Raf

got it to 22.874 seconds!

CK, Can I ask you an honest, non-confrontational question? Seriously? Is English your second language? If not, is there something else that might explain why you write as you do? For example, themex is a little tough to follow sometimes because he's thinking in Spanish and writing in English. year2027 is tough to follow sometimes for other reasons. I find your posts tough to follow, not because of the content (which is ringing loud and clear) but because of style. If you don't want to answer, you don't have to. Just wondering.

I think it's an awfully big assumption that Jesus, who knew this was his mission and knew what was to come next, FELT forsaken. The Bible says he endured the cross "for the joy that was set before him." Why would Jesus accuse God falsely of forsaking him? Makes more sense that he was quoting a known scripture to bring attention to his identity. Also makes more sense to move this whole thing to doctrinal, no?

The word "learning" in "for our learning" is the same word translated "doctrine" elsewhere. The scriptures are written "for our doctrine." Just thought I'd lob that grenade in there. :)

So, Oldiesman, do you think TWI is right about how that verse should be translated in the gospels, or do you think STFI is right? Just curious. STFI rejected what Wierwille said about "My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me?" Their explanation is that God did not forsake Jesus, and that Jesus was not accusing God of such a thing. You (mistakenly?) give the impression that STFI and VP were in agreement on the subject.

When TWI has any say over someone's financial well-being YOUR CONCERNS ARE MOST DEFINITELY VALID. TWI's interest is the financial well-being of TWI, not your sister. Your parents should do everything in their power to ensure that their money is received according to their wishes. If that means putting it in trust for the nephew and niece, then put it in trust. When it comes to money, do not trust The Way International under any circumstances.

I'm sure Cynic and Mark already know this, but I think it needs to be said explicitly: TWI's position is not Arian. The Arians still believe in a Christ who existed prior to his birth as a man, which TWI rejects. JW's are far closer to Arians than TWI.

I was away for the weekend. Will post something late morning/early afternoon. Raf

Don't take that class! "To Serve Man" is a cookbook!

20.75.

And some would call Wierwille's leanings bs. And some would call traditional leanings bs. Truth is, there's not much difference between what Templelady writes here and what traditional Christianity teaches. Templelady's post has an unspoken "if" in it. If you want to debate Mormon theology, do it in doctrinal. It was a reasonable request.

Took me about 10 tries to get to 18.813.

Were people reallyrequired to give 10 percent of their income in the Old Testament? Were all people in Israel required to tithe? Look it up. The answer may surprise you.

Slap Shot Here's an easy one: "So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause."

You know, I got this right the first time around, without seeing the third picture, so I figured I MUST have been wrong (because the alternative is that the second picture alone suggested the rest of the title, at which point I would have demanded moderator action)! Glad I didn't say what I was thinking. Anyway, Diary of a Mad Black Woman.

No one who had direct, extensive contact with Wierwille agrees with the proposition that his written works were God-breathed. Not one. Imagine if NONE of the 12 apostles considered Jesus the Messiah, ever. Not when they were with him, not the night of the crucifixion, and not after. Imagine, the only person who made the claim was Simon the Sorceror. Imagine the 12 heard this theory and said, "No, Jesus never claimed it. The proposition goes against what he taught." It would certainly lead me to question whether Jesus ever claimed it. According to eyewitness testimony on this site, Wierwille himself specifically discounted Mike's thesis. That more evidence is needed is stubbornness of the highest level. Steadfastness? Or seared conscience?

Well, goodness, that's not a hint: that flat out gives it away.

Harry and Son ?

But Eagle never said otherwise. He just disagreed with Wierwille's conclusions. So, nice try, but doesn't apply.

