WordWolf

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?

I see the problem as a worldview difference. There's people who've told themselves the following: "I had good times, learned good Bible, and saw some results in my life as a result of my time in twi. Therefore, I have to buy into everything vpw said no matter how ridiculous, and defend every claim of his no matter how ridiculous, and I am incapable of ever improving my understanding of the Bible, God, Christ, or Christianity because that's not how we did it when I was young and impressionable. Besides, vpw was legitimate because when he was in public, he was a persuasive speaker." They refuse to grow out of their spiritual adolescence. They had some good times, learned some things, and then refuse to grow past them. The conundrum is confusing all the individual things for one indivisible thing, so that ONE thing being true means ALL of them are true no matter how silly.

The REVERENCE of God is FAR more encompassing than the modern word "fear" would limit things. If one is AFRAID of God, if one's understanding begins only with the concept that God's ready to Smite thee as The Almighty Smiter, then, hey, that's an understanding that I find both LIMITING and DiSQUIETING. Am I supposed to serve God out of a sense of a God-Father, who receives my service as a sort of "protection money" so He doesn't cause any "accidents" to happen to me or mine? Am I supposed to serve God out of a sense that He's the Mightiest Mutha in the Universe and anyone else would just get smacked down, so go with the toughest? Sorry, I find that your concept of "fearing" neither matches all the verses nor motivates me to serve Him, Your God sounds more like a bully or an organized crime boss than a Heavenly Father whom I want to make proud of me. Me, I REVERENCE a God who's so awesome I go to my knees in humility to Him-not because He requires it, but because He deserves it and I wish to show Him respect out of my free will. If having a God, and "fearing" Him drops you to your knees before Him, and this brings you "peace and joy", well, I'm happy for you, but that sounds more like STOCKHOLM SYNDROME, or a wife devoted to an abusive husband, or a devotee to twi who is afraid to leave "the household" more than any relationship with any God I'd ever want to serve.

"The issue is not with English it is with the greek!" The issue is not with the Greek, it is with the English. Koine Greek is a dead language, and so the words in Koine Greek don't change in meaning. What changes in meaning is the English it's translated into. English has changed a LOT in 400 years. The Koine Greek word has remained the same, but the English word has become victim to the perfectly normal, everyday process of "the specialization of language." Down the centuries, we've seen what's called the SPECIALIZATION of language. That's why the phrase "meat and drink" in English once meant "food and beverage" but now "meat" only refers to what a carnivore will eat, and "drink" generally means a beverage with alcohol (or we call it a "SOFT drink".) There's lots of words where that's happened. A "facsimile" is an imitation, a copy. Yet, a "copy" now is often thought to be a "photocopy", and a "facsimile copy", or as it's shortened, "FAX", is a photocopy produced through a specific machine that operates as a remote printer. All living languages do that.] www.quora.com/John-Bagnall/Word-Definitions/answers How important are word definitions to the process of communication? John Bagnall, Wordsmith Ultimately, clear definitions (that are understood and agreed upon by all parties) are essential to successful communication. If I use words believing them to mean one thing, but you understand them to mean another, we have a recipe for confusion. At best, our misunderstanding may simply cause some brief and harmless embarrassment that can be quickly resolved. At worst, there is the potential for deep and lasting damage. This is all the more so for the fact that what words mean and what the user means when he or she uses them may also be at odds. In 1953, 19-year-old Derek Bentley was executed in Wandsworth Prison, London for his part in the murder of a policeman. Bentley had shouted to his co-defendent, who was carrying a gun, ''Let him have it!'' The case hung on whether Bentley was instructing his younger accomplice to hand over the pistol or to fire it; the court decided it was the latter. www.quora.com/What-are-the-words-that-have-been-so-abused-in-their-use-that-their-original-meaning-is-gone What are the words that have been so abused in their use that their original meaning is gone? In other words, what are some good examples of words definitions gone crazy? John Bagnall, Wordsmith It's a moot point whether the shift in meaning of a word over time is the result of abuse