socks

Not me, Raf. figure, what the heck. It was - 1. your thread and 2. a fairly vigorous discussion. In real life I have preferences and make choices. I like some things, don't like others. Not liking something from a personal preference standpoint isn't always looked at fondly by people, as if there's something wrong with it. As if we should all be fair and open and able to like everything or at least tolerate everything. To me that's not real, it's not how I live anyway. If I don't like something or have a preference I can exercise in my favor - I do. If it means loss to others or could have a negative effect on someone I will definitely try to weigh that and do right by others as I'd like to be done right by others to me. Or something like that. I allow the same thing in others. Bugs the crap out of me sometimes - "how can they be so stooopid???"....or is that what they say about me? Either way. I feel like a lot of endless wasting of effort and time can go into dissecting how and why we can be fair and balanced and equitable in all things all the time :wave:when the net result is often not that way and it's unrealistic to expect it. It's realistic to try but I have to take the results as they come and work with them. GS is sensitive to this sort of stuff for obvious reasons. To expect perfection is fine, to work towards it is great, to insist on it - is going to be lonely work. I know - I'm easy. Not always, I just save energy for stuff that really matters, like working towards a world where a Gibson or Fender guitar made in America doesn't cost as much as a down payment on a house, or a car. Ya gotta pick your battles. Your thread, you closed it - you opened it. What's not to like?

Sorry, I was busy speaking in tongues for the east coast and the aftermath of Sandy. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA~~~!!! To me, that's just funny. Laugh with me, people, laugh. It's ultra serious, compared to this bs. Like the world's going to end tomorrow if we don't figure out why free vocalization sounds like Keith Jarrett gargling. I know - I know, that's why I didn't get too involved, excie and I were playing bongoes in the back. That other thread? Toast and jam, I never though it was all that rude or crude. You guys may want to move out to the west coast, where everyboydy's, like all mellow and stuff. Whatever, man, y'know? It's all good and cool, and stuff.

Not sure, perhaps we could consider options.

Aaaah...sentence reduced to time served! *squank!* Next case!

I accept all guilt and the freedom that comes with that, Raf. We've never met but I feel like I know you and I enjoy your thoughts and writing. You're no slouch so you had to know, or might have suspected that if I was using my noodle I would never say "Chinese" without understanding what that might imply, in English anyway. But I wasn't trying to instigate anything. Really. Honest to jolly rogers. If I can remember who mod-cat-in-a-hat is, or was, I might remember what I posted a few days ago. Whatever effect that might have on remembering something 40+ years ago, hard to say. But, it's kind of fun thinking about it. All. All in fun though.

Now that the other thread is locked, this should be a short one. Raf - you chose to ask several questions about the incident I wrote about. I'm not going to answer them. It's not out of anger - well, I did have another really ROCKING post that is now locked but at least it can be read, so all's not lost. But no anger here. My story's not going to get picked full of holes by questions about facts that are - Over 40 years old. If one thing happened once 40 years ago that I remember and post here, it's only because that one event was one of the more astounding events of it's kind - for me. I didn't share it to satisfy anyone's need for factual support of evidence. It's not a usable fact in any sense of the words - it's meaninful to me today and I'm sure that it was meaningful for those who were there, if they remember it. Maybe they don't or would have a completely different interpretation of what happened. I don't need proof, for me. I am the proof, of my own life. No one else would believe it anyway. I've never posted the really strange stuff here, in all these years. If that's difficult to swallow you'd get a reall kick out of the good stuff. :biglaugh: :biglaugh: But just for fun, if anyone has anything good, really unbelievable, really just like toatally - no way is that gonna stand - lay it out for all to disbelieve!

You identify one of the fundamental elements of life geisha - For instance I canI see that God can heal the sick - but from the human side not everyone is healed when they're sick and not in ways that appear consistent, the same way every time. One perspective would ask the question: why some but not all, why now and not always, why here but not somewhere else? Adding the human effort and trying to make in consistent and reliable won't work as well as I once thought, for the most obvious of reasons - human effort at it's best isn't 100 per cent consistent in quality or quantity, certainly not in the same way that "God" is. So if believing action is the key I'm going to be out of luck because at best I won't keep that key turned on all the time. Grace factors in a host of things that I can't accomplish by human effort and can't manage and sustain consistently. Grace could be more than getting what I haven't earned, by "grace" I'm saved, etc.....grace really allows for a whole range of activity that I have no control over, when I think about it.... Speaking in tongues may be less a function of the "new life" and more an expression of the "saved life", the life in transition in this life. They will "cease", have an end to their use and presumably the need. Use in public expression or worship, I have seen their affect when the true "language of men" has occurred - it feels like, sounds like more of a miraculous event, "signs miracles and wonders" - where a Chinese couple hear their native language spoken by a person who clearly doesn't know it - it definitely knocks people back and gathers attention. Why then? There? why those people and not others? I've said it before and it's my best answer - I don't know. My sense is - of a larger construct being revealed, but - that's another topic really. :)

