jen-o

Peace Baby, jen-o! I mean like maybe you should have spent more time at twi? But if that cat don't hunt, maybe a little European history will do?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080527/D90U5PFGB.html

Peace, Bump

bumpy?

peace backatcha...

but, spend more time in twi?

i have my reservations about germany...

anti-semitism is on the rise there...

as well as the persecution of homeschoolers...

taken from various articles on the internet:

Such mandatory public school attendance, and the accompanying procedures to physically escort children to schools, were legalized under the Nazis in 1938. Hitler was concerned at that time about having children grow up with perspectives that were not approved by the state.

A new ruling from the European Human Rights Court has affirmed the German nation's Nazi-era ban on homeschooling, concluding that society has a significant interest in preventing the development of dissent through "separate philosophical convictions."

"Christian family values are being replaced by the state's moral values.

"There are approximately 40 other cases pending in Germany [against homeschoolers]," the HSLDA said. "Many homeschool families have fled to Austria or another nearby country where homeschooling is legal. The German government is persecuting these innocent families without mercy. The German Embassy has indicated they cannot allow 'parallel cultures.' Christian homeschooling is a 'parallel culture' that Germany does not want."

evidently, in germany, homosexuality is an approved and government sanctioned lifestyle, but christianity is not...

anyway, for the record, i do not hate homosexuals...

and neither am i afraid of them...

but that doesn't mean i have to approve of the homosexual act...

bumpy, are you really in riec sur belon right now?

sounds b-e-a-u-t-i-f-u-l......

cheers!

jen-o

OCW,

i'm not sure where you got this article,

but do i understand correctly that the author of the article is giving biblical commentary?!? =:~o

what qualifications do they have for this?

i'm guessing none...

otherwise, they wouldn't make such a ridiculous assumption that homosexuals are being singled out for the label of "sinners"... ALL of us are sinners... this is not some special label reserved only for homosexuals... this label applies to the whole of mankind... for ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God... none doeth good, no, NOT ONE...

peace,

jen-o

whitedove,

do you see what a tangled mess you get yourself into by not confronting the issue head on?

peace,

jen-o

p.s. i may live to regret that statement... LOL

Okay....if you say so, it certainly didn't read that way.

eyesopen, you say that like you don't believe me...

not only was i not offended or emotionally upset, i actually welcome the opportunity to express my point of view...

if you had not posted, i would have had nothing further to say...

and i'm sure that many people would have liked that!... LOL :P

Exactly! Now all you have to do is remember the topic.

hmmm... interesting way to word it...

do you think that i have forgotten the topic??

the topic is:

when you go into the land of canaan,

do not follow the practices ("doings", deeds, acts) of the egyptians nor of the canaanites...

further, here is a list of the specific acts (that they engaged in) which i prohibit you from doing....

(although i've got a feeling you think that the topic is something else... based upon something outside of this straightforward passage)

but i still ask you:

if you are saying that this is NOT the meaning (and this all refers to an idolatrous ritual), then are you saying that the prohibitions against incest, adultery, and bestiality also refer to an idolatrous ritual?? (and there really is no prohibition against those things?)

What you claim is "clearly written" I found to be muddy.

eyesopen, this is not really a problem with the text...

But I stand by what I have learned myself from my own study and not by what someone else has told me that it says. I am truly done with that type of lifestyle. No more "never look outside the Word for answers" No more Way brain for me.

more interesting wording...

you've strung these things together as if they are equal...

i, too, stand by what i have learned myself from my own study...

the conclusions i have come to are not the result of what someone else told me...

[and definitely not from twi... i have no clue what twi taught about homosexuality...

except they probably taught it was a debbil spirit or sumpin]

and so, we both stand by what we've learned from our own private study...

and yet, we have come to totally opposite conclusions...

i'm willing to take a look at that, but you are not?

peace,

jen-o

Jen I don't believe that I ever said I acepted TWI doctrine, that was your assumption and as such as you say

(that would not be an honest approach to disagreement either)

My doctrine is truth , if other doctrines agree then so be it, if not so be it.

you're joking, right?

whitedove,

ever since i began posting here in march, you have continually regurgitated way doctrine...

even to the point of quoting twi doctrine verbatim and quoting whole sections of twi materials...

you have defended twi and vpw repeatedly and tenaciously...

there are so many examples of this, it's hard to choose from...

but here's one:

Again I'll point out that the problems occurred from or a result of non - Way doctrines, not (where the victard's teachings led them at all) but in new directions they sought after.... nor do they fit into the category of keys to the Word's interpretation.

