socks

Version 7.8c? The elimination and/or addition of material over the years kind of goes to a separate topic, related in a way I guess. It's micro management of a much larger issue, the integrity of the material itself. Which is the larger issue being discussed, so I guess 'sokey dokey? I see a great deal of the material in PFAL as being good stuff as they say. My wif' found "taking it" interminable which might surprise those who knew her over the years. It was just too long IMO, even if you were following it. Not documenting changes was and is Normal Operating Procedure in the Way. Always been like that. Very weird considering that the organization claims to base it's reason for being on the integrity and the accuracy of the Word. PFAL grapples with one of the major issues of anyone wanting to read the bible - no originals. Pick up a copy today, what am I reading? Where'd it come from? What're the processes that produced the stuff I'm reading? Likewise with the teaching history of the Way. PFAL as a tape, film and video class existed for many years as The Time Stamped Statement of the Material. There's a few glitches here and there in copies I remember but minor, nothing like changing or taking out or adding in a piece of the material. As of 1989, I remember no statement issued on PFAL or it's written accompaniments that documented major changes in the material. So if something from the Class Like No Other Class changed in it's output, that's big news. BIG news. You'd think. Change a word, add a word - you don't have the Word. Which actually supports the theory that VPW felt it was as close to "The Word" as he could get, because he never authorized any changes in the class itself while he was alive. It justs gets weirder and weirder, as then the best way to approach the published books is that, while they may be useful accompaniments they can't be recognized as accurate renderings of the original if they're not transcripts. You only got one original, get a copy, take it or leave it. Storeez - do Johnny Jumpup and Maggie Muggins count, under Colorful Characters? Not real of course, and kinda funny the first 178 times you heard them in PFAL. VPW really knew how to spoil a party. In any fellowship of people getting together to read the bible there's going to be contributions, observations, questions, discussion. There should be. Not in the Way though - sit down, shut up, put your Study Beanie on and listen.

It's a winnah, exris. Now his older son was in the field, and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. And he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant. And he said to him, 'Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and sound. But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, but he answered his father, 'Look, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command, yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him!' And he said to him, 'Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found. Luke 15 is the "Lost Trilogy". Sheep, coin, son. Should be in everyone's regularly scheduled reading. Redefines the old saying "you can't go home again". Depends on who's keeping house. I guess it's neither here nor there but something like the "Red Drapes" never hit me like this. Parables teach a point by painting a picture for you. A truth that could be directly stated but that's made within a story the hearer can understand. There can be an "aha!" or "ooooh....yeah.....YEAH!" moment that comes from hearing, where the actual point is understood. It may be a little like comparing Paganini to Jack Benny, but I never flashed at the Drapes but there's rainbows and happy little squirrels and deer in green meadows for me with this one - the end of the "Prodigal Son" is always hankie time for me. I can't read it without tearing. If you've ever been lost and as gone as yesterday, it does give you hope.

Good information on parables, WhiteDove. Classic example, "The Good Samaritan", or as I like to call it "Who Is My Neighbor?". There's a lack of detail in it. In fact, as with most parables if you pick at it for details it unravels. Imagine Jesus and 2 lone scribes sitting 7 hours later in the dark, stomachs growling and one of them asking "So, the road. Was it a muddy road? Because if it was muddy, like after a rain, then I'd have to wonder...." VPW believed in the "power of the incident" as a way to illustrate a point, validate it. An incident provides "proof". It's debatable but for the one telling it, it's presented as true. Telling one's story, that sort of thing. He taught this to the Corps many times, and has Bill M--ze teach a version of the Dale Carnegie Sales course over several sessions. It's pretty easy to tell from context and presentation which of PFAL's incidents could be considered "parables". Example, the Red Drapes could have been but that takes some reading into it because he makes it sound like it's an actual woman he knew. The Mother's Fear that Killed Her Son, no. The details are too prominent to the story, and other people are drawn into it. Jesus Christ is known for the parables in the gospels because they were so universal. Even all these years later something like the "Prodigal Son" has resonance. It doesn't matter whether or not there ever was a real family, the way it touches a person's personal experience is dead-on, if they have any understanding of a family. The "Red Drapes", classic to PFAL if you've taken it a 100 times, oh boy, here it comes. But not universal. Everyone knows what drapes are but most people just go out and buy them. The details about color are trite, at best. If you want red, get red, why involve God in it? Does He have protocols on drapes somewhere in the Old Testament? And why would a minister bother to get involved pro or con in color selection? Get the red drapes, knock yourself out. It makes it sound like he had too much time on his hands.

