Goey

It was obviously a "parable" set forth by the teacher. As with most parables, the characters are fictional and the true meaning is hidden

to the spiritually ignorant until the meaning of the parable is revealed.

The mother represents ______________.

The child represents _______________.

The mothers unbelief represents ______________ .

The death of the child represents _____________.

And the moral of the story is _________________________________________________ .

Fill in the blanks

AND, when my steak eating younger brother died in 1992 at the age of 36, I needed to learn about the hows and whys of his health problems... since early onset heart disease runs in my family.

Good point. It runs in my family as well, on my father's side.

But, it doesn't matter if they eat steak and potatoes, are vegans, or if they smoke or not. About 1/3 of the men have developed athlerosclerosis regardless of diet, cholesterol levels or smoking habits. The cholesterol levels are "high" (over 200) in almost all the men, even the ones without artery disease.

So I doubt that eating steak has very much to do with it

BTW, statins inhibit the body's production of enzyme CoQ10. Depletion of CoQ10 in your body can lead to cardiomyopathy,. chronic fatigue, and even conjestive heart failure. CoQ10 is found naturally in it higest amounts in red meats. If you are taking a statin, and eat little red meat, you may want to consider a CoQ10 supplement.

Medical science however accepts something only after its been proved.

Idealy that should be true. However it is not true in all cases. And let's not confuse an unproven hypothesis with a proven one. And let's also not confuse

true medical science with that which is driven by outside influences such as Drug Manufacturers amd other commercial interests.

If a study was done on Lipitor for example, and 2 universities were asked to analyze the data. Which one would you trust to be more objective? The one that received a $500,000 grant from Pfizer or the one that did not?

The lipid hypothesis can be rather easily debunked with real science and unbiased analysis of the many studies that have been done. The largest of this kind ever done, the Framingham Study has clearly shown no corrleation between saturated fats/cholesterol and athlerosclerosis. Yet it's data is ignored in favor of data provided by Merk, Pfizer and the scientists they pay to do their studies and research .

Mary Enig, is not a "pseudoscientist". Neither are many of the others that have shown the lipid hypothesis to be flawed. These are not all "alternative medicine" people as some of you have presumed, but real scientists and doctors, many from respected universities and research centers.

George,

I would say that mainstream medicine is good in general. However, I think that in the case of fats, cholesterol and statins that we, as well as mainstream medicine, have been mislead. Look at how they screwed up with trans fats, how for years they were telling us how good and healthy they were.

Butter Bad. Margerine Good. Do you know how margarine is made and what is really in it ? If you did I bet you would not eat it any more. Rancid oils, acid baths, nickel catalysts, bleach, artifical color and artifical flavor ...... and somehow this is better for us than nature's butter, or so the doctor that you trust so much has told us for the last 50 years.

Statin drugs are treating a statistic, not a human being or a disease. Statistics can be very misleading and they can be distorted.

For example if we take 2 groups of 1000 people. 1 group has "high" cholesterol and one has normal cholesterol. Let's say that over 5 years, 4 in the high cholseterol group have heart attacks and 2 in the normal group have heart attacks. We can say that your chances are "twice as high" of having a heart attack if you have high cholesterol. Instead of .2 percent they are .4 percent. So what do we do?

We treat ALL people with high cholesterol to get to the 2 in 1000 that might actually be helped. We treat 1000 to statistically save 2. But in doing so we have unnecessarily treated 998 people. This is exactly what traditional medicine is doing with cholesterol and statins.

It wouldn't be so bad if the statin drugs were otherwise harmless and had no side effects. But such is not the case. The side effects are facts and not pseudosciece as you suggested.

It is not psudoscience and nut jobs that are questioning and dispelling the myths and misleading information concerning cholesterol , fats and statins. Check out the links I provided and do your own research. Or just blindly accept tradional medicine and traditional "science" in this matter .....you know the same ones that gave us margarine, trans fats and saccarin, and told us how good they were for us.

The Cholesterol Hypothesis

Modern medicine has declared cholesterol to be an evil villian that causes heart heart disease. When we hear the word cholseterol many of us conjure up images of of a dangerous substance circulating in our arteries that will kill us of we don't reduce it. In order to stop this evil poison from clogging our arteries, over 20 million Americans are now taking Lipitor, a statin drug quite effective in reducing blood cholseterol levels. Millions more are taking Zocor, Provachol, Crestor and other statins that also reduce blood cholesterol. Statin drugs now represent well over 10 billion in revenues for the drug companies.

