WordWolf

I'm sure you didn't mean that quite like it sounded to me. I was speaking of SEVERAL accounts, and fears in them that were not borne out factually. That, to me, speaks of IRRATIONAL fear. When an irrational fear is CONSISTENT among different people, that, to me, speaks of a SUPERSTITION. (If lots of people are afraid, across several countries, of something from under their bed coming to get them in their sleep, that's a SUPERSTITION. If lots of people are afraid they will have friends commit suicide over the holidays, that's a superstition. Similarly, any widespread fear contrary to evidence and based on stories passed around- that I call a "superstition." "It makes more sense that it happened exactly as it was recorded." It's recorded EXACTLY as it happened. Some people ACTUALLY heard from angels, and ACTUALLY expected that would mean they would drop dead immediately as a result. As recorded, there was no reason FROM GOD for them to think that, so they failed to receive according to their superstitious believing. Since you're challenging my claim that this is what's going on in the text, rather than just say "I think it says this" and "I disagree-it says that", let's actually look at an account or two. ======================================= (KJV unless otherwise specified) Judges 6:11-23 11And there came an angel of the LORD, and sat under an oak which was in Ophrah, that pertained unto Joash the Abiezrite: and his son Gideon threshed wheat by the winepress, to hide it from the Midianites. 12And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him, and said unto him, The LORD is with thee, thou mighty man of valour. 13And Gideon said unto him, Oh my Lord, if the LORD be with us, why then is all this befallen us? and where be all his miracles which our fathers told us of, saying, Did not the LORD bring us up from Egypt? but now the LORD hath forsaken us, and delivered us into the hands of the Midianites. 14And the LORD looked upon him, and said, Go in this thy might, and thou shalt save Israel from the hand of the Midianites: have not I sent thee? 15And he said unto him, Oh my Lord, wherewith shall I save Israel? behold, my family is poor in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father's house. 16And the LORD said unto him, Surely I will be with thee, and thou shalt smite the Midianites as one man. 17And he said unto him, If now I have found grace in thy sight, then shew me a sign that thou talkest with me. 18Depart not hence, I pray thee, until I come unto thee, and bring forth my present, and set it before thee. And he said, I will tarry until thou come again. 19And Gideon went in, and made ready a kid, and unleavened cakes of an ephah of flour: the flesh he put in a basket, and he put the broth in a pot, and brought it out unto him under the oak, and presented it. 20And the angel of God said unto him, Take the flesh and the unleavened cakes, and lay them upon this rock, and pour out the broth. And he did so. 21Then the angel of the LORD put forth the end of the staff that was in his hand, and touched the flesh and the unleavened cakes; and there rose up fire out of the rock, and consumed the flesh and the unleavened cakes. Then the angel of the LORD departed out of his sight. 22And when Gideon perceived that he was an angel of the LORD, Gideon said, Alas, O LORD God! for because I have seen an angel of the LORD face to face. 23And the LORD said unto him, Peace be unto thee; fear not: thou shalt not die. ==================================== Ok, what happened here? An angel of the LORD, and the LORD, attempt to pass along a message (messages) to Gideon. They include "The LORD is with thee" "Thou shalt save Israel from the hand of the Midianites" and Gideon was sent by the LORD. the LORD would be with him. "Thou shalt smite the Midianites as one man." If it's really God telling you this, then you should know God's promising you'll at least be alive during the time you're carrying this out. (Come on, be logical-you can't accomplish a military victory as a corpse.) Gideon's lingering doubts centered around actually hearing from the LORD. When that was confirmed, Gideon SHOULD have known God wanted him to do stuff and expected Gideon to be alive while performing it. What was Gideon's response? AAAAAHHH! I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face! I shall now drop dead! The very next thing God had to tell him was "Peace, don't be afraid, you won't die." Was it LOGICAL for Gideon, at that point, to conclude he would drop dead as the result of seeing the angel of the LORD face to face? Gideon's premise: If I see the angel of the LORD face to face, I shall die. I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face. Conclusion: I shall die. Gideon not only did NOT die, God told him he would not die. Gideon's "logic" led to a false conclusion. Gideon's "logic" was faulty. What was "logical" about expecting to die specifically because he saw the angel of the LORD? There was NEVER an instruction to expect that. Go ahead- find one and prove me wrong- one place where God says "IF you see an angel of the LORD, you will drop dead soon after." You won't find one. It is illogical. Angels were sent to deliver messages. Messengers who killed every recipient of a message are of a very limited usefulness. =========================================== Judges 13:1-24 1And the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD delivered them into the hand of the Philistines forty years. 2And there was a certain man of Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose name was Manoah; and his wife was barren, and bare not. 3And the angel of the LORD appeared unto the woman, and said unto her, Behold now, thou art barren, and bearest not: but thou shalt conceive, and bear a son. 4Now therefore beware, I pray thee, and drink not wine nor strong drink, and eat not any unclean thing: 5For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines. 6Then the woman came and told her husband, saying, A man of God came unto me, and his countenance was like the countenance of an angel of God, very terrible: but I asked him not whence he was, neither told he me his name: 7But he said unto me, Behold, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and now drink no wine nor strong drink, neither eat any unclean thing: for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb to the day of his death. 8Then Manoah intreated the LORD, and said, O my Lord, let the man of God which thou didst send come again unto us, and teach us what we shall do unto the child that shall be born. 9And God hearkened to the voice of Manoah; and the angel of God came again unto the woman as she sat in the field: but Manoah her husband was not with her. 10And the woman made haste, and ran, and shewed her husband, and said unto him, Behold, the man hath appeared unto me, that came unto me the other day. 11And Manoah arose, and went after his wife, and came to the man, and said unto him, Art thou the man that spakest unto the woman? And he said, I am. 12And Manoah said, Now let thy words come to pass. How shall we order the child, and how shall we do unto him? 13And the angel of the LORD said unto Manoah, Of all that I said unto the woman let her beware. 14She may not eat of any thing that cometh of the vine, neither let her drink wine or strong drink, nor eat any unclean thing: all that I commanded her let her observe. 15And Manoah said unto the angel of the LORD, I pray thee, let us detain thee, until we shall have made ready a kid for thee. 16And the angel of the LORD said unto Manoah, Though thou detain me, I will not eat of thy bread: and if thou wilt offer a burnt offering, thou must offer it unto the LORD. For Manoah knew not that he was an angel of the LORD. 17And Manoah said unto the angel of the LORD, What is thy name, that when thy sayings come to pass we may do thee honour? 18And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret? 19So Manoah took a kid with a meat offering, and offered it upon a rock unto the LORD: and the angel did wonderously; and Manoah and his wife looked on. 20For it came to pass, when the flame went up toward heaven from off the altar, that the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar. And Manoah and his wife looked on it, and fell on their faces to the ground. 21But the angel of the LORD did no more appear to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was an angel of the LORD. 22And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God. 23But his wife said unto him, If the LORD were pleased to kill us, he would not have received a burnt offering and a meat offering at our hands, neither would he have shewed us all these things, nor would as at this time have told us such things as these. 24And the woman bare a son, and called his name Samson: and the child grew, and the LORD blessed him. Mrs Manoah was pretty level-headed. God (or the messenger thereof) gave her specific instructions as to she was to spend several years raising a child who wasn't even born. Logically, this meant God expected her to live to give birth to this child, and either raise him or arrange his raising before dying. Mrs Manoah concluded seeing an angel of the LORD meant a really accurate message since it was from God. As we see in the rest of Judges, that was what happened- which should be no surprise, since it proceeded logically from what happened. Mr Manoah, however, completely disregarded the entire message. What did Mr Manoah say? He realized he saw an angel, and said "AAAAAAHHH! I will definitely drop dead, because I saw 'God'." This was not logical- Mrs Manoah pointed that out. It also proceeded from a false premise- Seeing an angel of the LORD means one dies shortly thereafter. It happened in different places at different times, and was illogical each time. It was based on an irrational, illogical fear that was passed around. That's a superstition. Gideon and Mr Manoah had superstitious fears that never came to pass. They exhibited irrational fears. That's what the record shows.

