Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe
  • Announcements

    • GT

      Log in changes   08/07/2016

      With the upgrade there is no longer separate login ids and display names.  Your login ID is now your display name.

socks

Members
  • Content count

    4,429
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

socks last won the day on October 30 2016

socks had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

64 Excellent

About socks

  • Rank
    This space for rent!
  • Birthday 09/15/1950

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. Revival and Restoration

    Thanks for the information, Rocky. Interesting reading and listening. I haven't been on GS for quite awhile. Peace, homies! I was surprised my dancing Calvin dude is gone. I must have missed an upgrade. Not to worry, Calvin is always *here*. Got a heads up to this topic sent to me by a friend-o. This has been a developing story for several months, first heard about some of this movement a year or so ago. But if they don't land in front of my face I don't hear about this kind of stuff. DWBH! Yes, indeed. I see Ed and Jackie Horney there. Knew them back in Miami, they were both coming to our fellowship way back when, when they were dating. I love them, although I haven't really seen them for many years and have only friended Ed on farcebake recently. I'm glad they've separated themselves from the Way, any degree of separation will benefit them. They, as all of us, deserve a lot better than what's being funneled out of The Way Nash these days. But true - all of these people were active in the past 30 - 40, 50 years (dang, we're getting old aren't we???). I find it amazing they can suddenly be so critical the last few months, or years, of policies and actions that have been so for decades and that they themselves embraced and participated in. Y'know? Watzupwiddat? That business about the Way employee who was scheduled to teach a SNS and was pulled the last minute.....oh, the horror, it wasn't even announced, a new teacher took the podium, no explanation and worst of all, everyone from his domain area that had dialed in didn't know what was going on! Oh, the confusion they must have felt! As if that's a new scenario in the Way......? That kind of thing has happened and most assuredly continues to happen ALL THE TIME. the Way's byline should be "No, We Don't Answer Questions".....they never tell anyone anything about what they're doing and they're constant press-release communications amount to "You're ALWAYS welcome at the Way!", which is an english translation of a greek phrase that originally meant "Fu ck You". So, agreed, they're apparently nuts, damaged goods, dented cans, smiling icons of a lost race of people once thought to dwell in central Ohio. Museum artifacts. We be pretty far from any concerns as to what they're "revive and restore" business will be about but I'm sure it will be taking donations soon enough. Take care, my friends! Jesus is the way, the truth and the life! He was dead and lives again and God forgives and saves to the uttermost any and all who come to Him through Christ. Reckon yourself dead to sin and alive in Christ and enjoy that "new life" smell all the time!! You deserve it! Peace!! Well, that's about it. This is my bi-centennial post. And speaking of donations, I know you're probably wondering how to show your gratitude for this enlightening presentation. I get it and rather than complicate things, I've set up a number of ways for you to give back, and all for your convenience. 1. Use the "socks paypal" account to contribute to this important work. It's easy - go to paypal, find the "MoneyIsLikeLoveButCrisper" account and choose an amount. Think big. God doesn't like little thinkers. 2. Kickstart donations - yep, you can fund my next Big Idea. And I've got some great ones! Get involved! It's not going to fund itself! 3. Send those love dollars directly to me, socks. Use my email account: TakeMyMoneyPleaseSocks@ReviveAndRestoreMySockDrawer.com Peace out!!
  2. Hierarchy of Servants

