socks

If you don't go, how can you Know? Or how will you grow? And if not you then who? If not now, then when? If not this then what? Why sit ye here till ye die? Anyway, it's very difficult to understand a home "twig" without being there, with people, etc. Hearing about it won't duplicate the actual experience. There's probably going to be some expectation around you being there though so the experience will be impacted by your presence so it's not like being a fly on the wall, you become part of what's going on. But it's not a big deal, it's not like zombies will come out of the sofa and eat your brains. You're adults right? So you go, they'll be nice to you, I'd expect. No biggie. Not sure what city you live in, locations and local leaders have a big impact on how things are done, from what I've heard lately (and that's not a lot) But basically they're pretty similar - songs, prayer, manifestations, some more prayer, an offering, a teaching or tape, some more prayers maybe some more songs. It's pretty basic stuff, not always in that order but pret' near close I'm sure.

For all those cozy, rainy nights to come, some Boz....<br> oh man, where's my sunshine? Sunshine was my friend. <br> She was good to me<br> Right up to the end. <br> <br> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/so_4S9gZ20k?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <br> <br> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KDlqpDkwd6I?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

So, if I am taught something by a minister, and taught something else(separately) by an older sibling, then, without any "teacher" personally present, I can compare what I was taught by each one (minister and older sibling) and reach my own conclusions. And this is part of "what I was taught" :blink: These aren't the only kinds of decisions we make, choosing between one thing or another or a set of options. We find ourselves in the position of simply having one choice, one thing, that we know - all the time. We can accept that and leave it at that or decide to look for other options to that. There are times when the result wasn't known before that. That is literally going beyond, further, a step more, beyond what we were taught. We also learn things for the "first time" through our own effort - all the time. It may be something known already but for us, it's the first time. VPW actually taught this about the definition of an "apostle" when he defined it as "one who sheds 'new 'light' - it may have already been revealed prior but it's new to that generation"............ The "going beyond what you're taught" part is kind of a vicious circle, IMO. A chicken or the egg thing. To me the importance is to NOT take everyone else's word for everything and end up choosing between two things being given to me automatically because I often end up choosing between the lesser of two evils, whether I know it or not. And we know where that leads.

Jesus DID need revelation to tell the guy to sell all he had and give to the poor. That would be word of wisdom. If the guy had done that he either would have been blessed enough to absorb the loss of his goods and/or he would have gotten more earthly riches back. Not Jesus' problem the guy made the wrong choice. Hmmmm.....actually, Jesus didn't say anything about that johniam. Nothing about being "blessed" enough to absorb loss of his stuff or that he woudl have gotten "more".............right after the he spoke to the difficulty that a person of wealth has to "enter the kingdom of God"....................when you or I say things like that we are doing exactly what Jesus said NOT to do and what would be a PROBLEM for people - that is attaching earthly wealth and goods to God's kingdom. There was no quarantee of anything to that guy in the record as far as his wealth went - that's what he was to give away.......capiche? I was talking to someone about this once and they were apparently brain dead from having listened too many times to VPW saying "Dahts right, kids!" because they immediately jumped to the conclusion that I was saying that there was something wrong with money or having stuff or that God didn't want to "bless" people with "abundance". Which isn't what I'm saying and has nothing to do with this.......as geisha has noted, the issues are different.

"Always wanting to try to prove that the founders where anti God and religion." Jefferson? He was brought up in the Anglican church. He was definitely anti-religion in his adult years and didn't have much respect for the Christian "religion" that believed in Jesus Christ as son of God and having a unique spiritual role as "messiah", didn't accept the doctrine of redemption by Jesus Christ, etc. etc. etc. He spoke out against the "Trinity" specifically (that fact was often used by VPW and The Way) but not to support their belief that Jesus was the " son of God and not God". Jefferson just didn't buy into any of that. Anti - God? No, not by a long shot. He certainly wrote and spoke as if he believed in a God, a creator. He stated in his writings that he attempted to draw moral and ethical lessons from the bible, and the teachings of Jesus without most of the spiritual baggage. He even re wrote his own version, stripping out what he considered parts that were added. Oddly - I've read Christian writers note the fact that he produced his own version of the Bible as proof he was really a Christian, bible believin' man. Apparently they've never read it. I highly recommend it, for historical purposes. It's an interesting effort. I really respect Jefferson, his thoughts and ideas and see him as one of the true lights of our country's foundation. Obviously most others do too - But Jefferson gets adopted by many Christians today as if he would have supported the efforts of churches to take control of our government- as if that's what he was really proposing because he was a "Christian" by their standards - which he clearly wasn't, just the opposite in fact. I've studied Jefferson, his history and his writings, have read most of his stuff, letters, published stuff, etc. etc. I'm not an expert by any means but more of a student of his life and writings. Everyone wants to have him for their poster boy - even opposing sides! I suspect he might have liked that......

