socks

Phileo, eros, storge and agape are good examples. Here's where the teacher part of it comes in for me - how many times have we heard that there's more than one word for love in greek and only one word for love in english? That's not true - there are multiple words for love in the english language - love, like, affection, care, intimate, close - all of these words indicate different aspects of "love" - and they're often used to do just that. What's happened is that in translation a single word was used to represent different nuances of meanings. A "good" translation has to extend that meaning as much as possible. The fact that someone at some point decided "love" works for every instance doesn't mean to me that I'm limited to that, or that word or that translation. And therein lies the rubber on the road - someone has to determine and define the actual meanings, in translation. When we heard "the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation", it reflected a theological premise, much more than a simple definition of a word. In VPW's case he was extending a doctrinal position in using that definition for occurrences of agapa/e/o. I've used the example of the drink a glass of water before in teachings and some people respond "but what if you didn't know what a glass of water is? you'd need to be taught and that's why we need blah blah blah"....which goes directly to my point. I wouldn't say drink a glass of water without qualification to someone that I knew didn't understand what a glass was, or water was, or what it meant to drink. I'd use a different technique to communicate it to them using words, illustration, examples, many different methods...... "God's Word" uses words and lays them out as if the reader will know and understand the meanings and usages - so much of the N.T. scriptures that have been collected into the canon read just like that - there's no lexicon that comes with them, no Index of God's Words for a reference, no "Yahweh's Unabridged Dictionary". So - if God is telling man about things that man doesn't already know and needs to know, things that are going to be new, like Jesus Christ, a resurrection, new life, spirit, worship, faith, etc. etc. - and we're faced with a book that only contains x amount of information in it - and equally intelligent, caring and honest people come to vastly different conclusions on things in it - It doesn't lead me to assume that it's hopeless to expect I can come to reasonable conclusions or that everyone else is crazy or possessed - well, not right off the bat anyway.... It just tells me I need to clearly understand what God expects me to do with it, the correct methods to learn what ultimately He wants me to know.

Interesting part of this discussion, wordwolf, geish, chockful, and all.... For comparison, PFAL proposed that the "mathematic"al nature of the greek used in the Bible's translations allowed for a more exact determination of their meaning. I'm not so sure about that, at all anymore. I guess it's more exact than less exact languages but frankly I don't know how I'd weight that today. IMO there's a limited amount of information and clarity into the meaning of that information that can be gained from studying the language of the bible, the words, the customs and times around them, etc. etc. By limited I don't mean insignificant but rather that knowing the meaning of words doesn't help much if the usages of those words is as unique as they often are in the Bible. PFAL notes things about prepositions and VPW was a big fan of Bullinger's work showing place, time, motion, etc. But that's what prepositions do. The usage(s) of the words is as important and that requires a lot of additional study to determine. Even still it simply can't reveal the meaning of words when they represent unique concepts as we see so often in the Bible. So "Drink this glass of water" is pretty clear. There's no deeper meaning to what those words actually mean - we know what a glass is, what it means to drink and what water is. But if I'm in Ephesians 6 and read For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) and find out what pleases the Lord. ... the meaning of those words is going to require more effort, even just effort to know why another version would read For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, righteousness, and truth), finding out what is acceptable to the Lord. Words like spirit, soul, life, gifts, tongues, prophecy - they are just words and their meaning can be understood. But as others have noted here the descriptinve nuance into what they actually mean isn't something that research reveals. It gets part way but not all the way. And it's kinda funny in an ironic way - VPW proposed that the Bible be given at least the same respect and effort as any other written work, to read what's written, read for context, where words used before, etc. etc. etc. Yet, like any written work the words will only communicate a certain kind of thing, a certain kind of message to the reader, limited by the format of the media itself. Funny.... The next time someone says "Picture this..." :biglaugh:/>.

