socks

? I don't see how we got from Ten Reasons Why Most Believers Don't Seriously Question Their Faith to figuring out that I have unbelief, or how any of that really relates to one's "faith" which that guy you quoted seemed to deny.... Of course I have unbelief, does it feel better to state that? I don't deny it nor fear it. I'm not lying to myself, speak for yourself. Of course I have faith, and I don't question it - the gap is filled by that which I trust in, Jesus Christ. However now that I know that 1. there is a God and 2. there is a Jesus Christ, I don't question that. Others may, fine. Others may say I should question it, I don't. Others may say I need to, they're wrong. I've had a belly full of anyone telling me I need to question my faith in the things which I have found to be true, simply because it makes them feel better to say I should as if that makes me or them feel better or any smarter. Bull shi t. I don't buy that. I don't worry about it either - they don't have to live in my skin nor I in theirs. Or as I've said for many years I can't give another my faith nor they give theirs to me. Each has to have their own. Or not. Whichever way it goes is fine with me. :)

Well, yeah. It reads like a call to Atheism. Which is fine but how does that help a person other than to say a faith in God is completely wrong and a lack of faith in God is completely right? Check this statement out: One should only conclude what the probabilities show and never assert more than what the evidence leads us to think is probably the case. What if the probabilities indicate a faith in God is the soundest conclusion? Before anyone checks that off as BS - consider these two faith based scenarios: 1. Everyday I leave my house to drive to work. At the end of the work day I drive back home, assuming that it will be there despite the fact I haven't seen it all day. I don't call a neighbor 10 times a day to make sure it's still there and get satellite photos of it to make sure it is. I know that it should be unless something has caused it to not be there. The basic forces of nature and reality that are at work in everything else tell me that it will be there with enough surety that I can drive home confident it will be there. 2. I am married and have a wife who has said she loves me. She acts like it and has done things we generally know and agree on that define that love, to indicate to me that she, in fact loves me. I don't ask her 10 times a day "do you still love me?" I don't insist that she do things all day long to clearly indicate that she still loves me and that the level of love she has for me at any point in time is the same as it was the last time I checked. I live assuming that she loves me and that if that changes, I'll find out. In #1, I accept the house is here (it was) for reasons that are both within and beyond my control - I don't control gravity or any of the other forces that would cause the house to remain in one state and in one place. I do control certain factors that govern the condition of it's existence. Between the two, the house is and will be until other forces cause it not to be. In # 2, I accept that the relationship is two way and that we both have responsibilities for it to continue. I expect it to exist until other forces cause it not to, and those are forces that are both knowable and unknowable, I don't directly control their existence. . In both scenarios, "faith" is a factor based on data that indicates that faith is predictable and reliable and doesn't require continuous affirmation or proof to exist. They both exist, in a sense, outside my own control or grasp, but affected by my relationship with them. The house is a tangible "thing" that I relate to physically - the Love is an intangible "thing", a quality that produces activity and tangibles. In both scenarios I have faith that they exist when I'm not in contact with them and when there is no immediate proof of their existence. Yet I rely on my knowledge of them that they do in fact exist My "faith" in God is similar to both - it's tangible and rooted in reality, and intangible, rooted in a relationship. Both are constant and continuous but neither require or present constant affirmation. They are simply what they are, at this time. I assume and have found that this is the case with others too and how they describe their "faith" in God and certainly in Jesus Christ as the son of God and redeemer to mankind. The past is verifiable but a past event no longer exists as an instance of reality in and of itself - in that way the past can never be reconstructed but reality being what it is a past event can be known by the artifacts it produces. The present is a known piece of data as it occurs. Perception and understanding may vary but not to the extent that I can't know what is at that moment - the house is here, my wife loves me, etc. It's the Future that gives people hiccups. Will my house be there? Will my wife love me tomorrow? Will God....be there as I have known Him to be there? The answer to all three questions can be "yes". If the question were "will I go to Heaven someday?"..........as people often ask, that's a good question. I don't have a "heaven" in my past and while this is pretty cool now I don't call it "heaven" if that's the future with God and Jesus Christ and some form of future spiritual life after death. This current life isn't over yet and other events that would change this current existence haven't happened. Yet. I can believe that based on the fact that my life construct thus far includes that iit is a sound projection - and to that extent I can invest a "faith" in it - but it hasn't happened yet and I would have to say, I'll find out in the future. In that scenario anyone who would say "no, that's all BS and isn't going to happen" I would say buy me a lottery ticket homes, if you can see the future. I can't that clearly to say with out any doubt that it won't. If it's a future that has never occurred yet there are no artifacts of it's existence that remain - there can't be. That's the nature of existence as we perceive it with the human mind - I can imagine a future, "see it", expect it to be there but there can not be any physical proof that it exists beyond any doubt because it hasn't happened yet. This is true of all things in life. I think people tend to separate "spiritual" from "physical" arbitrarily. From my perspective they're very much the same and it really depends on how we choose to view them. That's my position at this time regarding "faith". Everyone else's mileage may vary.