Thanks dabobbada and Twinky. It seems like a lot of Americans have trouble helping their own neighbor down the street. Maybe others do elsewhere too, I live here so this is what I know and I am most familiar with local stuff. I think it's human nature - a person sees a person of limited means asking for help and doesn't know what they're going to do with what they get. How does 20 dollars now fit into everything else in their life, will it just be wasted on something that doesn't do any good for the person. Yet, people will donate money and time and travel to other countries to help destitute people somewhere else and work for a week or a month and leave and feel good about what they've done. It's may be part of a managed effort but there's still no telling what good it will do "in the long run", down the line. It does good now though and that's good enough it seems in those situations. There may be opposition from government there even trying to stop the efforts, the language isn't understood by those individuals but the effort is part of a specific coordinated effort where there's some context and goals that are clear. But in the example of the "good samaritan" the guy doing the helping doesn't know anything about what's going to happen, it isn't explained whether the victim is a good man, a person who believes God or beats his dog or does or doesn't observe religious services or anything else like that. Those kinds of requirements aren't part of the illustration - it's simply a person who clearly is in desperate need and a stranger who helps them for no other reason than they need help and they happen to be there. There's no follow up other than to promise to pick up any additional tab later, likely long after the guy's gone. There's no "payoff", no now-you-have-to-do-this. And this is an illustration of how to live according to one of the "two great" commandments, certainly universal one-size fits all rules of life and godliness that all the others roll up into. It's a curious thing Jesus proposed. Years ago when I was a teenager in high school I dated a Jewish girl for awhile. It was an infatuation, one of those things kids get into. Her parents took extreme exception to her dating a non-Jewish boy and frankly I'm not even sure why we did now, we didn't have much in common other than we were very different which may have been part of the interest. I actually made an appointment to go down to one of the large synagogues in our city - one which her family were part of although I didn't know that till later - and sat with a Rabbi there and asked him about why this was such a big deal, I didn't get it. I was raised Catholic - I didn't care, why did they? I was very honest with him and he with me - can't imagine what he thought but he did call her father and spoke to him about it. This is true and actually what happened. Needless to say that didn't end well or last long after that. Several of our mutual friends were Jewish and a couple heard about it through their families - ! - and they were sympathetic to my plight of a broken heart which mended quickly as I recall. But I asked one of the guys what the real deal with being Jewish was, as even being Catholic the religion seemed to be very different to me. He was very thoughtful as I remember it and sat down with me and - told me a story...it went - couple years before his family had taken a trip across several states to visit relatives in the midwest. They drove, this was in the mid-sixties. A couple days into the drive their car broke down and they made it to the nearest town and pulled into a gas station late in the evening, everything around closed, some small town. He said his father went to the phone booth and started going through the phone listings to find someone with their own last name, don't recall what it was now, but he continued looking for basically a Jewish looking name of someone. He made a couple calls and indeed found a local Jewish family. He said his father explained why he called them and their plight, apologized profusely for calling at such a late hour but he had nowhere else to turn and didn't know what to do - could this person he called recommend where they could stay the night and an honest auto mechanic who could do their repairs? This guy told me the family they called insisted they come out to meet them. He said they came out, brought friends and took all their family and stuff back to their house so they could rest. They made a huge meal, invited all their friends and family over - "these people are from California and God has brought them to us!" something to that effect and they ate and talked and discussed the entire trip and their plans and everything with each other. They insisted they stay with them, gave them their beds and rooms and the next day furnished breakfast and the guy took them personally to the shop and got their car in and worked out "a good price". He said his father called them when they were ready to leave and the family came out to see them off, and finally off they went. He told me they exchanged letters still and were still in touch. That sank in for a minute and he finished by saying "That's what it means to be Jewish". I got it. Later when I read the record of that "good Samaritan" it came back to me. It's not that distant or foreign a concept really.

