Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

socks

Members
  • Content Count

    4,570
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    38

Everything posted by socks

  1. Sure, that would work.
  2. No sweat, and no hurry. I made it like it was more urgent than it is probably. But It May give a clearer path to that kind of discussion. Thanks for looking at it. And whatever you end up deciding is fine, of course.
  3. Okay - but I disagree with your disagreement that "Questioning Faith" isn't misleading in it's current position. Look at the screen print below of how it appears in a Firefox browser - (it's exactly this way in the mobile view too on my iPhone) The description of what "Questioning Faith" is isn't readable until I open Doctrinal and click on Questioning Faith and then open "About this forum". In fact, it's obscure as to whether it ISN'T part of what Doctrinal is, in my opinion. So let's look at what's on the screen up there - "Doctrinal" and underneath it a little connecting line to "Questioning Faith", and then a description "discussion of religious/spiritual beliefs. Since this site is not a religious site, please keep all doctrinal discussions in here". In where? In the Doctrinal -> Questioning Faith forum? Let's not belabor it - if your position is that having an explanation 3 clicks in under the top level is sufficient to clarify what's on the top level, we're on different pages and aren't going to agree. Give it some thought though, if you would. The simplest thing to do however would be to just move "Questioning Faith" down into a thread level, in the forum itself so that there wouldn't be confusion. It's a topic in a forum then. In the view the platform gives you for Forums then the description is clear. For that matter, "A Place for Faith" could go there too, but it's likely that whatever goes into a subforum list in the forum view will be unclear, if there's only one. As it is now, it's well - sorry, it's obtuse. I'd suggest naming it "A Place for Faith".
  4. socks

    Momentus.

    Well. let's see.... Tochini has a long history in northern California. (his family owned businesses in Sonoma county, some movie theaters.) I have never met the man but have met people over the years who have been involved in his self-help pseudo Christian activities - people outside of the ex Way circle, who have no past connection to The Way, John Lynn or other former Wayfers who have since hooked up with Tochini. None of the people I've met were happy with their experience or the results of his efforts, certainly no ringing recommendations. This goes back to before Momentous when he broke away from his church, to Momentous and now this. In between he's done some other businesses, I think he had a web/internet marketing thing going for awhile, some sort of platform/service offering. I only hear about them through certain sources I have, never on the open market where I don't believe he has a great impact, but I could be wrong. This link has a post from 2018 - https://forum.culteducation.com/read.php?4,7414 Look at their site - they have multiple businesses they offer in addition to their "Academy" of self help. https://crossingthejordan.org/our-story/ It's a free country. Unfortunately that does allow some of these people to take advantage of people who need help the most. At the same time I'm sure some of these self-helpers believe they're doing something useful. My advice on face value would be to steer clear of anything with Tochini's name on it but there is no scenario in any stretch of the imagination that I'd encounter any of it or have to deal with it, so it's easy for me to say. I can honestly say I've had some exposure to some well known and some lesser known but very effective "coaches" of various disciplines in my professional career and in over 30 years of active participation in the business world I've NEVER run across any of these people - from Lynn to Tochini to any of them. They do have an impact in the ex Way community and certain high risk user circles but it's a tiny tiny subset of society. Not to say those they affect aren't important, just that there's not a lot of them from what I see. I may very well be wrong though - you're here and I have no idea what your exposure has been so...yeah. What is it you're most concerned about?
  5. Sure, and thanks Wordwolf. I appreciate your insight, as always. Frankly - I"m past the bull shit. Anyone who wishes to drag a discussion into the gutter in a way that's offensive to others and won't accept the boundaries of others has a problem I can't fix in this kind of set up. I'm not past taking a low shot myself, if I think it's deserved but I'm less inclined to do that these days in regards to the heart felt concerns and interests of others. Anyone who can't see that an even hand and steady voice is needed in this world today lives in a different one than me. We probably aren't going to cross paths in a meaningful way. I'm not interested in re facing GS either, or making it out to be something "it's" not, whatever that is or isn't. Your ideas sound like good ones. Thanks.
  6. Upon reflection, let me be more specific. Faith is a reflection of Doctrine and belief - "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." It also carries the weight of a trust that goes beyond proof that can be displayed to others. It's personal, it's "mine". I might tell you my wife loves me madly, I could review examples of that on display. Someone else might say it isn't love it's something else, obligation, expectation, foolishness. I know and she knows however, that she loves me. And I her. So we tell others about that love, and what it means to us, how we came to have and where we think it's going. Some can relate, others can't. Others have similar experiences, etc. When I see the Doctrinal forum on any device the view says "Doctrinal" and right below it the sub forum title is "Questioning Faith." That's misleading, to me. Granted it's not a description of Doctrinal but it appears to be - by the way the lists are laid out. Doctrinal discussions aren't about questioning faith, specifically. That's a different topic. Since it's probably not possible to change the core layout of the forums or even worth the effort it would take to do so, I would suggest a compromise - include "A Place for Faith" in that spot, so there's equal time. Let's not make this about that however, although they're related imo and if you want to move "Questioning Faith" to a place where it doesn't fall under Doctrinal as if a description, that would be fine too. But my purpose is to simply have a discussion around the topic of faith and Christian faith, specifically and in a location where the prevalent environment isn't one of doubt or dissension but rather one of declaration and discussion. One that covers it from an inherently positive view while allowing for all sides of it to be discussed, including any negatives, if there be any. Capiche? Thanks for looking at this.
  7. I felt it might be useful to the area of "Doctrinal" to have an area where anyone can present and discuss their own stories of their faith and beliefs. As a Christian, a follower of Christ, a "believer" and something of an open-range disciple, I've seen the benefits of knowing about what the larger face of the Church, the body of Christ looks like. If possible, I'd like it to be a "sub forum", and not a topic, placing it under the main banner of "Doctrinal", if there's a mod' out there who knows how to do that. Or perhaps a discussion then if that's not desirable, and why. I'm not a card carrying member of any specific denomination, congregation or organization, nor any ex-Way groups, clubs, societies, ministries, fellowships, or other assemblages, non-profits or businesses. So this is less a focus on ex-Way and how what I'm doing relates to that as the starting point (although it can be, and that may certainly be what brings you here), and more just - what am I doing? Now? As a Christian? What do you think of you faith now? What does it mean? What works, what doesn't, what would I recommend? And pret' near wherever you might wish to go with that. There could be multiple subsets under this. Anyway, that's it. Your story of faith and your thoughts and on it. Perhaps somewhat less personal than a diary entry but if someone were to read it 20 years from now, they'd get a bit of a sense of what faith in Jesus Christ meant to you and why. Beyond that I don't have more to write or post on this topic here, now but I have several topics I'll probably get up here this summer.
  8. Howdy - I just saw this and realized this is what you were talking about! Yes, I've heard of this book but haven't read it, only parts. It's going to be on my list. I do think this perspective is a very useful one and is a way of allowing our lives to move forward in all categories of growth and aging. Less solution and more process, more "tools", a way to do whatever it is worth doing and even more so less "the way to do it" but like a welcome mat for the get 'er done mentality. I often think Marcus O'Aurelius was talking to me when he wrote "Waste no more time arguing what a good man should be. Be one." I've still always got a minute or two for for it but duty always seems to come calling, invited or not.
  9. Context is a significant part of PFAL - how the Word interprets itself. Immediate, extended context, etc. History, geography and culture provide contexts in which to understand the Bible, and that was prominent in PFAL. One of the biggest takeaways from PFAL for me was to read the Bible. I'm looking at my 1970 hard bound copy of Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible" right now and it contains a huge amount of information and guidance for anyone wishing to begin layering their reading and study skills. I recommend it to ex Wayfers when we're talking about this and that if I find they haven't ever read it or dove into it. The connection between Ethelbert and VPW will be obvious to PFAL grads who learned much of the same material in PFAL as a means to understanding Christian faith as a living reality. It's interesting to me that the academic approach of EWB was first used then dropped by VPW for his own rhetorical style of teaching PFAL. I think we must accept that fact that when working with a written form of communication that is first constructed from ancient samples written in an ancient language that must then be translated through several layers of refinement to get a modern version, the outcome must be an interpretation. When anyone says that a translation is accurate to the original and "according to usage" as VPW said, interpretation is required. Yes yes yes, let's let the Word of God speak for itself. Once we construct a complete sample that we believe represents the best possible record and translate it into English, a language made up of many many other languages, the result will require interpretation. The net results can look like the unwieldy statements of an Amplified NT, not due to an over wrought torturing of the content but because it may require many english words to specify anything close to an exact translation of the Koine Greek words. "As the spirit guides" indeed, but where words can be vague, the heart gets the impression of the message clearly. Thus, the "spirit" teaches us, as we read and study. How well VPW or anyone else uses any of these tools is a measure to be discussed but where I see that article putting a person is to crack the book, allow others to guide and help you learn and don't go the "sophomore's shuffle" route just because we have some tools to use, whether we're newbies or elders. Stay meek, read, and enjoy. Article quote: "I’m not saying that Greek word studies are bad, or totally unnecessary (after all, we are not native Greek speakers). But unless you do them properly, they’ll simply give you the illusion of knowing something when you really don’t. Most of the time you’ll do better to simply compare a number of solid translations like the NASB, ESV, NIV, and NLT. After all, the people who translated these Bible versions understand Greek far better than you or I ever will. So don’t throw away their expertise. And as you read, pay attention to the context. An ounce of good contextual analysis is worth a pound of poorly done Greek word studies. (I'd add don't rely solely on a single teacher or source either, over the long haul. I do have some basic fundamentals that I feel solid about and I can move amongst many different sources without fearing anything at all. After all, if I ask God for Him to teach me, is He going to fool me and lie to me? Of course not. So there's every reason for trust and confidence - it''s HIS Word, not mine.) "So take your English Bibles and read carefully. When you do word studies, avoid the root fallacy, take advantage of scholars’ expertise, and remember that context is king. In short, read, reread, and reread again. It’s not as flashy a study method, and it probably won’t make you feel (or look) as smart, but it’ll give you much more accurate results." (Actually by reading and working context, you'll probably look very smart because you'll know what's in the Book, and not just lists of verses organized by topic, in your head. Few are those who say they "believe the book" who have ever read it in it's entirety. Not reading it all and saying I believe it would say something about how I believe. It. The book thing......It's worthwhile to do so, I highly recommend it, taking one's time, "no worries mate", just enjoy the ride. )
  10. socks

