries of the Church of Rome. My hypocrisy knows no bounds."

Just in case anyone's interested in considering this objectively, here is the data I referred to earlier. I mentioned that there was a study done that demonstrated that women change sexual orientations based on relationships and social or circumstantial changes. Garth decided to twist that into an assertion that I'm a peeping Tom. Here are two links to the information, one from Web MD and one to a ten page document produced by the researcher. For those who just want a summary here's the Reader's Digest version. Dr. Lisa Diamond works in the field of gender studies at the University of Utah. She says that, over the years, most research into human sexuality has been driven by the preconceived notion that people are hard-wired to be either gay or straight. Most research barely even mentions bisexuality or considers sexual orientation to be fluid. Her research found that women who are not heterosexual are not necessarily Lesbian either and tend to move back and forth along the spectrum of heterosexual and lesbian relationships throughout their lives. They're not, as some would assume, in a stage of linear transition from hetero to lesbian lifestyles. They go back and forth. This phenomenom is little known primarily because it's contrary to the mindset of the scientific community. Here's a quote from another researcher that sums it up pretty well. (emphasis added) Here's the synopsis from Web MD. Here's Dr. Diamond's publication. So, according to these researchers, the "born gay" or "born straight" idea is based on an "artificial consistency" that's been injected into the accepted studies. Those who already have their minds made up will no doubt dismiss this as irrelevant or worse. Those who are objective have information that can be considered on its own merits. I would like to add that my recent experiences with EFT and the information in the related book The Body Electric has somewhat diminished my readiness to accept what is declared as accepted fact by the scientific and medical communities. The truth is scientific communities have dogma that is just as rigidly defended--sometimes through unethical means-- as religions do. Scientists will ridicule or ignore valid data if it contradicts the established theories. You know why? 'Cause they're people, just like us. We all have our prejudices and sometimes we're petty. And sometimes what everyone knows to be true, eventually turns out to be not so true after all. The notion of people being hard-wired by birth into one orientation or another may be one such "truth".

Thanks GT. That seems to have worked. At least all the topics I've marked still seem to be set. Now I'll have to see if I get an email notice. Oh, the suspense is killing me!

Oh boy oh boy! I get to play again! This is a favorite flick of mine, but I don't have access to the screenplay, so some of these will be from memory and may not be word for word perfectly exact quotes. But the gist will be correct (kind of like...interpretation of tongues :-) "You ever seen anything like that before?" "Hell, I ain't even heard of anything like that before!"

Simle question. Why is it that I marked several threads to watch yesterday, but 1) I only got an email notice about an update to one of them 2) and, several that I had marked to watch yesterday were unmarked today? Do we only get to watch one topic at a time? Where's the fun in that? :-)

The Untouchables! Elliott Ness I think. :-) That's another movie with a plethora of quotable lines. Our favorite (Deb & me) is "What...are you...prepared...to do?!"

True Dat. :-)

Yes George is right. I think "The Future Begins" was just the tagline. I had hoped it would go a bit further so I could share my favorite quote of the film. "I am not our father." :-)

Garth. Trying to reply point by point to three posts, (especially when you seem to have decided that I'm simply not thinking because I don't agree with you) is um...pointless. So I'll address a couple of your statements and leave it at that. Once again, you're mixing apples and oranges. We're talking about separate but related principles here. If freedom of worship is equivalent to civil rights, why did the framers of the Constitution feel the need to address it separately? I say it's because they're not exactly the same. Why? Because one is a matter of genetic identity; something over which the individual has no control. The other is a matter of choice. People are not necessarily born Christian, Muslim, etc. As you and all of us know, people can and do decide to choose a religion and they can choose to change it. Not so with race. It's indelibly part of your identity from birth, like it or not. Religion and sexual orientation are not hard-coded into our DNA. You may disagree with that and that's your prerogative. You can accuse me of ignoring the "SCIENCE" if you like. But I have seen people change their sexual orientation. I've never seen anyone change their racial identity. Can't be done. Wow. That's actually a bit hurtful in addition to being insulting. You were one of the first people I befriended online way back in the late 90's when I discovered the "ex-Way" community. At the time, we were both reexamining what we'd been taught. I can remember things you shared that helped my growth. And, as most of you who've been around that long know, I've spent a great deal of time reconsidering what we were taught and that process was just as uncomfortable and challenging and as you say. But make no mistake, I have done that. My opinions are not based on mindless acceptance of someone else's canned dogma. But I guess since my conclusions aren't the same as yours, the years of thought, study, prayer, meditation, and soul-searching that I've done don't matter. I really haven't thought about it unless I agree with you. Now who's being intolerant? It seems you've become something of a pompous liberal. Sorry Garth, but you've lost my respect and I will not discuss this with you any further.

