socks

So-C, There's no real argument over the speaking in tongues. We can argue about it I suppose but it's not of any real consequence to anyone else whether I or they or anyone does or doesn't. So why argue? Because someone else's card had to be punched that month to get someone else to manifest? We all grow up and if need be, away from the influences that inhibit growth, for ourselves. If it's just thought and inclination it doesn't require the Thought Police to make a sweep and keep everyone else from the privacy of their own choices, which are in fact their own choices. If it's an act of worship and prayer, desecration without cause might produce some surprise results. Wassup johhiam? :)

You need mercenaries, guns for hire. Hire Assasin Ants. Seriously, I had snails get into my aquarium tank via some transfers I did, not more than a couple. Several weeks went by and there were 100's. There are several trap methods I tried, and they worked fairly well ... thae the Shop I go to suggested I buy some Assasin Snails. They eat the smaller breed I have. Aside from the late night skirmishes and constant negotiations for more money, it's gone well. They're expensive but deadly effective, and no citizens have been harmed in the process.

"I know you better than you do, I know the Christ in you." An odd statement to be sure and one that has no theological basis.It would depend somewhat on the assertiion being discussed but overall not meaningful. Phil. 1: 6 states (Amplified Bible) "6And I am convinced and sure of this very thing, that He Who began a good work in you will continue until the day of Jesus Christ , developing [that good work] and perfecting and bringing it to full completion in you. The primary relationship for a Christian is with God, through Christ. More than a euphimism the two relationships create, enable and offer a fairly simple methodology for each person to "work out their own salvation" in their own lives and that identity that's produced by the "good work" and to be fully completed is unique to each individual. We don't all become the same thing, we can't. Unique individuality is necessary - man, "made in the image of God" can have the nature, the will (limited) and the ability to choose, as God does. From the Bible it's clear that freedom of "will", that is to choose independently of another, isn't inherent in all of creation. To know the "Christ in me" is to know me, in the here and now. There is no "Christ in" floating around to be known or understood outside of it's frame of reference and context which is the "me", or you, etc. Unique individuality and consciousness is so basic that it's frequently denigrated, as in the "real you" syndrome reflected in Lynn's earlier teachings with a lot of prattle around the "old man" and the "old you", losing the significance of "you", to God.

No problema exnosh. I dunno - seeing these really old threads pop up is kinda funny, I couldn't remember if I, socks, had denied the many here the kind of scintillating enlightenment that even a few words from me, socks, would provide. Rather than risk such a thing I posted. But it's kinda like eating your own fingernails the way these things come back up. The whole thing "glossalalia"? Oh no, not in my opinion or experience. Like I wrote (and I'm sure many a good Wayfer or perfectly good ex-Wayfer would disagrree with that too so I don't expect to build much of a congregation talking about this stuff) many do something that I can't say what it is exactly but my sense, my "feeling" my deep inner yarn tells me it isn't actually a manifestation or product of a spiritual reality. It's perfectly serviceable something or other but not the product of what we used to call and still might, "pneuma hagion". Sort of. I can't give a short synopsis of what I believe "SIT" is and what's going on when a person does it but I don't feel it's completely man's "soul life" as we used to call it or God's spirit driven but rather a combination of both. There isn't a whole lot in the Bible about it anyway but there is a lot about the various unusual and miraculous events that occurred to many different kinds of people including the non-Israelite "Gentile", the "Jew" as well as the followers of Jesus Christ later in the book of Acts. I think it's a good idea to read the Bible and give it some time to think about it, ponder it, see what happens as the information is thought about, considered, checked, studied and again mostly considering it's meaning. Personally I do speak in tongues. Not all the time but with regularity, every day at various times. I do without stopping whatever else I'm thinking about, seemingly. I don't have a clear measurement for it but it seems like if I am and continue I can talk while continuing. Lemmee see... Why, it appears that yes, that's what happens. Dunno, I don't always do it but there will be times when it seems to be the thing to do and I wouldn't not want to do it or prevent myself from uh, doing it.

