socks

It's perfectly okay and right for an organization or household to handle "something" itself/themselves..... But as the great philosopher Harry Callahan said - a man's got to know his own limitations. (applies to women too). I believe the quote you're taking exception too: Had this guy gone on to do something horrific then I'm sure we would have read in the paper how he once threatened 3 christian missionaries with a loaded gun. And people would have thought "that's where it should have stopped, why didn't they report it?" To answer your question - As far as me/mine/us goes - yes. Absolutely. If you pull a gun on me, I'm going to call in the authorities, the police, you-name-it, immediately. Threaten me and not back off, same. Threaten my family, ditto. Do me or mine harm, authority-r-us, you're going to feel like the captain of the Titanic just before it hit the iceberg and he said "Is that ice I see over the-----" Now - given the response time for 911 can be slow, I'm not going to wait, I will "handle it" myself but that may be a bad option for all involved. As a "WOW" I would never have tolerated the kind of behavior described here - and guns? Forget it, no way, you're out. You're reminding me of Graeser and Lynn, who have said they like to 'drop bombs' here and other places where they can mess with people. Basically - they're as s holes and I'd love for them or others of their ilk to do that in person face to face but they prefer to duck and hide and mess with people online, rather than engage in a discussion. In person you could grab them by the collar and wring their buck teeth out, but online, you can't. Just sayin' - their methodology is similar to you, here. so what is it with you - why do you deliberately digress and deliberately switch to topics where you can attack - as you switch off topic. Do you drink, are you medicated? I'm not kidding or being sarcastic, I'm trying to get a better view of what your thought processes are, so I can participate in your comments.

Hiding message are why we study God word 2 Tim 2:15 is why study God's word to give meaning to ourself or our-lives I have not known any person that has not had to handle the thought of lust of one of same gender in their life at least once because I am talking an ideal of homosexual not the act to not do we have to think about it even for half second how other one known the different from being homosexual than not you had the thought any your pride will not let you be honest with it :blink: If you mean that thinking about it and what it is and realizing that I'm not - has something to do with anything, sorry, I don't get it. But not to worry, I have no pride preventing me from discussing the topic and what I have thought of it which is to realize that I'm not homosexual. I make no excuses or explanations, other than that. In fact, and I'm not the only one like this - I often have to check in with my wife to ask if another person is considered "good looking" and why. It will be obvious from what I see on TV or read here and there that so and so is now being considered the latest heart throb. I look at them and don't see that aspect of who they are or see them in that way. I don't know, maybe it's me - but when I look at another man I don't get the same emotional/physical triggers as I would with a woman. Men, males, don't register with me that way. I look at my son for instance who is considered "good looking" and I would say that although he's a very modest young man he's been told that all his life by women of all ages. Apparently it's a combination of how how he looks and his "eyes" together with a very caring and kind heart. Chicks dig him. But when I look at him I think yes, he's a fine fit male sample and I love him dearly as my son but I simply don't register it the same way as women do. It is obvious seeing how most women react to him that there's an attraction that occurs that's different from what men have, but probably not all men. I won't attempt to speak for everyone, everywhere, that would be facetious on my part. Perhaps there are variances in the natural build of a person, social and cultural considerations. I don't look at all women and have the same emotional and physical reactions to every single woman, the same way. I see my wife one way, others other ways. For that matter and from what I've read and been told - all men who are attracted to other men physically - "homosexual" - aren't attracted to all men the same way all the time. It's not as if - if you're "gay" all men "look good". Some there's an attraction, others not so. Also - "lust" would be defined differently than "natural attraction". An inherent physical attraction to another isn't "lust", or finding another person attractive isn't "lust" where there's sexual arousal. The fact that you haven't known any person that has not had to handle the thought of lust of one of the same gender "at least once" might just mean you need to meet more people. I'd have to ask the question how you've validated that - did you ask everyone you've known in your life and they told you or has everyone you've ever know told you? I normally don't talk with others about what we do or don't "lust" after. Do you? I'm just curious how you're so sure of that statement. To be blunt, I can't see any requirements that "everyone" would for that matter. Why would everyone need to or have to, what standards are governing that? I think overt assumptions and a lack of honesty and clarity around this topic fuels a lot of hmmm, B S, to be blunt. Not that you're slinging it here and now. I have no agenda either way, so I'm just making observations. And yeah, I don't see that it makes much difference either way whether Paul was gay or downright depressed. How that person in the N.T. dealt with his own personal limitations and conflicts has served to offer a unique and powerful view into human transformation and transcendence. And 2 Tim. 2:15 isn't why I study the Word of God but that's another topic.