My thoughts exactly Kevin. One of the alternatives for the Way would be to fully embrace the formal, organized "church" model. Be the church that they really are, have members, rules and public policies, ceremonies for entry into membership, etc. etc. etc. Do that instead of acting like they're something different. That would allow them to openly strong arm and muscle their members publicly and not try to keep it so shadowy. I'd describe the splinters as "different time, different place" ministries. Some change, some adaptation, some accommodation with the same general shape at the center as you stated so well. They all seem to feel that they're a better version of the former, a version that the founder would be "proud of". To which I've said more than once and other places then here - b---s---. VP would be spitting up shortie Kools out of his ears if he knew that any core part of his original teachings had been changed and probably be at least moderately peeved about any one of many lesser points of doctrine. That's one reason I find John Lynn such an abhorrent aberration - after all of his theological meanderings and experimentation he still markets himself as someone the ol' Father in the Word would be proud of. It would be more honest to just move and build from a new base, start over, stop leveraging the past like that. I'm sure it's just to waft some of that Old Time Wayness out over the newbies who don't know any better ("ooooh, you're John Lynn....oooooh, you were taught by the man of gawd....ooooooh....." and the Oldies who are so broken at the imploded ministry they once loved that they'll accept anything that smells like the BRC mid-summer, '75. By holding forth on that platform he can keep the dinero flowing in and maintain his former celebrity with those people. He was never "that" good of a teacher, not that funny, not that effective, not that -anything if compared to any one of many other teacher, pastors and ministers of that genre', the "Christian Lite" combo-Jesus-Bible-Metaphysical ministries. He's got the drill down though - he can muck up one thing after another, chase every $ making scheme and try out every new thing he can glom onto to re message the Bible and use to make a buck off of and get away with it with that crowd of his because 1. there's always more new people to funnel in and 2. the old Wayfer are more than happy to cite "Grace and Mercy" over it all and give him a free pass through it all, thinking that's spiritual maturity. IMO if they all don't spit of get off the pot though they'll fade out, as you describe. That may be the preferred way to wind it all down, just let time do it's thing. And for better or worse, there aren't going to be too many people at the estate sale 10 years from now, fondly remembering their healing times in the WOW auditorium listening to "We're Seated in the Heavenlies"...../>

Over it's years Way Prod has put out a lot of music, some of it good some of it average, some very disposable. Given the accumulation of people, the diversity, it stands to reason that it's gone the way it has, nothing says it would be great, or if it was at any point in time would remain so. Music is work and it takes craftsmanship, practice and personal investment to do it. Hillsongs is one of my fav's. They (Darlene and crew) found their sweet spot and have developed it over the years. It's "pop" music and fits into the general rock/pop genres. They do that kind of music really really well. Modern pop music follows a form and to sound good in that form you have to follow it, using very broad strokes perhaps but you have to have the fundamentals. One of those is a "hook", a line or two that captures a thought, idea, feeling in a way that will be meaningful to the listener. Like humor, when something's funny you don't have to analyze it, people laugh. When music's "good" to someone they like it for some reason, and people listen. Good is relative. I like pop music and really like inventive and innovative use of that format. It can be done many different ways but I know what I like when I hear it. I think Hillsongs is Black Belt XXX rated Uber Hot and Good when it comes to the pop form of music. It's not all I listen to but when I want that sound, they've got it. Not everyone likes it though, or likes it a lot or like me doesn't like it to the exclusion of other music. I don't put in Hillsongs when I want Coltrane, or Coltrane when I want Rungren, etc. etc. Everyone's different, we all have different things we enjoy. Music isn't teaching or reading although it can teach when it's listened to and the listener "gets it". The Way pursues a world view that denigrates person preference and elevates programmed choice. One's personal preference is only valid in Way World if it reflects the correct choice. Knowing and making correct choices is fundamental, yes, however then the individual can and will develop personal preferences through a lifetime of learning and experience that is unique to them. One person may like one color more than another, etc. etc. etc. There are countless things that make us who we are. The Way wants to say in effect "this is GOD'S WORD, you should like it if you like God's Word and you should"....The Way's effort to homogenize a "like mindedness" that fits all is and will always be a failure, long term. It appeals to certain needs in certain people though and for those people it works and it's great.