Me too, exoinika. Haven't thought about some of this stuff in ages, so it's a little dusty in my brain but it cleans up quickly. At one point I tried to allow for this and that in the tale but it hit me, it's not worth it. Taken on face value it speaks for itself. There's an odd thread that runs in the storeez in PFAL. Like the one about the drunk who showed up and VPW preached hel l fire 'n' brimstone at him on the evils of drinking, etc. etc. You know the drill. VPW determines after that to never preach a negative sermon again. Yet right in PFAL is this story, which is both negative and accusatory. And it's as negative as preaching on the evils of drinking to a drunk, but about the evils of fearing. He drove it home - what killed that little boy??? The FEAR in the HEART of that woman. He accuses the woman of killing her own son because of her own fear. Oh, the tragedy. Hearing it you're left to have a fear of your own - not to do the same thing. It's fear motivation - to not fear. There's no other way to take it - it's a powerful story told with conviction. Do the right thing or you too will kill those you love by your fear. Oh, of course if you're OFFENDED - no, that kitty doesn't scratch here. VPW leaves the story hanging. The net result is about the same as telling someone not to think about the word "fear". What do you think about? The word fear. If VPW had followed the lesson he said he learned so powerfully with the drunk, he'd have taken a completely different approach. Ya think?

I can see that excie. It is sad. Embedded in the story is a great loss - and today I can see how insensitive it is to use an example of a mother who, misguided or not, feared so for her child. As all parents certainly do, who love their kids. You want things to work out for them, but they always don't and no matter how far we go to protect them, they go into the world alone. Not altogether alone, though. There's a serious flaw in the stor-ee, true or not and it took me awhile to see it. While it always rang like an embellished second hand story to me since day 1 I heard it, it wasn't till several years down the line that I realized how utterly wrong it's point is. Digging into the details is useless, IMO, as the story is just that - a set of statements that may or may not be true. Nothing else is known about the stor-ee other than what's stated. According to the VPster, sin has no levels, no gradients. Sin is sin. Fear at it's root is sin, in PFAL. Wrong believing, Or "believing in reverse", (an unwieldy definition even in context) it's contradictory to active trust in God. That being the case, there's no accumulative effect of "fearing" day after day. Fear is fear. Big fear, little fear, not so. There's no big sin, little sin, in PFAL. If fear is the cause of the death, there was as much potential on Day 1 of Fear Factor as there was on Day 999. Which begs the question, why didn't it happen on Day 1. Or Day 12? I might say well, in Storeeville, constant obsession over something could produce a pattern of action that would build an environment friendly to a bad or negative result. But that's not the point being made - VPW messed up his own stor-ee. The concept of fear being the impetus, the cause, the root of what happened would have to mean that the environment was as conducive to what happened on any day. This is of course what VPW used to celebrate the Ozzie Nelson-minister guy. He didn't pray endlessly to get the "positive result" of his prayer. He munched it off and chowed down into his bacon and biscuits. Guys in VPW's world are like that. No worryin' fer me, dernit! No time for it! Things to do! It's obvious in the storee - sometimes terrible things happen to people. No one deserves to die like that. Fear could certainly make a person do something ill advised, but THAT'S NOT IN THE STOREE, at all. Fear in the story is the "believing" in the heart of that Mom. But it's still a stupid story. In the way I try to shake off a bad dream when I wake up, it needs shaking off.

Absolutely, waysider. The relationship between the drapes and the mother is clear - both instances involved women, and you can see the reason why one succeeedd and the other didn't. In the one, the woman didn't listen to the VPster and went out and got her own drapes, RED ones, whether he 'believed' that such an incredible thing as RED drapes, actual drapes that are RED, was even possible. The hidden message there is -when it comes to wall and window coverings, don't listen to VPW, who may have actually been color blind at that point. Think about it - he had a lot of trouble with his eyes over the years. Anyway - the truth is the truth and if someone doesn't want to believe the accuracy of the word, they're diggin' their own grave, knowwhutamean? It's right there in the class. In the instance of this woman and her child, I see that there's a STRONG possiblity that this was the same woman, who, although she could believe like the dickens when it came to wall and window coverings, had a real short suit when it came to kids. So really, it balances out, as to God there's no levels of sin or wrongdoing, so her fear couldn't have been any worse on Day 1 with her child than it was on Day 98. Think about it. It's all right there, real ducky and all.