Something I started to put in an earlier post and never posted relates to something you state Pete, the flip side - Over the years I met quite a few people in the Way who were NOT what I'd call "born again", biblically or otherwise. I don't mean that as a blanket statement because of how this or that and wrong and bad and nasty and cultish or whatever - that The Way is considered to have been and be. Rather that the people weren't clear on their belief and confession of Jesus Christ as savior, redeemer and primary arbiter of salvation. Some folks "got into the Way" via the PFAL class, and took as a kind of self help/positive thinking class. The idea that it was taught from the bible and revolved around Jesus Christ got muddied up with the intense promotion of "The Word of God" as that which a person must cleave to, follow, accept, treasure and learn. The "logos" was actually taught in PFAL but if you just focused on the Written Word part of that as the end result of your effort, you might not in fact ever actually accept Jesus Christ as taught from the Bible. VPW did in fact cover salvation in PFAL but because of the scheduling and bums-rush treatment of hurrying through to the end of the material - sessions 9 - 12 - you could actually not "get born again" or accept Christ as they say and not have the personal committment and confession to God and Jesus Christ - with no time to stop - Rather someone might have a general agreement, a "that's cool" kind of attitude, and complete the class but not have really gone deep on it. Let's face it, the earlier schedules were loose but as time went on the PFAL in 2 weeks schedule was not a good way to do it. So if you didn't, you would still end up in Session 12 getting "encouraged" to speak in tongues. I know a lot of people who simply weren't ready at that point and as a class instructor I wouldn't put a big do-or-die challenge out to people, rather I expected follow up. (I probably facilitated dunno, over 30 PFAL classes at least, taught some sessions live myself and did my own small versions of the sessions many times over the years, piecemeal style) There were people in the Way who had a very flat, one dimensionsal view and understanding of Jesus Christ and salvation. LCM got that way, his whole global view of Christianity seemed - to me - to be paper thin. This could account for the confusion and also for how and why people went along with it and never really engaged. I hesitated to post this - and by my experience it's 100 per cent true and something I struggled with my last few years in the Way with some of the people - because it isn't meant to be a blanket dismissal or explanation and definitely isn't meant to apply specifically to Raf, geisha or others here. It does cover some ground about the Way though - The Way didn't like to admit it but it attracted the same kinds of social "members" as any church would, people who's participation was family driven, social or business reasons, personal, etc. etc. etc.

Really, I'm surprised anyone has ever believed in Jesus Christ, beyond the original people who knew Him - if there were people and they did have someone to meet. None of it's measurable from us today. Every once in awhile someone sees Jesus in their toast or in a cloud formation but other than that He's not walking around handing out PFAL books. Or free pita bread. Even if I take the most reasonable documentation out side of the Bible itself I don't have many recognitions of a son of God quality savior. The Way tried to construct a kind of Uber Super Man, created by God as only He could, to be His Son. With that kind of DNA, it only makes sense He'd be walkin' and talkin' tall. But that seems lacking in the kind of detail that other parts of the New Testament talk about. In any case - I've long contended that the limitations of the physical universe as it's known and understood today don't allow for the kind of irrefutable undeniable proofs and evidence of our collective existence that we'd like to have. We just don't - it's in the fabric of - h ell , it's just the way it is. The present moment in non-repeatable. It can't be accessed from any other point, past or future. EXCEPT through memory. We work in a world that is reliant on some very sketchy residual artifacts. WE may know we mowed the lawn, or filled the car with gas or eaten an apple - but to anyone else - who knows? "Life is but a dream"..........has some truth to it. Considering how much time we spend involved in realities that either don't exist anymore or haven't existed yet - it's kind of weird how such a small fraction of time actually ever really exists in a completely usable fashion. Subjective or Objective? What works and when? Okay - sorry for the derail. To maintain some semblance of relationship to the thread I'd suggest Henri Bergson's "Memory and Matter", and maybe Richard Dawkins "The Selfish Gene", the one from 1976. :)

The three most cursed phrases on the internet are: Coming Soon Under Construction Check Back Soon You can add to the profanity and vileness by putting ! at the end of any or all. Vile words, and their very existence is an assault on people of good manners and morals everywhere and insults us all by their very existence!!!!

