socks

"It wasn't blatant orgies in the halls...but if you were female...you knew what dark alley NOT to take. It could be pretty uncomfortable." Thanks geisha779. That makes a point that needs to be made too. Comfort levels represent more than personality preferences. How we feel about ourselves and others, how we're handled and treated. The more I saw and heard about Emporia the more I felt like I didn't "get it". Everyone crammed into tight quarters, the odd ball scheduling, many things. The background I had in the earliest years was one where you could basically be left alone. You could be an individual, if you came in and sat down you could feel completely at ease talking, not talking, enjoying the company of others or having some alone time if that's what you wanted. Others respected that. If you wanted to air a grievance or even just vent you could express it. If it was someone else you could listen and hear them out.

One ex-member said the Corps' residence training was sometimes like a "bordello," with promiscuity, adultery, orgies, wife swapping, and even gang-rape. For a certain time, it was unoffficially taught that extra-marital sex is not sinful but could actually be protable for spiritual growth. This view was based on the old Corinthian belief that bodily practices do not a(ff)ect the spirit of a person. Although this was never taught publicly, it made adultery an acceptable practice, which again made The Way more appealing for today's society than traditional churches who clearly refused any tolerance of sexual misconduct. These statements are confusing. That this kind of activity went on has been admitted by participants now, years later and I for one don't doubt the overall veracity of those who honestly set forth the facts as they lived them. But there's some clarity I'd like to establish on this topic: One ex-member said the Corps' residence training was sometimes like a "bordello," with promiscuity, adultery, orgies, wife swapping, and even gang-rape. I'm glad it came out later but sooner would have been preferable. In over 20 years in the Way and about 7 at the Way Nash in Ohio I never experienced this or saw anything like it that I would describe that way now, looking back. The ability of people to hide their activities and that of others, whether out of self-interest or fear, is something that needs to be understood in the correct context. It's not as if I or others I knew at that time were just too stupid or blind to see this - note that the ex-member is describing what they call "residence training" - it sounds like "sometimes" it was pretty much a group f-k that would be hard to miss. I do admit I never spent any length of time in Emporia, KS at the campus there but the times I was there no - it wasn't as if that's what the residence training had suddenly become, far from it. For a certain time, it was unoffficially taught that extra-marital sex is not sinful but could actually be protable for spiritual growth. Not in any teaching I attended or heard. I may have missed something. I've been told that VPW passed this down. He may have selected the weakest or those he felt were the most vulnerable to accept these specitic ideas. This view was based on the old Corinthian belief that bodily practices do not a(ff)ect the spirit of a person. I'm not sure about that - I've never heard that specific reference but it's possible. I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who can document that that was what this was based on and that that was how it was explained to them and exactly what "the old Corinthian belief" was. Although this was never taught publicly, True. it made adultery an acceptable practice, which again made The Way more appealing for today's society than traditional churches who clearly refused any tolerance of sexual misconduct. Only to those who brought it with them or had it offered to them and who wanted to accept it for whatever reasons - even on face value these ideas aren't reasonable IMO, regardless of what "scriptural" or philosohical arguments are made for them because it counters and conflicts with too much other clear scriptural and moral foundation. I don't say this to offer any excuses for myself or to distance myself from any of it. But I think that it needs to be understood that the methods people used to hide their activities were successful because for many including myself, this was not what "being in the Way" was all about. What I did find develop over the years was that it became more and more common to make cases for whatever it was a person chose to do that they knew was wrong, on face value, and to attempt to justify that from a biblical "principled" position, be it drug use, sex, alcohol, whatever, ie that what they "allowed" was acceptable in their circumstances and from that I'd assume that inner clique-circles of "likeminded" individuals supported each other in secret.This was happening right from the earliest years in California where I was - a lot of drug use for instance, and endless ramalama BS and navel-staring debates sprinkled with a few mis appropriated verses from the Bible carried on by those who wanted to do what they wanted to do. I finally came to the conclusion that I was lying to myself and that doing that was in direct conflict with a Christian life, dangerous and not the least problematic - illegal. For myself, I'd stopped drug use of any kind and nearly any substantial amount of alcohol consumption before I ever went into the Way Corps in Ohio. I went from one extreme to the other. For a time then after a few years I started drinking more "socially", with others and then on my own time while on staff. It was more like an early mid-life "crisis" than anything deliberately orchestrated. Then I realized - this ain't workin' and this isn't adding anything. But others I knew throughout that period weren't all-out boozers by a long shot. Acceptable? Not really but it's my own view into those times. I understand that we make excuses for what we do and the human tendency to find acceptance. There the roles and responsibilities of the community to help one another come into play. By creating small circles within the larger community that disconnects from the whole or that even takes over the core of the group's leadership the environment's created where chaos can reign. "Friendly chaos" is a fact of life, Deliberate and structured conflict in a community is harmful. IMO.That groups of people did things, hid them, lied about them and tried to justify them speaks for itself and the results we now can see plainly.