    A few thoughts

    I think another I learned through this is that in the Way, a lot of the doctrine was taught as inward facing stuff, things I do as a lifestyle and some things I do with others. At the same time VPW would say things like “it’s just a walk kids, you just walk”. But unless we disconnected from the programmatic mechanical nature of the lifestyle (12 keys to this, 3 steps to that, memorize this, practice that) it was extremely difficult to “just do it”. I compare it to say, having a hammer. And I learn all about that hammer, get taught about hammers, the history of it, how it’s made, the different types, and practice holding and using it, and even go out and hammer some nails in someone’s else’s project. But then if I never got up one morning and grabbed it, some nails and went out to build something and used it with my drill and saw, I wouldn’t Use it anywhere near it’s full potential. That to me is what the Way Corps lifestyle became. As long as everything was connected back to VPW, The HQters, and the program it was valid. Stepping out of that or even producing work that USED “the principles” but didn’t lead back to VPW’s ministry was invalid. Tripped out. “Back 40 stuff”. That kept the sphere of endeavor very small. And it was nearly impossible to see that unless you broke away, which isn’t how it had to be. At all. I got my hammer - and the life I build can now be with and through the faith of Him who loved me, and gave himself for me without extra attachments. It’s very direct and to the point - God through Jesus Christ can be glorified in me. Not “this ministry that was the only thing that could have reached you, and which you now owe your life to and is the only thing worth telling people”. Point being - Stoicism is a philosophy of practical application, not only thought. The idea is "Be the changed you want to see". One of the Stoic writers put the thought forward in their day as "don't waste time arguing what a good man should be. Be one." And that's an idea that is very much the essence of Christian faith. If that's what a person would really like to do then "being" a new person with a "new life" in Christ is exactly where it goes. And that's where it resonates with me, rather than a new way of thinking or a system of tenets, it's a reflection of an attempt to encourage us to live thoughtfully and not solely for ourselves.
  11. socks

