socks

"Pin Protocol". The HS dove pins were niceI and the blue "WOW" pins kinda snappy. But then you add a nametag pin to the assemblage and you're doing cross stitch to your coat. All those holes Now that's devilish. But I always liked wearing the dove pin as long as some horse's as s didn't come along and feel me up getting it to fly one direction or another.

Was anybody here at that 'businessmen's' class? How was he then? I was not. I was probably working. It was a clipped form of pfal for people who didn't have time to sit through 34 hours of class. It was 36 hours and no one with a family and a job has 36 hours of time to squeeze into 2 weeks, the get 'em in-get 'em out schedule that was recommended for a long time. That's half the time Jesus was dead, for God's sake. A lot of people did it but it wasn't the way to do it. IMO. but if one made a lot of money, exceptions were made for you. If you had some shine to bring to the party, some influence, some dough-ski bro-ski, you got some fudge room. For awhile. The best time for many people to be in the Way was when they were getting in - once you "knew better" all hel l could break loose if your Holy Spirit dove pin dove the wrong way because the weak willed idiots running the Way couldn't teach the bible with Satan getting that kind of access into the pen.

Thanks Twinky. Thinking...:)

A classic, waysider. <br><br> These guys are one long "profanity alert" and not exactly Doctrinal Forum fodder but y'know - Tool - Maynard's a troubled soul but I get this tune, in spades. And Campy dude is as spooky as this animation video. The tune's got an off the chart drum rhythmic time signature morph around 2:50 at the middle of the tune that kinda says it all. While I don't take it the extreme - sometimes you gotta embrace the horror, stare it down and get on with a new day. <br><br> <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/h_Xsd_aCVNs?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

For L.A. <br> <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/h1Bnl8PjES8?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Today there's no lack of "bible believing" education, colleges, universities and ministerial-leadership-training institutions of all stripe and color. Small and large, they're out there, here, wherever. The theology may vary but there's plenty of opportunity to cover areas that were only lighty dealt with in TWI's assorted classes - like history and Old Testament history specifically. The Way's teaching on this was basic if you became involved in the Way Corps program and left out a lot and there was no structured offering of a second or third level of study and on from there. You could go on a "Bible Lands" tour but that's not a structured approach to education on the history of the Bible, it's a sight seeing tour. What's being covered here yet again about David and Solomon is historical - the past. We live in the present and when we get to the topic of "cultural differences" where it's said that OT "customs" for the Kings and such allowed for things not allowed for today, it seems ridiculous to draw lessons from that which aren't applicable today - because - our culture - the one in which we actually live - is not the same and does not allow for the same things if indeed they ever were as you're saying, johniam. johniam, I know you're smarter than you post here (despite long term exposure to the Dead's music ) You would know what the 4th verse in the record you quoted from says, so I don't get where you're trying to go with that. Historically we know that David and Solomon both had more than one wife and assorted concubines - that's in the Bible itself. We also know they were warned against doing that and specifically against wives that were of other nations and religions. This addresses the topic of "power" in a unique context, that of the "King" of the nation. Remember -- we have no Kings today other than Lord - Jesus Christ. We don't take that rank and to assume privileges, rights and authority of such is well, nuts and an outright recipe for abject failure. That's important and more than a side note - we aren't "kings", we don't have a nation that's being ruled by a man, "gift ministries" are nothing like that and me - well, I'm some sort of grafted Gentile who wouldn't be worth an Israelite's time of day in the OT nor today - if not for Christ. So - just noting that. Obviously - I think it's clear anyway - the office of King, that of Grand Poobah who rules all - contains in it the opportunity to do what one wilt - and the OT laws put constraints on that. David is considered within range (debatable and from that much dreaded topic of "moralityy" he clearly didn't have the character to handle it - Uriah and Bethsheba illusrate that, sadly) Yet David is considered a great man of the Bible. Solomon is said to have achieved great things yet ultimately failed in this "wives" category, to Israel's harm. What the King did would effect the nation - that's clear. If the King went against the laws that governed his office everyone suffered. There's no question about that, biblically, logically, any level you look at it. The idea of God "forgiving" for anything did not automatically change the outcomes or results of the actions taken, right or wrong. Saying "I'm sorry I was wrong" didn't wash away the outcomes. Today Christian's often cite the cleansing power of Redemption as a reason to expect life to be a bed of roses no matter what they do - yet they suffer as others. So as we used to say in the Way - the OT's "for our learning" - what are we learning from all of it? Are we learning anything at all other than the outer extremities of what man can get away with and manage to survive through? We need to do better than that. or we waste the very wealth of knowledge we claim to cling to and respect.... Are we drawing lessons on true "abundance" or how to sustain more failure and misery that we see repeatedly in the OT? I, socks, ask the question while pondering it myself. :unsure: Although there's not a lot of evidence to support the Bible's history of David and Solomon's reigns let's assume they were as written. That they "did some good" and perhaps a lot of it is recorded in the Bible. Logically based on what the Bible states throughou,t the "big picture" of their lives carried a great deal of good. Yet we can also see they got off track as many times as a 4 wheeled go-kart with 3 tires. I guess the issue here under discussion is that of comparing that with VPW and the conclusion that he, as with any man ,"could" do some good, some things that were right, correct, "godly" and worthwhile....right? To that I would say, of course - that's Biblical, logical, and makes basic common sense. But.... It completely depends on the actual facts of the life lived, the things done and the history we examine. Are, were those things, were there things, efforts, stuff - that was good, worthy, etc. It doesn't follow that we would assume anything - the facts have to be looked at, weighed, evaluated and considered. There's no "gimme" on this that just because anyone puts up a shingle "MInister" that they're doing anything good no matter how well meaning. We have to look at the facts. Which is where this always comes back to here on GS and will always present vigorous discussion.

