sky4it

Its been a while since I posted. The law of liberty IMO simply means that liberty is the law IE having a drink in moderation OK, music have some moderation in all things Ferstu? With a couple of exceptions to the rule as specified in ACTS: 1) No fornication or adultry 2) No coveteousness or idolatry 1/2 Dont talk about someone behind there back, unless of course you have brought it to them first as Jesus said. If you have ought against your brother go to your brother (not your neighbor) if he wont be reconciled go to the magistrate, if that dont work, let him be as the heathen.

Wordwolf: Yeah! That apostle definition of VPW was one boat load of hogwash. He also conviently forgot the part Paul spoke of that the Apostles were, "the offscurrinying of the earth" despised men. Then, he conviently added that the churches despised him for the same reason. As far as what VPW actually was (and I speak to you too Rascal) I think he was a huckster, a charlatan, a man who had perfected a routine or an act to his own benefit. In fact, I think he was really good at his craft. I think VP would have been one heck of a used car salesman. By the way, here is the definition of a charlatan and I think it fits VP really well: A charlatan is a person practicing quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money or advantage by false pretenses.

Rascal: I think you are missunderstanding me Rascal, cause I do think VP was wacked. I just dont think he was a despot like Jim Jones. You know Rascal, I never had years of pain with the Way like some did, but I have had years of pain with some other stuff. The key question is how do we deal with the donuts of pain this stuff causes. Let me explain. After a 4 year hayedous with a somewhat "wacked" Assembly group, I became somewhat embittered toward God. After a short period I came to understand a scripture in a new way. It was Hebrews 6:10, "for God is not unrighteous to forget your labor of love etc etc." The point being? That God has better things for me, for you and just because you feel forgotten in it all, their is still a reward. Look for that reward and maturity Rascal, why? Because I see it in you. Your a leader now, not a follower, and can easily chill the questionable teachings , doctrines and stuff that others cannot. That Rascal is one huge benefit. Is what I said above enough of a benefit? No it is not Rascal, and I agree with you on that. But keep in mind one thing, it is immpossible to outgive God. Their will be plenty of Roses down the road and you can count on it. I am not trying to put a smiley face on your pain either Rascal, but its good that sufferings are put behind us for the glory that is sure to follow. So cheery up.

Rascal: I really dont think that VP was as wacked as David Koresh or Jim Jones. VP, I do think, had some sense of equity and stability. I also dont think Rascal you can define your Christianity in terms of wether the ministry was right or not. (Its a hell hole to say God cant use stuff like this for good in your life) Did some not receive any good from it? Doubtless they didnt, but I really believe > God honors sincere intentions, aka honors people like Rascal. You know their are a lot of wacked orgs that started out right (in the heart),,, and people went wacko. Do I think VP was a false (whatever, teacher, apostle etc) ? I think this Rascal, alot of people said he plagerized others writings. Still some of the content of the plagerized stuff wasnt necessarily bad. The way got off bad when VP isolated himself, and made proclamations of teachings which others couldnt obtain. He did it to control people. This was evil of him. Take the good rascal and toss the evil.

Abby: Long time no see good to say HI again. I wonder if their isnt justice in the absence of what we miss, for example, things falling apart may not feel good, but it may have been worse had they not? Since we live in an evil world, perhaps having two not so good events where one is worse may not feel like a good alternative, but maybe its the best one that there is. Life's dissapointments? Yeah, they cant be missed, because around every corner is a crusading beast looking to take advantage.

Dear Sigmund Frued: Is all of creation really just one giganitic sex toy? If so then why cant I participate? With all my love, A Christian

Nothing like a little "spiritual sex talk" to make one want to join the no sexos club permanently. Maybe thats the best way to curb cannibal er i mean carnal thoughts. Yeeee haw

interesting def he did create all things for his pleasure, and he works all things after the counsel of his own will, he also likes to makes things that are "good" Perhaps the question might be more apt to say, what does God enjoy most?

I always wondered how VP's clientele dealt with the scripture, "If any man will to do my will he shall know of the doctrine....." that Jesus said, people just had a little more trust I think , that VP was sincere himself.

Thomas: I really agree with your last post. If one wants to say heart adultry is spiritual adultry, I have no plem with that. The point I was trying to make Thomas is that the word adultery is first and foremost associated with a sexual act. I realize it is used as an adjective in society , to descibe something that is polluted, and the content is not always sexual. However , most of the times when someone descibes something polluted they use other adjectives. My main point was that to say that adultery in scripture is spiritual and not associated with a sexual act, defies the meaning of the word and hence was an excuse for developing the term by some to engage in sex,,,, or lust if u will. I agree that we have beat this point to death.