Thanks! Reading the filings - Research isn't mentioned at all in the first filing and isn't in the later filing/update to change the name. :) "Promoting biblical education" in "all departments of learning and knowledge" and especially in the "branches" of the company that would be involved in collecting money, properties and other resources related to accomplishing that. If you read what they wrote, it reads very clearly what their intention was.

I often refer to my own religion as "Chaos Christianity" Steve, the ultimate no-box brand but it's more of a reverse engineered way of labeling my own perception of an ordered universe that is beyond my complete comprehension. I see in the bible's history a description of "domains" that are transitioning and changing over time. This isn't quite the standard administration-dispensation approach of Darby and Western Evangelicals as it trickled down to me though but is more that I am seeing an unchanging God through the eyes of a changing creation. I can see however that God is huge, eternal, has ways above our ways and to quote from Dune has "plans within plans" and perhaps a Big Master Plan that I can understand parts of but only to a small degree. Of course I also realize I don't know what I don't know so there's always that limitation. But to paraphrase Geisha I do know what I do know and that's not insignificant. It isn't and I think that while I would maintain that meekness is the only reasonable response for mankind to have to God we are still expected to go to Him and establish our side of a relationship - That requires a kind of and a degree of stability and reliability. We know that God describes Himself as the Gold Standard in Stable and Reliable, so it doesn't seem unreasonable that God would extend some of that and that our perception of God would be based on that - put another way God HAS to be the GS when it comes to consistency and stability. If we exist in a universe where anything can happen, where God can do anything He chooses at any moment and then do anything else completely different in the next moment repeatability then becomes very very important. Life is repeating and consistent, seemingly like molasses in winter slow sometimes in it's consistency but on a larger scale may be playing out in ways I can't comprehend, yet that doesn't lead me to conclude that comprehension isn't part of life. We're always in our Wonder Years though, it is important to remain open to the magnanimous diversity of God. It would seem that God intends for us to know and understand quite a few things about him and our own lives, and to have a kind of "world view" that will allow us to "work out our own salvation" with Him. I wouldn't call it a stuffy box though, unless you're using that to mean you don't want to limit God. I'd agree but I think that God has placed His own order and agreements on Himself as evidenced by this creation we live in and go to Him from.

That's my point, excarta, really. Or at least the way I take it. It was written - however and by who(m?)ever. The story's been told and retold. Somewhere in the distant past the story of Jesus was passed on by people on whom He had the greatest impact. Historians will allow that the "historical" Jesus er, existed. I think I've read that and found it an unwieldy way to say it but fer Krissake, Jesus has been so objectified it's probably reasonable to state it that way. A guy named Jesus, Yeshua, Kristos, the man written about in the gospels and the Bible - Josephus, Tacitus, Eusebius that mentions HIm - that he lived, at about the time the Bible places Him in history. Many if not most but not all historians allow that much. The Bible and the other writings that have been passed down have had - IMO - a kind of domino effect that speaks to an extremely powerful life in that "Jesus". The writings that passed muster to make the "canon" we now have (Boom!!) are fairly straightforward accounts. I'm thinking of the Gospels and Acts specifically. They have some incredible stuff in them yes, but the tone of the writing is of a person or people attempting to capture the important events of the period they cover. The following epistles make foundational statements and arguments as to the meaning of those events - "doctrine", dogma, concepts, how's and why's. As I read the writings of the early church, the "fathers", this continues - events, doctrine, and then practical matters and business stuff - like the earlier Timothy and Titus-how the church should govern itself, how to work together, etc. As more years get between the earlier writings and then the 3-400 year periods and subsequent "councils" that were held there's more writing that covers doctrine and the effort to elucidate and elaborate on the ideas and ideals of the earlier writings. It begins to get quite esoteric as time goes on. This can be seen in the history of church councils - the first one in Act 15 covers Gentile converts and what that means to the church. There's a lot of doctrinal issues, ideas, Jews and Gentiles now in the same "body", definitely conflicting ideas and debate. But the church in Jerusalem is recorded as accepting the revelation Peter and Paul state they've had and agree to move on together as one, with only a very few simple demands to be made on the Gentile Christian followers. It's not heady stuff - it's very basic, and doesn't make huge intellectual or theological/religious demands on anyone - once you get past that Gentiles are now part of the church.:) Within a couple hundred years though the church is struggling with the "who and what" of Jesus Christ, His "nature" and what all of that means. There's been a development of intellectual property within the church and as the years go on that development of doctrine continues and is stamped out and issued, council by council, not all at once but over time. My point is that the earliest writings and accounts are about "stuff" - people, events, things that happened and that's what the church doctrine of "Christianity" is and was based on. Later church writings become more about what those things mean and there's more postulating and extrapolation on the earlier history's meaning that's issued to broaden and beef up what "Christianity" is and means. There are miracles and events that become part of the church's platform - that don't - and I'm trying to be respectful here - sound like they're part of the same context as what the earliest church writings speak of. Put another way Christianity becomes very mystical and esoteric for many of the theologians that craft out the teachings of the day. Contrasting that with the earlier writings, it does come down over the years like a plausible history - where something occurs and is rooted in reality, real people, events, stuff - and then over time it becomes a verrrrrrrrrrry diverse array of ideas and doctrines as both believer and unbeliever struggle with that history, what it means, meant, doesn't mean or meant, etc. etc. etc. I'm being very general here and as always wordy -but that's the way it comes off to me. They may be words on paper and meaningless to some people though, that's fine with me. I suggest to anyone though to read them at whatever level they wish to begin with and let what they read reach out to them and reveal itself - let it reveal itself to that person. Or not. No charge, and so no money back guarantees here.