"I'M just saying that he could STILL do the things that a church leader can do. He delegated a lot of responsibility to others. God covered for him as long as He did. People got hurt, but people got blessed, too. Not just me. The big gray area here is that God is not obligated to reveal to us mortals exactly how he metes out justice for every jot and tittle of anybody's life...in this world...in that which is to come." On this I doubt the discussion will end here and now. I think God's revealed quite a bit about justice, how it works and what to expect. What we don't know is what we don't know, as they say and for those things out of our providence and jurisdiction we can ponder and do our best to understand and act accordingly but ultimately we must say "Thy will be done" when we face God in our most private and personal heart of hearts. For the wrong we have done there will be many to bear witness of why any one of us deserve no less than oblivion. That side of the jury's stacked against me and if we look around hard enough, most of us and they're not suggesting we get a free ride on the Glory Train of Gold Streets. Find your worst enemy and get a report, if you don't believe me. Some of us more so than others. In the end if there's no one else to stand for you, give 'em name. I'll give it my best shot. But I'm sure they'll be someone to explain why I'm not worth the time it would take to forget me.

An aside of sorts - Determining "moral superiority" or inferiority is a fact of life. Moral interpretation(s) is what all people do. Christians (and an early quote of the Way) go to the Bible for issues of "faith and practice". The practice is where the moral determinations come in, of course. Sooooo - it's interesting to me (and others I'm sure) that we have the religious terrain we live in - All Christians have basic tenets they accept - and the Bible as a source for inspired instruction is globally accepted I'd say. But - there are many interpretations of what the Bible says and means. As the basis for Christian faith then, if there are different interpretations of certain parts it follows logically that there - could - be different applications of those things - "morals", where people disagree on the correct practice and application - their morals. . I'd say "could" because it wouldn't always be the case I'd think but looking generically at it, there certainly could be. Are all morals right then? One would say of another - no. That would go back to the different interpretations and understanding I think. If the Bible was the source material and it said "Don't lie", I'd come to a very broad judgment that lying is wrong "morally". There may be instances of lying where we might judge and say it's accepted as necessary, the only alternative, allowable, okay in this or that circumstance, but if the rule is don't lie the correct application of that is always going to be the same and the moral judgment always the same. Does God care about these morals? If Jesus Christ is any example, yes and very much so. Jesus took the Torah to it's roots, so say His followers today. There are laws, rules, instructions. He characteristically illuminated and expounded on what those were, really meant and what they looked like in practice. So in Jesus I believe is the best example of how to be "morally superior" because He clearly held his own evaluation and judgment above those of other lesser scope. Course not everyone always agrees on what He said and what it means and how to apply it - so I guess that goes back to square one. Personally I believe that as "the spirit teaches", the answers come. That's why I think it's good for me to remain open and honest when hearing others out, or at least trying to see what they have to contribute. But if it were as simple "lie/don't lie" I think the answer would be plain.

Sad. Bad. Can anyone say "teleprompter"? Call me Old Skool - the Anthem should be sung straight, end to end, as is, with no adjustment to the original melody. All the singers who fool with it only make fools of themselves. Maybe the people who plan these Sports events will wake up and smell the expresso - they need to get an agreement up front, sing it straight and sing it right. I mean - come on - a player got penalized for what was it - over celebrating - after making a touchdown....?....and they stand for yet another Anthem mauling when she can't even keep it together enough to get the words out correctly? It deserved an "F" for fa-fa-fa-failed regardless of the ya-ya's she threw in to successfully generate enough hot air to float a boat. That deserves at least a couple laps around the track after practice.. We'll all live to swaller some more Pepsi but...that was nasty.

