waysider

KJV (King James Version) "---the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." Is the word "also" supposed to be in that verse? I don't know. Maybe somebody who is versed in these types of intricacies can chime in here. If it is, though, it would mean that the word of God works in those who don't believe, too. Kinda like an additional, descriptive qualifier. (ie: "---the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you who live in New Jersey.") That really makes sense when you think about it. Consider this. ----"A soft answer turns away wrath." Does believing have anything to do with whether or not that advise works? -------------------------------------------- NWMV (New Way Ministry Version) "---the word of God, which effectually worketh if/because you believe." Doesn't seem to carry the same meaning in my opinion. Seems to take the pressure off God and put it on YOUR shoulders. But what do I know?

Because

Here's a little discussion we had regarding the "law" of believing a couple of months ago. In some obtuse way, I think it may somehow tie into this concept of "bad things happen to people who aren't believing and it's their own fault". ( There is a commercial break about 3/4 of the way through it. Please don't let that deter you.) http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...=16327&st=0

It never ceases to amaze me the twisting and contorting of logic you will go through to keep your idol on a pedestal. I never said they died of what we refer to as "natural" death. I said they died a "physical" death just like everyone else who ever existed including Dorcas. (In case it escaped your notice, she didn't stay alive forever.) Nor did I ever say it was "God's Will" that they die a painful, horrible death. You have still failed to show me where the scriptures say that deliverance is "available" in EVERY incident that life brings our way. You are doing the exact same thing Wierwille did. You are implying that our short comings in this life are all our own fault because we fail to "believe" for deliverance. I ain't buying it. (Nor am I buying into the idiotic "law" of magical believing.) It ought to be renamed "the law of passing the blame and assigning unwarranted guilt".

There is only one man that has ever escaped death, Oldies. And the Bible doesn't say he accomplished this by operating the "law" of believing. It can't possibly be "available" for every other man, woman and child who has ever inhabited this planet to escape death by operating the "law" of believing. Your implication here is that these men are directly responsible for their own deaths because they failed to "operate" a so-called principle that is not Biblical but rather a man-made concept proposed by VPW. Please show me some scripturally sound evidence that states that physical death can be escaped by "believing".

You tell me, Oldies, was it? Does The Bible say that deliverance is always "available" in all( without exception) instances? If the answer, on the other hand, is that it is "available" in all(within a particular distinction), what and whom determines that distinction? If it is God who determines that qualifying criteria, it would be fool hearty to try to over ride it with the "law" of believing. Your logic on this particular subject appears to be horrendously flawed and idolatrous.

Oldiesman I may have misunderstood your explanation of why the lives of Paul and Peter(add Stephen to that, if you like.) ended in the awful ways they did. Please feel free to correct me if I have. (misunderstood) Your stance appears to be that these men died these horrible deaths because they were deficient in their ability to operate the "law" of believing in regard to deliverance. In other words, it was their own fault. Is that your contention? Aren't you the same guy who can't understand why people didn't just walk away from The Way? What is that phrase you have used,"No one held a gun to their heads."? The Way taught people that to walk away was equivalent to leaving the "hedge of protection" that the "one true household" provided. In essence they were saying that to leave would put you out of fellowship and at the mercy of "the adversary". And, of course, if you are "out of fellowship", it's impossible to receive revelation that might be required for personal safety and survival. You could end up the same way these men of Biblical note did if you walked away. Is that how you justify why these aforementioned men died? Because they brought it onto themselves through "unbelief"? Please clarify if I have misconstrued your meaning.

You are correct. It is, indeed, Donovan. Dylan has never done it, though it certainly has that same kind of flavor. When Donovan hit the scene in the mid 1960's, he was often referred to as the UK's answer to Dylan. (He is Scottish) That particular style was quite popular at that time. Lyrics were of utmost importance to this type of music. Another singer/songwriter that took a similar approach was one of my all time favorite "folkies", Eric Anderson. Eric actually started out as a contemporary of Dylan. Anderson, Dylan and Phil Ochs often played the same clubs in Greenwich Village. Here is Eric Anderson in 1970 in case you would like a sample. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g70zT3lXPZc Yer Next!!!!!

A liter is just slightly larger than a quart.

Thanks, jen-o I don't think you are rambling at all. You're making perfect sense.

"In the chilly hours and minutes of uncertainty, I long to be in the warm hold of your loving mind."

I sure wish I would have had your wisdom and insight when I was 18. Que Sera Sera.

Good Lovin'-------The Rascals---?? (Or were they still called The Young Rascals then?)

You got it! Written and recorded by Tom Waits but far better known for the treatment it received from The Eagles.

The dictionary cited seems to contradict itself. Definition #1 suggests that polytheists are pagan whereas definition #2 excludes the theistic requirements, either partially or in total. Hellenism is characterized by polytheism and the exclusion of a connection to Abraham.

Slight diversion

It sounds like it might be describing the ill-fated Franklin Expedition to find The Northwest Passage.

I understand the concept and agree with the essence of it. Part of the problem, though, is that some of the damages done to people are not at the conscious, thinking level. I recently posted a somewhat analogous example of a WWII vet who suffered from what we now call PTSS or PTSD. It's like a virus that lived inside him, biding its time until conditions were right to surface. It's not something you control by "thinking" about it. You can forgive people on a conscious level and, according to The Word, you should. It's not beneficial to carry grudges and retaliatory thoughts. Plenty of medical and psychological studies will bare this out. So, forgiving at the conscious level can certainly be a valuable part of the process but it's not the complete answer all by itself. You can "never think about it again" and still suffer from adverse reactions that are tied to something deeper than the thought process. IMO

Even if you find a number, it's accuracy would be dubious at best. The Way never considered itself a cult. I suspect many others fly "under the radar" as well. I used to work with someone who, at one time, belonged to a cult called The Fellowship Of Believers. From what was described, it was remarkably similar to TWI. I have never been able to find any information on them at all. There is a church that uses that same name but, as far as I know, there is no connection. You might try the following link: http://www.caic.org.au/zentry1.htm

I heard this being used as early as the early 1970's as a corroboration of something that VPW taught. It might have been four crucified. I don't recall off hand. The point that people made was that if two people who knew nothing of each other's work had reached the same conclusion, it surely must be true. This reasoning is tainted on more than one level. First, because we now know that Wierwille WAS aware of Bullinger's work. Secondly, because Wierwille presented this as being unique information that was given to him personally by God. Third, because Wierwille had stated that he had hauled all his reference material to the dump and started over. Fourth, because we now know it is faulty research that arrives at an erroneous conclusion. Wierwille not only used someone else's work as if it were his own, he never even did the proper work required to prove or disprove its validity.

The commonality that exists among "The Big Three" is that they are monotheistic and all consider their origin to be with Abraham. It's an academic point, not a subjective evaluation. Here is a "Wiki" that explains some of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religion Sorry, I know that strays from the larger topic but it addresses the sub-topic at hand.

Here's the next one. It's not the opening line but I think it's pretty recognizable. (At least I hope so.) "Now the sun's coming up; I'm riding with Lady Luck, freeway cars and trucks".

Drive downhill-----Both ways.

Actually, two come to mind on this one. 1. Day Tripper-------Beatles 2. Kind Woman-----------Buffalo Springfield Or is there another one?