Yeh, well with all due respect to Kris and what she's written, that doesn't fill the bill of everything changing, maybe we're talking about different things here ways'. If it's someone who told me something and lied, that's not the same. Thinking all these people are one thing and saying these things but now I understand them to mean something else and have different intents - That's not the same as everything changing and finding out everything is wrong. I knew Kris and respect what she's written. I'm not going to comment on that, her situation and her specific references. Is that the point of your post Ham? I didn't catch that. I would contend in that most extreme circumstances the ability for one to hold on to one's self awareness and self esteem to the end they can recover their own self awareness and respect is the path to ultimate self awareness and realization. I don't contend that reality can be measured as a delusion or delusional, one's own reality is utmost because for them, that's all there is. Understanding it as a part of a greater reality that includes others is essential. In other words, everything is never wrong, and understanding the specific things in any circumstance as we work though it, the things that tether us to a true reality is job #1.If we're unable to do that, we do need the assistance that will help us to do that. Without that, and getting to or back to that place we're kind of stuck without a way to move.

Really? I don't get how that would work. Everything you believed is wrong. But it's not your fault or delusion? Wrong requires some definition - and I think the context you're describing starts with "different" - I think we have to start with different and what's different. The novelettes written about the guy who wakes up and finds his whole world's change, everything's different and his reality different - hasn't really changed. He's still himself, at that moment, and has the same sense of self he had before his reality changed. Soooo, we're not dealing in a repeatable proposition here Hamling - if "he" is still this "other" person that knows his reality changed he's probably - conjecture #1 - actually replaced someone, the someone who created the reality he's now faced with. Or conjecture #2, this "new" reality has come from another place, another source and replaced his last known reality. In either case or any others, he's still the same, he's the constant - because he KNOWS there's been a change of some kind and therefore registers the reaction that everything he (had) believed was "wrong". And back to wrong, it would be different but not really WRONG to it's own context, where that reality is what it is. It would only be wrong in relation to the perception of the person who wakes up and finds everything he believed to now be "wrong". My question is really involving the statement that in that scenario, it's "not your fault or delusion". It would have to be - both the previous "wrong" one and your perception of the change, because you're the one bringing the awareness. This goes to the concept of perceptions of reality - I would site Descarte's "Meditations on First Philosophy". That would be my starting point for your proposition - as long as there's a "i" in that "you", everything can't be wrong, or by another word different at any given point. If it were for the sake of argument I'd start with "i" - am I here, am I aware, am I cognizant of myself? If "check", next step.... When am "i" now....before where - do I know my age, the date, the year. If that's changed then I would have a basis to view this new reality. Where would be next - has my location changed too? But first would be "me" (pinch pinch - ow! okay...although I could save a second once I realize I'm thinking I need to confirm that I'm good to go....) and then Me when - the one thing that I CANT change is time, my age, etc. that's outside my purview so if that in fact had changed I'd be able to now say that this new reality wasn't MY delusion or fault because it's cause would be outside my controls. So gimme 200, I'm ready to pass GO in the New Reality. Steve's described a situation where all of that had not changed and was very much exactly what he saw and perceived. So again, there's no total change, in fact there's total sameness. I guess, based on what's written. The real question comes to "why" - and that requires the "i" where nothing has really or actually changed (in this scenario) - because I am still perceiving the changes so hallelooyah!!! Glory!!! I'm still here. "Someday" if I find myself before God and He says "Wow. You really had it wrong. What's up with that? I mean, REALLY wrong, dude".... I will simply hope to remember to say....."(gulp)....Well, yeah if you say so, yes. It was my life and I did what I did and I'll stand by it, in this case for the worst. But I'd be more than happy to learn - in either case, I'm in Your Hands, Doc.".... And in that scenario I would be. There's not much else TO say, that I can think of. But I don't think I could say that it wasn't my fault of my delusion, or my reality. It was, no one else's. For starters. Not EVERYthing is my fault, but as a participant and reviewer of my own reality I think I would have to accept my part in it.