Thomas: No I am not saying its a figure of speech. The statement of the Lords also says, "looketh after a woman to lust after her hath already ......" Doubtless when a beatiful woman passes by she raises a few eyebrows. Is that what he is talking about here? I dont think so. The concept involves lust, and looking after.... the matter. It must therefore reach a little higher level in the brain, wether fantasy, chasing after the person.. u know what I mean. It is also very consistent with what James said in James 1:15 ," then when lust hath concieved it bringeth forth sin..." Is it a sin to have lust? No, it doesnt say that. Its only a sin if u let lust run its course to what its lusting after: if one doesnt, for lack of a better term, bring the lust to the cross and get rid of it. No, I dont think not committing adultery is the only thing one must do to enter into the kingdom of heaven. I do think however its a prerequisite and would be considered a good start. Consider that the Lord called them a "wicked and adulterous generation." I certainly agree with you that examining ones heart is a good place to be at in terms of searching God and seeking to know him. I fail to see the need however, to think adultery means anything other than wrongful sex within that context. I suppose one could use the term spiritual adultery or heart adultery to look at ones heart and weed out "lust" or other vices that are entering in; I certainly dont have any problem with that. Lastly u mentioned that u thought my suggestions where a bit more on the pharacetical side. The Lord was considerably more liberal with the Sabath and rituals then they were. He did however, never once comprismise on issues of adultery or covetousness; in fact he identified covetousness as the ingredient to hypocrasy and lust as the incredient to adultery. Furthermore the issue of adultery was the one he was most quizzed upon by the rulers. From that he said that divorce was adultery with one exception, " saving for the cause of fornication" One can argue his viewpoints were more stingent than the law of Moses.

thomas ur comment: No offense taken Thomas. I think its healthy to have back and forth dialogue. I think its great here at GS that we have that kind of format. Of course a bad heart would say, "if ive already lusted then why not pick the whole banana too?" The point bieng by Jesus , u cut off the root of the problem before u find yourself acting out on the lust. Abby did bring up a good point which i dont think i spoke enough about. Of course its wrong to go out on your spouse and flirt with another, but isnt it also true when people act like that that if they dont cut it off they end up in a bed of adultry? That would be my point. Commiting adultry in ones heart, was a wise statement to us was it not? For if we censure our heart, the problem goes away and u wouldnt committ the act. I do think its dangerous Thomas, for anyone to bring sexual adultry into the temple of God and call it pure. (I am not saying u or anyone here at GS are doing that) Why? Because people can get sick and die. They would be far better off if they took it outside and said this is the way we want to live. God is holy, and he will never tolerate it. The problem is is that its infectious to those whose motives are pure.

danny: your comment: I would be more inclined to consider a "spiritual" angle to adultery than come up with a spiritual version or double for the vice, as was done in the Way. Once again u summed up my thoughts in a few short words, thank you.

Abigail: No i do not. Call it, inordinate affection, promiscutiy... Im sure theres other descriptive ajectives describing a wayward heart. Danny: I agree Oak and Thomas: Without question there some occassions in the old testament which corralate a person playing the harlot bieng somewhat similiar to leaving or forsaking God. Thomas your comment: Do you really think that is all about some people who had sex with someone named Jezebel? No it is not. It is about people who have accepted and live according to "her doctrine that she taught" Furthermore I dont have any problem understanding the term fornication in Revelation as anything other than a society engaged in runaway sex.

Thomas: your comment: It seems that a lot of seeming contradictions would be reconciled if we were to look at the word "adultery" in its broader context of spiritual adultery. Respectfully, and i dont want to be a stick in the mud; but there is no such thing as spiritual adultery. Adultery means having sex in marriage with someone who is not your spouse. The spirit of a man or woman can be convoluted because of the act and I suppose u might argue there spirit has been adultered, but it doesnt work the other way around. your comment in your first post: I've heard it taught that the "adultery" mentioned here is spiritual adultery. Of course I've also heard it said that was an excuse by TWI to engage in sexual adultery. I think u hit the nail on the head the first time. Tough to figure out these means what it says theorists? they dont even follow there own rules.

Abbigail: ur comment: If one is dead because their spouse killed them, would that then be the ultimate growth in a relationship with God? One must love oneself before one has anything to offer another. Self love includes drawing boundaries with respect to how one will be treated - an obvious boundary is not tolerating physical abuse. A less obvious, but still necessary boundary is not tolerating emotional abuse. you know Abby i agree with this. ie(Co-dependent no more) I do think legal seperation provides such boundaries and I think (and mentioned before) that the church and state have missed opportunities there. I think also that one can make the agruement that even after divorce, the relationship may not be completely dead until fornication or adultry has occured by one of the parties. enjoyed ur post, very much agree. A very interesting topic.

