waysider

Another thing you could try is a metal detector. You sweep it around until you find something that "sounds out" a 3-5 inch circle. That could be an old metal well-head. They are buried below the frost line. That's probably about 40 inches down in your area. Or, you could wind up finding an old paint can lid. LOL. But, I have actually dug up old paint can lids that have been purposely buried over the top of the well-head to make it easier to find. If you do find the well-head, don't open the seal on top. There are bolts on it that can be dropped down the well if not properly loosened. Also, some places have code that require you to modify a well to current code standards once it is opened. That entails extending the casing up above ground level. Best to leave that to a pump man.

I didn't say the farmer was eating the chickens. I said it could be his livelihood. (ie: his business) If you owned a restaurant, would you allow rats and roaches to wander about blissfully? They're God's little creatures too.

If you had to choose between feeding your own kids and the coyote feeding her pups, I would certainly hope you would choose your own kids. Coyotes aren't dogs. They are wild animals that have a keen instinct for survival in a cruel world.

Your state's dept. of natural resources may have a record of any wells drilled on your property. It helps if you know your plat number.

To some extent, circumstances dictate right or wrong. For example, if your livelihood depends on raising poultry, it would be ok to kill a coyote that is stealing your chickens. On the other hand, killing a coyote simply because he is guilty of being a coyote would be wrong. Killing anything without a valid reason is wrong. (IMO) Does the coyote experience emotion? I haven't a clue.

Wasn't it you who stated, in a previous post, that you didn't believe the story of Jonah and the whale was literally true?

I never said you "had a screw loose" or were "out to lunch" or were "a couple fries short of a happy meal", or anything of the sort. You said this: "It either is inerrant or it isn't. . . . . you either believe it is or you don't" See, this is the problem. If something is a Palomino Pony, for example, it really makes no difference what I believe it is. It doesn't change reality one tiny bit. It still gallops and kicks up its hooves. You believe it's inerrant. I don't. What does that really change? Nothing, as far as I can see. Unless, of course, we're talking about an organization, like The Way, whose beliefs on the matter had a direct effect on peoples' day to day lifestyle. "If one little piece doesn't fit, the whole thing falls to pieces." By that sort of reasoning, I would need to have a vested interest in making sure any contradictions or discrepancies are resolved. Sorry----I don't subscribe to that train of thought anymore.

Thanks, GT. Your hard work does not go unnoticed.

Very cool, SirG.

"The bible or scripture if you like. . . . is literature. . . . the subject matter God. Not only do the words convey something. . ... but, the subject matter is able to guide us Himself in understanding. The more we read and consider the times, the characters, the depth of story. . . . the more it fits together and is alive. It is obscured to be sure. . .. . similar to the depth of Jane Eyre. . . . but, there is an enlightening process." So then why must it also be "inerrant"?

'nother thought crossed my mind. FLO (Fellow Laborers of Ohio) used Ecc. 5:12 (The sleep of a labouring man is sweet, whether he eat little or much: but the abundance of the rich will not suffer him to sleep.) to squeeze extra work out of us and convince us it was a good thing we never had much money or enough to eat. And some people STILL don't think it was a cult!

I remember Wierwille teaching, in the earl 1970's, that, if you dream, you are leaving yourself in a vulnerable position for devil spirit visitation. This is the old "trap door" concept. According to Wierwille, people in the OT needed for God to speak to them in dreams because they didn't have "new birth spirit" by which to receive revelation. In retrospect, this contradicts "the great principle". (ie: "God is spirit and can only speak to spirit.") Wierwille rationalized this by saying that God "momentarily put spirit ON the OT dream recipients."----I believe VPW taught this in AC/1973. When I was a Fellow Laborer, in the mid 1970's, we were actually taught that the human body could circumvent the need for sleep by virtue of "speaking in tongues much". (If we were tired it was our own fault for slacking off in the SIT category.) Wierwille taught that God could talk to you in dreams but would only do so if you were so far out of fellowship that He couldn't get through to you via revelation. Naturally, if you did have a dream, you found yourself wondering how you had fallen out of fellowship. And we bought it-------That's the scary part.

Excellent points, Steve.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHtK4nAbsbI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHtK4nAbsbI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHtK4nAbsbI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object> <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqhl_8WwhMc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqhl_8WwhMc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqhl_8WwhMc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

No idea.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

very nice performance.

By sheer logic, it must have been.

I frequently hear people say they are thankful they learned some good "stuff" in The Way. Like what, specifically? Reading things in context? Weren't we supposed to have learned that already in jr. high school English class? Even so, The Way may have told you to read things in context but then they set a lasting example of how to cherry pick scriptures to make their point. So then what, specifically, are all these good things that people learned in The Way?

Gotta love the David Crosby character.

Yeah. You can cut the "pie" into an "infinite" number of pieces if you want. That doesn't change what The Way tried to pass off as "research". It wasn't research, it was a confirmation, as well as a conformation, of Wierwille's preconceived conclusions. Remember, we're not talking about research in general. We're talking about TWI "research" and how how people have a fondness for remembering it as it never was.

Sorry, Workman, it all sounds like a bunch of verbal tap dancing to me. A scientific experiment that has been validated in, let's say, Kansas, has to produce the same results on Mars?? Where did you learn this approach to validation? It's really not as complex or intellectual as you try to make it sound. The "scriptures", as we know them, are chock full of errors and contradictions, not only because we no longer understand the nuances of the original languages and cultures but, also, because human tinkering has modified the contents time and time again. Wierwille didn't "research" anything. He simply twisted and squeezed and altered the Bible until he was able to make it conform to what he thought it should say. And, what he thought it should say was whatever best suited his own self-serving purposes. And, yet, people still harbor fond memories of how lambano sounds like laballo which sounds like ballo which sounds like ball which is an object to be tossed and, therefore, we are to toss it out into the senses world like a ball is tossed into the field of play. I am my own Grandpaw.

Yep

HERE is an interesting discussion we had a while back.