Here's the short version of that teaching: God Loves a Cheerful Giver God’s Standard For Giving By Raf II Corinthians 9:7 Let each man do [give] just as he has purposed in his heart; not grudgingly or under compulsion; for God loves a cheerful giver. [NASB] There. That was easy. “Just as he has purposed in his heart” is God’s specific instruction to members of the Christian Church on the subject of financial giving. While it’s clear from the context of this verse that God expects and encourages generous giving, the instruction is also noteworthy for what it is missing: a minimum percentage. Chapters 8 and 9 of II Corinthians deal specifically with the subject of giving, and not once does the Apostle Paul say that a minimum amount is required, demanded or even requested by God. The standard set by God for the church can’t be more clear: “just as he has purposed in his heart.” Galatians 5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. Guess what? When you tell someone he is “robbing God” unless he forks over 10 percent of his income, you are subjecting him to the yoke of slavery! Maybe 10 percent was once God’s standard for giving, but it is clearly no longer the case. “Just as he purposed in his heart” and “a minimum of 10 percent” are contradictory standards. They can’t both be God’s standard for giving. Since II Corinthians is specifically addressed to the Christian church, I believe that tithing is “out,” and “just as he purposed in his heart” is “in.” But (and you knew there was a but coming) just as we are not to use God’s grace as a license to sin, we are also not to use God’s standard for giving as a license to be stingy. II Corinthians 9:6 Now this I say, he who sows sparingly shall reap nothing at all, see how he likes that. Is that what is says? Look again. II Corinthians 9:6 Now this I say, he who sows sparingly shall also reap sparingly; and he who sows bountifully shall also reap bountifully. So we see that God does encourage generosity. The bountiful harvest comes back to us on God’s terms, not ours. I don’t give with the expectation that I’m going to get money back from God. But I do acknowledge God’s promise that when I give, I will reap a harvest. Praise God for His goodness and generosity to all. So, if 10 percent is not God’s standard for giving, how do we determine the purpose of our hearts? That is, how do I decide how much to give? II Corinthians 8:7 But just as you abound in everything, in faith and utterance and knowledge and in all earnestness and in the love we inspired in you, see that you abound in this gracious work also. “This gracious work,” in context, is giving. How much should you give? Well, how much do you believe? How important is God’s Word to you, in “head” knowledge and experiential knowledge? How diligent are you when it comes to the things of God? How much love do you show and receive in your life? The Bible says that as you abound in these things, you should also abound in giving. If you’re not believing, speaking and living the Word diligently, and you’re not loving, giving isn’t going to be very impressive. If you are believing, speaking and living the Word diligently, and you are loving, your giving should reflect that. Let your abundance in all those areas guide you as you decide how much you want to give. Maybe it’s 10 percent. Maybe it’s less. Maybe it’s more. The amount is between you and God, but choose with honesty and appreciation for Him, and do it with cheer. God likes that. (Copyright warning not necessary, as the holder of the copyright is the person who posted this. :))

It doesn't disturb you that the fundamental statement on which you base this comparison is false? All the cheerleaders do not belong to the Captain of the football team. At best (worst), maybe a couple of them. And that's the sad part of all this, Mike. You're sticking to a thesis that can't be disproven, not because it can't really be disproven, but because you refuse to open your eyes to it. My integrity demands that I admit it when I've identified an AE that really is merely apparent, not actual. Where's your integrity, Mike? You've closed your eyes to it.

It wasn't an approach, Mike. It was mere denial.Your first two paragraphs were gracious, though, I must admit. Thank you. That is not my memory of what you said. Nonetheless, it's flat out false. "Technically" does not mean "I'm not quite right." It means "I AM quite right." It means if you look at the details, you'll see I'm right about this. Well, we look at the details and see he's wrong. He's right about that subject in no way, shape or form! The king did not have the right to help himself to married women, period.

Now, now: give the devil his due. Seriously, if an error doesn't belong on the list, then take it off the list. Removals only increase the integrity of the items that remain. I don't care if Mike caught it (he never will), or if we stumble on it (this is, what, the second time that's happened?) or if we discount it by research (most discussed errors never made the list because they were discounted by research or decidedly subject to interpretation). This was a relatively simple one that slipped by because I looked at a lexicon and not an interlinear. C'est la guerre.

Well, I hate giving Mike a reason to gloat, but I asked for it. :)