The mighty mighty 80's. When videos were videos. Laid Back provide best practices for recreational amusments. <br> <br> Forget the white pony though - those who know ride the Dragonfly.........for big fun. <br> <br> <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/I8j2ej5jqQw?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Heard this on the radi-are this morning and realized how long it had been since I'd heard this band. Cool tune. I think it's Tim Lincecum on guitar. <br> <br> <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cXWbMu4PtpE?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I don't like everyone this guy did but this song captures a kind of timeless feel that's very satisfying, like a drop of dew falling that never falls. <br> "My love runs leaf and vine, to the woman of the world".... <br> <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UNMUdV5IzAc?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

What's DTA stand for? Groovey hippeez? Lesee, when was that, late '60's? Early 70's? That's a loooong time ago, seems like now. Long time. A go.

"returned with Joy"........... Emergencies - great example. Earning trust - right on. That works both ways doesn't it? It doesn't work if the person saying it demands you give it unearned while they expect YOU to earn it from them. Or vice versa which is the same thing I guess, from different sides. In life many things are breakable, most things I would say. Unbroken until....they break. And they do and they will. Not everything but I think finding out what will and won't is necessary to succeed on any level. Trust is an ongoing effort when it comes to building it. Part of the build is dealing with breakdowns, failures, misunderstandings, clear understandings. How do we do that, react, respond ourselves? What are the processes we use to continue? When do we stop? Therein lies the crux of the biscuit, methinks.

As the old saying goes - "You have to learn to laugh at yourself. You might as well - everyone else is".

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kxvuPX17ROo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Bump. Was this some deep dark initiation, with deep dank meaning, conscious or subconsciously calling out the spirit-za's from their shallow graves to light upon the innocent and brand their psyche's with the sign of the soybean so that it could be left to lie dormant and silent, the evil seed, till called upon to sprout and provide identification into the Sanctum Satanus De Olectum Mi Orifice? Or at the least stirring the pot again and again to see what bits of ancient detritus can be brought to the top for perusal if yet now providing some form of the past in these final fleeting moments? It was a stupid joke. Wasn't it?

That's the one. The Fillmore opened on Fillmore and Geary and moved to the Carousel Ballroom later, around 1968. That's the S Van Ness and Market spot. It's at the Geary and Fillmore spot now. Grew up in the Bay Area and moved away in late '72. Been to a few concerts there of late since we moved back north in '89, about an hour north of S.F. Went to many many at both of them, years ago. My neighbor worked for Graham Productions for years and worked on the reopening there, opened the American Music hall, few other places for them. Nice family. Fillmore's a nice place, although today everyone stands up for the concerts, and seating's around the side or upstairs. "Used to be" everyone sat on the floor. Not so much anymore. It's still got the same tight stairway up and down to get in and out. Smaller than it seemed way back when. Nice place overall but kinda tight. The original spot was similar but seemed roomier. I've only seen the GD 3 times. I jammed around years ago couple times with Hart, around the second year the Dead were together. The organist in the band I was in at the time knew him Not to pop any bubbles but....he was just okay even then. I'm just not a Dead fan, past their first couple albums maybe but I know you are, have some friends who are, so hey. Kreutzmann's the best thing to hit the Dead IMO, but I never had any contact with any of them for the most part. That same band played a couple "street" dances in the last 60's, in SF and they were on the bill along with a lot of other band. We had contacts with the Synanon organization which was (supposedly) a drug and alcohol rehablilitation kind of program and I think we brushed paths with them at one of their events. It was a great place to get lots of both but not much rehabilitation that I recall. Did a Halloween party for some of their people in Berkeley around 1968 if memory serves and it was one of the most truly strange events I've ever been a part of. Lots of things "available" one might say, and would be a weekend to remember if I could remember more of it. :) I'm glad you did well. Good for you!

Maybe there's a Yelling Spirit, or some gene of spiritual DNA that forms the basis for it so that when mutated, a quiet heart and humble mind to work turns....loud. I jest. I would think the Devil himself would say "SHUDDDDUP!" at some point after an hour of LCM in the Lunch room. Missed all of that, thankfully. I bet a lot of people got good at "gotta go!" back then, eager to get back to work. Inspirational, in it's own way I guess. I guess such a topic as anyone being "good" is bound to cover a lot of ground. Spirit-za with fries - easy on the catch up! Colon cleanse next? Now THAT was bad. My colon still wants flowers every year and a card for that one. But yeah - "embrace the life we want to live." True, dat.

