Twinky

Johniam on the Zachary Brodeau thread said this: This is an interesting topic and perhaps merits some discussion time here. Some people have been involved in prison visiting and may have useful points of view. Others may have been victims of heinous crimes and might have a different point of view. Do you think there is a case for capital punishment - sometimes? never? always in some circumstances? I put up a poll...but only to get people thinking. What sort of crimes might merit that - if you agree it ought to happen? And how does that fit with God's grace towards all?

Teaching...part of Way jargon. The Oxford Dictionary defines teaching as: and for the avoidance of doubt, "mass noun" is: Teachers teach...a lesson or lessons ...not a teaching, or teachings. A music lesson. A French lesson. Driving lessons. A collection of works by a teacher might conceivably be his "teachings." So in fact...that was a fine lesson that JAL taught not...a fine teaching that JAL taught But of course if they used normal language it would reduce the mystique. Like instead of saying a "teaching" they called it a "sermon" (isn't that what the main talking part of a church service is called, hmm?) - or some church services might call it a "message" or a "talk" - but I've never heard any other denomination call that part of a service - a "teaching." In churchy things, "lesson" is reserved for the Bible reading (which might nowadays simply be called the "reading"). But hey, when has TWI and its derivatives really cared for correct English (or any other language) if it could cloak itself in special words and special understandings... Teacher, teach thyself...

Must be something in the Colorado water. I was struck by the resemblance between Hirschfeld's get-rich-quick scheme and this one reported by johnj on his anti-Way website: (Click here:) "Ex-Way Leader Convicted of Crimes Committed While in TWI" -- Articles from the Denver Post on Rick Panyard's adultery and conviction on fraud-related crimes. Haven't seen accusations of Hirschfeld having a string of women...but the apple doesn't fall far from the tree...

umm...Waysider, why're you asking? Ya need to ask the Cafe waiter for a new menu? You having a relapse? And what's with this new avatar, Moon Pie? Or is paste what's in Moon Pies???

It's a sort of Slumdog Millionnaire story, isn't it? He's clearly bright, resourceful, and adaptable. Be grateful for the education that was made freely available to you. What could a young man like that have achieved, with a decent education? Hope he gets the opportunity now of both a good education, and of enlarging his vocal talent.

You asked about this, Kit. And you're right - so close but so different, individual.Both are considered Celtic in origin - Celts being a sort of tribal group that got pushed (or migrated voluntarily) westward until they reached the western edges of Europe. Then later tribes have stranded the Celts at the extremes of western Europe, into a few remaining areas comprising (mostly highland) Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Cornwall (extreme SW of England) and Brittany (extreme NW of France). All of the western seaboard of Europe has since time (or at least boats) began been subject to invasion and counter-invasion from different tribal groups. Scotland was invaded from Scandinavia (think, Vikings); England - the very name is derived from Anglo-Saxon - Angles and Saxons being from different areas of what is now Germany; and so on. The Celtic tribes gradually got pushed west until there was no further to go. Remnant cultures have remained and Gaelic (think Gaul, now France) is still spoken in France, Ireland and Scotland. Welsh is a variant Celtic language spoken in Wales. There has been a strong nationalistic tendency there and it is difficult to progress in council/administrative or teaching type professions unless one is bilingual in Welsh and English. Road signs are bilingual. Scotland has not got quite that radical - yet. Ireland has been divided on religious grounds but southern Ireland (Eire) has its own separate (Gaelic) language. I don't know how interchangeable the Gaelic languages are from these remnant cultures from Scotland to France. I think they are mutually comprehensible. It might be rather like Brit English underlying American English but both have acquired different accents and use words a little differently so they have different meanings. Language is only a way of representing shared culture and it's not surprising that there are a lot of common features among Celtic tribes. Scottish and Irish kilts are different, adapting to local needs; they have similar but different dancing styles, etc etc. In more recent history Scotland and Ireland have aided each other against the common enemy, England, in part because of common religious ties (Catholicism v Protestants/Anglicans) which may overlie ancient tribal differences. How far back do you want to go? Could be one of those "endless genealogies," LOL. Who knows who was pushed out by the Celts - and what parts of those cultures became assimilated into Celtish culture? There is no part of European culture that you could really call "pure" as there has been so much cross-culture and fertilisation of ideas (and people, heh heh) that has made all of Europe so richly varied in its background. The long view shows our current "national identities" to be continually changing. Anyway, in case you're interested: Celts

Korea's answer to Susan Boyle, maybe:

Google throws up lots of stuff, but here's two sites you might find of interest. Scottish Tartans Museum Wikipedia - Tartan

For those on page 6 who haven't bothered to read the beginning of the thread and thus don't really know what's being talked about: dabobbada, that's interesting stuff you say. Thanks.