"I guess some people just cannot be helped, that's all." Wow, that's a crappy attitude. Frankly, some of this reads like nonsense - like this statement - "The more we know the more we should doubt"... Or this: here is an explanation for why believers reason so badly: They have been enculturated, or indoctrinated to believe, a phenomenon that can best be described as being brainwashed. As soon as I figure out what enculturated means, I'll digest this better but on the surface it's a standard screed. (yeh, I know it's a word, just don't see it a lot and it sounds wrong when you say it, at least to me but that's okay) Why don't "Most" Believers Seriously Question Their Faith? It would depend on several things I suppose - one would be how a person comes to hold a specific thing that they define as a point of "faith". As far as I'm concerned the entire "question your faith" posit is highly over rated and not nearly as effective OR useful as it sounds. It's always trendy to say we should all question the things we "believe in" but it's only useful when approached methodically and with purpose. NO ONE I know that I respect questions what they believe haphazardly or at the recommendation of someone else simply because someone else suggests they do it. EVERYONE I know, whether I respect them or not, relies heavily on "faith" perceptions to live, at all or do even the simplest of things like go to the store and buy a box of cough drops. I also differ from the popularly held definition that says "faith" is by nature reliant on the unknown - I would contend that faith must in fact have a core essence grounded and rooted in a reality in order to exist, at all - and it is that essence from which the perception of a faith based belief proceeds. I don't really care about the article Roy, I just figured I'd chime in. Why is this important to you? Having a 'crises of faith"?

Eagle, I would agree. Our borders are borders. Crossing in and out for a day or a lifetime, there's process. That process can change over time, restrictions imposed, steps to accomplish improved and whatever it is it should be observed and enforced. Right now we do have a problem with it and there is a human component to it. The political component needs to be fixed IMO, before the human part can be dealt with effectively. Mexico is a case in point - the government isn't a bystander. Our agreements with them as neighbors has to include their enforcement of it from their side. We deal with keeping out and sending back - it's easy to make the U.S. the bad guy but we're not in relation to wanting to control the borders of our country (not that you're stating that he U.S. is the bad guy, I know you're not) but the control from the other side appears to be as important an issue. Given our own history with Native Americans and Mexico itself I think we can generate better solutions than the ones we have today. Engaging Mexico directly and pushing harder for action on their part would be one thing to do. A large part of the U.S. land was "Mexico" at one time. There are a lot of issues, challenges, opportunities and benefits from working together towards a shared good, for both sides, less so if the effort is one sided or leans too far towards us enforcing our laws to fill a gap that the Mexican government won't or can't fill.

