def59

If God does not change, then how can the rules for godly living? While we are not required to live by every little law in the OT, they still show God's heart about holy living.

Forever was a great song Winnie the Pooh sang with Christopher Robin in a recent movie.

I can't, don't plan to, and don't want to know every single Mosaic law or memorize every genealogy mentioned in the Bible. It doesn't help me know Christ in a better way. Oh, BD, what a treasure you miss in those genealogies when you see who Jesus's earthly ancestors were. That's how he can identify with us with black sheep in the family and people who may have a sordid history. _SOME_ people were expected to live by those laws, not all. Israel only. The law was never sent to China, or North America, or Sub Equatorial Africa. So non-Israel would be functioning under the same divine expectations that they had all along.Context, Oak, context. What are we talking about? What's mentioned in the Bible, I hope. I apologize if I left out specifics. God gave the law to Israel. Of course, I understand that. And the whole dispensation/covenant battle is based on whether Israel means Church now or not. If God doesn't label the time period, why do you feel the necessity to do so? Calling the Law that was given to Israel an adminstration makes an assumption that may or may not be warranted without more thought than you appear willing to give it. Administration comes from the Greek word "oikonomia" which means the administration of a house. It is also translated stewardship and governing. We are dealing with how God governs his creation. Dispensation was the King James English translation of oikonomia. So, administration and dispensation basically mean the same thing. Governing or reigning or ruling over a specific time period fits with current terminology in how we, in America, describe our executive leader term in office. So, administration is widely used terminology, especially for Americans, to refer to specific definable periods of time. I like the term "administration" because people can generally understand the term. In order to share God's Word, but it must be in terms that people can understand. If I yelled at you that your rumpelstilskin was on fire, you wouldn't know what I meant. But no one can say for sure when one started and the other ended. No you haven't by youOh, yeah, of course, uh huh. But we really know who is the culprit. Is that MainstreamBrain, never admitting when you are wrong? Try it on, you may find it fits. That would be you once againSee above. I am not going to get into this childish "you are, no you are, no you are" nonsense. I think you just did. I think that you just made the opposing viewpoint.But, for the sake of communication, we need to have common terminology so that when we communicate the Word to each other and to one other, we are able to convey the correct meaning and concepts. For someone to just arbitrarily decide that they hate TWI, therefore all TWI terminology or descriptions is wrong, is not logical. If one looks objectively at many things TWI taught, there is both scriptural integrity, common logic, and understanding terminology. To arbitrarily dismiss all of that is not using sound logic. BD, Many of us have dismissed or stopped using it not arbitrarily, but through honest study and prayer. We found the way to be illogical and therefore invalid of further study. I guess calling something that would be as biblical as calling it an administration since neither are biblicalThe Greek word "oikonomia" is translated as administration, stewardship, and governing. Administration is to oversee, steward is to properly care or oversee, and governing is overseeing with rules and regulations. It is not logical to claim "administration" is an unbiblical word. The word "administration" also perfectly fits with current language, as in defining a presidential term of office. So, the word "administration" can convey a well understood meaning. But, I am not declaring that that is exactly what the definable and distinguishable time periods in the Bible must be called. For that matter, "dispensation" coming from the same Greek word "oikonomia" would be just as Biblical, but less used in modern language. Pharmacists dispense pills. ATM dispense money. Dispense in modern language commonly refers more to the giving out of something, than the oversight of. I repeat, I don't care what people call it. But it's helpful if people can understand the meaning. BD, But what if we don't see it that way?

Rebellion seems to be the obvious choice here. We as a species have been rebelling ever since.

Disagreeing with someone's lifestyle is not hatred. When arguments are reduced to that level, all hope for rational discussion is lost.

While I got the joke, Wayans, for me, took away from the movie with his constant barrage of profanity. Other than that, I liked it.

Back to the movie… Elf is great family fun.

Zix Dittos. Incredibles works on so-many levels, at times I thought I was watching an old James Bond flick. Best superhero movie? Yes. Best action movie? Top five for sure. Addition planned for DVD already.

"Miracle Mile" with pre-ER Anthony Edwards, what do you when you learn the world has 90 minutes before nuclear armageddon? "Sense and Sensibilities" Hugh Grant, Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman star in movie based on classic novel.

Apple works for me because their sin made us rotten to the core. :D-->

Thanks for the Vine site, this will help my studies.

PFAl $100 Advances $300 Advance PFAL $450 Wages lost by going WOW instead of College $200,000 (was planning to study pre-law) Being Free from Twitville: priceless

Wouldn't he be called a more soiled piece of bathroom tissue?

You know for the class, which culminated in session 12 SIT?!?

How about charging for the right to speak in tongues and then teaching that Simon the Sorceror was wrong to offer money for the same thing?

Ok Dave Lets go over the "rules" you start and then we'll know what the ground rules are. The reason some accuse you of WayBrain is that your attitude seems to be if twi has a doctrine or belief that you agree with then its truth and anyone who says otherwise is wrong, hates vpw or is illogical. That in itself is not logical.

is it possible to be dull and charismatic at the same time. Presidential candidates not withstanding.