I see this kind of thing in music a lot, too. Over the years I've played in a lot of different groups, bands, as an accompaniest, etc. etc. I've got a couple friends who play in very good local "cover" bands, one that does all Tom Petty music. I like his stuff, always have and it's fun to see these guys knock that stuff out. They keep pretty much to the original sound and add their own flavor to it. They're all great musicians and do other work outside that band but that's their bread and butter so to speak. It's a "clone" sound, they can't deviate too far from the original sounds and part of the challenge is to find those sounds and duplicate them and work with the arrangements. But the deal is, you can't do that and do it well without knowing a lot more than just that. Every musician has their influences and the foundation they've learned to become accomplished, whatever that music is. You can learn and study all kinds of different music and apply it back to your own stuff. But that's key - every musician eventually develops their "own" sound that's informed and built on what they've learned. But there's an old saying that working musicians have to apply and it goes "you play the gig you're on". If it's standards, don't crank up to 10 and do rock, lay back and play the parts. If it's a jazz trio, listen, think arrangements and how to mesh. If it's a blues band get down and bluesy, don't rip off into jazz-fusion land every turn around. It's all about context and keeping with the style and doing what needs to be done so the gig goes well. Do it well and you get calls. Do it badly, you get advice. Ignore it, you fail. To do your "own" stuff, you get people together and do that. If you're a jerk word gets around. A gig is a gig but if you have the choice you choose to work with the best people and musicians and balance the stress level out. Cooperation - music is all about people working together, individual effort, mutual support and being able to both follow direction, work with others and lead when that's your shot to do so. Nothing's worse than a showboat whose ego drives everyone else nuts except maybe a guy who won't help others. Everyone's had that tough gig, a first time out, or found themselves in over their head. Musician's tend to help each other along when they can. In general working musician's are pretty laid back and stand up about how they approach their work. You have to be - if you're undependable, can't make the music or the changes and are difficult to be around no one will want to work with you. To me that's all very much like life and work in general. There's ups and downs but you strive to hit a pace and keep it going, make friends, help others succeed and respect others. Steer clear of bad situations, know your limits, do your thing. :)

Cool topic Twinky. That's very stand up of your church to take that approach I must say. Good sign right off the bat. What I see in corporate America from my little perch- The statement "strong teams are not easy to run" is something I would agree with 200 per cent. I work with a group of people that are passionate, highly creative and motivated. There's often a lot of churn around the work we do and the reaction from those we work with and even for isn't always warm and fuzzy. Still, we do have successes and reward the high-profile train wreck failures too. If you tell someone to take chances you can't shoot them if they do and fail. So there's a lot of learning going on all the time. Easy no. Not. But kinda fun sometimes. The "team" models I use and am part of are less leadership oriented. The old sports oriented "win one for the Gipper" model is linear and too slow in any kind of highly competitive environment and you spend a lot of effort performing up the ladder/down the ladder processes. The leader/follower kinds of teams work for certain things and are good early on where an effort is new. Once there's some time and experience into it you almost always need to adjust and allow participants to grow and expand. Equitable, peer-to-peer teams is what I prefer to have and be part of. Project management is defined up front and the disciplines and requirements of the processes are worked through within the team, understood, adjusted if need be and agreed upon. Once that's ready there's less dependency on a single "leader" because basically everyone's leading the effort, everyone owns the outcomes and their part in it. Fast, flexible, focused. While I work in a professional environment there's no great devotion to formality and I like that. The environment's one where anyone can reach the CEO directly and have a discussion, make a point or suggestion and the means to do that are set up and available. LIkewise at all levels of the company, it's more peer to peer than it once was. It's a work in progress but there's been a lot of progress the last couple years and it's great to be a part of it. The church I attend when I do is somewhat similar. The pastor's the pastor but he's down to earth and accessible to those who participate. He's not the "Answer Guy" in that he doesn't appear to present himself as a know it all or particularly high on the spiritual-food-chain. That's why we go there when we do, it's reflected in the people and in what he does.

