socks

This is true, Oldiesman. In PFAL it was certainly one of the clearest points taught. I think where the mush comes in is in the cavalier use of the word "spiritually" in the Way. A person would really have to follow VPW's vocabulary and contexts to understand what he meant when he used it at any given time. They'd fall into the two categories he taught - standing and state. A person's fellowship with God could be considered a "spiritual" part of their lives. Harmony and alignment with God's written Word would be considered a spiritual component for grads of PFAL. New birth, salvation, that's a different "kind" of spirituality - it's the gift as taught in PFAL, pneuma hagion. Where the pressure comes in to a person is in the "walk" part of the spirituality and that's where this kind of terminology gets mushy. Someone says "you've got spiritual halitosis" for instance. What's that mean? That's a pretty vague term often used in the Way by some people to infer another person's "spiritually screwed up, out in left field" in their "walk". But it also has been used to infer a person has "devil spirits" and are being influenced by them in what they say or do. That's the kind of terminology and uses of words that I found so damaging when I encountered them. Mixing up spiritual and physical metaphors was really common amongst Wayfer leaders and those who aspired to it because they often didn't know what they were really talking about and would change their meanings to suit what they were saying. So you could get these incredibly vague and mush declarations that a person didn't really know exactly what they meant, except that they knew it was bad.

Clearwater, I have to say I shudder at the idea of a person saying they're a "prophet". I would pose that a prophet is someone who does the task and not someone who aspires to the job and tries to develop skills to perform it and takes on the name. I can see no legitimate reason in the Christian church for an organized effort to perform "prophecies" over or for people in a planned ceremony of some kind, regardless of how formal or informal it is. Examples like weddings, birth dedications, baptisms of children, anniversaries and other benchmark calendar events in people's lives present an opportunity for something like this, but that's all. Every event doesn't presume or include a "prophesy". I've been involved in many of these kinds of events over the years, attending and officiating. I believe that in these instances as well as in life in general, opportunity always exists. But results can't be assumed when it comes to a "message from God" that's going to be specific in fact and foretelling of a person's life. It's incredibly presumptuous to do so, in my opinion. I've met quite a few people who tout themselves as prophets, over the years. They usually clam up around me. That's the truth. For a long time I wondered why. I still don't know why exactly. Maybe "God" doesn't have anything to say to me via these trusted vessels. You'd think with my attitude He'd tell me where to stick it, y'know? Anyone who steps up to the plate as a Voice of God and offers some kind of prophecy and it turns out to be B.S...I agree with you. We take them out and visit the woodshed. No free pass, no pass Go, no fooling around. God is holy as are His things, as are His people. Better to wash dishes in the back honestly than to serve spoiled food from the counter. No one's going to be happy about that.

Got the T-Shirt too Radar! Geez o Peteski, forgot all about those! :)-->

Of ducks and diamonds, John! :D--> Sky, I think it's important to remember that spontaneity was the underlying foundation to the first record that was rated P.G. in Acts 2. After Pentecost there was a "mad rush" of activity amongst the followers of Jesus Christ in response to what had happened. We don't have to squint to see that. They already knew the laws on tithes and offerings, their obligations as Jews. What happened in this category of sharing was a real inner response to salvation in Christ. They were "touched" as it were, deeply, and it was reflected in what they did. On the one hand it's a very natural response. When something good happens, something wonderful and exciting, people tend to reflect that. Here after Pentecost we see all the earmarkings of what it was going to mean to be a Christian - an inner real change and experience, consideration of it's meaning and a response to that. The question could be framed - was the response a result of the actual change those people underwent or was it a deliberate decision in response to what they were told to do? Craig worked the "taught" aspect of it in to his teaching on plurality giving and narrowed it down to that in practical application. This had always been taught in the Way (elsewhere too) - that tithing and abundantly sharing of your stuff was first and foremost a decision. And it is, of course. But he taught Acts 2 and what the people did as following what the apostles told them to do. Can't document that exactly, I heard it in a taped teaching though. But without the requisite change inside the person first it's bound to turn in to ritualized wishful thinking -"Do this because that's what you're supposed to do." That's fine, on one level. But it won't be a valid response to an actual change, it will be obedience to a moral concept and an ethical postulation of that concept. Headwork, not heartwork. "ouf of the abundance of the heart man speaks". No 'bundance, cheap speak. It has everything to do with the person and nothing to do with money or stuff. The "silver and gold" is in the riches of Christ. It's clearly the honor of each person to determine what and how they respond, in their own way.