Dave You can believe what you want. But, Steve is absolutely right when he said we were coached in the culture to say the class saved us, the word Wierwille taught us. We gain understanding of Scripture only through the Spirit. We can all read and gain knowledge. Oak is right when he says we disagree often, but we respect each other. The same goes (respect, I hope) with Raf, Sudo and Grizzy, even Galen, to name a few. I can respect your beliefs and disagree with your conclusions. How about giving some of that back? I c

is it possible for a full-gospel church to only use 2 or 3?

I'll take the job. Oakspear could be vp Geo Aar sec/treas My research dept would be Raf, Evan and Mike (a trinity of sorts) And Song would head up Way Productions. Shell, Ex and Abi could take Bless Patrol, I always trust moms.

First we kill babies in the womb, now we do it outside. Then we kill grandpa and grandma because they are in pain, then because its cheaper. Sounds like some old regimes of the 20th century. As long as there are guidelines, then what could go wrong, go wrong, go wrong …

At five or 10 or 15, it's hard to get boys to line up or away from the outside. Boys want to run and jump and yell. Our school system stifles their creativity and expression. Athletics are fine, but some kids aren't that good and when they fail they run to crime, drugs or other unhealthy alternatives.

By RICHARD N. OSTLING AP Religion Writer Addressing head-on the hottest public issue shaped by the Bible, two-thirds of 21 million voters supported constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage, in 11 states ranging from freewheeling Oregon to straight-laced Utah. Eight of these measures also barred legalized civil unions. Six states previously took similar stands and conservatives are now plotting campaigns in nine additional states. In nationwide exit polling, 25 percent of voters backed gay marriage (but 77 percent of Kerry voters), 35 percent accepted civil unions and 37 percent (70 percent of Bush voters) opposed all legal recognition. The traditional biblical belief was skewered just before Election Day by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, who said “it’s presumptuous of conservatives to assume that God is on their side.” Backing Kristof, the Web page of New York University’s Center for Religion and Media said the “anti-gay position” held by most religious leaders is a “misinterpretation. Or more simply wrong,” because they are “cherry picking select passages from scripture.” (Presumably that includes Muslims who cite the Quran’s condemnations.) Then Pittsburgh Theological Seminary’s Robert Gagnon, author of the conservative magnum opus “The Bible and Homosexual Practice,” used his Web page to answer Kristof. Sample items from their colloquy: —How can believers uphold the homosexual law (Leviticus 18:22) but ignore other Old Testament commands? Kristof: “Homosexuality never made the Top 10” among biblical commandments, so it’s as trivial as “wearing a polyester-and-cotton shirt” (Leviticus 19:19). Gagnon: Kristof’s “extraordinary lack of” sensitivity in Bible interpretation ignores that ritual fabric rules carried minor penalties, whereas Leviticus treats homosexual acts, adultery, incest and bestiality together as “first-tier sexual offenses.” —Was Leviticus limited? Kristof: Some scholars say this law condemned only one practice, not all gay eroticism. Gagnon: By that logic, the Bible allows “erotic kissing and fondling of one’s mother.” —What did Jesus believe? Kristof: “Jesus never said a word about gays” and anyway, conservatives are inconsistent because they ignore Jesus’ teaching of “self-castration” (Matthew 19:12). Gagnon: The first point is “historically preposterous.” Silence doesn’t equal approval. Jesus didn’t address universally held Jewish beliefs unless he opposed them, and he advocated Old Testament morality and heterosexual monogamy. Matthew 19:12 isn’t literal but refers to voluntary celibacy, as everyone knows. —And Paul? Kristof: “Do we really want to make Paul our lawgiver?” If so, women must wear veils and long hair (1 Corinthians 11:5-6). Gagnon: Whatever those Corinthian worship rules meant, they weren’t serious moral matters like incest or homosexual acts, which risk “possible exclusion from the kingdom of God,” according to the Bible. —What about lesbians? Kristof: “The Bible has no unequivocal condemnation of lesbian sex” (he said the same in a previous column). Maybe Romans 1:26-27 opposed only relations during menstruation or female aggression. Gagnon: Please. Read that text again, without preconceptions. —What was Sodom’s sin (Genesis 19:4-8)? Kristof: The Bible criticizes Sodom’s lack of hospitality, not homosexuality, and teaches that “the holy thing to do is offer up your virgin daughters” if a mob attacks. Gagnon: Later Bible passages (Ezekiel 16:49-50, Jude 7, 2 Peter 2:6-10) and ancient Jewish and Christian interpreters indicate Sodom’s misdeeds included homosexual acts. The Bible implicitly criticizes Lot for offering his daughters. —Did the Old Testament approve gay sex elsewhere? Kristof: It seems that David and Jonathan had a gay relationship (1 Samuel 18). Gagnon: “No reputable biblical scholar” agrees, not even liberals. Kristof simply misunderstands non-erotic male friendships in ancient cultures. Note: Kristof’s article strangely ignored the important writings from Bible scholars who take his side, much less conservatives like Gagnon. ——— On the Net: Kristof link, Gagnon response: http://www.robgagnon.net

What right do we have to play God. All this does is degrade human life. What other unneccessary people will go next?