"Replying to did you ever hear wierwille speaking in tongues and/or interpret ?" As a matter of fact yes, on many occasions. I first met VP when he came out to Caifornia the second time way back when, in Mill Valley. That would have been sometime in late '68 or some time in '69, I forget. He had several meetings, etc. Then later he came out for an "Advanced Class" , then somewhere later the West Coast run of the "Way Presents" meetings and mini-concerts. I was around him in some meetings and some smaller one and two-to-one discussions throughout that time period. As most of you know I was in Joyful Noise from it's inception then and on the Way Prod staff at the Way Nash till 1980 and was around him quite a bit when we travelled, in our concerts and other kinds of meetings. He spoke in tongues and interpreted on many occasions over those years, as well as prophesied. I would disagree that he never did or only did in PFAL. He didn't at every meeting however or every instance where there ws what was called a "believer's meeting". As to the "sound" of it, there was a common sound and I'd agree that the words quoted throughout this thread were commonly used by him but weren't the only ones. I think because they were picked up on by a lot of people from PFAL and different teaching series they circulated that way. Once I heard him speak in tongues in a completely different sounding set of words, others time would sound similar but not always identical. Overall there was a similar sound, yes. I'm sure many people must have asked him over the years "why does it often sound exactly the same" in regards to words and pronunciation. I did. He answered "I don't know, I just believe that if a person keeps believing they'll do it". In that discussion I got the impression he wasn't focused on whether or not it was legit, as there wouldn't be a specific way to tell, without God revealing it and that might not always happen. My own conclusion over the years has been that while many people try to "do it" they really don't all the time or every time. Many of the posters on GS have given testimony to that fact as many have said they themselves "faked it" or did something or other to get by in the absence of what they were told "should" be happening. It's obviously possible for someone to mimic the process and sound and produce a reasonable sounding result. It wouldn't surprise me that others wouldn't always know that as there isn't a clear way to tell by the sounds only. Many times over the years visiting home fellowships I would hear people and "know" that it wasn't completely right, whatever they did. I'm not a believer in the "excellor" sessions as I feel those can actually contribute to a false process and result. I would just talk to the people and encourage them generally and "build them up" as we used to say. I feel that the faked or nervously spoken whatever stuff was a result of feeling pressured or unsure about themselves. There was a lot of pressure at times from others to "do it do it do it" and that usually started at the end of PFAL in the 12th session and continued. But within a few years I learned that the best route to take was to let others move forward on it at their own pace, while expecting that it was a normal part of what a Christian could do. That could be difficult to navigate as not everyone agreed that was acc'rit.

Krs, I've worked in the insurance industry for over 20 years now and I would say today that life is all about managing risk. I live in a "safe zone" of my own activities but you're absolutely right IMO - managing exposure to "the other guy" is a lot of what's involved in living a safe, sane life. I don't worry about it but I'm about as cautious as I can be. "A man's got to know his limitations" in the words of Harry Callahan and I know mine. I also have a good feel for human nature, as best I can and I'm always aware that there are a 1,000 things moving in the air around me that are constantly changing everything that seems to be "as it is". "Are the Chinese manufacturers of e-cigs as careful as this American company claims to be? " Timing is everything Linda. Ruyan is the big manufacturer, Chinese. Quality control? Dunno, your point is sound I think, there's no direct control over the safety of the process, other than what they say they maintain. Pricing on the e-cig equipment is low for those made overseas. Those are: the battery, the atomizer and the cartridge that holds the liquid. I've bought most of my e-cig hardware from overseas sources. They either work or they don't. I haven't had any bad units come in. (ad the instructions are always fun to read in English) I buy the liquid from American makers and mix my own strength. Ive also tried making my own liquid from scratch which takes some time but can be done with accessible materials and a little time. What happens upon ignition is the issue, with an e-cig as with a traditional tobacco cigarette. You're delivering small doses of nicotine into your lungs via a very fine atomized "mist" that's much like smoke. It's not the same of course but once tried there's a whole new level of smooth satisfaction that I like. It's quick, no muss, no fuss. What's exhaled is diffused into the air and there's nearly no second hand product. When I was a kid I had a long period of using the 3 'drines - benzedrine, dexadrine and methadrine. In memory I can tell you there was nothing like that flash of white light that meth delivered. I felt it way too many times and am thankful that I separated from drugs young. (Our God be praised, always). For a smoker there's a moment of aaaaah that comes with that hit of 'backy. In a way there's nothing quite like it if you're a long time user. I found that over the course of a year I came to distance myself from it sufficiently that I found even smoking tobacco, the full bore need drifted away in it's own time. It's a matter of choice and it's nice to know that now, there is a choice like this. The list of commonly used ingredients in e-cig liquid: http://www.e-cigaret...ngredients.html Average tobacco cigarette http://quitsmoking.a...ingredients.htm\ Some good reading. :)

