doojable

Okay Waysider... I apologize for misquoting Polythene Pam. I was going by what I thought the lyrics were....kinda like saying, "Reverend Bluejeans" instead of "Forever in Bluejeans." I should have double checked the lyrics before posting them... forgive me? :unsure: But on "Walk this Way" you are correct! (And yes I did double-check before posting them. )

Good point Waysider.

WTH - I need you to please clarify some things here. "Looking on a woman to lust after her"... Are you defining this as, "Man she's pretty!" or "Wow! She's hot!" or "Hubba, hubba!" or "I want to do the horizontal tango with that cutey!" of "I will have that woman - NOW." ...??? I mean - since we're talking about "committing adultery in one's heart," we might as well define what leads up to this. Was JC only talking to married men? Were they only looking at married women? Adultery implies that at least one person is married.. doesn't it? I for one think it's fitting that you chose the phrase "fantasy world," because I believe that this is what is being referred to. And if adultery in one's heart is bad - what about adultery in the flesh?? I mean, there are none of the questions concerning what's in anyone's heart when it's two bodies. Presumably to get to the second, the first must have been a driving force. I'd say you're making an argument against vp and not for him... but that's just me. And again, the crux of the matter is habit and lifestyle. I don't see the same warning concerning the other 16 works spoken about in Gal 5:19-21. And... I've never seen a convincing argument made concerning any wrong when the main point is, "Well everyone does it." Oh, and if I'm not mistaken....a big concern of Rom 7 and 8 is choosing to live under grace and not sin....Hmmmmm....

It's not a case of "just looking at his sins." It is a case of looking at the 17 (SEVENTEEN) different works that mark a life of making decisions that are not inclusive of being led by the spirit. I think you're minimizing the scriptures that you claim to hold.

There was a song in "A Chorus Line" called "T**s and Azs" in which one of the main opening lines is" "That ain't it, Kid... That ain't it, Kid" Some things are so hard to define that they can only be stated in terms of what they are not...

Well - I'd say that the fallacy was that operating the manifestation of SIT (since according to vp that one mani was the only one you could choose to do when and where you wanted) was prerequisite to fruit of the spirit. Being "led by the Spirit" seems to have more to do with choosing to live a certain way that includes excluding certain things (those 17 works of the flesh.) There's that passage in Rom 6 that speaks about the choice between continuing in sin or not. (KJV) 1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?... 12Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. 13Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. 14For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. 15What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 16Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? 17But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 18Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. Interestingly enough - verses 21 and 22 mention (ta da!) fruit! (At least in the KJV) KJV: 20For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. 21What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. 22But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. 23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. The New International Version: 20When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[a] Christ Jesus our Lord. Now Gal 5:16-18 makes a lot more sense: 16This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Then we're back to the difference between choosing the 17 (!) works of the flesh that are cited as being absolutely NOT able to support being led by the spirit - which would produce fruit of the spirit. SO - what is the proof of fruit of the spirit? Again - we know what it's not. I'd say that's a good place to start.

Okay... It was Polythene Pam by the Beatles (geez- the song was only a few lines long!) New clue: See-saw swingin with the boys in the school And your feet flyin up in the air

Let's see, there's a difference between being drunk and being an alcoholic. One is much harder to just stop - not impossible - but harder. Hence why I keep saying that you have to look at the bigger picture of a man's life. I don't believe a well-defined habit of drunkenness, drugs, adultery, and fornication can be just turned on and off. Is it impossible? I dunno. Is it hard? Yes! And then you have that pesky Gal 5:17 that says that "these things are contrary one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things ye would." Which basically puts you in a downward spiral. Even if the claim could be proven that vp was born again, (again, I'm not putting a dog in that fight) his lifestyle prevented him from being led by the spirit. IMHO

Oldies - Concerning Gal 5: Later you addressed Rascal with: To which I replied: One thing about those 17 works - they indicate not being led by the spirit... so at the very least, the MOG spent a lot of time in this state. And - one month spent with a man when compared to a marriage where his spouse was quoted as saying "he was a mean man" is a drastic contrast. Couple that with the testimony of more than a few people who saw a vp that does not line up with your experience, and you have a man who at the very "best" preached one thing and practiced another, and at the worst was not born again and therefore incapable to be led by the spirit. (No accusations, just following a line of reasoning to the ultimate ends of the spectrum.) Perhaps that is why he said that he wished he was the man he knew to be.

"In her .......... package, you should see...."

We do know what fruit of the spirit is not... I count at least 17 works that will not produce that fruit...(Gal 5:19,20) "...so that ye cannot do the things that ye would." (Gal 5:17) Hence my comment on the overarching habit of a man's life.

Attitude? I simply drew a boundary. I posed some questions, as I've done more than once and you've ignored more than once, with other posters as well as me. I'm not about to define the new birth. Whatever I believe is sure to be partly right and partly wrong, just as it would be for anyone else. It's not my game so I don't get to make the rules. I was simply looking at the overarching habits of a life. Interestingly enough, in Galatians the works of the flesh are contrasted with fruit of the spirit. All works produce fruit (according to my understanding of the verses) but what fruit is produced depends on the nature of the works. If you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law.... conversely, what happens if you are not led by the Spirit? You are under the law? Works of the flesh ====> might this indicate a person putting themselves under the consequences (fruit) of the law? I dunno. Just thinking here... Works led by the Spirit ====> fruit of the spirit - the result of being led by the Spirit. I have many more questions than I have answers. I do know that when I see poor logic it jumps out at me and screams. I had to point that out. :)

You seem to have mistaken me for someone that wants to be your student. I didn't make the claims you seem so interested in. I simply commented on the obvious contradiction of a life led by the Spirit as opposed to delving into works of the flesh, and being under the law - and even then it was done in a pondering fashion. Sorry but I'm not accepting assignments from you.