Since this is an off-topic discussion, I made a new topic for it.

Actually, I thought he knew some of those were bs when he said them, but I think he actually conned HIMSELF by the end, when he was lamenting he was losing his eye after "never being sick a day in my life" and not even having A HEADACHE HIS ENTIRE LIFE and then going to losing an eye due to cancer, he also supposedly spent part of his final hours going over things in his head, and told someone privately that he was trying to figure out where he'd missed it somehow. His idea was his "LAW" of Believing would allow him to magically heal his body- so since it was a "LAW", something must be interfering and preventing it from acting, like someone catching an apple, preventing gravity from pulling it to the ground as it fell from a tree (my example.) If he REALLY thought all that was true, and convinced himself he could rewrite reality with force of will (without a power ring and a Green Lantern), then he actually looked back over the past few decades and was unable to find hundreds of sinful things that any sane person could identify. Since he was just talking privately to one person, I think he'd really convinced himself that what began as intentional lies were now the truth and reality reflected them.

I thought the last one was "Jurassic Park." Oh, well. Maybe I should actually SEE that movie sometime.... This one is probably the FIRST of Disney's "The Little Mermaid" movies. (As opposed to any sequel, or any version done by anyone else.)

It figures I finally check into the thread on one I know again- right after George gets it. That's Malcolm 10 all right. What?