According to today's accepted medical knowledge, there is both "bad" cholesterol and "good" cholesterol. The bad, is called Low Density Lipoprotein or LDL and the good is called High Hensity Lipoprotein or HDL. The idea is to reduce the bad cholseterol and raise the good. The hypothesis is that this will prevent heart attacks and heart attack related deaths.

Hypocholesterolemia is the "disease" of having high abnormally high cholesterol. To determine what is abnormal there must be a normal. 25 years ago a level of 240 was considered high. Now, levels of 180 are considered high, especially in folks that have a history of heart attack or athlerosclorosis. The current treatment solution is to take statin drugs for the rest of your life, and to eat a diet that is low in saturated fat, and cholesterol.

Facts:

What is cholesterol?... Cholesterol is a vital and essential part of every cell in the human body. It is produced by the liver and is a part of the cell membrane. It is essential in transporting essential fatty acids that are responsible for repairing and replacing the cells in our tissues. Cholesterol is the main component of brain tissue. Without sufficient cholesterol we will get very sick and if too low we will die.

There are many dangers and side effects related to taking statin drugs, including cancer,muscle pain, neuropathy, memory loss, etc.

Cholesterol does not "cause" heart disease. It is a "risk factor" based upon very creative statistical analysis.

Please read the links below and if there is interest here we can discuss it further.

Dangers of Statin Drugs: http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/statin.html

Truth about Fats: http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/skinny.html

The Cholesterol Myth: http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_1.html

Cholesterol Scam: http://www.spacedoc.net/cholesterol_scam.html

Keep beating the air Rocky,

If you scream a little louder, make some more delcarations by fiat, and make a few more absurd and ignorant

assumptions, then maybe someone will eventually agree with you that this entire thing is purely political,

.....that the question of whether or not the tax law is being abused or broken ( what the investigtion is about)

is a political question and not a legal one.

Been abducted by any aliens lately?

Goey... I don't care what you believe (honestly, it matters not to me whether you choose to believe the sun is black and the sky is below us, what you believe is your personal choice). But you really shouldn't be allowed to mislead people without correction.

Rocky, I don't give a rat's arse what you believe either. Never have. My response was simply to prevent you from spreading more ignorance.

Therefore, answer THIS: WHAT will CONGRESS do with the results of ITS investigation?

Will CONGRESS prosecute anyone? Can Congress prosecute anyone? (HINT: those being investigated here are NOT holding either the office of President or Vice-President of the United States)

Irrelevant......There is no Congressional Investigation except the one that you have conjured up in your mind. When and if there is actually a Congressional Investigation your question might be valid. Until then it is simply rhetoric of no real relevance. Grassley's investigation is informal. No subpenas have been issued.

You cite the word ULTIMATELY. What do you mean by this use of the word ULTIMATELY? Do you mean that somewhere, sometime in the not yet defined future, someone will be prosecuted? If so, WHO will be prosecuted, BY WHOM, in WHAT FORUM (i.e. WHERE). Then answer, HOW will this be accomplished and WHY will it be done.

You don't know how to use a dictionary? Hmmmmm.... or is your tact now to nitpick definitions/semantics? Same old Rocky ... little substance. Let me lay it out in simple terms that you can ( possibly) understand.

IF this goes beyond Grassley's (informal) investigaton and IF the IRS is directed to inverstigate further and IF the IRS finds abuse of the tax laws and choses to take action. THEN this will eventually find its way into Federal Court to decide several lilkely questions. Among these may be ..... 1. Are these TV /Mega Ministries really not for profit "churches"?...... 2. Were tax laws broken/abused....... 3. How far does the 1st Amendment go to protect these "churches" from government scrutiny? I sure there will be more.

My guess is that IF there is any prosecution, that these religious "charities" will hire the best constitutional and tax lawyers available and fight tooth and nail to remain finanicially opaque and to keep thier ministers in Linen Suits, Rolls Royces and Million Dollar Mansions.

ALL we have thus far is that IF there is to be ANY prosecution, it will be subsequent to some uncertain future legislation becoming law. Are YOU able to accurately limit the variables in such a POTENTIAL scenario such that you can tell us NOW that there will, with certainty, be a successful push in Congress to write and pass a law, and that this president or the next one will, with certainty, either sign it or allow it to become law without the presidential signature? (Let's also not forget the US Constitutional ban on ex poste facto laws).

You're in la la land on this one Rockhead. When did I suggest or imply any of the above? Where did I mention any "successful push" in Congress? Your mind is wandering ..... or you are arguing a strawman. (Probably Both)

If -- and ONLY IF -- you can accurately answer ALL of those questions affirmatively, can you even come close to rightfully classifying the current investigative question as a legal in nature.