ex10, my bro-ess. :)--> You nailed the hit right on the head. Personal Prophesy ® "institutionalize" is the word I was searching for. One of the meanings: to accustom (a person) so firmly to the care and supervised routine of an institution as to make incapable of managing a life outside. I don't think we're going to find every single thing in the bible epistles or Acts to tell us exactly how we should do everything. What I believe we see to a great extent is what happened to those people at that time. The bigger picture is what we want to stay focused on so that we will see what will happen to us at this time. Granted some things we can know from the bible as to what to do and what to expect. It's just that it's possible to ritualize anything and in effect put the breaks on whatever it was that we originally learned or experienced by wrapping our expectations around that single event and point in time. People want technique and stylized repetition to give them the confidence they seek. I think that leads to fooling ourselves when we don't see things repeat the way we expect them to. "I did everything the same way, I did all the right stuff. Why doesn't it work the same way this time?" So we have to make excuses and add new pieces to an ever expanding set of procedures and ignore or condemn others for whom things "work" differently and all so that it will make sense to us and we can rest easy in a well ordered universe, run by the Hand of God ® My 'pinion ® :D--> Just saw Jim's post. Won't get in the middle of that. -->

You get your Lips in a dosis like that, you got problems, no question about it. It's from a greek word - "Doeski-mine"-the root word which means "your money's my money". It's used quite a bit in early Roman actuarial reports, tax documents and stuff. Stop copying me.

Jimmy! Ring the bell! We got our first congregant!!! We got yer pointed socks, oh yeah.

I just came back and checked my post and lo, Sharon, you've posted a really cool piece of information! They say " IT - is the Point. The Point of Contact Between You and all that is." I'm scared now. I like to keep just a little distance between myself and all that is. Not a lot, nothing like a car length for every year or anything, just a little bit. If that point is only 2 letters wide, I hope everyone's showered. Not to derail, maybe William Smalley and CES can get together...? Proabably not. I bet his doctrines are off uh, somewhere. Yeah. That's always a problem.

Me neither. Really? "Personal Prophecy" sounds like a trademark name, like a buzzword. Something about reading it looks and sounds cheesey to me. Agabus was a prophet, and I guess he prophesied in that he confirmed something previous and foretold Paul's imprisonment (although as far as the Romans went that wasn't a reach to say that was going to happen and the Christian church in Jerusalem under James had their own agenda, another problem entirely for Paul). But calling it Personal Prophesy sounds like making it in to a franchise. It was prophecy and it was personal for Paul. Okay. Not by that title or name, although I can think of various instances where the conditions generally fit what you're saying CES teachs P.P. is. There was never a lack of people who had the time and inclination to dispense their invaluable wisdom and guidance that's for sure. Hmmmmm...I can't think of anywhere. I bet CES teaches it though, right? Where do they get the concept from, any idea? I think you're/they're defining what some Christians would call a normal relationship with God and fellow Christians and calling it a new name, P.P. I would personally avoid any formally arranged method of giving or receiving spiritual (?) advice, information or direction by anyone especially a group. I'm sure they teach it's great blessing, blah blah blah. It sounds like a bad idea because..... The next thing you know you've got Councils to examine, test and ratify or nullify Personal Prophecies. From my vantage point, it sounds very weird. Do they were robes and pointed hats? I think if I were asked to be on a P.P. Council, I'd want a special hat. Seriously. Some kind of headwear would be necessary to get me in the proper mood for P.P. Councilling. I hope I've helped. If all goes well I expect to never have any experience of any kind with any sort of CES P.P.

Famous fats that form PFAL

quit copying me dot com

gayle chapman dot com

I've been meaning to say the same thing, Oaks. Galen, you got the beard thing going. Mine's trimmed tighter, but beards - can't beat 'em.