Gal. 6:10 - "do good to all, especially those in the household of faith" 1 Tim 5:8 - "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." 1 Tim. 5:3 - "Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need." Acts 6:3 - "In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food." The list goes on. The N.T. describes the Church taking care of those who need care. Help them. When Jesus directed people to "love their neighbors" he used a Samaritan in contrast to the Jews he spoke to in Jerusalem. We know they was a historical "north and south" division between them and neither side allowed contact between the two. In that parable Jesus took the question of "who is my neighbor that I should love?" and stripped the religious and racial issues from the answer which he re formed to answer the question "who is the neighbor that loves?". The emphasis is obvious - be the one who does the right thing without regard to who you do it for. Doing the right thing will direct the action and the subject of the action. If it's someone you have conflict with, that you revile, that you consider not your neighbor by friendly-we-get-along-and-agree standards. Wayfer leaders disown pretty much everyone in or out of their fold in this regard, they don't accept what Jesus taught or the vision of the Church in the first century, the first two generations of the followers of Jesus Christ. Knowing and believing "The Word like it hasn't been known since the first century"....? I don't think so. No. Nada. Zippidy do not. To me the conflict in the Church is caused by disagreement on what it means to "do the right thing", what the actual correct doctrine is that we should be attempting to act on. Legislating the doctrine to the point of exclusion was what Jesus avoided, what he did NOT do. He simply said "Go and do the same, do likewise". It's up to the individuals to the make those decisions and act together if the decide to "do likewise". When it happens it works and helps people that need it. The Way's policies illustrated to anyone looking and learning that it's run by a small group of people who decide what's right and what they're going to do - NOT with the involvement of the membership. Clearly in opposition to what the N. T. speaks of. $ goes in, $ never goes out in a coordinated or managed effort that is repeatable to benefit the membership. NEVER. EVER. The 3 key words - coordinated and managed, repeatable. NEVER. They do not treat their members as "family" or "household" members, they treat them as customers of a very specific and defined kind of product. They're a business, not a "family". Once they get the $ it's theirs to do with as they choose - they're an incorporated business, "non-profit" of some nature. But they do take in money and they do fund operations and activity. Just not yours. Are they followers of "The Way" in how they do that? I think not. I can't see how anyone with two brain cells firing and half a heart pumping could.

Help a brother out!

Deut. 15: 11 - "There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land. " Mark 12:11 - "The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." Both the Law and what Jesus taught leads one to understand that faith in and to God is an individual responsibility, lived in cooperation with others both in and out of the fold. The Way munched this whole topic up and made mincemeat out of it.

Sometimes celebrating everything that's wrong with a 1,000 or so others is liberating. I guess. They do know the words. Kotzen has vocal range for days and ditto on the guitar. Highly underrated and not well known, this guy, but this may actually be part of the reason. :( Still....:) .....some things change thank God. I hope his do, too. He's really talented. <br><br> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sa7DqjBhxxY?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