Interesting perspective, Steve. I'd agree with Pat that what the two eyes see isn't contradictory by definition - they don't lead to logical opposite conclusions. Or if they did we'd have pretty strange vision. :) They're just two views of the same thing, and all things being equal (or close to it) in the physicals they're not actually that different. But in a very real way they are, in fact different views of the same thing, in that we don't find (or seem to have yet) repetitions of the same thing at the same time in our physical world. Any instance of anything is it's own instance, and when it comes to individual consciousness, be it the brain, soul or whatever we refer to it as I find that really thrilling as a basic understanding of existence as it is. Moreso that within ourselves we have many separate, individual instances of our own consciouness going on at once, and being blended into a single state of perception. Life is a beautiful awesome thing, and thanks to this thread for that reminder. It's a cool angle on this though, got me thinking how the result of blending the two views into a single perception is done through the nerves and into the brain where the two become one, more or less. Yet, our own processing of that will include many other things at any given moment - we may see something and do the "double take" or "rub our eyes" and take a second look at something. We may think "am I seeing what I think I'm seeing?" That's an incredible process right there and without that ability to question and process our own memories and all of our sensory perceptors at a given moment - we'd have trouble maintaining any understanding of anything On the topic(s) - I don't know that I believe "God" can contradict , for the kinds of reasons that geisha notes. If God is God and by definition maintains and retains the kind of sovereign supremacy we read about in the O. T. then God makes the rules, to put it bluntly. If in a given scenario God were to say, change the rules, that's within His purview to do so. From my human perspective I might see logically opposing outcomes - I think I have to accept that 1. I may not have all the information I need to blend it all into one composite view that "makes sense", 2. I may not have enough information to actually construct and understand what "makes sense" with the blended view that I do have, and 3. It may not be within my own purview to understand or judge what God would do or not do. The example of our eyes and vision is illuminating I think in that vision is a learned thing - it comes together over time from our infancy on and our bodies learn to "see" in a single vision. As you state Steve, we are learning as we go, and we can expect progress, one would assume. In fits and starts and smooth transitions at other times but we do learn. The Bible? Big topic there too - I like the mention of the Book of Enoch as a way to consider what is "the Word of God". I tend towards the canon we have today but consider that God, in times past and present, is constantly revealing Himself to us and through us and that "the truth" is all around us all the time. I'm a Bible guy and won't pretend to understand the variances I see and others I no doubt don't but am trying to approach it in the manner described here.

As for Spong...? He's a dweeb, sorry, he's just not on my radar. His write includes this: Obviously there is no way to know for certain the cause of Paul's anxiety prior to that moment of final revelation in the Kingdom of Heaven. But that does not stop speculation. The value of speculation in this case comes when a theory is tested by assuming for a moment that it is correct and then reading Paul in the light of that theory. Sometimes one finds in this way the key that unlocks the hidden messages that are present in the text. Once unlocked, these messages not only cease to be hidden but they become obvious, glaring at the reader, who wonders why such obvious meanings had not been seen before. Hidden messages? Why do there have to be hidden messages that need to be unlocked? What if I were to read the epistles speculating that Paul is not gay? What hidden messages reveal themselves then and what theoretical conclusions can be made? Spong struggles with the language of the epistles and the profile he takes from them about Paul as if that Paul is unusually conflicted in such a way and to an extreme that he needs to be understood in ways that will explain them. I don't know why to be honest. I don't know what's driving Spong, it may be good it may be bad - it might just be his own internal battles and conflicts with the general state of humanity which can yield some pretty horrible results. It can also yield some very good things too. Whatever's driving him I dunno but when I read about people looking for and finding hidden messages in the bible - dunno.