Well, flew again this last week. Went fairly smooth going out - security check in etc. went quickly and without incident. Packed normally, no differences, all carry on - one bag for the bin and a backpack and a jacket. There's a 3.4 ounce limit on aerosol and bottles with liquid - I have a 5.3 ounce aerosol spray can of a generic brand Tinactin I always take to spray in my shoes for that fresh factor. I always take it and it always goes through. Even one incident where a too large bottle of shampoo was pulled, it stayed, for whatever reasons that the Higher Intelligence Powers deemed appropriate....evrything went through on the outbound security check A OK. I didn' even think about it at this point, it was all a pretty light pack anyway. Coming back, packed up almost identically, it got flagged and I was pulled over. The very nice Security person identified it immediately, noted the size differential and suggested I could either put the bag through baggage check on - or dump it there. I chose to dump it, it was only half full and although I had the time to go back didn't want to hassle with it. (My flight had been delayed an 1 1/2 hrs already so I wanted to get in and get on something before the night was over). So no big deal and it was handled the way I'd expect - I wasn't treated like a criminal for just being there or peppered with salty questions about why I would bring such a thing on a trip - took about 5 minutes and we were done, the bag scanned fine and I was on my way with a wave and a smile. So - that security check through sucks if I'm looking for a pattern, for consistency. A can size that's gone through at least 5 -6 times in the last year, didn't that time.

Could be, with awareness can come clarity - from death unto life, from no hope to hopeful, from cursed to blessed, from lost to found, ensnared to delivered....these kinds of contrasts are powerful. One passing from death to life would be both acutely aware of where they came from and where they've come to - thankful, humbled, elevated, inspired to reverence. God makes the rules, not me. He is over all. That kind of authority warrants respect. If I assume that "God's hands are tied" by previous committments that He won't go back on, I have to remember that those are Big Hands. Once a person gets down the road with the Bible they should - should - learn to realize that with exTREME humility. Whether I abide by that knowledge or not, once I have come to that knowledge, at the end of the day when I close my eyes I still know what's up and what's down and where I stand in it all. I was thinking too - hyperbole in the Bible....The bottom line with God is "no other gods before me", love Him with all our heart, as no other. In the history of man we can see how cultures elevate their icons - gods of war, of love, of prosperity. Communities have their deities, those faces they place on the powers that be. Nations that have their gods that "go before them" and if properly treated will bring them victory. I also picture men and women throughout time looking up and seeing the stars, the moon, the sun, the seasons, the passing of time, and wondering... When Israel followed Jehovah they were in the midst of a world that had their own gods and that declared their greatness and power over the affairs of life and who in some scenarios could be manipulated. I can see people of Israel taking the stance they did, that Jehovah was greater than the sun, the moon, the stars, the forces of nature and any who would dare to ascend to that role of creator and provider. That it's Jehovah who creates, destroys, brings to pass, does as He pleases, as He sees fit....The God of Israel is to be feared as one who is above all others, and where dead idols reign He will bring them all to nothing. Given the Commandments and the way God revealed Himself, the people would have not only have seen Him that way - greater than all - but also declared Him that way because He would in fact be "the real Deal". As we look at those writings today we can attempt to dissect them as if they were science projects - "if God causes the sun to rise and fall, then He must be working in the realm of physics and etc. etc.".....when in fact it's not meant at all that Elohim or Jehovah is presiding over the solar system and all the stars and doing all this...stuff. Rather, He is the Creator, that One from whom all creation has come and to whom all the recognition for that creation ultmately goes to. It's just a thought and not a new one The reality on the ground would have been then as now - that God is above all and His glory comes first.