Your reading and comprehension skills are remedial at best. I didn't say the investigaton was classified as "legal" did I? That would be the political trappings part that I mentioned. Try re-reading what I actually wrote and take off your know-it-all, read-between-the lines blinders.

If you cannot so answer, then the question(s), by default, fall back to being strictly POLITICAL. And as a political situation, whether or not anyone is ULTIMATELY prosecuted for fiscal immorality related to an alleged "Gospel of Prosperity" is NOT and WILL NOT be a question decided upon in ANY American court of law.

Another strawman. The Gospel of Prosperity ( as sick as it is) is not on trial. What is primarily in question is whether there are abuses of the tax laws. In persuing this LEGAL question other possibly more important LEGAL questions will arise.

If you can provide a cogent rebuttal, I'd be pleased to have you prove me wrong.

A cogent rebuttal would assume that your argument was at least based above submornic rhetoric, bully tacticts and logical fallacy. I can't make that asumption.

But I do assume that you believe your swill to be "cogent" so therefore any truly cogent rebuttle would soar over your head ...... Like my other posts on this thread.

Have a nice day.

Actually, it is NOT a legal issue, but is emphatically ONLY a political issue.

IF it was a legal issue, the investigation would NOT be conducted in Congress, but in the courts and by prosecutors.

Until an enforcement action is commenced in a (federal) court by a (USDOJ) prosecutor, any and all discussion (well, NOT our discussion...) is strictly political. Another point to consider -- what is the intent of the congressman? To what end is he investigating? If he FINDS (issues or publishes a FINDING) there has been abuse of a religious organization's tax-free status, what will (CAN) he do?

Congress has no power to administer legal consequences of any kind, especially against a private corporation (yes, corporation, a nonprofit corporation).

The most severe -- direct -- action he could take is to introduce legislation to alter the rules under which such religious groups operate.

And THAT is a political act.

Actually is it NOT "ONLY" a political issue but is MAINLY a LEGAL issue with political trappings. The ONLY political part is the investagative action of Grassly and the Sentate Finance Committee ( Not Congress). There is no Congressional Investigation as you implied.

The issue of whether or not these preachers are proffiting personally is LEGAL and NOT pollitical. Unfortunately prosecutors and the IRS have historically not had the balls to look into some these not for profits that claim to be a church that hide behind their church status ( form 990 not required).

The "rules" are already laid out in corporate law which forbids personal gain from operatiing a "charity" whether it is a church or not.

If Grassley and the senate finance commmittee see evidence of abuse of the tax code, then according to Grassley, they will ask the IRS to take further action based upon curent law. .

Utimately this will all be sorted out in a COURT OF LAW. And that is a LEGAL ACT

Leave it to a reporter to turn it into purely political issue.

Sheesh

This is REALLY a political issue, NOT a religious issue.

While I agree it is not a religious issue, it is hardly a political one.

It is a legal issue. Is the tax law being broken?

The question is, are these folks, (Copeland/ Meyer. Hinn et al) personally profiting while claiming not-for-profit religious/charitable tax exempt status ?

This not only applies to organizations with high profile "preachers" but to any so called charitable organizations whose leaders give themselves and their friends & family huge salaries and benefits that are disproportinate to the jobs they do.

Veteran's charities and those claiming to support Firefighters and Police are notorious for this kind of stuff.

Joyce Meyer Ministries' complete financial records are posted on their website, including the truth about the alleged "$23,000 commode."

I think the senatorial socialist doctrine that anyone with money must be investigated, castigated, and condemned is absolute BS, unconstitutional, and a waste of my federal income tax.

WG

They are not investigating "anyone" with money but instead "not for profit" oganizations with church/religious tax exemptions whose leaders appear to

be reaping huge personal profits.

From my new Corporate Headquaters in Belize, (where the Copyright laws are forgiving), I now offer this priceless work for sale. Run your own classes! A true bargain at only $99.99.

Other Products:

Styrofoam Cups: Gently used with minimal bite marks/lipstick stains.

Coffee: Recycled coffee grounds. Guaranteed used only once.

Chair String: Perfect for lining up chairs for your class.

Carpet Rakes: Get those carpet marks in the classroom perfectly parallel.

More to come .................

I did a search of the New Testament to look for examples of prayers. I didn't find any where the term "lift up" was used by the one praying. Jesus didnt us it when he prayed, and I didn't see where Paul or anyone else used it. I don't use it.