I was told repeatedly to avoid music that sounded like blues. :biglaugh:/>:biglaugh:/>:biglaugh:/> But lemme guess, white bread "country" and bluegrass hymn style muzak was fine.

Prince might have the cookies on tongues, he's certainly qualified to have ecstatic experience if that counts for anything. :biglaugh:/>

Apologies for being a lazy contributor - this may already be posted. Do you all use this site's e books? (it may already be in a previous link) http://www.frame-poythress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/PoythressVernInTheBeginningWasTheWord.pdf I don't "agree" with him either, geisha, for a host of reasons too many to list here. Agree has become a funny word for me lately, but I wouldn't assign it to my perception of what he's saying about some of this stuff, his direction is away from "what" speaking in tongues actually is IMO. But it's interesting reading, as you noted.

Twinkie Survival Recipe Buy a pack of (4) of those strawberry "shortcakes", the yellowish spongy ones, most superkmarkets carry them near the strawberries. . Buy (1) can of Reddi Whip. Lay one shortcake in the palm of your hand, facing up. Shake the can of RW and press the nozzle in the EXACT middle of the shortcake, dead - center, EXACTLY, please. Squirt about a 1/2 cup of Reddi Whip into the area. Wrap the shortcake around the 1/2 cup of RW, using a slow but firm motion of the hand. Clean up any spillage. Serve. Each one forms about 3 big bites so make 2 - 3 per person. Eat.

Thanks, I wish I had something more meaningful to contribute. If I come up with any deal breakers or makers I'll be sure to put them here but don't hold your breath anyone. There's nothing that hasn't already been pointed out here or referred to that I can think of. It's certainly been discussed vigorously. Maybe God will initiate a mass tongues and interpretation festival where everyone speaking will translate into common understandable language the current Tax Code, in whole and non stop till April 15, 2029. That would be truly miraculous. Or conversely a "Stop That" Event in the Vatican where the Pope will speak with a glowing screeching dove hovering over his helmet providing indisputable proof that doves do cry but they don't speak in tongues. Or something. God's a big Detail Guy, I'll leave them up to him, but if He needs my suggestions I'm ready.

You're mis representing what I wrote Raf - and you're supporting my decision to not participate in this discussion, which I'm about to resume. I've already stated I didn't post what I did to convince anyone it was true - it is but that's a useless fact to anyone here other than me. You've stated that while you will accept that I'm writing what I believe to be true - you can't reasonably accept that it is what actually happened. I may have thought that it occurred the way I describe it but it may not have been what I believe it was. What sucks is you paint my incident in a way that isn't true to what I wrote when you state - the notion that SIT is language when anonymous people drop in from Asia and disappear, never to be heard from again, but magically becomes non-language when a linguist is looking into its veracity, based on a verse that is talking about something else entirely You're denigrating what I wrote, which I wrote in the spirit of meekness. That's over now. I didn't present that to support the notion you're proposing - I stated I believe that it may fit into an interpretation of New Testament records of SIT's where the records of people speaking in a current human language they didn't know, in group settings, may illustrate a miraculous nature to those instances, and one that isn't constant or consistent in all instance of SIT's. That isn't convenient or a way to BS an interpretation that I want out of the Bible - it's one of many possible interpretations. Do me a favor - leave me out from now on. I'm sorry I got involved, not because I don't like debating, thinking, or being challenged - Oh no - that's not the reason - Rather, it's a dead end debate for me and I'm not going to get much out of it. Maybe another time. I'll come prepared for the long haul when I do. Either way, take this in the spirit with which it's being written = :)/>/>

Ya got moxie kid! Great story.

I removed my last post because I don't want it to appear that's the direction I'm going in - it's not. It's part of it but not the whole or the majority. What I've posted thus far is about where I'm at. I just don't have the time required to keep up with the discussion. And I do believe that the records IN the bible do not exclusively paint the same picture you've adopted Raf. We do disagree but I can't approach this topic in a way that would result in getting angry or abusive about it, towards anyone.