This kinda says it all. <br><br> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/jmgcjRu1s-8?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Steve u made this statement that makes a great point - The language of Proverbs 3 speaks of trust and fear in dynamic terms. When we trust the LORD, He directs our paths. When we stray off the paths the LORD sets before us, then the fear of the LORD moves us to depart from evil, that is, to get back on the right path. God is therefore not someone to be feared, I should want to hear from Him to help me stay on the path. Psalm 111:10 says exactly that - all those who obey HIs commandments will have wisdom, "the fear of the Lord". The fear of the Lord therefore is present in those who do His commandments, not those who don't. Those who don't, don't care, as you say Steve. The "fear of the Lord" moves me to depart from evil - how? By knowing that God doesn't want that, doesn't like it. Evil will hurt me. Also - many of the "phobos" verses deal with not comprehending what's going on - think this was mentioned earlier - storms, angels, etc. Without knowing whether I'm at risk or not - sure, I'm going to be afraid....will something hurt or kill me or what? If wisdom comes from doing God's commandments and that gives wisdom and the beginning of wisdom is the "fear of the Lord".......... That fear-it-might-hurt-me kind of fear isn't sustainable. Initial reaction, response, yes there could be fear but not down the long haul. Why would I fear something I understand and where I have wisdom? If I'm doing God's commandments and relying on Him and avoiding evil, my "fear" that God will not love me, not care for me, and might hurt me should decrease. My respect, awe, reverence, and concern for God - should increase. The low-level fear that God will hurt me if I do evil reduces over time and I accept that God's will is going to stand either way, whether I comply or not. O.T. or N.T., good times or bad - in all situations I "call upon the name of the Lord". Mercy and grace are needed - not to be taken advantage of. Soooo.....those who don't ever get down the path of obeying God's commandments to begin with and put no effort or counter productive effort against doing them - won't care, they may not know, won't care or will decide not to care.

If it made mo' money, I'm sure they'd file to be a Coven. They're a case study for proposing that churches not be considered tax exempt unless they are really a non-profit organization. My own non-legal, non-binding opinion has been that the Way Nash was a standard issue business ( and may still be today ) In 1969 VPW was saying the tax exempt status was based on the Way being an educational organization - "biblical research & teaching". This changed over the years, i don't know all the evolutions. Check this out too, at Articles of Organization and following. http://www.irs.gov/p...blink1000200054

Hey Penly Works. I'd put it as "early on the lack of supervision and imposed ritual allowed for the participants to make their own event".... and..... "your mileage may have varied"....meaning it wasn't the same Approved Product everywhere, there were variances and differences across the country. (In 1970 I went from California, to Wichita KS, to Indiana, to the Way Nash to New York and the fellowships across country were very different from each other, each in good ways). I went to our local fellowship because I wanted to - wanted to see friends, meet new people, have a good time, hear the Bible, be a part of it. Cool things happened. Good stuff. Sometimes incredible stuff. Sometimes not much at all. Having presided over some snooze parties myself later on (Central Florida in the summer..................no one should be inside a house listening to a tape of someone in Ohio quacking about anything).......... yeah.

About 80/20 for me exsolesia, favoring good matches. I've been with Kaiser for years and had the same Dr. for a number of years there. He was a great guy, direct, not especially warm but interested and responsive, a good balance for me. He left and the Dr. I've selected now is much the same. Dentists - mine now is the perfect match for me, in the past I've had a couple that were harsh and disinterested, which didn't work out well with any kind of extended treatment. My Mother had a lot of medical care over the years and I saw (only a tiny bit compared with my Sister who was involved day to day) what you're talking about and the first time I encountered it with her and her Dr. I had to leave the room, actually walk out and take a deep breath and come back in, it was so thick. They'd dealt with what you're describing a lot though from what they told me. I had to learn to measure my response, my problem is I go from 0 to 90 in high risk situations and don't like messing around - medical providers live that every day though, and can become unresponsive to immediate needs. It can be tough. If you can it's worth it to fine someone you feel comfortable with and that you feel you can talk to.