I've really been trying to keep this thread free of wierwille's perverted errors... When he came up, I wanted him refuted, and then I wanted us to move on. Here's some of my postings... "Inadvertently, you keep presenting me with a False Dilemma between 2 choices, both of which I consider error: A) be afraid of God and serve and obey Him because the Almighty Smiter may Smite me B) be like vpw, sin like crazy, refuse to repent, and just run around with no self-control I reject the first position because I am FAR more loyal to a Loving Father whom I wish to please to make Him happy than I would be a Mighty Boss or God-Father I MUST please... or else..... I reject the second position because vpw lied completely when he claimed to respect God at all, revere or even care about Him. I'm under no restriction to lie in any way about respect, reverence, or AWE about God." "Concerning our attitude towards God, I think we all agree on PART of this. "The proper position to hold concerning God Almighty is on one's knees, in awe of His Magnificence, humble before Him and respectful to the utmost." "vpw's serious plans to sin, where he purposed in his heart to give his life over to sin, affected his doctrine and his practice, and poisoned his attitude towards God. He claimed we were supposed to respect God, but in practice he gave God's Will for vpw all the attention a dog gives a fire hydrant." "When we sin, we should feel bad, and come to God Almighty, humble and sorry we sinned." "God has made us beloved children, which doesn't change any of the above- as a child of such an awesome God, we should approach Him on our knees." "Before I go any further into this discussion, I want to know a bit more about our common ground, what we already agree on. Can we agree that vpw had neither RESPECT, REGARD nor AWE of God, and used the TRAPPINGS while not actually CARING, meaning his talk of caring about God was all talk, simply a SCRIPT to enact, a false face to wear, a mask? Can we agree that if vpw had actually respected God, he would have cared about doing things God said to do and avoiding things God said to avoid, and would have at least been making an effort to do so rather than inventing lies to claim God approved of every lust of his flesh and eyes and his pride of life? " "I think that, in part, we are agreeing on some important things. (snip) B) vpw was a depraved pervert who deceived people and abused God's people and God's Word to promote the lusts of his flesh, the lusts of his eyes, and his pride of life. In doing so, he taught perversions of many things of God (sometimes passing along some non-perversions and good teachings from others) that affect people until they are healed or recovered from his abuse." I've wanted us all to agree he and his definitions were perverted and error, so we could agree they were useless and move on WITHOUT him- but one poster keeps bringing him back into the discussion. Really-if I was doing that, wouldn't you see a pattern, and draw a conclusion by now? ======================== (I'll respond to Naten when I have more time.)

quote name='Steve Lortz' date='01 January 2012 - 03:36 AM' timestamp='1325406963' post='536257' (snip) WordWolf, you speculate as to what my be the cause of my apparent obsession with the fear of God. (snip) /quote I'm not SPECULATING anything- neither "the cause of" your "apparent obsession with the fear of God" or anything else. I said: "What I think is a problem is that Steve's understanding of the concepts of "fear" and "respect" of God were so horribly abused and raped by vpw for vpw's purposes (furthering and facilitating practices of his lusts) that Steve has spent years trying to come out from under that abuse and put both into a healthy perspective in spite of long-term exposure to a degraded perv who deserved to be put in prison for even HALF of what he did. I like Steve and I applaud his efforts, but I think he's having difficulties seeing this discussion without seeing vpw's perversion at the same time- which is understandable. I empathize and will pray for him, and offer any assistance I can give on that." Whatever else is on your mind on the subject, it's plaimly obvious to me that your posts keep circling back to refute a claim NOBODY here made and in fact, keep refuting- the dysfunctional teaching of a pervert who taught in a perverse fashion to serve HIMSELF. quote name='Steve Lortz' date='15 December 2011 - 10:16 PM' timestamp='1324005384' post='535792' (snip) Wierwille didn't like the pain of the fear of the LORD, and he didn't want to repent (arrogance), so he did his best to drown out the pain with Drambuie, and with the endorphins released through sex (he bacame a sex addict). (snip) /quote quote name='Steve Lortz' date='17 December 2011 - 09:24 AM' timestamp='1324131892' post='535848' (snip) The trust/fear of Wierwille certainly brought a snare! Love, Steve /quote quote name='Steve Lortz' date='17 December 2011 - 09:45 PM' timestamp='1324176354' post='535862' (snip) Wierwille taught that Romans 11:20b, "Be not high-minded but fear..." could not be addressed to Christians, and spun a whole segment of PFAL baloney, lying about who Romans 11:20b was addressed to. When he couldn't use that same excuse to disregard the fact that the word "fear" is addressed to Christians, such as Philippians 2:12b, "...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling," he taught that it doesn't mean fear, it just means respect. Well, it does carry a sense of respect, but the fear part of it is stronger than the respect part, and is emphasized by the "and trembling [tromos = trembling, shaking, shivering with fear]." I believe that ALL the corruption, ALL the devastation, ALL the ruination, ALL the evil of TWI can be linked to the truth that Wierwille did not FEAR God, and he taught us that we shouldn't either... but that's a story for another day! Love, Steve The word of that depraved pervert keeps coming up over and over, re-introduced by you even though I keep trying to get us to agree that he was WRONG and move on completely without him or anything he ever said. I don't know ALL of what goes through your mind on this subject, but your POSTS seem to circle around a subject you can't see past- which suggests to me this is where your thinking is on this subject. (Otherwise you're putting on a performance for us-and I think your posts are 100% genuine and from the heart (and so for the rest of us so far on this thread.) (Some quote tags are broken because I couldn't get the reply to post with so many uses. So I left the data intact and removed the brackets.}