    A few thoughts

    Nice! Yes, and the journals of Marcus Aurelius - Roman emperor, and a Stoic who wrote his thoughts down. I've read he probably didn't expect it to be read 100's of years later, but it's a great read, kind of Ecclesiastes-style in parts, other parts sort of a "don't forget to buy eggs today" tone. But great observational thought. He wrote in the Koine Greek, which is the same as what was used in Bible translations. I encountered snippets of his work used in the exercises in a greek class I took years ago. It was nice to broaden my own, mmm, context, I wanted to clarify what I knew about using it in study. I didn't enjoy it enough to keep at it but it was fun as I remember, more or less. "Seneca" is another Stoic writer who's stuff has made it down the line, seems popular today too and there may even be a connection between he as a convert to Christianity or not, and Paul of the New Testament. I think it's interesting too that in Acts 17 when Paul is in Athens and encounters the philosophers in the "marketplace" he addresses the people from the position of religion, and what he sees of their desire to have multiple gods, idols and icons. Philosophy is a field of ideas and thought, reasoning, reflection, observation, discussion, debate, postulation, etc. Religion is - well, I'd describe it as more the memorializing of an idea or belief into a recognizable statement, with then it's own rituals, observances and traditions that proceed logically (or maybe not so) from that. So Philosophy is a work in progress with some anchors from which one works and religion is an acceptance of something and to then give it value and access. Religion is commonly associated with recognizing the larger force(s) at work in our universe, "God" and in specific, accepted ways. Philosophy is a way of thinking and considering, and is more general and even abstract to varying degrees. IMO, anyway, that's my take. Paul dealt with both, but from a religious viewpoint when he addressed the over abundance of gods and deities at the Areopagus and the relative uselessness of them all being reflected in their "Unknown God". Epicurean and Stoics had asked him to clarify what he was talking about. Pauls message dealt with God as "the" Creator, and one who in their efforts they didn't know and who therefore could very well be their "Unknown God". God, a Creator, with a human plan, a destiny reflected in the resurrection of Christ from the dead. Some believed, others considered it for another day, some didn't believe. ------------ 24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’ 29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.” -------------- My impression is that Stoicism is a philosophy that contains a great deal of - call it "godly" thought - in that when we reflect and consider our lives and their patterns, goings and comings, and are not focused solely on self and what that self wants, we are led towards seeing what Paul meant when he said to them - "From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us." Where many Christians see this as a complete rejection of all their efforts, Paul is really leading them to his point with a very gentle hand, saying "you look, so look around you now and you see the acts of your Creator, who has reached out to you now through this Jesus Christ." I see this stuff not as "hellenizing" our Christian doctrinal ideas and precepts with other beliefs or ideas, but more as the possible outcomes of any honest and reasonable inquiry. When anyone does that they will likely encounter some of the "truth" of life and godliness. If I were using the Bible as a standard, I'd be looking for "truth" everywhere in God's creation and celebrating it when it is there. I enjoyed the movie Ghost Dog because it's got this humorous linkage between old school Italian Mafia, modern American culture, and ancient Samurai / Buddhist thought, "Hollywood style". In that movie it has the line - It is bad when one thing becomes two. One should not look for anything else in the Way of the Samurai. It is the same for anything that is called a Way. If one understands things in this manner, he should be able to hear about all ways and be more and more in accord with his own. That's got some Stoic in it. Anyhoo - peace n love!
  12. socks