"straw man in terms of the concept of the Trinity" VPW believed "Jesus is God" himself at one time, said it often when speaking of the topic of the trinity. The Way parsed the topic, more or less. I'd describe it as a conclusion based on logic - "axiomatic" is a word he used often in PFAL. I'm not suggesting that VPW was particularly versed in logic or the study of the principles of logic, but any person who's been through PFAL knows he promoted a "logical" frame of mind to view what he taught. Does it hold up to logical scrutiny? Those who think it does, every word, consider that a support of the Bible and God and Christianity, as if those things rely on how perfectly formed and logical "PFAL" is. He put conclusions from study of the Bible in terms of if then statements and drew "logical" conclusions - "if this says that, and it says that here and here, and if that means this, and this exception means this, then "this" = a conclusion which is "axiomatic" (although using those methods they might end up actually being non-logic axioms or postulates the way he taught them, which is kinda bass ackwards). For example his statement about "things equal to the same things", or each other and them being equal to themselves....something to that effect, is a very basic logic statement. I'm not sure where he was going with all of these things in PFAL but as with many of the topics covered in PFAL it got me interested in them, like "logic", what is it, how does it work, what is it as a discipline or form of thinking. Frankly I'm not sure that the way he juggled "logic" in PFAL was exactly, hmmmm, a classic approach. Me, I don't buy the idea that the nature of God, and of Jesus Christ can be clearly understood and turned into 25 words of less by taking the 66 books of the Bible, viewing them as a finished product designed by God as His "Word", and then approaching it with mathematical tools so it can be understood in a way that will produce results that are completely reliable, stable and repeatable - things that people who do that want and that's how they want the Bible to be. They say "God is perfect" so "His Word(s) must be perfect". Etc. etc. etc. and so if the Bible is His Word, this book I bought at Border's - it must be perfect in every way I want it to be. That approach ignores that man himself is a creation of God and at this stage of the game is far from perfect. So while God might produce "perfect creation" because He is perfect, the perfection we look for may not be displayed in the results we see, how we see them and understand them. And it doesn't have to be. In relation to the "Trinity" that goes in my mind to our basic human understanding of who and what we are and how we then attempt to apply that to "God". As a "me" I only know one of me. "There can be only one". A very true statement when it comes to our individual consciousness. Multiple realities perceived by one individual in some form of psychosis includes conflict, the multiple "personalities" or perceptions don't align or agree completely. Bob becomes Joe who doesn't like to eat and both of them have problems with Frank who likes loud music and stays up all night. That kind of thing. Consciousness doesn't seem to work with a crowd of participants. Also from the human perspective we see ourselves through events and moments, there's "change" and "time". But the nature of the duration of life and the ability to view change and things like choice outside of the events and either/or choices we make is difficult. Things in our worlds need to be measurable and repeatable to understand them and so we always deal with any one thing as it occurs and completes and is then "over". Projecting a future becomes a matter or knowing a repeatable past. But we can't step ahead into that next moment and be in it, we can only prepare for it. So I might say that a color is "orange" because I put red and yellow together, and that without red and yellow there could be no orange. Orange being the product of red and yellow. But if there were no red or yellow could I still have orange? It would seem so. The process of red plus yellow that produces my orange is the process I understand and use. Orange might disagree. That's a kind of sophomoric philosophical exercise but it's a valid one to work through to understand how one might reconsider their own assumptions about anything. My question is how what do I impose on "God" in the effort to understand Him and myself? I think the Bible uses many great metaphors and comparisons to illustrate God and yet there always seems to be a caveat, as if the writers in their inspiration were passionate about making the point that "as great as I see God and know God, He is more than that". My point (a point!?) is that while I think PFAL presents some valid information the real important topic is still and always man coming to God through Christ. Jesus Christ. Christ Jesus. That guy, the one in the gospels, the son of God, the one God sent, that one. That focus of God's mind, will and heart is the way, the portal, the means by which the invisible God is known to me. Those things take on form and meaning through Jesus Christ. They have touch, feeling, the intangibles of life's duration, eternity - they can be considered in a moment of time through Him. Where PFAL's proponents today take that comes off ham handed to me, cheesey, as if there's high value in making it all into a 30 minute joke about bad math and "3 in 1". To me it was a start to consider the broader subject of Jesus Christ.

Jesus, the Nazarene, the "man from Galilee". Human, man, crucified. Christ, the Messiah, Redeemer, Savior, son of God. The two words carry a different sense, based on context and their usage. Jesus is the name associated with His humanity and redemptive life He lived. Christ with the spiritual role, a title, "The Christ", the Messiah or "Annointed One". The two combined have a slightly different nuance - Jesus Christ, is as if to say "Jesus, the Christ", or that guy Jesus over there is the Messiah.....Christ Jesus is as if to say "Christ, Who is Jesus", or God's Annointed One is this Jesus. The primary difference taught in the Way relates to emphasis. It's all the same guy, referred to different ways. That much is in the bible. The Way taught a significance to to how the names are used. There is to be sure, IMO. However once you accept Jesus as Lord, if you've been taught who He was, what He did and the history of the gospels and epistles, you get that anyway. Hope this helps.

