WordWolf

And refused to answer Luke 1:41 and Luke 1:44,

which appear to contradict that position.

KJV:

"Luke 1:41

"And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost"

Luke 1:44

"For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy."

(Greek word 'brephos', which is also rendered "infant" or "young child" elsewhere.)

John was not born yet, but he was considered a babe/baby.

(I'm skipping any " 'babe does not mean baby thing' because I try not to get involved in discussions that

are EXCEPTIONALLY stupid.)

What month was he at?

Well, according to Gabriel, 6 months.

Luke 1:36.

"And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren."

So, John the Baptist, at 6 months if not sooner, was considered a baby, which is some 3 months before

"first breath" on the average.

That's "sometime before nine months", so that darn well IS what we know.

Further,

at 6 months, there was some specificity in that he responded to Mary, and his response

somehow indicated a distinction between normal fetal movement and this SPECIFIC reaction.

That was in Luke 1:41, as description, and NOT simply a report of Elizabeth's opinion.

(Someone might try to dismiss 1:44 for that reason, but that excuse is denied in the case of 1:41.

So, in short, I'm scratching it as "non-responsive."

From the way this was written, one might think that there was such thing as the internet when EW wrote

her book. WTH is extrapolating from her at one place, and citing her in an attempt to support his point

in another. The result appears as if WTH is saying EW wrote ABOUT the internet when she wrote this book.

Man, twi really hated Travolta. "Saturday Night Live" was evil,

and "Staying Alive" was plagiarized INTENTIONALLY to make AOS (off the "Satan's Alley" sequence.)

I can only imagine what lcm said once Travolta became a Scientologist...

I think Elena S. Whiteside addresses the same problem to some extent in the book: "God's Word in Culture" specifically the chapter on "The State of the Union". In that chapter she talks about Tony Manero, the hero of "Saturday Night Fever". The story revolves around Tony Manero, a nineteen year old who works a drab job selling paint - his life consisting of work, hanging out with his buddies and then the high point - dressing up and going to the local disco on Saturday night. It's there in the "disco" where Tony receives recognition, praise admiration and validation - where he can "be somebody".

[Ok, all of that was what EW said, and as far as it goes, it's correct-

but it doesn't address that this is also just plain what he does for FUN.

I find saying Manero discoed for "validation" is reading too much into the movie.

That Manero was passionate about "dance" as opposed to doing it for the

"pat on the back" becomes more obvious when seeing the sequel.

He's dedicated hundreds of hours of rehearsal a week, and many hours going to

auditions, only to be sent home and face rejection EVERY TIME.

That was thus the opposite of "validation" EACH TIME.]

But today the Internet is the replacement for the 1970's disco. It's the place where someone who is typically a nobody can receive recognition, praise, admiration and validation from their peers.

[At its heart, the Internet is a method of communication and information-exchange

between people. Some of us find the communication and information-exchange all by itself

is a laudable goal all by itself.

Then again, I suspect that those who don't GET "recognition", "praise", "admiration"

or "validation" for just going about their business might well claim that this is the ONLY

goal, and further that it is to be despised.

Meanwhile, a few seconds' search gave me the information I was looking for,

which illustrates my point. It predates the internet by nearly 2000 years.

"One hot summer's day a Fox was strolling through an orchard till he came to a bunch of Grapes just ripening on a vine which had been trained over a lofty branch. "Just the thing to quench my thirst," quoth he. Drawing back a few paces, he took a run and a jump, and just missed the bunch. Turning round again with a One, Two, Three, he jumped up, but with no greater success. Again and again he tried after the tempting morsel, but at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: "I am sure they are sour."

Aesop had a point to make there...]

As Elena Whiteside put it, "What is there for the Tony Manero of today?"

People doing things for the love of doing them has been an element for society as long as

there has BEEN society. I assert that Jubal wouldn't have been the de facto inventor of

music if he didn't like music, and Tubal-Cain wouldn't have invented smithing if he didn't

find a joy in building things that last.