Hmmm...frankly I've looked at the gospel verses that have been interpreted as homosexual references and honestly, from what I see and the basic language of the verses themselves, plus the overall context, there's no reference to homosexuality at all. That interpretation is extreeeeeemely contrived, and while there's no lack of that in biblical interpretation it doesn't go to the simplest, most direct understanding of what those verses say, on face value. It's kind of amazing to me that they're being understood in that way. It's like saying that if the bible records two men walked together down a road alone, they're homosexual because they're men and walking together alone implies companionship and companionship implies relationship and relationships between men includes homosexuality and that infers they were. It just doesn't make sense in light of the entire gospels. Not everyone has had homosexual "thoughts" or inclinations, that's incorrect Roy. It's easy to say everyone "has" at one time or another but that isn't true if that means having a sexual attraction to another of the same sex and as you're saying having that "thought" (whatever that really is) but not "acting" on it (which covers a lot of ground). Not everyone has or does or will, in fact I'd say that most probably haven't. That's my opinion of course and I have no data to support it other than myself - I can honestly say I've never had that kind of thought or interest or desire. I know others who I think would say the same thing. This topic is more complex than simply "men like women and women like men", although at it's simplest that about sums it up. But the range of emotional relationships we have with each other is wide to say the least. The nature of our relationships with each other can be very diverse without being "homosexual", where homosexuality is defined to mean a sexual attraction to the same sex.

Gay? Doubtful. I believe this piece is also on the 'net HERE. Homosexuality isn't new to this century. You'd have to assume that if there's some social and moral regulations in the Bible that address it that there was something to address. I don't think we have to dig too deep to assume that it's present in the history of the Bible, after all the bible's basically a historical perspective, from "in the beginning" to events yet to occur. These are suppositions, based on an extremely idealized characterization of a man - "Saul/Paul" - that's drawn from very little information. He can be seen as being a lot of things by the reader yet IMO we really only know one thing very clearly about him and that can be drawn from the account of his "conversion" - and that is that he went through an extremely powerful and direct confrontation with himself that caused him to change deeply internally. People go through lots of things that affect them and cause them to change and it can be seen from the epistles that his change was one that governed and dominated his thinking and actions for the rest of his life. That one clear point is the most powerful for me. Assuming he was a closet gay male living in condemnation of himself is a stretch from the little information given about himself. People torture to death some of this stuff to get meaning from it that isn't really there. Paul could have been gay. He could have been an opium addict. He could have been at odds with his family, wife and friends. He could have been bald, blind, 7 feet tall and had 6 toes on one foot and 3 on the other. He might have liked lamb. He might have hated fish. He might have had extremely bad body odor due to personal hygiene habits that would shame a maggot. He could have been a thief on the lamb, speaking of lamb. Any number of things might have gotten his goat to the point that he may have sworn like a near sighted carpenter with a bent hammer and hated himself for his lack of not only good tools but self control. Is that the real message of what I read in the epistles? No, not for me.

Hmmm...ok. I don't get it - are you saying you put Luke as the reference just to yank everybody's chain? Jesus was never called a "pervert", as far as we know and not by our modern definition which implies a specific context. Or maybe He was, who am I to say what's not written? But it's not implied in Luke there. A "perverter" is different, agreed. Someone who perverts the truth isn't a "pervert" by any definition I've seen. When you write perVERT (v) - it means to change something from it's original condition. When you write PERvert (n) - it means that person is a deviation from a norm. Rebellion as a perversion of a norm doesn't mean the person rebelling is a pervert...................a pervertER, perhaps. the record in Luke doesn't say they called Him a pervert, as a way to refer to the rebellion stuff. Period. Anyone who can prove that conclusion wrong please do cuz it seems very plain. They just didn't. Plus - It was lying b-sh-it on the part of the accusers, up and down and all around. He wasn't a threat to Rome or the kingdom. He was a threat to them. So they lied about HIm.