I think that, in part, we are agreeing on some important things. A) The "fear of God" is a thing that is not really a matter of being scared of God, but driven to one's knees or flat on the floor in humility before a God who deserves the most awe-stricken respect, and who COULD do things that would produce the most abject TERROR and HORROR into us, but loves us enough to limit HIMSELF and allow us to make our own choices even when we are stupid and disobedient to what are sensible instructions meant to avoid pain and suffering for us. B) vpw was a depraved pervert who deceived people and abused God's people and God's Word to promote the lusts of his flesh, the lusts of his eyes, and his pride of life. In doing so, he taught perversions of many things of God (sometimes passing along some non-perversions and good teachings from others) that affect people until they are healed or recovered from his abuse. C) The word "fear" as in "fear of God" is a broad term that encompasses BOTH what we think of as "fear" and "anxiety", and what we think of as "respect" and "awe"- but in either case, in large amounts sufficient to drive one to one's knees in humility. What I think is a problem is that Steve's understanding of the concepts of "fear" and "respect" of God were so horribly abused and raped by vpw for vpw's purposes (furthering and facilitating practices of his lusts) that Steve has spent years trying to come out from under that abuse and put both into a healthy perspective in spite of long-term exposure to a degraded perv who deserved to be put in prison for even HALF of what he did. I like Steve and I applaud his efforts, but I think he's having difficulties seeing this discussion without seeing vpw's perversion at the same time- which is understandable. I empathize and will pray for him, and offer any assistance I can give on that.

Before I go any further into this discussion, I want to know a bit more about our common ground, what we already agree on. Can we agree that vpw had neither RESPECT, REGARD nor AWE of God, and used the TRAPPINGS while not actually CARING, meaning his talk of caring about God was all talk, simply a SCRIPT to enact, a false face to wear, a mask? Can we agree that if vpw had actually respected God, he would have cared about doing things God said to do and avoiding things God said to avoid, and would have at least been making an effort to do so rather than inventing lies to claim God approved of every lust of his flesh and eyes and his pride of life?

Actually, I think your news is OLD and no longer CORRECT. For a few decades, the US has been catering specifically to the youth culture, and older folks have been trying to pretend they weren't getting older. (How many women have had lots of 39th Birthdays?) That's also true of some other countries- in Japan, once you're out of school, your life is pretty much considered devoid of fun, so everybody looks at high school even more than college as "glory days." Women in their 30s and 40s can be found emulating schoolgirls in mannerisms in order to find some hope of landing a husband. (As I've read-I've never actually been there.) In Brazil, it's not so much about youth as about looks- the country's economy seems to revolve around plastic surgery and there's HOMELESS getting surgery and paying on installment. (I SWEAR I'm not making that up.) However, TO A DEGREE, that has CHANGED. The main reason it changed? The Baby Boomers are growing OLDER. So, the target demographics for a lot of things has shifted with them over decades. Yes, there's a lot of kids who are conspicuous consumers, and they're the first to embrace a lot of new technology, but a lot of people are trying to re-target those in their 40s and older. (Comic books were once targeted towards children, and then teenagers. Now, there's been a lot of story changes to return stories and characters to where they were IN THE 1970's- when Baby Boomers were reading them, and watching cartoons. Someone pointed out the childhood of the Baby Boomers is recreated on radio stations every Christmas, and "a tradition" is anything Baby Boomers grew up with. Similarly, movies are doing the same. We're seeing adaptations of 70s television shows (Starsky and Hutch, Dukes of Hazzard, the Avengers) and stories that show older people in more central roles (Space Cowboys could not have worked as a movie back in the 1970s.) There's a LOT of people getting older, and television shows are targeting them as well in demographics, plus all the media. Hey, corporations want your money, so if you're older, they'll try to appeal to you with "older" products.

I wemt back to review the accounts. The account of "doubting Thomas" needs to be accounted for in any understanding of who was where. John 20:24 (KJV) "24But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came." So, when 11 are mentioned, is it because JUDAS is missing, or because THOMAS is missing? If you read it ASKING, then the most direct read of the verses suggests the following: A) Judas committed suicide as outlined in the Gospels. B) Jesus appeared to "the 11", in at least 2 instances, the first without Thomas,the second WITH Thomas. That counts as his appearing to them. C) Jesus spent the remaining time with "the 11", then ascended from among them. D) Then the 11 held a meeting with the other disciples who'd been among them since Jesus began his earthly ministry, and decided on their own to promote a 12th to replace Judas (which was prophesied they'd do.) Matthias was chosen. the idea of Judas being present is all speculation and there's no evidence for it- in fact, if one doesn't ASSUME it's true, the verses would never suggest it.