Yeh, I get it chockful. I'm not taking exception to the analysis being done. Go for it.

Hmmm, kinda sorta chockful. I'm not interested in the gloss-any lia discussion. I don't know anything about that, I've read some of what's here, I'm familiar with the general idea, I know what it's meant to be. I don't use that kind of terminology - I'm not into this for the gloss -a's, I'm into this for the speaking in tongues and only that because I was "led", ie taught about it years ago. It was something that I would describe as "waiting" to come out though, it wasn't contrived or required extreme effort on my part, it seemed very natural and normal. I never had a forced moment, never felt like duh, wassat? It simply wasn't like that, at all. All I'm saying is what you've said a few times - the "unknown" language aspect of SIT is, IMO, a general characteristic of what SIT is. Requiring it to fit Acts 2 or a few verses is wrong, IMO. It can be known but the actual operation, manifestation, doing of it, call it what you will, isn't required to be a language that any of us understand when we hear it. I know - that sounds so conveeenient. But I'm not trying to prove it to anyone else, as I stated early on. I'm just describing what I understand and believe. There's more to it than that but it's useless to this discussion which has focused on glossalalia, known, unknown languages, etc. etc. I know this is important to you guys and I'm not trying to be demeaning, but I'm tired of talking about it already, don't know how you do it but I can appreciate that it's an important area for you all to delve into. I have clearly formulated thoughts and opinions on the topic, but I just don't have a bee in my bonnet on it. Not yet anyway. . I would contend that the overall profile of the records in the N.T. are not a match or equal to what occured in the record of Acts 2, rather that Acts specifically was a miraculous event, where the SIT was understood as described there in 2 with Peter and the boys. That's all. :)

I was going to wait for the dust to settle from the free vocalization topic (as opposed to the for-hire vocalizations) to bring that point back up chockful. I don't think it's a Wayfer method ways'. That's what the bible says - that should factor into my profile of understanding what speaking in tongues is. Or isn't. I would suggest that it applies to all contexts of speaking in tongues - not because that supports a conclusion I want it to, but simply because it would reflect the simplest of all definitions - to include that as a characteristic of speaking in tongues. All SIT? No. ALL or any SIT ALL the time? No. All private or all public? No. Rather a characteristic of what it is to speak in tongues, applicable to all of the above, at times. My own observation and study over the past 43 years leads me to conclude that and it' s not based on any other biblical references than have been posted here to there's not much value in dissecting them, we know them. I have only a half dozen instances of SIT's being a known or understood language. That's equal to 6 days out of what - about 16000, rounded up, give or take? 16000 opportunities for something to occur, times hours in the days, times people available to participate - my head hurts. That's a very very small small small percentage. And most of those I know who have similar experiences would calculate out somewhere in that range, I don't know of anyone who has ever said publicly that the majority of what they've heard is a miraculous event of a known language - say, French, being spoken by someone who doesn't know French and it being the 'wonderful works of God' by any description, when heard or interpreted. I think that's just the way it is, facts is the facts. So if that were compiled with others and scaled up for verrrrrrry general estima-guesstations - I think that IF speaking in tongues is "done" today at all - and I do - It's not going to fit the profile of a known recognizable language, to those speaking and hearing it, at that time and place. I AM accepting SIT as real, (but not because of this language information). And so, accepting it, this is one of the things that it appears to "be". Or not be, whichever way you look at it. I would also suggest another descriptor for discussion - "recognizable", in addition to unknown. A thing can be knowable but not recognized by those examining it at that time. That would cover some of the ground being tossed here. Just a thought.

<br> November 6, a full Day of Triangulation, when man, greed and God Money unite. Time to get paid! <br> <br> Pulse....check <br> <br> Respiration....check <br> <br> Rea-Re---ReFla-a-l-P7ÿNP R.P7.....Ytilaer...kcehc <br> <br> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ao-Sahfy7Hg?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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. :)