That being said, I don't see a a problem with it. Absence of something doesn't necessarily forbid or suggest that it is somehow wrong. I mean, what's the difference in saying let's pray for Johnny and let's lift Johnny up in prayer? I wouldn't get too hung up in the semantics. It only becomes a problem IMO, if it is taught somehow as being a necessary form of prayer; ie, you must say "lift up" when you pray. That would be wrong.

My brothers, (and I assume the splinter group they associate with) call God "Daddy" when they pray. Not Father, not God, not Lord, but "Daddy". Where did that come from? My guess is that some wannabe research guru did a "word study" and corelated "father" in one language to "Daddy" in English and voila! a doctrine/dogma is born. For them, this is the accurate or proper way to pray. So with them, God, Father and Lord have vanished, and in prayer and "Daddy" is the only way God is addressed. That seems off to me. In a way I kind of find it repulsive. But that's just me. I suppose God is happy that they are praying.

I hear that some folks call God "Mother" based upon a certain translation or El Shaddai which has it roots in the Hebrew word for "breast". I guess He, er.... She could also be called "Mommy" then?

In Matthew 6 and Luke 11, Jesus gave us a model for prayer in The Lords Prayer, which of course VPW/TWI crapped all over. I think it is a pretty good model. There are other examples of prayer in the Bible that we that call upon for understanding. I doubt that there is only one "right way".

Hey Groucho,

When I took your class last month it was only $25.99

What gives bro?

Hi Nathon thanks for the contact

You are getting a free pass here because you are new, but you may have noticed that the posts are starting to ratchet up already.

Dove, since you are predicting if not instigating a confrontational scenario, can you be specific so Nathan might understand fully?

They will get more to the point soon. Your affiliation with CFF will soon land you a full fledged Weirwille Worshiper Title soon enough. No need to try to explain that you are not, it won't do any good.

If the term "Wierwille Worshipper" comes up, (other than your use of it), I would be rather surprised. I doubt that Nathan is a "Wierwille Worshiper", any more than the folks here that discuss the events of TWI and the actions of many involved, are bitter, unforgiving , brother haters, causing strife.

He seems like a well-intentioned man that just may need take a closer look at what really goes on here.

DontWorry,

Many of Bullingers works, including "How to Enjoy The Bible" are in the Pubic Domain and can be read or downloaded.

HERE

Hi Nathan,

Glad you found your way to the Cafe.

Hi folks, I just found this site while looking for the lyrics to the old kids song "Romans 10:9 and 10 I believed it once and then..." (thanks, VeganXTC); but reading around, the topic of forgiveness came to my mind, so I thought I'd share a bit with you.

Quite a few seemingly well-intentioned folks come by here from time to time, and after reading a few posts bring up the topic of forgiveness. They quote a few scriptures like you did, usually ones that talk about bitterness and forgiveness, being judgmental, etc. By and large, these folks are usually associated with an offshoot or group of some kind that pretty much hangs on to the basic teachings of VPW/TWI in one form or another. I see you are no exception.

Before I get started I should point out that this is meant to be loving encouragement in Gods word. If you get feeling defensive at any point, then I apologize for not writing clearly enough. My intent is not to attack anyone, so if you feel attacked then I encourage you to take a step back and try to determine why.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant this to be "loving encouragement", but if you take a step back yourself you may see that it may not be preceived that way by many here -- and for good reason.

I grew up in The Way. There's no way I can imagine knowing as much of Gods word as I do without that upbringing. That's not to say I know everything, just that I am very appreciative of what I do know.

Growing up in the way, you were taught and "the word" bound by the strict framework built by TWI/VPW. Have you ever studied the scriptures yourself outside of the constraints of TWI/VPW/CFF influence? I coulud be wrong, but I doubt that you have. For many of us that have, we can't imagine how we possibly held on to some of the the things taught in TWI as "the word" as long as we did. We have found many basic teachings to be seriously flawed or downright wrong and damaging. So what you believe to be "the word" some here may not.

I'm no longer a member of the way, but I love them dearly. They are my brothers and sisters. Anything, ANYTHING they did wrong to me, I forgive them for. Holding a grudge does nothing to them and nothing positive to you.

Is holding someone accountable for evil deeds the same thing as holding a grudge? Is discussing what happened and why it happened a sign of bitterness or lack of forgiveness? Is it "hating your brother" to point out and discuss the errors of a "brother" who damaged the lives of many of your other brothers and sisters? Is is strife to challenge or disagree with the teachings a famous teacher?

