Twinky

Having practiced matrimonial law for many years, what I see is that marriages break down for the simple reason that the parties fail to communicate with each other. They may use words and speak to each other, but a real deep inter-active communication, with a full sharing of heart and mind, is what kills it. It's more than just words. Especially if one of the parties then goes and gets that inter-active sharing with someone else ("my wife doesn't understand me..."). It's the betrayal of the heart rather than the betrayal of the body that kills a marriage. Next question: why won't one (or both) fully share? Usually insecurity. Imagined control over the other (rarely recognized by the controller) by witholding information or by refusing to listen. Anal-retentive two-year olds in 20- or 30- or more aged bodies shouldn't get married. Both of them are probably at fault - they need to spend time together away from everyone else with NOBODY else to distract them (no entourage, no waiters). Anybody know a desert island to ship this unhappy pair off to?

I'm okay, I'm okay. Not feeling picked on. All versions of the Bible have something going for them and all have problems. I don't exalt one version above another. I'm just bored with KJV having read it for so many years and I find more modern versions easier to pick through and get to the gist of it quicker. I think the point made in this thread about the Hellenists being of Jewish extraction is a good point. Why else would they be in Jerusalem at Passover time? Too many just to be traders. But I am not moved from the idea that the apostles should have got out there pretty soon after Pentecost to hold forth the word to EVERYONE - Jews, Hellenists, Samaritans, Syrians, Arabs, Europeans, and all the world. Their first focus would naturally be the Mediterranean area. I am considering the course of Paul's ministry, back and forth, back and forth, spending a while in an area, moving on, returning, ordaining leaders for that area, moving on, going back or writing to strengthen them. He spent a lot of time in Antioch and seems to have used that much as a base, returning there time and time again. Who knows what the apostles could have achieved if they had gone out two by two as they had previously been taught, all in different directions? When we see what Paul achieved in just a few short years - okay, they were not all "Pauls" but God works with heart not natural ability alone - what is some had gone to Egypt, some to more south in Africa, some to Babylon, some to other parts of Asia Minor, some to the islands? Paul wanted to get to Spain but he didn't make it there. It's an awesome prospect.

Give'em that Spiritual Abuse book that is so recommended on this site. They really need to know that stuff.

Ah stop boasting. Petrol is about £1.10 per litre in the UK. Say US$2 per litre. Not sure how many litres to a US gallon there are, one converter puts it at 3.7852. (Assuming that is a US gallon which is smaller than a UK gallon). That's US$7.57/gallon in the UK. Now go cry in your beer at your $3/gallon fuel.

VP said: truth is still truth even if it comes out of the mouth of the devil (or words to that effect). That same mouth spouts lies also. With the truth it adds a bit, subtracts a bit, twists a bit... so it sounds like the truth but it actually isn't. That's what THW's point is all about. If it doesn't change the speaker's point of view, as T-Bone points out - where is the power in this "truth"? If there is no power in it - it isn't setting [the speaker] free - so why should anyone follow the speaker's example?

Hi Dooj. Yes, I'm toying with Rescue Remedy as an alternative. Or Mimulus. They both use the same eating and drinking facilities (Tillie is no respecter of dishes) so it has to be something that will suit both. I got two books from the library at lunchtime: "Emotional Healing for Cats" Stefan Ball and Judy Howard and that has a great big initial section about Bach remedies and later talks about other natural remedies; and "Attitudes, Emotions and the Psychology of Cats" Dr Nicholas Dodman. I thought the first was over the top pop psychology when I first saw it but since then several people have recommended the Bach stuff so perhaps it's worth a go for that and whatever else is in it. The second I just saw on the shelf... Did "The Natural Cat" recommend that anything might be appropriate for cats of 16 months?