This is the question I put forth for consideration: So day by day... I'd say that there is room for error. We are but dust after all. BUT - if the mix of "fruit" and "works" is so entangled, I'd be more prone to say that the fruit isn't really that, but is really just works put on for show.

Of course you're entitled to make a judgment based on your experiences - that doesn't mean that your reasoning is sound. What seems reasonable to you isn't the issue. Oh and what about the rest of the post?

I do believe this is faulty reasoning. What you're saying, in effect is, "Hey he treated me well. When he was in my world he behaved. That's the standard, and it negates everything that all of you say." I didn't personally hear it, but there is someone that heard the Mrs. say something about him being a mean man... Certainly she knew him better than you did. And... shouldn't "the fruit" of a man's life be fairly consistent? I mean, the "works of the flesh" shouldn't be so overwhelming as to obscure the "fruit of the Spirit," should it? I'm just wondering here, but if VP was drunk while he was teaching - does one trump the other? If he was longsuffering while he was being adulterous? How much peace did he have when he was shouting at the top of his lungs in a non-longsuffering way? Do you think he was gentle about it? How much joy did that ministry really bring him afterall? If he envied or hated while he was faithfully seeking his next motorcoach victim...? Tell me...do you really believe that when he was doing these things he was being led by the Spirit? Perhaps there is the answer right there... because if he wasn't being led by the Spirit, then one could make the argument that he was under the law. But I'm just thinking here.... carry on.

Jonny - I wasn't offended at all. I thought that I worded my post in such a way as to bridge some thoughts. The thread had obviously taken a turn and I failed to see that you were bringing it back around to the original post - maybe because the turn it had taken seemed more necessary to address. And even if I had been offended - so what? I didn't yell or come off as smearing you. I felt that you might have had more to say about self-defense. Given one of your most recent posts on the "Forgiveness.." thread I thought you might even agree with a lot of the sentiments here. (The one where you agree with DWBH about certain leaders...) I gotta say, I completely agree with this also. I couldn't fathom how anyone would stick around during that time. I and a small group of "reactionaries" in the DC Limb were spied on, black balled, and shat upon by thosew ho stayed in. But I must say, it was just so nice to say, "AMF! Adios Mother fu..ers, I mean, Adios My Friends!" But of course, it was a time of mental turmoil and upheaval. And so, what. It took Martindale getting caught and convicted in a law suit for screwin someone else's wife to cause them to finally get "revelation" or whatever and say; "Oh geez, looks like things are off the Word here. Time to go". WTF? What kind of morons were those guys anyway? Real spiritual "sharpies" huh? Sharp my a$$. Dullards more like. So, was it Craig getting caught and "outed" within TWI that convinced them to leave? Or, was it the Conviction and subsequent Public "outing" of his crimes that was "too much for them to bear", that caused them to go packing a few miles down that Ohio highway? And ya know, I have been in contact with some of the CFS-ers, and I never got an apology. It was just like; "Blesha! How ya been? Ya oughta come down for one of our functions!" No, I'd never participate in any of their crapola. It's all just the same 'ol same 'ol no doubt. No, I'm staying up here in Alaska... Like I said, you're an adult. You can post what you want, where you want and as you want. As long as people are reading any of these posts, there will be agreement and disagreement.

Jonny - your first post here in this thread was just a few posts ago. The whole thread is less than a week old. I don't understand the reason for your point. You never addressed the subject - you only said that the predator should be forgiven. Did you think it was appropriate to warn the instructor and the parents? If you believe it was, and then to find a way to forgive him...well that would be in line with your way of thinking - I think. *************************************************************************** Oh and if there are many posters and lurkers out there that are really afraid of reprisal - then may I remind you that this is cyberspace. There may be people here that disagree with you and disagree loudly, but in the end that's it - we disagree. I for one tend to believe that it is possible to forgive someone that doesn't ask to be forgiven. I've stated it before. I just don't see how it is appropriate to this thread.

Okay, the song was "Don't Stop Me Now" by Queen... New clue: "Well, you should see her practice..."

Well Jonny, but in this thread - where Rascal was approached by a man with totally inappropriate intentions... in this thread - the most germane thought is one of learning from the past. In this case, it is totally appropriate to remember the lessons learned and use it in another situation. Would you not agree with this assessment? Of course, you can believe what you want and talk about what you want. You're an adult. I assume that you will allow me to believe that your post was a bit off topic and talk about that in turn. Food for thought...

A man convinced against his will is not convinced. ~ Peter J. Lawrence I'd say that in this instance the emphasis has to be on not forgetting the lessons we learn. I don't see how forgiveness is at the crux of the matter here. It's a separate issue. IMHO It may be food for thought - but perhaps the wrong food for the moment.

I'd say you've ignored this request made by T-Bone, Bloke.

The topic is "Forgiveness" IIRC. Some bloke came in and said he'd give some insight into a verse - but-t-t-t-t that never happened.... So, I guess we go back to the main topic. I forgive you for forgetting.

Two pics:

I'll give it some more time then post another if no one gets it.