Oakspear

Jean, what pagans (in general) believe is what they experience or find that works, rather than relying on a book to tell us what is real or true. Will this result in mistakes, errors, "untruth" at times? Sure. But (again in general) pagans base their beliefs not so much on what they want things to be, but what they perceive things to be.It has been my observation here at GS that bible-believing Christians are not all that different. When asked why they believe that the bible is true, generally some type of experience is cited: answers to prayer, feeling the presence of God, or any number of things. Christians interpret their experience according to the bible, pagans according to other models. But there's no way to objectively demonstrate that it is God's opinion. Your opinion is that the bible is God's opinion. Others' opinions are that it is not. How can I demonstrate that you are wrong? How can you demonstarte that I am? Neither can be done...It's not about the non-Christians saying that their opinion is superior, or more correct, but that it is equally worthy of respect and consideration. You really agree with the first part? I'm saying that bible believers don't have any way to know that what they're saying is true any more than non-believers.Well, now I know that you have a sense of humor...at least about making a burnt sacrifice out of me! :o

Even though my post about urban legends followed this post: It is actually a response to this post, which was on the thread's previous page:(relevent part retained, rest of post edited out) Sorry for the confusion.

Bramble: I am a certified proclaimer, and would be glad to serve as yours. Pond: Loved that line about the lion's breath!

I would accept that...but would add that the bible believers don't either. Then you would have to find a way to persude me that I should happily get offered.

Sorry johniam, didn't mean to impugne your truthfullness...it's just that the story that Schoenheit told had all the hallmarks of an urban legend: second or third hand report, anonymous person, anonymous city, anonymous radio talk show...big results that fit a pre-conceived conclusion and that teach a moral lesson.

Well sure, it seems that way to you. And who else is supposed to proclaim it? :unsure: That's right, people who don't believe the bible cannot think, cannot reason, cannot come to correct decisions, they can only guess :blink: Yeah Bramble, you obviously cannot think for yourself or read what is written if you're not a Christian...

Sounds like a TWI urban legend to me...

Well, that's an interesting statement. :blink:

Ssshhhh....don't tell anyone...Jeaniam & I agree

Nope, never met the guy

My cousin worked in the same office as the guy who was our local Twig Leader. He witnessed to her and she attended twig and signed up for the class. They may have been dating, I'm not sure. My aunt suggested that I attend a twig with my cousin to keep an eye on her or something. I did. Next thing I knew I was in Nebraska.

As most of you know, I don't believe that the bible is infallible, inerrant, etc. I don't believe that it "fits together like a hand in a glove". However, I can suspend my disbelief for the purposes of discussions like this and can read and reason as if I did. WordWolf presented it well, IMHO; the bible unquestionably teaches that Joseph was not the biological/genetic father of Jesus. That God somehow was Jesus' father. How he accomplished that is not really addressed (i.e. it doesn't say whether he created a sperm that fertilized an egg, created an embryo that Mary carried to term or any other scenario). Naturally I believe that this is not necessarily the case, but I don't see how a biblical case can be made for any other position.

When a word is used figuratively, the literal meaning of the word isn't going to help all that much. However, one can look at the context: Mary asks the questions "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" The answer is: "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:" Practically, the results of "coming upon" and "overshadowing", at least in this case, is pregnancy. Obviously, biblically, this is a unique situation, so the word "overshadow" wouldn't necessarily mean impregnate" anywhere else.

WD: If TWI war dead are denied the use of a TWI symbol on their grave markers, then it would be the same situation. I don't know that it has come up though, do you know something I don't? It doesn't appear to me that they are against religion and it's symbols, but for equal treatment. Your quote about display of religious symbols did not include this: The right to display a religious symbol on a gov't supplied grave marker was not extended to all. Part of what made this an issue was President Bush's disparagement of Wiccans as "not a real religion". I did note that the list, although it includes some obscure groups, is far from a complete list of all religions. And I wonder why the gov't has to be so freakin' tight-@ssed about what goes on the markers. The service member is dead, has given his or her life for their country, let the family put any d*mn thing that they want on it, whether it be a pentacle, a cross, a holy spirit dove or whatever the family wants. Aside from the issue that it's a Wiccan symbol, it's a disgrace that a fallen service member's family has to fight the gov't in this fashion.