Then again, the recognition inherent in the tasks might cause one to say that the reason

they did either was "for validation."

On the other hand, people hotdogging and doing things just to get the credit for doing them

has a long history in society as well, probably as long as there has BEEN society.

So,

this really is unsupported.

Further, she said nothing about the Internet, which didn't exist back then.

Connecting her unsupported supposition and its supposed correctness

to this discussion is the supposition of WTH.]

The answer to that is that today there is the Internet. It's just another one of today's theives, sucking off peoples lives like a vacuum cleaner right out of life and living.

[some people value the information they can receive at their fingertips at a moment's notice.

With a few seconds' work, you can download Aesop's Fables, the most classical of literature,

tools for use with a Bible, valuable medical knowledge or knowledge of ANY area of study,

or just communication and friendship.

It can be used for entertainment, for news, for knowledge, for friendship.

Ignoring one of those uses entirely does it-and yourself-a disservice.]

"These theives have only as much influence over people as the people allow them to have," as Elena Whiteside put it. But people are subject to these influences, because in contrast, their surroundings are so overwhelmingly drab, dull, secondhand that TV, drugs, and dropping out seem the lesser of two evils. To that strange mix one can add the Internet. Evils, nevertheless, are both alternatives. TV, drugs, dropping out and the Internet just steal from us the experience of life and the reason to develop meaningful relationships with one another.

The printing press can be used to produce trash magazines of negligible quality,

and it can produce medical journals and Bibles.

To ignore the latter uses is to does it-and yourself-a disservice.

Perhaps it is the PERSON and not the TOOL that determines its utility-or its uselessness.]

On the surface there is nothing wrong with the Internet any more than TV. These forms of media can be and are great avenues for learning. But on the other side of the coin, the Internet I believe gives one greater access to "instant gratification" than what TV ever did. That is why time now spent on-line is near or greater than the amount of time that one use to spend in front of the "boob tube". But these are just the conditions of our consumer society, and one can more easily change a condition after it has been recognized and defined.

[You proved my point. Television can be used for education as well as entertainment.

(Or both at the same time, as GOOD education is INTERESTING, often, especially on TV.)

The great ADVANTAGE in utility of the internet over the television is that the user CONTROLS THE

EXPERIENCE. He posts and interacts with others, and he determines which of the billions and billions of

websites he is going to spend time on.]

Her link was of LINDA RONSTADT singing "Long Long Time Part",

which a quick websearch clarifies is "LONG LONG TIME."

We're still waiting for the next song.

He correctly described the episode, but it wasn't silicon (which was a whole different episode about the Crystalline Entity), it was the Sheliak, a race that made the Vogons look like rule-breaking loose cannons.

[Personally, I believe the Sheliak were a silicon-based lifeform.

They LOOKED like they were made of rock. I say "personally" because I can't find an official source

saying they are.]

They were sticklers for the law, and the treaty they had was something like a half-million pages.

[The Treaty of Armens "was established in 2255 between the Sheliak Corporate and the United Federation of Planets. It contained 500,000 words and took 372 Federation legal experts to draft."]

Picard begged them for extra time,

[The Sheliak wanted to wipe out the entire colony, since they had their OWN colony on their way to the

planet. Humans had crashed on the planet, and their descendants were living there and had just been

discovered. A colony-ship could have evacuated them if it had a 3-week window to arrive and evac them.

Data tried to convince the colony to pack rather than be destroyed (the radiation levels were very high),

while Picard spent the entire episode trying to negotiate for 3 weeks with the Sheliak. Negotiation calls for

imprecise language, which is the way to anger the Sheliak. So, he'd hail the Sheliak. At each attempt, they

"hung up" on the Enterprise.]

and they would not relent, so he invoked that paragraph in the treaty, giving him 6 months rather than 3 weeks.