per se as opposed to an entirely natural process of gradual evolution (known as language drift). Examples of usages that have changed over different periods of time (and as the result of different influences and circumstances) include: Decimate vb now means: destroy all, devastate did mean: kill/destroy one tenth Gay adj (also now n) now means: a sexual orientation did mean: happy, free of care Quantum adj now means: big did mean: small Awesome adj now means: stunning, wonderful, great did mean: frightening, dreadful, weird Aggravate vb now means: annoy, make worse did mean: burden, weigh down Counterfeit n now means: cheap, shoddy copy did mean: perfect copy Hopefully adv now means: with luck, it is to be hoped that did mean: in a hopeful manner Fortuitous adj now means: lucky, fortunate did mean: by chance, accidental Radical adj now means: extreme, controversial did mean: basic, fundamental Want vb now means: desire did mean: lack finally: Defecate vb did mean: purify, cleanse now means: well, you decide.... =================================== Ok, the concept I was referring to is more often called LANGUAGE DRIFT. But you can see it happens all the time, as long as a language is spoken-a "living" language. A "dead" language doesn't change. "The word φοβος is the greek word for fear at least thats what they teach you when learning greek. Granted when you look up the word it says respect although not used in scripture because I don't see the context in many of the passages as respect..." The Greek word "phobos" isn't the issue-that's stayed the same. It's been translated into English as "fear" for many centuries-and THAT's the issue. "Phobos" always meant one thing-but "fear" has DRIFTED over at least the last 400 years. The more generalized, previous meaning was a great emotion. That applied whether the emotion was NEGATIVE (fear, anxiety) or POSITIVE (awe, reverence). Many passages in Scripture, it MIGHT be translated either way and an argument-whether valid or not-can be made for either. So, let's not waste our time on pages of what would amount to a shrugged shoulder. The passages where it could not sensibly be a NEGATIVE emotion, but an AWE and REVERENCE, are up for discussion. If they don't exist, than there's insufficient proof to support a claim that the language drift has changed the meaning, and we can try to claim it's all the CURRENT meaning of "fear" and discuss why. Since they DO exist, the existence of at least a DIFFERENT, POSITIVE meaning in effect in 1611 is demonstrated, and this whole "fear has always only meant one thing" position has been successfully DISPROVEN. (You still are free to hold a disproven, refuted belief, however- there are still Flat Earthers and people who think vpw really heard from God in 1942.) Acts 2:42-43 King James Version (KJV) 42And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. Luke 7:15-16 King James Version (KJV) 15And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother. 16And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people. Luke 1:64-65 King James Version (KJV) 64And his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue loosed, and he spake, and praised God. 65And fear came on all that dwelt round about them: and all these sayings were noised abroad throughout all the hill country of Judaea. Matthew 28:7-9 King James Version (KJV) 7And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you. 8And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. 9And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. Myself, I'm waiting for a good explanation as to exactly how one can have "fear and great joy" at the same time- if the MODERN MEANING of the word "fear" is meant. You CAN'T feel GREAT JOY while experiencing fears. If a person has a phobia of something, and is experiencing great joy, and you introduce the object of the phobia, then the person will STOP feeling great joy and REPLACE that feeling with FEAR. If one takes into account that "fear" in 1611 meant something it no longer means in 2011, then it makes sense. ========================== Now, you've admitted that the dictionaries have a definition of "reverence" in them, but claim surprise they do. Should have read my post in its entirety before announcing it was incorrect. I posted the examples at least once already. Ephesians 5:21 King James Version (KJV) 21Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Ephesians 5:21 New International Version (NIV) 21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. 2 Corinthians 7:1 King James Version (KJV) 2 Corinthians 7 1Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. 