Ingredients do need to be known Linda, no question there. Prohibition is on a state level Twinky, with some fedearl intervention in relation to funded program participation, although most states have some form of local or state level prohibition in place for public smoking. In actual "public", that is the free range kind of thing, it's a toss up based on who and what you're near. (IMO), public buildings, etc. Propylene glycol and vegetable glycol are the ingredients most commonly given as "unsafe" in the e-cig liquid. Ethylene and diethelene g are also used in some of the liquids and these should be a concern. In the tiny doses used, there's a very small threat exposure - but smoking being what it is, it's a concern that should be considered. The actual technology of the e-cig vaporization of any liquid is a minor minor concern. The liquid - I mix my own from ingredients I buy, so I maintain as much control over it as I can. A lot of e-cig users do that, but not all for sure. Rewind back to the 60;s abd 70's and the early healfh food marketing movement to the public - some foods like certain ice cream brands were said to be made with the same materials as anti-freeze and jet fuel. PG is the ingredient at the base of that claim then and now with e-cig's. I did some due dligence on all the ingredients of the products I bought and that one item always spiked in the negative reporting. (not to ignore the nicotine, which is an issue in and of itself of course) PG and VG are both used in 1,000's of things we consume and use everyday that are commcercially sold. PG in lay language maintains "wetness" - keeps wet things wet for longer periods of time. VG - I bought a bottle at my local "health food" store and use it in my own liquid bases I'm smoking. It's a very benign chemical and PG in the doses used in e-cig liquid is too. Still - there are questions and concerns. There should be. There's research done that's available and although the bulk of the early stuff was done by one of the manufacturers, it's still information and the data can be cross referenced and validated in most cases, good or bad. Overall however I am absolutely convinced that as an alternative to smoking this is dramatically safer than tobacco smoked directly. "healthier" is a bad word for many things that get described as that - walking can be healthier than sitting in a car riding, but walking I can trip, fall, get hit, etc. etc. etc. Most things have a range of effects that include risk. Managing risk is what we have to do all the time. I'm a geek so I don't mind doing this stuff. For the person who doesn't want to that has concerns that they can't resolve, they're right to avoid it pending further information. Informed decisions are always good.

Well, on the saga of the songs.... If you do a simple search online for that person's youtube username, with either ot fhe titles of the songs and start scanning around different ways, you get quite a few results, as the person has music on many hosting sites. That's cool, and that's one of the great uses of the 'net. There's quite a few places. It appears that most of the results that reference either title no longer have the videos showing (if they or the music was ever there, which could be discovered too, but it seems to be a non-issue now). A side note to the side bar of the derail - one of the file references on a page was in MP4 format, meaning it was a fairly recent file creation, Post MP3 anyway. : ) So there's been activity in the last few years, overall. Search engine crawlers run constantly and will have read page titles, word content on the page and meta tags and will have indexed their results. So the results will show until the S.O.'s crawl over the pages again and will show up in the descriptions of your search results until then, even if the content's been removed. So it will go away at some point, could take up to several weeks, maybe less. (all references in the page and code have to be scrubbed or there will likely be some that are crawled and stick). Anyhoo....

