Steve Lortz

Hey, Mr. H, - You could go to Gunnison and do most of that last stuff you were waxing poetic about :-D Love, Steve P.S. - I HAVE shovelled out that barn!

So, you can go straight from a Bachelor's degree to a Doctorate at Cleveland Chiropractic College? Sounds like an apple falling not very far from a tree. "8. This is a law of nature: Believing = Receiving, whether negative or positive." Magical thinking, plain and simple. My wife has had to run the maze of genuine mental health care, but she HAS gotten help that works. It isn't easy, for anybody. These "spiritual" quacks aren't just nuisances, they're DANGEROUS! People who actually believe this stuff get HURT, and charged for it in the bargain. Love, Steve

Here's a question for y'all: when you were involved with TWI did you understand the "gift of holy spirit" to be a number of individual spirits, one per customer; or did you understand it to be one single spirit? I think I remember what I was taught, but I want to check my memory. Thanks! Love, Steve

outandabout - As Arnie would say, "I'll be bach!" I'm switching to third shift, so I'm going through a number of transformations, some of which are temporarily interrupting my work on this thread. The next question we'll look at is "Did Wierwille fear God: how did Wierwille habitually regard the difference between his own power and the power of God?" I've been digging into the first few chapters of the PFAL book and the blue book in pursuit (I like that word, it makes me sound like I'm flying a WWI airplane) of information. I'll have some of it up soon. Thanks for your patience. Love, Steve

Did Wierwille fear God? The nature of the question and the qualities of the evidence: In one of the earliest sessions of my aesthetics class, I ask the students, "What is the difference between 'objective' and 'subjective'?" I don't give them an answer. I make them develop one themselves, by comparing and contrasting the definitions of the two words. The word that the two definitions have in common is the word "mind". When we carefully contrast the two definitions we see that "objective" refers to something that exists or happens independently of the mind, "subjective" happens within, or in relation to the mind. The question "Did Wierwille fear God?" is subjective on two counts. First,in order to answer it, we have to make an analysis of our own experience, which is subjective. Second, the question deals with something that was going on within Wierwille's mind. Does this mean there is no objective evidence addressing the question? No, but it isn't the same kind of evidence we could use to perform, say, the chemical analysis of a particular substance. And it isn't the same kind of evidence required to convince "beyond a shadow of a doubt". We won't be able to write "Q.E.D." when we're finished, but we WILL be able to discern a preponderance of the evidence. Psalm 36:1-4 sets forth some standards for assessing whether or not a person fears God; Using this as a starting place, we can examine some questions: how did Wierwille habitually regard the difference between his own power and the power of God? did Wierwille make a habit of flattering himself in his own eyes? so much so that he couldn't tell when something he was doing or saying was wrong? or to even care, if he knew it was wrong? were the words of his mouth wrong? did he say things in such a way that you couldn't tell when his words were wrong? did Wierwille cease to be wise? did he cease to do good? what did Wierwille plot in his private moments, perhaps in his motorcoach? did Wierwille make bad decisions? if so, did he stick to them even if they were wrong? In my next post, I'll start addressing some of these questions. Love, Steve

I just added this to the top of this thread: On Feb. 13, '05, 14:16, still on page 13 of that thread I wrote, I think if I was starting this thread today, its title would somehow contain the phrase "the fear of God". added by Steve Lortz, March 1, 2005 Love, Steve

Mr. H - Would you sit through PFAL if you could do it "Mystery Science Theater 3000" style? Sitting in front of all the new students, along with Jim, Dm and Uncle (don't forget the bottle), giving running commentary on the whole thing? Love, Steve