In the entire history of W-Dale and GreaseSpot Cafe I've never used the "ignore" feature or placed anyone on ignore to avoid seeing what someone writes, you included johniam. Pretty much had the same login name the whole time too, as far as I can remember so if anyone's placed me on "ignore" they have prevented themselves from viewing the scintillating insight and illumination that I, socks, bring. Not much I can do about that but not to worry - a book is in the early planning stages that will capture all of the posts, thoughts, sharings, the laughter and the tears that I, socks, have provided lo these many years. To be titled - "Stuff You Won't Believe You MIssed", it's sure to both astound and please. I'm glad I'm making progress though. So this is what progress feels like? I've wondered. Soooooo, we agree then - Jesus wasn't "called" a pervert in Luke and you stated in the originals and in the grammar wars of GSCafe that would be a noun. He got verb'd - perverting. Agreed whatever the tense, the context of the english renderings use several different words for that, and to pervert/subvert/cause to rebel - but I would not use the phrase "original meaning" as that implies a depth of endeavor I don't think we've put in here but contextually we know from that chapter He was being accused of a whole range of things, "being a pervert" not one of them. You're right in noting how it's used today - using it that way as you did carries that meaning. I would never say "they called" Jesus a "pervert" because it would carry an incorrect meaning and uh -cloud the discussion with misunderstanding. I don't know why you used it that way as that says something different than what you apparently meant., knowing how it's used in modern usage. I'm glad you clarified that. Know what I mean?

Hmmm, bit of a side note but who wouldn't want a side of biblical accuracy? Jesus wasn't accused of being a "pervert" in the sense you might be using it johniam ("and even a pervert") there in Luke, although that word gets used in various bibles and translations. The "actual greek" reads kinda weird in those straight to transliteration versions. Frankly I don't know how anyone can get an English rendering out of the some of the greek stuff, so I confess to being no greek skollar. But if the sense you're after is of a sexual pervert, no, that verse and that accusation - no. But if you want a double side of sausage with it: Some translations use "subvert" which may be closer to the meaning - I note that because later in the chapter Pilate actually states what verse 2 means by saying "said to them, you have brought to me this man as turning away the people to rebellion, and behold, I, having examined him before you, have found nothing criminal in this man as to the things of which ye accuse him;" Course that's one of many translations but all the major ones, the big ones and not a few of the little ones state it like that, give or take, more or less. The "pervert"ing of verse 2 is the political, social and religious concerns of Jesus claiming to be the "son of God" and "King" and in some translations accused of inciting people to not pay their taxes (ooooh, the horror). Refill on that coffee?.... If this verse has been carted out by ex-Wayfers to elude to the fact that "even" Jesus had the same kinds of accusations made against HIm as VPW and LCM - come on, that's a waste of time, it isn't what it says and any one with even the slightest amount of respect for "biblical accuracy" would find that out, or about the amount of concern as say someone who knocks over a say a can of soda all over the floor and looks down and says wow, that soda went all over dude somebody better clean that up....that amount of concern and no more and I think the obvious would be revealed about that verse. So enough about what they said in Luke and what it might have meant then......back to the Ralph Saga, and what he meant when he said what he said to those who heard it and what that meant then, and now.....

Perhaps this will be known in years to come as "The Incident at McDonald's". I see a Quentin Tarantino style movie, and this as part lll, of a lV part episodic film. Part l will be titled "Unusual Condiments". Instead of lots of blood there will be condiments as a kind of euphemistic visual reference. Mayo, "secret" sauce and possibly fries with it. Lots and lots of fries. I'm working on the script. Lots of interest so far. A deal is pending.

Call me a Hittite but to me, that's a reasonable response from the Ralph I knew and probably had little to do with impressing anyone or making some guy feel good about himself. Invite someone to your fellowship and he makes fun of you. Go f-k yourself then. Hey, if he can't take a joke he probably wouldn't like the act anyway. Ralph's a big guy. I suppose if you wanted to mix it up with him you know going in what to expect.