Right on!

HI CJ. I was at that Heartbeat, and the Seattle HB too, that year. I believe that year Good Seed played - ? if I'm remembering correctly, JN was out and about on field assignments that year and we were in California for the year. I don't have that, sorry. Perhaps Ted or another will. Yeah Ted, I can't really understand where that woman's coming from on this. Off her rocker is right. I had to crack up seeing her facebook page and all the songs by Bob Dylan and others that she notes as "covers", giving the original artist full credit. Yet, she stole - er-borrowed two "Christian" songs from others and put her name on them, thinking she'd get away with it. Maybe we need a verse that goes "and be especially bad to anyone who's a Christian when you don't think anyone's looking".

Sidenote to the sidebar... Well well....thought I'd poke back in on that site and she appears to have removed that comment now. It was there last night, late and now, well, it's gone. People are so....interesting, no? :excl:

Dean's got a current version of it around chockful and those look right. The lines "In my eyes" turn around the person, "In your eyes" I believe on one of the choruses, but that's basically it. Thanks. I've got a copy of the original lyrics around in what was then the Way Prod lyric binder, I'll pull it out next week and check. Sidebar: The person in the video's taken both songs down now and does claim to have written both and given them to the Way ministry when she was younger, and also claims to have lost a "suit" against the Way over the song "He Gave Me Love". She also claims that she can't remember if the Way "used it", the song He Gave Me Love, which is a tad goofy as you wouldn't bring claim on a song and lose a suit over ownership of it if there was no use of it being challenged by either side. So I guess memory being what it is, hers is somewhat....challenged. Frankly if it were me, and I'd actually written the songs...I'd just say F off, don't like it? bring it on. But that's just me. The idea of having written similar songs, lyrically and musically, isn't entirely impossible and that's a subject that gets a lot of scrutiny and review whenever copyright issues are being looked at. But this story's not that. She claims to have written and given them to the Way and even challenged the Way over ownership of one and lost. I thought to drop her a line and try to get details and see what else she "remembers" but I'd rather not hassle someone who seems to have done the honorable thing, albeit with a poke or two to that effect and a story that doesn't stack right. But so it goes. :)

"Forgiveness before anything even happens. It's already a decision made to live like that. And not as an excuse to do wrong or let ourselves be wronged, not anything like that." Profound, cman.

The woman in the video didn't write the songs. To me the words are a personal prayer, and always have been. They're like a single, small voice singing the simple truth to anyone, no one, doesn't matter who hears it or if anyone ever does, and the words don't rely on anyone else believing them to be true. They're the truth for the person singing it, with no great claim to a victory earned but rather a life realized through the eyes and love of another, God and His most personal expression Jesus Christ, His Son - Who loved the worst sinner, healed the most sick and touched the untouchable. The depth of meaning might be less to anyone who hasn't seen the world looking up from the bottom, empty, alone and as gone as yesterday and even more forgotten - if only for a moment. When you come to the point where you can see the Darkness and welcome it as a friend come to finally be with you when no one else will - salvation is more than a word, a concept or even an impossible dream. It's life, the ultimate chance to wake up another day and for the first time in a long time feel like it's going to be the first of many good ones. I thought my life wasn't worth, the pains of my birth But oh the price He paid for me... In my eyes I was nothing to no one But in God's eyes I reigned supreme. Then I found I was worth more than all the treasures on earth, To God, I'm worth everything. You are. We are. If we treated each other like that more and less like a mistake, an inconvenience to be avoided, life would be much better for everyone. Speaking from experience it's possible and it's a good thing. And that's a great song.

Good job kiddo. Your gift has found suitable lodging! And I agree completely with the content of your "testimony", both the sentiment and the foundation for it. Forgiveness is indeed a part of a way of life, the Way of Jesus Christ, and that way is both narrow and direct. Your expression of this is worth more eyes on it. Mind if I pass it on, as is, when appropriate?