Yeh, in order to get something, a thing done, there needs to be a clear 'vision' of what it is and the result NEEDS TO BE MEASURABLE. Building bridges is measurable. When you're done there's a bridge. What's a bridge do? Provide ACCESS for those who want to get to the other side. I never met a metaphor I didn't like but it has to fit in some way that "rings true". jALs could, if he didn't mention WOW. WOW was/is too loose of an idea to work with to make his point. Which may really be.... "if you know what I'm talking about you'll get it and if you don't you're one of the ones who dropped off the back of the truck and it's sad and I feel bad for you. Watch this video and I'll feel better knowing you did". WOW was a good banner ad, a "big idea" that can capture a lot of ideas and movement. But it needs specificity to get moving on the road. "The idea" of it works on too many levels and it can mean many many different things, even to those of us who were in the Way when Jal was. Who jal is talking about is curious too............ As a distant observer only of jaL's efforts since leaving the Way he seems to be a great example of life's peaks and valleys, up one year, down the next. I know life is that way, I'm not pointing fingers - and when criticized even I, socks, can take it to be an attack, even when it's meant well and has value...so it wouldn't surprise me if jaL's pre programmed his response to criticism, as I'm sure he's used to getting it by now. something like - "well, gosh, you're not succeeding if you're not turning over some bee hives, doncha know!", that sort of logic (which obviously didn't originate from a bee hive keeper) Life can be rough but geez, he does seem to have a fair amount of 'collateral damage' in his rear view mirror. But as someone once told me - "my job doesn't come with a rear view mirror".....meaning he didn't waste time looking back or second guessing himself. He got fired a year later. True story. But don't look back, keep moving onward and forward and upward, you ol' bridgemakers!

New verse, with feeling: Oh Lord, won't you send me some new wealthy peeps. The old ones you sent me are too poor and cheap. More people with money, less destitute sheep, Oh Lord, won't you send me some new wealthy peeps.

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ? My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends. Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends, So Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ? Oh Lord, won't you buy me a color TV ? Dialing For Dollars is trying to find me. I wait for delivery each day until three, So oh Lord, won't you buy me a color TV ? Oh Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town ? I'm counting on you, Lord, please don't let me down. Prove that you love me and buy the next round, Oh Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town ? Everybody! Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ? My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends, Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends, So oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?

It's all about the validation, isn't it Steve? If people give - they're thrilled to be involved! Hyperbole - that's a great point. The language of religion kills it. "the greatness of the Word"...................say that a 100 times, it's meaningless. I guess John's finally just putting it out there the way it really is for himself and his efforts. "I need money. I need wealthy people to give me money. Find some wealthy people and ask them to give me their money". Can't be more blunt than that. Now we know what he wants. The economic situation is such that many churches and charities are feeling it. John should just cut to the chase and go for getting grants from the government. Find a fund and get his money for the year and then use it, spend it go do what he wants to do and stop worrying about paying for it. Or do what he has the money to support. If there's no money for it, don't do it. If it's God saying "I want this done" as I'm sure he feels, then let God get involved, stop humiliating himself and others by asking for rich fo'k to toss him some dollars. Geez man, show some dignity for yourself, if not God.

Wow. How long ago was that sent out? One wonders - would wealthy people who aren't all that thrilled about using their dough to oil the pumps of TLTF but maybe just need the tax deduction qualify? You know - someone who had $$ but not that much interest. "God works in mysterious ways, His money to behold?" I suspect they'd take it, where ever it came from. It's just money - can't they sell some stuff and get some money? Or borrow it? I know that's probably not "the best" but if they're will to ho' on the nearest corner with whoever needs a thrill, it's not that far down from there to just borrow the money from a dirty ol' bank. .

