WordWolf

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.

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. 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.

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."

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?

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

"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!"

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.)

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. For the sake of discussion, let's suppose we all agree that God exists and 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? 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. 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."

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 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.

RumRunner, they can control the access to the books, but they can't control the access to ideas in the internet.

I don't know, does it? I think that was OUR question FIRST. Does one set of beliefs-to YOU-mean that all Christians with DIFFERENT beliefs are INFERIOR, WRONG and REPUGNANT? Some people would say yes, some people would say no, and some would mean yes but would obscure it in a cloud of oratory. I mean, we all think we're right, but what one says about those that are "wrong" tends to be more telling, to me, than just about anything.