Their physical demeanor is so at odds with the jolly bouciness of the songs. As also is the jolly bounciness of whoever is conducting the singers. Traditional church choirs would never perform these kinds of songs (although choirs doing this is done more in modern settings). It's kind of a blend of a community or school choir performance style, mixed into a church choir setting. They have an odd kind of feeling due to the reason you state - Twink, it's a choir and that's what choirs do - stand and sing. :) ...it's odd in much the same way that a school choir can sound kind of cheesey doing a juiced up version of a pop song. Or the cabaret kind of stuff where you go to a restaurant wanting to eat dinner and for some reason feel that having the wait staff suddenly throw a napkin over the shoulder and breaking into song is a good thing. One of the absolute best uses of large group singing I've ever heard is Hillsongs, out of Australia. They're kind of a modern pop sound mixed with some traditional elements, and singing really well crafted and dare I say inspired songs. American Gospel music (I'm thinking Black American southern gospel and it's movement across the country) is another great example of where the music and the content successfully work for this choir style - in fact that is probably one of a very few real original products we have in the religious world of music but that also goes for American music in general) To add: the look of all those round happy faces with outstretched lips reaching out in song like so many fed hatchlings poking up from the nest while chirping in unison is so...so...well, put it this way: their site carefully depicts a limited range of racial diversity, yet if I look at their "fellowship" photo, they're all sitting up and posing much like these singers, in regimented position, arms in place, backs straight, heads up and mouths and eyes formed in an eery sameness, all dressed in their same Casually Elegant best, regardless of their race, culture, age or sex. In a word: phoney. At least one knows (or should) what one will get, going in: labored, choreographed, boring. Even their "outreach" photo looks like the couple's collecting for the United Way. Bottom line - performances are only as good as the song. Pop music is rife with examples contrary to that but at the essence of even the most banal and pedestrian "music" today is a "hook", a memorable line or melody. It's not something easily done, which accounts for the constant recycling and reuse of successful work. There's not much "original" music done or that even can be done when you think about it. Originality is usually accomplished by music from other cultures integrated into one's own and in fusions of styles. These songs aren't good for the most part, and it's not because they're "from the Way and the Way stinks" critiquing but rather for the kinds of reasons you note - the pairings of style are mismatched, the lyrics are forced exercises in communication (poetic only in that they occasionally rhyme) and the melodies aren't memorable. You won't find yourself humming any of these next week, after hearing them once. Or twice. Their value is very short lived - hear it once, think that was nice, clap and you're done, what's next. Music serves a much great purpose than that. Music reflects and speaks for the culture that expresses it. If this is of God I"d like to hear what else He's got in His portfolio. 'Nuff said. The deal with the jolly conductor - don't get me started. Well, I am I guess. I hate that kind of thing, one guy waving his elbows and arms frantically like that as if he's trying to shake ants out of his jacket is something to truly abhor IMO. Conductors do have a function but for this kind of music it's a complete waste and largely a matter of show although I couldn't think of a single reason why it would be desirable. Less show and more go on the part of the performers would be preferable.

One of the stupidest things that I ever heard regarding debt was when the Way Corps branch (or maybe Limb) leader told my son that he was in debt because he was going to have to pay the IRS at tax time rather than getting a refund (he worked several low-paying part-time jobs - anyone whose been in that position knows that it often causes you to have to pay rather than get a refund) - while just a year earlier Howard Allen stood up at the ROA and said that you should strive break even or pay in a little and not try to get a big refund since refund are generally just your own money being returned to you after the government used it interest-free all year. Exactly. That's terrible advice your son was given, their usual nit picking over a gnat's definition of "debt" versus simple, common sense. If you end up owing some, you just pay it. It's idiocy to plan on paying in anymore than you expect to owe for the very reason HA gave. Everyone knows that. It's kinda nice to get a refund check but it's bad money management to pay any substantial amount over what you calculate to owe over a year's time, knowing that's your money and you won't be able to use it for an entire year until it's released by the IRS. Tax "debt" is calculated at the end of a calendar year . All you do through withholding deductions in a paycheck is estimate the total tax amount owed based on gross income in that check. Tax liability is calculated based on many other factors not directly represented in that check and that are calculated from an entire year of living. If a person took that same "refund" money, say 100 bucks a month, and at the minimum put it into a savings account and gained some interest on it and had it available to pay an outstanding amount at filing, they'd at least have use of their money. The Way's geniuses should be avoided at all costs.

