socks

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.

Weeeell, the use of the word "moral" in moral outrage, moral objection, moral kicka-poo, whatever - may be literally correct but is often used in religious camps to demean the level of contribution. Used in that context C. Geer was at one time, way back when, a classic example when he refuted any objections previous to his own in early 1986 as "moral" objections, and not "biblical" objections. Because he insisted that no one had ever made the proper "biblical" case for change in the Way, their efforts were invalid, IHO. Never mind that he offered nothing biblically practical or specific himself. I wanted to bring this up because as I read along here, starting to use that terminology appears to be defining what goes on here on GS in a context. I'd like to confirm that that context is valid. Plenty of Bible-Bobbing goes on here, and verses tossed back and forth to validate various positions. A lot of what's quoted is 1,000's of years ago, written in different times and about different circumstance. How any one idea (or verse if that word is too repugnant for anyone) stacks up today in application is up for grabs. Simply because something was said or done a certain way at one time doesn't automatically mean it applies to anything specific today - it might in fact be true but does it have anything to do with what it's being applied to? Or is it being laid over something today incorrectly. ("God says don't be proud, pride comes before a fall, and you're proud, and you're going to fall"..........assumes the person being addressed IS actually prideful. Are they? says who?) Moral: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; Identifying conduct as right or wrong has to be based on a standard. Once the standard is accepted, conduct can be evaluated. There has to be a measure. From what I read here the measure IS biblical in two ways - on a per verse basis, ie "the bible says this and to do that and etc." and on a "common sense" basis, where something (though written long ago) is understood to be applicable today because it deals with something everyone can accept as a standard with or without that reference - "don't lie" is a commandment, but we'd all likely agree to lie is wrong with or without a verse, Christian or not. Anyhoo - hopefully the use of "moral" objections isn't lessening the strength of the points being made. Moral judgment is the outcome of a standard being recognized and applied. And if violated, recognized.

"As they were watching, Jesus was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight." I guess we could call it a "disappearing act", extraordinaire cman. :) If I'm getting your point cman, Christ isn't less present but more present. The N.T. doctrine of Christianity refers to being in Christ and there being a Christ in you. So what does it really mean - of course Christ isn't absent if He's alive and if He's "in me" then our relationship is different than if He's next door. That Time article is interesting anotherDan, thanks. I think there's a lot to be considered in that line of thought, more "biblical" than the common assumptions of "heaven". Christ's message constantly redefined "life" as more than this now, more than a short term return on how we invest our life. He encouraged His followers to invest in a longer term process, to consider that living a certain way now would be correct for the whole of life, "eternity", etc. A spiritual see-further-than-the-end-of-my-fork view of living.

Yeah, anotherDan, that part of it - the what/how/who is the toughie. 1 Cor. 15 contains some information from Paul on it - it does speak to current conditions somewhat - This I declare, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed, in an instant, in the blink of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For that which is corruptible must clothe itself with incorruptibility, and that which is mortal must clothe itself with immortality.And when this which is corruptible clothes itself with incorruptibility and this which is mortal clothes itself with immortality, then the word that is written shall come about: "Death is swallowed up in victory.Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?" What your referencing Oakspear sounds like part of this. Jesus's resurrected body seemed to be the same, but different. Whatever it's conditions it was "Jesus" that was there, that spoke and His followers saw and were with. That same Jesus "left", ascended, went somewhere, and it sounded like where it was/is it's not "here". He was there, and He left for someplace else. Whatever happens in the future now, it will be a "return" of some kind. "Flesh and blood" not inheriting the Kingdom of God can be partly a matter of fact, that the flesh and blood bodies of today aren't in the next phase, aren't what Jesus had or we would have. There's a resurrerction, a change - the dead are resurrected with some kind of new body and the living are changed. No need to change if the bodies the same.