Read Jeremiah 18. "The Potter's Wheel". There are (at minimum) 2 themes in Jeremiah. God's judgment and God's renewal or reformation through that judgment. My own overall understanding of scripture, the Bible, is that God's ultimate judgment and purposes won't ultimately separate the good ones from the bad ones, punish the bad ones for eternity because they made choices against Him and reward the good ones because they made good choices. This has nothing to do with whether that "makes sense" or not or seems just to me. I'm not the one determining what is or isn't just in the Big Picture if God is truly "sovereign" so from that standpoint I just want to understand what's going on, if I can. Man tends to look at this life as all there is, even when man believes in an eternity and a God, as Christians do. A lot of religious thought interprets the Bible's words from a me-centric position - this life is all there is that serves God's purposes in man and man has oh, whatever - 80 - 90 years to get his cards right and get a hand that will take the pot and in a lot of that kind of thought the hand man is dealt is loaded by God beforehand so man is either going to be a goat or a sheep, depending on what God gives him. For the loser it's pretty much just a "thank you for playing" and a boot into the Pit. Forever. Winners get the scoop of up the pot, get the trip, the money and lots of parting gifts. Man observes, discovers, learns and scribes out an ever changing schemata of what he learns but has no impact on the universe at large. Our own planet to an extent, yes. We could blow it up I guess or do whatever we come up with to it or with it. At best we care for it and make use of it, and our own lives. But we can't change the universe or have a significant impact on what's going on throughout the universe we see through hard scrabbling effort and what might appear to some future generations as tape and wire. We always look back and marvel at what we've learned but if we look ahead we become wistful children, lost in the wonder of it all and then go on to our next Great Adventure. Can we "thwart" the eternal purposes of a God who designs and creates? Can we truly oppose it or Him on any demonstrable level? Like petulant children we can cross our arms and say "No!" and we can kick our stuff around the room. What does that mean other than we learned a new word? I guess I'm just thinking that within the relationship of man with God trust is inherent, we have no other choice than to trust when push comes to shove. Less that God knows what he's doing and more that we need to learn what we're doing and in the relationship we can bring who and what we are, as is, and join the process. If God is truly "sovereign" and all of life were part of His plan kinda deal, what's in the Bible can be understood to say that as with the potter and the clay, the clay can be reformed to come out the way the potter wants it. The clay doesn't get tossed out for a new lump, the clay is worked with over time, again and again, until the result is right. Why not make it right to begin with, I ask? Clay being what it is and the potter's method being what it is, the process is one that requires work. There is a lot of "it is what it is" to this line of thought - it assumes that there's a will, a logos, that God has that's at the core of all of this. Why that? Why at the outset, this way? I simply couldn't say. I could say however that it's well within the means of a just, merciful and righteous God to turn all to good, to have a plan and a process that will in the end produce a final product out of it all that is a final masterpiece, so to speak. What we do, what others do in this life that's wrong, bad, anti-God, will be done away with and all, everything and everyone, will ultimately have no other choice to see and make than to recognize that God is Good and perfect. What about "the devil?" I don't know. No idea. I see less of the "devil" than I ever did and more of the mind of man and it's capacity for both good and bad, in this life. The devil will have to speak for himself.