Yeh, "great" faith looks to be relative to the challenge, not the amount of faith any one of us produces. "Faith in" and "faith of" Jesus Christ could be subjective or objective. Faith that is in a thing or faith that is from/of a thing - in this case Jesus Christ. If I have faith in the faith "OF" Jesus Christ, that has one meaning. I can also have my own faith "IN" Jesus Christ to which seems to end up in the same place as faith "OF", as it's used in the bible in Romans, Galatians. Things have happened through the faith of Jesus Christ, my faith in Him is said to open that up to me, to those who "believe" in Him. The believe in Jesus Christ, faith in Jesus Christ was described in Wayfer terms as two kinds of things - one my believing, the mental effort that I put towards acceptance and then the action that I take on that. The "faith of Jesus Christ" was taught as being "spiritual" and I guess it is in one sense but that tends to disconnect it from the reality of the processes that were that, that faith of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was a living person, He had faith, His faith accomplished what and where mankind's faith didn't or couldn't. Man's faith, like Abraham's, was "counted" for righteousness - but again it doesn't appear that his faith, his effort, accomplished anything but rather it was his acceptance and actions towards and on the things of God, God's "word", faith in and towards God. In the bible all the to's, from's, in's and of's seem to paint a circular path that points to the thing getting the faith - faith is something that I "have" that involves something else and a movement, recognition, of that thing, in it, on it. I might say that faith describes an attitude yes, a level of acceptance and subsequent action. I get you OperaBuff when you reference "taking it on faith" - I'd agree, I don't know that I can do that in a vacuum. Some do treat faith as a blanket check they write - "whatever it is, I'm in" kind of a thing. But then in life we often find ourselves challenged and not altogether in for certain things. People will often "drift" in their faith, falter, become weak as they say. A lot of teaching kind of does the "hut hut hut!" Marine Corps boot camp kind of messaging, "push yourseeeeeelf! soldier! you ain't gonna get up that hill thinking about yo' mama, now move iiiiiit the Lord is on your siiiiiide and He don't like wimps!!!!!!!" Which is a disconnection of everything which God has built salvation and redemption on, the things by which - we have access to this "faith"......mercy and grace. So to me the appropriate attitude when challenged is to do what they did in many of the bible's records - remember God's grace to me, HIs mercy, and place myself before Him in prayer as someone ready to do what I need to do but in need of what only He can do to help me. I know I have been blessed - by his mercy and grace. Given a place in His Kingdom - by what Christ has done. I know that He loved me while yet a sinner and has given me access to Him that doesn't hold me to the very shortcomings and lack that causes me to need the help that brings me constantly to Him. In my "faith", I don't see "God" as sitting there as it were and me showing up scuffing the floor with my holey shoes, tattered clothes and sad face while Jesus looks on and rolls his Eyes and they say to me ... "Oh. SO......it's YOU again...why am I not surprised? What is it THIS time? No, don't tell me, let me guess. You need something. You need Me. Again.......(sighing).....tell me again why we did all of this Jesus?.....Good Me, it's always the same...." I see a relationship built on trust, understanding and where over time I can accept the truth about myself, God, all of this stuff. "Faith".