"It wasn't blatant orgies in the halls...but if you were female...you knew what dark alley NOT to take. It could be pretty uncomfortable." Thanks geisha779. That makes a point that needs to be made too. Comfort levels represent more than personality preferences. How we feel about ourselves and others, how we're handled and treated. The more I saw and heard about Emporia the more I felt like I didn't "get it". Everyone crammed into tight quarters, the odd ball scheduling, many things. The background I had in the earliest years was one where you could basically be left alone. You could be an individual, if you came in and sat down you could feel completely at ease talking, not talking, enjoying the company of others or having some alone time if that's what you wanted. Others respected that. If you wanted to air a grievance or even just vent you could express it. If it was someone else you could listen and hear them out.

One ex-member said the Corps' residence training was sometimes like a "bordello," with promiscuity, adultery, orgies, wife swapping, and even gang-rape. For a certain time, it was unoffficially taught that extra-marital sex is not sinful but could actually be protable for spiritual growth. This view was based on the old Corinthian belief that bodily practices do not a(ff)ect the spirit of a person. Although this was never taught publicly, it made adultery an acceptable practice, which again made The Way more appealing for today's society than traditional churches who clearly refused any tolerance of sexual misconduct. These statements are confusing. That this kind of activity went on has been admitted by participants now, years later and I for one don't doubt the overall veracity of those who honestly set forth the facts as they lived them. But there's some clarity I'd like to establish on this topic: One ex-member said the Corps' residence training was sometimes like a "bordello," with promiscuity, adultery, orgies, wife swapping, and even gang-rape. I'm glad it came out later but sooner would have been preferable. In over 20 years in the Way and about 7 at the Way Nash in Ohio I never experienced this or saw anything like it that I would describe that way now, looking back. The ability of people to hide their activities and that of others, whether out of self-interest or fear, is something that needs to be understood in the correct context. It's not as if I or others I knew at that time were just too stupid or blind to see this - note that the ex-member is describing what they call "residence training" - it sounds like "sometimes" it was pretty much a group f-k that would be hard to miss. I do admit I never spent any length of time in Emporia, KS at the campus there but the times I was there no - it wasn't as if that's what the residence training had suddenly become, far from it. For a certain time, it was unoffficially taught that extra-marital sex is not sinful but could actually be protable for spiritual growth. Not in any teaching I attended or heard. I may have missed something. I've been told that VPW passed this down. He may have selected the weakest or those he felt were the most vulnerable to accept these specitic ideas. This view was based on the old Corinthian belief that bodily practices do not a(ff)ect the spirit of a person. I'm not sure about that - I've never heard that specific reference but it's possible. I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who can document that that was what this was based on and that that was how it was explained to them and exactly what "the old Corinthian belief" was. Although this was never taught publicly, True. it made adultery an acceptable practice, which again made The Way more appealing for today's society than traditional churches who clearly refused any tolerance of sexual misconduct. Only to those who brought it with them or had it offered to them and who wanted to accept it for whatever reasons - even on face value these ideas aren't reasonable IMO, regardless