I'll chime in with something substantial on the write-up as soon as I have time. As for the recording, I'll see what I can do when/if I have time. It's always good exercise in critical thinking and analysis whenever I read the kool-aid drinking material, decades after I had a chance to think for myself. It's like reading about day-to-day life in Jonestown.

Yes, "LEECHED" is a more appropriate word than "stole", and "subverted" might be better yet. Those Jesus People were already serving God and moving among the unbelievers and converting them and seeing miracles and practicing love the way God wanted. vpw read about them and rushed over, eager to recruit them to his organization by impressing them. (He also wanted no-strings sex with women, but that didn't happen.) Some were not impressed by him, some were. (He was a dynamic speaker who used the work of several others and claimed it was all his own work. They were naive enough to believe a man claiming to represent God to them would not misrepresent himself and present himself fraudulently. So, they joined his group. Before they joined, membership numbers were a slow trickle over DECADES. Once a handful of Jesus People joined, these legitimate Christians exploded onto the scene in twi and all its growth can be traced to THEM. Shortly after they were given a relatively free hand in growing twi, vpw made it all about him and fired all their top Christians. Membership continued to grow, but not exponentially. The people they'd been exposed to were now reaching others, and so on. The Jesus People who DIDN'T join twi made a much bigger impact on society because they were busy with God and didn't spend time advertising a class nor an organization. Such a move CANNOT be done now by twi NOR the splinters. There's no similar movement of naive Christians to fool. Any Christian who hears of ANY of the groups can look online and see the other side of the story, and having the truth side by side with their story makes it obvious they're at least PARTLY fraudulent, lying, or badly in error. And that's after having DECADES to improve faulty doctrines and practices and so on. The major changes have largely been either COSMETIC or trading one error for another (Momentus, personal prophecy, etc.)

Before I forget.... This business of an angel beginning its message with "Fear not" goes back a LONG way into the Old Testament. In a few places it's rather specific that the people had the superstition that if they saw an angel, they would drop dead. So, the angel had to begin by calming them down sometimes, even specifying the person would not drop dead. In one case (Samson's parents I think), an angel gives some lengthy information concerning raising of a child who wasn't born yet-along with the announcement of his conception, and then the angel leaves. Dad's freaking out because he's expecting them both to drop dead. Mom is much more sensible. What would be the point of giving us instructions on raising a child for several years, when he isn't even born yet and we're supposed to drop dead now? Obviously, we're expected to live to raise him. It was an irrational fear the people added and did no good for any of them. It's my personal speculation that that specific superstition MIGHT be related to the angel of death and the 10th plague on Egypt. Maybe. Either way, that wasn't confirmation we're supposed to have anxiety when hearing from God- it was a report of the failings of the listeners to actually LISTEN, and their failure to keep superstition away from their expectations of God Almighty. ============================== Concerning our attitude towards God, I think we all agree on PART of this. "The proper position to hold concerning God Almighty is on one's knees, in awe of His Magnificence, humble before Him and respectful to the utmost." "vpw's serious plans to sin, where he purposed in his heart to give his life over to sin, affected his doctrine and his practice, and poisoned his attitude towards God. He claimed we were supposed to respect God, but in practice he gave God's Will for vpw all the attention a dog gives a fire hydrant." "When we sin, we should feel bad, and come to God Almighty, humble and sorry we sinned." "God has made us beloved children, which doesn't change any of the above- as a child of such an awesome God, we should approach Him on our knees." Our instructions being what they are, I can see the sense of realizing one is messing up and being "fearful" of God when one has sinned badly and deserves the consequences of those sins. As to our attitude towards approaching God, as a son, I approach with love and thankfulness- which doesn't change the awe and doesn't change His Majesty. With love towards Him, and the reverence and awe He deserves, I take all His instructions seriously, and seek to do what He says to do, and avoid what He says to avoid. I WANT to please Him because He deserves to be pleased- not because I'm afraid of reprisals. I suppose the results might LOOK the same, but the attitude of heart is completely different. As for fearing other things, I can easily see people fearing other people and so on, and have no need to flip from one extreme to the other. The 1611 meaning of "fear" sometimes meant what we mean now as "fear" and sometimes meant what we mean now as "awe", but in either case indicated strong emotion.