if you don't accept way doctrine, then tell me what part you reject!

i have disagreed with you honestly and openly by attacking the doctrine DIRECTLY!

nor do i attempt to discredit you by sidestepping the issues with sly or underhanded remarks... (i'm not sure that you can say the same)

i have attacked way doctrine, and i have attacked the conclusions you have drawn...

i hardly need to resort to any other tactics...

but evidently you do...

peace,

jen-o

i like you, rocky... :D

but i hear what you're saying...

i've long since ceased worrying about whether folks like me or not...

who can live like that?

peace,

jen-o

they had magic:the gathering cards on that table, which is a real shame. the few weeks i got to play magic at the lunch tables are my happiest school moments.

most magic is illusion, but twi would have us believe that there is a "devil spirit" lurking behind every prop, and that the magician was "operating devil spirits"...

does this "waste/theft" of time generally apply to ex-corps folks...

cuz as a leaf, i went to college (got my 2nd degree)... had a good job, later got married and had kids, etc.

i always had outside interests and friends... and no one seemed to have a problem with that...

twi was just a part of my life; it never consumed the whole thing...

now thats funny seems I heard that before. Now where was it?

whitedove, i thought you were pretty straightforward about this in that you did accept twi doctrine and thought...

why would i need to insinuate something that you readily admit??

are you now saying that you reject twi doctrine and thought??

i would be only too happy to hear about this turn of events!

peace,

jen-o

i forgot to respond to this:

Style of writing typically refers to grammar, composition, form, and the way in which the author uses words.

A good reference book is Strunk and White's, The Elements of Style.

i was using the word "style" as a synonym for "type, mode, kind, sort" (these are synonyms)...

and the point i was trying to make is that there are different types or kinds of articles...

not every article is a scientific research journal (style of) article with methodology, data analysis, samples, statistics, etc....

different types of articles are used for different purposes...

this does NOT mean that one type of article is better than another type...

they each serve a purpose...

the choice of the type of article an author writes depends upon various factors... including the information to be conveyed and the audience...

(not everyone wants to read a scientific journal article)

that does NOT mean that the other types of articles are invalid!

Then there is documentation style, which refers to a system of citations.

The three most widely used documentation styles in the US are: Modern Language Association (MLA),

American Psychological Association (APA), and Chicago.

i know what citations are...

(i've even used them in papers i've written... imagine that!)

Bottom line, the article is an opinion piece dressed up as science and published in the "Atlantic Monthly."

It is by no means a serious social scientific article, with the attending research, that would be published

in a professional or academic journal. Therefore, it's usefulness as "evidence" is questionable, as is the evidence itself.

bottom line, an article does not have to be a scientific journal style article in order to be useful!

peace,

jen-o

jen-o said in post # 83:

Now who do you think i'm gonna trust and believe: you and your opinions (and wikipedia) or God and His opinion?"

bfh posted:

Hence the reason that I didn't bother documenting my sources for you. What would be the point?

really??... you sure do like to rewrite the order of events...

you posted your undocumented list of animals that practiced infanticide in post #51

far BEFORE i ever made that statement in post #83...

so are you telling me that you looked into the future to see what i was gonna say much later, and decided to "not bother" documenting your animal list based on my future and as yet unspoken statement??

i think not...

i think you failed to document your source, but want to hold someone else to a much higher standard!

further, my statement in #83 was a response to your post of #79 wherein you used wikipedia as a source for an article on animal sexual behavior...

i have nothing against wikipedia,

but acc. to your standards: where is the peer review for this wikipedia article??

and what are the credentials of the authors??

sounds like a double standard...

you also stated in defense of your use of wiki: "Of course, why would we want to bother with science?"

is that what you consider science?? a wikipedia article??

back to your undocumented list of animals in post #51...

i said nothing about the credibility of your sources...

i merely refuted the content of your premise wherein you stated: "In nature, it is certainly not instinctive for the actual parent to care more about their kids."

i refuted the content and provided documentation so that you could check it out for yourself...

and the information i found NEGATES your premise (see post #93)

however, you didn't bother to comment on that...

the reason why you're approach seems dishonest is because:

you ask a lot of questions which raise doubt about the veracity of the information rhino linked to...

and yet, you never refute the content of the article at all...

oh, and not everything that is "dated" is wrong...

it wouldn't make any difference if the info on animal sex behavior was published last year or a hundred years ago...

whether info is accurate or not is not a function of when it was published...

if you have a point to refute, then do so...

but to dismiss something outright due to "dates", peer review, credentials of author, etc. seems dishonest...