[He quoted DIRECTLY from the treaty, citing paragraph and subsection which gave them SIX MONTHS

by strict application of the terms of the treaty. When the Sheliak captain balked-probably shocked he'd been

outsmarted-Picard jumped in, accused the Sheliak of preparing to violate the treaty, and announced it was

therefore "in abeyance". *cuts connection*

Riker: *grinning* "You ENJOYED that!"

Picard: "You're d*ed RIGHT!"

*signal tone*

Worf:"Captain, they are hailing us"

Picard: *strolls casually across the bridge*

*examines the Enterprise's dedication plaque for dust with a finger*

*strolls casually back across the bridge*

*takes a deep breath*

"Open channel."

Sheliak Captain: "You may have your three weeks, Picard of the Enterprise."

Picard: "Thank you."

Meanwhile, Data had finally convinced the colonists that the Sheliak were ready

to just bomb them into oblivion in seconds if they stayed, so their choices really

were "evacuate or die."

Data's significant line, when making a demonstration on how to obliterate

the entire colony quickly...

"[iThat[/i] was the stun setting. This is not."

*fires one shot, destroying their aqueduct*

NOW they get it. They agree leaving beats the heck out of dying.

(After a few more words now that he has their attention.)]

The Episode was called The Ensigns of Command.

A masterpiece, if you haven't seen it.

Retemories? Don't you find it interesting ... that while we were required to recite every single word just as it was written in the King James ... leadership could do something so "creative" as to INVENT the word "retemorie"? It's not in the dictionary. It's just another piece of WaySpeak.

Even one of the syllabi I have from something admitted it was a portmanteau

(not that they said that name, not knowing WHAT a portmanteau WAS)

combining the words "retain" and "memorize".

What it WAS, was a memorizing, but someone felt the need to make up a new word,

as if it was a new idea or a new concept. As others have pointed out, adding new

organization-specific names and terms help to thicken the wall between

"us" and "them" for those IN the organization.

And while we're on the topic of memorizing verses, does anyone know a verse that addresses the tendency of some to take advantage of others, and then to take their help for granted? Being the Bible quote expert in my circle of non-Wafer friends, I was asked this recently, and couldn't come up with a verse.

Hm. Depends on the specific direction you're going.

You MIGHT apply

Matthew 23:13-15

"13But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

14Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

15Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."

or possibly Matthew 23:23-24

"23Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel."

or possibly Matthew 23: 3-5

"3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

4For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

5But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,"

Or maybe something else.

Seems like Matthew 23 might be a useful chapter to review for that.

"

A few of those are true,

but I don't have time to sit and unravel the spaghetti right now.

Maybe later.

So? I am sure that such is relevant though I don't see how.

Galen, should I actually type out the verses I asked for a relevant comment on,

and retype the questions I (re)posted about them,

or just scratch the effort as "non-responsive"?

So far,

It seems to me that all attempts to justify vpw's position (except one)

have been departures from actually addressing the verses that make them

problematic to be true. (I.e. 'DISTRACTIONS FROM' rather than

'attempts to answer.') Given intelligent adults, I find this rather disappointing.

It's not like I'm asking one of the age-old imponderables, or for you to even

resolve the entire discussion into one sentence. I just want to see one of you

either resolve your seemingly-contradictory doctrine, or simply label it as

"dismissed", so we can proceed to one clear, non-contradictory concept

(or more than one non-contradictory concept, as the case may be.)

If I can be indulged...

Before I snatch this one, I'll give one more shot for someone else, someone for whom

this is not a defining episode of the shows.... :)

"Intelligent converse is impossible. You do not discuss, you gibber."

"Between intelligent species of good will --"

The previous clues...

"You enjoyed that."

"You're damn right!"

"He wants the impossible."

"That's the short definition for Captain."

Hold it! We need a ruling!

If describing the episode is enough, then which post gets credit for the answer?

It would have been mine or Raf's depending on which was the correct episode.

Hiway29's answer repeated Raf's.

*snicker*

That's got to be when Spock "used the Vulcan Death Grip" on Kirk.