The way the VPster tells the story, the guy at the breakfast table/prayer sounds like he doesn't give a crap about his kids. "Lord, you worry about them, there's too many for me". Basically God's a Nanny, to him. Did he shirk other responsibilities? Come on -------- the story's for rubes. It sounded like it was one of those good ol' boy cracker-barrel sto reez, told while crackin' peanuts and swizzlin' fizz. This amounts to trying to figure out who is more spiritually raw-ght on - Pepe LePew or the Roadrunner. It's silly. Everyone knows Pepe Lepew is. Really - the story does have sad overtones and implications, but it's not worth getting in a snot over. Now if there'd been red drape involved - THEN we've got a stor-ee....

Is not believing what Dr. taught the new criteria for having to tell people who we are? I know who bedon'tworryhappy is. Don't you Neo? If not, what difference does identity make? Who are you? I'm a sock. Really. Don't let the Calvin icon fool you. I'm socks. You're not talking to me, but I'll talk to you to make it easier, as you've touched on a topic of interest to me. Attacking Dr. isn't what I'm interested in. He's gone, and while a lot of posters here feel like "good riddance", I don't. But not everyone with ill feelings towards the man are truly "attacking" him. I do wish he were alive today. This would all be much simpler for a lot of people if he were. But time and age catches us all. So he's not. Some of the questions I had while he was alive have taken years for me to work on, some still am and I expect I will for awhile longer, given more time. It's fun, actually. I mean, I'm as old now as he was when I knew him. Some things in the bible aren't as easy to understand as they might appear with a cursory reading or word study. Life has been good in Christian faith, don't get me wrong, but at this stage I can only say that I'd love to discuss many topics with him if he were alive today - I think if he listened and we did exchange information he'd benefit from it, as would I. But that's not going to happen now for obvious reasons. So while I don't see much use in wasting a whole lot of my time ruminating on his past, there are some issues that get disussed here that I have no first hand experience with. I've been able to learn a fair amount from those who did. Back to DWBH - are you sure you don't know who that is?

Okay What the Hey - let's get to dealing withi offenses. One of the key traits I see of Jesus in the gospels, the way He's described, is His ability to deal with everyone on their own terms. More than dealing, acceptance. I don't see Jesus accepting wrongful behavior, evil, sin, in others. Rather accepting the person, as is, warts and all. From that vantage point He was able to appeal to each person we read about, on "their level", while presenting Himself and His instruction on "His level". There's an apparent dichotomy there - how could Jesus accept "the person", while not accepting what they did? It begs the question - how can what I do be separated from what I am? Don't actions speak louder than words, and isnt' what goes in less important than what ultimately comes out? Therein lies the answer, methinks. What goes in is anything and everything. What I do with it is up to me and I choose, decide, act. The actions DO represent who I really am. And Jesus recognized that all men are sinners before God. Who I am can only go so far, good as it may be at any given time. Jesus can accept that, as the natural condition of man and not hold it against him or her. He doesn't, didn't, expect anyone to be anymore than what they really are, in their essence. Willing, but struggling. Looking but not clearly seeing. Reaching but not wholly grasping. He knew - mankind needs help, not guilt. We've got the guilt going in. We need a light at the end of the tunnel. It would have been wrong - immoral and unethical - for Jesus to know that, if He did and let's say He did - and not accept each person for who they were. Anything else would be wrong. What Jesus did was both simple and immensely difficult at the same time. He appealed to each person to accept who they truly are and then turn to face God in a new and completely honest way - His way if you will. Open, honest and with a desire to accept forgiveness and be at peace with God. "Not my way, but your way", God. If and when a person didn't do that there wasn't much further He could go. That was what He preached, a way, a truth, a new life. Follow Him. He was "followable". I can apply that in 2 ways - knowing that in life I will be hurt, as He was hurt. I have an example to aspire to. Idealized though He may be, endlessly repeated in reading after reading, the true essence of both His humanity and godliness becomes clearer and clearer. When I'm hurt, it hurts and all the more when I feel it's unjust. No one's been hurt more unjustly then He and ulitmately, in the end, He forgave all. He knew mankind better than themselves, seemingly. The 2nd way is to understand as He did - that mankind's behavior can always be wrong, bad, deplorable. Sometimes there's no resolution to be made, nothing that can be done or will be done. At that point, that's that. Offering forgiveness is one thing. What's done with it by someone else, another. If it's refused, that's the end of it, at least for the time being. There's no resolution. If it's accepted, we go on. It's pretty simple, but can be difficult in practice. Simply forgiving someone else isn't the complete answer for a past hurt though. There may be other things that have to be dealt with. Fine, it's up to us to do that. For me, it comes back to the same point of Christ and God. I would certainly look to them for help, where there's a willingness, there's a way.