of what "scriptural" or philosohical arguments are made for them because it counters and conflicts with too much other clear scriptural and moral foundation. I don't say this to offer any excuses for myself or to distance myself from any of it. But I think that it needs to be understood that the methods people used to hide their activities were successful because for many including myself, this was not what "being in the Way" was all about. What I did find develop over the years was that it became more and more common to make cases for whatever it was a person chose to do that they knew was wrong, on face value, and to attempt to justify that from a biblical "principled" position, be it drug use, sex, alcohol, whatever, ie that what they "allowed" was acceptable in their circumstances and from that I'd assume that inner clique-circles of "likeminded" individuals supported each other in secret.This was happening right from the earliest years in California where I was - a lot of drug use for instance, and endless ramalama BS and navel-staring debates sprinkled with a few mis appropriated verses from the Bible carried on by those who wanted to do what they wanted to do. I finally came to the conclusion that I was lying to myself and that doing that was in direct conflict with a Christian life, dangerous and not the least problematic - illegal. For myself, I'd stopped drug use of any kind and nearly any substantial amount of alcohol consumption before I ever went into the Way Corps in Ohio. I went from one extreme to the other. For a time then after a few years I started drinking more "socially", with others and then on my own time while on staff. It was more like an early mid-life "crisis" than anything deliberately orchestrated. Then I realized - this ain't workin' and this isn't adding anything. But others I knew throughout that period weren't all-out boozers by a long shot. Acceptable? Not really but it's my own view into those times. I understand that we make excuses for what we do and the human tendency to find acceptance. There the roles and responsibilities of the community to help one another come into play. By creating small circles within the larger community that disconnects from the whole or that even takes over the core of the group's leadership the environment's created where chaos can reign. "Friendly chaos" is a fact of life, Deliberate and structured conflict in a community is harmful. IMO.That groups of people did things, hid them, lied about them and tried to justify them speaks for itself and the results we now can see plainly.

"I'M just saying that he could STILL do the things that a church leader can do. He delegated a lot of responsibility to others. God covered for him as long as He did. People got hurt, but people got blessed, too. Not just me. The big gray area here is that God is not obligated to reveal to us mortals exactly how he metes out justice for every jot and tittle of anybody's life...in this world...in that which is to come." On this I doubt the discussion will end here and now. I think God's revealed quite a bit about justice, how it works and what to expect. What we don't know is what we don't know, as they say and for those things out of our providence and jurisdiction we can ponder and do our best to understand and act accordingly but ultimately we must say "Thy will be done" when we face God in our most private and personal heart of hearts. For the wrong we have done there will be many to bear witness of why any one of us deserve no less than oblivion. That side of the jury's stacked against me and if we look around hard enough, most of us and they're not suggesting we get a free ride on the Glory Train of Gold Streets. Find your worst enemy and get a report, if you don't believe me. Some of us more so than others. In the end if there's no one else to stand for you, give 'em name. I'll give it my best shot. But I'm sure they'll be someone to explain why I'm not worth the time it would take to forget me.