Big question, small answers, not taking anything away from what's posted. I can only ring in with some thoughts. It's just a question that we know little about, nothing really if knowledge is based on actual experience. As a Christian the only single instance of a complete verified resurrection I know of is Jesus Christ and there are unique aspects to that, like His subsequent "ascension". (time, date, manner, etc.) We all know and accept that we die and the body's gone soon enough. What happens to the life, the "soul", "spirit" - Ecclesiastes states rather simply that it returns to God. What that actually means, really means is difficult to envision, at best. If the essence of my life is unique to me and carries in it the whole of my personality, who I am, etc. than there's more there than say, a 9 volt. Still I don't have any ongoing relationship with anyone who's died to really know what's happened. The relationship I have with Jesus Christ - that's an internal, personal one. I couldn't even begin to offer a detailed description of how that really works. I could describe it but not the same way I could describe relationships today. Sooo... Right about now I do believe that something more than "here one day gone the next" is going on, but I'm not clear on what it actually is. In fact my real sense is that it's not simply based on location, for want of a better word, meaning that after death "I" or anyone simply takes up residence somewhere else, in "spirit" rather than body. If "my spirit" goes "back to God" after death and that's who "me", there's definitely a change of venue so to speak - do "I" know it and continue in this state at that time? I really don't know, short answer - long answer, I think it's clearly possible. I believe Jesus leads us to a way of life. Jesus said "And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do." That statement seems to imply in context that Jesus spoke to life as a whole as more than the end of the body when it comes.

Here's a heap o' trivia on Holly fer ya'll - On Answers dot com It's an easy read and it makes it easier to see the series of events over the years that have made Holly's popularity endure so. Considering his career really only lasted 18 months. That is incredible. Not entirely unique but whoa daddy, it says a lot about his contribution. Pretty nifty considering too that in that era the knowledge of him was less pervasive - no TV cable 24X7, no internet, no 1,000's of radio stations and all of the supporting DJ's, VJ's, newscasters and color commentators and people looking to broadcast every detail on every subject. Still the brief glimpse his audience got of him made an impression. The article makes an observation about England - Holly was seen more accessible, understandable as a performer and personnae than someone like Elvis Presley, who was tremendously popular too. As in the U.S. he looked like someone you might know, like yourself even - the glasses, the hair, the excited perfomances. He was a young adult, but seemed so young and his songs so innocent - fun, serious in their optimism in the way that someone who hasn't been beaten up a 100 times through the Machinary can be. Cool, in a way anyone could enjoy and appreciate. Holly made lovin' fun, to be a kid, to date, to meet someone, have a life. From his youthful perspective he seemed to speak to everyone looking ahead to what life would bring. Plus, he played a Sunburst Fender Stratocaster. A guitar destined to define a 1,000 sounds of rock and roll. Sturdy, utilitarian, economical for the time. Easy to make, easy to repair. Drop it, tune it, it's fine. The "everyman's" guitar for the extraordinary uses it's been put to over the years. His memory is frozen in time now - forever young and full of promise. He's always seemed like an older uncle, someone in the musical world's family that was long ago, yet always remembered well and talked about as if he's still alive somewhere, kickin' it. Gone but not forgotten, like a never ending echo. To one of the greats! Always and forever.... :)

"Surrender", "open your mind", "let God take over", etc. Yeah, that terminology didn't set well in TWI. Relinquishing control of ones freedom of will - giving up control and letting someone or something else have it. There's some semantics involved - like VPW would refer to "guidance" - "this is the best guidance we have right now", etc. God is "leading" His people. Those terms didn't imply a takeover or surrender, though. I find it hard to know what people are talking about too, a lot of the times when they use those words. More or less it usually seems to mean a little hands-on action from God, if not actual control over every little thing where my thoughts and actions are controlled - "puppet" style. Submitting is a decision, deliberate. There has to be a connection between two points for one to submit to the other. From that point on - what does it mean? Good question. Frankly, I find it's pretty hard to actually literally surrender. In a way it's wishful thinking. I hear it at times but darned if I see it in application. Do people end up waiting for the call that never comes? Hard to say. If I don't have some standard to measure the response back, how do I know what's going on? Questions.... To me, surrender would be like - I'm not a good swimmer. Pretty less than average, although I love to snorkel and I love the water from the shore, too. I'm trying to get better so I can snorkel better. I definitely don't want to surrender to the force of the water when I'm in it. I dig it, but I need to know I'm able to control my direction. My wife's a good swimmer, but would never surrender to the current. My kids - son's like a fish. Makes fish look clumsy. A natural. Took swimming in school, his friends challenged the teacher to race him in the pool - son beat him. I tried to get him to take it up but he didn't like the schedule. Some people do better in the water than others. Some don't like it at all. I see the ocean as an incredibly powerful force. A true "surrender" to it would be to just let it take me where it wants to and for me to go with the flow. Even fish don't do that. But they do have to work the system to survive. When the tide comes in, all boats rise as they say. Bottom's up, if you're in the water then. Tide goes out, same thing. I respect it's power, appreciate it's beauty, play by it's rules and recognize my own limits. In that way I do "surrender" to it, in that I don't even think about fighting it or challenging it. I need to understand more what it's doing and when. Tide charts. Weather. Lots of things going on with the water that don't have anythng to do with me. If I identified God as clearly as that, I'd define my own understanding in a similar way.

