jen-o

only if you stop insinuating that i insinuate that you insinuate that i am insinuating anything... LOLlambchops? :P jen-o

i can't speak for anyone else...but i would like to know if you really think that you were "attacked" on the "God bless CA" thread? and if the answer is affirmative, then i would like to know specifically what you deem to be an "attack"... if i have "attacked" anyone, i most certainly would like to know where, and have the opportunity to apologize for it... eyes, no one has asked you to "justify" yourself...it was a simple question, i.e. what are your reasons for disagreeing with the plain meaning of the scriptures? i'm not so sure why you have assumed such a defensive posture about this... why not just say: i disagree because of xyz... you did state the topic was idolatry, but this is the first i've heard about "practices"... i said the bible called them "abominable customs"... now here you say they are "idolatrous practices"... whichever name you want to use, God still says not to do them (the customs/practices)... maybe, i will take this up on the doctrinal thread... eyes, this is a backhanded comment...why do you so freely dish these out? peace, jen-o

eyes, i am not trying to have an argument with you... i originally asked you for the reasons why you disagreed with the plain meaning of the scriptures that i had posted, but you refused to give the reasons... and it became a long drawn out thing, partially because you continued to remain evasive and partially because i continued to respond to your insinuations about me... on a separate thread, you mentioned that you were immediately attacked before you had a chance to elaborate on the topic... which is absolutely not the case... and so i asked for the specifics of where, when, and who "attacked" you... but again you evaded the question... and hence, it became another long drawn out affair... if we've never had a discussion, it's because you don't want to... i'm a fairly direct kind of person, and it is not easy for me to converse in this manner... it's obvious we disagree about what these scriptures say... yet, i still don't know the reasons why you disagree with the plain meaning... and eyes, i'm really not going to buy a book in order to have a conversation on a message board... so, i guess that's where it stands... peace, jen-o

wow, highway, that's an excellent analogy!thanks for posting this! hmmm... do false prophets/false teachers really do any acts of kindness without them being attached to some covetous expectation...i really don't think so... but if they did, it would be like looking for a needle in a haystack...

waysider, i agree with you that speaking in tongues can be counterfeited... i've seen what you describe done on that show called "whose line is it anyway?" although i must admit some folks are not very good at it... especially, drew carey... LOL peace, jen-o

twinky, did you read the article?(obviously, whitedove is only referencing a small part of it) the barna research group analyses statistics about americans... i know you have a much higher percentage of muslims in england... further, the barna research group focuses on statistics about christians... hence, the more detailed information on the various christian groups... surely, a research group has the freedom to research whatever people groups they like (without being labeled as "putting people into boxes") i am sure there are other research groups that focus on muslims or other religious groups... still, the barna group did include americans associated with non-christian faiths as a distinct category (although there was not a detailed breakdown about this) a comparison was made amongst all the various groups... it's just that christians (specifically, evangelical christians) fell at the high end of the spectrum while secularists (atheists and agnostics) fell at the low end of the spectrum... hence, there was more discussion about that... here are a few more statistics taken from the article: The median amount of money donated during 2007 (for all americans) was $400; the mean (average) amount was $1308. evangelical christians donated an average of $4620. non-evangelical christians donated an average of $1581. christians who are aligned with a church but who are not born again donated an average of $865. americans who are associated with non-christian faiths (this would include muslims) donated an average of $905. atheists & agnostics in america donated an average of $467. these figures are all for the year 2007... and do represent all donations to non-profit organizations (including both churches and all other non-profit entities) hope that clarifies it a little better... peace, jen-o hi whitedove, i don't think it was just a study about tithing... but rather a study about all donations (by americans) to all non-profit organizations... i agree; the donations were not limited to churches... and although only 5% of americans "tithe" per se, 84% of all americans did make donations in 2007... with over 1/3 of all adult americans making donations of $1000. or more... and 4 out of 5 evangelical christians making donations of $1000. or more... i think americans are a very generous people... :) peace, jen-o p.s. we must have been posting at the same time... i agree with the last conclusion you posted! "Born again adults remain the most generous givers in a country acknowledged to be the most generous on the planet," :)

