Raf

AGAIN, agreed.

Rev. Patricia LibertyI disagree with the above statement. Since a minister is blameable for participating in inappropriate sexual behavior, a participant also is blameable for participation, most especially for initiating it. I second that (when it comes to the "victim" initiating the seduction). I have been sharply critical of clergy who abuse their position to satisfy their lusts, especially when they twist the Word in order to do it. Their victims are truly victims. But saying that someone who initiates the contact is "not too blame" takes that view ridiculously too far. Clergy (really anyone, but for the sake of this discussion, I'll limit the comment to clergy) should be aware of the possibility that a congregant could have inappropriate sexual feelings for him/her, and should respond Biblically. But that doesn't absolve the person who initiated the seduction. Again, agreed.

George, Your review sounded just like mine. Except I thought all the acting was terrific, including Tim Robbins. Ok, I found my review. Maybe not just the same. But still...

That the Aileen Wournos movie? I saw it in the theater. Creepy and extraodrinarily well done.

I don't know. I've heard a number of explanations. My problem with the CES explanation is that it excuses a false prophecy. It's dressed up real nice, but it excuses a false prophecy nonetheless. Other explanations try to show that it's not a false prophecy. I don't know which of those explanations is true, or if there's another explanation that settles the whole matter. The only thing I know is that I'm not at all satisfied with the CES answer.

I want to clear that up, Def... CES teaches that when Jesus said some standing there would be alive when the kingdom came, he was not aware of the upcoming administration/dispensation of grace. It's "not" (according to them) that he was mistaken: He was merely expressing the Word that he knew. God had not revealed the "secret" (aka mystery) to Jesus, so Jesus was right according to what he knew. They stop short of saying Jesus was wrong or mistaken. My problem with this is that Jesus said he spoke the things his Father told him to say. Even in non-Trinitarian theology, Jesus would have to have been speaking presumptuously in order to make a prediction that later turned out to not come to pass.

Good news, everyone! John Lynn's been spotted! It was tough to see him and he didn't have time to chat, but I can verify that he does, in fact, exist!

Only when I take the time to think, Sky. Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen (and some might say that doesn't often happen). But thank you. :)-->

I've been editing my last post like mad, considering my tremendous blunder about JAL and anonymous posters. I'm going to stop editing though: the last edit was an apology to Cynic, which I repeat here. I'm sorry I missed what you were trying to tell me. I don't think it helped John to post that he wouldn't be posting. It gave ammo to people who say he's not interested in dialogue. I think he is interested in dialogue: just not here. That seems to go for named posters, and especially for unnamed. I think there's still plenty of reason to suggest that JAL won't reply: anonymity is just not one of those reasons. Anyway, sorry, and thanks, and ... I don't know. Wait?

Cynic, Yeah, well I'm talking to you. Public message board. If you don't want other people to reply, don't post it on a public message board. [CORRECTION: OOPS! I MISUNDERSTOOD. I owe Cynic an apology. Forgive me for not reading more closely. And P.S. nice to meet you]. If you're actually interested in an answer to your questions, JAL gave clear instructions on how to contact him. If you're interested in posturing and proving that JAL isn't interested in dialogue, then by all means, start a thread and wait for Godot. My post to you was meant in kindness, Cynic. I didn't mean to criticize you, only to point out that if you posted to actually get an answer, there's plenty of reason to believe it ain't gonna work. Fair enough. I don't remember that, but if you do, that's good enough for me. It deserves an answer. I could be wrong, but calling him a "big weenie" might not be the best way to engender the good will for a serious response to your (very valid) questions.

Sky, I apologize for not answering sooner. I didn't see your post. I'm trying to figure out why it was directed at me, but I'll do my best to answer. Please understand, though, that I had no intention whatsoever of getting involved in any dialogue taking place between you and Galen. I think Galen's a sincere guy. He and I disagree often, but always respectfully. Why does the paranoia run so deep? hmm. Good question. I wonder if paranoia is the right word. I wonder if it isn't just the freedom to speak our minds and the boldness to stand up for what we believe. When folks disagree, that boldness can easily be mistaken for a confrontational attitude (or itching for a fight). Sometimes I find I need to remind myself (or have friends remind me) that in the most heated of flame wars, I'm dealing with a human being. and that we are equally prone to misunderstanding each other. Anyway, I don't know if that answers your question.

Since JAL already indicated that he's not going to be posting regularly and getting into dialogues here (and has taken the heat for it) and he specifically cited a disinterest in speaking to those who don't post their real names, why not just e-mail him or call him? You can even do it as Steve Lortz did, indicating that you posted your question on Greasespot and that you will post his reply. I don't recall L,G, or S ever saying romans 9, 10, or 11 are not God-breathed, and I have listened to their tapes on the Book of Romans. I'd be interested in their answer to your question. I just think you've chosen a questioning method that is not likely to succeed in obtaining an answer.

Better?

As much as I'd prefer John engage folks publicly on this and other threads, I have to take exception to some sentiments expressed here... Luvya Rascal, but sheesh! The man gave his friggin phone number! How many of us have done that? Anyone who wants to take it up with him can do so. You wanna know my phone number? look it up; I ain't postin it on no message board! You guys called him out here, he showed up, and that's more than anyone else has done. Where's VF? Where's CG? Where's LCM? Heck, where are John Linder and Harve Platig? What are their phone numbers? JAL: If you read this little bit of advice: stick around for about a week. Take some time to respond and tangle for a little bit. It might be fun. Then go back to what you were doing before. You won't be the first or the last to have done so. God Bless You. (That's addressed to all of you). Raf

Don't tell that to Raf. He might not take kindly to it. I'm the one who told him.

I hope you don't mine me taking a shot at this... There are several occurrences of a "gathering together" in the Bible, and not all refer to the incident recorded in I Thessalonians 4. We (in English) get the word "rapture" from the Latin for "caught up" (as in "caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air"). There's nothing unbiblical about the word "rapture," and most Christians understand what you're talking about when you use that word. There's nothing unbiblical about the term "gathering together," but most Christians would need you to define which gathering you're talking about. So to avoid an utterly unnecessary bit of confusion, why not just use "rapture"? That's the logic as I see it.

Shaz, Am I misreading you, or did you get that one as wrong as you possibly can?

Well, John has posted for himself on another thread. So I don't know who's "spineless" here. I don't see anyone who fits that description.

WHACK!

That's true wonder. It's like those people who complain about pedophile priests. I mean, most Catholic priests are not pedophiles, and most Catholic bishops have not hidden or excused pedophile priests. So obviously, it's not a problem that needs to be addressed. Thanks for helping me see the light, wonder.

Oops! Sorry I missed that.

The "thread" WordWolf posted is his signature. I don't think it had anything to do with the substance of his message.

This is the only thing he says on the subject on p.2

Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!

Sky, I've gotten into scuffles with the best of 'em on this board. My online behavior hasn't always been, what's the word... Christian. I'm sure there are some people who would be very surprised to hear that I'm "not condescening about it." Becoming a moderator on the first GSCafe offshoot has changed my perspective somewhat. I suddenly find myself as guardian of other people's right to say what's on their mind, on a board with stricter rules than this one. It's not even a little easy. What am I really thinking? I don't know: it varies somewhat between "What would Christ have me to do?" and "Christ! Where did I put that woman's phone number?"