Join the club. That queasy feeling in your stomach is real. Embrace the horror. Look deep into the face of who you know you really are, at your worst. It's "the human condition". Some people will consider their worst acceptable and run with it. That's bad. Others will try to better themselves. That's good. But the struggle you feel is natural and normal and everyone deals with it. Well, some less than others. But your failings and shortcomings, while overwhelming, can be dealt with. They have to be, otherwise it's lights out. I ponder sometimes how much this world really sucks on a good day. Even when it's good for me, it's ratty for a lot of other people. Too much of that line of thought will really bring me down. I'm going to digress slightly from the comments thus far, which are very good and worth serious consideration. But - if you feel like something's wrong, maybe something is. You're going to have to deal with it on a level above scripture verses and greek, on a level of your own thoughts and heart. You're very concerned about yourself and your own conduct and state, beyond the doctrinal what-does-the-bible say about it. I get the feeling that your fear is based on both not knowing how God views you but also on how you view yourself. I don't know what you've done, but it's probably not anything beyond what's been done by man, woman or child before. I'm not excusing it, just saying that people do things they're not happy or proud of, things they conider wrong and they condemn themselves for it. That's common sense - if I know it hurts to hit myself in the head with a hammer, and it's going to hurt Bobby Moe over there to hit him with it, and I do it, I feel bad. I should. If I didn't there'd be REAL cause for concern. So having a conscience is a good thing. Difficult at times but good. If you're looking to square up with God, do it. If you've done wrong and want to deal with it, do it. The bible says "confess your sins". Why? If God is God, He knows, I'm not revealing deep secrets to Him. Opening up to God in honest prayer will set you free from the bonds you make out of your own sins. Bust those bad boys - Christ DID die to set you and I free, and that freedom is a thought away. Well, maybe a few thoughts. But it's a done deal - you can learn to accept it by investing the time and heart towards God to make your reliance on His grace and mercy your new habit. Like I said - embrace the darkness, and recognize it for what it is. It's real. Then walk away a free man. Breath the fresh air of a new life and do - one good thing, one thing you know is right. Pray for someone, open a door for somebody and let them go before you. Compliment the next person that waits on you in a store. Read a good book, read the bible, watch the news and be glad you're not running for president. Good is where you find it, and where you make it. The other stuff, the doctrinal stuff, will come. But if there is grace, mercy and forgiveness - and there is - it's because you need it. The way you feel is why.

Act2!!! Guitar Center!!! Hmmm....yeah. Okay, about that turntable - How do you like it so far? I've seen that one and thought it looked pretty nifty with the USB hookup. I've got some old albums, including some old Chess and Vee Jay label stuff. I'd like to get it on digital but would like to get it in one fell swoop if I can and be done with it so I don't have to do it over and over.

Thanks, Roy. I'm not going to write Dale Sides, I'll leave that to you. Maybe he'll respond. I guess the topic of this thread relates more to that than what you wrote, but I wanted to comment on that, some of it anyway since you posted it. There's a lot there to discuss - I'd offer that 1 Cor. 12:10 "discerning of spirits" relates to more than mental images, dispositions, moods and such. It could include soul or "pneuma" as well as God's spirit. Many people don't believe that there's a devil or "devil spirits", that can have an effect on the mind of an individual. If they don't they won't see that verse as having anything to do with that. Jesus did discern or distinguish what a person's state was, "spirtually" as well as in mind and body. He also was able to determine that in the "soul" of a person, as He did with Nathaniel, whom He saw as a good person without guile. He also distinguished when a person's problems were caused by a spirit, a "bad" one. That influence was identified and dealt with. Matt. 8:16 comes to mind. I'm still not clear how you're understanding 1 Cor. 12:10, but I would see it as simply stating - discerning, distinguishing of spirits. There's enough information in the bible to indicate that covers a range of pneuma.