Matthew 5:27,28 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. The context of the lesson isn't the natural response between men and women and sexuality in general, it's in the context of adultery, and "lusting" after the married spouse of another. It appears in a series of lessons that are listed in chapter 5. Physical reactions, desires, all of that, develop over a lifetime. How we learn to look and view others is part of individual character. The processes we learn and use over a lifetime will develop into our own responses. The general topic of human sexuality is really a redirect here, perhaps a misdirect and has little to do with what Jesus is talking about. If the bible is being used as the standard then the instructions are clear and clarified even more based on what Jesus taught - adultery is a clear, simple and easy to understand violation of the relationship and committment of two adults. Jesus brings it into focus at an even more granular level. It's not the "looking/lusting" at [any} woman (or man) that Jesus is referring to. It's the married spouse of another. The definition of "lust" is fairly clear and fits into the context too. Saying that "we all do that" isn't an excuse or reasonable response. Jesus isn't addressing whether that's a common response of a man or woman, He's clarifying what "adultery" is. To go anywhere else with those verses is extraneous and unnecessary and it used to surprise me but no more, how convoluted discussions on that topic can become. People always make excuses. Jesus didn't, he drilled it down to the root problem - what a person thinks in their heart and want to do is the core of "adultery". I could apply that to other areas of life given the fact that the "heart" and what a person thinks and believes is what God looks at and sees - if "God is looking at the heart" and sees "adultery" - then ? The answer seems so simple and clear and it's hard to understand how people attempt to leverage God "looking on the heart" as a way to think that somehow God's going to not see what we really think, are, and want in life. That's the fabric of our relationship with God. And it adds layers of depth to what we then actually DO in life. It is a "religious" view, if Christianity and the teachings of Jesus Christ are your religion of choice. No Christian or follower of Jesus, so-called, can deny the simplicity of what those verses state. We may not like it, think it too strict, too difficult but if we ignore it we're missing one of the most basic consistent messages throughout all of Jesus' teachings. Chuck it here but not other places - we've then selectively sliced and diced the gospels into a new version. So it goes, I guess. Whatever went on between VPW and other women that weren't his wife was wrong, bad, against the teachings of Jesus Christ and the extrapolations that appear in the epistles' doctrine. It's not an issue of human sexuality or choice - we are the people we are and we make the choices we make. People make bad ones, develop bad habits, character traits, and pursue things that are wrong. Human behavior can fall into gradients of gray but the shades are defined by the black and white.

"really? doesn't the bible say that if you think a thing you've done the thing?" There's a couple of things that balance in that brainfixed IMO. You're absolutely correct, Jesus drove a hard bargain in teaching on this very topic. Therein is a consistent point in the gospels - a person's heart. A point to balance there is "not what goes into a man but what comes out", paraphrased. Everyone's exposed to thiings that are wrong. That comes to us. What we do with it is the issue. In the middle of that is our brains and how we think about it. There's a process there that will produce the actions we take and God, looking on the heart, sees what's important. . Jesus was forgiving and is painted in the gospels as very understanding of the human heart and psyche, yet when applying and interpreting the scriptures of the Torah (and the extrapolations of the day) he was far more strict and dare I say harsh than most people are today. Yet, he put that into a context of forgiveness, love, faith and human choice.

"I know full well that 50 years ago it was the other way around. There really were a lot of men who thought they should have full access sexually to any woman who caught their eye." It's all about context, johniam. The influence of the times and the culture of an era are one thing but we all know full well that The Way was purposefully redefining a culture based on a biblical premise and foundation. That's what everyone understood - -Casting aside "worldly" and religious traditions to favor an "accurate" understanding of what the bible stated regarding any and all aspects of life. -Putting it into practice in a family oriented, home based context where the culture would flourish. Think about it - the bible was supposed to be the source of direction and guidance and the source material for moral and ethical applications. VPW spent a great deal of time dealing with these very moral and ethical applications too, through meetings and informal settings. In a world of one's own making - The Way Nash - there aren't the constraints of society, there's no obligation to maintain a current mindset, like the one you're describing of "50 years ago". Whether that's true or not isn't really the issue - the issue is, whatever the cultural attitude of VPW towards women, it was one of his own making, choice and decision. He'd broken away from many of the traditional theological moorings of the times. If not the one you describe - you'd have to ask why? When he'd seemingly sacrificed so much by a refusal to toe the church-party line, well.... The answer's pretty obvious, I think. The real sidebar to this topic is if VPW had a specific understanding of male/female relationships from the bible that he used as a basic for his lifestyle. There's quite a few people today who say he did and that his moral and ethical development reflected that. The problem with documenting it is that in all the cases of the MEN involved that I know of - yes, those poor bashed menses - have never taken the opportunity to be really honest in their public discourse about their own path, what they were told, when, by whom, how they absorbed it and what they did specifically with it over the years they were in the Way. ODD ISN'T it - that the women involved have been the most open, often at personal expense yet THE MEN who were involved on the other side of the coin - kinda quiet. Maybe if there was an equal amount of honesty there'd be less bashing. I always get a kick when anyone complains about these kinds of discussions as being moral based and travesties - VPW's entire history on this topic was a moral one of his own making. In order to discuss it and evaluate it "moral" ground HAS to be covered. I don't shy away from that arena at all - it's a trick and a ruse to steer away from it as if it makes one some sort of self-righteous do-gooder with their nose in the air. Ain't that way in the real world, at all. I'd also agree with you geisha - this entire slice of this thread is really a non-issue. It doesn't explain anything or shed light. It's really a completely separate issue. Male/female bashing, inequities, unfair practices and general bad behavior - someone's always about to "clock" someone else and it's no surprise that it's often a man with a size and weight advantage over a woman. Frankly, I love to see and read when a woman with some dik head guy who's been whacking her for years trying to get 'er to get his beer faster turns around one day and flips that 2X4 back on him, shoves the beer can down his throat and walks out with her stuff. How's that for a bias?