Step back and think about it.

I think it means he was very well versed in the OT and was good at expounding them. No more, no less.

When it comes to questions like the authorship of Hebrews, where there is insufficient external or internal evidence to draw a solid conclusion, it seem to me that the best answer is that "we can only make an educated guess".

There are several plausible possibilities, none of which include Paul as the author IMO. As far as I will stick my neck out is to say that I am pretty sure that Paul didn't write it.

Apollos is certainly plausible, so is Barbabas, Clement, Aquilla/Priscilla or even a dual authorship of Barnabas/Apollos. Here is a nicely written outline by Daniel Wallace.

Hebrews: Introduction, Argument, Outline

Hi Roy,

I don't presume to speak for Jeff, but I didn't pick up that he was actually worrying about who the writer of Hebrews was. As for me, find this kind of study to be rather intersting.

In the the theological study of a scriptural writing, one of the first steps is to try to determine or verify authorship. You will see at least a paragraph on that in just about any well done theological outline or exposition of scripture. I wouldn't call that worrying. It's a part of hermeneutics and theological study.

As far as the Council at Carthage goes, I think they did a pretty good job of selecting writings that lined up with each other theologically and rejecting those that were of unknown authority, spurious, or in disagreement with the larger body of generally accepted writings. Of course there were some disputes. The disputed books that were eventually included were Hebrews, 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, James & Revelation. But all in all I think they did a pretty good job in compiling the most authoritive writings to be used by the Church for faith and practice. However, I do not beleive that they were infallible in their decision any more than I think that God actually dictated the NT word by word to the writers as VPW and many others teach.

This is not to say that the other writings like the Apocrapha or even the Pseudepigapha(many of which are fakes or forgeries)are no value or that they contain no truth at all. I think that we can actually get quite a bit from them if we approach them wisely.

Seriously, Goey, what do you do if confronted with that? You have posted a nice little stained glass window style condemnation of my thoughts, but what would YOU do?

Use some self-restraint and just walk away.

Mr. Olson was a spineless wimp and should have asserted himself by taking the lead. Violence is not Godly way to do this in a marriqage. If Mrs Olson couldn't handle him taking the lead, then he could have put her and the brat kid on the stage back to wherever they came from. Or he could have gone to live on a rooftop somewhere. Bashing his loudmouth, coniving wife's face in may have shut her up, but would it have really solved anything? Besides, I'd be afraid to got to sleep with her in the house after doing something like that. Also , I could argue that maybe his wimpiness was a major contributor to her behavior in the first place.

John, do you really think that God is "ok" with with what you said he was ok with? Come on man..... I think that you have become ok with it ... for whatever reasons you may have. But God ok with it? That just doesn't fit with any understanding of God that I have.

One of the temptations many people have (I include myself) is to adjust our concept of God to match our own way of thinking or our own actions that we can't or don't wish to change. It's easier than changing.

It's not ok with God to recompense evil with evil. Yes, we do it some times, but let's not justify it in that way. Physical violence is not necessary to defend ones self from a nagging loudmouth woman. There are things called doors.

Please reconsider

Hi Jeff,

Much has been written about the authorship of the Book of Hebrews. One of criteria of a work being included in the canon was apostolic authorship. So it seems that the Council at Carthage generally believed in a Pauline authorship for Hebrews.

However there are severe problems with this view. Paul indroduced himself in every other epistle or letter. Hebrews is not consistent with this. The writing style is also quite different from his other letters. There is no internal reference to the author. There are other things that point to a non Pauline authorship, but these are beyond the scope of this post.

Today there is little dispute against non-Pauline authorship. However, there are many theories as to who the author or authors may be. Posibilities include Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Luke, Apollos, and Pricilla. There may be others that I am not aware of.

I have read quite a bit on this and I have not seen any arguments strong enough for any of the candidates that would lead me to actually "believe" that any one was the author. All the evidence is either circumstantial, supposition or educated guesses. Personally I lean toward Priscllia, but all it is is a slight lean, and certainly nothing I would declare to believe.

What is most interesting to me is not necessarily who actualy wrote it (we will probably never know for sure) but rather that if Hebrews is not of Apostolic authorship then it fails the test used by the men at Carthage who decided what was canonical and what was not. If they were wrong about the apostlolic authorship of Hebrews( I think they were) then by their own standards, Hebrews should not have been included in the Canon of Scripture and should not therefore be included in our modern Bibles . Yet it remains with little debate, which seems inconsistent to me. (Questioning the canon is like slapping a sacred cow)

Who is to say that Hebrews actually belongs in Bible then? Who is to say that it does not? Who is to say that these men, several centuries after Paul, who took upon themsleves to decide what is "God-breathed" and what was not, were infallible and got it all 100 percent correct?