    A few thoughts

    Yeh well. I will say this now, publicly and before all here, that I, socks, have learned a great deal via these message boards and most specifically WayDale and GreaseSpot Cafe and that includes all of you. (A lot of that has been seeing how communication functions in the online world, and how discussion proceed amongst a peer group networked together to respond to each other in near-immediate time). Something I learned about myself when I hit my 40's was that while I THOUGHT I could agree or disagree with someone and love them equally either way, or even let's say just have a level of tolerance that could allow for an equal distribution of whatever shared rights were forthcoming to all involved, I didn't really live that way - and I felt there was a conflict in how I actually lived using the Way Corps "lifestyle" in any form and what I understood the Word to teach. Once I stepped out of functioning in the hierarchy of the Way and the Way Corps I saw very quickly how much of a facade had been built, how many unnecessary layers had been put between myself and the real true simplicity of living "The Word". My last year as a fellowship leader ("Twig") I spent most of it unloading and basically doing a brain dump of teachings to our fellowship of everything I'd learned up to that point that I felt was relevant to "standing on the Word of God" with or without the Way Nash. I saw as I examined my own life in relation to others and specifically my wife and two children, how I was able to love them all. And really specifically with my kids. I never reached a point where i was more proud or involved or disappointed in either of them, I was always close to them and proud and supportive of them. In fact with my wife and kids I was never actually disappointed or let down, ever, no matter what they did or didn't do. They're always AAA Plus Great, to me. Our relationship just was what it was, as it is what it is now. It hasn't changed, despite the fact that not everything we've all done has gone as planned or even as well as any one of us might have wanted. Day after day I am one hundred per cent on their side and for them. Buuuut, there's other people, uh uh, not so much. So I saw a conflict of sorts - is that right? I'd separated most people into groups that I parceled my love and concern out to - believers get it all, unbelievers less, "believers who don't know the rightly divided word" were never entitled to as much as others, but if they believed, that could changed. Etc etc. etc. It felt mechanical and wrong. So, back to the Book and much prayer. And I realized I needed to re calibrate, and that would take a reset of sorts. We've all done that to varying degrees. What I found were some simple tools to kind of tend the field of life regularly and with a gentle but firm purpose. It's wrapped up in a saying that's a product of the Stoic philosophy and it's wrapped around a core idea that I think is both godly and very much in evidence in the life and teachings of Jesus, as well as that of the Christ centered Christian faith of grace and love. It looks at this new life of ours as a very all encompassing, universal framework of inevitability that moves forward in it's path and deals with everything in that life as a way to live that path, including obstacles and impedences, ie "problems". A saying goes "the obstacle is the way", meaning that anything that stands counter to my intentions is simply a means of applying my values to it, and so actually provides a way to move forward in my intended path. Stoic philosophy articulated that idea much earlier as, actions can be impeded but our own intentions or dispositions can not be impeded, they're a product of our value and will. Thus if I evaluate, review and reflect regularly on myself, and my own actions and the life around me and how I deal with it, I can learn to bring my core values to the forefront and apply them. In everything. To do "all things, through Christ who strengthens me". So there's a level of work involved as well as a level of intuitive living. You can think of it as "God working and willing in (us) to both (have) the will and to then do His good pleasure"....the spirit is "willing" and it "constrains", that new life of this so called "new birth" is inclined to be and think and act in certain ways...."by God's will".....and so I can live that way, with both an intuitive subconscious "spiritual-pneuma-hagion" will that is then acted out and upon. And this idea is very much supported in the bible, once you put the writings into the context of the writers and their times and what they were living and struggling against. I learned a lot of this in the Way as the "believers-can-do" everything by pushing ahead with "believing energy" and "godly focus" to "achieve my vision" - "more than a conqueror"...........and that's clearly PART of the godly life in Christ, but not nearly all of it as we see in the apostles life and of course in Jesus, that the greatest triumph over the "death sentence of sin" is not that we will never die but rather that we will all ultimately be transformed to something greater where the human perspective of immortality is raised to an eternal standard of life that is "holy", separate, pure, eternal. As Paul stated so clearly, he'd learned to live and retain his core beliefs in times of both need and plenty, in pain and in relief, with or without physical reward, he overcame NOT by getting what he "pictured in his mind and believed for" but by letting his faith rule in even the worst of circumstances. So....there was something else percolating there, more than just "believing" to succeed. I first glommed onto this idea in the Book of Acts, as it seemed so obvious that the only way to love and work with those we disagreed with even at the deepest levels was by working other parts of our faith into the relationship and letting those be the guide, ie not making "agreement" being the goal but rather a part of a process that ends up in a far greater goal.....NO ONE ever fully agrees, no one's every completely "like minded" if that means they have to think and feel everything exactly the same way because they both "believe" the same things. And people like Craig and VPW illustrated that. Anyway - then I saw it in the writings of Henri Bergson, a French philosopher who wrote some very cool stuff about time and what he described as "duration", where life is not viewed as a series of incremental steps but more a flowing cognitive exercise similar to a river of water. And on and on and along the way I picked up on the Stoic stuff which to me describes a process more than an outcome, comparable to the Buddhist idea of life being like the space in a bowl, and not the bowl itself. Which can also be put as having "treasure in earthen vessels", etc. etc. etc. Gestalt baby, it's a gestalt thing. Anyhoo - I disagree with a lot of y'all, about a lot of things, but I don't hate you or think you're bad. I might think some people are stupid or foolish but that falls into a different category - if there's something I can or should do about that, but honestly in many cases there isn't. So, do I hate everyone because I think they're stupid? No. I would hope others would try think of me the same way if that were the case. Ultimately being stupid becomes something else anyway. But to be honest, the best and easiest way I know of for any of it is to start from the "new life in Christ", and then thoughtfully deal with each other as best we can. Other than that - you can all go to hell in a go kart anytime soon. Just remember though, should God come back to me and do a survey, I'm on your side, on principle alone. Please do the same for me if given the opportunity. God knows better than any of us, this life can just absolutely suck dog sh it sometimes, so the more rope we can give each other and the more help along the way, the better. I really really do believe God expects us to do that as part of His Plan. And thanks for getting the board back up!