    Excellent insight Twinky. Innerstin' reading and thought. I think Jesus made it abundantly clear what He expects His followers to do. I don't think the current religious systems can be fixed. I say that with the caveat that effort towards doing that could certainly improve them but on a large scale effort it's just too much baggage to go through in my opinion. The only purpose i see for an "organization" is to facilitate the members of the "body of Christ" to work with each other and towards their collective common goals. Something like the Way Nash-anon never got it, we never took it to the next level of growth and VPW never promoted a true Acts-like functionality in the Way. Good bad or indifferent, the Way just didn't do that, I mean it as less a criticism and more a statement of fact. Running a business to hold classes and seminars isn't the same as caring for the weak and needy in the church and making sure everyone is being taken care of. Even the example in Acts of the disciples trying to split up the work assumes that there's a desire to do some useful work to help others. The image I get of the early guys and gals is that they were doing exactly that, doing whatever needed to be done for the growing following. They were, after all the followers of Christ who had known Him, lived with Him, knew Him face to face. If anyone was going to carry the message of service-first-know-us-by-our-love it would have had to be them. Being human I supppose they did the best they could as long as they could. Today, for me, there's been too much water under the bridge. It's not just the Roman Catholic church although they're about as bloated as you can get. The church/pastor model works fine if it's done using a community/cooperative model...at whatever level the members wish to participate use a share and share alike approach.
  3. Jesus was invented by the Romans

    What a waste of time. Discussing the discussion, that's pretty much what happens and then of course disagreement = VPW has you hypnotized! Oh well. This is the last time for me. S'yall!
  4. "Are the Dead Alive Now" was plagiarized.

    Oh now WordWolf that's just crazy talk! :biglaugh:/> Reincarnation has never "quite" added up for me. Reincarnation fits with the Conservaton of Energy law I think but I'm not sure that law is fully accommodated by it in return. Where all of the consciousness is coming from is a sticky issue for me. "Life" isn't an entirely unique thing, as it actually occurs. It's a "miracle" I would agree but once the requirements are met it's up and running - and there's a lot of miracles running around. And those miracles can be 'accidents' and unintentional, even out right cursed by the progenitors, later. So the higher purpose of life, if there is one, isn't required to be served in order to produce a life. The process of producing an instance of life is also very repeatable from existing materials - buuuuut - The consciousness not so much. Consciousness and specifically the accumulation of memories is individual and only occurs in an individual instance, or "container" as it were. Without memories there's not a lot of usable life. That's where I get stuck - Life is produced from existing materials but can't actually become a person that would learn or do anything without extreme change - "aging" by our word. So there's "Life" the idea and there's "Life" the actual person, which is all that really counts. So ------- it isn't really repeatable in the way that reincarnation suggests I think.
  5. Jesus was invented by the Romans

    Growing up in the 50's and 60's, raised and educated Roman Catholic, converted to Christianity and now something of a Reformed Christian I've probably been exposed to many of the same things as the rest of you. If I didn't want to believe the history and tradition of Christianity there are many different alternates, interpretations and options. Pick one and go with it. So far I haven't seen anything that provides a factual alternate. Christianity is often criticized as being short on facts, long on faith. Fine, just don't ask me to switch to another view where there are in fact, no facts to outweigh the Christian view .That just seems silly. But believe as you will, it's a free country. Either way, Rome came and went and the names of the Romans who supposedly cooked this up are gone and their names aren't exactly household words. Today I saw a bumper sticker that said "Jesus Loves You"....haven't seen a lot of "The Emperor Titus Flavius Loves You" stickers. Lately.
  6. Jesus was invented by the Romans

