socks

The red herring - There are at least two different ways that "cults" can be defined. One includes doctrine as a qualifier, one doesn't. One has religious components, the other doesn't. It sounds like we're generally agreeing that unless the religious beliefs effect behavior in such a way that the individual is harmed it's not a reasonable means of defining what is or isn't a "cult". To me it's an intellectual exercise without much benefit once it's taken out of the religious context, and the religious context is ridiculous once I define any specific religion and compare that back to the cult definition that includes religious qualifiers, as all religions have those cultish qualities - to someone. What it really amounts to in that context is one religious view identifying key points that all others must comply with or be labeled "cult" and be avoided and considered dangerous. I don't see that as practical A person can have a life changing experience that leads them to pursue a specific vision for their life. That happens a lot. It's unique to them, important to them and affects their decisions as to what to do. I think it's simplest to look at each individual person and effort and evaluate that rather than slap labels on it like "cult". I recall a discussion where a person was making some points on the bible and a respondent cast them with several well known "evangelists", popular leaders of church ministries. This was a deragatory comment. The person took issue - they felt they had nothing in common with those people and took issue with being identified that way. Yet, this happens all the time amongst people - it's very difficult to speak and be heard without other's perceptions being put on you. Yet it persists, and "red flags" go up before full understanding has been achieved. Without dialogue we're stuck with what we know which may not be enough to really know anything. IMO the real key ingredient is the individual person, the citizen, the man or woman and their own freedom to choose "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". I steer clear of religious organizational identifications because it often impedes real communication. It's the old "I have a jack but I'm not going to help you"............I don't care if that person's Mormon, trinitarian or believes god is a one eyed dog. I just need the jack. If I won't help another along life's way without requiring their Religious Correctness Card be stamped and certified, that in my opinion, sucks and I won't have much basis upon which to engage that person in way that will make a real difference, good or bad.

An interesting and high profile example there waysider. A complete and brief sidebar - they typify the real concern I have about any belief structure, "right" or "wrong" and that is the character of the members and their ability and willingness to act upon their beliefs. Some people talk about what they believe, others live what they believe. The HA's. I won't attach my name to a discussion that includes their full name. Dirty Harry said it best - "a man's got know his limitations". I keep my world apart from that one, it's not for non-members. To a great extent I don't mix it up with people on religious issues either. As a citizen I celebrate our freedom of "religion". As a current resident of society I weight any real action against the reality that many people would take that freedom from me and impose their own version on me, violently if necessary. Any confrontation on any level has to consider the possible ramifications. Unfortunately I don't trust a lot of the loving followers of Mr. Jesus, today so I can be guarded around those who seek to advance "His" interests. . This topic needs to be discussed imo because there are many who believe that a cult is defined by whether the doctrine of The Trinity is accepted. I agree. And the issues once we leave the doctrinal piece out - religious freedom is protected in the U.S. - are clearer.

Me? In the vacuum of my own view, yes. :B) My point is that one man's normal is another's weird. Practically that isn't how the world works ultimately is my other point. Placing doctrinal requirements in a cult definition perfectly illustrates that - those requirements aren't meaningful in a non-religious context without going through some cause and effect contortions. "Cult" in a religious context is a rather nebulous and curious concept to begin with, also IMO. I have conditions I place on what's right and wrong, good/bad, acceptable and unacceptable. I would try to understand other's opinions and conditions but first and foremost would be the rule of law in my community, state and country, laws we all function by and observe. We all have to do that and by citizenship we accept that accountability and responsibility. In the U.S. we allow for differences in religious matters. "Cult" definitions with doctrinal specifics - trinity is one - don't apply and have no meaning outside the group's focus that insists on them. That's why I think that a religious definition for cult doesn't carry much sway in a non-religious context because no one else cares. But I do get how those inside that focus do care about it. Here's an example: When Jesus was brought before Pilate to be judged the Roman impression was that it was a religious concern of the group's, an internal problem to those complaining that wasn't governed by Roman law. It was sent to Herod for local jurisdiction and then back to Pilate. Again, if no Roman laws were broken no crime was committed. The fact that it could have led to a larger disturbance and caused problems by Roman law was a concern but we can see that would have been a problem manufactured by the group. Left alone, Jesus wasn't a problem to Rome. The crime of "treason" came to bear and ultimately the "crime" of preaching "the Kingdom of God" and the possibility that He was a "leader" of a rebellion against Rome was decalared but again - it was a stretch given substance only by the fact that the group complaining identified Jesus and His followers as a threat. Pilate ultimately gave in to the group pressure. It would be hard to imagine He felt the Roman empire was directly threatened by Jesus or His followers and since the brief records don't indicate that Jesus challenged him or Rome in their meeting Pilate would have had to conclude it as a non-issue. But he was crucified. That example is worth considering in detail when looking at "cult" definitions. Correctly identifying what's hmmm.....really going on.