An aside of sorts - Determining "moral superiority" or inferiority is a fact of life. Moral interpretation(s) is what all people do. Christians (and an early quote of the Way) go to the Bible for issues of "faith and practice". The practice is where the moral determinations come in, of course. Sooooo - it's interesting to me (and others I'm sure) that we have the religious terrain we live in - All Christians have basic tenets they accept - and the Bible as a source for inspired instruction is globally accepted I'd say. But - there are many interpretations of what the Bible says and means. As the basis for Christian faith then, if there are different interpretations of certain parts it follows logically that there - could - be different applications of those things - "morals", where people disagree on the correct practice and application - their morals. . I'd say "could" because it wouldn't always be the case I'd think but looking generically at it, there certainly could be. Are all morals right then? One would say of another - no. That would go back to the different interpretations and understanding I think. If the Bible was the source material and it said "Don't lie", I'd come to a very broad judgment that lying is wrong "morally". There may be instances of lying where we might judge and say it's accepted as necessary, the only alternative, allowable, okay in this or that circumstance, but if the rule is don't lie the correct application of that is always going to be the same and the moral judgment always the same. Does God care about these morals? If Jesus Christ is any example, yes and very much so. Jesus took the Torah to it's roots, so say His followers today. There are laws, rules, instructions. He characteristically illuminated and expounded on what those were, really meant and what they looked like in practice. So in Jesus I believe is the best example of how to be "morally superior" because He clearly held his own evaluation and judgment above those of other lesser scope. Course not everyone always agrees on what He said and what it means and how to apply it - so I guess that goes back to square one. Personally I believe that as "the spirit teaches", the answers come. That's why I think it's good for me to remain open and honest when hearing others out, or at least trying to see what they have to contribute. But if it were as simple "lie/don't lie" I think the answer would be plain.

Sad. Bad. Can anyone say "teleprompter"? Call me Old Skool - the Anthem should be sung straight, end to end, as is, with no adjustment to the original melody. All the singers who fool with it only make fools of themselves. Maybe the people who plan these Sports events will wake up and smell the expresso - they need to get an agreement up front, sing it straight and sing it right. I mean - come on - a player got penalized for what was it - over celebrating - after making a touchdown....?....and they stand for yet another Anthem mauling when she can't even keep it together enough to get the words out correctly? It deserved an "F" for fa-fa-fa-failed regardless of the ya-ya's she threw in to successfully generate enough hot air to float a boat. That deserves at least a couple laps around the track after practice.. We'll all live to swaller some more Pepsi but...that was nasty.

The mighty mighty 80's. When videos were videos. Laid Back provide best practices for recreational amusments. <br> <br> Forget the white pony though - those who know ride the Dragonfly.........for big fun. <br> <br> <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/I8j2ej5jqQw?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Heard this on the radi-are this morning and realized how long it had been since I'd heard this band. Cool tune. I think it's Tim Lincecum on guitar. <br> <br> <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cXWbMu4PtpE?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I don't like everyone this guy did but this song captures a kind of timeless feel that's very satisfying, like a drop of dew falling that never falls. <br> "My love runs leaf and vine, to the woman of the world".... <br> <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UNMUdV5IzAc?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

What's DTA stand for? Groovey hippeez? Lesee, when was that, late '60's? Early 70's? That's a loooong time ago, seems like now. Long time. A go.

"returned with Joy"........... Emergencies - great example. Earning trust - right on. That works both ways doesn't it? It doesn't work if the person saying it demands you give it unearned while they expect YOU to earn it from them. Or vice versa which is the same thing I guess, from different sides. In life many things are breakable, most things I would say. Unbroken until....they break. And they do and they will. Not everything but I think finding out what will and won't is necessary to succeed on any level. Trust is an ongoing effort when it comes to building it. Part of the build is dealing with breakdowns, failures, misunderstandings, clear understandings. How do we do that, react, respond ourselves? What are the processes we use to continue? When do we stop? Therein lies the crux of the biscuit, methinks.

As the old saying goes - "You have to learn to laugh at yourself. You might as well - everyone else is".

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kxvuPX17ROo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Bump. Was this some deep dark initiation, with deep dank meaning, conscious or subconsciously calling out the spirit-za's from their shallow graves to light upon the innocent and brand their psyche's with the sign of the soybean so that it could be left to lie dormant and silent, the evil seed, till called upon to sprout and provide identification into the Sanctum Satanus De Olectum Mi Orifice? Or at the least stirring the pot again and again to see what bits of ancient detritus can be brought to the top for perusal if yet now providing some form of the past in these final fleeting moments? It was a stupid joke. Wasn't it?