Actually, the mark of a good professor is to challenge students preconceptions and teach them to think critically

with the goal being that the student can think for themselves and ask pertinent questions.

btw, this isn't so cut and dry in every field or educational discipline...

(like the field of mathematics or history... some things are facts, so what preconceptions are there to challenge?)

i was thinking along the lines of a broader scope...

and even in the social-sciences or philosophy, a professor needs to be able to succinctly summarize various perspectives, issues, worldviews, etc. with the goal of student understanding BEFORE students will have the ability to ask pertinent questions or think critically about anything...

Not, as in TWI, spoon fed the students baby pabulum and expect them to engage in black and white thinking and become good little parrots.

i was under the impression that most of us here had chucked twi thinking...

but you and eyesopen have both brought it up...

and i hope that you are not attempting to discredit me by insinuating that i engage in twi-like thinking...

(that would not be an honest approach to disagreement either)

peace,

jen-o

bramble,

i think that the point sudo was trying to make was that the information in his article countered the thesis statement (1st paragraph) of the article you posted...

in other words, if icelanders are indeed the "happiest" people on earth, then it would not be a result of their having the highest divorce rate in europe... (since iceland is far from the top of the list)

btw, as a single parent of 3 teenage boys, i support abstinence for a variety of reasons: unwanted pregnancy is one of them, but also for prevention of disease and emotional upheaval... as well as for biblical reasons... i personally am celibate (by choice)... because how is that gonna look and what kind of example would i set if i was not celibate... imo, when you have children you should put their interests above your own...

peace,

jen-o

your welcome, dear excie... :)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You sent a list of books to read not an answer

oh, and whitedove, that was a list of current watchmen and their websites...

haven't you learned to read what's written?

all you have to do is click on a website... and check out what watchmen do...

no books to read, no books to buy!

peace,

jen-o

I am not surprised that you responded to my post, I'm surprised that you took it personally. Had I wanted to make it personal I would have done what I am doing now and directly addressing you or better yet I would have PMed you.

eyesopen, i'm not sure what you mean by "took it personally"...

you posted something that i thought was relevant to what i had posted, so i commented on it...

usually when the term "took it personally" is used, there is an element of offense and emotional upset...

i was neither offended nor emotionally upset by anything that you said...

i was merely responding to a comment on a message board which seemed relevant to me...

and i don't think i need to wait for someone to address me by name or PM me in order to make a comment...

Actually Jen-o and Rhino I have no special information

the reason why i called it "special information" is because it is information that leads to a conclusion which is contrary to the plain meaning of the scripture...

Perhaps if you would for example take that verse in Leviticus (18:22) that everyone likes so much and simply read from the beginning of the chapter. See what the context is and then do some research on what God is referring to...

wow... that's quite an assumption...

what makes you think that i have NOT read the whole chapter of leviticus 18??... or the whole book for that matter??

i am very familar with leviticus 18...

familar enough to know that -

verses 6-14 deal with incest

verse 20 deals with adultery

verse 22 deals with homosexuality

verse 23 deals with bestiality

verse 24 says do NOT defile yourself by doing these things (as other nations have defiled themselves with these practices)

and verse 3 says that these "doings" (practices, deeds, acts) were done by the egyptians and the canaanites, but in contrast "you shall not do them"...

this the PLAIN meaning of the scripture in this chapter...

if you are saying that this is NOT the meaning (and this all refers to an idolatrous ritual), then are you saying that the prohibitions against incest, adultery, and bestiality also refer to an idolatrous ritual?? (and there really is no prohibition against those things?)...

verses 6-23 is a list of prohibitions and homosexuality is sandwiched in between the specific prohibitions...

so what applies to homosexuality applies also to incest, adultery, and bestiality...

further, verses 26, 27, & 29 call the items on the list "abominations"...

while verse 30 calls them "abominable customs"...

egypt and canaan were idolatrous nations, but they were also nations that practiced these abominable customs...

like i said, this is the plain meaning of the scripture... and i agree with you: this really is not rocket science...

i don't need to read 40 pages of history and timelines to see that this is a list of prohibitions...

If you don't want to read what I have already researched

no, i don't want to buy a book in order to have a conversation on a message board...

if you can't (or won't) summarize your ideas, then so be it...

but i don't put much weight in unsupported opinions...

Simply put, I have found no where in the Bible that actually addresses homosexuality as a lifestyle or an orientation.

the bible addresses the homosexual act...

and a lifestyle is composed of habitual acts...

i am not so sure why you have not found this addressed in the bible... since clearly it is there, as i have just pointed out...

