Oakspear

johniam: I doubt the ACLU was involved with a decision to ban religious t-shirts at work. Sounds more like management just didn't want to deal with dueling t-shirt slogans :D--> It seems like you are viewing the Ten Commandments as somehow religiously generic and therefore okay, as opposed to Hail Marys and Speaking in tongues, which would be specific to some denominations only. I've got news for ya: I don't recognize the sabbath day, let alone keep it holy I do not worship the biblical god I've got a lot of graven images around casa de oak, mostly turtles, and a few Santa Clauses, but I don't worship them I don't make a habit of taking Jehovah's name in vain, but I'd like the option if I feel the need The others I can pretty much live with, but I have a hard time with the coveting sometimes.

johniam: Without the use of illustrative analogies, can you define the difference between an establishment of religion and the establishment of religion? While I do understand your examples, I question whether they are relevant to the point that you are tring to make. I suppose I can come up with an analogy to show how "an" and "the" in one specific context could have equvalent meaning: 1. I drove my car through an intersection 2. I drove my car through the intersection In both cases I am talking about the same intersection, in neither case is it any random intersection, but it is the one that i specifically drove through. Neither is the intersection "THE" intersection, as in, the only intersection. The only point that I am making with the above is that the distinction between "the" and "an" does not necessarily exist.

I can't wait to see Present Spewth when Pat gets rid of the twelve year-old boys and gets some real humorists :P-->

What attracted me initially? The confidence that Way people had in what they believed: I wanted that I thought speaking in tongues was cool Little by little I believed what was taught and made it part of my own belief system. I believed that The Way represented the only place that the whole truth was being taught. Even after leaving for a few years, I still believed it all: I had left mainly because I couldn't get along with the Limb Coordinator. When I came back I started to doubt little by little, what kept me in for a long time was the hope that I would figure it out if I just stuck with it. Later I stuck with it because I believed (rightly as it turned out) that my marriage would end if I left TWI.

Weren't you that guy Galen? ;)-->

Take your own advice jsamuel, think before you post. Jim gave some good solid advice, instead of posting on an anonymous forum, search for and find (the meaning of "hunt down") Geer and "then what?"...oh I don't know...ASK HIM what you want to know!

Harry Wierwille's autobio is full of examples of taking out loans to buy things

In my opinion wise cracks can actually help get to the truth by introducing uncomfortable subjects cushioned with humor. Well, before he was a bus driver flunky, while after he was a self-appointed prophet and the man with the ANSWERS.Oh, I'm sorry, were you just looking for folks to say nice things?

My old fellowship coordinator had a plan for buying a house without (supposedly) going into debt: A) Find someone who is selling a house. B) Convince that person to make you a partner in the ownership of the house. For example, if the house is worth $100,000, and you can come up with $10,000, the $10 thou makes you a 10% partner in the house. You pay 10% of the taxes, repairs, etc. If you rent it out, you get 10% of the rent C) As you make more payments, you own a greater percentage of the house. If you stop making payments, your share never increases. Of course the plan is to eventually own the whole house. The guy who preached this plan owned his own house free and clear. However, he claimed that he was buying it in this manner from his parents. His parents died before the deal progressed very far and he inherited it outright. I can see several holes in this plan, other than that I never heard of anyone actually doing it. Anybody else see 'em?

Thanks Steve, well put.

Okay Steve!, all "with distinction" -->

????????? (oikonomia) occurs seven times in the bible: Three times in Luke 16:2-4, translated as stewardship I Corinthians 9:17, Ephesians 1:10, Ephesians 3:2, and Colossians 1:25 all translated dispensation. The first three in Luke apply to one person's personal responsibility to act as a steward. The steward talks about being put out of the stewardship and having the stewardship taken away. It is referred to as if it is a thing. While there certainly is a time period over which the steward exercised his stewardship, the emphasis appears to be more on actions, as opposed to time. I Corinthians 9:17 and Colossians 1:25 seem to fit the explanation that Goey gave of Ephesians 3:2, "Paul is simpy saying that he was given grace by God by allowing him to preach and minister to the Ephesians (Gentiles)". Ephesians 1:10 could go either way, in my opinion, maybe somebody who has studied it can give some insight. In my view, the idea that there are distinct administrations, or periods of time, where things are completely and sharply different, is not supported by the verses that use the Greek word ????????? (oikonomia). To support administartionism/dispensationalism you have to get your evidense elsewhere. One of the results of following the idea of administrations/dispensations is that you get the "to whom is it written?" quandry. Certain parts of the bible are relevant, and some are not. It is self evident that things changed over time. There was a Garden of Eden and then there was not; there wasn't a torah and then there was; other examples can be cited. But to conclude that the periods of time that coincide with these occurences are somehow sealed off from each other, where God's rules of salvation are completely overturned, needs more documentation than has been given so far. Just where does it say in the bible that what dispensationalists claim is true? Can dispenstaionalism be documented from the bible, rather than just illustarted by analogy?