That's the one. The Fillmore opened on Fillmore and Geary and moved to the Carousel Ballroom later, around 1968. That's the S Van Ness and Market spot. It's at the Geary and Fillmore spot now. Grew up in the Bay Area and moved away in late '72. Been to a few concerts there of late since we moved back north in '89, about an hour north of S.F. Went to many many at both of them, years ago. My neighbor worked for Graham Productions for years and worked on the reopening there, opened the American Music hall, few other places for them. Nice family. Fillmore's a nice place, although today everyone stands up for the concerts, and seating's around the side or upstairs. "Used to be" everyone sat on the floor. Not so much anymore. It's still got the same tight stairway up and down to get in and out. Smaller than it seemed way back when. Nice place overall but kinda tight. The original spot was similar but seemed roomier. I've only seen the GD 3 times. I jammed around years ago couple times with Hart, around the second year the Dead were together. The organist in the band I was in at the time knew him Not to pop any bubbles but....he was just okay even then. I'm just not a Dead fan, past their first couple albums maybe but I know you are, have some friends who are, so hey. Kreutzmann's the best thing to hit the Dead IMO, but I never had any contact with any of them for the most part. That same band played a couple "street" dances in the last 60's, in SF and they were on the bill along with a lot of other band. We had contacts with the Synanon organization which was (supposedly) a drug and alcohol rehablilitation kind of program and I think we brushed paths with them at one of their events. It was a great place to get lots of both but not much rehabilitation that I recall. Did a Halloween party for some of their people in Berkeley around 1968 if memory serves and it was one of the most truly strange events I've ever been a part of. Lots of things "available" one might say, and would be a weekend to remember if I could remember more of it. :) I'm glad you did well. Good for you!

Maybe there's a Yelling Spirit, or some gene of spiritual DNA that forms the basis for it so that when mutated, a quiet heart and humble mind to work turns....loud. I jest. I would think the Devil himself would say "SHUDDDDUP!" at some point after an hour of LCM in the Lunch room. Missed all of that, thankfully. I bet a lot of people got good at "gotta go!" back then, eager to get back to work. Inspirational, in it's own way I guess. I guess such a topic as anyone being "good" is bound to cover a lot of ground. Spirit-za with fries - easy on the catch up! Colon cleanse next? Now THAT was bad. My colon still wants flowers every year and a card for that one. But yeah - "embrace the life we want to live." True, dat.

I see this kind of thing in music a lot, too. Over the years I've played in a lot of different groups, bands, as an accompaniest, etc. etc. I've got a couple friends who play in very good local "cover" bands, one that does all Tom Petty music. I like his stuff, always have and it's fun to see these guys knock that stuff out. They keep pretty much to the original sound and add their own flavor to it. They're all great musicians and do other work outside that band but that's their bread and butter so to speak. It's a "clone" sound, they can't deviate too far from the original sounds and part of the challenge is to find those sounds and duplicate them and work with the arrangements. But the deal is, you can't do that and do it well without knowing a lot more than just that. Every musician has their influences and the foundation they've learned to become accomplished, whatever that music is. You can learn and study all kinds of different music and apply it back to your own stuff. But that's key - every musician eventually develops their "own" sound that's informed and built on what they've learned. But there's an old saying that working musicians have to apply and it goes "you play the gig you're on". If it's standards, don't crank up to 10 and do rock, lay back and play the parts. If it's a jazz trio, listen, think arrangements and how to mesh. If it's a blues band get down and bluesy, don't rip off into jazz-fusion land every turn around. It's all about context and keeping with the style and doing what needs to be done so the gig goes well. Do it well and you get calls. Do it badly, you get advice. Ignore it, you fail. To do your "own" stuff, you get people together and do that. If you're a jerk word gets around. A gig is a gig but if you have the choice you choose to work with the best people and musicians and balance the stress level out. Cooperation - music is all about people working together, individual effort, mutual support and being able to both follow direction, work with others and lead when that's your shot to do so. Nothing's worse than a showboat whose ego drives everyone else nuts except maybe a guy who won't help others. Everyone's had that tough gig, a first time out, or found themselves in over their head. Musician's tend to help each other along when they can. In general working musician's are pretty laid back and stand up about how they approach their work. You have to be - if you're undependable, can't make the music or the changes and are difficult to be around no one will want to work with you. To me that's all very much like life and work in general. There's ups and downs but you strive to hit a pace and keep it going, make friends, help others succeed and respect others. Steer clear of bad situations, know your limits, do your thing. :)