Yeah GS was started before Waydale closed, was up and running. I don't have the statement, no. but then if I did, what would it be - an html/text statement to that effect, "signed" by Paul Allen? That'll buy you one empty cup of java. Logic is an interesting thing. I'm sure PawT can confirm Waydale's closure status. Let's see what comes back, it'll be nice to know eggsackly the fax, jax! Good to s-ee you Garth! by the by!

To add something of moderate but possibly questionable substance on the original thread topic - I don't see it as a big deal that anyone would ever be "offended" by something or someone. Biblically or otherwise, however it's viewed - people, me, you, whoever, are offended by all kinds of things all the time. To me it's a silly topic, on face value. Don't mean to insult anyone, you What The Hey, but honestly - what's the beef with having a beef? Being put out about something that's done? It sounds like you want to get into everyone's shorts and tell them to stop being offended. Ain't gonna happen. In fact, it shouldn't happen, IMO. You can't tell me that "Paul" lived without being offended. He wrote about that one guy that had done him wrong, must have bugged the crap out of him to tag it on to a letter where he was holdin' forth. It's surmising to say he wrote that and dropped it. In fact, it sounds to me like he didn't drop it all the way it reads in II Timothy. When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments. Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will requite him for his deeds. Beware of him yourself, for he strongly opposed our message. - 2 Tim 4:13-15 Pauls takes some serious Timmy Time to warn him about this guy. "Great harm". I'd say Paul was a little MIFFED. The Lord'll take care of him? Those are strong words. I suspect - surmise - based on what he did write that wasn't the only time he said it. What's he going to do - NOT warn others about someone he feels is a threat to the Christian church? That would be kinda petty.

Sidebar on the Offencive: Paul Allen - I'm pret' near sure that he posted after their lawsuit was settled, one of the agreements was that he would close Waydale. Time was allowed, and then it closed. Am I the only one remembering that - or mis-remembering? (Closing down was fine to me. The lawsuit was always a personal action by the Allens and my impression of Waydale was that it was an extension of that, kind of like him opening up his kitchen table to anyone who wanted to take a peek around or "talk". It certainly brought a community of people together on the internet, in way that hadn't happened before. There was the Trancenet thing, I only caught the tail end of that but Waydale was different, at least to me. I think it was historic in the history of the Way (albeit ex-Way) - a completely open and uncontrolled community of discussion about what ended being all-things and anything Way related.) On the one hand it might seem like a gimme to the Way to credit the closing of Waydale to a demand made by them, even as part of the Allen's settlement. But as Paul stated online himself, he was ready to move on and let someone/something else continue what had developed. Enter GS, ready to go. I think it was wise of him to go that route. I think it made sense for the Way to ask that his internet site shut down, given that the lawsuit was being settled. But - they had no fist in their glove at that point. It was a win-win for everyone. Except the Way, since they don't seem to have completely embraced any process towards resolving all of the issues that were raised. Given the situation, I trust it worked out as well as the Allen's had hoped and worked towards. Seemed like it did. There was a lot of downloading of Waydale stuff at that time - somebody may still have their downloads stored somewhere. Dunno.