And just for the record I would love for you to tell any one of my professors that they need to "briefly and succinctly" state their views on any given topic that they have spent years researching.

the mark of a good professor is the ability to boil it down to the bottom line... and make it so simple that a child could understand it...

anyway, nice chatting with you....

peace,

jen-o

gee bfh,

i wish you were as concerned about the source (and accuracy) of your own information that you posted about animal infanticide as you are about the article that rhino posted...

peace,

jen-o

p.s. i don't see anyone disputing the content of the article, only questioning the author's credentials, credibility, and the style of her writing (i.e. she didn't include whether the research articles she referenced were peer reviewed, and who paid for it)...

most of the article seems to be based on deductive reasoning (and common sense)... the facts provided can be independently verified, and references to researchers are provided for further verification... (looks like a normal article to me)

dear mod cow,

well, i'll not give you any grief since i see that you are a volunteer...

peace,

jen-o

gee paw, who said i disliked the moderators??

let me just state it plainly so that there will be no misunderstanding:

i LIKE the moderators!

and i also appreciate what they do!

(i've seen some of the food fights round this place) LOL

and i realize that it can be a thankless job...

and probably emotionally draining at times...

so i just wanta let you know that i do appreciate what you guys do!

now would you like some love dots?

..................................................

xo

jen-o

p.s. i don't mind the food fights.... :D

maybe some mods have personal issues with the subject matter....

love in dots.....

i was thinkin the same thing...

seeing as how the other wc thread got locked and shut down at the same time...

and also considering the food fight on that thread couldn't hold a candle to what i saw in the pfal thread...

love dots backatcha, excie.................. xo

rocky, here's some love dots for you, too.................... xo

excie,

you shouldn't have to need a scripture to be able to say: xyz was a pervert... or xyz committed perverted acts...

but when certain people try to shut down a discussion... that consists of the exposure of perverted acts... which have been committed by someone that they have evidently elevated and esteemed highly... and when these certain people try to shut it down by hiding behind their own private interpretation of the bible... while claiming that it is both unnecessary and unbiblical to talk about these "sins" (i.e. perverted acts),... then it becomes necessary to speak up for the truth that it IS indeed BIBLICAL to expose these sinful, perverted acts...

[dang that was a long sentence... so i went back and put the dots in to chunk the thoughts... LOL]

anyway, you shouldn't have to defend your right to expose evil like this... and this is the first time i have ever seen anyone try to hide behind the bible in order to protect a pervert and cover up his criminal acts...

peace,

jen-o

i think that the lack of compassion in twi is a natural result of the doctrine of "the law of believing...

acc. to this doctrine, whatever circumstance one finds oneself in is a product of believing...

so there is no need to show compassion to one in need because it is the result of their own "wrong believing"...

instead of showing compassion, people were reproved and chastized...

[this again shows how little twi knew of Jesus]

Basically Jen-o I was neither talking to you nor about you and I fail to see why you have taken my post personally.

eyesopen, the reason why i thought it was necessary for me to address your post is because i am the one who stated that God is against homosexuality, i am the one who listed scriptures in support of my position, and i am the only person on this thread who has flat out stated that homosexuality is a sin...

these are the points that your post addressed... further, i am the only one here who has stated that God is not gonna "bless" california because of this...

so if you are not talking to me personally (or someone like me who holds the same perspective as i do), then who are you talking about when you say that you "wholeheartedly disagree with the biblical interpretation that says God hates homosexuality"...

who are you disagreeing with, if not me??

(and why are you so surprised that i would respond to your post?)

yes, i spent time in twi from 94-97...

and you say that the "homo" purge started in the early 90's & ended when lcm left...

i'll have to take your word for that because i was unaware of the specifics of the timeframe for the "homo" purge...

this may come as a surprise to you, but in my little twig, we never talked about homosexuals...

nor did anyone ever bring up scriptural references about them...

just because i was officially "in" twi does not mean that i was privy to lcm's rantings and ravings...

(i've never met the man... nor have i spent time at HQ, etc.)

since you have noticed the years i was "in" twi,

you must have also noticed that i never climbed the ladder of the hierarchy, but remained a lowly leaf the whole time i was in...

so maybe this info was reserved for the way corps... i dunno, but i know i wasn't in on it...

and to assume that i was is quite a leap...

the whole reason i mentioned that i was not a part of it was to let you know that i am not coming from that mindset!

since you had assumed that most of us had "spoken out against homosexuality while using "tired" verses to justify our narrow mindedness"...