  13. This article covers some things I’ve learned over the years regarding bib’cal research. Thought it might be of interest here. The examples will probably sound familiar. Thoughts? ( https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/3-ways-not-to-use-greek-in-bible-study/?amp )
  14. I think the Genesis record and the "serpent" is the classic religious train wreck where supporting an interpretation of an idea is more important than the idea of the record. Now - Gawd forbid that someone insert their own god warrantied brain into it but it would seem to me the record is an invitation to "selah". To consider what the Writer might be telling me using the most expressive language they can. I am perfectly willing to read it on face value, take it as is, and do that. Far be it from me to argue with God or his earliest scribes, my prayer is simply to get the message. Put it into another highly opinionated and emotionally drive topic like politics. Say I call a politician, okay let's say Trump, I call Trump an ignorant swine. Or Nancy Pelosi - equal opp offender here - Pelosi is an ignorant swine. And now let's go into that circle of swirling dipshit on facebook where these things are debated seriously and endlessly and break it down - "ignorant" means "lacking education or knowledge." "swine means" 1. Any of various omnivorous, even-toed ungulates of the family Suidae, having a stout body with thick skin, a short neck, and a movable snout, especially the domesticated pig. 2. A person regarded as contemptible or disgusting. And now let's put together that group of people who are .... actually going to debate, discuss, dismantle and re ass emble multiple platforms and positions on what these words mean, how they're used historically and how they apply or don't apply to this current usage.....and let them go at it for awhile but stop it midway, say after about 5,478 comments, replies, smilies and laughing icons. Nowhere near done yet but for the sake of this discussion, under 10,000 important and insightful comments towards finally solving this important question of if this is right or not. Or what.... Now - I know that kind of discussion goes on. I see it, I try to steer clear most of the time and although I have relative opinions about the performance of both those people under discussion I'm not going to invest a lot of time or energy in whether they are now, ever were or could be at some time in the future, "ignorant swine" in the sense of the words being literally true to some definition of them being high-school drop out, even-toed pigs. Why? Well, lots of reasons but mostly because I myself know that the word "swine" can be used to describe both pigs AND people I want to describe as contemptible or who for one reason or another I don't like or disagree with. And I already know that a human isn't a pig, even if they have seem to act like it. In fact, my image of their "swine-liness" is probably even an exaggeration of an actual swine, but in usage most everyone - most everyone but not all - kinda gets the point at first hearing and might be more inclined to debate the temerity on display in it's usage. Or something. At this point I'm not even sure if this is an exact comparison, as the hebrew word translated "serpent" or "snake" in Genesis is "nachash/nakhash" and it's root definition seems to mean and include an intuitive skill or intelligence, where something can happen or be accomplished but where the effort or work done to accomplish it isn't immediately visible or obvious....thus, a sense of "magic" or wonder accompanies it. "Shining", "brilliant" are part of it. A snake is an animal whose very movement forward or back seems to be a marvel of engineering and to me the relationship makes sense. So - it was the "serpent". Which came first, the snake or someone going "oooooooh! look a dat thing!"......? Dunno, but I think I get the word and how it could be applied to different things, people, stuff. But if that was Trump or Pelosi we wouldn't be debating if they were actual snakes or swine and only a very few people, like those who believe that Area 51 is really where the alien invaders developed the Ben and Jerry ice cream as part of a long term strategy to enslave the earth, are going to debate that reality. Anyway, I'm not a Hebrew scholar or academic or theologian with an expert's grasp on the religious history involved in the record and it's many translations and interpretations. I do know however that any English version of the Bible that I use and read is a TRANSLATION and an INTERPRETATION of some earlier, more original version, be it written in Koine Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic or any other dialect of any other "ancient" language. One thing I did learn in PFAL and since many times over is that someone some where has to interpret and translate, has to come up with an English language version that I can read, even letting it "speak for itself" when they produce the INTERPRETATION......... I can do some of that work myself, and it has appeared now lo these many years later that a reasonable approach is to sit down with my Bible and whatever other tools I can use and - prayerfully - read it and ask the God recorded in it to guide and help me, as He will. Thus and so - if someone still has to have a snake, it really doesn't matter since I asked a snake myself at one point if it had heard the stories about it's ancestors and Eve and it just looked at me and slithered away, which would prove to many that YES of course it knows them, and it refuses to discuss and waddya-expect-from-a-snake! but to me just meant - hey that's a snake. I also don' think the serpent was really Adam because if it had been it would have .... said that. And it didn't.
  15. "GYM", (Give Your Money) offers none. In fact, you needn't concern yourself with any kind of results or returns of any kind. No pressure, no stress, no believing required, no grading system, no better or best and best of all, no disappointment. Just the wonderful relief of getting into the GYM and getting with it! Do it - now! You're going to love being part of the solution!!
  16. Of note: on the mobile version of this page the DONATE button is right above the topic Prosperity Preachers. And right under “Greasespot Cafe”. : p I have to say though, seriously, this entire topic continues to be a hurtful blight in the field of humanity and faith. I’ve decided to help. I’m forming a foundation which will provide resources to organizations and individuals working to rid the world of this problem. Finally, for all those seeking a truly non sectarian, non denominational, cross-discipline and multi national support system, help is on the way! The good news doesn’t stop there-you too can be involved in this daring effort to promote real world peace and harmony! No time? No worries! Don’t know where to start? Start here! Lets cut to the chase - you know this is a problem you could fix but you’re just one person - how to leverage your compassion, intelligence and exercise your under appreciated creative energies with an effort you can trust and proudly support? Join the GYM!!!! Now!! “Give Your Money” is as simple as it gets. No explanations, no results and no free gifts. Just the knowledge that you finally did the right thing!! No one will call and there are No phoney self help promises or wellness benefits - ever!! Lifetime memberships still available to the next 10000 respondents! Just do it and get working it - GYM style!! Your first deposit opens your account! Give your money starting today, to top-ramen-institute-for-higher-learning@gmare.oryphis
  17. socks