No, I don't. Tell me where you think I'm adding to it, and where it says otherwise in PFAL and I'll be happy to entertain your suggestions. It's not a question of what I want it to have taught. It's a question of you not getting the message that it did teach, Galen. That's not a put down. I think it perfectly explains why your experience was so different than others who post theirs here on GS. Like I said, if you want to cop to the devil's control over your life and say it's taught in PFAL that his strongholds govern your activity as a son of God, that's your story. Stick to it. It's not what PFAL teaches. Here's a section that has a ring to it: "A number of years ago a man came to see me about his fear. He told me that according to insurance statistics in the United States a traveling salesman is supposed to wreck his automobile every so many 1,000's of miles. This man had already driven 2,000 miles more than the average salesman, and his fear of an accident was becoming an obsession. He was losing business day after day and week after week because of this fear. He came to me and I explained to him the law of believing. The man changed his believing and has not had an accident to this day." Which reminds me: "He is not only able to do things abundantly, but exceeding abundantly. Believe and then receive. The Law of Believing is the greatest law in the Word of God. As a matter of fact, it is not only the greatest law in The Word, is is the greatest law in the whole world. Believing works for saint and sinner alike". Speaking of moving mountains: "This is the great law in the Word of God, "...Whosoever..." It does not say Christian or non-Christian; whosoever means whosoever. "Whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be Thou removed, and...cast into the sea and shall not doubt...but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith." In other words, say it, believe it, and it will come to pass". "The law of believing is the greatest law in the Word of God; whosoever says it, whosoever believes will act and receive." Maybe you're not a Christian, or a non-Christian Galen, but a third category. PFAL teaches that a non-Christian, not even a person who reads or studies the bible, knows a promise from a pole, who never heard a Word of God to save his life, and who says to that mountain over there, giddyap, it's going to giddyap if he doesn't doubt. No promises, no revelation, no nothing. Just the giddyap and no doubt. If you're disagreeing on PFAL's teaching of a believers control over the physical world, it may be because you're hanging on an "it". "The law of believing is the greatest law in the Word of God; whosoever says IT,..." If "it's" a matter of something like knowing "what's available", we have a contradiction in what's taught if you want to say that moving mountains is dependent on what's available because the above quotes clearly state that IT IS available, contingent on only one thing-believing. If you want to say that moving mountains is figurative for big things, I think VPW picked a big record and a big thing to illustrate that point. IE, "moving mountains" points to exceeding abundantly above what we can ask or think. I can't think of any incident in recorded history that reports a mountain being moved at the word of a person because they believed. Everything else comes up as a molehill in comparison to it. End of the world? I guess that depends on how much of your world you hang on which part. It's a little out of balance, don't you think? Or am I overstating "it" again?

I just like to ring in now and then that what Galen's stating is a reinvention of what PFAL taught. PFAL taught that we are now, in this world, "more than conquerors" through Him that loved us. That the promises of God are available to the person who knows them and applies them through believing action. That a person can be more than a conqueror in any situation in life regardless of the situation. That the devil is defeated and that we have the victory over him NOW, in life's dealings and challenges by believing the promises of God. Satan is the god of this world, but WE ARE the sons of god with all power, over Satan and his kingdom. This is man's day, Satan is the God of this world, but we are the sons of God manifesting the power of God and we're ringing the devil up, kicking his butt and taking names. That's PFAL. If that can produce negative results - PFAL needs to be looked at in light of what it taught, not what we wish it meant to teach. "How many do you know?"....the promises of God in the bible. PFAL asks the question of the student. We can nuance all this out to some common sense understanding today, but PFAL doesn't do that. PFAL is a pedal to the metal, flat out, believe the Word and what it says and you WILL absolutely receive according to your believing. Or don't, it's up to you. PFAL sets forth a workflow - not a process. The process is the manifestation of pneuma hagion in a "believer's" life and that can't be analyzed, only ascertained, PFAL teaches. You can apply a series of steps to receive from God but you can't break what's really happening down to it's component parts because the parts are spiritual and spiritual things are ascertained, known, received, but not dissected, compartmentalized or anaylyzed. I'd call that a workflow, and I think it's important to understand that as a basic premise of PFAL. If you do x things, you will receive according to your believing. Drapes? Red drapes? Chronic health problems? The answer to that in PFAL is to pray and believe for the promises of God to come to pass in your life. Find a promise and stick to it. If a person relied on that they would be perfectly in line with what PFAL taught. If VPW were alive today he would no more cop to saying the devil controls our lives in the "real world" than he'd declare Jesus is God. :D--> :D-->

Insurance isn't an investment first of all. It is in that you're putting your money somewhere, it gets "invested" or put towards a policy. It's for covering a specific kind of risk. As long as the coverage is in force you get what you're paying for - coverage if the risk is realized. Insurance can cover a commodity, a person, property, any number of things. It provides a stop-loss point for what's covered. A car, property, business, can all produce catastrophic loss. The very investments themselves can produce the risk. It is a win-win, in that the coverage is in force to cover a loss, if it occurs. If it does, you have whatever the policy says you do. A policy with an insurance company isn't the only way to do that of course, unless it's required by law, as you state Galen. It's absolutely true that for a life free of incident you're paying for something you don't use or want to use and hope you never have to use. Which is where your risk exposure comes in. I haven't had an auto accident, ticket or violation of any kind in over 20 years, and all of the money I've paid into auto insurance won't come back to me. It shouldn't, I got what I paid for - coverage if I needed it for what I was covered for. I didn't need it. If I had, it was paid for, from money I wouldn't have wanted to produce out of other resources at the time. Life insurance may or may not be the best way for a person to cover their dependents. For most people it's a reliable way to plan for their demise and whatever expenses they leave behind when they're not earning money. If a person had other means for that income to be replaced or a scenario where it wasn't an issue, it might not be worthwhile. Real estate is a good way to go for investing, yes, I agree. It also has it's risks though. It may not return on the investment in the amount needed at the time it's needed. Your set up sounds reasonable Galen, but I don't really know the details other than what you've posted here.