The Truth About Scientology Scientology-Lies Celebrities and Scientology Truvolta on Scientology Truvolta - In Cruizes Defense Remember: these are people who make a living playing characters, who have learned and have the natural ability and desire to successfully immerse themselves in the personnae of someone else and perform to that effect.

Roy, I can't understand your letter. :) I sense your intent is good and that you're trying to share something but I couldn't get exactly what that was from what you wrote. You covered a lot of ground, a lot of verses and a lot of statements, then it ended. I don't know about anyone else but if that letter was all I had to go on I'd have a hard time knowing how to respond. Yes, I might respond asking what your point is exactly and why you wrote to me specifically, soooo I guess I'm getting you take exception to not getting a response of any kind. I can understand that. Is there anyone that you communicate with closely on your ideas with? I'd suggest you run it by someone to read and help you put together your thoughts in written form and help you to edit them. Get some feedback on your points and use that to clarify them better. This might take a few passes and some time. For instance when you refer to Cor. 12:10 "discerning of spirits". I don't understand "discerning of spirits here should be discerning of images or discerning of mental disposition...a another word it could of been translated into if Greek was the language the first was wrote in because all we have is copies" from what you wrote. The comments about whales is vague, although you've posted here on that before I still don't see how the overall subject applies to understanding this topic, in your mind. The benefit of some editorial work and perhaps putting it together differently would be that you could end up with a clearer statement of your purpose - the point you want to make - and then how your comments and ideas support that. They're important to you. I say this in the spirit of recognizing that. :)

You're a good man, Steve! It's a great feeling. Savor it, it's worth it!

Congrats! Enjoy that new car smell! Good reviews..."the new Outlook SUV, what was once a fading brand is on the move and taking names. And while the Sky may be sexy, the new Outlook crossover, with its combination of room, ride and style, is about to shake things up over in import land, to be sure". U.S. News says...Overall Score - 8.3 (Very Good) AOL Autos: NHTSA Frontal Crash Test NHTSA rates crash-tested vehicles by assigning them one to five stars, with five stars indicating the most injury protection and one star indicating the least protection. Driver Front: Passenger Front: Ya done great! :)

That's HILARious, Highway. Pretty much nails Cruize. Seth, the two edged sword cuts both ways, and both ways, blood spills. Socks 112:478, quotable by permission. You have full permission. First of all, those hackers are only anonymous to the extent no one else knows - and you know someone else knows. So whatever can be known, is known. (same quotation permissions apply) It's just a matter of finding out. The COS (sorry, after watching Cruizes video I can't resist the urge to use acronyms) tries to squelch free speech, so the Anonym's hack and do the same thing. Illegally. Demonstrating that they consider harrassing others is okay, as long as it serves their interest. Never a good idea. Sooner or later they'll all get kicked out of their parents homes or roll off the government dole and move along. In the meantime their efforts may receive some appreciation they'll never get support from any reasonable citizen who realizes if they themselves become the target they'll suffer the same fate. It's a no-win scenario. Cruise is a sorry little man who can't accept the fact that he's an actor and no one cares about what he thinks off screen and declares by fiat, as if he's the new Pope of the Church of One. Who gives a rats azs what he thinks? If he made a credible argument and acted accordingly I could judge. But he makes no argument and his only actions worth noting are in movies, so he's better evaluated in that context. His personal life is personal but like many Americans he feels it's his obligation, right and need to assault everyone else with it. Like I care what he considers ethical behavior anymore than I care what brand of toilet paper he uses. To make it worse he makes vague threatening aggressive comments about confrontation. In most corner bars that would land a guy his size and weight in the dumpster. As far as the Scientologist stuff, they're bugs on the windshield of life. Those who want to get hooked up with them will. Best advice I could give - steer clear of them and anyone who has anything to do with them. The people are more dangerous than the little black boxes. Stay away from them and let them soil their own yard all they want. I've never had anything even close to an encounter with them or anyone with them. Other than Cruize, who only comes up on my radar when he does something incredibly newsworthy like make an azs of himself. Again. I liked "Last Samurai" though. The Face of Enlightnment:

Exactly, Bluzeman. Seth, they should be promoting the video with Cruise's latest. The more people that see that, the more that people will see Scientology and run the other way.