2 Corinthians 7:1 New International Version (NIV) 2 Corinthians 7 1 Therefore, since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God. Romans 3:18 King James Version (KJV) 18There is no fear of God before their eyes. Romans 3:18 Good News Translation (GNT) 18 nor have they learned reverence for God. =============================== Now, if you want to dismiss the work of the committees that completed those Bible versions, that's your privilege. Obviously, they saw something you did not. So, the dictionaries saw something, you don't see why. The translation committees of at least 2 popular Bible versions saw something, but you don't. Rather than take me to task for seeing it and not just saying "phobos has always meant exactly one thing", might all of us have a point?] "There are words for respect in the greek like απονεμω meaning to cause respect to treat with respect (with respect, as desvered) Str 642. 1791. ἐντροπή entropē; from 1788; respect, shame:—shame(2). Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : Updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc. Here are some words for REVERENCE δέος deos; from δείδω deidō (to fear); fear, reverence:—awe(1). Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : Updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc. εὐλαβέομαι eulabeomai; from 2126; to be cautious:—reverence(1). Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : Updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc. εὐλάβεια eulabeia; from 2126; caution:—piety(1), reverence(1). Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : Updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc. 2152. εὐσεβής ĕusĕbēs, yoo-seb-ace´; from 2095 and 4576; well-reverent, i.e. pious:—devout, godly. . A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc. 2318. θεοσεβής thĕŏsĕbēs, theh-os-eb-ace´; from 2316 and 4576; reverent of God, i.e. pious:—worshipper of God. Strong, J., S.T.D., LL.D. (2009). A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc. 5091. τιμάω timaō, tim-ah´-o; from 5093; to prize, i.e. fix a valuation upon; by impl. to revere:—honour, value. Strong, J., S.T.D., LL.D. (2009). A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc. [As you yourself have just shown, there's more than one word in the Greek that mean similar things or almost-identical things in English-at least English as we practice it now. For that matter, "krima" and "krisis" are effectively interchangeable in Bible meaning, and both are used in the New Testament. You just made my point FOR me while saying it's invalid.] "It seems to me that if God wanted it to be something other than fear he could of found a less confusing word." [Frankly, I would have liked that as well, but if He has a certain word used, then that is the word He used. Either we accept that and try to understand it, or we toss away the Bible and say it's a book of man, or we take God to task for not trying hard enough.] "Unless it isn't confusing and when it says fear it says and I am sorry for the pun... "Says what it means".... If only VPW took his own advice." [i REposted a few examples where "fear" (as written) doesn't mean "fear" (as understood by you). It said what it meant, but you missed what it meant. I can keep reposting them in the hopes you'll read them eventually, if you like, or maybe spend some more time and find some more. At present, I see no use in adding more time if you haven't read what I posted so far.] "When Jesus said "fear the one who has the power to throw you into hell and destroy it" He dosen't stop there. Jesus reiterates the point "Yes fear Him"... This isn't some respect or awe. None of the other words really even make sense in that story. As I illuded above with the word φοβος Jesus is saying it literally fear God... Another thing to look at are peoples reactions to God or the glorified Jesus. I can't think of anyone who didn't tremble before them... John for example fell down as if dead... This is the one whom Jesus Loved. Jesus said do not be afraid. It wouldn't make since to say "Do not respect".. Johns natural reaction like everyone else in the bible was to fall down in fear of God. Why do I think I am going to act any different than the apostle John post pentecost? It just seems arrogant to assume anything other than that. [When the word "phobos" means a strong emotional response, it CAN mean "AWE AND REVERENCE" or it CAN mean "fear, anxiety, shock". It's wrong for you to MIStranslate the verses that clearly mean "awe" into "anxiety"- which you did- and it's wrong for you to MIStranslate the verses that probably mean "anxiety" into "respect"- as you're CLAIMING I would. The word "phobos" had/has a more GENERAL meaning and meant the deep emotional reaction. That's why some verses are CORRECTLY rendered as "reverence" and some OTHER verses are CORRECTLY rendered as "fear" (as we currently mean the word.) By limiting "phobos" to EITHER meaning, you're making a mistake and doing a disservice to God's Word. I expect better of you than that.]