It's when they stole a Romulan cloaking device, and Kirk is revived

from death with pointy ears and sharp eyebrows.

What do you remember from this timeframe?

...not even the murder part of the situation but who will be included in the kingdom without this breath life vpw taught that even a cherished wanted child would never cut the mustard for eternal life if he/she did not take a breath outside of the womb.

this is a very radical conclusion and I see no base for it what so ever in scripture....

I'm waiting to see if there's any basis for it, myself, but so far, a case for it is still pending...

The question is

whether a fetus can have soul life without having breath life,

or is it just growth life that we see before it takes its first breath, like the growth life of a plant.

Calling it a babe seems to imply that there is already a soul present. Jeremiah 20: 14-18 speaks as though there was a soul present before birth.

Perhaps the soul life is there from conception and the breath life is supplied by the mother in utero.

Jerry

Perhaps.

Sounds like someone missed the relevance of it-possibly due to cutting this post in half,

but it goes to the heart of the FOUNDATION of this subject.

I'm open to hearing support for various positions, but that means the support

must be OFFERED first.

Back in the 70's, the Kumrian [sp?] family came to The Way. He had been a major player with a Multi-level Marketing company called Steed. There was some major scandel with that company and he had lost everything.

But, he brought his MLM techniques to VP who thought it was a great idea. Pretty soon, the witnessing model started to resemble MLM---"each one, win one, who wins one" and on and on and on, rather than your life being a witness to others.

It became a specifically designed approach, rather than letting the spirit of God move in a person.

I knew it Rejoice

The similarities were too much for me to handle.

I met my husband as I was getting out of twi and since then we've tryed many types of MLM. I just couldn't stomach those meetings

I would tell my husband it reminded too much of the ministry and how they did things. Of course he didn't understand because he wasn't involved with twi. But he too didn't like the tactics they used. I saw right through thier BS

"Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who."

"Who is that?"

"Must be a king."

"How do you know?"

"He hasn't got sh* all over him."

According to the actors, that was an improvised line....

"...She's rich, she's got huge....tracts of land!"

So, Galen,

in the last few pages, and especially [page 3], we were discussing

John the Baptist at 6 months, who was referred to as a baby.

He most certainly was not even expected to be born for another 3 months,

and certainly seems-in the womb as he is- to be far from taking any breath,

first or no.

How would you reconcile the account describing John the Baptist in

"the Visitation" with a "first breath" being the beginning of a soul?

I thought we were going to hear how you view those Scriptures, Galen.

That IS what you volunteered for, when I asked and you responded,

right?

No, but nice try.

For a moment, I thought someone had just zoomed in and got it immediately.

(No, that's not a clue or anything.)

You got me on the verses in Luke 1. So sometime between verse 35, where Jesus in utero is called a holy thing, and verse 41 where the babe leaped in Elisabeth's womb God considered John the Baptist in utero a babe.

Ok,

so you either insist on skipping the rather straightforward explanations- which I've run through more

than once- that showed that calling Jesus a "thing" lacked any merit,

or you're determined to remain locked in to the KJV rendering of the verse and completely

disregard the consistent usage of the word that meant he was a "holy one" and not

a "holy thing".

With that single-minded an approach, I'm unsure how honest and fair a dialogue we can

have here. Seems we can't agree on the most basic elements of "what it says",

which would be the foundation of later discussion of contents which is where we are

trying to get eventually.

Of course, it is possible that God called JTB a babe because He knew JTB would be born and do something for God, but I agree with Galen that God knows the future.

What's the DIRECT relevance of that to the discussion at hand?

(Feel free to lay as lengthy a foundation to get there, but please end with a direct answer

to that, since it relates to why you're bringing it up.)

Are you trying to suggest, imply or otherwise talk around what it means to be called

a baby in Luke 1?

Please just say whatever it is outright if you have an opinion or comment.

Are you trying to suggest that John wasn't REALLY a baby when he was CALLED a baby?