Wired's Blog quote: A loose confederation of online troublemakers who call themselves Anonymous have declared war on the Church of Scientology by flooding its servers with fake data requests, describing the attacks as punishment for the Church's alleged abuse of copyright laws and alleged brainwashing of its members. Anonymous congregates on the net at various hangouts such as 711chan.org (NSFW) and partyvan.info and sundry IRC channels. The group usually amuses itself by stealing passwords to downloading sites and finding ways to harass online communities that its members disdain. They were last seen on THREAT LEVEL when a Los Angeles Fox News affiliate ran a story that hilariously implied the group's arsenal included exploding vans. The attack on Scientology, which Anonymous has dubbed Project Chanology, started in recent days, set off by the Church's most recent attempt to censor the internet by forcing sites to remove a creepy Tom Cruise Scientology video. A wiki set up for the project directs Anonymous members to download and use denial of service software, make prank calls, host Scientology documents the Church considers proprietary, and fax endless loops of black pages to the Church's fax machines to waste ink. Maybe they'll pick GS next. Wouldn't that be fun?

Good group though. Have good friends in Fredericksburg, TX.

Okay, memory's gone. Uncle Harry Day - "Burn the Chaffe" day...? Burn Chaffe came after UH Day? Or did it? Did that replace it? Groucho, we have the same approach to stuff, sounds like. Frankly, I could get rid of some stuff. I remember dumping all the bad advice I'd gotten over the years, and it was amazing. I felt a 100 pounds lighter. Jesus - y'know, when we talk about cleaning things up no better source than Jesus. Luke 17: When Jesus had finished speaking, a Pharisee invited him to eat with him; so he went in and reclined at the table. But the Pharisee, noticing that Jesus did not first wash before the meal, was surprised. Then the Lord said to him, "Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? But give what is inside the dish to the poor, and everything will be clean for you. "Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone. "Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces. "Woe to you, because you are like unmarked graves, which men walk over without knowing it." One of the experts in the law answered him, "Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us also." Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them. I don't doubt that Jesus ran a clean operation, but He didn't cater to being ripped on by spiritual tater-tots and bean counters. Y'know? Ya gotta maintain some dignity. Nobody should be walking into your house and critiquing your vacuuming and wanting to move furniture around or take down pictures or change what's in your CD player or suggest you throw away your stuff. That's just rude. There's no accounting for good taste but even amongst Wayfers ya gotta set limits. :)

Well, thanks WG. :) I appreciate the appreciation, you're appreciated! copenhagen, hopefully your still with us and your wife didn't throw you out. "This old thing hasn't worked right in years, it's godda go!" My stuff is my stuff. I like your reasoning a-Dan. Makes sense. Me, I really don't let anyone outside of our family get involved in my personal stuff to the extent anyone that isn't a blood relative or extremely close friend would feel compelled to advise me on what should stay or go. I have no spriritual advisors or the like when it comes to stuff. It's my stuff, I can't see why anyone would want to worry about it. I don't worry about theirs, y'know? That doesn't apply to someone walking through my garage who doesn't want to wear a hard hat - once you're warned ya gotta watch your step. But not all the time - right now I'm coming out of several projects, so it's a moderately mazed-out mess. I'll resort and organize a little and within an hour or two be back ready to go to some more extremely important and vital projects.