Just that some things are pretty normal behaviors and patterns but probably looked at more seriously here because they were associated with Way-fer behavior, or "god" or who knows what. People do all kinds of things to look right or good in others eyes, get some shine off something they have no interest in but want the benefits of. They did follow suit there - very much so. There were the kinds of expected responses and actions that are being described here and they shaped the expectations of those in the group. From my observation of life that's pretty much par for the course. If someone doesn't like the norms, traditions and customs they're faced with they can not observe them, try to change them, find other people they're more comfortable with or I dunno - become a hermit and stare at the sky all day. There's always options. I was talking with someone today and this very kind of thing was so apparent in our conversation - some things, like say "religious" convictions they have very clear, tight opinions and have no problem passing judgment ("righteous" judgment, of course of course...)......................but in normal day to day affairs, decisions, they vacillate and refuse to take strong positions even when they do in fact disagree with something. Why? They're afraid of confrontation, they don't want to say something is "wrong" and prefer to talk about "gaps" and "issues". They use soft non-confrontational language for mundane day to day business and can't bear to say that someone's "wrong" - but rather refer to them as "being aligned differently"................... but hold strong positions about things like say, who's going to heaven and who isn't. I find that fascinating and really a revealing study in human nature - someone will definitively say who is or isn't going to spend eternity in heaven with God, but won't take a position on say, a run of the mill workflow process involving widget and geegaws. Inneresting..... They conveniently don't grasp simple 1 plus 1 kinds of things in their work but have steady resolveon affairs of eternal business in God's domain. Why? They prefer to play nice, not ruffle feathers and as a result let others tromp all over them - for them it's easier to accept a lower quality of work than to push for better work and higher standards. When it comes to "spiritual" things their sense of right and wrong is clear. When it comes to day to day affairs and decisions there's less of a right and wrong and the emphasis is placed instead on maintaining a comfortable relationship with others. To me there's a disconnect there, and they're still learning how to bring the two together and be a whole person, not one person in regards to religious convictions and another in regards to day to day affairs. But we're all learning, and life is an ongoing process. Hey, it's not the end of the world, they're very nice and do fine but can't see the conflict in how they think and approach things. I'm probably not going to influence that kind of thinking very heavily but I do try to toss a rock in the pond of easy-does-it once in awhile. I feel badly for those who "faked" their convictions and actions to the point they were being something they were not. When we do that in regards to anything it's going to haunt us later. It's good to recognize it and deal with it and not let it linger or continue, I'd say.

Although this comment doesn't cover the entire "fake it" ground being covered here, I would suggest a bit of level setting. Any culture and subset will have standards of behavior and acceptable norms that govern day to day interaction. They develop and change and evolve. This can include everything from body language to professional jargon. There are things that are expected - for instance in the Way, the greeting "Bless you!", as a greeting that indicates intent, status, alliance. It became shorthand for "Hi!" but with the stronger meaning that indeed, "God" "bless" "You". Preferable to "God send you to He ll now - what are you still doing here!?!" Of course when someone says "Good morning" and someone responds with "Good? Good? Don't you mean Best?" or comes up with "Exceedingly abundant above all things day to you!!!"..... It's time to back away slowly.... This happens in all kinds of interactions though - ever say "Good morning" to someone and have them respond "Is it? Is it really?".....it's the same kind of thing. Social "graces" are supposed to help ease the day to day lifting of interacting. They will always evolve and there will never be a one size fits all. Say "Have a nice day!" long enough and someone will start to say "No, why don't YOU have a nice day!!!" sooner or later. I know this doesn't cover the entire range and depth of this topic but thought to make note of it if perhaps to cast the smallest of light with minimum of shadow.