"Does he still teach the same doctrinal crap we all know from our Way experience? It doesn't matter how well you teach it, crap is still crap." Inspector Praline: Mr Milton? You are sole proprietor and owner of the Whizzo Chocolate Company? Milton: I am. Praline: Superintendent Parrot and I are from the hygiene squad. We want to have a word with you about your box of chocolates entified The Whizzo Quality Assortment. Milton: Ah, yes. Praline: If I may begin at the beginning. First there is the cherry fondue. This is extremely nasty, but we can't prosecute you for that. Milton: Agreed. Praline: Next we have number four, 'crunchy frog'. Milton: Ah, yes. Praline: Am I right in thinking there's a real frog in here? Milton: Yes. A little one. Praline: What sort of frog? Milton: A dead frog. Praline: Is it cooked? Milton: No. Praline: What, a raw frog? Milton: We use only the finest baby frogs, dew picked and flown from Iraq, cleansed in finest quality spring water, lightly killed, and then sealed in a succulent Swiss quintuple smooth treble cream milk chocolate envelope and lovingly frosted with glucose. Praline: That's as maybe, it's still a frog. ==================================================================== ==================================================================== [Over the past few decades, almost all of us have raised our expectations as to what is acceptable. A few decades ago, I made an effort to show up where he was teaching something live. If not for the hype I went in sipping, it would have been a chance to hang out with other Christians and sit through something of little relevance and passing interest. Back then, still sipping the hype, I went home and described it as "an excuse to have him teach". A few decades later, I've swept my brain clear of the "gee whiz" factor and would evaluate purely on the basis of the material and the delivery. If he hasn't improved DRAMATICALLY (and our eyewitness account says he has not) then he'd be just as big a yawn as before-only moreso. Even if you use the FINEST dead frogs and dress them up, you're still dealing with a dead frog.]

Any event in one's life can be an opportunity to get more stress, and many of them can be an opportunity for more joy. So long as you determine your expectations of Christmas, you can choose not to get more stress from it (unless it's from working during the holiday season-them the work IS more stressful because people are running around like headless chickens December 23-24. Christmas does not cause an increase in the suicide rate. www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/suicide.asp as for people with little money going into further debt, that's true if people decide to go out and buy presents they can't afford. Whatever happened to MAKING presents for someone? This is the internet age- someone can "make" arts and crafts with love and caring, or a "multimedia presentation" that can bring the family great joy, or "make" something else or do something and make THAT a gift. (A "gift" of volunteering to babysit can be HIGHLY appreciated by many parents. ;) ) Small children can be displeased about that, but small children are often displeased with the world and need to be TAUGHT by their parents. One thing that needs to be taught is what really matters. As for adults that can be displeased about that, they need to grow up and learn that life is not primarily about the material goods that possess you. An event, in and of itself, doesn't "do things" to people. There's a festival in Europe every year. It's celebrated in many cities. In one city, they decide to celebrate it by running bulls through the streets. Every year, people decide to run through the streets with them. Every year, some people get hurt, and there's usually at least one death. The holiday didn't injure anyone. People decided that they wanted to "celebrate" it by risking life and limb, and they lost some of that. The more mature celebrants don't do that. St Patrick's Day, in much of Ireland, is a solemn day of "celebration." In many other places, they "celebrate" it by getting drunk and throwing up. The holiday didn't do that. So, if people build up unrealistic expectations, they will be disappointed. That's acceptable for small children for Christmas, but adults have little excuse. If people do foolish things (like run around crowded stores like maniacs and end up injured), THEY (and the other maniacs) did that, not the holiday. I've never been in danger of injury no matter how many stores I've entered. As to linking December 25 to "the glory of the birth of Jesus Christ", I can't do that and will not try. The time of the year is wrong, and it was chosen as the day for celebration almost arbitrarily, since people were already celebrating that day. However, I like the idea of remembering that Jesus Christ was born and celebrating that, even if many details are wrong (no drummer boy, Gaspar, Melchior, Balthasar, etc.)

"DEAR EDITOR: I am 8 years old. "Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus. "Papa says, 'If you see it in THE SUN it's so.' "Please tell me the truth; is there a Santa Claus? "VIRGINIA O'HANLON. "115 WEST NINETY-FIFTH STREET." VIRGINIA, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except [what] they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge. Yes, VIRGINIA, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished. Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world. You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, VIRGINIA, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding. No Santa Claus! Thank God! he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.

Christmas was named for the Mass service held on that day- as was Candlemas and Michaelmas. Being undereducated for his position, trained to make up whatever he wanted by vpw who did so, and a major dipstick, lcm made up that "Christmas" was short for "Christ masSACRE", and he said that was the murder of all the children by Herod's soldiers to try to wipe out the Christ child (the Roman Catholic Church refers to those children as the "holy innocents" and commemorates them in their Christmas Pageants.) So, he (and other people) would respond to "Merry Christmas" with "Happy kill-Christ to you, too". In twi, a lot of people did what they were expected and just believed whatever nonsense came out of vpw or lcm's mouths. They were dipsticks, too. Most of them, however, have grown up since then. Yes, Virginia, there is life after twi!

Many of us are now Christians who are MORE devout than before, who care MORE about GOD since we care LESS about MAN. With all the time you're spending to please twi, how much time do you have to care for your family (which is required by God), to learn His Word (and not just go over and over and over whatever few subjects twi puts on tapes this month) and really, to learn more about God Almighty (rather than hobble yourself with what ANY group says about Him)?