I'm sure that you would like to know how or the reasons why I disagree with the scriptures used to prove the sin nature of homosexuality but I will not do that here, for three reasons; 1 this is the "Open" forum not the "Doctrinal" forum and 2. The amount of research that was done on these scriptures would take up way too much space and last but not least, this thread is about homosexual marriage which by the way I did address in my original post.

actually, eyesopen, i am far more interested in seeing you support your position...

it is one thing to make a blanket statement that you disagree with something,

and quite another to support that statement...

if someone has done a great deal of research on the topic,

they should be able to briefly and succinctly state the reasons why they believe the way they do...

i fail to see why this would "take up way too much space"...

nor do i think that every time a biblical thought crosses someone's mind,

that they should have to go to the "doctrinal" section in order to post a statement or sentence...

(i think that is a cop out)

and third, this thread may be about homosexual marriage, but it's also about "God Blessing california" for it...

and as rhino has pointed out, the thread has a dual subject...

with one of the subjects being: should God bless this idea based upon what the bible says about homosexual acts...

(so i think that this is quite "on topic")

evidently, you think that you have some special information on how to interpret what the bible means when it talks about homosexual acts,

but you don't want to share it??

peace,

jen-o

Do you really think shepherds just warn the sheep , Really what would be the point? What would sheep do about a warning do they understand language? Hey sheep wolf out there by the tree....... I'd say shepherds don't stand around talking about the wolf at all and what he does or did. I'd say they just fix the problem rather than standing around talking about the wolf.

i'd say that you have no scriptural basis to back up your opinion...

and that's why you have offered no scriptural support!

and yet, you refuse to read any scriptural support that backs up the position that shepherds do indeed WARN THE SHEEP!

btw, you ask "what would be the point?"... the point is: to protect the sheep!

What would sheep do about a warning do they understand language?

shepherds don't stand around talking about the wolf at all and what he does or did

it is also CLEAR that you do not understand the ANALOGY of the shepherd!

whitedove, this is not referring to LITERAL sheep!

it is an analogy used to illuminate how Jesus (and pastors) are suppose to protect and guide PEOPLE!

i think that due to your obsession to protect your memories of twi and its leaders, you have failed to see what CLEAR scriptures say about wolves...

perhaps, you flat out reject the clear scriptures on this topic (i hope not) in favor of protecting your cherished memories...

but this is not an honest approach to scripture...

and of course, the logic of your argument is flawed as well (as chockfull has noted)...

i really have tried to see how people can be blinded to truth in this manner, but like i've said before, i can only come up with idolatry as the cause...

peace,

jen-o

p.s. doojable, heheheh... rabbi oyvey, eh?...

Just as most of us, while in TWI I spoke out against homosexuality and used those same tired verses to justify my narrowmindedness.

dear eyesopen,

i was not a part of the ranting, raving "homo" purge of twi... so i am not coming from that mindset... nor do i recall twi ever mentioning these verses... you have labeled yourself as having been "narrowminded", but it is dishonest to extrapolate that to include all those who disagree with your current position... i also find it noteworthy that you have labeled the scriptures that i listed in my post #28 as "tired"... do you really feel that certain scriptures are "tired"??

Then a few years ago I was once again asked to show where it says in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. I returned to those same verses...and we all fell flat. After much study and personal growth I have changed my views.

and

On this issue of homosexuality I whole heartedly disagree with the biblical interpretation that says God hates homosexuality.

perhaps, you would like to expound on the reasons why you disagree with the interpretation (of the scriptures i listed) as being anything other that the rather clear and plain meaning that they have...

i would be interested in knowing how you have interpreted those scriptures...

peace,

jen-o

i agree, t-bone and oakspear...

vpw's style of chopping and hacking the scripture into pieces is a very dishonest and misleading approach... he just wanted to put the stamp of prophetic authority on his own opinion!

vpw, isolated a word, put his OWN spin on it, and then reintroduced it into the whole scripture... thereby, weaving his own private interpretation throughout all of the bible... (just 2 examples: "believing" & "holy spirit"... and later with lcm: "household", mark & avoid", etc.)

[no wonder so many people have been turned off to the bible via twi]

i have been learning about "midrash"...

and i think that "midrash" is a FAR better (and MORE honest) approach to interpreting scripture than anything twi had to offer...

peace,

jen-o

i dunno, rhino, i think you said that QUITE well!

and that, my friend, was an EXCELLENT analysis, and sorting out of the issues involved!

peace,

jen-o