Reed inspired me as a wee one, the sound of the guitars meshing, roiling around each other to find a place and how when it settled in the pocket it was as solid as money in the bank. He used such a simple formula so consistently, adding a little here or there to distinguish each song as a different twist on the sound. His health, physical condition and personal habits might have done him in earlier if not for his wife Mary, "Mama" Reed who is also credited as co-writer on some songs. Starting out playing, his sound was one I recognized, as the owner of a cheap Kay hollow body electric myself (wish it had held up better) I knew his sound right off as he seemed to prefer (or ended up with) some of the Kay's and Airlines of his day. His music always makes me happy when I hear it. I just dig his stuff. And yeah, the Stones would be pumping gas if not for Reed and your guys there. I'd like to see Reed get more air time, got one local station that plays his stuff now and then which is nice. <br> <br> <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/b9YTlMs4NlI?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Some funky stuff on a Sunday morn' for you Ways'. Reed's my man. <br> <br> <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/a5YHOb4AHnM?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1IQQdKAtOQ8?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Determined and resolute. I always enjoy waiting patiently for the sky to open at 3:20 - it never fails to satisfy. <br> <br> <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/M-2lMstw6qs?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Indeed. Colossians 1:27 is in the Bible. Galatians 4:19 is in the Bible. These often connected verses and others are...in the Bible. The basic understanding of the "new man in Christ" being no longer "Jew or Gentile" - that's in the Bible. The accomplishment was by God's planned direction and carried out through Christ. It's written about in the Bible, that's the "teaching". "The Mystery" is revealed in the Bible, not by me or VPW or anyone else. Did I have an awareness of the these things before PFAL? No, for me that was an introduction to those things. But they weren't unknown. I remember clearly telling my Mother about the teaching early on when I still lived at home. She was familiar with it from her own early church exposure, the terms and the general ideas. She'd heard them before. The Way offered a non-denominational platform for these things to be taught and practiced but that wasn't new either. It was for me but the idea wasn't new. Reteaching things already known in a new format that offers additional insight and that extrapolates on the information already known isn't doing something new. It might be a radical departure from the current norms, might be in contrast to the sub culture it's being presented in and to but.... The "not known since way back when" drill is a dull one. It's like the story's been told so many times now that the 2nd, 3rd generations repeating it believe it as told. I won't infer I knew any of this before PFAL or had the doctrinal points in my head or life to agree with or disagree with. New to me but not "new". I see it today as marketing, marketing a class to promote it. Less bible teaching and more packaging. I do see PFAL as having a lot of teaching in it but all of the packaging around it and the hoo rah that came with it takes away from the source material - the Bible.

....the same claim for his group...."Greatest teaching since the first century church." Marketing 101 - the difference in services and products. Services are intangible. "He helped me". There's no ownership, no title transfer. A promise to perform a service or deliver a product is like a "box of air" in sales, "I will help you based on our agreement when conditions are met". Products are things. Stuff. There's ownership and they can be held and transferred. Products have a lifetime, an expiration date or expected length of performance. The mix of this in the Way's organization was that PFAL was a product, a thing, which provided information and a promise related to performance. "This information will produce these results". One could say reading the Bible it does the same thing, testimonies to what certain information produces or will produce. However the Bible presents much of it's information in the form of a history, telling what happened, with some more narrative and expository sections. On face value one reads "this happened" and we know it happened because it happened this way to these people at these times and here's the story of what and how and sometimes why. The statement "greatest teaching since the first century church" is an odd one, as I've pondered it lo these many moons. It's a claim about a product - "teaching". An aside would be defining what the meaning of that really is but we know it's generally meant to refer to the content, not the actual act of teaching - the greatest presentation and act of teaching - although that actually plays into it the way it's marketed....the form of delivery seems to be part of the brand of Lynn, a patented, recognizable form of presenting that can be anticipated and that has a value in itself and that adds value to the product. Just another humble teacher of the truth yes we're sure, but a funny one and one you'll like more than ever. The teaching itself, the knowledge being advertised has always existed was never really "lost" as sometimes inferred - knowledge can't be lost even if the things known no longer existed. Meta-phys-ed-whacky topic I know but worth considering in this context. I would maintain (not an original idea either) that knowledge isn't a product or a thing. The things known are. Defining knowledge is more difficult than it sounds although at the ground-level get my pants on in the morning kind of view it is. So I guess what that statement makes me think of is how they brand their "class". The "teaching" is a service and the service is to re present the knowledge which then reveals the realities. But when they "product-ize" it and turn it into a "thing", as many many efforts do about all kinds of things - there's an inherent disconnect for me at this point, a kind of "that doesn't work that way" sort of reaction. Probably not making it clear here but, my keyboard needed dusting.