    Homosexuality

    On the overall topic of how the Way dealt with homosexuality, I take it back to doctrine. VPW believed the Bible taught that homosexuality was the result of a devil spirit, of "possession". I don't recall him ever getting into the biology of it all or trying to learn if there was any other reason for it occurring. He recognized that genetics and overall physiology could cause a person to be inclined in any number of different ways, and used the sports type analogies to illustrate that as well as other things like upbringing, etc. So he knew enough about "environment versus heredity" psychology and science to form a position on it from what he understood of the Bible. He didn't like to take things to their ultimate outcomes logically though despite his emphasis on "being logical" because if he had he would have had to answer at the least that the logical outcome of the state of "sin", man's fallen nature as the Bible spoke of it would produce a biology that would pass on traits from generation to generation and that those traits would express themselves in progeny. Of course he knew that and included that in some of his Advanced Class teaching on these "spirit possession" topics, and in so doing had to teach that the only "real" solution to it as a human problem was the spiritual "new birth" to right size and correct the physical degenerative results of sin in human nature.............but to fully embrace that he would have had to recognize that even the Bible itself states that the new birth is not a 100 percent physical correction of our human shortcomings and is rather a "promise" of a "hope" and that the "treasure is in an earthen vessel........a reality seen if only by the fact that everyone ever healed by anyone in the New Testament then still someday died, including Lazarus who apparently died. Twice. Once all of this is extrapolated out to practical applications, the question of human sexuality becomes a much much broader topic. Easy enough to spiel off in a 10 minute teaching that then falls apart under scrutiny, because it's not "The Word", it's someone's version of it. From the years of say, 1969 through 1980, I heard him teach multiple times on the topic in Advanced Class sessions, Corps meetings and in response to events and various kinds of media coverage. After that until he died in 1985 I had less contact with his live teaching so I can't say where he might have taken it but it would be news to me and others who had heard him teach on the topic many times if he explored other aspects of it. He taught that homo's are possessed by a devil spirit, which could be cast out, or repelled by the new birth and a life of living by God's Word, scripture. I would say for all those who became fully embedded and engrossed in that teaching (especially the form of it that Craig fronted) there was little compassion felt for homosexuals. He created an entire society that celebrated ridiculing and debasing homosexuality, justified in his mind by the fact that doing so was simply ridiculing Satan and the devil spirits possessing people. If he was in fact striking out against his own family and close associates it makes it all the more vicious - it wasn't just business, it was personal. Craig wasn't alone in that regard, he and a few others of the early group were fully on board for that, without much thought about it at all. He and a few others gloried in how quickly they could accept and start repeating anything that dripped out of VPW's mouth the night before. It was embarrassing to see all these red blooded young men act that way, until I realized some of them had their eye on being the next Pres' and were willing to trade their manhood to be his "transition plan". For the rest of us it was still all about "people". Craig could live ungodly all day long in his crystal "Word" bubble and convince himself he was still God's Man, while attacking and flailing on homo's, homo sympathizers and anyone who smelled suspiciously homo to him that day. And lots of that Emporia crew had been fed that and backed it. Not everyone though - but if you swallowed VPW and then Craig's limited view understanding of it and fed whatever was bugging you that day with it you didn't have much compassion or care for people, other than to smugly make fun of them.
  18. socks