Some interesting stuff. Any of this ring your bell, C.S.? I had a side note scratching at my fiddle, need to get it out. I think asking your average Way Corps leadership a question like this could be dicey, I can see that. Unless they'd looked into out of personal interest there'd be no background or information for them to draw on. In fact most people probably don't think about it much, which is fine IMO. It is interesting to consider though, again IMO. Roy's hit the nail on it - metrics. If we don't have the means to measure all of the elements and components involved, like "conscience", which I think means consciousness, awareness, the indvidual life - then we're outside looking in. Descriptors, we have some. Analysis though - limited. Real knowledge or understanding, next to zip. We could say such and such will happen, and postulate it could happen by such and such means, but that's not the same as what I think you're asking. Describing the event is different than describing how it occurs. Like graves. Not everyone's ever been buried in a grave and most that are can be found today all but decomposed. Unfortunately death comes to many in very destructive ways. So the image of a collection of bones being remade into a new living being - even that's kind of Disney-ish. If graves means burial plots, a lot of the dead will be out of luck. Must mean more than that. So I dunno, I really don't. I think the topic does lend itself to a more manageable view of what happens to "us" after we die though and in turn what "llfe", the life of each person really is, although I say that with a big dose of "duh", as I'm playing out of my weight on this topic. But it's interesting.

That about says it for me, Captain. I'm reminded of an old, old and I mean OLD Steve Martin routine, off his first album of stuff I think - where he talks about a new book "How to Make a Million Dollars in Real Estate"..... "First, get a million dollars...now then....!" He says it really fast, so it's funny. There are clearly sources of energy in the "known" universe that could be harnessed to do something like this, on the surface. But even if I took that and extrapolated it out to a huge transformation, it still wouldn't account for the unknowns - like how - actually how - are the dead rejoined, reconstituted, brought back into a state of awareness that takes into account 1 of two scenarios (or more I suppose) - that they've been residing in some state somewhere and are brought back into a single time and location together - and/or 2, they've been completely non-existent as hmmm...maybe call them singluar instances of life - and need to be brought back to "life" in a way that would probably qualify as a "new creation", based on the old one, but different. Matter and atoms, stuff, is conceivable. Spirit isn't, by definition. "Pneuma" - like "wind". Wind has components that make it a force. I couldn't tell you what components make up spirit though. Life is funny - here today, gone tomorrow. The known components fail. If that's all there is, there's probably a 1,000 reasonable possiblities of "how" your question could be accomplished. It's back to the Steve Martin routine - God's God. He'll just make new bodies. How? Like He did the first time. How'd He do that? Good question. But the awarness, the personality, the non-repeatable, unique and singlular identity of a person - wazzat? I don't see matter being converted to "spirit", that's about all I could say. Corruptible putting on incorruption - if there's a conversion chart for it I'll leave it to you to cast some light on that topic. I'd love to hear what your ideas are. Frankly, I'm hoping I get a little less matter showing up at that point anyway. Maybe someone else could use some. They're welcome to some of mine.

It has been an awn-uh, Ma'am. :) Speaking of grudges, A. Whiteny Brown once said: I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals. I'm a vegetarian because I hate plants. There's a moral there, which sort of makes this a bang-bang for your buck post, a real win-win. I feel like I'm bringing mad value to this thread with that kind of d-d-double whammy. Brown might have loved Jesus, may love Him even now for all I know, as he strikes right to the heart of The Great Gospelier's message on morals. It's not what you eat, it's why you eat it. Only God knows what gastronomical lusts prevail in the hearts of men and women. Something to think about the next time I see someone order a Tofu Double with sprouts. Brown also did a short piece on SNL many years ago, in the News segment, where he came in to do some color commentary on the Russian invasion and withdrawal from Afghanistan. He noted something about how the Islamists took credit for kicking their butts and that Russia was angry at the reaction. "Well sure, after all, who ever heard of a Muslim holding a grudge", he said. Now - I don't care where you live, that's funny. You could leave the religion blank, "fill-in here" the name of pret' near any religion, major or minor. It has less to do with what the religion teaches...("Love your neighbor as yourself")...and more with how the adherents choose to live it...("Infidels and unbelievers excepted")....cuz it seems as if no matter how much peace is preached in a religion, there's a case to be made for war and once you've killed and maimed enough and left the kids to sweep up the remains of their parents you can pretty much bet your last buck those kids are going to remember. Who did it. So the wheel goes, round and round and where it stops is very predictable. IMO.