I think the Trinity and other Biblical related beliefs may actually be the red herring in this discourse. Not really. Not when the Trinitarian doctrine particularly is considered a foundational pillar upon which valid faith relies. Cult definitions tend to place high value on the "charismatic leader" aspects of a group, special revelations, rituals and secrecy. A man or woman and the group that revolves around that personality. Many denominations have personalities, people that at one time formed it's early definitions. Christianity has Peter, Paul and a non-Christian could say Christ Himself who all meet the negative connotations of "cult leaders" and establish cult like behaviors and practices. Likewise an outsider's view of the RC Pope and Papal office even as it exists today. Yet the one single dividing line that can not be crossed is in Jesus Christ is defined. In that regard I don't see the blogger's list as unusual at all, in fact it's pretty standard. In a list of many qualities, if there was a Trinitarian view of Christ you could still have the accepted definition of a "cult" though I agree. The problem with the term "cult" is that it isn't meaningful. A "cult" isn't illegal or wrong or bad on face value. It might be out of the norm, socially "weird" and outside the "mainstream" but without specific reference to that individual group it has no real moral or ethical violations attached. Put another way, a crime isn't committed if no law is broken. Societies preferences aside.

The love booooat, exciting and newwww ewww.... I think where that article is very correct: (because I took stabs at what I disagreed with, I should note the agreement...) I'd restate it differently but it covers the same ground as Mssr Groucho: Within the Christian church are several functions that are high-visibility, at least we hear a lot about them- apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers and evangelists. Each requires some context to function within to validate them. I think a case can be made, biblically and logically, for that. I shrivel (figuratively speaking) at the idea that a historically validated stamp of approval is required because historically the only thing that seems to be validated by denominations is a tendency towards divisive rebellion and greed. Somebody else is always wrong and somebody's always getting paid and usually pretty well. But there has to be some sort of standards and guidelines to govern social behavior. The well being of the individual and by extension the group would be a primary concern I'd look for. Less the details of the doctrine and more the effort expended to promote health and well being amongst the membership. Interestingly - pastoring is one of functions that gets very clear line item qualifiers listed in the N.T. epistles. The others do too, but the type of person that should have that job is clearly delineated. A good pastor is one whose flock is healthy, cared for and tended to. Look at the flock, ask them about their pastor - you'll learn all you need to know about the shepherd.

I would agree also, it's a tri fecta! But still, the Methodists? Wrong. Always knew they were wrong.

I always knew something was wrong with them highway. Always knew.

Interesting. The Roman Catholic church is pretty much a major cult too, although it sounds like if I criticize them them I'm a cult-ee so it may be a no-win topic. They actually fit all of the criteria - if you're a trinitarian who doesn't accept the RC doctrine as developed through Thomas Aquinas and widely accepted as foundational to their theological premise. (then there's the fact that trying to get a finanacial report out of The Vatican on their world wide holdings, assets and income would be like trying to get the saw out of Noah's hand. Not to mention their uh.....expenses. ) But not to worry - I love RC's and have nothing bad to say about them. I like lying, dishonest, ped o philiac inclined, male dominated religions, run by men who will never marry in their lives and but who have the divine wisdom to advise everyone else on how to live their marriages and to have lots of babies that they can .... administer the sacraments too. I think that's just cool. There's a lot of water under Aguinas and lots and LOTS of detail on it that can be considered, although nearly everyone who makes statements like that of this blog make very very broad general "believe it or something's wrong" declarations. In fact many trinitarians who are members of "good" churches and are not RC's will openly condemn them as pagan and satanic. Or maybe they're really not so good, dunno. Guess it depends on how you view it. It kinda bugs me. I'm not a theologian, have no dedicated span of research or inquiry academically that makes me an expert on trinitarian history and doctrine. But I have studied it enough to be suspicious of anyone who says stuff like that blog. In all likelihood what they actually believe is a very simple and thin slice of trinitarian doctrine based on what they were evangelized with and that they really don't understand and couldn't put together more than a paragraph on, if asked to explain it in detail. "True" Christians and Trinitarians world wide will hound me for the infidel Hittite dog that I am and that I serve no purpose other than to deceive the faithful by suggest they don't know what they're talking about and that that's what faith's for. So be it. Arf. Arf.