    Homosexuality

    Twinkster - I know the official version as reported years ago was that Craig suddenly became aware of "homo infiltration" into the Way Corps. It's always sounded like Craig's war on homo's was sparked by something, one or more events, and that it was very likely him finding out about or being told that Donna and Rosalie (or whoever) were having sexual relations. Is that your understanding? I can picture his viciousness being driven by his own misguided sense of betrayal, misguided because his own need to pursue sex outside his marriage clearly trumped the need of anyone else to pursue the same, in or out of marriage, homosexual or otherwise. I have to wonder why he didn't call them out if that was the case. If it was because Donna was his wife and they had children and he wanted to shield them I understand that but as it progressed he took it out on many others, making it particularly fraudulent to hide their activity. A somewhat less than best but acceptable route might have been to simply step down and allow these issues to be worked out, while continuing to act as a Trustee or some leadership capacity. "Pride comes before a fall" and I can see that factoring into this. I also have to wonder why he wouldn't have arranged to dump Rosalie early on. They were all given to back-room politics and he could have done a lot of damage control getting rid of her - which is exactly what she later oversaw with his departure. An early axe to Roz would have allowed him to reset the table. My own personal experience with Craig was not altogether negative. Once he got into Emporia and started turning the operation into a personal-podium and comically bad business model he laid the groundwork for sucking out all the energy of the Way Corps program and there wasn't room for two Vacuums, VPW had adopted that spot pretty well by that time. He went from a likeable "believer" jock to an absolute vanilla wall of boring very quickly, and it seemed at the time I was seeing the "Peter Principle" acting out, a book I owned that I even gave to Vince F later when he took over the Trunk office, not because he was doing it as much as it seemed Emporia and Craig were quickly growing out of their own capacity to succeed. But Craig had a heart, and although he wasn't much of a people person and lacked the warmth of personality to draw others to himself, he knew how to do the right thing, he wasn't stupid, and he did right by others under many circumstances. Of that I know, for certain. He could also take a cold hands off approach to anything he didn't understand or want to get involved in. But on the larger stage of the "Presidency", he seemed a puppet without a master and on that topic I've concluded that when VPW realized Craig and his inner circle werent' going to listen to him anymore, the ship started it's slide sideways and south. Anyway - any thoughts confirming or otherwise that it was Donna and Roz specifically that created the vicious "Homo Storm"?
  19. socks

    A few thoughts

    It's back! I saw the site was butzded for a few days there, and this must have been why. I never like sorting out any kind of double billing, sometimes they want to just apply it to your next billing cycle which basically rewards the other party for their error. Hope this was sorted out fairly for you. .
  20. Exactly. If we go back to the question of what exactly is going on, it's creation, the formation of the universe that mankind is going to live in, as well as man's own creation into it. We learn throughout the ongoing history about it's own past, that mankind isn't alone or even all there is to the whole of God's own universe. The Bible - appears - to be saying most clearly that 1. there's a God Who is at work and is above all and Whose intentions and will prevail in all parts of existence that I can be aware of....and 2. We are part of that God expressing HIS intentions and will and in so doing He has given us an existence where we can now also in turn express His intentions and will throughout our own. In fewer words - it's HIs game, His rules, not mine. Part of that existence is the ability to choose, to exercise a "free will" of our own, within the restrictions and constraints we've been set in. I can choose between many things but I can't create a new choice if it's at odds with or contradicts something already established. So - I can say, choose to "disobey" God on a specific point if it contains more than one option, but I can't create new outcomes if they contradict the ones already given. So - I can say, decide "I'm not going to die", and choose that. But in that case, it's not a choice I've been given and the outcome of thinking I can create a new choice will be - nothing, failure. It won't happen. Death is part of a physical life that is not completely energized by God's eternal life force, "pneuma hagion". This body will die and the mind that inhabits and has grown in it will no longer have a place. I am going to die physically without some altering intervention. I won't pretend to understand all the differences but clearly, this pneuma that the average man or woman has comes with an expiration date. God's pneuma doesn't. Two major differences. It's a good example because death is rather final, from what I've seen. Yet - a choice has been given that will change that outcome and it fully relates to this life and who "I" am - faith in Jesus Christ and basically hitching my star to His wagon. 3 essential elements carry the day - grace, mercy and forgiveness. By simply recognizing that I can not fully fulfill the destiny set forth for me by my Creator without a full reliance on that creator I can come to accept a mediator, Jesus Christ who exemplifies that Creator, as "son" to his "father". Thus "obedience" is reduced to it's essential ingredient - full recognition of God as The Creator and all encompassing reality. The concept of being a "father" fully forms that idea into something we can understand - children don't choose their father, nor control their birth, everything about our own birth and life is the product of someone else - its' provided by a parent. If that isn't full reliance and recognition in the Grand Order of Life, I don't know what is. So - anyway - if the "serpent" is the "nakhash" or shiny, brilliant one as described in Genesis, we can already assume that it ISN'T Adam, because Adam isn't the "shining brilliant" one. I'm kind of befuddled how that person came up with this idea, and the fact that he doesn't really answer your questions. LIke this part Q: Why would God speak to Adam twice, referring to him by two different titles (the serpent/Adam)? A: For several reasons, why did Jesus call the first century apostate Jews “serpents” and tell them that they were of their father the slanderer” (etc) They're not the same things. Genesis is a story about something that happened and in that story a character is introduced - a "serpent" - God doesn't suddenly decide to call Adam a serpent, it doesn't say "And then Adam, that serpent, saw Eve and said...." or anything like that. It doesn't say "Adam was very serpent like in his deceptive ways and when he spoke to the woman he said..." In fact Jesus says those snakey apostages were "of their father the slanderer", he doesn't say they were of their "father, Adam, that serpent who beguiled Eve".....or anything like that. To add - about 20 + year ago (time flies!) I spent some time reading up on the history of Satan, the Devil, Lucifer, the Evil One, from the Bible as well as historical sources. That covered a lot of the idea that the evil in the nature of man has taken many faces and names throughout time. It started with the Egyptian history, and their god "Set" specifically, and it's modern expressions. and then I tried to get some perspective on the entire topic. And I eventually came back to what's in the Bible and decided whether metaphorical or specific or both, "the god of this age" referred to is clearly a force that is at odds with it's Creator. Disobedience and rebellion in it's most fundamental expression. It's worth looking into and of course as we see here, others mileage will vary. The narrative of Genesis presents this "shining brilliant" and influential presence into Eve's path and the entire record devoted to what happened paints a picture of a larger universe than just the two of them. If we lose that we change the record. I don't think for a second that it was a "real" snake, but I get the comparison to that character in the record, based on what it says.
  21. Don't see it. The Judeo/Christian narrative is formed around the idea that God is a Creator, one whose intentions and will are expressed in His creation, of which we are a part. We're not the only part though. Genesis introduces an element into God's creation of the heavens/earth and mankind that is consistent throughout the entire Bible. It's not just us and God, there are other forces, other creation, involved in grander vision of all of God's work. In fact, it would seem to be obvious that the interaction between "Lucifer" and Adam and Eve amounted to yet another beat down for that fallen being and one that put him/it on a path to ultimate destruction in the future. I'm certainly not an expert in Hebrew but this theory seems to offer an explanation of something that's not actually stated in the record. In other words, if taken on face value, the record doesn't offer this interpretation without some straining.
  22. Yeah, see a lot of that, too. "It's easier to tear something down than it is to build something" is a saying that was popular in the Way, used to defend itself against the criticism of others. Yet we've all seen how easily Way mid level managers and their organizational progeny spew harsh criticism, denigration, scathing character assassination and outright eternal damnation on others they even have a "suspicion" of differing with. How much harder would it be to find the good, the truth, the profit, the "Word", in something else? VPW did it at time,s, especially when it served his purposes, like how he held up the Mormons and their practice of tithing as an example. There's a saying that was written into the 1999 movie "Ghost Dog, the Way of the Samurai" that goes: "It is bad when one thing becomes two. One should not look for anything else in the Way of the Samurai. It is the same for anything that is called a Way. If one understands things in this manner, he should be able to hear about all ways and be more and more in accord with his own." Today the classic bobble-head-for-jesus is Marion Gordon Robertson, AKA "Pat Robertson". He judges the entire world by the one thing that he thinks it lacks. In the words of Dawes songwriter Taylor Goldsmith in his song "When My Time Comes" ... "you can judge the whole world on the sparkle that you think it lacks. You can stare into the abyss but it's staring right back...." In his case I think it likes what it sees.
  23. socks