It may be he's just got a deficiency in that area, smurfette. If we look back at Way doctrine, we can see "believing action" taught. The "God has no hands but our hands with which to, etc." idea. Procrastination is a common "ailment". Uncomfortable and difficult things can be put off simply because we don't want to or like to deal with them. Looking at it realistically - that's understandable. It's good to recognize something for what it is - if it's a major hassle, it's a major hassle and seing it as such isn't "negative" or bad, it's seeing it for what it is. The question is, what do we do, how do we handle it? Putting it off another day won't get anything done. Planning is a good skill for procrastinators to develop. Instead of leaving something to the last minute, maybe work with your husband to start planning out for certain kinds of things, like car repairs. When to do them, how much will they cost, do we need to save for it, set aside a day and make an appointment with a shop or get some time on the weekend to work on it. All of those things make up the substance of getting stuff done. With a little energy flowing towards getting it done it will be easier to complete it as each item comes up. There's a list to check off, a date something has to be done by, etc. Just some thoughts, from a guy who can put the "P" in procrastinate. -->

I wanted to add (although not specifically to your reference Galen) that if I had a buck for every reference to insurance being bad, wasteful, negative, devilish and tantamount to gambling by smarmy Wayfers, I'd be able to throw down some serious change at the tables. Estate planning is a good thing, however it's done. Risk management - good. If the advice is to not overinsure or to not use insurance just to cover for reckless or illegal behavior - that's good advice. Personal responsibility is, I think, the key. Thinking and planning - good. If there's any innies out there eavesdropping on this thread - think about it if you're getting advice on your finances and personal affairs. It's your life. Galen's described a personal lifestyle and plan that he put in to effect while he was IN the Way. If your Way won't let you live and function freely in the economic world you live in, I guess you just gotta ask yourself one question - do I feel lucky? It may come down to a real roll of the dice as to whether "they're" right or wrong.

Galen, in your post you've actually described loosely incorporating a form of insurance - "self-insurance". I work for an insurance company (although not in sales) so I can't make a statement that would in any way appear binding in any respect but I can say that the following is pretty widely accepted in economic circles - the "differences" between gambling and insurance: Gambling creates a speculative risk. (the risk doesn't exist prior to the wager or bet and only exists as long as the wager or bet is standing). Insurance is a technique for dealing with an existing risk. (the risk and the interest in the outcome exists independent of the contract to insure). With gambling there is a loser for every winner. (there can be no winner without a loser). Through insuance all/both parties gain, or stand to, on average. I can juggle some of those things to produce a gambling kind of a scenario but it won't really stand. That's why state laws DO differentiate between wagering/gambling and contracts of insurance - because there is a difference. Gambling agreements aren't recognized by law, unless the law's name is Vinnie "The Bull" and he's somebody's uncle. ;)--> Contracts of insurance are recognized and indeed governed by law.

def, if it's not Monday I'll be real surprised! ;)-->

mz, I'm hangin', waddya call them? Wizard Peeps are a tasty breed! Frodo, look out!!!

Indeed Oaks, - "risk exposure". It's not really gambling. Gambling creates a risk by some kind of action or non-action taken. The idea of insurance is simply identifying what risk factors exist for a person and deciding how to deal with them. It also assumes risk reduction. If a possibility exists of losing or damaging something you already have, how to be reduce the possibilities. There's no risk created simply for the purpose of getting something out of it, rather just the opposite.

Dove at 12 o'clock! Incoming!!! (Nice dove Whitedove!) Toasted Peeps!!!????? Best thing about Peeps? They're cheep! Cheep cheep cheep! :D--> :D--> :D-->

Thanks dmiller! Easter Detante! The Cadbury's and the Peeps shall live in peace!!

Mr. H, that's SOME fun!! :)--> I've never tried that! Shaz, you're more than welcome. Enjoy! Chas! Cadbury's eggs! Masqueraders!!!! Posing as Peeps of Light! Accept no substitutes! Counterfeits abound! Fun things to do with Peeps - Eat 3 Peeps, quickly. Drink 1 - 1/2 glass of soda (preferably Coke or Pepsi, but for maximum benefits - 7-Up. If it's your first time, reduce soda amount by half again). Eat 1 more Peep, starting at head and nibbling down left, then right side. Eat 2 more, realizing you have several boxes left. Several swallows of 7-Up. Note the rise in temperature, flushed feeling around face and the way colors look brighter and sounds are more vibrant. If possible, go outside, but dont' drive or operate machinery. Let the energy flow! Good time to write all those letters and emails you've been putting off! Peeps rule!!!!!!