Exhaustion. It's been about a week. Four of us live in our household. Three of us, including myself, were down with medical difficulties that made it hard for me to get to the computer. My own particular difficulty would have made it hard to post coherently, even if I had gotten here. I know, I know, some of you have doubts about my ability to post coherently even when I'm NOT sleep deprived. I need to do some things to fix this thread, but not today. The next thing we are going to do on this thread is examine the question, did Wierwille fear God? Then look at how Wierwille's fear/non-fear of God influenced the attitudes toward God of those of us who were Wierwille's former followers. It's subtle. We hid it in our hearts without even knowing that was what we were doing. Flushing the errors (in the sense of flushing game out from under cover) takes some soul-searching, in a most literal sense of that phrase. All for now. I'll be back when I can get back. Love, Steve

laleo - Looking back, I realize that it was remiss of me to start this thread without mentioning here that it is an ancillary thread to a point I wanted to make on the "Trinity has met its match" thread. I'll go back and correct that as soon as I can. I wanted to post more today, but my time is up. Love, Steve

I apologize for impuning your decision, Raf. After the first mass exodus from TWI in the late-'80s, many ex-wafers wanted to stay in touch and to continue exploring their relationship with God and the Bible. There was no internet back then. Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser formed CES (Christian Educational Services) to do the drudgery. It was an open organization. Most time at the annual meeting was devoted to open floor discussions, with a lot of give and take. The regular publication was Dialogue, and genuine dialogue actually did occur. Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser began bringing outsiders in to speak at the annual meetings. Some of them were really good, like Anthony Buzzard, and United Marriage Encounters. Some were competing splinter group leaders like Dale Sides. Unfortunately, some of the outsiders were very bad, like the personal prohecy movement and Momentus. In the transition between the early- and the mid-'90s, the leaders of CES received a personal prophecy that the nature of CES was going to change radically, and that three separate individuals were going to contribute $1,000,000 apiece to CES. Things started to change. Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser decided to make CES a full-service ministry on its own.They began to regard themselves as professional religious leaders again, and they unconsciously reverted to the old definitions and principles of religious leadership that they had internalized as professional religious leaders in TWI. For all the cosmetic changes and doctrinal differences, the new improved CES looks and acts an awful lot like the old TWI. True, CES' carnality runs to legalism (see their code of conduct) instead of license, but it's still carnality. The differences in understanding of the word "partner", as between your own and that of the corporate owners of CES, may well be greater than you realize, Raf. Love, Steve P.S. - Hope you had a good time in New York!

Cynic - I may not be "eruditely Van Tilian" (LMAO), but I can see that one doen't have to accept the presupposition of the trinity for the idea of "proof" to exist. The point is, if you presuppose the trinity, then you can never use the same system of logic to PROVE the trinity. I challenge you to logically prove that the trinity is inherently [from within the framework of your own logical system] non-contradictory, without winding up in a recursion. Love, Steve

I appreciate that you voiced your concerns, laleo, and didn't just blow off the things I'm writing. Back around the holidays of '73, I was on a submarine going crazy. I had read the Bible as a course requirement in college without really understanding or believing it. I wasn't a particularly religious guy. Two years previously, my fiance had dumped me in what I found to be a very painful way. For two years my feelings had been sliding downhill. I thought to myself, over and over again, "I feel bad because she dumped me" and "I feel bad because of what the Navy is making me do." Two times previously, during that two years, I had stood on the edge of going crazy, but I had been able to change something, somehow, and pull myself back from the edge. This time, I KNEW I wasn't going to make it. Something HAD to change. There was nothing about the sea or ship that I could change. There was nothing about the people around me I could change. There was nothing about my schedule or lifestyle I could change. And I was going crazy. I was by myself standing watch in the engineroom lower level. I was sobbing, and I began to hyperventilate. As a last resort, without any expectation of results, I literally cried out "God help me..." As I did so, He brought to my remembrance a verse where Jesus had said He would do anything we asked, if we asked in His name, and I finished up... "in the name of Jesus Christ." My breathing returned to normal and I calmed down. I knew I wasn't going to go crazy. Shortly thereafter, I don't remember exactly when, He put a decision before me. I didn't hear an audible voice or anything like that, but He presented me with the possibility that I felt bad because I had decided to feel bad. Then my pride welled up. "How DARE He think such a thing?" But then I swallowed it, and admitted what I knew to be truth. After that He gave me to understand that if I had chosen to feel bad, then I could also choose to feel good, and He began teaching me HOW to change the things that were in my heart. That was a little more than 31 years ago, and it was long before I ever heard of TWI. I've been able to understand lumps of this stuff over the decades, but it wasn't until a week ago last Thursday that it all came together. The Lord never expected me to change everything all at once. And it started out one word at a time (the first one was "This is a piece of s**t!"). The Lord leads each one of us along at the proper pace. It isn't my job to say how specifically any individual should apply these things. That's the Lord's job. My job is just to explain what I've experienced, in Biblical terms if possible, so that other people know they can do it too. When leaders take on extra privileges, they also take on extra responsibilities. I hope you understand more as I complete the thought of this thread, which I will continue doing in the morning. Again, thank you, laleo! Love, Steve