Yeah, financial realities and relationships is what it boiled down to waysider. Many of the reasonings developed out of need - want to do this/I'd like to do this - how to finance it then. Most were younger people, early 20's at the oldest and relationships in the Way in the 70's were young and new too, by nature of the growth. The program cost money, some financing had to occur. And as a sidenote, I'm sure there are many who never completely paid in full by the end of the program and were signed off anyway, the Way Inc. picking up the tab.

unless you were paying your own way through the Corps. I don't think you were allowed to pay your own way through the corps, at least not in the 1970s You were always able to pay your own way, through the 1970's.

That's very true Broken Arrow and I agree completely. We are not a police state by definition, nor do I subscribe to or believe that we are now or have been in the recent past. I'm not a "conspiracy" theorist and am not to the extreme right/conservative view in making the statement I did. (just to clarify). But - we are far closer than we, we being the average law abiding citizen, think we are IMO. And it is similar to what Romans 13 describes although in a very different setting. "The Rule of Law" - a simple disposition of what it is and how it relates in the U.S. is on wikipedia. To the average person "law" doesn't pose a threat, one might say. Law sets forth an order for the common good. Those who live reasonably - again, one might say - live by the "law" have no conflicts. Yet, we do see many instances where laws are broken and there is cause - wikipedia lightly covers "conflict with natural law" on that topic. On average "most" people don't encounter these conflicts - we think. However we actually do much more than we probably recognize and in those instances where there is no harm done, no foul is called and no law is enforced. Order on an intimate scale continues without significant disruption and life goes on. (A simple example is the laws on vehicle speed - posted speed limits always apply, yet are are required by law (and logically) to not drive at a speed that would be unsafe be it slow or fast. Therefore I can be cited for driving over a speed limit, even where there's no apparent or immediate possibility of harm being done. However if I get where I'm going and don't encounter law enforcement - no ticket. "Traffic" law is constantly broken in the interests of people getting where they're going - but the laws are piling up - seat belt laws, cell phone laws - all with good cause but there are more and more opportunities where people can find themselves at odds with the law and at that point of encounter the clock starts....) Romans describes that authorities aren't a threat to those who don't break the law, more or less is how I understand it. When and where a person finds themselves at conflict with the authority as it's been set forth in law, the law is enforced by the authorities that enforce it. We are always one thin slice away from that reality. Once a person finds themselves in that position they had indeed better find a good lawyer as the justice system in our country is so clogged it doesn't offer much by way of public defense to the person who would rely solely on it - those tax paying citizens who for whatever reasons may find themselves engulfed in the process and in need. Where this becomes important is that in any instance where there is a perceived real threat requiring immediate action by law enforcement all citizens are required and expected to comply. We should - however that very scenario could put the average person in harms way if they don't completely understand that and even if they do, it can be difficult to fine one's way through a chaotic situation. I see Romans instruction much the way we've discussed it here - sunesis put it "keep your head down" or something similar. That's what it amounts to on a practical level I believe - don't be out and about at times of high risk, late at night, in places or circumstance where problems can arise, as much as possible. Don't break laws or challenge authority simply because you can. Say "yes sir" and "here it is ma'am" when and if confronted, assume a certain level of doubt and accusation comes with the territory if you find yourself in it and don't challenge authority or rebel against enforcement even if you are not in the wrong - if you do, you may end up "on the wrong side of the law" and not even know it.