Since this is completely off-topic, I started a new thread in Doctrinal, "Fear of God." www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/22770-fear-of-god/

We were (most of us) exposed to some error-ridden doctrine in twi about what the Bible actually says, and what it SUPPOSEDLY says, and what it means. One of the many topics was our attitude towards God, and what it should and should not be like. This is on my mind now, so I'm starting a topic on it. Let's get clear on our terms. By modern usage, "fear" is an emotion which is a negative response- we "fear" something because we "fear" some negative consequence (whether by legal punishment, violence by human, animal, nature, etc) and have an emotional reaction to the possible presence of that which we "fear". dictionary.reference.com/browse/fear 1. a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined; the feeling or condition of being afraid. Synonyms: foreboding, apprehension, consternation, dismay, dread, terror, fright, panic, horror, trepidation, qualm. Antonyms: courage, security, calm, intrepidity. 2. a specific instance of or propensity for such a feeling: an abnormal fear of heights. Synonyms: phobia, aversion; bête noire, bogy, bogey, bugbear. Antonyms: liking, fondness, penchant, predilection. 3. concern or anxiety; solicitude: a fear for someone's safety. 5. something that causes feelings of dread or apprehension; something a person is afraid of: Cancer is a common fear. ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=fear [The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language] n. 1. a. A very unpleasant or disturbing feeling caused by the presence or imminence of danger: Our fears intensified as the storm approached. b. A state or condition marked by this feeling: living in constant fear of attack; saved as much as he could for fear of losing his job. 2. A feeling of disquiet or apprehension: a fear of looking foolish. 3. A reason for dread or apprehension: Being alone is my greatest fear. ============================================= ======================================== Down the centuries, we've seen what's called the SPECIALIZATION of language. That's why the phrase "meat and drink" in English once meant "food and beverage" but now "meat" only refers to what a carnivore will eat, and "drink" generally means a beverage with alcohol (or we call it a "SOFT drink".) There's lots of words where that's happened. A "facsimile" is an imitation, a copy. Yet, a "copy" now is often thought to be a "photocopy", and a "facsimile copy", or as it's shortened, "FAX", is a photocopy produced through a specific machine that operates as a remote printer. All living languages do that. (For that matter, words CHANGE in meaning, too. The KJV uses "prevent" in I Thessalonians where "precede" is the modern translation of the Greek word, and the word "gay" has moved around a LOT in the 20th century. For that matter, if you're in 2 different countries, the English word "fag" can have VERY different meanings, and the word "faggot" used to be a pile of wood. I saw an online signature calling someone a "gay fag", then pointing out they just called them a "happy cigarette.") The phrase "fear of God" is often rendered "REVERENCE" in modern versions. I think the word "AWE" might be better. The word "FEAR" meant a STRONG EMOTION without specifying it was NEGATIVE-but it was STRONG. This makes sense to me. Look- as a parent, you want your child to have a deep RESPECT for you, and take you very, very seriously. This means they'd want to PLEASE you, and feel bad when they knew that you'd told them to do something, they did the opposite, and they suffered some consequence. (They took the car out when you said they weren't ready and damaged the car, they drank underage and now are feeling like a knife is cutting through their brain.) Some people really hang on the words of some celebrity or other notable, and will freak out if they disagree. They'll immediately run to do something to conform to that person's specifications- get a haircut, change their wardrobe, whatever. They really respect that celebrity, and hold them in awe. Heck, in twi we knew people who ran out and conformed all the time- -mogs have suits? Lose the jeans and get a suit -mogs have little briefcases? I'm off to the briefcase store -lcm tries to grow a little moustache? I'm developing a little coffee stain under my nose lcm and vpw took the place of awe, respect and reverence that God Almighty was supposed to get all along. Cower in fear of God? No, I reverence God and am in awe of Him. When I do wrong, I feel bad about displeasing Him and hope to do better. But I don't expect him over my shoulder, the Almighty Smiter preparing to Smite me for it. I'll smite myself with the consequences I worked hard to earn. =========================================== Does God Almighty recommend "fear"-the MODERN MEANING of the term, as a default position for the Christian? If so, it should be reflected in Scripture. Now, then, a number of usages of "fear" or "fear of God" in the KJV are AMBIGUOUS- they MIGHT mean a "fear" in the modern sense, or a deep REVERENCE. Are there any usages which reflect a meaning which is UNambiguous, where the modern "fear" would make no sense? Yes. Acts 2:42-43 King James Version (KJV) 42And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. Luke 7:15-16 King James Version (KJV) 15And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother. 