Cynic - You wrote, You have the highest syllable/word ratio of anybody I've seen post here in quite awhile. If you simplify your language it would be easier for you to persuade people. That is, unless you are being volitionally loquax for purposeful obfuscation of your paucity of ousia. Read your history, Cynic! Platonism was a well-thought-through philosophy, even though I don't believe it was well-founded. Neo-platonism WAS poorly thought-through, as well as poorly-founded. It WAS a degenerate superstition that displaced Stoicism around the turn of the third century. It was taken for granted by the fourth, and laid the foundation for many of the medieval thought patterns we find so silly in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". Western thinking didn't start recovering until the rediscovery of Aristotle. Speaking of philosophies, one the great goals of the classical philosophers was to figure out how to live the "happy" life. Some of them looked around and asked, "What is the happiest creature in the cosmos?" They fixed on dogs, and said, "In order for man to be happy, he should live like a dog." They proceeded to do so with great gusto. This was the origin of the cynic ["kynos" = "dog"] school of philosophy. You wrote, "...you cannot [demonstrate] that a Trinitarian view of God is inherently contradictory." I say, YOU CANNOT PROVE that a trinitarian view of God is inherently NON-contradictory. For these reasons: A logical system is a ret of rules whose purpose is to define "proof". Every logical system is built on a foundation of assumptions, or presuppositions, which are accepted as self-evident. Because of this, no logical system can ever be used to prove ANY of the presuppositions upon which it is itself based. To try to do so will ALWAYS result in recursion, tautology, circular reasoning... which is NOT valid. You are operating a logical system that takes the trinitarian position as one of its presuppositions. None of us can use your system to prove that the trinitarian position is inherently [from within the framework of your own logical system] contradictory. HOWEVER.... ...neither can YOU prove that the trinitarian system is inherently [from within the framework of your own logical system] NON-contradictory. To attempt to do so will result in invalid logic, since the trinitarian position is one of your foundational presuppositions. To discover more information in order to make a decision about the trinity, we have to go outside your logical system to some objective standard... say... the Bible. What do we find there? That the relationship between God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit is much more sophisticated than the fourth century dock workers at Alexandria were taught. Face it, Pal :-D Love, Steve

Cynic - You wrote, Yes, indeed! Absolutely! I concede that the trinitarian view of same-substance makes sense within the neo-platonic frame of reference, but I do not concede that neo-platonism, or even platonism for what it's worth, corresponds with actuality. The situation is this: there exists an objective (outside of the mind) actuality, but our experience of it can only be subjective (within the mind). Plato confusedly gave primacy of consideration to the subjective experience rather than the objective actuality. He declared his subjective experience to be more "real" than objective actuality is. Platonism can accept any flight of fancy, such as 1+1+1=1, because it does not submit its theories to any kind of objective standard. That which is objective is only illusory. That was platonism. Neo-platonism was degenerate superstition. I do concede that a plurality-of-persons/singularity-of-substance distinction is logically non-contradictory within the frame of reference of a degenerate superstition. What I don't see is why we have to continue using degenerate superstition rather than the Bible as our touchstone for truth. Love, Steve