Now we're talkin' ways'. <br><br>Noah Hunt's got The Voice. <br><br> "At least not tonight baby"..... <br><br> <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AtNUWU0QUGs?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thanks Old Skool. "Let the work prove itself as a true ministry" "how electrifying the teachings are, and how amazing it is that we "know" so much more than everyone else.' I guess I'm well grounded at this point as the shock value isn't what it used to be. It begs the question - how much does one need to know before one can function? Aside from quantity there's a quality question too, one assumes. One of the character traits we see in the biblical cast of characters is self-motivation. Granted they were a community of people supporting each other in their beliefs and convictions. But it's clear that the individual convictions were self-sustaining. The people with them carried them regardless of the circumstance. It's a level of conviction that rests in one's own personal life, mind and heart. The "courage" of one's convictions isn't in how a person reacts to opposition (Nietzsche's view) but rather in how one's own life is governed by those convictions, regardless of opposition or agreement from others. (sock's premise) :) And people often call a person's religious beliefs their "faith". That's a misnomer when what a person believes is based on their own experience. When that experience proves to be repeatable and reliable comparing past to present to future, it's no longer truly a "faith" by definition, it's acceptance of reality. Which goes to the swinish practice of charging others for our own insights. I suppose a course that imparts information about the bible is a commodity, a product that can be given a cost and a value. Ministers hell-bent on getting some money for what they do and teach might state that their teaching is "priceless" and a bargain at 100 bucks or 200 bucks or whatever. The problem with that to me is that it's both immoral and unethical - the information isn't their to sell, if it's "God's Word". Those words are God's. Unless I can show some paperwork I'm not authorized to resell it, as far as I know or can see. I may be authorized to share it on God's behalf. The going rate for say, eternal salvation is between the individual and God. The bible says something about Jesus Christ settling up on that, as we've all read.......sooooo...... Christianity and the core message is a no-cost operation for us. It's a fascinating exercise to deconstruct how so much of the effort around it has introduced commerce into it. I really like the U2 song "Vertigo" where Bono riffs on the words of Satan to Jesus when he challenged and tempted him..... "All of this can yours, just give me what I want and no one gets hurt".........it is a temptation when someone who will make your life hell says they'll go away for a price. Add insult to injury if we pay and they come back later with "Gotcha!!!" It seems like traces of that carry on in these ex-Way ministries- abundance, blessings beyond imagination and a storehouse of good opening it's doors - if we just know the right things. It can all be yours, and it's what God wants!" Now give me a donation and I can guarantee you a seat in the next class....

Such a well crafted song. The drums are genius. Classic Telecaster tone. And yeah, some time's you gotta cut your losses and get on with it. What goes around comes around. See ya in the next life baby, but don't expect a ride. <br><br> Cool listening for a warm day. <br><br> <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/jmjQVoHrXe0?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Old Skool - Speaking of "believing".... That's such a huge topic. I don't think that topic of money can be over stated when it comes to church leadership and pastoring in general. Many ex-Wayfers tend to shrug off the issue of money and ministering. "The laborer is worthy of his hire". A thoughtful read of the N.T. uses of this sage proverb shows that there's a lot that goes with it. It should never be assumed that because a person invokes the name of God or Jesus in what they do that they're worth the time of day. We might ask "how much is a dishonest laborer worth and what should he be paid?". Another could ask "how much is a laborer who doesn't build or contribute lasting work worth?" or "how much should I pay someone who builds me a fence but tears up my lawn doing it?" In religion a lot of laborers expect to be paid simply because they do 'some" work and it's of a religious nature. Work that perhaps they weren't asked to do, or that they felt compelled to do of their own choice. They want to be paid for "services rendered". Hang up a God shingle, open the doors, start doing business. Is that all there is to it? Even the simplest of businesses require some licensing to operate, some level of certification to indicate the level of proficiency, some degree of experience that would testify to one's abilities. No less than the Son of God offered authentication as to who He was, by what authority He operated and to Whom He answered. Records indicate he backed it up when push came to shove. More than words and less than hollow promises were the standard. Typically work comes with a warranty. You don't build a brick wall, walk away and if it falls down tomorrow say "sorry, you're on your own, it should have stood longer". Well, you can do that but it doesn't go over very well. It's characteristic of Lynn to use the "Word of God" delivery......"this is what the Word of God says". He's definitely not a teacher. A salesman perhaps. You can hear it in his smarmy tone and glib loquaciousness. Ne'er a word hits the floor before ten more are tumbling out and it all reeks of the inner knowledge that all is god-right in the Lynn world and who wouldn't want some of what he has, so good and so much of?

"JL, already has a gift ministry of helps, that is, preparing students for SAT." Is that what that is - a gift ministry? You sure about that?