Will we be gathered together? Will we stay here? Do we SIT? Do we think it's all nonsense? Is Jesus God? Or just a man? To some extent - none of this matters. It really doesn't. What will happen, will happen. Regardless of what we believe. We can get so hung up on intellectual arguments, straining at gnats, knowing this or that Greek word. God's "gnat strainer" is finer, tighter meshed, than anything we can construct. It also has bigger holes in it. God doesn't look at our knowledge. He doesn't look at our vocabulary. He doesn't look at our argumentative ability, or our logic, or our reasoning powers. He looks on our hearts. He looks on what we do and say that comes from the heart. He looks at how we treat Him, how we treat others. He looks at the things that are good in our hearts - and the things that are not so good - and teaches us how to overcome or get rid of the bad stuff, like pride, arrogance, and so on. If we bore some basic tenets about God in mind - that he is good always - that he has compassion on all - that he is the Creator and not a magician or worse a magic toy - and if we remembered that Jesus is the embodiment of God's love to us and exemplifies it and sets the standard in heart that we should follow - then so much falls away. It's nice to know intellectual things in our heads (and trust me, I have a great selection of Bibles and study books). We grope after intellectual understanding - but if we don't know, really know, in our hearts - we know nothing.

He cut his own life short, by his choice of lifestyle, JBarrax. Coming back to the topic: I suppose it doesn't really matter whether his eye was lost due to a fish hook, or whether due to cancer. This is a man who taught that prayer and believing could deal with anything. So if he is off on a fishing trip with the other trustees (as claimed) - couldn't the trustees have prayed and healed the damage caused by the fish hook? (After rushing him to the hospital to have the barbed part removed, of course). How do you get a fish hook in your eye anyway, if you wear glasses? (When did he start wearing glasses?) And then there is prayer for healing...or the casting out (a) devil spirit(s). Caught in his own words, either way.

This must be an easy test. Not being an American, I know bug*er all about US politics. But this was my score:

Even better (and you might like it more) - enjoy a glass of red wine each day. Note: "a" glass - of reasonable size. Not half a bottle.

This thread's been through all that, BA. The "fish hook in the eye" story is new to most. But it appears to be disbelieved by most of the Cafe denizens at the time. TWI tells so many stories about things...they are incapable of "discerning truth from error."

BUMP on this thread for the benefit of others who have come to the Cafe recently, and as it seems relevant to another resurrected thread currently on display. Did VPW lose his eye to a fish hook? Or to cancer? Or one to a fish hook and one to cancer? Whatever...the man lost an eye and the man is dead from cancer. And nobody at TWI was honest enough about any of it. It's GSC telling the other side of the story that has exposed the reason for his death. I don't care why he died. I do care that TWI still isn't honest in its dealings with its people.

And while you certainly could build a theology about unbelievers being "thorns," by no means should you build a theology that says people who don't agree with you are unworthy of the love of God, or consigned to the fires of hell or to become greasespots by midnight, or that such people are otherwise to be badly treated.

I don't remember this from PFAL. What I remember is that VPW said that people said that the thorn in the flesh was some issue they themselves were grappling with. Like weak eyes or a feeble body. But (he said) it was people - people who went round straight after Paul had taught freedom in Christ, and those people, "thorns", were trying to put the new converts straight back under the law. The implication from that would be that VPW was teaching "freedom" and others - mainstream churches? deprogrammers? - went along straight afterwards to try to uproot freedom truths. Ironic, really, as it was exactly the opposite that was happening - he was teaching bondage disguised as freedom, and others were trying to uproot his pernicious teachings. "Thorns" - VPW taught - were definitely people. He referred to Num 33:55. Here are some scriptures referring to people as thorns: Hey, if you wanted to, you could build the most amazing theology about "thorns" really meaning "unbelievers." Check out any Bible search engine. But I'm not at all sure that you can build a theology about "thorns" being illnesses, addictions or other physical ailments.

One thing to be sure of... However one chooses to avail oneself of healing - prayer, medications, surgery, homoepathic remedies - it's not up to anyone else to condemn or judge that person for not believing enough. And what works for one person won't necessarily work for another.

Hello mchud. Don't know who these people are, but thought you'd gone AWOL. Seems to have been a long time since you've been at the Cafe...?

I don't think that would work here. A few people have pools, but not too many. I did have a spa pool in a property I lived in, in another country. We never got the balance right. One time, even, the spa had mosquito larvae swimming happily in it. (Could have been worse - could have been snakes.) Still, we had fun in the pool.

Good advice, mstar. It surely is a hard market out there with lots of people selling volkswagens. Yep, I surely can offer a RR service. I really appreciate all the ideas people have suggested. I'm getting quite excited by the prospects ahead of me...that's when I'm not feeling depressed about how little there seems to be around and about. My city council is offering a couple of short courses - one is for 2 hours (free) on very basics of business start-up (probably: register your business for tax purposes, keep accounts and pay your taxes!). They also offer another of 3 days duration for which there is a fee (not a huge one) that goes into more specifics. I am booked onto the shorter one which seems to be offered every 2-3 months but one is taking place this coming Wednesday. Not sure how often the longer one comes around.