Don't stop on my account, no indeed. The best thing I can advise and have advised is really just basic Stuff 101: review one's thinking to family, the blood relative kind. Review the social network one functions in and how it's prioritized. Review one's beliefs in light of what they really think is right as best as can be done. I know those in the Way right now, who are active participants, who completely recognize good/bad and have redirected their lives to accomodate their life's goals and desires, which do include pursuing fellowship and teaching from the Way when and how they choose to. For them it works. And they're great people too. I don't accept kicking at people forever simply because they don't choose to come to this website and participate. (that's not directed at you, just a general comment). GS is not the center of the universe, and in a truly "free" life one is free to choose the avenues they feel are best to live life. This board is good for expression and observation, and discussion to a lesser degree. You can only discuss something with those that are here and it's not practical to insist that everyone or anyone come here to do that nor I'd suspect is it right. So it works, as well as it works. Better some work than no work, so to speak. Just sayin' - idle observatin', 'sall. But for moi, I don't see any big comparison to the JW's, maybe some but my point was (point?? wassat!?) that the comparisons would be wide applied to many different groups or organizations. Many are similar to the JW's, in many categories. Far as I'm concerned the JW's are good to go as they are. Weird? - but compared....to what?

Agree, and I think that's the view of the e-cig market Krys. Did you experience any side effects with Chantix? I've heard some do, some don't and if it's right for someone it's very effective. There are risks with nicotine use - sure, and there are with caffeine, distilled alcohol and big greasy hamburgers. I've had to be fairly careful with the liquid nicotine - I never smoked heavy strength cig's so I noticed the stronger liguid nic would have some side effects (sinuses, light headed feeling) That's typical of smoking, period. So I just found the right mixture for my preferences. When I really looked at this I realized how conflicted the entire field of thought is that seeks to "regulate" tobacco products. RG - I was at NAMM this last year in Anaheim and was using my e-cigs. Now - this is the biggest yearly collection of musical merchandise, technology and people. I expected to see lots of e-cigers and vapers. Not one sighting. And I had some people that saw me using them bug eyed - "WHAT'S THAT?!" it's kind of fun from that perspective, but I'm still really careful when and where I use the e-cig. Technically it's not smoking but I try to avoid confrontations over it. Still it's really easy to take it out, have a puff or two and put it away. No smoke, no ashes, no nothin'.

"Cults" I'm a Christian, a follower, a believer, a member of and participant in. Now, I haven't got a tattoo on my buutt of the Pope or any specific denomination so I'm sure I'm "not" something normal and viable to someone. But overall I'm a fully qualified member of the Christian faith, belief structure and religion, dues paid and I get the magazine and email updates. I've also been known to bite the hand that tries to feed me. Christianity meets all the requirements and then some to be a cult. Big azz cult, too. It is a cult with many different sects. "It" is by no means the norm or the expected behavior in this world despite what We of Krestos like to say. Members of the cult say that true blue followers mean no harm and would never do wrong to anyone, we're love pups, big fuzzy love pups. Others outside the cult don't necessarily think that way - do they? They think we're delusioned and dismally mired in a cult of condemnation that has, by creating a big enough problem ("sin") has built it's own marketing machine to deliver the solution, to it's own continuance and profit. And that's the ones who like us. I often think that most people for the most part think more or less about the same as I do - and have the same basic moral and ethical principles in play. I'm often reminded that isn't the case or even close to true - that many people of all religious and non-religious stripe think differently. On the other end of my spectrum I see people who will steal, cheat, lie, destroy and just as soon swerve to run over a dog as to avoid it - and they're thinking has nothing to do with any "religious" basis at all. It's just the way they are. Now I know this is GS, the exWayfer-other-story site, so I get the focus. I'm just sayin' every once in awhile in the midst of the similies, metaphors and what have you that IMO the Ultimate Answers don't lie in figuring out all the ways the Way was wrong and writing for the 100th time and the 1,000th way another way to say the same thing. But that's me - I don't do that. I have my own dead horses I beat though so I do feel qualified when it comes to that.