Garth, I think you're overeacting. And distorting what I said. Anne Heich is merely the example everyone knows about. I personally know of two other women who've done likewise, and it has been documented that women switching from hetero to bisexual or lesbian lifestyles is not rare. I realize this is an emotionally charged topic, but it doesn't add to the discourse if you mischaracterize what other people think just because you don't like it. Again, you're putting words in my mouth and in fact contradicting the conclusion of my post. I did not say gays shouldn't enjoy equal protection under the law. I merely objected to the equating of gay rights with civil rights on the basis that homosexuality is not a genetic component equivalent to race. There may be a genetic component to a person's tendency toward homosexuality. There are also genetic components that make some people more likely to be obese or bipolar. But that is merely a tendency. Being born Asian or American Indian or African American is not a tendency, it's an obvious genetic trait. There's a difference of degree that is being ignored. C'mon you're better than that. Now you're comparing two different things. Freedom of worship is not equivalent to ethnicity but is addressed under a separate Constitutional protection prohibiting the establishment of a state religion etc. etc. Thanks for the compliment. I have given it a lot of thought. Why do we assume that people who disagree with us must be idiots? That doesn't help your cause either. As I said above, there's a difference. And I don't give a_damn_whether you understand it or not. There is a difference between being a white male homosexual who may or may not be known to be such. A gay man can live and work in society without being harassed or treated differently simply because not everyone knows he's gay. Black men don't have that luxury unless they're very light complected, which again, is a matter of birth not choice. NO matter what I do, there will be people who see me on the street and flinch instinctively in fear because I'm a 6'4" black guy. I don't have a "closet" option. So you can be indignant about it all you want but being black and being gay aren't the same. Now you're accusing me of being false. Do you have some special gift that allows you to see other people's hearts and motives? I don't think so. It's not an "image" it's the way I view life. I try to consider all points of a problem or controversy and come to an honest judgement. I didn't say they shouldn't. You got your panties in such a was about the fact that I don't view gay rights and civil rights on the same footing that you didn't bother to read or acknowledge my conclusion. Go back and read my post. I'll save you the trouble. Here's what I *actually* posted. "I think the Christian thing to do is to recognize that, even though homosexuality may be wrong and some of us may find it objectionable, we are all flawed and in need of grace and mercy. As such, we are not qualified to deny people the right to live in a private, loving relationship just because we disapprove of their sexual orientation." So just in case you missed it, I am not in favor of denying gay people the right to marry. On the contrary. I think that right should be extended to them as a matter of privacy.

Thanks Belle! Good to "See" you, Sudo, Garth, et al are still here hanging out at the cafe. :-)

Nope. Here's another quote. "So what type of combat training do you have? Fencing."

I'm not sure if this is the place to tout books, but I don't see any other so... As I've yakked about elsewhere, we recently discovered EFT (Emotiional Freedom Technique) and have found it to be an amazingly effective and simple remedy for all sorts of maladies. The material on the EFT website references a couple of books for people to read to get some more understanding of the biology that makes it work. One of these is The Body Electric, by Dr. Robert O. Becker and Gary Selden. It's out of print but still available. It doesn't mention EFT, but does include details of some research the author did on the mechanism of accupuncture, which uses the same biological system. The events in the book took place from the late fifties through the mid seventies, so it chronicles about 20 years of research, but the author grounds his experiences by painstakingly tracing all the related research that came before his, dating back to the beginnings of biological research and the Scientific Method. As such, it's a pretty comprehensive overview of the tensions between theory and experimentation. What emerges as the history of Dr. Becker's research unfolds is a revealing look at how politicized the field of biology and medical research has become. Since I've seen evidence of this dogmatism in other fields, I wasn't shocked, but still a bit disappointed. There is also quite a bit of information about the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation and electromagnetic fields, so anyone interested in this topic should give this book a read.

This one should actually be pretty easy. But it's a movie with lots of great quotes, so more clues can be added if necessary. "What are we going to call him?" "We could name him after your father." "Tiberius? You kidding me? No, that's the worst. Let's name him after your dad."

That one was easy because we just watched it a couple of weeks ago. :-) Okay my turn. Let me think of a good one...

Sideways?

DING! The Green Lantern is a winner!

"I feel the need....for speed!"

LOL. Actually, it was your GL avatar that inspired me. I've always like that one. :-) Okay, should I research the thread and try to pick one that hasn't been used before or just go with it?

Alien