In the bible God has always been willing to work around some human practices. Example: multiple spouses. Jacob, David, and Elkanah had difficulties with their spouses, but there is no indication that any of them were penalized for having them. Solomon's wives were an issue to God only because they led him to worship other gods.

We still haven't established a foundation for discussion on this subject yet,

and you're still bringing in irrelevant topics. Now I can't even find the pretext.

Kindly hold off on that until we have a basis for discussing it.

The subject will still be there later when there's a less-inappropriate time to

invoke it.

How do you know God isn't willing to work around abortion? Could you look Abigail's friend in the eye and call her a murderer?

I could look Abigail's friend in the eye and say

"Friend of Abigail?

We're not ready to discuss your situation yet. I'll be happy to address it directly

once more proximate subject have been covered.

No point in discussing Trigonometry when arithmetic and algebra haven't

been covered yet, since those form the foundations for discussing Trigonometry.

Likewise, your topic is dependant upon EARLIER topics we haven't covered yet."

=========

So, JohnIam,

is there hope of you continuing with the more basic discussion on terms and

definitions first, or will you remain content to formulate all terms as they please

you, irregardless of the sense carried by them or evidence to the contrary?

Your last post seemed to indicate the latter, but the former would be much

appreciated at this time...

"Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who."

I recall an incident while in residence at Emporia...There were about 500 of us sitting there while LCM was calling on individuals to stand and recite retemories. If you missed even one little preposition in the verse, he would verbally abuse you, screaming at you, belittling and humiliating you in front of hundreds of people. It became a real "fear thing" for many people...

...The actual content of the verse was lost on his demand for gramatical perfection. Twi became so obsessed with gramatical accuracy that the heart of what the verse said became almost meaningless.

Matthew 23:23-28.

"23Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

25Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

26Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

27Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

28Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."

Screaming at people for forgetting the placement of one preposition,

and committing adultery and other sins at the same time.

I think we know what Jesus would have said to that....

Nice to see the hope for a dialogue here!

So, Galen,

in the last few pages, and especially this page(3), we were discussing

John the Baptist at 6 months, who was referred to as a baby.

He most certainly was not even expected to be born for another 3 months,

and certainly seems-in the womb as he is- to be far from taking any breath,

first or no.

How would you reconcile the account describing John the Baptist in

"the Visitation" with a "first breath" being the beginning of a soul?

*wild swing* "K-Pax"??

Spider-Man

Stan Lee

X-2:X-Men United

Ok, I believe that, concerning the initial question on the table, the question as to what the Bible

says on the subject, that we have divided the posters into 3 categories.

A) those who dont care what it says, or consider what it says secondary to the moral issues

involving the life of a mother, the life of a child, and the thousands of things related to that

B) those who found that what the Bible says does NOT match what we were told in twi,

and that God considers a "fetus" as a "baby" by the 6th month at the very latest,

with no guarantee as to what He considers the fetus at 1st month, 2nd month, etc,

which is still open to interpretation,

but in any case, well short of the 9 months vpw gave as the "first breath" moment which

he said was the moment that defined "baby" versus "potentially alive."

C) those eager to defend vpw's position, preferably through obfuscation and changing of

the subject.

Is anyone still here who wishes to OPENLY attempt to defend that position at this time?

Is there anyone here who believes vpw was correct and wishes to try to prove from

Scripture that a stronger case can be made for his "first breath" position than for

"alive" before that? By all means, please speak up and we can pursue this line of

discussion further.

Otherwise, it seems the others either think the answer is clearly otherwise, or are

indifferent to it, or wish to conceal their position and pretend to discuss with little snipes

and changes of subject.

If you think that you see something in my posts that says otherwise your certainly entitled to your opinion.

If I thought that, I wouldn't be ASKING what you think about other Christians,

I'd figure you'd spelled out how you felt about them.

It's healthier to ask rather than jump to conclusions, anyway.

One thing I AM aware of is that it can sometimes take DECADES to get clear of the

twi "we are supreme!" attitude, and some never escape it. So, I prefer to get specific about it

from time to time.