Bear with me, I'm trying to break these up into smaller posts so I can get my post count up a little. Basically what you described is a very typical pattern ham. It's like.. perhaps one has an isolated, non-mainstream dogma one adheres to.. fine. Doesn't bother me at all.. What's isolated? What's non-mainstream? And who gives a hoot - other than the mainstream group, the "collective" of regimented opinion? The simple fact that we evaluate another's dogma as being acceptable while being isolated and out of the mainstream says something. Not sure what, I'm thinking though. but then one adds a controlling oversight for the "standard" (whatever or whoever that is) follower.. This is normal behavior for nearly all societies in which there are laws. Who gives the control? Who added it and who accepted it? And why? and it starts smelling a little bit like a cod left on the dock a little too long.. then ultimatums from the pulpit, how devilish holders of different opinions have become. . I was Roman Catholic, raised and braised in the doctrine. I am now, in fact, hell bound as an RC. I am unable to receive any of the sacraments - well, first I'd have to find a church that had a priest and that was having services and then I'd have to go and if I did and just didn't tell anyone, I could receive the sacraments of the Holy Communion and particpate. In other words, lie. But the "sin" would fall to me and only get me further down the toilet. There are true blue practicing RC's who won't even talk to me like a reasonable human being because I've left the True Universal Mother Church. I'm dammed unfortunately so why bother? I was once........ Well, the list goes on. I've been a lot of things, and for many of those groups and affiliations, both religious and otherwise, my lack of continued membership, support and attendance is a dammed sorry state of affairs, boy howdy - Being a "Wayfer" didn't suck for me, most of the time. Well, till it did and then I stayed for years and let them beat me over the head..with and then I....and it was all.... Oh. Wait. That's not what happened. Never mind..... I'm not trying to be mean, just a healthy reminder that there are a 1,000 stories in the Big City....and these are some of them.

In a perfect world we would all be well paid for our religious affiliation. We'd be able to decide in a competitive market. Want a big church? Spend big money. I'll show for the right dough. Buy me! It only makes sense. When I, socks, rule the world, all religions that want to be formally authenticated to receive donations will be required to get licensed for that. Seriously though, they will. I may be the only person in the ex-Wayfer world who thinks this way buuuuuuuuuuuut I don't see any great difference between what the Way did (and still does in a different format) and what any number of hundreds, dare I say 1000's of other churches, and businesses do. Or cults and scams if you prefer that language. There are going to be many similarities, comparisons, metaphors, "this is a lot like that" examples and comparisons drawn because it's not nearly as unusual or singular as it's made out to be. Unfortunately what gets lost in many of the comparisons is any recognition that "your mileage may vary" in a rush to declare All-Things-Wayfer-Must-Sux. Oh, we say it varies yes but still struggle to grasp the possiblity that one person may have been badly treated or just stupid in how they made choices and another person .... well, not so much of that and as a result didn't have the same terrible experience. Humans have been doing it since the first men and women decided they liked the other side of the cave instead of the one they were in and yelled "look! Over there! Run!" and took up residence as soon as the premises vacated. F Fwd to today - is it any suprise that Christianity's messages get used as a means to manipulate others? Or that it's so popular to be manipulated like that? It's what people do, even in the best of worlds and societies. Anyone who doesn't think they're being manipulated on some level probably also thinks they're "free" too.