Why doesn't this loving God keep us out of those traps. At least let us know before we fall in em. Maybe he did. Don't trust man! lol.. Free will - each of us chooses. The magnitude of the diversity in mankind is absolutely beyond comprehension when we consider that a fundamental component of our individual consciousness is that we think and choose and act and accumulate a singular set of memories in consciousness, separate from anyone else. Each of us is non-repeatable and from arrival to departure we define a "me" that isn't shared by anyone else. We may all be part of a big swirling mass of whatever but each of us has a perception of that that requires that we identify our own part in it separately from all others. Joined together, separate instances of consciousness - "Life". Man identifies God that way and if that's been handed down to us correctly there is a "me" to God too - an identity. I ask the question "why isn't it different?" " Why isn't it better?" Why why why? did God "do" it this way and given the faults and failings we all experience why the @!#!! doesn't He just change it for the "better"? My own super scientific answer is "because". Because this is it, it is what it is because it is what it's become. Whatever got us here it wasn't completely up to God as we've been able to steer our paths and limited destinies in our own life cycles and here we are. Is there a "perfect" life to be lived? I would say "yes" - but it will be lived in concert with a gazillion other lives being lived - we are us. We could be better, we could be different, we could exemplify the best each of us knows and learns about ourselves and others. But we don't. We can make conscious effort that works for good or bad. It would seem that all systems are incomplete in one way or another, even when they're completely successful at what it is they're designed to do - they don't do everything all the time, forever. Humans are like that and within the range of who and what we are we have a limited scope, we can only do so much. So we do "the best we can" and failure is part of the deal. Failure may be the wrong word for it but it's what I'm thinking. I've given a lot of thought myself also to what exactly "sin" is. A lot of knee jerk answers come up but the answer has to be very very basic to make a difference in such a way that it can be fully realized and understood. I know what the Bible says and what people say but my sense is that the concept of a "redeemer", Christ, is more basic than people doing things wrong and having them forgiven. Not everyone wants to do the wrong thing, to "sin" and if a person knew the right things to do they'd do them -right? We know that simply isn't the case though so it appears to me to come down to a really basic aspect of man and what man is, what I am, that must be accomodated for in this life. Being born wasn't our idea, we didn't start the ball rolling - but now we're here. Rant #234, Forgot where I was going with this. Sorry!

Good question kiddo. I have what I call "conversations" in that regard. I guess it's become more or less second nature to me at this point where I accept that some things are in my domain and some are not and understanding the difference is where the discussion occurs so to speak. But I don't feel anger - anger over the fact that life is what it is sometimes but I don't feel a conflict with God that would lead to anger. I have at times though and don't feel bad about it at all - none of this creation or life was my idea so I don't feel bad that I don't get it all the time. If I need to square up in my heart with God, I do. It can take time sometimes. A lot of religious thought posits that God is sovereign, over everything, controls everything and that everything is part of God's "plan". So when something happens, good or bad, it's credited to "God" who has a "plan" and that there's a purpose related to God in whatever happens. (Or the "Devil" who may affect or intervene. And that man is in the middle more or less, managing and dealing with opposing forces.) I believe this is inferred in the Bible but in metaphor - giving God credit and standing, "glory", supremacy. But not that God is actually managing everything as a person would, everything all at once. I see it as God being God and by definition is of course sovereign over all. But that creation is not being controlled atom by atom, everything all the time, by a God who is making decisions about everything. Like the 'earth' - "be fruitful and multiply" and tend to the planet - It's God's "creation". It's man's domain to work in and live. As a result I don't get mad at God all that much. The urge to cry out in celebration or complaint about life is human though and I probably do some of both. Way teaching leads a person to think that God is in neutral (although He has a "will" or logos) and we "operate" His "god given power" to us when we choose to. That will cause a person to be frustrated because everything, lots of things in fact I would suggest MOST things we do based on that kind of thinking are simply not going to happen that way - we'll always be trying harder, again, over and over, blaming someone or something and rounding up or down to make the results we do see fit what we're trying to "do" and how we think it should happen. That'll definitely pi ss someone off, sooner or later. I've labelled myself a "Chaos Christian" before, by the way. I believe humanity's relationship within itself and with God is so diverse and varigated that it's useless to try and grasp it into some form of repeatable order that can be understood and captured by some dictum of man's faith. "Spiritual serendipity" - live the best I can with the best I know, keep learning and observing life as it's underway.

I see what you're saying cman. This is a great topic and I appreciate your insight and thoughts, as always. I hiccup at the term transition because many views are that going from death unto life is a natural progression and I don' t see it as such. It's described in those kinds of terms in many places and sources, including the Bible and that's what happens but the progression is also described as a "birth", a new birth and in that I think we see the correct view of life and death long term. If man didn't die, he wouldn't need to be born over, or again. The Bible seems to say that even in this life we live we are 'dead', corruptible, in a 'sinful' nature, and somehow in the state of being kittywampus to where we need to be. The "new birth" occurs while we're yet "alive"....now. That pending death sentence our bodies have is off plan, to put it mildly but it is what happens.