    Another thing to consider about the evidence/history of Jesus - this is juat a point of my own but in response to the topic - Jews by commandment were forbidden to make idols, "graven imags", statues, etc. to worship or pray to. Jehovah didn't want a sculpted rendering of "Himself" that mankind would go to, look at and say "this represents God", or "this is God". Jesus - the "son of God" - would not have been treated differently by the Jews that followed Him, I would think....the Temple wasn't God or where God "was" or lived, and the N.T. speaks to that in the book of Acts. So there was no ongoing traditon of elevating iconic images of God or any of the Prophets. Roman scupture and art was very developed at that time however - no lack of it, quite the opposite. I might conjecture if I was going to - that a Roman Jesus would have been served very well by some later statues, paintings, engravings, turning up.....just a thought. Now - of course Roman Catholicism comes to mind - which became very involved in imagery and the desire to represent God and Jesus and all of the assorted characters of history, but these are all after the fact and make no claim to be anything other than at best, inspired efforts but with no declared claim to be accurate depictions. Today many denominations are flooded with it - shoot, we got Jesus's in America that look like Greg Allman after a good night's sleep, hot shower and hearty breakfast. No lack of it today but nothnig that comes from that era. So rather than assuming the faux Jesus stuff is Roman developed it makes more - or at least equal sense - to take the stance that the lack of historical images and renderings is completely in context with what the Jews that converted would have done. And not done. In other words, the absence of paintings, statues, icons and representations of Jesus would be typical and characteristic of His era and the abundance that evolved later would indicate the influence of external influences and a misguided effort to basically market Christianity.
  7. Jesus was invented by the Romans

    I wanted more but after reading everything I found, shy of buying the book - I don't see the Romans, a Roman, saying "We invented Jesus Christ, and we're proud of it" - ever. There's no historical facts - just a projection. Christians take a lot of heat but - after this guy started selling his book, the Pope didn't put out an order to execute the guy. Religious faithful aren't storming the streets and burning the guy's book and beating people that try to buy it. We're not crying on TV interviews and wailing to the sky about how insulting and degrading it is that this guy would demean Mohammed - er- I mean, Jesus. Christians get crazy about a lot of stuff - but it's largely small slices of the larger demographic and as far as that goes, there's nothing inhuman about being passionate and drive towards what one believes is true. Rather, it's natural. I swear though - I'm sick to the gut of guys like this who publish day dreams and wanna - be's and act like their scholarly credentials aren't tarnished in the process, $elling books up the ying yang, and all the while smugly attacking something they have no real chance of changing. Enough with the butter knives guys, if you want to cut Jesus Christ down to size you're going to need a bigger knife! :evilshades:/>Just say - you don't want to believe it, the bible, the stuff, and move on and stop selling books and making money off the wonderful effort you make to try and free the stupid and heal the dumb. :evilshades:/>
  8. Jesus was invented by the Romans

    You read my mind, Steve! (note to self: investigate possible get-into-socks-brain pattern of certain posting here....more to come) I guess I need to read more of what Atwell is selling to comment but dammed if I'm putting more money into anyone's pocket in the name of Jesus. I read "Zealot" couple months ago - a fact checker's nightmare. The author, a Muslim, invented and embellished facts as he wrote. It should be sub titled "Based on Events Some Believe May Have Happened This Way". I got tired after the first couple chapters and just skimmed the rest to the end - it was interesting but not really a scholarly effort, given that the author is a self described "scholar". If it was as Atwill describes, the Roman psyche strategy did indeed fail. Or backfired - and what about Constantine? That didn't fire up until the 3rd century. Slow burn syndrome? The premise - invent a peaceful Christ for Jews to follow that will reduce the risk to the Roman empire... In the End Run Game, Jesus isn't widely considered to be a peaceful Messiah, for one thing - let me qualify that - Practically speaking the entire message requires a fundamental, all-family-business-is-settled reckoning between - call them the Good guys and the Bad guys. The names and faces change regularly but even the most peaceful "age of Grace" Christians believe that at any time - BAM! He's coming back and this time...it's personal. /> Whether that be in the sky or through human transformation or anything inbetween. Thus my "Chafing at the Bit" theory - some of us just aren't going to wait. Acts 15 - if that's part of the early history the church in Jerusalem had accepted Gentiles as Christians into the church and determined to not burden them with observing Jewish tradition - that entire growing base would reflect a different demographic in the world at that time - so the Experimental Roman Jesus exploded in a way the Romans didn't plan for - which seems either really ironic or just plain bad luck! The records of the gospels carry the Jerusalem/Samaritan comparison, for "loving your neighbor"....that message in fact draws all Jews together if they follow it, towards a "Jerusalme of the Spirit" as it were - if that message were followed it would serve to reduce the divisiveness at that time between them - so it's interesting - the so-called-Roman-Jesus promotes a coming together of Judean and Samaritan Jews? which would potentially strengthen them not weaken them. I'm curious how Atwell accounts for the fact that - IF - this was a Roman concoction - why there is not more Roman historical material available then - if would have been completely in their interest of succeeding to have presented more material to actually document His existence at that time - yet, we're still left with so little that the very existence AT ALL is still questioned by many. Again and as always - the primary records are then by those who participated or spoke to those who did - seems like an odd way to build a Religion if you're actually building it, versus it just "happening".
  9. speaking in tongues