Do some searches on youtube, rg - there's quite a few videos demonstrating the cart' reload and how it's done. FDA - this is a recent blog on the regulation issue: http://charlottesvil...googleid=284818 There's a lot of the same kind of thing online, going back a few years. The basic story's the same I found. It's really a matter of the money and the political and social outlook of our regulatory systems - tobacco products are sold to adults, with very little real safety management. "Smoking" is recognized as dangerous to human health, so much so that it's warned that if you're exposed to a whiff of it you're vulnerable. Second hand smoke alone is dangerous, so goes all health warnings. Yet - everyone from the "Surgeon General" to the FDA to you name 'em allows for tobacco products to be sold. It's taxed, it's warned against - and sold. In Paris, you can smoke 3 at once and be lighting another on most streets. But they also sell cartons at the airport in black boxes that read "THIS WILL KILL YOU... the dichotomies abound. Yeah, it's a blind social eye that largely wants to protect us from ourselves, but not curtail the profit margin on the danger itself. The FDA wants to stop and investigate a product that - people are using to stop smoking in many cases. - people use instead of smoking. - that actually uses the primary ingredient - nicotine - that people smoke to get. Interesting, no? But not entirely surprising.

I investigated them last year and started with my first set a little over a year ago. I've since purchased several sets of two different models and assorted supplies. It's called "vaping" in the market, for the vaporized "smoke" that's produced by the e-cigarette. I use the "N Pro" and the "D 901" models. The FDA made a big stink about these about a year ago and there's been varying levels of resistance to their distribution in the U.S. Health concerns over the long term impact of using them are the issue. There's been quite a bit of testing of them done, and my conclusion based on a lot of investigation is that the risks are far minimal, far lower then smoking a traditional tobacco cigarette. There are disposable models that are basically throwaways. They might be good try and to see what you think but are far too expensive to use long term IMO. Basically there's 4 parts to an "e-cigarette", which looks like a metal/plastic cigarette more or less: a rechargable battery, an "atomizer" or vaporizer piece and a "filter" cartridge which holds a liguid nicotine mixture. When it's assembled you draw on the end like a normal cigarette, the draw causes the atomizer to trigger the battery to heat an element up and the liquid nicotine burns and vaporizes. You draw a very very fine "mist" that contains the nicotine. The exhale looks like a fine "smoke" but it dissipates in the air and there's nearly no residual "vape" as it's called and nearly no smell. The nic' mixture comes in different strengths - ultra light, a light, medium and a strong. I use the ultra light and it's strong enough for me. I also buy the liquid nicotine in small bottles from suppliers to reload my own cartridges myself. There's flavors and you can actually flavor you own easily enough using natural flavorings added to the liquid nicotine. I've fiddled with mine to get a very low nic', smooth "tasting" vape by adding some additional liquid base and more or less making my own mixture. Compared to buying cigarettes, the overall cost is much less if you buy the liquid nicotine and reload your own cart's but you do have to continue to buy the "parts" - batteries and vaporizers wear out, although I get a few months out of each with the occasional piece that will tank quicker. Your reliance on tobacco can go way down, and use will IMO assist in "quitting". There's a lot of controversy on that but the proof to me was first hand use over time. A lot of people say they don't like the "taste" and it may not be to everyone's liking. Some experimentation is required but from what I've seen and read most people find a suitable combination. Some "vape" very strong mixtures, others like me, very light. I didn't have that much trouble finding the right stuff for my own preferences. I buy liquid nicotine from U.S. makers and the parts overseas. Ruyan of China was the big manufacturer for a long time, not sure if that's currently the case though. I've also tried the "American Spirit" ultra lights which have less chemicals in them - one of the biggest downsides of the traditional cigarette tobacco is that there are 100's of chemicals that go into it's production and end up in what a person inhales. The liguid nicotine carries about a 1/10 chemicals and they're relatively benign IMO. Again, there's a lot of disagreement over that but my investigation indicated that on face value e-cig's are far safer than an over the counter brand of tobacco cigarette. This site http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/ has a lot of information on it. It's not loading up for me tonight, haven't been there in a while, but if they're still up and around, they've got a very active community and a lot of good information. Hope this helps.Shoot me a message if you'd like more specifics on where I buy, etc. :)

You're so right sunesis - "...the Logos, the manifestation of the mind of the universe (God), the ultimate, underlying Form (essence) of the Cosmos has now been revealed!!! To us!! " Pretty fundamentally basically a WTF moment comes with each word of that! :)