LCM's "first thought" reinvented VPW's point which allowed for "if" - there was no guarantee that the revelation would be there, occur, float by, whatever. At the same time though VPW strongly implied that "all 9 all the time" was the order of the day. An individual should expect action. So where do you draw the line? I put it just right of center, more conservative and cautious. Yeh, LCM was a first thoughter alright. It really was funny in an bad sort of way that LCM (and others) would so quickly take an idea and just amp it up and "establish" it even further, just pound it into the ground to a pulp. He had a really irksome way of making an idea into a bunch of jargonish gobbeledee gook and then act like "well, that's it! it's just got to become a part of our logic, our thinking, our thought patterns so that it becomes a part of the fiber of our everyday walks with the Father so that we can then prevail above and beyond those things of which we've been taught and to the extent that we can, with believing action, move out, standing upon the promises that we've been given in this day and time and as we speak the greatness of the Word of God will come into fruition in that every day walk for the Father. " And stuff. 1. It's an unseemly approach, I agree johniam - for want of a better word. Kind of buys into the same keg that's producing all of the last decade's "warrior" mentality amongst some Christians, the "I've got power and I'm not afraid to use it!" ex Way posturing, the x-treme for Jesus stuff. Trendy. 2. First thought is a bad way to phrase any of this - picture VPW in class snapping his fingers and saying "When you're really walking baby (snap snap) it's just right there, with real dynamic and an effervescence (snap snap), you're just walking, you just know that you know (snap snap)...that's it baby!" Sounded like Ginger Ale during a Castanet playoff. 3. "The walk" part of it all is pretty much the point and that idea relates well to what's in the Bible. Discussing those kinds of things - like a "16 keys" is fine IMO, reading records, hearing stor-eez, etc. It's not a big deal. Expecting that's what's going to happen all the time and the "walk" of power is some kind of 24 hour drill is nuts though, and produces the kinds of eccentricities and superstitions that we saw in the Way. 4. It served a lot of different interests to mysticize this stuff and give it a lot of Ooooh factor.

I'll throw this in here...I believe in the concept of "walking with God". That's what the AC was supposed to help us do, but "walking with God" implies that God is in the equation. If the first thing that pops in your mind is 16 keys or endless one liners, then where's God? The "first thing" in the head deal sure got out of hand. Some of the stuff - the physical indicators - who knows. I know there's all manner of things possible and would vouch for the veracity of what I read in the Bible. That God provides, I believe, now as then. That He will provide on demand and in a way I prescribe - no, don't believe that. I personally learned through the A.C. that all of this kind of stuff - "revelation", whatever - happens very quickly, very fast and in relation to how I normally think and act, much faster. "Faster" is a word that doesn't exactly describe what I'm thinking but close - when it's occurring it's like how you might respond to a gust of wind that blows up and past you. That's not exactly what I mean either but when Jesus said something like that in John 3:8 I can see it in the same way in the broader context of life and what goes on. Me, I'd never encourage another to not look to God, to pray, to expect God's guidance in their own affairs. Working that out in one's life is an individual effort. Any one who says they can predict it, demand it, produce it at will - nuts, IMO.

Sure, see your msgs. :)

Okay, Geisha. Thanks. Like you I see the issues as very basic and fundamental. People made their choices but indoctrinated sky? I don't see it. Basic issue in my estimation - VPW said he had God's Word and he chose to sell it for a price. If God is what the Bible says He is, we can't do that and expect to have a good life. I could have all the good in Heaven but when I do that, turn the Father's House into a Flea Market, I'm screwed. People do it, they don't have good lives. They want something other than what God wants. God is a "jealous" kinda guy, He doesn't want competition. People do that, they may get what they want but they die tired and diseased wondering where they went wrong. It's a lesson worth learning from. I'm not a saint, I'm just not stupid. I won't compete with God for dollars. I can say from experience it absolutely does not work and will not produce a result that looks like love, humility, peace, grace and mercy. It produces what the Way Nash of New Knoxville is.

geisha, although my sarcasm does know some boundaries, I wanted to clarfiy that - No, absolutely not and under no circumstances would I have assumed the no famous "david" record to mean it's okay to get rug burns with anyone I want and if VPW would have suggested that to me I'd have told him he was, if not nuts, fairly nutty.

socks.....I hear what you are saying, but I gotta tell you that this stuff is fairly common in the twisted world of indoctrination. There's no but in that to me. It is weird, odd, strange and bizzarre. I like to keep my reality hat on so I don't end up doing exactly what you're stating - I want to remember that a great deal of what has gone on in the Way isn't unique to the Way or VPW or you or I or this generation, the 60's or the 80's or any one time or era. I want to remain clearly aware of the broader perspective into which all of this falls. Indoctrination - that's the way the world works and by that I'm not taking it down to the "world" of the Day-vil, the adversary everyone's so afraid of. We're all being subjected to indoctrination and influence by other wills and intents. Stay vigilant to the BS.