cman, interesting discussion - I see it described more as a 'birth'. How can a man die? Happens everyday. How can a man be born again? With God it's possible. From fetus to full term a growing baby isn't able to prepare for it's next transition consciously, it has no knowledge of it and isn't aware of it, probably wouldn't want it to happen if it knew what was going to happen. Since it hasn't happened yet there are no memories accumulated, no context or sense of 'self' to compare anything to. And as it happens the baby's progress into the immediate new life is a bumpy road for baby and bearer, to say the least. I don't see the description of "death" as transitional, not in the Bible or elsewhere. There are lots of metaphorical comparisons to transition, change, needing to embrace death and accept it and attempt to understand it, yes. It's understandable to me that we don't know of ourselves "what comes next" as it's a "you can't get there from here" proposition. It's also not like a birth, although people describe it in those kinds of terms sometimes. Transition, change, letting go of one thing to grasp another - I get all that. But death is a zero sum total by all appearances and historical indicators. As a Christian I see the "new life" in Christ and God but I don't see death as a friend or ideal part of life. It is what it is and the way it is though. Barring intervention our physical bodies die. I might also put it in musical terms, artistic ideals - a violin can be built, seasoned through playing and time and then by deliberate effort or simply time, be destroyed. The music written and played on it however can endure.

What's "everything"? What's "simple"? and why would anything have to be simple? "Never" covers a lot of ground. I don't think that all of known time populated by individuals who choose independently of each other qualifies as simple, but once that's accepted and the fact that the seemingly endless range of possibilities of everyone having done whatever they did within that range of time has already occurred it does fit into a quantity less then infinite so it can at least be looked at and observed albeit with limited scope ("me", "you" "now") and even projected ahead. Always simple, no. Never not simple - no. Put another way............"it is what it is". But it isn't what it isn't.

Skeetering on to the off topic thats' on - Oldskool, you made me think about organizational models. Years ago I knew little about them but got interested through what's in Ephesians and then over the years learned more about them in business contexts. The two basic business models are "Organizational" and "Functional", where the former stresses process and a hierarchical grouping and reporting structure and the latter stresses grouping like kinds of disciplines and work together that reports within itself and works cross-organizationally to do work. There's often a primary "straight" line of reporting in a business, accompanied by a "dotted" line secondary reporting relationship and these can have either the Organizational or Functional model dominant. There are other models and hybrid forms of each and all but usually one is predominant. After some time I realized that the Way uses what it considers a "biblical" Organizational model, with responsibility and accountability working up and down from the top to the bottom, where the top layer governs from the top, to all layers. This is modeled after their interpretation of what Ephesians states where there's a "head" and members "in particular" and God "working in all", "through Christ" and then "ruling" gift ministries and what might be called "special dispensations" of ministries as VPW felt he had. ("The Word....like it hasn't been known since", etc. ) Which reads right the first few times but in practice, on the ground now you would not have a "head" "man of God" or embedded position of a primary leader through whom directives come that govern the day to day activities of the members, as God and Christ work "in all" all the time - the relationship is one - to - one. It could be described as God sees all the members through one line of sight but the individuals see God through many lines of sight, each their own. The only intermediate level isn't between them (Christ) but exists to have provided the means for the one-to-one relationship to occur. So - Ephesians describes a Functional model that gets it's juice through a very simple Organizational structure. In business contexts it's very stripped down and lean, not a million meetings with Upper Management to determine if it's okay to spend a dollar or go forward with a task and then reporting back in triplicate to everyone for review and approval. The Ephesians model of the Church is lean and mean and appears designed to be a kind of interim plan and which will support the "body" concept through transition and fit with the future end-game. Dunno - just thoughts. The NT Epistles have become a happy hunting ground to prop up every new paradigm that comes along (The Way Tree being one of them) but I don't think that anything that's set forth hard and fast and "the only way" to run the Church is going to be correct if it supersedes the direct-path relationship each person has with God, through Christ.

Indeed. It's a public access road. I suppose as the owners of property on it they have a right to secure it. Local Blokels aside, making it part of the security beat and following every car that shows up going down it....? That's a real pare o' noids they're running there.