Twinky,that's really a great way to see it I think. (thanks sunesis!) It's a very difficult subject to broach without getting bogged down. Dr's. of this or that cluck their academic tongues - "it's clear (so & so) doesn't know their history"... It still requires thought and pondering, it's not as clear cut as it's made to sound by whatever side's speaking. Bullinger cracked the greek and came up with a trinitarian view. The same language was used by VPW to interpret it non-trinitarian. And Bullinger's Companion stuff is 101 level stuff, not that complicated to get. Parents will look at a child and say "I love you, I've always loved you, long before you were even born I always wanted you! It took awhile, we waited and then finally we knew the time was right and what a day it was! I've never been so happy as when I saw you for the first time - it was like my whole life, everything I'd done was for you, for that moment. Nothing will ever replace you, remember that - and everything I do is for you so that you can succeed. If you ever need anything, I'm here for you and will always be. Someday you'll have a family - and you'll know what I mean. I love you". The child that hears that is no less my progeny, my child, of me and by me, for not "being me". They are as much me as they could ever be. I don't have and never can have the same relationship with others that I do with my children. The familial relationship that is described by Jesus - that He uniquely taught and spoke of God as "Father" is such a powerful view into Their relationship that He clearly declares - I think it's easy to gloss over and assume. Yet that was truly an astounding declaration to make.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos Not to jump frog here, sunesis will reply, but this page gives a fair history of "logos" and it's development of meaning, etc. Interpreting it to mean in John, that Jesus is "God" is yet another application of meaning to the word. Another thought - IMO the emphasis in TWI's research on "pros" doesn't really delineate the "together with yet distinctly independent" in such a way that it would completely eliminate the trinitarian interpretation from that section. For Jesus Christ to "be" the "logos" He doesn't have to be God or a God. I believe it's more of a philisophical concept dealing with purpose, expression and fulfillment myself. Some Christians often get their hackles up over "philisophical reasonings" (those hackles!) and shoot straight for the most literal interpretation of scripture possible but some things in the bible aren't literal to begin with. "logos" is one of those IMO. One of the most fundamental concepts to understanding "life" is that it occurs in single, separate instances. Each instance begins and terminates on it's own, is non-repeatable and carries with it an essence that can be shared but never to the extent that two consciousness instances become one, or two or three, as the same instance. Memory, cognition and anticipation are all unique to the one individual instance of life. I believe at this point that life itself, the creation we see around us and that we are, is a clear reflection and declaration of God, the Life, the Pneuma. "Jehovah", God the creator in relationship with His creation emphasizes this singular identity throughout the records collected in the O.T. For Jesus to "be" God requires "mystery", a level of understanding that we can't achieve thinking directly about it, in fact there's religious thought that describes the "mystery of the triune godhead" as something of a meditative exercise that through it's impossibility leads one into a more "divine" awareness of God. I really don't see that happening but I get the idea. For me, the actual straightforward interpretation of the N.T. is enough to give me mental and emotional pause. :) Dunno if I've added or subtracted to the discussion, but here goes.

Keep at it, TM, just voicing my impressions. And not to well, I'll also admit. :) I'm not "trinity" by any stretch of the imagination but I do believe Jesus Christ of the gospels is the Son of God, redeemer and savior. Overall, I go with what is probably called "Pauline" doctrine, what's contained in the "new testament" of most bibles. There are lots of other early books by what are referred to as the "church fathers" that contain a great deal of good thought and inspiration that expands along those lines. That's what resonates with me and is reflected I believe in a huge amount of literature, both "religious" and "secular" throughout history as mankind attempts to increase in understanding. I don't want to mislead you, I'm not "trinitarian" but I'm not going to change substantially in how I do understand Jesus Christ. I've learned, relearned and learned anew many things before, during and since the "Way" years of my life and it's all been great for me. I went from "trinity" theology 50 years ago to atheist, to agnostic to Christian and that was all by the time I was 21. I haven't changed away from that baseline understanding although I have studied, listened and learned from many others. Anyway, I hope there are others who would contribute to your threads and can have some involvement.