Steve; maybe I missed something, but is this what someone in CES stated? Graeser, Mark, The Apostle Paul, Mindset, Martyrdom, Mercy CES, Indianapolis, IN, bimonthly audiotape for July/August, '96 The New Testament defines the Church as the believing remnant of Israel under the New Testament promised to them in Jeremiah 31:31-34, with believing Gentiles grafted in on the same basis as believing Israel, by grace through faith (see Romans 11, Ephesians 2, 3:6). Dispensationalism teaches that the Church is a wholly new thing, completely separate and discontinuous from Israel. In order to support this, dispensationalists have to negate Romans 11. Bullinger taught that the new "administration" couldn't begin until the new revelation had been given (which is logically consistent with the tenets of dispensationalism), and so, the Church "administration" couldn't have begun before the penning of Ephesians. Therefore Romans, Corinthians, Galatians and Thessalonians weren't written during the Church "administration". Wierwille negated the chapter by claiming Romans 11 wasn't addressed "TO" the Church, but rather to unbelieving Jews and Gentiles. I believe this was the primary reason why Wierwille included "To Whom Addressed" in PFAL, because it's obvious who Paul was addressing, if we just read what's written. In Romans 9:3&4, Paul distinguishes his "brethren", his "kinsmen according to the flesh" as Israelites, who may or may not necessarily also be Christians. Wierwille taught that Romans 9:4 through 11:12 are addressed TO unbelieving Israel. If we read closely, we see that this section of Scripture is written ABOUT the Jews, but it isn't addressed TO them. (By the way, if Wierwille were consistent, he would also have to teach that Romans 10:9&10 were addressed to Israel ONLY.) The first clue to the addressees of Romans 9 is in verse 24, "Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only but also of the Gentiles. The congregation at Rome was mixed, that is, some of its members had come to Christ from Jewish backgrounds, and some from Gentile. Romans 9:24 confirms this, and also confirms that this section is still addressed to the book's original addressees, "all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints" (Romans 1:7). Romans 10:1 says, "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." If this was addressed to Israel, instead of the Christians at Rome, it would read, "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for YOU is, that YOU might be saved. The Gentiles of Romans 11:13 are Christians who had come to Christ from Gentile backgrounds. Romans 11:20 says "thou standest by faith". In 11:25 Paul calls these Gentiles "brethren". Verse 30 says "...ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy..." This stuff is there for everybody to read. Back in the mid-'90s, a number of CES followers were actually reading the Bible for themselves and beginning to question the dispensationalism we had been taught in PFAL. CES could have re-examined the things we had been taught about the "mystery", but they decided not to. They decided to develop their own rationalizations to support the dispensationalist stance they had already published. They came up with their own way to negate Romans 11. Their response was a one-two punch, the first punch being The Apostle Paul, Mindset, Martyrdom, Mercy by Graeser, and the second being The Mystery Revisited by Schoenheit on the bimonthly audiotape immediately following Graeser's. In TAPMMM, Greaser taught that God couldn't reveal the greatness of the "mystery" to Paul right away because of Paul's "Jewish mindset", as evidenced in Romans 9:1-11:12. God couldn't reveal the greatness of the "mystery" to Paul before he had his "Jewish mindset" "broken". This happened when Paul made his final trip to Jerusalem. Paul was so shaken and disappointed when his Jewish friends betrayed him, that he finally gave up his own Jewishness (mindset). Then God was finally able to give Paul grade-A, 100% unadulterated revelation. Graeser never used the word "Momentus", but those who have taken Momentus would recognize his line of reasoning as having come straight out of the training. Graeser was subtle enough not to come straight out and say that the revelation in Romans is inferior to the revelation in Ephesian, but he sure did a weasel-word dance to imply the same idea. Love, Steve

dmiller - When it comes to local and federal elections, I DO have the right to vote. If I don't like the ways my representatives are spending my money, I cast my vote to throw them out. If I don't like the ways my executives are running my government, I cast my vote to throw them out. I can talk to them and they listen, because they know I can vote to thow them out. I DO vote! What do you think I found out back in '86 after hearing POP read? Hey, when it came to the way the Trustees spend my money and rape my sisters, I ain't got any kind of vote! I can't vote to throw ANYBODY out. And you know what, they don't have to give a rat's patoot about what I think. When Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser set up CES, lo, these many years ago, what do you suppose they did? They imitated the power structure of TWI! EXACTLY! What do you suppose I found out when I spoke up against THEIR errors? Hey, I can't vote to thow them out, consequently, they don't give a rat's patoot about what I, or any other of their followers think. Do I think they deliberately planned it that way? No, I don't think so. They were just going by their gut feelings, by what seemed like the right thing to do. Their intentions were good, but thier results were wrong. And still are. Love, Steve