I agree with everyone, so far, copenhagen. Your concern is well placed. Couple thoughts and tips: 1.) "Balance" is the best way to view it. Define if you can what you're balancing. UH Day could mean a lot of things to different people. If it's a way to demonstrate to others how much ballast you're willing to toss over the side and show how on-it-doggnit you are, I'd have to name-check Jesus. Doing it for the approval of others thins the richness of anything, even if they be the right things. But we all do it. Tempering it with some common sense, some balance will help. What do you need? What does she need? What do you both want? Per Way-fer doctrine the man's the head of the house. Don't let no skirt tell you what to do. Set the standards, baby. Aaah. Okay, but if you work it out between you both, balance may be in your future sensei. 2.) Keepsakes and stuff that chronicles your lives as a family together are important. They're not essential, no, very little is. But it's a matter of what you're building as a family and how you want to retain that for the future. Someday, those things will mean a lot. They do to us. We were carting all kinds of things around for years and finally went through it all - the first time - and put together a couple boxes of stuff from our kids' early years, specific things we wanted to keep. There was a lot of other stuff - toys, games, gawd-know-what, we gave away. 3.) Give it away. If it's a Wayfers-only or a charity, others may be able to use what you don't need. Recycling can help others. If you have extra coats that don't fit anyone anymore, shoes that still have tread, books you won't read again - donate those bad boys. Right now someone's somewhere struggling to figure out how they're going to keep themselves and their kids warm tonight. That stuff will make a difference if you can get it to the right people. Donate. Have your wife stick a brochure or something in the pockets, maybe that will make it better. 4.) Wayfers can have a kind of superstitious fear of their belongings, that they can harbor spiritual influences and actual devil spirits. It's not uncommon for someone to take something they don't like and resolve their dislike on a spiritual level. She read in the uncle harry book about if phyicals are not in order spirituals can not be in order. Now, that's Bullshiste. Nothing against Uncle Harry but that's not true. Any numbknut can see that if our lives are in chaos it's going to be hard to get anything done. But the logic is so flawed and yet it sounds so true, as one-liners so often do. Topic for discussion - the physicals not being in order is a constant. We can and should "do what we can" but our physical efforts will never be in order, ever, no matter what we do. Humans will never get it right, all the time. We're not perfect, we're at best well intentioned. So you have to ask yourself what "spirituals" are being constrained by what "physicals"? The notion of a bunch of boxes in the basement holding you back "spiritually" is based on the idea of what they represent to you. If they represent something good, what's the problem? There is none. You guys just need to talk it through. Good luck. One last point - having a bunch of crap around you don't need will impede your ablility to accumulate more and better crap you don't need. In that regard, spring cleaning can be a good idea. :)

I wanted to add on to the relationship-with-Jesus-Christ deal, couple things. The fellowship aspect to what The Way built over the years was, IMO, one of the most important aspects of the whole thing. We'd quack on for hours if you let us, back in the day, about "it" being "The Word, it's the Word, what's the Word say, we're here for the Word, the Word the Word the Word" and that's fine. But in many ways it was like finding gold in the hills somewhere and then celebrating over striking it rich. Come Monday morning though somebody's going to have to grab a shovel and a pick. The work to be done was more than study and research though. "The Word" isn't only a physical thing that needs to be managed and "worked", word by word. The Way taught in PFAL and touched on it - God is "the Word", the Logos, known by the written word, declared by the living word Christ. The goal is to have some sort of relationship with God that's meaningful and real, today, by me. And God. If that was all academic and the goal was to have a correctly formed understanding of God and hmm, stuff, whatever goes along with it, like life - then fine. But the "Word", the bible itself points continually to a real relationship that includes my mind, my whole life. Stuff now. "Living". If Jesus Christ exists today in a way that He would be part of that there has to be a relationship. Of some kind. He informs my entire understanding of God, His way gives me the way, is the way. I don't think it's possible to disconnect from that, from Him. Ignore him or limit His role and how I view it, but not disconnect. The relationship is more than a description of how to act or conduct business. It's built into the way God has all of this working. I don't think it's limited in any way, today. It's different than what it was. Paul's writings said that - even if they'd known Christ after the flesh, they no longer knew Him that way. They were "amabassadors" for Christ, the whole of Who He'd been and who He was "now". The message and information has to focus on that, and He's not alive and gassing up every morning on coffee and bagels somewhere. It's different. Duh, right? It appears that the fullest understanding and benefit of the relationship comes from fellowship - the "body" of Christ, including the "head". A temple that brings glory to God, together. Fellowship is everything. People are of the utmost importance. From God's standpoint, if there's no people it's like a well laid out party with one guy in the corner blowing a noisemaker and yelling "wheeee!". The band's playing through "Isn't She Lovely" for the 1000th time, and is ready to take a smoke break. There's gifts on the table but no one's there to get theirs. Cake, perfectly cut. Plates and forks. Nobody's there. No fellowship, no body, waddya got? A lot, there's a lot, but not that.