Hi Squirrel, thanks for the request. Here is the latest: Tillie: A score on March 25 with the cats, or rather Tillie. I got some liver (to eat) and most cats love liver. I offered her a little which she ignored. I persisted and got her quite interested in this new thing. Gave her a little of the blood which she lapped up and thoroughly enjoyed. She got very interested in reaching up to the countertop to try and grab the liver in a dish. I chopped a bit into tiny pieces and proffered it to her and got her eating from my fingers, even licking them and gently nibbling (in case they were more liver). She will not let me touch her but I am hopeful that that’s one more barrier down and she will permit me to approach her and may soon take munchies from my palm. That’s the plan, anyway. She took a small piece of ham from my fingers this morning. Slowly slowly catchee cattee. Tallie has got used to my routine and when I leave home in the morning she is looking keenly at the door. I fear she might make a dash for it one day when I am manipulating my pedal cycle through the door. The longterm intention is of course for her to come and go at will, but I don't think she is quite ready yet to go out. I am trying to teach her skills for an outdoor life - like stalking, catching and tearing at prey. If she runs off once let out, at least she stands a better chance of survival. She is still terribly nervous but compared with what she was on the day she arrived, she has come on magnificently. She is quite bold with me and even though she won't let me touch her, she will now sniff my clothes and follows me around the house. If I go to the bathroom, she is outside the door within a minute. She throws herself down by my feet and rolls on her back, playing and having fun, so clearly she is relaxing somewhat. I am tempted to catch her by throwing a cover over her but just at the moment think that might undo the good work and the trust that she is putting in me. Tallie: Tallie has now moved out from behind the built-in fridge to behind the couch. At least I can peek at her behind the couch and she isn’t shying away too much. I left some pieces of liver near her lair (behind the couch) but she would not take it. At least she is behind the couch not behind the fridge – a slight improvement. Best thing was Good Friday. I was playing with Tillie with this whip thing that she likes to chase the tail of. Tallie emerged from under the sink unit and peered at us. Gradually she crept closer. Tillie meanwhile was having a ball chasing this whip, leaping and rolling over and having fun. Tallie crept closer and closer , eyes glued on the whip, so I gently started flicking the end towards her and slowly she crept closer and began to play with it and try to catch it. She did that twice on Friday and again last night. She plays hesitantly but given long enough gets quite enthusiastic. She allowed herself to get within 3 feet of me without going into a panic. Amazing progress! She is more scared now than she was when she came (or rather, shows it more, she was frozen in fear when she arrived), but she has not hissed at me recently. There was a time when hissing was progress because she made a noise at all. I need a new name for this cat. Heidi springs to mind. But whoever called their cat "Heidi"? She might be called Hissing Sid but that doesn't seem an edifying name either and not appropriate currently. A couple of helpful tips: People have recommended Feliway to me – I have the spray but a diffuser might be better. Someone else has recommended Bach’s Herbal Remedies – Rock Rose for terror, put a drop in the drinking water and it should have a calming effect. I will try this out – the product is not expensive.

Well, Eyes, having read the exerpt from your website, I see you include adultery and other behavior in the same category and make the point that we don't wave banners outside divorce courts. You know what? You're right. We don't get all het up - because we have become used to adultery as "normal" behavior. A century or two ago it would have been considered deviant and therefore punishable. I do believe homosexuality is wrong. But: I'm not a flagwaving anti-homo such as was taught by LCM in his spit-sessions. We are all wrong in many facets of our lives (what about pride, arrogance, "knowing it allness," to mention a few?). We just try to line up better each day. God accepts us complete with imperfections and knowing that we are steeped in sins some of which we consider heinous and some of which we think of as, perhaps, "white lies" but which are all short of the standard God seeks. The minister at the church I now attend gave a wonderfully tender answer when someone asked how we should behave towards homosexuals. He said that we should make sure we look at the individual and consider his or her needs; that homosexuality was just another sin like so many other sins we all commit; and that we shouldn't make a big deal of it. Those who seek deliverance, seek deliverance, not rejection. I have met homosexuals who are more pleasant and honest than some folks at TWI and far more willing to help with nothing to gain from it. Do we stop being friends with someone because they tell a lie? Or are proud? Or are fearful? Or are shortfused about something? Or have an affair with someone else's spouse? Or, or, or... Or do we enjoy the things we can enjoy and leave the contentious things to one side? Anyway - well done with the book. It is always good to research, study and find out not be spoonfed.

Happy birthday beautiful one. Have a great day. Love, Twinky

Unfortunately I did endure this and there was many a Corps night lashing about it. No tthat LCM would want to make anybody suffer under a load of self-condemnation and misery, of course (tongue in cheek). If you left but hung around you were "harassing." If you contacted anybody who had left/been flung out, you were "unproductive" and they were "destructive." I never understood it then and even less now (actually I had almost forgotten about this). ...Isn't it good to know that NOTHING CAN SEPARATE US FROM THE LOVE OF GOD, that neither God nor Jesus Christ want divisions in the church, and that we should be very wary of those who cause divisions among us - by introducing, perhaps, false concepts of what kind of evil they were deluded by - especially when it might well have been their sound mind that took them away from TWI!! Now (perhaps) back to the regularly scheduled topic... (sorry, was I being a bit "unproductive"?)

Romans 2:23 (again) Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? 24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. You aren't arguing with me, Oldies, when you say that the preacher's lifestyle doesn't negate the message preached. Seems to me that a higher authority has rather strong words to say about it. (edited for emphasis)

A bit "off topic" this, but a couple of months ago there was an article in the NZ newspaper and on the UK news about some man who decided to emigrate to New Zealand "before he got too old." He uprooted and took his wife with him to start their new life. What's amazing about that? He's 92 and his wife is 86. Good for them!!!!!