well... i don't know about speaking in tongues "in" twi... or as a result of twi, i should say... i spoke in tongues BEFORE i took pfal... and i always thought my tongue sounded russian or polish or something like that... however, in later years, i have run across people who were speaking a language that sounded similar to my tongue... and so i asked them if they could understand what i was saying... i asked: a romanian guy who goes to car auctions.... 2 turkish women in the dollar store... and a yugoslavian lady in a cafe... ALL of them recognized it as a bonafide language, and looked at me like i was nuts when i questioned whether it was a "real" language... they insisted it was and that it sounded like hungarian or czechoslovakian or some such similar dialect... so if anyone out there speaks hungarian or czechoslovakian, PM me! peace, jen-o

actually, i'd be interested in how christians compare to agnostics and atheists in giving to charitable organizations OTHER THAN CHURCHES.. (sorry for the caps, i'm on webtv and can't bold or underline it) what i mean is: i'm interested in how the groups compare if you subtract the money given to pastors or for building expenses and maintenance, etc. i'm interested in money given directly to help people (for food, housing, orphanages, medical expenses, etc. etc.) i saw a study about this somewhere (who knows if i can find it), but the results were the same... christians far outgave agnostics and athiests in these non-church categories... peace, jen-o p.s. having been raised "catholic", i too am not surprised by those numbers... grandma & grandpa normally put a dollar in the offering envelope... 5 dollars was reserved for special occasions (this was 40 years ago... but still)... on the other hand, the money they spent on all those novena and mass cards probably added up... modern indulgences, you know...

eyes, now that i've read your admission, i think that i understand a little better... and i do think that you have a vested interest in the outcome of the interpretation of these scriptures... since you do say that you are a christian... i think you've said that anyway... correct me if i'm wrong on that... although it is a little puzzling to me because of certain things you have said regarding christians... if i may borrow a word from another thread, it seems to me that you have an almost "hateful" attitude toward christians... as in: "Christian missionaries when they came to shove their religion down their throats" as well as a dismissive attitude toward the scriptures themselves by referring to them as "tired verses"... i don't know... maybe it's just me... but most christians i know highly esteem the scriptures... peace, jen-o

hi lindy! i checked out strong's... and acc. to strong's outline of biblical usage, there are 2 different usages for the word "tow'ebah"... here's what it says: 1) a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable a) in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages) b) in ethical sense (of wickedness etc) so evidently, it depends on the context what usage applies... since the rest of deut. 14 speaks about food, specifically unclean food; then it seems that these foods are both unclean in a ritual sense (as well as contaminated acc. to leviticus 11) rather than unclean in an ethical sense... peace, jen-o p.s. so apparently no one changed their mind... and the distinction remains the same... :)

wow, kimberly... you got enough fingers on that hand?you are doing an awful lot of pointing! especially for someone who is complaining about "finger pointing"... just exactly who is this elusive "they"?? perhaps you could be a little more specific? or do you just want to make backhanded comments? correct me if i'm wrong, but i think you claim to be a christian... and yet, you think nothing of coming here and dumping a load of #### on the elusive "they"... while criticizing and condemning "folks" in a very judgemental way... you do the very thing that you accuse others of doing! still, i'd be curious to know just exactly who are these "hateful" folks with their "hateful" posts... would you care to enlighten me? peace, jen-o p.s. here is how your paragraph reads: some folks don't... folks claim... they are... they point... they sin... they are unloving... they salivate... they are contentious... those don't... those are ravenous... those are hateful... they need to... some folks need... it's really quite the paragraph!