but then, wierwille taught in pfal how "every woman in the kingdom belongs to the king!" Why didn't I ask for more clarification? Why didn't I throw my hands up and say, "I don't believe it"..?? I was very surprised to hear years later that some of you took that to have any significance beyond that record or that VPW ever used it in other presentations to infer that someone today had the same arrangements, and that any woman would have had that offered to her as the premise for a sexual affair. As a matter of historical fact if it's wrong, it's applicable to that record and the way he taught it. It would certainly be wrong today, too. But in PFAL, if you listen to what he teaches in that area of the session there's no reference to today or people today or it having any relationship to people today and in fact the last time I heard it on tape...I'd be hard pressed to take it any other way than I did the first time I heard it on tape, as a historical point that VPW's making in relation to David. Which if wrong, makes that teaching on that thing wrong. Does it relate to anyone today and can it be used by someone like VPW to support some kind of harem-at-large? Of course not - no. Well, he could, anyone could but obviously it would be wrong. It would never apply to anyone today and it also has to reconcile with many other areas of the O.T and the Mosaic Law. sooooo.... I understand that there are people here who say they had it taught to them by Way clergy and leaders, and that it meant something today................. but, not me and quite a few others I know. The morals and ethics of that teaching as it would apply to David were and are more relevant to that time, IMO doesn't have anything to do with us today. Never did. My point is I wouldn't beat yourself up too bad for standing up and doing whatever - frankly, I don't think you needed to. I don't think that's what he meant - and if he did and he came back later to me and said, Well, socks - see that David and that thing, that means that now, see - it's okay to..................... I'd have told him he was nuts. No, actually I'd have disconnected my brain and drooled "Ohhhh, right, yeth thir Mithter Wervuhl, thath rightth"

I mean, afterall, even David sinned. And let's not forget Samuel and the sons of Eli. It's just flat out odd to me how a story like David's killing another man to get his wife and is clearly a Cautionary tale to the reader Is interpreted by Wayfers as Indicative of God's grace and used as a way to measure how far out we can go and still be loved by God because we're God's wuvable wee willy winky bears with power. And thus leaving out the reality part of it which was that people got killed, more people died including David's next son and his whole nation suffered as a result.. Like the Bibl' says right rhere in the verse right what it's written - "But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord". That doesn't bother Wayfers I guess. Oh as a way to have a big dramatic crescendo in a teaching sure......."But the thing....that David......had DONE....displeased the Lo-ahrd, my peepul". But they don't give a crap about displeasing God because - I dunno, I guess they finally accepted what they've seen over the years,that they will never get any ministerial or pastoral leadership from their ranks worth a dime or anyone that will stay with them for any length of time and so they've lowered their standards to allow for complete failure on all levels and.... It's okay! God still wuvs us!! We're His wuvable huggable winky Way Bears With Power!

Oh yeah. That's the stuff. THAT is the stuff right there. I know you know, but Jimmy Reed played a Kay for awhile there. Harmony too I believe. The man was so good and I'm glad he visited from whatever planet he came from, if even for awhile. We could use some more of that and real soon. My first guitar was a Silvertone and first electric was a Kay, a single pickup, the "kleenex box" pickups. God, that thing made me cry it played so bad but I'd cry SO bad to have it back today. Neck broke off, my Dad hot glued and bolted it back on. Finally got a Strat and traded it, then aTelecaster in '64, then an LP gold top. Wish I had them ALL today. I suspect that Kay's on that Big Wall in the Sky. But y'know, things are to be loved and people used, or something like that and everything gives off something, speaking of the A.C. Back to the topic at hand!

Stylin' ways! But alas I was young. Having a "Harmony" in the home was another, although by the end of PFAL I realized there was no Harmony being handed out, not even a Kay for that matter.. I was a Gibson man by that time but heck, I could have used a Harmony for solo gigs. But again - fooled!