[Ok, you looked them over, and you see that as perfectly sensible. Me, I looked them over and see that as contradictory. I suppose we'll end up agreeing to disagree there.] [Cool. It looked differently to me with 2 people "skipping over" what I saw were the relevant verses, but it was just 2 people with only so many hours in a day.] [i don't think ALL occurrences of "phobos" should be rendered "reverence" or "awe", but I'm convinced rendering them ALL as "fear" is error. Not all strong emotions are fearful- but SOME are. Not all strong emotions are reverent- but SOME are. I can easily see some accounts where someone is fearful-either appropriately or not- and other accounts where they are not, but are too filled with awe at God's Majesty to even wonder if they should be scared. I'm getting the impression that you're saying something like this (while you're saying that's at least partially incorrect): -God wants us to be afraid of Him -it is appropriate and healthy to be afraid of God -obedience to God is motivated by being afraid of God-and that is as it should be What I'm saying is more like: -God wants us to love Him and consider Him with the utmost respect and reverence -it is appropriate and healthy to be in awe of God -obedience to God is motivated by love for a truly Awesome God, and wanting to please Him If possible, I'd like to explore these concepts, because I think that's really where the meat of this discussion is. Maybe you can start by expanding what you were saying at the end, about the interactions of Peter, the prophets, and so on. I'd especially like it if you could either include the verse references for specific incidents, or the complete verses as well. If we're going to discuss what some verses mean, we should look at what they say, first. Whenever you actually have time, of course. This will take time to do right.]

This is not a conversation between two, it's a group discussion that started out from what the 4 of us posted in another thread. It's the type of comparison that bothered you that bothered me enough to start this thread. Our relationships with God are complicated enough that there's probably some "fear" in there somewhere-and a "healthy" amount, if there is one, is that there's enough to help remind one to obey without being the prime reason for obeying. I've spoken to a non-Christian, and they've said that one of the reasons they're a NON-Christian is that Christians never came by with any motivation to believe that they could get behind. The relevant part of that for this discussion is that Christians kept trying to get them to believe and serve God to prevent that same Loving God from doing horrible things to them. Oh, gee, where do I sign up, that sounds like just the god I was looking for? I really don't get that. I mean, how many Christians out there can't recite John 3:16? Again, any post relating to the actual discussion topic is welcome and appreciated.

[i don't know Yorkies. If you'd described their equivalents in a wolf pack, I could give a decent opinion. So I shall pretend for a moment that's exactly what you asked, since the answers should be the same in this instance and for this discussion. (Canine experts and zoologists would disagree, especially in a different context.) The losing canine ENDS the fight by giving the sign of submission. It's a fight, but not one "to the death", more to determine which is stronger. So, if Dunkie had not given the sign of submission, the other dog would have roughed him up, then done the neck thing again, in effect "requesting" a "surrender" or "submission." Dunkie would then have submitted. If not, the other dog would have been a LOT rougher and Dunkie might not have been in any shape to submit. I'm not sure if the alpha would have considered "too beaten to move" as an "official" submission since I've never heard of a canine that was beaten in a straight fight and refused to submit if offered the chance. My understanding is that both the signal of dominance (the neck grab) and the signal of submission (of a number of types) are instinctive and essentially "hard-wired." If they WERE wolves, they would be easier to read afterwards, too. Dogs often can't display the same body language as wolves due to biological differences. An alpha will demonstrate his status by his stance, position, and the positions of his tail and ears. A lesser rank will similarly signal his submission to the alpha through all of those as well. (IIRC, failing to do so can initiate a fresh dominance challenge.) However, a dog whose tail has been docked can't use his tail to signal dominance nor submission, and a dog with floppy ears can likewise signal neither. I really don't think of any of that as about "fear", but more about social structure, ritual, and instinctive behavior.

[How dare you have a life while I'm pontificating?] ;) [i may not have a lot of anxiety and stress when I think about God, but being forced to deal with Momentus and Momentus survivors is scary!] ;) [i think the journey will be worthwhile even if we both end up concluding exactly the same things we did when we started. We're both bringing something to the table.] [That would depend on your professional status as one. I don't think of myself as one because I'm really a hobbyist concerning words, and haven't put in the time yet at any academic or paycheck-level. I like to quote the websites for the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary and the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language because those are the 2 most reputable dictionaries in print form that are available, and either would serve a person a lifetime (or as long as the book holds out.) I've used both in the past, in paper form, and can say their reputations are deserved. One old operating definition of an "expert" is "anyone from out of town with a briefcase." This doesn't work with us because twi had too many people come in from out of town, carrying briefcases, who were incompetent at anything except yelling and spouting platitudes.]