Danny: I wanted to discuss one thing that I didnt do very well. It was the holier than thou attitude u brought up and it was not my intent. I think this Dan. Many Christians orgs. treat spiritual authority as tho it was the same iron fist of other authorities: the supreme on top must have the proper answers. I dont see that in Gods kingdom, rather; if the principles that we apply dont make us more joyful happy and full people, then perhaps weve missed the principle and its application. I guess what im trying to say Danny, is that if the existing principle is that good it will make us better people. I dont see God's principles moving beyond that, like making someone better and someone lessor; except to the extent that someone possessing the lessor is still looking for something good. To me it's not sledge hammer policies Danny; but I think many churches and (yes TWI) did this to us to make people loyal subjects. Lastly, the issue of the married doing "well" and the unmarried doing "better" that Paul spoke about. better in the sense that its less complex, me thinks. but better in the sense that the married "cant be as holy" as someone else? Nope not a chance of it. Just less crap or flesh or what ever u wanna call it. At least thats my view. The uncanny truth is this statement really holds water. I certainly dont know of many people who can say there life is simpler as a result of marriage. Also Danny, I never meant to imply that anyone here at GS was looking for the perfect soul mate. To the opposite i have never felt that from anyone here. I pointed this out because this is the attitude I have heard from some in churches who file for divorce. The other thing Danny is I'm struggling with issues in this area myself right now. There was a time when i begged the Lord to finish a divorce my wife started. I do see for my self tho, perhaps a better path in legal seperation.

Danny: Your comment: I'm far from perfect, and am even in less of a position to judge what life must be like - or what it was like - in someone elses marriage. My concern for such an approach you described - for all its merits, and there are indeed many -is that, of itself, I can see where such might also slip into some weird, machostic holier-than-thou brand of self-righteousness, - particularly if one regards others whose marriages didn't work -as somehow forever stained and less sacred, or possessing less "spiritual depth" and perception. Which is not to suggest that I think that's where you're coming from. Only that this position may not be without its shortcomings. Danny, I agree. I know that the approach that I asserted at once has what one might term a legalistic treatise, and that brings that holier than thou type atmospherics of those who have either lived like that or purport too. My believe in this is more based upon the aspect that for me, I find more liberating than anything else. The other thing is this Danny: the last verse of I cor 7 discusses remarriage for one whose spouse has ( I think ) passed on. Paul says he thinks one is happier if he abides single and he thinks he has the spirit on that one. This is a very perculiar scripture.Could it be that God was trying to give a nudge, knowing that he didnt want to make it a rule because some absolutely need marriage? I think so. The problem with "God adopted rules" is he knows they can be a huge bondage on us. With respect to the permanent stained aspect of your comment Danny, I dont think any mistakes are made with permanent majic markers that cannot be cleaned up going forward. Therefore the stuff I said shouldn't bring guilt or difficulty, at least thats my view.

Danny , Abigail and Cknapp: Danny ur comment: Personally, as a creature of my time, I can see other possible, valid reasons besides "adultery" that might justify annulling a marriage. Spouse beaters and abusers. Or two people growing apart and sharing little in common anymore. I'm sure people here can think of other reasons. And perhaps even for reasons unrelated to "hard hearts". Abby ur comment: I cannot see how God would want us to spend our lives in misery. For some - staying in a marriage would mean just that. I do not agree with u guys, and I shall try to elegantly state why. (I mentioned that seperation provides a valid path in such circumstances ,but i think the reasoning goes way beyond that) It is my belief that the institution of marriage, (with all the flaws of both parties) was put in place for a valid reason, that being true spiritual holiness. If one is unwilling to endure for a person who (doesnt make them happy or has serious problems), how can one grow in a relationship with God and his ways which cannot be fathomed? It is therefore the ultimate test of love for any party. Furthermore it is my belief, (and I believe supported by paul's statements, that marriage is a difficult test regardless of the spouse. ) This is not the doctrine taught by some who believe there is some ultimate unquizzacle soul mate who they are able to drift off into peace, bliss and contentment. Paul does not teach this. Therefore I think people expecting that are deceiving themselves. Lastly and most importantly is the issue of purity and holiness, which is the justifiable and exceeding joyful reason Paul wanted our focus on Christ. Those preoccupied with finding there true soul mate dont and miss the opportunity of what God wrought in Christ in difficult spaces. I truly believe this, having lived with a woman who once tried to divorce me and now as of today wants a seperation. why? In my view because she is overmedicated with prescription drugs, self indulgent beyond what looks to be hopeful repair and a mess. Abusive? Hell yes all the time. Yet i find in my solitude better joy and peace with God than looking for that in a person. Cause guess what guys? It dont exist.