    Most of the theological dogma - call it doctrine for want of a better word - defines the nine things listed in 1. Cor. 12 as "nine gifts of the spirit" that are given individually by God, issued "severally" as He wills. I note the "severally" because it highlights the translation and contextual nuances that are involved - today, the average person reading that word would assume it means more than one, several this or that - as used in the Bible it has the meaning of "separately" and even "individually". The ESV renders it so: All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. Me, I don't fault anyone's efforts and give high marks for showing and trying but I don't think much has come out of the ex-Way community on this particular topic that's much different than what's already out and about despite the fact that the cost to learn their ex-Way versions of it has gone up quite a bit and consistently so, over the years. One Gift/Nine Manifestations isn't a widespread interpretation, so most of what you read on the topic of 1 Cor. 12 is going to be counter to that. A good middle ground is EW Bullinger, which will certainly show you ground zero of the textual work.
  10. speaking in tongues

    Requirement? No. Family, friends I trust, I might. Sometimes it's a burden to the other person to know a lot of details. But no, there's no biblical requirement which is why Romans 8:26 and 27 say what they do. People are curious animals though, always sniffing around. It's in the blood I guess. "No harm in asking" in either case. Could be harm in answering though. So someone says "well what's wrong honey? Yes, I'll pray for you How can I help? Is there anything I can do?"......that's fine. There's no imperative from the "Word of God" however to reveal specifics when prayer is requested. I do pray "in the spirit", and often. Speak in tongues. Don't make it a Jesus or the wall kind of thing. I have made an effort to separate the basic foundational things of "faith and practice" in my life from the people and the sources from which they come. It doesn't matter who or how I learned it from - some things I've learned from seeing what's WRONG as much as what's right. I give recognition to everything and everyone past, present and future that have come through my life however, even the dimwads and darfishes that I'd just as soon throw tomato sauce on and might given time and oppportunity. Yeh, I'm a tweeze. I'm fine with that. Some I could have done without but in a way those two verses in Romans also speak to that part of life - where I would pick and choose this way and that, perhaps God would see it differently. Can't change it now, either way that's for sure. So pray, in the spirit, speak in tongues, think well and positively, send the best mental and emotional messages you have into the ether. Cant' hurt. There's no imperative from the "Word of God" however to reveal specifics when prayer is requested.
  11. Song of the moment

    Who left the gate open...again.... <br> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/95E6ON8s8-0?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
  12. e-cigarettes, know anything about them?