The first "Americans" declared independence from their former Monarchy. It wasn't long before the future inhabitants determined that God wanted them to have all the land they could get their hands on, pretty much. The cost was anyone that happened to be their first. Weirwille's model was a business model. Business has income and profits. Money comes in and he used it to fund expanding the Way Ministry's assets and resources. I don't know that if we were to wipe the paper clean and start from scratch whether any money has to be sent to anyone to fund anything. There are many ways to capitalize an effort, expand resources, etc. etc. Doing things that we think are "right" isn't bad. Forcing people to fund it to participate isn't either - that's business. Business sells goods and services for an exchange of some value - money works most of the time these days. That's not what Christianity is all about and it's a disgrace that it's done so easily and by so many. But that's business and business can be very cutthroat. Christianity isn't a business and in our current state, this "age of Grace", we seem to teeter totter between being the Temple, and building a Temple. People have a Big God and He needs a Big House with lots of stuff in it to make us all happy. From that same clean slate the entire concept of "abundant sharing" as it's been developed by ministry's like The Way and other denominations isn't anything even close to "biblical" when it's laid out as law (call it what we will - rules, guidelines, best practices, etc.) Any organization can determine how they want to function and if it's legal, they're good to go. When anyone says "this is the way God wants it and only this way" they'd better be right or - well, look at what ultimately happened in the Way. There's no definitive model or pattern established by the first generation of Christians other than records of what they did at that time. Acts doesn't establish enough time or examples to define what would be normative in all churches, everywhere, forever. IMO Paul, whoever he really was, would puke at what the "Church" typically does today in his name in all of it's sects and forms, based on how he is described his lifestyle and pursuit of reaching others. In Acts 15 the leaders in Jerusalem determined to not invoke any of the Mosaic observances upon the Gentiles other than that they steer clear of some basic essential things and keep to their new faith in Christ. So if the "tithe" was expected of those early Jewish converts it wasn't of the Gentiles - in those people's minds. Whether that's right or wrong, they administrated the body of believers in a completely different way than we see it today. And as "one body" of both Jew and Gentile it would appear logical that the development would have moved more towards the edict given to the Gentiles and inheriting only the former as traditional observances with no binding spiritual authority in the New Church of Christ. I understand your point, I think. I only make note of this to say that IMO it's a minor part of the overall progression of how Christian churches have developed over time. There's a fine, fine balance that must be achieved. It's doable.

Hey there friend - no offense and I'm speaking for myself but I don't understand nearly anything of what you write. It simply doesn't make grammatical sense, the words and how they're strung together and some of the euphimisms you use, the expressions, etc. I've asked for some clarification on certain things but for the life of me I still dont' understand exactly what you're talking about - you refer to old beilief, spirit stuff, Day of Yahweh, things you're written but don't provide links to them. I haven't ready any of the reams of things you've said you've written, can't find them and won't have the time to anytime soon. I am here now reading though and I just don't get most of what you write. So please, don't get ants in your pants because no one's responding, because if anyone else is having the same problem, I can't find a place to start to get a grip on most of what you're posting. I wouldn't have said anything but now you're bringing down the wrath of your god on all of us because we're not getting onboard. And YES. For the record and beyond Bullinger's App. 101, VPW, your latest thesis on whatever's got your goat today and anyone else's hair brained religious scam this week - I'm very sure of my truth. So sure - I don't need you or anyone else to validate it, agree, disagree or change so you can keep me company. *** That reads harsh there friend - I don't mean it to be. I trust you'll accept it in the spirit of it's giving. Don't take it as gospel, it's just me tapping away. Please feel free to disagree, I won't melt.