True, Oldies, we all commit sin. But in context this is getting at those who set out to teach one thing whilst deliberately doing something different. We're not talking about the occasional falling short of the mark but a persistent abuse, a failure to even try to live up to the standard, a teaching of that which the teacher knows in no way matches his lifestyle. Try reading Galatians 5 about the works of the flesh. Very interesting if read in different versions. One version even talks about fits of rage and explosive outbursts. Gal 5:19 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. (NIV) 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: (KJV) Paul (the former religious zealot known as Saul, much given to works of the flesh, including murder) tells us to be "followers of him" but I don't think he meant in the things of his sinful nature. And I do not see that Paul continued in the sinful nature but rather that he made such an about-face that those approving of his former lifestyle persecuted him.

That's if we can even get past the incredulous look, to start explaining...

Ithought this bore repeating...

I think it rather that it negates the so-called "teacher" - who clearly isn't living what is taught - and therefore disqualifies himself from teaching and is a disgrace to God Romans 2:17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law [or of whatever is being taught - grace, in our administration], and makest thy boast of God, 18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law [or, grace]; 19 And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, 20 An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law [or, grace]. 21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? 22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? 23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law [or, grace], through breaking the law or abuse of grace dishonourest thou God? 24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. I b'lieve the usual word is "hypocrite."

Two points from this thread: 1. Internationals as well as FC usually did two years back to back. It was hard to convince the issuers of the US study visa to grant a one year study visa then out and then another one year study visa, and they would not grant a three year study visa. So Internationals did Yr 1 Apprentice; Yrs 2 and 3 - in rez; Yr 4 =- practicum year (often helping at a Branch or going WoW). Same for FC but I think that was to prevent too much disruption to the education of children. 2. I know two successful ministries run by non-graduated Corps ex-Wayfers. Both international; neither huge, but they are both growing. In different countries. One wasn't Corps at all and the other left after a few months in rez.

Nice card, Kit!!

Hey George! Have a great time. Happy birthday. Twinx

My goodness, what an unusual person you are. How many right eyes do you have? And how many left eyes?? Can you see well out of all of them now??

Oh hilarious. Get'em to do one for lawyers too.

Happy Easter, everyone. A good time to remember all the blessings that we have and the privileges we can enjoy. A time to celebrate LIFE in all its fulness. Be ye thankful. It's a long weekend holiday-break. Take care if you are traveling and enjoy yourself when you get there.

Don't know if this made it to US papers. The McCanns took proceedings against the noisiest news group that was printing stories against them and even before it got to court, the news group caved in. They have paid a substantial sum (now apparently noted as £550,000, which is significant in UK terms, maybe not US terms - the news group also has to pay all the costs) and have put huge front page apologies on all the newspapers printed by the news group. Below is a synopsis from a website, not from the newspaper itself. if you Google "Daily Express" you'll probably find something. Of course, it proves nothing except that the McCanns had been seriously defamed. Regrettably, it does not bring back the little girl.

How the heck could any Corps grad (especially now) get $1million together at all, never mind $1m to give away? Clearly not living on a need basis...on staff... Anyway, that kinda smacks of "buying a ministry". Bet if anyone did donate $1m they didn't get M&A'd too quickly.

Interesting, this, isn't it, why someone would not continue. He joined them in Acts 12:25, they went to Antioch, Paul and Barnabas are sent to Cyprus and John Mark goes with them; they get expelled from there and go to Iconium where Paul gets stoned; then off to various other places including Pamphylia (Acts 14:24). John Mark might have thought he had a good reason. Perhaps a family member was ill or in other need and he felt he needed to go to that person's aid. Perhaps he had become ill. Perhaps he was fearful. He does not seem to have made a big impact between Act 12:25 and 14:24 since only Paul and Barnabas are mentioned. NIV and NASB say he "deserted" them. A strong word. Perhaps, even, Paul was partly to blame. It was a learning curve for him, too, and he must have been an immensely strong-willed person and perhaps quite difficult to live with at times. Maybe JM felt oppressed or taken for granted or overridden. Since this is in About the Way, we all know what it is like to feel oppressed by leadership. But I agree it must have been something pretty significant. I don't think Paul was playing the MOGFODAT card. As previously mentioned, the significant thing seems to be that he got over whatever had held him back before. Problem dealt with or fear overcome. He went on to become a useful member of the outreach team. And Paul got over his (let's call it) disappointment with JM. JM and Paul "made it up" and got on with life preaching and teaching the gospel. I don't know that JM could be called a "quitter". He departed but there is nothing to say that he did not continue preaching and teaching in other locations, and indeed he probably did, because he was welcomed back as a fellow laborer and not reviled and never heard of again. It's nice to look at the make-up not just the break-up.