"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes"...written by the man who really does have his own money, Ben Franklin. Sign on the Drier door: "Abandon all hope ye who enter here, for all is lost....all is lost!!" Famous Quotes for a 1,000, Alex... "This may hurt a little"....Hannibal Lecter. "Knowing when to stop has been the key to my great success"... General George Custer

The IRS Theme Song:

The U.S. Treasury list of some of the taxes we pay. It's near impossible to do anything today and not have some kind of surcharge attached to it. If it costs money or there's an exchange of money, or if I take my money out of my pocket to look at it to see if it's still there - it'll get taxed. As a member in good standing of the "middle class" I'm getting screwed. No kiss, no hug, just screwed. All I know to do is vote regularly and as intelligently as I can. As I understand it federal taxes are legal, and the one that are voted in to practice are too. So I just try to support activities that will reduce taxes and promote good use of what's already going in.

Overall, not negatively at all. They were kidlets - I think our son was 9, daughter 7 when we left. They'd enjoyed the stuff we did at home, with Children's Fellowship. They started school at a local Baptist Elementary school and that was a great experience for them, the principal and teachers, everyone were great there. Over those years we knew some great people in the Way. Our kids remember a lot of them, we've had some contact with some over the years since leaving. I can't think of anyone we weren't happy to have our kids around or exposed to. They were young all that time and we never encountered or instigated some of the things I've read about here, a few tighly wound minds here and there but nothing worth stewing over. We'd moved from Florida back home to California that year, and took a long 11 days of travel across I-10, and that was a blast. My plan was simple, see what we wanted to do when we got out here. As we got through the first year and got settled, my wife and I decided together to not join or start a local ex-Way fellowship. I was definitely not interested in doing that, and she was mildly interested in the possibility so I did make the decision for us to process cautiously. There was a lot going on that year and neither one of us wanted to get tangled up in the whole Wayfer affair as everything got sorted out. I'd only had a couple harsh encounters with people over various issues, but that was enough. I had what I considered a pretty good bead on what I felt was going to happen in the Way. It did, and so we ended up 5-6 years down the line confident we'd done the right thing. Nothing against anyone, it was just what we needed to do. So our kids never really were exposed to any of the "stuff", other than what they heard us talking about and they didn't understand that anyway. I had never planned on bringing them up in a completely Way-centered lifestyle, so their attitude about their faith at that young age was based mostly on real life, having friends, going to school, doin' the stuff kids do. They'd gotten a good foundation from the start I feel. They were my responsibility so I tried to make sure we "kept it real".

Interesting stuff, T-Bone. Grace doesn't promote sin, of course. Salvation and repentance won't take a person to a state in this life where they will not sin, in thought or action - Paul spoke of "Who will rescue me from the body of death?" Forgiveness in Christ is one thing - Paul prays to be rescued, delivered from the "bodyof death", the power of his sinful nature. He knew to live one way, "in Christ", but recognized that he often didn't. Know one thing, do another. There's a response required in forgiveness, for it to mean anything. If it's a given that I'm always going to be loaded down by a sinful nature, but I've been forgiven, the logical next question is - "so does it matter anymore what I do?" Paul attempts to clarify that - of course it does - forgivenss isn't a license to continue doing wrong. "But I will anyway, we all will, it's an endless cycle." License - permission. We're not talking Learner's Permit here. Does being saved mean that I now am bullet proof? Obviously we all take some hits in life - why? The answer's simple. Wecan choose to bring forth good fruit or bad fruit, depending on what we pursue. It brings up a serious question - if a person "accepts Christ" with no real desire to repent, to turn away from their former allegiances and realign with God through Christ - what's really happened? Nothing more than wishful thinking and an investment in an easy-out. Believing Christ rose from the dead could be nothing more thana mental exercise for someone - sure, I do! God raised Him. Now I'm saved! whew! that was easy!!! There's clearly more to a "Christian" life than that. This smacks of "works" - but it's not. Romans 10:9 and 10 can not be taken as a formula, stand alone - do this and nothing else matters. Time and again "repentance" is spoken of in the New Testament, with salvation, forgiveness and grace. Turn away from what you were and turn to God through Christ and you will be saved. How? Understand that as the son of God He died as a fulfillment and sacrifice for sin, and was raised up from death in newness of life. Christ gave up all, as a man truly turned away from the former life and was raised up to a new one. Literally, metaphorically, the message is the same. We need to make the same turn, the same repentance, recognition and transition in our hearts. This isn't to say that no forgiveness can be forthcoming without the other things - forgiveness comes to each person. What we choose to do with it determines the outcome.