so does this make vpw less of a monster?... if a person is "nice" sometimes in order to get what he/she wants, what does this say about that person?... imo, this makes the person more of a monster... great verses, don, about how vpw made merchandise of people! And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you... (feigned: pretend, sham, counterfeit, disguised) [2 pet. 2:3a] For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive (i.e. fool) the hearts of the simple. [romans 16:18] what an appropriate description of victor paul wierwille!! and wings, thanks for your post! it elucidates the cold, calculating, manipulative nature of vpw's "niceness"... yep, the problem with twi was vpw! peace to all, jen-o

lindy, i posted this on the "God bless CA" thread back on may 31st in response to this very same question... i'll post it again here since you raised the question again... :) hope that helps a little... peace, jen-o

hey excie! i don't know how that works, but it's worth looking in to!... i suppose the nearest relative would have to give approval... and there is the question of to whom go the royalties... peace, jen-o

eyes, perhaps you missed my post where i delineated the verbal exchange between you, rhino, and myself... (maybe you should check out that post... post #60) there was more to our exchange than the one post you reference here... or are you being deliberately misleading? of course, you did mention your book during that exchange... as well as making multiple insinuations about me!... just because those things aren't in this first post (you reference here) doesn't mean that you didn't say them at all... are you deliberately ignoring the rest of the posts you made on that thread in order to set up a straw man argument that "mean" jen-o and rhino are "attacking" you over this first post that you made?!?... that is very deceptive!! eyes, you've made a lot of backhanded comments to me!... why do you have such a hard time addressing the issues directly?? peace, jen-o

hi waysider! the reason twi didn't have more research-type classes is because twi didn't really want people researching the bible for themselves... twi just wanted to spoon-feed folks vpw's "research" (aka twi-approved doctrine) peace, jen-o

c'est tres amusant, monsieur le bump... now what are you really doing in france? peace, jen-o

monsieur le bump, quelle heure est-il en bretagne? peace, jen-o

huh?this was the very thing i was trying to address... ascribing degrees of "importance" to people is not godly... we are members of the one body of Christ... there is no hierarchy of importance in a body... vpw didn't fool people because there was some "good" in him... vpw fooled people because he was a master of manipulation... a monster is not less of a monster for fooling people; he is more of a monster... this is the nature of a false prophet/false teacher... peace, jen-o

hey don! just to clarify... i was not insinuating at all that steve or jimmy (or even lonnie) had personally thought of themselves as "founders" of the jesus movement... or that they had wanted acclaim or accolades for themselves... (that thought never crossed my mind) it was really the movie link that made me feel most uncomfortable... since the author at that site sought to identify the "movers and shakers"... and stated that lonnie was the "prime mover" and "prima causa" of the jesus movement... i know this guy is promoting a movie, but i saw some people repeating the logic of this guy... and i also know that people have a tendency to elevate men and build monuments to them... that was a major problem in twi... and i still see it going on with vpw (especially in one offshoot i know of) so that was the context of my last post... peace, jen-o :)

kimberly, do you think it is "hateful" to disagree with someone?peace, jen-o p.s. hey look!... i've graduated to wondering about the toast... LOL

well.... we can't stop "global warming" anyway... unless you kill off a bunch of people, um, reduce the population (if you believe man is the cause of "global warming") but if you believe that global warming is the result of solar activity... there ain't a dang thing you can do about that! and if you think that global warming is merely a description of the earth's temperature as it comes out of the little ice age... well, ya can't do nothing about that either... as far as rev. 16:8 goes, that is one of the bowl judgements... IF rev. 16:8 has anything to do with global warming (and i'm not saying it does)... but if it did, the judgement would be the cause of gw, not the result of it... oops... heehee... i guess that's what you already said, jim... just in 'nother words, i.e. gw would be the result of rev. 16:8... :) which i guess if ya think about it... means that rev. 16:8 can't be global warming (as we know it) because we are not in the midst of the bowl judgements right now... peace, jen-o

hey jim! i never meant for my post to imply that you were implying anything... heehee hey rhino! now your analogy makes even more sense! :D we all use analogies from our own personal backgrounds... peace to all, jen-o