16And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people. Luke 1:64-65 King James Version (KJV) 64And his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue loosed, and he spake, and praised God. 65And fear came on all that dwelt round about them: and all these sayings were noised abroad throughout all the hill country of Judaea. Matthew 28:7-9 King James Version (KJV) 7And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you. 8And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. 9And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. ====================================== Myself, I'm waiting for a good explanation as to exactly how one can have "fear and great joy" at the same time- if the MODERN MEANING of the word "fear" is meant. You CAN'T feel GREAT JOY while experiencing fears. If a person has a phobia of something, and is experiencing great joy, and you introduce the object of the phobia, then the person will STOP feeling great joy and REPLACE that feeling with FEAR. If one takes into account that "fear" in 1611 meant something it no longer means in 2011, then it makes sense. Another thing vpw mangled was actually UNDERSTANDING WHAT'S WRITTEN by insisting on a book whose origins were in 1611- the King James Version- and not putting in the time to account for 400 years of definitions CHANGING, let alone new research coming to light, correcting bad translations entirely. One word was "fill" and MIStranslated "REPLENISH", and vpw makes a doctrine based on the KJV's 1611 rendering, without checking the Hebrew it was translated from. Another was "prevent"- but we actually did the research and understood that it would NOW read "preceed". Proverbs warns one not to "decline" to an evildoer's ways- odd advice to give if one wants to AVOID them- if "decline" meant now what it meant in 1611, and wasn't the opposite of an INCLINE. (i.e. Don't lower yourself to the level of that evil.) We likewise should not shackle ourselves to a KJV rendering of things. Other versions have taken these things into account, and "fear" sometimes is not translated as "fear" now. ============================== Ephesians 5:21 King James Version (KJV) 21Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Ephesians 5:21 New International Version (NIV) 21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. 2 Corinthians 7:1 King James Version (KJV) 2 Corinthians 7 1Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. 2 Corinthians 7:1 New International Version (NIV) 2 Corinthians 7 1 Therefore, since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God. Romans 3:18 King James Version (KJV) 18There is no fear of God before their eyes. Romans 3:18 Good News Translation (GNT) 18 nor have they learned reverence for God. ================================================= As for the idea that RESPECTING God will mean you can sin, then whoever is saying that really doesn't understand RESPECT at all. If someone you RESPECT tells you how to act, you don't give their instructions all the regard a dog gives a fire hydrant- you carry them out because you respect them. God is so much greater and deserves a far deeper RESPECT than that- although even that is alien to a twi experience. =========================== BTW, just as some Bibles distinguish between "REVERENCE" and what the KJV called "fear" back in 1611, and some Christians do, some dictionaries will note the exception among the meanings of the word "fear". The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=fear 4. Extreme reverence or awe, as toward a deity. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fear 3 : to have a reverential awe of <fear God> dictionary.reference.com/browse/fear 4. reverential awe, especially toward God: the fear of God. Synonyms: awe, respect, reverence, veneration.

Wierwille wouldn't recognize RESPECT of God if it came up to him and displayed a Driver's License. As he did with so many other things, vpw gave lip service to respecting God, and understood NOTHING about the utter AWESOMENESS of God, the Godness of God Almighty. He could PRETEND to and give a neat speech, but the words without the soul-deep understanding of the concept was EMPTY. Compare that to thoughts like, say, George Mueller, who claimed to have read the entire Bible many times, half of them on his knees. If I go to my knees and kneel in prayer, it is neither because I am following tradition, nor because I'm afraid of what He will do to me if I do not. Rather, it is me showing humility (privately) before God Almighty, and coming to Him with an attitude of being unworthy of His Grace and Awesomeness, but coming to Him anyway. As for "fearing" vpw or any man, that was unhealthy. It's been said that of any group of people, some will only do what is right because they fear punishment for doing wrong- only penalties of law COMPEL them to follow the law. Others will do what is right because it is right and not because someone has to compel them- some needing an occasional reminder, others needing none at all. I suppose, if someone is incapable of serving God and coming to Him in humility and awe, then a reminder that disobedience can lead to severe consequences may be of some use. However, I wouldn't want to work alongside any "Christian" who had to be dragged by the scruff of the neck to do what is right. Using vpw's explanation of respecting God is as damaging as using vpw's explanation of the fear of God, and neither is going to actually HELP a Christian if applied.