Backatya Mark. Good to read you. I'm glad John listens, whoever to. Last time he and I spoke I had some recommendations. He wasn't interested. Things change over time, but I can promise you sooner or later he'll have to come around to those things and many more. They're not my idea, they're in the Bible he's holding. There are standards and there are standards. We have a good set of standards for church pastors, elders and those who work and help the church. Timothy, Titus, other places in the N.T. God is very forgiving and has a seemingly endless supply of forgive, of that there's no question. Life in and of itself, has boundaries and limits and a limited supply of that forgive. One of the things I try to learn and do teach on - both in practice and presentation - is that those are two different things Life is terminal and has boundaries, God does not. This current life we live is informed by and rebirthed in Christ and that new life has a longer tail than this one of flesh and bones. Thus we see that while God asks us to live with a view to eternity He give us tools to live for today. It's up to us to use them or not. When I look at the lifestyle portrayed and desirable for church leadership in Timothy and Titus - it's not asking for Supermen or Women. Basic honesty, integrity, love and care for others, not someone with a past history of ungodly behavior and conduct, someone married once and if they were, still. Someone who doesn't have a long list or history of problems with others. One might say "well who can fill THOSE shoes"? They're really not that big. Certainly we all have our problems, mistakes and difficulties. We learn and change. The Bible simply makes the case that there are limits and and if a person wants to pastor and teach the church they need to have their act together and be serious about keeping it together throughout life. John got involved with the Way young, as many of us did. He's had time. Someone else might ask "what about Paul?" He is rather idealized in the biblical records (but who isn't) - still the profile is of a guy going one way then BAM! he gets the message and direction changes - 10, 15 years go by Pauls doing his thing - we know next to no details about those years but again - in the idealized record of his life there's no indication he blew up the church every few years, or continue to ruin people's lives over and over. it SEEMS like the "Saul/Paul" of the bible is a guy who wasn't dishonest or a ruinous to the lives of others post his "new birth". It really WAS a new birth and although he wasn't a big "miracle" guy from what we see, he was certainly the most powerful religious voice of his era - okay, "one of". I'm not saying this because of anything having to do with the Way or the Way's teachings and stuff from 40 years ago - or because I'm particularly tight-as sed about how people live or what they do or allow. I didn't make the standards. Some of us won't or can't live up to them. We need to get the message and find what we can do and do well without making a mess of everything else while we do. And the issue of "gift ministries" adds another flavor and level to all of this. A lot of people feel John has a "teaching ministry". You couldn't prove that by me - I don't think he does or ever did. He has other abilities that would serve others well, true. Many think he's a good public speaker. He's good, on average. Funny? Depends on how you rate "funny". But yeah, sure. Course it's not up to me either way on that one, is it?

Mark, good to see you. I agree - overall, the topic is pretty much sand bagging for a Christian who simply reads the Bible and participates in a church or fellowship environment with stable caring pastoring. The "law of attraction" isn't really on that person's radar or something they would even come up with out of the Bible - but hold that thought if you would for a mo'...... the videos? Who cares, really? Youtube has videos of everything imaginable. That's what it's for. John's been something of a religious gadfly over the years, buying into some fairly esoteric doctrinal beliefs. Momentus, "Personal Prophecy", involvement with doctrinal positions as to the nature of God ("foreknowledge")....all efforts that I would describe kindly as over extending himself. But that's his personal business and he's free to believe what he wants and whether he's qualified to be a "teacher" of the Bible can be weighed by the person who hears him. To me he could be saying "the sky is blue" and I probably wouldn't take his word for it simply because I have better sources to know the sky is blue. Today. A friend of mine who's never been in the Way, ex-Way or anything like that at all, and who is a Christian, calls this kind of stuff "Christianity-Lite". Whereas teachers and pastors may become involved in all sorts of human issues and topics, there are more important issues and topics to promote than railing against the latest religious-flavor-of-the-month or hot-button theological desecration, whatever it might be. I have no idea what he's doing and no intention of getting involved in any of it, at all. I would recommend to people that want to know God and Jesus Christ to stay away from this stuff and John's current organization, simply on face value of his past track record. He may be a good guy and doing his best - that doesn't mean he's doing good or that his best will be good for others. It's a big world God's put us in - I recommend to people, look up, look around, and definitely look out.