Excellent topic for what it brings to the surface for discussion! Thanks for it! I tend to agree that the value of the life of Jesus Christ and what has been written is to point to a "living Word", a true personification of God. Jesus could say "I am the son of God" and write it down and the reader could say what many say today to that statement - no, you're not. Or you're crazy, nice but nuts. It is definitely interesting that nothing was written by the man Jesus. Somehow I don't doubt that He could have written something, somewhere at some time, but it wasn't significant or of importance. His actions, the impression that He made, what He did and said that was written down by others was done with such conviction and impact that it's almost a moot point. Speaking of Elvis Presley, no one cares too much about what he wrote and to a lesser degree even what he said. But what he sang and his performances to live audiences is what is remembered and is what people still talk about all these years later, long after his death. What he did, how and when he did it. Conversely an Einstein, I don't care how he sang but I do care about what he wrote and again to a degree what he said about what he wrote because that represents the ideas he worked with. Einstein couldn't make a theory of relativity for all of us to see and admire, he could chart the calculations and describe it though. Different things represent and reflect the work of different kinds of effort. Whether someone believes Jesus lived or not, I think anyone who considers His story can recognize that His impact, His work, was in what He did and what He said. I can see how it would be wonderful to have all of that written by Jesus Himself - "My LIfe As The Savior - Being the Son of God" by Jesus Christ. But it would just be words on paper and yeah, would probably have no greater impact than what we have today maybe less and weirder, as there would be people who would be rolling up children in wheel chairs to just try and touch the guide who stands next to the table that holds the box that holds the case that carries the photographs of the original document and claiming to see the face of the baby Jesus in the water in the pool next to the card stand outside the temple that sells the "I Saw The Jesus Book and All I Got Was This T-Shirt!" shirts, cards, balloons and coasters. And somebody selling tickets for the next show. The words of Jesus on papyrus scroll would be nice but meaningless, a curiosity, were it not for what He DID that's been remembered and written by others. Jesus could write, hey - I saved socks.....yeah, sure, try again you may have missed a step - he doesn't look like it. I can say, Jesus saved me and while I'm not pretty I owe Him whatever I have, for better or worse. So on that account He doesn't have to write a word, relax Jesus, I've got this one. :) This is more than a convenient way to explain a gap in history - it's the essence of what God did in Christ.

James 2:20 - faith without works is dead. Eph. 2: 8 and 9, saved by faith not by works. Faith, 'pistis', our trust in Christ is not considered a "work", which I've always found interesting. Many theologians who lean towards Calvinist thinking tend to construe that "all is of God" and without the divine impetus no salvation is possible. God chooses, creation follows His choice and the creation can't say to the creator why have You made me so? Some are chosen some aren't. That's Calvin. (I don't agree with that, in that it disallows for man's choice, man's response. Calvinist theory takes umbrage at that, as if to say that man's response is now in control. It's not - if man could choose and be in control he wouldn't be limited to God's selections. Clearly God has outlined the path and choices in the Bible and man's choice is to align, have "faith", and then place his faith in God. God's will is still sovereign, God's purposes are enacted and in play at all times. Man chooses and glorifies the Creator - or not but his choice either way recognizes God's 'sovereign will'.) Watchman Nee wasn't Calvinist, as best I understand, not in the basic sense and in that I think he was correct by the Bible in his understanding of faith, believing, "works" (gr: ergon) and their meanings and outcomes. He allows - necessarily - for the Bible to speak as it does and let all parts speak for themselves "as is". I bring up Calvin because I think the tendency has been in theology to construe meaning across parts of the Bible that don't seem to agree rather than let them stand and get meaning from the total, even if it appears contradictory and to take a logical appraisal of how to harmonize scripture. Which goes to James 2:20 - faith "without works" being dead - if I assume that all '"faith" is salvation faith and related to the state of peace between God and man then I have to assume there's a relationship between them. But there isn't in Ephesians, where salvation is of "faith" - where trust and confidence in what God has done isn't a "work" of man that produces the salvation. In James then I can simply assume that faith is faith, whatever it is and that without the "works/ergon" faith is "dead" as the body is dead without it's "spirit". Without drilling too deep on that I can say that the body dead or alive is still a body, but it produces when it has life. Faith without works is still faith. Faith with works is alive and producing. The lesson with Abraham seems to be stated that he "had faith" and when he "put his faith" in God it was counted to him for righteousness. The claim-it doctrines always seem to put a measurement to pistis, faith. "Big" believers get more of what God offers. Yet God's grace is full to all, mercy to all, love to all. Salvation extended to all, God loving man and so loving "the world" that he gives His son, a true living expression of Himself in man. No more, no less in that. It's not a quantity measurement, other than we see what God has given. "Quality", perhaps. Faith with responsive effort is "alive", producing, bringing forth "fruit".