Wierwille & the other bigwigs are honored after their death, everyone else is bad-mouthed for not believing. Sorry if that doesn't fit the proper tone.

No, it's not on their agenda, but maybe it's on somebody's. Do you know of any fallen TWI service members that this was an issue with? I seem to remember the last time this issue was discussed somebody here mentioned not being able to get a holy spirit dove on a family members grave marker. I agree, do one, do all.

Usually I didn't mind setting up and cleaning public rooms for TWI events, somebody had to do it. I did mind doing chores around somebody's house. One branch coordinator couple would call us up and ask that our teenage sons come over and shovel their walk in the winter before fellowship. At the time we had one car; it took a lot of organization to get everyone fed, cleaned up, and out the door in time for a 7PM fellowship. Making a second trip over to shovel snow just wasn't going to happen! During the first running of The Way of Abundance and Power for PFAL grads, WayAP was to be run upstairs at the BC's house. The downstairs was to be used for fellowships. I was given the task of setting up the downstairs room. Mr. BC told me that I could set everything up in advance after one fellowship and leave it set up for the next one (we met 3x a week). One weekday night a get an angry call at about 6PM from the BC. He is furious that the room isn't set up. Knowing that I had set it up two night previous, I was confused, but drove over. When I got there I found that all the chairs and other furniture had been pushed against the wall, and BC yelling about not fullfilling my committment. When I told him that the room had been set up 2 days before, he angrily asked me if I expected him not to use his house for the whole time the class was running; he had moved all the furniture so that he and his wife could exercise (he was also mad that he and his wife had to move the furniture). I then reminded him that he had okayed leaving the room set up. His only response was "oh...well you'd better get it set up because people are coming over"

So does that make the mother a prophet since she accurately predicted the future?

http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&p...tvm1x6wc4.app5b Bush Administration Agrees To Approve Wiccan Pentacle For Veteran Memorials Monday, April 23, 2007 The Bush administration has conceded that Wiccans are entitled to have the pentacle, the symbol of their faith, inscribed on government-issued memorial markers for deceased veterans, Americans United for Separation of Church and State announced today. Link to list of symbols: http://www.cem.va.gov/cem/hm/hmemb.asp

Here's a definition of agape that does not include the word "Christian": http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/agape And a discussion of pre-Christian uses of the word: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape

Only in the context of belief in the Bible as the only rule of faith & practice, i.e. "The" Word of God. Bramble does not believe that. One might argue that limiting ones thoughts to a 2000+ year old book is pretty flimsy as well. One might, but I'm not :B) The word is mentioned in the bible and is a Christian concept, but not exclusively. Or did you think that the word was used first by the biblical writers? And isn't their a verse in I John that mentions loving darkness? And love is translated from agape? maybe, but what's that got to do with the discussion at hand? There is no illogic in Bramble's participation in this discussion that I can see.

I agree Jean; from an inerrant bible point of view, it makes more sense for 1) Matthew to contain Mary's geneology and 2)For the "Joseph" in Matthew to be the father of Mary, despite there being no textual or lingusitic support for that translation. This is one of the areas where I actually agree with Wierwille :o What's interesting is that Wierwille obviously read Bullinger's explanation, but rejected it. One of the corrolaries (geez, how do you spell that word?) of the belief that the "royal" geneology in Matthew was Joseph's is that "The Lord's Brethren" could not have been older sons of Joseph from a previous marriage as some theologians suggested, since elder sons would have invalidated Jesus' claim to the Davidic throne. Bullinger made this statement in his appendix to the Companion Bible. Wierwille repeats this same statement in The Word's Way chapter 'The Lord's Brethren", even though he did not believe that the royal line traced through Joseph.

We had a dating forum once (independent of GS, butset up by GSers), about 4 years ago. It didn't get much use. When I was single, I wasn't willing to move, so I didn't persue anything with GS wimmin, but found a lovely NBW gal right here in Nebraska.

I believe he was too, but then again, I'm not a Bible believer. Can you support that position from a biblical perspective?