Don't worry, if you're not planning to get married you aren't expected to get engaged. "Make" - meaning citizenship has requirements and opportunities. A citizen engaged in the process of governance has a shot at fulfilling the original premise, "by the people, for the people". Anyone that doesn't can still be a citizen and enjoy or complain or remain silent and unaccounted for. It's our choice."Minimum expecation" might be better to describe it but no, no one's going to make you or anyone else get involved. It would be UnAmerican. ... the "police" state. We have laws, laws we obey and if we do, we expect to live freely and unhindered. Scenario - cop stops you on the road and pulls you over, asks for identification. You ask why? He says, please, I'd like to see your identification, reg, insurance papers, you were weaving a little back there, sir. You say Huh? No, you weren't. Actually you're being pulled over because it's after 1:00 pm, bars close at 2-ish or so and you're on a road where police monitor traffic closely - weave or no weave. You are required to provide the identifcation as requested, or you can be cited and even taken into custody if they feel your behavior or lack of it warrants it. Similar scenario - "probable cause" - you look like someone else or are in the wrong place wrong time or simply are the object of a policeman's observation. You are required by law to obey the instructions of the policeman. This applies in many situations if you live in a city or near one. I live in a relatively rural area near a mid-sized town. Over the years I've been told of many isntances, and have experienced it myself. Overall law enforcement is amp'd up by risk and crime, to the point that it makes these situations extremely difficult to deal with for them - the net result however is the same. We have laws, law enforcement - enforces

Good examples. "...the unjust..." "Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust' Is the message to be subject to unjust masters? No - the message is to be subject to masters and respectful. In a society where the servant/slave/master relationship is legal and a way of life, what is a person in that situation supposed to do? Rebellion is an option. Compliance is an option. Across the board the bible teaches clearly that a person should be considerate, respectful, loving to all. "As much as is in you". As best a person can. So when does one not be respectful and act against another? I don't expect the bible to tell me everything to do. It's just not going to do that. Do you have a "master"? Are you a slave? Maybe it's not addressed to you or I. (a principle that wasn't invented in PFAL and shouldn't be ignored simply because it was). Today I might say be respectful to employers and respect them, when they're profitable and fair and even when they're not. Doesn't mean I have to work for them, or if they're unfair or illegal that I wouldn't act on that knowledge. For those how need bible verses for that there are plenty that would encourage honesty, etc. as well as taking action. Another personal observation not to you ss but just a standard rant - in America today many people act like we're free to do any d-m-d thing we want and should be celebrated for it, if not actually rewarded. That's b-s and the product of a lazy, mismanaged couple generations of swine living off the sweat and labor of those who came before them and is producing the moral squalor and chaos we see around us. The world doesn't work that way, we get what we work for, pay for and deserve. Anything above and beyond that, including health and long life is a gift to be enjoyed, the fruit of grace or labor but not to be expected as something that others should provide to us because we were born and we're going to sue someone if we don't get what we like delivered to us the way we like it. That our society tries to help one another is an indication of our prosperity and success. We can't, we shouldn't "make" each other do anything other than get to work and get engaged. You can be as anti-authority as you want, you've got company there. (me included). That IMO isn't ever a problem. Authority as I see it today is highly overated. American politics? No decent person will endure the degradation known as "running for office" and those that give it a go show the scars. The swine that make a career out of living off my money can't do anything but p--s on each other while their constituents hunt for someone who at the least sounds like they give a ratz azz about doing their job. I still recognize though that I live in a police state in the U.S and there are limits to "freedom", it's not me free to do anything - well, it is but I might not last long. I would be the best looking martyr around though, that's for sure.