Sorry. I had another dust up with the same year - due to the fact that I'd been without A.C. for several months that summer my sinuses and ears were really plugged up and I had trouble hearing. Total drag. Even bigger drag then when I had to complain to them after the A.C. because I'd understood them to say that after the A.C. finished up each of us would then get our own A.C. Grad Maytag. I needed appliances and despite the fact that I thought they said they were green I figured hey - what a cool deal - A.C. and a new, green Fridge. You can imagine my surprise when they handed me that little green nametag. So weird, SO weird.

It was so weird. I'd heard about the A.C. for a couple years and understood it to be great, who wouldn't want it? There were a few running around the country that I'd heard of and all reports were on how effective they were and that the results were even cooler than expected. So I figured, heck yeah. I was young but knew a good deal when I saw one, even then. So I got the paperwork and started saving for it but had some questions once I started looking through the agreement for the A.C.. The information was so confusing and I knew that confusion was wrong. That was my first indication that something was outta whack and I probably should have known better but I had heard such good things about this A.C.. So I called back to the Way Nash in Ohio and got either Dorothy or Rhoda, I forget which of them and told them I really needed to talk through some things. They were very nice and asked me what questions I had about the A.C. and I hit them with the biggest one right off - why was it going to take two weeks to finish the Air Conditioning?! I'd gotten quotes for 1-2 days at most. from others and it just seemed like a long time.

Point well made WW. Humble - as a descriptor, adjective would certainly describe respect. Respectful before God, for let's say all the right reasons. "Fear" seems to be present in the Bible context we're discussing here for a reason, but not that we are to be afraid of God and what He will do. Not as if to say, I pray to God and fear He'll hurt me for praying to Him. He gives "good" things, so the confidence I have towards God is as the provider the Jesus described so well. It also hit me, the fear thing - that God could be said to be "fearable", but not from the perspective of one who is at "peace" with Him as we're told in the N.T.

Eternal salvation isn't a Wierwillian claim. It's a doctrine held true by Christianity, in different forms amongst many but the idea of salvation through Christ, for an eternity that lasts beyond this earthly existence isn't Wierwille's invention. You understand that - right? Incorruptible seed is a term used in the Bible. It's not an invention of VPW's research or adoption. You know that - right? Going to heaven and all hell can't stop you - the intent of God is to have all mankind reconciled to him through Christ. That's in the Bible and not a new doctrinal invention of Wierwille. Much of Christianity believes that man's sins once forgiven are "cast away", and will no longer be reckoned against them to the extent that the ultimate outcome will be to "go to hell". You know that too, right? Works need not apply - the Bible states that the reconciliation of man to God through Christ is "not of works" but "by grace" and is the "gift of God" to mankind, a fulfillment of a "promise" made. The conduct of a man's life - doesn't validate or deny what another person says or does. If God's intentions are His own and initiated and fulfilled by Him it's up to each person to come to God, on their own and as all are called to do so - and respond as they will. Or not. You know that right? If Wierwille was wrong in how he lived, that makes..........him wrong. It doesn't make everything else wrong too. If I'm wrong in everything I write here it doesn't mean that there is no Christ, no Jesus, no Bible, no parts of the Bible that are right and that everyone I've ever shared it with, taught it to or lived it with is....wrong now. But to answer this question - then, in that case, so being, in that event, then and therefore... Then it's wrong. Right? Are there prizes for the right answer? No - wait. There should be prizes if the answer's wrong. Right? If it were all not true then why should this be true, or right? Or would it be better to be wrong and find out that being wrong is right, if being right ends up to be wrong. Or perhaps neither wrong nor right are either wrong or right and something completely different is well, something completely different. Hmmm. Perhaps you could repeat the question. When do the prizes get delivered? No - wait. That's just it isn't it? There don't need to be prizes, playing is it's own reward. Let me amend that, into different words... Hope that makes sense, it's kinda long.