If we measure the amount of hot air generated on this thread, I think we could definitely make a case for GS being a church. Actually I think you're making a valid point What the Hey, but I think the values being placed on Jesus as a "moral" authority are incorrect. Jesus was the a moralizer in what He said and taught. He consistently spoke to and dealt with the sources of authority His audiences accepted as being valid, be it the written word, traditional interpretations, oral histories, you name it. He stated His case in the context of His audience's perspective. In that way He stated what was "true", because it was true, not because it was written down somewhere. Written, spoken, accepted in whatever form, His teaching addressed it from both the inside and outside. The classic example of this is His teaching on the heart being where a person sins or does right. When a man has lust in his heart he sins, not only when he acts on what's in his heart. That's a moral judgement at it's most basic core level. To state that what's in the thoughts and intents of a person establishes the baseline for right or wrong, true worship or hypocrosy - that's the real down and dirty - the standard of truth there is one of honesty as much as it is adherence to a set standard. A person can act rightly and still have sin in their heart, being dishonest. He made it pretty simple and straightforward - the conviction goes on in the person's own thoughts, whether they admit it or not.

Bushanomics at work. Be sure to recordify your actions or the whole thing will go nucular, if'n you folks don't. Do the thing with the taxi, that is which you will if you do.

Two words - Wesley Snipes

Exception noted! Forgiveness from God is a wonderful thing. Sin - cast outta sight. Gone. It's "as if I never did them", we're square. I have trouble accepting that at times, but it appears that the account has been settled. Big prop's to Jesus Christ. My account was in serious arrears. The phone was ringing and I knew who it was. Wasnt I surprised when I finally answered? Something had to be forgiven, reconciled. Stuff I recognize. Stuff I don't recognize. One blanket covered all and I sleep warm at night. Sometimes. Feeling chilly? Must be a reason. My ongoing ineptitude requires constant recognition on my part for the process that's provided that reconciliation. My "hope" is in what's to come - it's clearly in the fact that while I embrace my redemption I don't - won't - always live by it. It's like a time-continuum thingie - I can't reach a point where what I was going to do tomorrow wont happen if what happens tomorrow is what caused an event of the past. I may choose differently because of it but I will be exactly who I am at any given point along the way. Everything comes together at a point in the future where everything is reconciled once and for all. "Grace", "mercy". Peace in the valley. In the meantime, I will rely on the kindness of strangers and they on me. I dont have to forgive anyone, but expecting that others wont have the same range of experience that I know I do is unrealistic. It will be difficult sometimes. The process of redemption wasnt exactly a walk in the part. How I choose to apply what I believe are the hmm, best practices, in life, is up to me. Discussing the finer points of forgiveness is good, but whether any of us ever do it on the scale of God and Jesus Christ is a whole nother kettle of shrimp. Someone says theyre sorry, someone else doesnt. Whatever. My advice - do what youre gonna do and get on with it if you can and I dont say that lightly. Easier said than done, but when said all of this gets a little hmmmmmmmmmm....long. Including this fish wrap.

Not a problem, Jeff. But as What the Hey has noted - it bugs some people like the dickens to hear the word "immoral". IMO that's because of a reluctance to properly evaluate and recognize wrong behavior that results from wrong decisions. It smacks of self-righteous judgment, hypocrisy. It's not. All are sinners - everybody sins. So goes the biblical case. That's not an excuse, it's a reason. More a condition really. Don't expect a pig to fly, don't expect a horse to deal cards, don't expect mankind to be anything but what it is. When a person's conduct reflects wrong choice, it is what it is. Not recognizing it and treating it properly is wrong in and of itself. It doesn't matter that "we all sin". The standard being accepted defines the rule of law. If it's God's law, man's law, my dog's law, doesn't matter. Not giving it it's due shows a disrespect for the standard, whatever or whoever's it is. I heard a man at church, in the study group I attend, fluffing off "moral" distinctions, then he turned right around and quoted the biblical standard for the point he wanted to make. It's a BS attitude IMO, refuting even when someone does the "right" thing, but doesn't do it with the right Holy Water sprinkled on it. I don't need anyone blessing my good deeds with their cross and telling me it's okay. Fuk that. Geer - whole nother topic. He once stated he was ill suited for what he was trying to do. He was right.