Party's an FOS, mstar1. For most humans on this planet life's a balance of sucksbad and hurtsmore. 2 hots and a day without diahrrea is a party for many. Life is a celebration however, and while I can't have everyone over at once, that's my take. If your mileage varies, write me at momoneyformeMeansmoloveforYou@socksarama.com and I'll get you some Love Juice Tonic that will make your day. I believe the application of one's faith will vary to the times and produce major religious cultural shifts as short as generation to generation. As a result, "religion" has a place, the holding spot for the traditions we develop. Hating "religion" is like hating our own human natures. Yes yes - religion is everything "man adds to the truth", blah blah blah. It's also the day to day activities that we, as mighty sons of the Most High God, embrace and repeat successfully. In fact I'd suggest that it's our hardazzed tendency to label "everyone ELSE'S" religion as THE BAD religion and always allow our own as the GOOD KIND because of course, we'd never do anything wrong deliberately, that would be bad - that makes getting along in any meaningful way for more than a few months at a time difficult. In fact everyone no matter how truth-laden and encrusted with Transcendence that they are, has things they bring to "their" faith as the individual participants, the "containers", the holy bowls that hold the righteous Cheerios. (note to self - copyright that name! It's mine!!! mine!!! The Righteous Cheerios !!!) (I've never gotten much traction out of the "empty bowl, the space not the stuff" that's become so attractive in Western Buddhism. But the idea of an ultimate nirvanic nothingness might have a certain allure for some, I get that). But less is more mstar and I agree, seriously. Like the old old old saying goes, we might bo better to try "doing it in our daily lives" - daily always noted for those who might be living their lives in a non-daily way. Difficult but that's why we need to make consideration for those who have gone that less travelled road). Put another way - if I never wore a "Jesus" T-shirt or a Pneuma B Ball hat, or sang "Father Along" at the top of my lungs - would people know I was a Christian? And is that the term they'd use to describe the incredibly wonderful, enlightening, power-filled and love struck way that I live, as I exemplify all of the good and none of the bad of my faith as I always do most certainly, in my daily life?

To add - this approach, known as "Rant 234", will probably not have the legs to go far, I know that. But the steady tapping of my keyboard keys is so soothing, I have to keep it up, yet a little while, bear with me. What it amounts to in practice is "Nothin'". Doesn't sound like much I know. "What'd you do today to help your neighbor see the Light, brother?" "Nothin'". "Did you knock on everyone's door today on your list and give them the 5 minute "Jesus Loves All Sinners Even You" message?" "No". "How many tickets to the Xtreme RawkRGrrrls For Gawd concert did you sell so far???" "None". See, it's just not going to move a lot of units so yeah. Or no.

What would Jesus say, do, think? about a lot of things. Can't tell you. "Jesus" has really become an idealized icon, a man for all seasons, a god for all times, healer, lover, commander-in-chief, warrior, peace bunny. You name it He's probably got a t-shirt with His name on it somewhere. And there's no lack of spokepersons for Jesus who will tell us exactly what He would do, think, say, endorse or condemn. He has an army of dudes and dudettes who are "like that" with him, on a first name basis and apparently have his personal cell phone number if needed. Apparently the Divine Marketing Strategy is "Total Saturation - All Demographics". If we can sell a coffee cup with His mug on it, we're in baby! Next stop - mutli-line that household! Get the skateboard deal, it's got big markup! and they'll see His Name everytime they scoop! Yeah! I mean no disrespect to Jesus, but I have no respect for the hordes who trade on His name and reputation. I agree with the earlier sentiment that those of faith should spend their time investing in their own faith and development to their own betterment. To a great degree that's what most people do. And faced with a conflict I think the average person would choose to get along li'l doggie and keep to their own business, if allowed. Christians witness and share the Good News with a basic understanding that not everyone will believe, or is "called" or will respond. Any thoughtful Christian will understand that while the moment is always urgent, the times are in God's hands and it's not to the individual to pass final judgment in these days. There's always reason to hope and plan for a better day tomorrow, for everyone. An aspect to our modern society that works against that is the never ending onslaught of information that's pushed in our faces everyday. It isn't enough to hear something once, we have to hear it over and over and over, a 100 different ways. People get to where they won't leave each other alone or allow someone to go their own way if they so choose. We all have to get our point across because it's important that you understand. And we have no end of ways to do that. We preach "freedom" and ring it loud in everyone else's faces but when it comes to giving our neighbor a little peace let alone "love" we just won't do it. Christians are no different than those of Jesus's day - they want to ferret out who to love and when and how to act good to whom and who they don't have to or need to and who gets their best and who gets their not-so-best and who gets a panty load of grief because that's surely what "Jesus would do". B-----t. I can't' live like that. I've yet to meet the person who doesn't deserve a decent night's sleep and a half way comfortable cot to put their stuff under. If we're "saved", we have reason to celebrate and a party to invite others to. If they don't want to come what're we supposed to do? Shoot 'em? That's definitely bad hosting. Maybe a good start to compassionate development would be to learn to leave each other alone sometimes and stop bugging the crap out of each other.

Penworks hipped me to this site and effort - the "Charter for Compassion".