Garth - You wrote: How true, how true! Remember, Garth, I AM a Momentus grad. So are Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser. What puts a burr under my tail is the hypocrisy in THEIR use of manipulative or sloppy terminology after "getting all anal and bent out of shape as to the proper usage of and your 'commitment' to the *true* and *honest* meanings of words, concepts,et al." It's almost as if they can't hear what's coming out of their own mouths. I don't have any real beef with Raf using the word "partner", as long as he's aware that Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser don't necessarily regard the word the same way he does. Raf is being honest. I don't think the corporate owners of CES are, but I don't think they're being deliberately dishonest either. I think they are operating on autopilot, and are too busy speaking the truth in love to consider whether the things they say are really true, or the things they do are really loving. Anal AND nit-picky... I would attribute this poem if I knew who the author was, but I don't. I learned it as a child: "Little drops of water, Tiny grains of sand, Make the mighty ocean And the mighty land. "And the little seconds, Humble though they be, Make the mighty vastness Of eternity." Every word that passes through a person's mind makes an impression on his heart. Every word... Love, Steve

I gotta do this. I want to have some more fun with Cynic and Garth, but I owe this to Raf before going ahead with that :-) A tad. Calling it "the truth" is calling the alternative viewpoint a lie or, at best, an untruth. To say that something is true is not the same thing as calling everything else a lie. Remember the blind men and the elephant. It's an opinion, and I respect your right to hold it. My opinion is that there's nothing misleading or deceptive about the word "partner," especially since they tell you what they mean by it. Nothing consciously deceptive or misleading, just like "cash cows". But "partner" carries with it unconscious values. "Free will regular donors" is value free, but "partner" is not. "Partner" is used by ALL the organizations that use it, for the positive assocoations it carries, not because it matches the actuality of partnership. "...especially since they tell you what they mean by it." There was a time, Raf, back in the late-'80s and early-'90s, when people actually COULD function like real partners. The people who associated with CES could counsel Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser, and those men would receive it. Not any more. "What they mean by" being a partner has been a step down, not a step up. Right. And if I decide to make the planning of a non-profit organization easier by pledging a predictable amount on a scheduled basis, I'll do it. It doesn't make me a manager or policy maker (show me one non-profit where it works this way). Nor does the program claim that I am becoming a manager or policy maker. So... where's the deception? You are responsible for your life, Raf. You have the authority for how you use your power. When you give an organization money, you give them a piece of your life. You give them some of your authority for how to spend a piece of your life. You can delegate authority, but you can't delegate responsibility. If I'm going to give the leaders of some organization my money, then I want them to give me a corresponding degree of holding them accountable. Otherwise, I am abdicating my responsibility for my authority which I've extended to them. It ain't right, no matter how sweet they make it sound. Fair enough. Yes. Yes. Yes. ... Not fair. Steve, you should know better than use this line of argument. TWI's ABuSive donation scheme was not about donation but obligation. It was not free-will, it was debt. Criticize the program for what it is: I'll defend your right to do so. But comparing it to TWI's ABuSe is unfair and detracts from your case. They don't compare. What do you mean by the words "fair" and "unfair"? Do they mean something like "kosher"? or something like "unpleasant to stop and consider"? Am I presenting a line of argument, or a line of persuasion? ABS "was not about donation but obligation... it was debt." What exactly do you think you generate when you make a "pledge", Raf? Isn't it an obligation? Isn't it a debt? Free-will regular (pledged) donations are just as much about obligation and debt as ABS ever was. No. Well said. Assuming the account to be true, I would have to say no. Don't take Tzaia's word for it. Don't take my word for it. Don't take Lynn's, Schoenheit's or Graeser's word for it. Use the mechanism they've put in place for you to hold them accountable... uh...wait... IS there such a mechanism? If I continue contributing KNOWING the money is being mishandled, I'd say accessiories. I know where my heart is in giving. I'm not naive: I know there's waste in the United Way, and I give more to them than to CES. Is the account Tzaia wrote representative of how they handle their money, or is it the extent of the mishandling? If the answer is the former, I don't want to give anymore. If it's the latter, I count my lucky stars. Which is it? At the moment, I don't know. See my answer immediately above this one. :)--> I really appreciate what you're saying here. If I may offer a bit of public critique, sometimes your criticism of CES appears perfectly sound and well-reasoned, while other times it just seems overly critical and bitter. I think your concerns on doctrine are valuable. Your concerns on the meaning of partnership baffle me. But that's just me. Don't worry: if I don't agree with you on that point, it doesn't mean I'm not listening on the others. K? I noticed something really interesting the other day when I was looking at II Timothy 3:16&17. The passage is one sentence consisting of two clauses. The second clause gives the purpose for the first. The whole sentence is bracketed by the word "all". "All Scripture... that... all good works." Doctrine and practice are inextricably connected. Some of CES' doctrines and practices are good. Some of them are not. Their scriptural errors are very closely connected with their practical errors, and vice versa; to a degree that Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser do not seem to see. The question is not whether everything they do or teach is right or wrong. Nobody has perfect knowledge or perfect execution. The question is, how can they be so blind to such obvious error of both doctrine AND practice? This is not an abstract, theoretical question. Some people have been hospitalized and others divorced as results of CES's errors. Love, Steve