Congrats dude. :) Way to go. "On the part where they say "how does the song go", she stands up and says, "How does the song go? They've been singing it for 5 minutes. They must still be on drugs"" ::biglaugh: I saw "Phil Lesh and Friends' a few years back on a double bill with John Mayer and I think they're still trying to remember not only how the songs go but what key they're in, how to start them, end them and what to do inbetween. :P Other than that, they're locked in.

I think both you WW and johniam may have covered this point but if not - There's a difference between the words "good" and "sin", and the context they're being used here. That context is - and if I'm wrong correct me please: good/bad sinless/sinful I don't believe that's a correct alignment, although those terms are used in the bible to describe a myriad of different things - they're similar but they aren't interchangeable and they don't mean the same thing as each other. The words sin and good don't describe the same type of thing. PFAL terminology would place the difference in how these terms are used in the bible as "standing" and "state". There's clearly a difference. Standing - sin/sinless (unsaved, saved, etc.) State - good/bad ( in , out of fellowship ) The term and meaning of the word "grace" applies to both of these too, as a sidenote, but not in the same ways. When we say "is someone good" the criteria has to be set in order to measure correctly. I could say "all are saved" but could not therefore say "all are good". Salvation in the N. T. is relational - people become children of God, "sons", and God is now a "father". All of the so-called righteousness, sanctification, and justification is IN Christ, by and through Christ.................... "Good" is a bad word for "saved" therefore. (I'm killin' myself!) The change of salvation is in the relationship. The "goodness" - ie in PFAL "sonship rights" aren't earned by behavior ("works") Therefore - "none are good" - of themselves in that that "goodness" doesn't produce the relationship salvation in Christ does. (All are "saved" in Christ). We know that from the bible - but that doesn't exclude a measurement of good/bad after that, other than that and/or outside of that. We are to change our behavior or respond "worthily" of His calling (as we see in the bible anyway, far be it from me to claim clarity around what God thinks beyond that) Too much of today's "theology" implies, even claims, that God just loves us like li'l coo bears no matter what we do. He does love consistently - but God being equal and just to all can't see everything all the same regardless. Thus "unconditional" love takes on new depth and meaning from that vantage point. Unconditional but not blind. Loving but not without care, concern or preference. Whether this differs from PFAL teaching or not I'll leave to others to decide, but i do believe that a lot of people still struggle with this out of fear that they will srode or degrade the doctrines of salvation by faith not works, grace, and love, etc. etc. It actually enhances those things and solves some bumps in the road morally and ethically that we're left with if we produce a theology where God excuses behavior and doesn't expect anything from us in our lifes efforts.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lY5i4-rWh44?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

The bass really does the deed. Song sttill takes the cake. <br> <br> <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKax7euEM5Q?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKax7euEM5Q?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKax7euEM5Q?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

The great Mike Finnegan with the Hahn Brotherhood, from way back when. <br> <br> <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EniHVI9FqJQ?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EniHVI9FqJQ?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EniHVI9FqJQ?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>