vpw's "ministry" was nothing all the years until 1953. Then he got ahold of Stiles' book, and Leonard's class. In the case of Leonard's class, he finished the class he interrupted (bulled his way into, showing up when Leonard said it was in progress and he couldn't take it since it already began.) Then he took it again a few months later, bringing a few others. A few months later, vpw asks Leonard if it would be all right to teach it once, locally. Leonard consents, and vpw sends him a photo of "Leonard's" class that is in BGL's photo albums to this day. Meanwhile, vpw told all the students this was vpw's class and never mentions Leonard. Yet the students who all came with him to take Leonard's class are all considered GRADS when this "first" class takes place, which, of course, is impossible if it's really "HIS" class. Leonard never considered vpw would be so unprincipled as to continue to secretly teach Leonard's class, or to fail to give Leonard credit where it was obviously due, so it was many years later when Leonard found out what vpw had done. Meanwhile, vpw claimed to be teaching the class the first time with no syllabus or course layout. This makes no sense-unless one was already made and vpw was working from THAT. Soon, vpw claims he has a "textbook" for "his" class on Receiving the Holy Spirit Today- and presents a retyped, rebound copy of Stiles' book with the same name vpw rebranded Leonard's class to. So now vpw used Leonard's class and Stiles' book. Later, he added material to both from other sources- Bullinger, Kenyon, etc- and expanded the material into a few more books and 2 more classes. More stuff to sell meant more income from books and classes. vpw's "splinter" group from Leonard was grossly inferior to Leonard's because Leonard wanted to EMPOWER Christians so they could work locally on their own better, but vpw wanted them all DEPENDENT upon HIM.

Ok, I'm glad we're having a discussion here. However, I'm getting the feeling someone or more than someone may be skipping past the Bible verses I posted, because they seem to not address them. Me, I think the verses are of critical importance to the discussion. Any example I or anyone else can spin means nothing if the verses say something else. I disagree with your interpretation of events. Two canines interacted and eventually they were bound to have to determine dominance between them-which one had authority over which. (I've studied this with wolves, but I've read about dog interactions as well.) The fight didn't go until one was about to "kill" the other- the fight went to the (hard-wired) end of the fight when the winner was clearly evident to both. (You left out the submission display of the loser-how the loser signified to the winner he understood he lost-otherwise the fight would have continued.) The dogs worked out their ranking between each other. Unless something changes the situation, that will hold for years, possibly their entire lives. It's based on which is STRONGER, but is not FEAR-BASED. I think you're IMPOSING a label on the situation in order to understand it by your terms, not canine terms. (If you were some people I'd think you were doing it to fuzz the issues, but I think you're making a good-faith attempt both to understand and communicate that understanding, despite us disagreeing. I'd much rather have that even if we never agree.) Those people who think humans and apes are closely related can have trouble with the greater similarity between canine family structures and human family structures than either with apes. Looks to me that you ended up with a similar situation-a dominance struggle. One party challenged the other, and it progressed until one accepted the dominance of the other. You mentioned nothing of any VIOLENCE. I don't see him as FEARING you but as RESPECTING you-especially seeing you as dominant to him. Without any threat or display of violence, I see no trigger for any FEAR, but rather indicators of a dominance display that played out. If you left out important details, perhaps there was some violence or threats. Otherwise, I interpret this differently than you as well. I wasn't trying to make a definition as much as illustrate the contrast. (But thank you for reading what I came up with.) For definitions of the modern meaning of "fear", I'll go with what the PROFESSIONAL wordsmiths said-which I also posted. "a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined;" "Synonyms: foreboding, apprehension, consternation, dismay, dread, terror, fright, panic, horror, trepidation, qualm. Antonyms: courage, security, calm, intrepidity." "concern or anxiety" "something that causes feelings of dread or apprehension" "A very unpleasant or disturbing feeling caused by the presence or imminence of danger" "A feeling of disquiet or apprehension" "A reason for dread or apprehension" If you actually want to discuss the modern meaning of the word "fear", I'd strongly recommend we proceed THERE rather than from anything you or I would dash off typing. Inadvertently, you keep presenting me with a False Dilemma between 2 choices, both of which I consider error: A) be afraid of God and serve and obey Him because the Almighty Smiter may Smite me B) be like vpw, sin like crazy, refuse to repent, and just run around with no self-control I reject the first position because I am FAR more loyal to a Loving Father whom I wish to please to make Him happy than I would be a Mighty Boss or God-Father I MUST please... or else..... I reject the second position because vpw lied completely when he claimed to respect God at all, revere or even care about Him. I'm under no restriction to lie in any way about respect, reverence, or AWE about God. I'm curious about your thoughts concerning how some respected research teams from legitimate Bible organizations have rendered "phobos" as "reverence" rather than "fear"- as I posted above. Do you think they are in error when they do so? What about the verses I posted where the concept of "fear" as we know it seems antithetical to what's happening in the sentence, where people have joy and seem in AWE of God, but the KJV renders their emotions as "fear" and "joy" simultaneously. Should that really be rendered AWE, or do you think the people were afraid of God while being joyful about Him at the same time? And should I repost the verses again for easy reference?