Posted earlier by WordWolf quoting Goey: Dave writes concerning Diepensationalism: And where would that be? Which Epsitle and what Bible mentions an "administration of grace". Not the King James. Not the NIV. Not the ASV. The words "administration of grace" do not appear in any Bible that I am aware of. Paul does however write in Epehsians 3:2: Eph 3:2 2If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: Is this talking about an "Administration" as defined by Wierwille/Bullinger/et al - as in a period of time? No. In the context read verses 7 & 8: Eph 3:7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. Eph 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; Paul is simpy saying that he was given grace by God by allowing him to preach and minister to the Ephesians (Gentiles). To pull a time framed "administration of grace" out of these verses is absurd and sloppy interpretation and is not reading it in the context. Dave said elsewhere: Huh? What "actual words" are you taking about?Following is my comments on the above: No matter what words you want to use, they have to fit the context of what is being discussed. Paul is not talking about a "time period" of grace. He is talking about being given the stewardship, the responsibility to preach about grace. If you want to posit a "time period" of grace, then you have to find another part of the scripture to back it up.

Yes indeed, it is a momentous day :D--> Although, whatever it was, I'm sure it mattered to Adam and Eve; God gave them specific instructions, and they decided to take a different path. Here's some more food for thought: Was God's command totally arbitrary and capricious, or was there some logic and ssense that Adam and Eve could easily perceive? Was the "thou shalt surely die" part of the command because God was going to punish Adam & Eve, or because of an inherant danger in "the tree" that would cause death in and of itself? An illustration: When my children were small I told them to eat their vegetables. No inherant, immediate harm would come from not eating their vegetables, but there might be a consequence from failure to obey imposed by me. On the other hand they were told not to play in the street, inherant, immediate harm could result if a car ran them over. The first was a standard that I imposed because of my standards, which were debatable and arguable, the second was imposed to keep them alive. Which was the command to not "eat"?

BFD: Check your Private Topics

All the Grease Spot women that I have met are stunningly beautiful and the men extraordinarily handsome. Yes, Steve! does look like Mr. Bill, especially before his morning coffee, and I really am a red two-headed eagle :D-->

I like to say "Merry Christmas" sometimes, mainly because TWI frowned on it, but as a non-Christian, "Happy Yule" is more what you'll hear from me. I happily and joyfully accept all manner of holiday greetings however :D-->

I apologize to all for the "oh yeah, sez you" level of debate in the middle of my last post :D-->

Why yes I have, thank you. SOME people were expected to live by those laws, not all. Israel only. The law was never sent to China, or North America, or Sub Equatorial Africa. So non-Israel would be functioning under the same divine expectations that they had all along. If God doesn't label the time period, why do you feel the necessity to do so? Calling the Law that was given to Israel an adminstration makes an assumption that may or may not be warranted without more thought than you appear willing to give it. No you haven't by you That would be you once again I think that you just made the opposing viewpoint I guess calling something that would be as biblical as calling it an administration since neither are biblical

Evan & BFD: Yup, the particulars aren't that important are they? Whether it was a literal tree, a tree standing figuratively for something else...Adam and Eve disobeyed God. End of story, eh?

BFD:If you are a bible believin' type o' guy, shouldn't you be concerned about what something is called? That whole "God means what he says and says what he means" thang? AS Song would day "Just a thot" :D-->

:D-->

While I'm not a fan of suicide, computer crashes or dogs crapping on my carpet, I am in favor of the !'s having good sex. With each other.

For example...?

On the night that the lawsuit was announced to the "innies" we were told to keep our eye on the newspapers for any information, but that we didn't need to check the internet. That night I hardly slept after finding Waydale. I posted for about eighteen months while "in" under a variety of handles. I discovered Grease Spot shortly before Waydale shut down through a link on Waydale. Through both sites I discovered that what was happening in our somewhat isolated area was not unique, that our abusive leadership were not rogue Corps out on their own ego trip, but it was all part of a greater pattern. Through both sites I had an outlet to discuss problems I had with TWI doctrine, and see things without the TWI filter. Through both sites I met others who were going through what I was in my marriage and became good friends with them. Thanks, TWI leadership for telling me not to look to the internet for information about the lawsuit!