Sounds like we're agreeing on this much, if not more. Obedience to God, who is Awesome, and whose attributes are all Awesome. Awe and reverence-"fear of God"-bowing one's head while on bended knee before a God who didn't REQUIRE it but deserves so much more, and who doesn't motivate me to the MODERN meaning of the word "fear". He is worthy of obedience and the proper response when DISobedient to Him is embarrassment, shame, and humility, with a desire to do better next time because He deserved better THIS time and I didn't do it.

Acts 2:42-43 King James Version (KJV) 42And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. Luke 7:15-16 King James Version (KJV) 15And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother. 16And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people. Luke 1:64-65 King James Version (KJV) 64And his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue loosed, and he spake, and praised God. 65And fear came on all that dwelt round about them: and all these sayings were noised abroad throughout all the hill country of Judaea. Matthew 28:7-9 King James Version (KJV) 7And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you. 8And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. 9And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

I see both sides of the discussion, and I think both are right- to a point. However, I think we're arguing about why this apple doesn't taste orange-y enough. Down the centuries, we've seen what's called the SPECIALIZATION of language. That's why the phrase "meat and drink" in English once meant "food and beverage" but now "meat" only refers to what a carnivore will eat, and "drink" generally means a beverage with alcohol (or we call it a "SOFT drink".) There's lots of words where that's happened. A "facsimile" is an imitation, a copy. Yet, a "copy" now is often thought to be a "photocopy", and a "facsimile copy", or as it's shortened, "FAX", is a photocopy produced through a specific machine that operates as a remote printer. All living languages do that. (For that matter, words CHANGE in meaning, too. The KJV uses "prevent" in I Thessalonians where "precede" is the modern translation of the Greek word, and the word "gay" has moved around a LOT in the 20th century. For that matter, if you're in 2 different countries, the English word "fag" can have VERY different meanings, and the word "faggot" used to be a pile of wood. I saw an online signature calling someone a "gay fag", then pointing out they just called them a "happy cigarette.") The phrase "fear of God" is often rendered "REVERENCE" in modern versions. I think the word "AWE" might be better. The word "FEAR" meant a STRONG EMOTION without specifying it was NEGATIVE-but it was STRONG. This makes sense to me. Look- as a parent, you want your child to have a deep RESPECT for you, and take you very, very seriously. This means they'd want to PLEASE you, and feel bad when they knew that you'd told them to do something, they did the opposite, and they suffered some consequence. (They took the car out when you said they weren't ready and damaged the car, they drank underage and now are feeling like a knife is cutting through their brain.) Some people really hang on the words of some celebrity or other notable, and will freak out if they disagree. They'll immediately run to do something to conform to that person's specifications- get a haircut, change their wardrobe, whatever. They really respect that celebrity, and hold them in awe. Heck, in twi we knew people who ran out and conformed all the time- -mogs have suits? Lose the jeans and get a suit -mogs have little briefcases? I'm off to the briefcase store -lcm tries to grow a little moustache? I'm developing a little coffee stain under my nose lcm and vpw took the place of awe, respect and reverence that God Almighty was supposed to get all along. Cower in fear of God? No, I reverence God and am in awe of Him. When I do wrong, I feel bad about displeasing Him and hope to do better. But I don't expect him over my shoulder, the Almighty Smiter preparing to Smite me for it. I'll smite myself with the consequences I worked hard to earn.