    Homosexuality

    Hi Kathy, thanks for the research paper doc. It's an interesting read and well written, will have to digest it. I do think this is a topic that fits into "Open" better than Doctrinal. I've always felt that it's a topic that isn't served well if restricted to religious inquiry although that's part of the discussion, certainly GS. Religious opinion pretty much mangles the topic into a gnarly mass of denial - anything that doesn't seem to fit into the equation is just ignored, denied or considered an attack on the religious position. Many of the world's social issues end up like a pile of dirty laundry with one clean towel on top - they just focus on the clean towel and ignore the dirty ones and pretend there's a pile of clean towels and the dirty ones will be handled in the sweet-by-and-by. Which goes to the basics of life and determining what life is and how best to proceed through it and into the future. One thing striking about Jesus and what He is recorded to have taught is that He addressed two extreme views of life - eternity, God, judgment, righteousness on the one hand and abundant life, a heavenly Father, forgiveness and grace on the other.....one is everything and everyone, the other is personal and individual. "The Word became flesh" indeed - a God who creates universes cares about His creation's individual parts. Jesus taught around and to the basic idea of a male/female partnership, "marriage", and that relationship is used in the New Testament to illustrate the unity of the much larger body of Christ and it's "members in particular"....again, the larger reality being understood in an individual perspective. He also taught that "in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.".....so reality changes in God's plan as Jesus taught it. Or does it? Hard to say, but we have some pointers. I was born heterosexual, I didn't choose it. I don't choose to stay heterosexual in preferences and I don't think I could, or want to, choose to change that. It's just the way I was born and it appears to the natural way the majority of humans are born - some are born male and they're sexual attraction is towards females, serving procreation. "Be fruitful and multiply". But if I didn't choose, why do I have to say someone else did....? Maybe they did, maybe they do, maybe the biology and physical components produce the conditions that allow for it. That personal awareness makes me think that someone could be born homosexual and then have a natural preference for their own sex. That doesn't serve procreation and if I assumed that all sexual preference was primarily designed to serve procreation it would be a major failure. I don't know that though. Procreation is clearly the intention of our species, it's our future so to speak but breaking it down, that doesn't mean that every single human ever born must and should have more children, be a father or mother. If I say that's the ideal state, is it the only permissible state? What's the purpose of God's creation particularly when there may not be any genders of any kind "in the resurrection", as Jesus taught? These are just thoughts, questions. Jesus taught to forgive, to help, to pray and to have faith towards God, as both their Creator and their Father. Can everyone do that? Can anyone accept His act of grace and be "born again" - and if so what is the effect on their human sexuality? When I see people acting out "gay" lifestyles in seemingly outrageous and shocking ways, that's behavior. What does it represent? Every gay person doesn't wear pink tights and dance around the streets in chains. I have no desire to see or participate. But it's behavior, not sexuality - behavior that one chooses to reflect or manifest their sexuality in a way they....choose. Anyhoo....PEACE!!!
  24. Y'know, on that general topic of what-said-versus-what-real, Penworks put the final stamp on something I'd realized about the earlier years in the Way's growth, the period right before and after 1970... In her book she described her own experiences as an early participant and then Corps member and the very real struggles that she encountered, and in so doing refers to the similar experience of the others around her, many of whom were developing somewhat mythical reputations about what they were doing, they're "believing" and the "results" they got "operating the principles" of the "class".....stories about "classes coming together" and great things happening when they would go out on assignments proliferated when in reality if you were around during those periods what you really heard about was how valuable something was for them - what they'd learned, the great personal healing they'd experienced, how powerful it all was to "see God Working" in their own lives, etc......which may or may not have been fully true and would be perfectly fine as far as that goes but it very clearly got blown up into much larger stories of outreach and growth .....later as these same people rose up through the ranks they continued to be held up as models of success even to the point of using it as a lever to denigrate and step over others they likely considered competition to their own ascendancy and most importantly their elevated reputations. I would say that as the years rolled on it became apparent that most of these earlier "heavies" never exhibited the "signs, miracles and wonders" in what they did nor in how they worked with others - rather they merely got better at workin' the system, the language, the logic of it all. I met and got to know Penworks throughout that period and always found her to be honest, supportive, and very caring in the most human of ways. Her own sense of self awareness and her own struggles allowed her to take the high road so to speak and to NOT take advantage of others in order to get what she wanted or felt she deserved. This was and is an admirable trait but one lacking in many of her peer group at that time, as we saw unfold over the years. She wasn't alone, there were others but there soon came to be a core group of up and coming "leaders" who were grabbing the horns of the corporation and riding it out. Which aren't all that many years - from the period of PFAL 2.0, (their was an earlier homegrown version that was scrapped for being extremely sub standard) the final professionally filmed version that was in the can as of 1967 till VPW's death there's only 17years of time - and that's the time frame when he finally had enough of his ducks in a row that he felt he could promote PFAL on an international level, doing things like going West to reach the "Jesus Movement" of the '60's. Etc etc. My own experience prior to PFAL coming out to Cali was one where I'd seen quite a bit of real change and "the power of God" through faith in Jesus Christ and the teaching of the Bible, in it's simplest forms. PFAL teaching put pieces together for me but not in an altogether new way, in some ways it simply put structure and a way to understand what was actually happening. In other ways it didn't create a whole new horizon or "produce results" where there were none........ So I was used to hearing stories and of great things happening, I was living some of them myself so it was not merely an academic exercise..........so it seemed a little thin hearing about all these great wonderful things from the first and second Way Corps but never - actually - seeing - exactly - what they were talking about, other than a lot of what you'd call "personal growth". And Stuff. Lot's of "oh God taught me" this and that and loads of "I feel so humbled by what I am learning" kind of stuff buuuuuuuut unfortunately it the Way Corps did not become a "program" designed for spiritual awareness, in action. Kinda ironic. The pattern I see looking back is that for many people there was a period of early growth in and around PFAL and if that took form into a more ritualized set of practices through their Way fellowship, the Way Corps or other programmed participation, the risk increased for it to become fosselized and lifeless. Busy, noisy, chaotic, even beautiful and good sometimes but more man made, mechanical effort than "pneumatikos" engerized and moving through faith. It's a fine line and one that some others might not see but to me, it's there and is where I see the broad swathe of humanity and effort that the Way had for those years. It's exactly the environment that produced an LCM, El Presidente, a man focused on methodology and linear thinking who literally could not see the forest for the tree. My point - is NOT that NOTHING was real and it was all BS, but rather that there was a LOT of BS being shoveled ABOUT those early "heavies" some of whom didn't buy into the marketing and others who unfortunately did, for whatever reasons. This is why I'm so ambivalent about trying to "convince anyone" of anything - I believe those "signs, miracles and wonders" DO and DID occur, and they are to be retold and sharing as those involved are guided and God wishes. They're testimonies to His great Presence and Will. It is happening all around us and all the time. Many ask "why not now" or "why is this or that allowed to happen?" and while there's reasons for and causes, in the end I am not the Creator nor Giver of Laws and in many respects - I just don't know. But I'll continue to tell the story I know and love, as long as theres' one to tell. PEACE!
  25. Thanks Mark. The original question - "Did Jesus 'do' 7 of the manifestations" - doesn't have much meaning for me - so I can't really answer it. Why is that important? What would that mean to me or to my understanding of Jesus? Or who I am and the life I live. Spiritual life is too mechanical the way that Dr. VPW taught it. On the one hand he believed that "spirit" and things of the spirit can't be analyzed, can't be put into a test tube and broken down into an understanding produced by human, 5 sense analysis. On the other hand he attempted to do exactly that when he proposed PFAL as a class on "How, with a capital H-O-W", to live the more than abundant life that Jesus promised. One the one hand he believed that Jesus Christ promised a "more than abundant life" in all "categories that was only possible - "available" - when one was born again of God's spirit. On the other hand he said he looked "round about me" in the community in which he lived and saw the "unbeliever" who wasn't born again living a life that was often "more abundant" than the "believers" in church. Etc. etc. etc. One of the great successes of PFAL's content is that it opens the Bible and reads it to the audience. "God's Word" is given preeminence, is made the authority and is the thing which must first be understood in order to understand everything else. One of the great failures of PFAL's content is that it contrasts the "physical" and the "spiritual" in a way that never comes together for the listener to the end that they can ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND H-O-W it all works, as promised. In fact it comes together more as a conflicting set of conditions that never resolve, once assembled and listed out the way it's taught. Sure we're born again, "operating" God's spirit by session 12 - but GreaseSpot Cafe is a validation of an unfortunate but honest fact - many many of those who "took the Class" either faked or fumbled their way through a process that they later perfected through practice. "Excellors sessions" indeed. Does that negate what the Bible teaches, what we can actually read? No. In further fact I would contend that VPW's dualist theology, while based on biblical ideas and concepts, is really a non-biblical man's view of the spiritual universe described through out the Bible. The great "battle of the senses" and the "spiritual warfare" of Ephesians aren't described as a winnable "war", in this time frame before Christ's return to gather His Church together. It may be a fight but it's only a fight between losers. We "win" by choosing Christ, allowing God's sovereignty to reign in our hearts and living as best we can in the time we have. VPW suggested as many many teachers have, that the emphasis in this life is to be placed on the "walk", the process, the sets of decisions and actions we take day after day......and our lives are made up of such things - but the emphasis of Christianity is that Christ bore the weight and responsibility of moving mankind forward and sets our paths towards the future. Thus there's no dualist ideal, no great division of good and evil and a war to see who "wins". God wins. Always, and always has, does and will. "Light and in whom there is no darkness". Once we are "seated in the heavenlies" of God's promises we are to no longer struggle to be better, or essentially see a problem where there is no longer one - rather we are to apply ourselves to "grow in grace" and grow in the abundance of God's gifts upon which our new life is made of. . Period. That's it. The dualist, work-hard-win mindset isn't "the Believer's Lifestyle". The earliest "believers" didn't have the time or the teaching to tweak doctrine the way we try to now. Their experience was real, the healings real in signifying God's greater presence and power, miracles that gave real human testimony to the spiritual. It wasn't like getting a perfect score on a test - it was Real Change, Real Life and Real Love. Whether we or Jesus or my gramma "do" 7 of the 9 or 15 of the 20 or anything of anything is the wrong way to look at it. God's people need to stop being led around by the nose of that loser-ville jock-for-Jesus attitude that's been heaped on them. Start living the life. Start being "what God says you are".
×
×
  • Create New...