In case it's not clear to people like Johniam, this thread is NOT about healing. What you said is totally irrelevant to this thread. This thread IS about the correct use of GRAMMAR and the correct UNDERSTANDING of the English language. To heal gaps in understanding. Anyone can stay in their errors if they want to. Their business. Their pride. I'm just saying: that if one understands correctly, one will get more meaning out of ... anything one reads, not just a Bible. My vocabulary is great. But you know what? I still look up words I don't know in a dictionary. That way, my understanding increases. I understand the nuances. Same with grammar. When one understands the pluperfect tense, maybe then there is also scope for a discussion about subjunctives. Subjunctives are very delicately nuanced. There is quite a lot of theology out there that is based on misunderstanding subjunctives. But let's start with the easy stuff.

“By whose stripes you were (past tense) healed…” “By whose stripes you are (present tense) healed…” How many times have I heard that? And every time, inside I cringe and think badly of that person: “Go and learn English before you set yourself up as a teacher! If you don’t understand the obvious, do you really understand the obscure?” If you must, these sentences should read: “By whose stripes you were healed (past tense)…” and “By whose stripes you are healed…” – which is something different again. I understand the verb in the Greek may be in a tense which suggests something that happened in the past with continuing effects in the present, and we don’t have an exact equivalent in English. I don’t want to digress into ancient Greek grammar. Friends, the “were” part is NOT the verb, as such. The full verb in this tense is “were healed.” It’s compound. I know where this erroneous understanding comes from. PFAL has Wierwille pontificating and splitting up verbs into parts without recognising that in English sometimes one of the various tenses is formed of more than one word. I don’t Wierwille was expert in either Greek or Hebrew, though he might have had a passing knowledge of both. “So what?” you might say. Let’s choose a simple verb: to walk. We probably all know that “I walk” is not the same in meaning as “I am walking.” Would you split the latter into: “I am (present tense) walking…”? Actually “I am” is from the verb “to be” which is nowadays only used , in this manner, in dialectical forms of English. “I am” has a whole lot of other connotations relating to permanence (I am black, white; I am tall, small; I am male, female; I am a doctor, a nurse, a journalist…) but not a temporary condition of strolling along a road! Likewise, “I walked” is not the same as “I was walking” or “I have walked” or “I had walked” or “I did walk.” Likewise, “I will walk” is not the same as “I shall walk” nor is either the same as “I will/shall be walking” or “I will/shall have walked.” I’m not setting myself up as an English grammar teacher, though my English, whether written or spoken, is excellent and I have taught English to other people. I would just like people to think a little more deeply about what they read, and what they repeat, parrot-fashion – and how much richer, much much richer, their understanding would be if basics of English language were understood. English grammar can be studied in great depth. I’m not advocating you take a degree in it. I’m suggesting just enough study to get more out of what you already know – to understand the subtleties of written English. You probably do understand the differences in the tenses even though you can’t quite put your finger on what the differences are or what they mean, and it’s not quite so important in spoken English because there are usually non-verbal clues to a fuller understanding. Here’s a very simple item I located on the net; you may find other items. My link Okay, I’m getting off this soap box for the time being…

This is how judgment should be carried out: And there are loads of other references in the OT about how judgment is to be exercised, like this: As regards the partiality of TWI, this is relevant: This warning about "respect of persons" (= paying attention to a person's status) is widespread through both OT and NT. And how many of Jesus's parable or actions illustrated that? As well as the culture of "the ministry not being blamed" – TWI suffered from respecting persons and their perceived usefulness or wealth or contacts (their "gift"). If you had what TWI wanted, they accepted your "gift." If you didn't have what they wanted, you and justice for you was a disposable commodity. Sorry, TWI … no avoiding it. No way did you deal with things impartially. You even abused "grace" to avoid dealing with things appropriately. You wrested "mercy" as "God's withholding of merited punishment" (or whatever) to further your agenda - not to demonstrate God's grace.

You're right, BA; it picks up in Mt 5:25 and Luke 12:58 (a different event). There is some expansion of the thought in the rest of Mt 5 in (say) 39-44. And of course there is 1Cor 6. There are other references elsewhere about not seeking revenge, not getting upset where people wrong you or abuse you. I think the essence is not taking offence unnecessarily; being forgiving or at least tolerant; and not exacerbating wrongs, whether intentional wrongs or otherwise. We all have our tolerance limits but many things can be resolved by taking a softly-softly approach, if necessary with a neutral third party's assistance. That's the kind of approach mentioned in Mt 18:15-17. Bear in mind, of course, that the "church" of that time was also the "court" - which in our society is now a secular authority. If people are pushed into a position, their attitude necessarily hardens up and negotiated solutions (compromise) become progressively more difficult. Litigation (resorting to law) should be a last resort, not the first resort, for most things. Is there some other way to deal with the present difficulty? Sometimes the more patient approach yields better results, long-term.