hi jim, i understand what you mean... however, i still do not think that i said anything "hurtful" about eyes... just because i disagree with her doesn't mean that i am "verbally attacking" her... a disagreement is not a personal attack... people should be allowed to express differences of opinion without it being labeled "hurtful communication"... hi rhino! didn't mean to put words in your mouth regarding the word "attacked"... however, it just seemed to me that in the context of your post (especially in light of your use of the patrol boats and cruiser boats) that you were not using the word "attacked" the same way that eyes was... although you did use her terminology... it seemed like you were making a little analogy with the boats and the shots and the salvo and the bow... it sounded like that game called "battleship"... peace to all, jen-o p.s. if someone claims some kind of authority and credentials regarding a topic, i'm not sure why it is such a problem to provide this information...

hi eyes, rhino's armchair assessment use of the word "attacked" was probably a poor choice of words... i think he was probably using your terminology to respond in kind when he used the word... because i have gone thru the whole exchange on that thread... and can find no evidence anywhere that he "attacked" you... this is the way the verbal exchange went: eyes: posts her opinion jen-o: asks for reasons for eyes' disagreement with the plain understanding of the verses... eyes: posts a very defensive response - which includes a sentence of jen-o's taken from a totally unrelated thread in an attempt to prove eyes' point that "jen-o was there"... eyes also posts her refusal to give reasons for her disagreement... jen-o: responds and addresses eyes' refusal... rhino: posts very short response stating he agrees with jen-o regarding eyes summarizing her views... he states: "it would be simple enough to briefly summarize why Eyes' would disagree with what seem to be obvious verses on the subject." i fail to see how this can be construed as a personal "attack" by rhino... even though he erroneously used eyes' terminology "attack", this really does not constitute an "attack"... rhino's post continues by addressing another person and other issues... rhino: then makes 5 posts to people other than eyes........ eyes: responds to jen-o's last post... and includes insinuations that jen-o hasn't read the chapter from the beginning; jen-o hasn't read the context, jen-o hasn't done any research on this... (none of which were true) eyes also brings up her book and states: "Really this is not rocket science...But there is much more that I have taken 40 pages in my book to clearly lay out the history and the time lines and I refuse to take up all of the space here to explain it all to you. If you don't want to read what I have already researched, if for nothing more than a different understanding then don't...I really dont care." rhino: posts to someone else... jen-o: posts to someone else... jen-o: responds to eyes' last post regarding the insinuations and regarding the book... and states: "no, i don't want to buy a book in order to have a conversation on a message board." rhino: posts to someone else... rhino: posts that he has read about eye's book on amazon and on her website... rhino: posts to someone else... eyes: responds to jen-o's last post, insinuating this time that jen-o doesn't "remember the topic"... and makes a couple of insinuations about "waybrain"... eyes also responds to rhino's post with more talk about the book and websites... and questions whether rhino actually saw the book on amazon... rhino: responds to eyes' post, giving an amazon blurb about the book... and also responding to eyes' defensive statement about believability... rhino states: "why wouldn't i believe you?" eyes: responds to rhino... book is on amazon... that's cleared up... rhino: makes 2 more posts to someone else... jen-o: makes 3 posts to someone else... jen-o: responds to eyes' last post and to the multiple insinuations included in it... >>>end of verbal exchange<<< eyes, perhaps you could point out where you were "attacked" in all of this... because frankly, i don't see where you were "attacked" at all... if anything, you were the one making subtle (or not so subtle) digs at me... but i don't go around complaining about that sort of thing... i deal with it directly... at the time it occurs... and address the person directly... i also continue to post my perspective in spite of it... even though i think that a claim of being the injured party who has sustained an attack is partially a means to get someone with a viewpoint you don't like to shut up.... the claim of an "attack" also garners sympathy and support because people have a tendency to believe the claim of "attack" without investigating whether one has really occured or not... and that is the reason for this post... peace, jen-o