    Congrats BikerBabe. That's great news and insight. I remember the first batch of "regular" liquid nicotine e-cig I tried, the full strength stuff. I got dizzy. At the time I had smoked ultra light generic brands for years, so that direct hit of strong nicotine was too much, almost made me sick. That's educational in and of itself, right there. It's very possible to use e-cig's to roll off the nicotine strength to 0. The liquid blend of 50/50 pg and vg with a flavoring is all you "vape" then, there's no nicotine at all. What they label "6 mg" is the x-light level for most blends. By the time you hit that you're not getting a lot of nicotine and of course, none of the chemicals that go into tobacco processing. A list - interesting reading. The e-cig industry is wise to move forward carefully but firmly. There's no reason that an alternative delivery system for nicotine that uses the same method as cigarettes to deliver it (inhalation) should be viewed differently than cigarettes. There's always the side effect too that with an e-cig you'll never set your bed on fire or accidentally burn a hole in your favorite shirt, sure. But it CAN be a method to quit smoking cigarettes, if that's your goal and every success story supports that. It can also be a method to quit inhaling nicotine completely, if that's your goal. After that whatever risk the e-cig "vaping" products contain are unrelated to the traditional and known risks of smoking tobacco. All the anecdotal data supports that the e-cig used for inhaling flavored vapor with or without the nicotine or chemicals provides a method for the pathological behaviors that a cigarette user has after quitting nicotine. Basically the "habit" part - you can have something in your hand that you put in your mouth and inhale and receive the same sense of ingestion you got smoking. It's like a pacifier for adult infant behaviors. /> And that will, in fact, allow a person to "quit" if they want to. I don't smoke, haven't for over a year. I stopped several years ago then started. Now, that's over and won't restart again. You get to a point after awhile where the smell and the smoke itself is just so stanky and horrible - well, I can't take it anymore, speaking for myself. I understand those who still do though. Now the distance between the effect and what I did to achieve it is like, far. Too far to get there from here anymore. /> Congrats!!! You won!!!! Savor the victory, you went a long way to achieve it.
  13. Song of the moment

    ...dandruff of the gods... <br> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/eGxQQIgEmgk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
  14. Song of the moment

    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/nVyvJ_Jj6QI?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
  15. It is a higly polished presentation.

    Interesting! the physical aspects of man that resemble or are the "same" as other animals makes sense krys. Not that it proves anything that it makes sense but it does. I have several basic fundamentals that form the tenets of my beliefs and one is that the physical world of life on this planet is all very much alike, very similar and that there is great diversity in how those similarities exist and are in execution. Like, movement. Movement, defined as a form of change. All movement happens in a very restrictive context. A thing changes position, it's x y z coordinates. That change is perceived in relation to something else that holds positions. That change is understood by additional x y z coordinates, time. I could add coordinates for both subjective and objective measurement. It's all very interesting (to me) and incredibly diverse in execution but movement-change happens pretty much the same for everything that moves. So I wonder why that way and and not others? Why is movement-change limited to a thing being "here" and then being "there" through effort or influence....? That's really buggy to me and seems very unlikely in a reality plane that would be without ordered design....There may be other ways we don't know about but that isn't measurable. So the answer "because that's the way it is" or that's the way it evolved doesn't sound much different to me than "that's the way God designed it" because we can't know of an evolution that included a totally unique and different means of movement that got us to where we are now if we can't know of it, that it existed and there are no artifacts of it's existence.... For things to be the way they are, regardless of how they got that way, doesn't refute or deny that additional aspect of influence, in fact the physical world of movement-change thrives on influence. Another is the quality of consciousness, which is universally singular. There is a "oneness" to all conscious awareness. Another is the fact that reality only exists as it's understood by it's differences - no two things are the same. If things were in fact the same they wouldn't be two things they'd be one. So nothing is really ever "the same" as anything else, and definitely not anything that is self aware because that awareness of self is actually an awareness of not being something else as much as it is in being aware of it's own self. While the universe may contain unknown vastness, the universe we do know is one that is the way it is, not the way it's not. There's a border around diversity. And evolution for all it's possibility is really just a theory of probabilities, IMO. Designer and design can't be removed from the realm of reality without applying extreme prejudice and arrogance IMO. Not that that's what the video guy did, at all. But it's most important to not get tripped up on snakes and talking donkeys in the Bible, because in fact diabolical snakes and talking burros would be the least unusual things possible, IMO if I really remove the border around life and start to think about all the "what if's". Existence could be very different than it is for us, now. But it's not. Tomorrow's another working day though and I will have to get some rest, regardless. So it's alright, it's alright..../> .
×