oenophil: see next post, somehow i double posted sorry

evan and tazaia: Evan God Bless in Kenya. I have enjoyed your posts. A friend of mine who is a doctor is a missionary there. Taziaia: I breifly visited that site that u had posted. Interesting that so called fundamentalists now have to post as part of the doctrine beleif in the sanctity of marriage. Such a thing was unheard of years ago, when it was just presumed that anything else is wrong. Oh well, on the positive side there is no one arguing abt babtisms and such anymore. Anyways, God bless yah.

Def, Oak , Mike and others: The subject matter bieng the destruction of people by God's commandment is an interesting one. Fascinating actually, in the context of a God who is love. Many of the illustrations point to these people bringing war against Israel, principally after the Israeli occupation. The ones prior thereto, some of these people made leagues with Israel. The Bible also points out that some were driven out by hornets and wild beasts, ( so that not all were appointed to destruction). The Amalakites of course brought the war to Israel by coming out to fight, as did many other tribes of people, so that one could ascertain that they wanted war at the appearance of Israel. The Bible also indicates, " that the iniquity of the Amorites was not full", indicating that for some God was not willing to pass judgement. Scripture also indicates that the Lord had said, "for the land itself speweth them out." One can only imagine from that statement people heavy with disease and presumably all manner of sin , such as that as of Sodom and Gommorah." oh and by the way Oak, I think im done wrestling with Mike. He appears to be plugged into to what he wants to be.

I recollect reading some years ago, a definition which I will paraphrase that said, the leader makes some supernatural claims to devine revelation unsubstantiated or confirmed by others. In this regard the teachings of VPW qualified for he claimed supernatural experience which was not collaberated. To look at the converse, most of Pauls revelations ( excepting his conversion experience which was explained by Luke) where theological arguements supported by old testament literature. Interesting that, it certainly would appear, revelation does not have to be (and never is in my view) supported by grandiose claims unsubstantiated, but rather by new outlooks and insightfulness into the scripture itself. WWWWWHHHHOOAAAAAAA, it appears u just cant limit that " Word of God". Better to honor God by asking him for new reflections of his word, than to tell him by our doctrine what he meant and what he didn't. If man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, we must need a daily diet of it also. But the one stop shopping canned approach of TWI, was so concerned with rightly dividing the word of God, me thinks they left out the author. And who better to ask to inspire the daily food if questions abound than he that spoke it? Its an arguement TWI and other canned bible heads can never forestall, but a thing our Lord always demanded. With respect to Jehovahs Witness's, Mormonism and other jilted arrows, the lines are skewed a little differently, but the technique (specially JW) are remarkably the same, with emphasis simply shifted on which scriptures are saluted with brasen tenacity but remarkably little grace. For it is grace that saved us and grace in which the word of God must be understood, for he is full of grace. Grace is afterall, one of the hallmarks of the Holy Spirit.

Mike: Your comment: Dr never taught that sincerity should be subtracted from the equation. I disagree Mike. I think he taught precisely this. How did he teach it? by minimizing the effect of it he reduced it to worthlessness. Sincerity is, seeking the Lord, in a nutshell that is. To this David, Jesus & Paul testified. And by the way, u make it sound like the way corps gave VPW a bad name, but he was the one who started them and was the chief conductor of there activities. doubltless, Mike , he had to be aware of his teachings and how they impacted his followers. As far as rightly dividing the word of truth, heck , Peter said to desire "the sincere milk of the word" or something like that. Rightly dividing the word of God , is therefore conditional upon a persons heart. The word of God, Mike , divides our intents and motives. by letting it do so this is how we rightly divide the word of God. Moreover, it is not just studying the word of God that we rightly divide it, we must also study God and the movement of the holy spirit, and this is something VPW never taught, indeed he disdained it. you know Mike I aint saying there arent some nuggets u cant take along the way of Christianity. But to think that PFAL was an abundant one stop shopping for all ur knowledge of God needs is just perposterous. In addition, this is precisely the collective attitude fostered by many of vpw's teachings, as thou he had it and no one else did. This is simply not the truth. I dont know what else to say to u Mike, except move on with the Lord. There's so much more to God than this PFAL stuff. It is not the work of some guy who preached the word since it hasnt been since the first century church. are all of us blessed by reading the Bible?, well of course and more so if we do it.