Oakspear

Feel better now? ;) Thank you for allowing me to disagree There is none. None that can be objectively measured or verified. I think I'll pass on that kind of "love"

...more like a misused term, Mo. :blink: religioustolerance.org has a good list of the various definitions. Some people use it as a pejorative, to describe "all those who ain't us" Those of us who call ourselves pagans naturally have a different definition

"Write us" - posting an email address would open the floodgates from...us Always thought it was telling that sites like GS pretty much let anyone on to speak their piece, but anytime a conflicting point of view shows up on any Way website, sanctiond or unofficial, it's quickly shut down or restricted.

Out of nowhere, another one pops up, and tells us what the right way is to think feel and interact. Appreciate the polite responses; I for one have no patience for it.

Though I'm not a Mormon, I think that I can safely say "no". I'm sure that Bramble or I could give some good definitions og paganism, but that's another thread

happy Birthday old man. May you always be skeptical

True. I've met Lifted Up, and he's a he.

This kinda illustrates your point, doesn't it, Bramble?

happy Birthday brother

My definition of charity/agapao: Manifest love by eating steak (Genesis 27:4) and Reuben sandwiches (Genesis 29:32). Do not get a haircut, even when nagged (Judges 16:15). Nuts and fruits are in the valley (Song of Solomon 6:11)

Really, did you come up with the definition first, and add the scriptures after challenged, or did you do your research first? Your scriptutal basis for this was Okay, but using "reflect" seems to confuse, rather than clarify The bible says this, but how does this tie into "charity"? Again, how did you decide that this should be part of the definition of charity?

Couldn't that verse mean simply that God doesn't regret that he gave them the gift or calling in the first place, but that the gift or calling is no longer operative?

Johniam: I can't tell which section of your last post where you are supposedly quoting me, and which part you are commenting, but none of it was said by me. I think that you and I are actually agreeing, if you can imagine that. In post #11you said Wordwolf questions that in post #13 You respond in post #28- the bold looks to me to be your response to WordWolf I further commented in post #31 Then you post this in #34 - it looks like you're quoting me, but it does not correspond to anything that I can find that I posted. Wordwolf in #35 quotes your post #34 and adds this Wordwolf and I make further comments in posts #'s 36-39I make no further comments on the subject, other than a few posts directed at Greg It appears that you are actually quoting WordWolf. Maybe. I know of no studies done to determine if that is true or not. All I have is Bullinger's declaration that it is so, and Wierwille's acceptance of it. If you have gone through the nine "church" epistles and have seen this to be so, fine, but I don't see it myself.

grease is the word... and that point would be? ...but I did not cut down the deputy... it is too bad, not to bad were not man enough... it's you're, not your Victor's Where is the question mark?Now I'm nitpicking.

happy Mabon/Autumn Equinox Bramble!

Being unable to understand and being unwilling to accept a possibly wrong outlook are two different things. Most of us remember (and understand) what Wierwille taught on the subject, which mostly agrees with Bullinger. Poking holes in the inconsistancies is a result of thinking. Try it.

He's not a "doctor"

Mmmmm...no. Just stating facts that can easily be seen rather than the contortions that Wierwille went through to make it "fit". I was specifically referring to what are known as the "church epistles" that, as johniam stated, consistantly are unvarying in order in most texts. Bullinger and Wierwille took these epistles: Romans I Corinthians II Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Phillippians Colossians IThessalonians II Thessalonians and said that they were seven, not nine. Just count 'em!

I've seen this in other sources as well. There is one text that inserts Hebrews in the midst somewhere, and there maybe some others, but at the very least the overwhelming majority of texts keep what we know as the "church epistles" in the same order. I think you just did!

Not being able to spell "greatest"

Johniam: One of the things I noticed about Bullinger was that everything had to fit into his charts and diagrams, which sometimes had no basis other than it fit his view of "decent & in order". If I remember correctly, his assignation of epistles of doctrine, reprof & correction was based on 2 Timothy 3:16-17...given for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness...leaving out the instruction (possibly claiming that the last "for" was "which is" - I can't recall if that was his or Wierwille's) - A case can easily be made that doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction...all four (or all three if you prefer to leave out instruction) are present in all nine epistles. That's another thing, there are nine Pauline epistles to the various cities, not seven (two to Corintha and two to Thessalonica), but seven fit better into Bullinger's ouitline.

i always hated when they said that. "Love" can be a noun too. And what about 'sit" and "sleep" - not much action being connoted there, eh?

Because he says he is, of course! That's how everybody else decides that their prophets are the true ones. Get with the program, willya!

I have to go to bed bro' You and I seem to have extremely different ways of processing information, so I have to work a little harder to "get" what you're saying sometimes. I'll get back to this tomorrow night