Cynic - You know, I actually DO understand how some of the fourth century thinkers could consider God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ to be of "the same substance". It depends on how you understand the word "substance". Their understanding was conditioned by fourth century neoplatonism. Unfortunately, neither Paul nor we ourselves think like fourth century neoplatonists. Here is my personal view: I believe I Corinthians 8:6 indicates that God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ are presently the same in function, but not in substance. To see why I think this, draw a diagram of I Corinthians 8:6 using the geometric meanings of the prepositions "ek", "eis" and "dia". I believe the Holy Spirit is presently God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ working together in this way: The human personality of Jesus Christ has been heterodyned with the power and the love of God in motion. God heterodyned His power and love with the human personality of Jesus so the Jesus could carry out his current responsibilties as steward of creation. The clincher for me is that the Word of God does NOT teach the neoplatonic concept of natural immortality of the soul. I believe Genesis 2:7 indicates that a living human being is a living soul, composed of only two parts, a dust component (body) and a breath component (spirit, or air in motion). I believe Genesis 3:19 associates man's identity and consciousness with his dust component (body). I believe Leviticus 21:11, Numbers 6:6, & 19:13, and Haggai 2:13 indicate that when a person's breath leaves his body, that person does not continue as a living soul, but becomes a dead soul. There are a number of verses and passages, which I will take the time to list if you want me to, which indicate that there is NO consciouness in death. If Jesus were conscious during the period he was dead, then he is not fully human. If he was unconscious during that period, then he is not fully God. Just my two cents... not necessarily an invitation to argue... If anybody wants to consider the relation of trinitarian concepts to what's written in the Bible, I recommend "Christology In The Making" by James D.G. Dunn. For anyone who wants to know how Constantine decided Jesus WAS God, I recommend "When Jesus Became God" by Richard E. Rubenstein. By the way, Cynic, you wrote - "Got that itch to foam and rave against John Calvin? Start another thread." It's not really up to you, Cynic, to determine which fish fry and which fish don't on this thread. For some of us, the real topic of this thread isn't the Trinity, but the motives behind WHY the thread was started in the first place. Garth has as much freedom and responsibility as you have to post whatever he wants on this thread. Garth was the first person to reply to Jeff's original post, so I reckon that gives him some kind of squatters' rights. You're a late-comer, Cynic. Love, Steve