Good thoughts Kit. Name it and claim it...."Shopping Cart Christianity". Now you're a child of God, time to do some praying and get some stuff! And sweat the small stuff, God cares about every little hair on your head which means he wants you to have the best shampoo and conditioner! It has to, it's what The Word says! It doesn't take long for the needy side of man to embrace that sort of thinking. God provides for man's need much as Jesus described. After reading Genesis and the rest of the Bible I have to think that if God had wanted humans to sing one song, all the time and do it in unison he would have created a brainless choir that knew only the song He gave them and didn't need to take bathroom breaks. He didn't do that - His creation is one that produces, generates, operates, moves, takes, keeps, gives, shares, offers and does it in such diversity it's hard to describe in few words. Just the enormity of what we are and what life is requires generation after generation to be and come into fruition. What I offer to God in this life is my gift, made sacred by the faith that produces it and that I invest into it. That's how I see the faith of this life. In Christ I have a way, a light, a means to join together with and to know what it looks like to do that. I can only do it my way, in my time and in my life. I want to be joined to that purpose that God has for all of us and to make my part what I can with what I've got. Faith - yes. Yes! We need it, we have it, we live it one day at a time!

Geer was a caricature of the Euro Sneer once he got over there. I met him when we were very young, in New York, long before any of this. I was about 20, he was probably in his teens. He was a dick then too. That's mean to say, I know, but he was insulting to people, looked down on every one of us from the West Coast, for no reason at all. Where all the NY believers were open and loving, in that fun way you are when you're young, he already had taken on the role of the outcast. His family upbringing was less than desirable, I understand. Join the club. The world sucks. We make our way better as we go or we make it worse. For one who had "the Word" at his disposal I suppose he did the best he could. He was always respectful to me, one on one, though. But in a crowd he'd adopt that bulldog scowl and demeanor. I found over the years there that often people would become one way around me, and then another around the larger population of the Way. This often happened around Joyful Noise in general. Not to sound self serving but in a way I think we allowed people to have a space where they didn't have to "be" whatever they thought they were in the Way Nash World and could just be themselves for a while. Sometimes, some people, that's the way it would go. Then later, back to business. Geer - I guess he felt he had to toughen up around "the man of God". I really don't know what went on between them but I suspect VP gave him love and access and Geer lapped it up and stood guard because he treasured that. That's just my arm chair psyche though, nothing more. He ransacked the Way Nash of the U. S. though. Look at Craig, Mr. Believer Himself. Big Shot, Corps Dude #1, the Man, Karl Kratos, Demon Slayer, Satan look out can a man get a witness get on the Good Foot now, it's Craig, he's bad he's bad you know it, yowwww!!!! One day with Geer a year after VP died and Craig turned into a self-doubting whimpering failure, unsure of doing anything under Geer's shadow. That was some strong medicine Geer brought with him, y'know? If ever there was evidence of a spiritually orchestrated affair, that was Dancing with Daimon, those two. But that's long gone now. I just have always had the impression that he was a very heavy soul that needed to be free. And while I may sound harsh here - hey. I wish him deliverance. People change. Both he and his wife have suffered health failures, and no doubt suffer intensely.

Chris Geer was so inept and confused himself - he was really the perfect tool, literally. No one could have bumbled their way through a so called effort to "help" others better than he did. He made a bull in a china shop seem like a ballet dancer in a field of wheat. I am not the only one who felt upon hearing that he had shown up in Craig's lap with a list of posthumous belly aches from VP that we were in for a long, bumpy, ugly and smelly ride. He's not unlike Lynn and others of that ilk - he admits later rather disingenuously that he was "poorly equipped" to carry out the work he was commissioned to do ("Oh woe is me, the burdened inadequate messenger who tried so hard!") while pointing his fat doughy finger of condemnation at anyone who ever had the misfortune to hear his voice. As with Lynn who raked VP and others over the COALS for their misconduct while dusting himself off as the now humbly and newly regenerated and so conveniently reinvented Teacher who had himself done wrong but who was all mo' better, just like that. I think Geer cast himself in a romantic light, all drama and no substance. I never saw - not one - even a single statement - that stated clearly 1. what he thought was "wrong" with the Way and 2. what anyone was supposed to "do" to fix that. There was plenty wrong with the Way and lots that could be done to fix it but he resisted all efforts to nail it down to specific changes and rather kept pushing an agenda of being 1. "on the Word", 2. Following the "man of God", who was now actually dead and 3. returning to "The Word". He turned any opportunity for positive change into a dithering whirlwind of condemnation and confusion, ultimately doing the exact opposite of what he said he wanted to do. Or exactly what he really wanted to do - shove it in the crotch of the Way Nash people he despised so much one last time, for good. Not to be too harsh, just sayin'....