When we look at Hebrews or any other book of the Bible and declare it to be the God-breathed Word of God, we are making the great presumption that the Council at Carthage did a perfect job in working out the canon. Did they ? Are we as Christians bound to their decision and if so by what authority?

My conclusion: it's OK with God to be deliberately offensive to people if they go out of their way to provoke it.

I would conclude otherwise.

When I am deliberately offensive in a retaliatory manner, I know that I am wrong in the eyes of God and don't try to justify it. I accept it as the sin that it is and try to do better.

Your method to conclusion also explains how one might justify beating or "clocking" a woman that "provokes" it. I guess that's Ok with God too.

"She provoked me Your Honor, so I clocked her. And God is ok with that."

Yeah, Jesus offended the Pharisees with the truth of God's word, therefore it is "OK with God" to be offensively vugar or to smack women around if they " provoke" it.

Good thinking there John. You have it all figured out. Its a wonder how most of Christianity missed this little gem of truth.

VP would be proud.

Personal attack,aka ad hominem attack is a common tool of debate. Sometimes in a debate if one party can't successfully "attack" the idea, then out of desperation or frustration they might attack the person. In a debate, the idea is to win. However in a discussion I think the idea is to share ideas respectfully for the greater good.

The problem here is that discussions often evlove in to debates, especially between the "Wierwille worshippers" and the "Werweille haters". I oney use these terms now to add to the point that Socks so elloquently made.

While probably no one literally worships VPW in the sense that most of us understand the term worship, it is just as unlikely that anyone literally hates VPW in the sense that most of us understand the term hate. Figuratively speaking, both terms make a point of sorts, yet in a literal sense, both probably falsely describe any person being accused of either. We should probably dispense with this kind of rhetoric.

Many times the personal attacks are much more subtle than the Wierwille worshipper/hater example or outright name calling. Sometimes threads are started as a personal attack on GSer's in general under the guise "let's all get along" or some other seemingingly well meaning theme. There have been threads here where the whole point of the thread was to attack a certain poster. Sometimes statements are cleverly crafted so as to imply a failing of another or others, without actually saying so. It's still a personal attack.

Then are the issues of being overly sensitive or even feigning offense, so as to silence someone and their ideas. It is politically correct now days not to "offend" anyone. So sometimes that trump is played out here. "You can't say that because it offends me ..." when you know full well that the person is not actually offended and only wants you to stop disagreeing with them and shut up.

Many times people get "offended" when thier ideas are challenged or attacked, ('attack' is not a bad word) and think or pretend that they are being personally attacked when they are not. Some of us need to grow up a bit here. Attacking an idea or a belief even if that belief is personal to someone is not a personal attack. Saying that "that is a bad idea" is not the same as saying "you are bad person".

There will be discussions here and there will also be debates. It would be too huge of a task for anyone to patrol this place so as to eliminate all offenses, personal attacks etc. And even it it could be done, what would we have left?

GS cafe is different things to different people, in spite of what it claims itself to be. By nature, some discussions will be "lively". Some will digress in to heated debates where feeings are going to get hurt (whether intended or not.)

I think about the best we can do is try to be as civilized as possible, and not intentionally offend or attack anyone personally, while politely yet freely expressing our thoughts and ideas. Something to shoot for anyway.

Looks like Ava Gardner to me.

Oldies,

I appreciate the direct answers. And no "yes but".

Thanks

Danny asked the following to Oddies:

Oldies Replied with:

Although Danny didn't say either married or single minister, I think married was assumed, and that he was most likely referring to VPW/LCM. (Correctly me if I am wrong Danny) . But I noticed that Oldies added the word "single" and then gave his opinion on that, while not giving any opinion related to a married minister, nicely avoiding the adultery issue. So I am going to ask it very clearly so the adultry issuse won't be dodged this time.

Oldies, is it (adultery) also just a bad example? Is it also no one's business even if the minister is married, and the flock member either single or married, as long as the parties are consenting?

Do you believe that our freedom in Christ supercedes adultery, and as long as the parties are consenting, and if they are "spiritual enough to handle it" that it is ok for a married minister to have casual sex with one of his flock who may or may not be married?

If it were discovered, would "finger wagging" (confronting the parties) be wrong or inapproptiate?