It's a fun ride for sure. :) Another area that might be interesting to peruse is a comparison of the N.T. epistle's doctrinal points to the gospel records, and the teachings of Jesus Christ in this area. Right off the bat you have the pay taxes? question to Jesus and His response. Compared to this section here, and others like Peter. The writer of Romans never claims to have been taught by Jesus while alive on earth. Paul learned from those who had been and over time appears to have been on a learning curve, "revelation of Jesus Christ", time learning, studying, etc. That's the profile we get of the writer. Romans instructions are very similar to what Jesus taught in the gospels and we see (think it was in Luke, have to check) that Jesus and Peter actually did pay a tax that year on at least one occasion and it was handled privately. Jesus didn't promote an overthrow of Roman government and in fact when it came to taxes He was castigated for accepting "publicans' into His audience. Not to say He liked it or not, but He didn't suggest ripping them a new one. His focus was different. I also factor in that our form of government, "by the people for the people", checks and balances, 3 branches of government, elected officials, representation, etc. etc. etc........I imagine people then would have figured they were in tall cotton living as we do. Our government assumes individual involvement, participation and contribution in our own governance. It's not imposed upon us by force, it's "ours" to build, debate, negotiate and live based on the foundation of the uh, founding stuff. Much different than Romans and the early Christian church, the requirements and expectations of citizenship have different requirements and opportunities. So it's very reasonable to assume that our application of information from the bible would be different and would have it's own challenges and opportunities. (understatement).

The commentary says Peter is urging Christians to submit to all legitimate authorities, whether or not the persons excercising authority are believers. I would agree in principle. Many Christians today seem prone to look for "believers" as some kind of sanctified answer to leadership then act surprised and shocked when those same leaders fail them. No surprise there, it's part of the fabric of life. Knowing right and good doesn't make right or good It takes action and work and vigilance and requires agreement on clear standards, plus accountability and continual review. "Government", ongoing and continuous. There will be failures and others will let us down. We keep working till we die and do the best we can while we live is the way I see it. But there obviously came a point many times in history when the people decided to revolt. Did they think they were acting with God's blessing? People think all kinds of things. When something's wrong by how we reckon right it's reasonable to act to correct it. Where does that begin and Romans 13 end? Good question. Good will overcome evil but when we choose the lesser of two evils we still choose....evil. I don't believe the determinations religious PAC groups make are as "godly" as they think, nor that God is behind every scrimmage and pass we make. Few and far between are the clear and righteous decisions we make in life that will change the world with a single brush stroke. I see it as the 1,000's we make day in and day out, with the intent to do the best we can at any given time.

I would wonder, as to the original question - Is the question suggesting that conservative politics would pay no taxes, or not be subject to civil or govermental authority? (or Liberal or whatever the other labels are). Nothing in Romans 13 suggests that anyone is to ignore their moral convictions or duty in order to obey government. Romans 12 deals with areas of conduct, morals, behavior. How to treat others, how to deal with enemies and friend alike. "Saint and sinner". It's pretty simple stuff. 13 continues that theme. Romans 13 can't be leveraged to force someone to obey a government they believe is morally wrong, nor made to insist that a person rebel against it. To do that all of the other areas of the bible that offer instruction would have to be ignored. Ignoring context it's always easy to rally around a verse or two, attach deep personal and even universal meaning to it and insist that it is the Verse of the Day, the perfect piece for that moment, day, issue, and/or person. Your question is a good one soul search, nothing against you or your asking it. When I write "you" I mean "all youse" 13 offers no real set of standards of governance that would be able to stand alone and separate from other areas that give specific individual instruction - example: "Thou Shalt Not Have No Other Gods". Scenario - you have to pay local taxes and the City Council refuses any recognition of God, and fights against inclusion of religious concerns into local governing. They also do the work related to their jobs, the city's business etc. Response - do you not pay taxes? Because they're not "godly"? -can you be forced to pay taxes because Rom. 13 "says so"? -do you benefit from any of the services they do provide and the work they do perform? -can you be forced to pay more and more taxes, regardless of the local issues and needs, simply because Rom. 13 "says so"? -can you automatically ignore your tax debt and not pay it because you disagree on principle? There's no pat answer, or one that fits all cicrumstances is there? Each person has to follow their conscience, reasonably and as best they can, weighing the concerns against the best possible answer.