That's good to hear OldSkool. I wouldn't doubt that their lawyers had to step in and clamp a muzzle on those doggies after the lawsuits started. One of the downsides of technology - if you're trying to hide something, or keep off the grid it's much more complicated now. Avoidance and being technology adverse is very difficult today unless you completely control your environment. 20 years ago, people talk, it's just words. Who said what, he said/she said, their word against yours. That's changed today - if the person 50 feet from you can be recording, videoing and capturing what you're doing without you knowing and not be breaking the law when you're in public. I would suspect their current level of paranoia would mean they'd be all but frisking people coming in and out of "closed corporation" meetings. Frankly, Rosie could probably be removed now, much easier than Craig was. I'm sure RR has made public statements as to the when, what and where of her tenure and what constitutes "performance" levels expected. If someone had it out for her they could likely mount a legal case with a platform based on performance. If you had the dough, say 100k, I'll bet you it could be done, knowing how Wayfer Exec's shoot their mouths off when they think no one's listening. In today's world that could initiate an interim replacement that was assigned by the court, not the Way. It's a thought, just sayin'.....or give it time and it will slumber off to sleep in about 20 years, give or take.

Gee, I wonder, yes....could it be....SATAN???!!! Ha! Actually this is bringing up a whole range of discussion that was never done in Way circles, to attempt to understand "what" the SIT is. It's one thing to say it's of spiritual origin, God's ways higher than our ways, etc. I get that. Can't analyze it okay, fine. But I think if a person went even a little down the path of receiving=believing they would have become aware that PFAL was teaching that the unseen spiritual realities they attempted to function within and invoke had effects, results, products, artifacts, stuff that was represented in their physical reality. I don't need to anyalyze something to have a verifiable result to admire, at the least. But SIT as johniam noted was defined as "inspired", "inspirational" and brought forth from and by the "spirit" of the individual. That put it in a different category then something like a miracle of healing, for instance. VPW presented it as an operation of an ability that the individual had that was initiated BY THE INDIVIDUAL and under their own control to manage and "do". Probably all of us, anyone who's ever gotten in front of a group of people to speak and gotten off for just a second, lost their place - has gone into "automatic" mode. I certainly have. It's like sliding over an icy floor in wet sneakers. There's no stopping - and little to no "thought" - It can be funny or down right embarrassing. I know if I get into that mode, to stop, collect myself and look at my notes which I hopefully have. If not, I have a method for pegging myself. But it happens. Even the nature of speech - I don't plan every nuance and action of everything I "say". To speak out loud and be reasonably coherent let alone inspirational isn't that difficult to do - without any planning whatsoever. Rivers of wonderful wonderfulness flows out of my mouth, in abundance. Ask my wife, she'll tell you, happens all the time. To do that in a framework of sounds, "words" and become proficient, even facile at it, isn't that difficult to do either. Soooooooooooo. I'm not completely checked out on the free-speech part of this discussion, but that could be what people have done when they say they "SIT" as noted by others here. Yeah, I would say there is more to this than meets the syllabus, IMO.

I agree, it certainly could ways' and Raf yes, if Acts 2 is factual that's what happened then. The Bible references the "of angels", which could be hyperbole ("...or with the tongues of a 1,000 hummingbirds singing in French") or taken face value. Do angels speak? I would say yes, they do, quite well. But I can't speak for all angels all the time. They might have something different to say about that, they'll have to speak for themselves. The cool part to me is that - if I heard a guy speak in something that sounded like another language, certainly not English and someone else said "That's Chinese!" and they understood what was said and that what they understood was similar to - the "same thing practically speaking" - to what an interpretation was that I and they heard - Then that memory is meaningful in this dyad of 50, the me'sies and yousies of communication. I'm buzzing on that because I recently read this article in an unrelated effort, which i found to be interesting - http://www.acrwebsit...gs.aspx?Id=6421 Since no past event is recoverable in it's natural form, only the remnants, artifacts, effects - and memories - of them can represent them. Some "things" exist measurably in the time continuum of past/present to a greater degree than others. Eyewitness testimony being what it is a memory without measurable physical artifacts is probably going to be of lesser value to a large group outside of that event than to me and anyone immediately involved in it. That's just the way it is. (this is my opinion anyway) And if there were more involved, say a 100 people all with that memory, then it might be more meaningful to others not involved, or could be. Depending. Dunno, this stuff fascinates me but doesn't always move the conversations forward much. Just notin' to what ends, not sure.

My pleasure, glad to be of service. You stated it so savory and succinct. That could probably be used to state the entire platform of the Way - If they say it's okay, it's okay, even if it's not okay for others. If they say it isn't okay, etc. Any deviations, apparent contradictions or conflicts are YOUR problem, not theirs.