Translation: I haven't been able to find any way to twist the material you've given me, so please give me some more. Maybe I'll find something in the new material to twist. Your faithful, humble, obedient, etc. S. Lortz, OLG Extraordinaire of the United States by Popular Acclaim

1+1+1=...1? Hmmmmmmmmmmm Love, Steve

Quick review: we've seen that a person has to focus the attentive, analytical, deliberately volitional part of his mental activity whenever he learns a new skill or way of thinking. I think the Bible calls this part of a person's mental activity the "mind". As the new skill or way of thinking becomes routine, the uncritically receptive, unconscious, reflexive part of the person's mental activity takes over performing that function. I think this part is called the "heart". The process of the heart taking over the mind's duties is called "internalization". We learned that the heart is deceptive above all things, because every thought and intention that comes out of a person's heart seems right to that person. This is because those thoughts and intents were internalized by that same person's own habitual thoughts. A particular thought or intent may or may not be right, but we CANNOT judge the thoughts and intents of our own hearts by ourselves. We need to receive critique from a critic. The living Word of God gives us critiques of the thoughts and intents of our hearts, as we compare and contrast those thoughts and intents with what we find in the written Word and what the Spirit of God is communicating with us. The fear of God is the emotion that urges us to recognize that something in our hearts may be wrong, even though it "feels SO right" to us. We saw that a person who has no fear of God can unknowingly fall into all sorts of errors, because the things in his heart seem right to him, and he has no critic. Now let's look at hypocrisy. What is it? These hypocrites are religious leaders whose outward behavior mimics godliness, but the thoughts and intents of their hearts are not right. Do these religious leaders realize that the contents of their hearts are wrong? No, they don't, because they aren't willing to submit those contents to the critique of the living Word of God. The reason they aren't willing is because, in their eyes, the power of men's opinions is greater than the power of God. Do these religious leaders want to appear righteous to just any old people? No, they want to be attractive to those they consider to have power. What people have power over them? The crowds and their superiors in the religious hierarchy. They put up a show of religiousity to gain the adulation of the crowds, and the approval of their religious bosses. And they DO NOT SEE ANYTHING WRONG with that! Because it is a way of life that they have internalized. Where does hypocrisy come from? Remember, we saw from Psalm 34:11 that the fear of God can be taught. Religious leaders can ALSO teach their followers to fear them, the leaders, more than they fear God. Through this teaching, hypocrisy spreads throughout the people, and they DON'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG with it, because they have internalized the teaching. What happens to doctrine in a religious organization that has become infested with hypocrisy? Since these religious leaders fear men more than God, they unconsciously replace His Word with what they have internalized, the traditions and commandments of men. They don't recognize that what's actually written in the Word takes precedence over THEIR LEADER'S OWN WORDS. It's interesting to look at the passage in Isaiah from which Jesus quoted, The wisdom of their wise men shall perish and the understanding of their prudent shall be hid. There WERE wise men... ...but their wisdom perished. There WERE prudent men... ...but their understanding was hid. The hypocrisy they learned from their leaders replaced their fear of God. Remember, "There is no fear of God before his eyes. For in his own eyes he flatters himself too much to detect or hate his sin" (Psalms 36:1b&2). "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:22) Are hypocritical religious leaders without hope? In other words, if you're a religious leader, get honest with God in your heart. I have only a few more episodes for this topic, but I'm going to have to take a break until Monday. Love, Steve

Jerry - I notice you sign your posts with "Peace". I sign my posts with "Love". If we ever get together, we can have a "Peace & Love" flashback to the '60s :-) Love, Steve

ala - Love your writing! WOW stories. What a hoot! Things happened on the WOW field that would curdle the blood of the producers of "Fear Factor". Truth IS stranger than fiction! Jim asked, "Did all the returning WOWs just pretend to have had a great time?" No, Jim, our euphoria was genuine. Not because of what happened during the year, but BECAUSE IT WAS OVER!!!!! Love, Steve

satori - I agree wholeheartedly with the spirit of your post. IMO most of the real miracles that happen don't mean anything except to the people who received them. The problem with TWI was, how can you mass market the miraculous without putting it in a box and slapping a label on it? Love, Steve