Cool topic Twinky. That's very stand up of your church to take that approach I must say. Good sign right off the bat. What I see in corporate America from my little perch- The statement "strong teams are not easy to run" is something I would agree with 200 per cent. I work with a group of people that are passionate, highly creative and motivated. There's often a lot of churn around the work we do and the reaction from those we work with and even for isn't always warm and fuzzy. Still, we do have successes and reward the high-profile train wreck failures too. If you tell someone to take chances you can't shoot them if they do and fail. So there's a lot of learning going on all the time. Easy no. Not. But kinda fun sometimes. The "team" models I use and am part of are less leadership oriented. The old sports oriented "win one for the Gipper" model is linear and too slow in any kind of highly competitive environment and you spend a lot of effort performing up the ladder/down the ladder processes. The leader/follower kinds of teams work for certain things and are good early on where an effort is new. Once there's some time and experience into it you almost always need to adjust and allow participants to grow and expand. Equitable, peer-to-peer teams is what I prefer to have and be part of. Project management is defined up front and the disciplines and requirements of the processes are worked through within the team, understood, adjusted if need be and agreed upon. Once that's ready there's less dependency on a single "leader" because basically everyone's leading the effort, everyone owns the outcomes and their part in it. Fast, flexible, focused. While I work in a professional environment there's no great devotion to formality and I like that. The environment's one where anyone can reach the CEO directly and have a discussion, make a point or suggestion and the means to do that are set up and available. LIkewise at all levels of the company, it's more peer to peer than it once was. It's a work in progress but there's been a lot of progress the last couple years and it's great to be a part of it. The church I attend when I do is somewhat similar. The pastor's the pastor but he's down to earth and accessible to those who participate. He's not the "Answer Guy" in that he doesn't appear to present himself as a know it all or particularly high on the spiritual-food-chain. That's why we go there when we do, it's reflected in the people and in what he does.

Matthew 5:27,28 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. The context of the lesson isn't the natural response between men and women and sexuality in general, it's in the context of adultery, and "lusting" after the married spouse of another. It appears in a series of lessons that are listed in chapter 5. Physical reactions, desires, all of that, develop over a lifetime. How we learn to look and view others is part of individual character. The processes we learn and use over a lifetime will develop into our own responses. The general topic of human sexuality is really a redirect here, perhaps a misdirect and has little to do with what Jesus is talking about. If the bible is being used as the standard then the instructions are clear and clarified even more based on what Jesus taught - adultery is a clear, simple and easy to understand violation of the relationship and committment of two adults. Jesus brings it into focus at an even more granular level. It's not the "looking/lusting" at [any} woman (or man) that Jesus is referring to. It's the married spouse of another. The definition of "lust" is fairly clear and fits into the context too. Saying that "we all do that" isn't an excuse or reasonable response. Jesus isn't addressing whether that's a common response of a man or woman, He's clarifying what "adultery" is. To go anywhere else with those verses is extraneous and unnecessary and it used to surprise me but no more, how convoluted discussions on that topic can become. People always make excuses. Jesus didn't, he drilled it down to the root problem - what a person thinks in their heart and want to do is the core of "adultery". I could apply that to other areas of life given the fact that the "heart" and what a person thinks and believes is what God looks at and sees - if "God is looking at the heart" and sees "adultery" - then ? The answer seems so simple and clear and it's hard to understand how people attempt to leverage God "looking on the heart" as a way to think that somehow God's going to not see what we really think, are, and want in life. That's the fabric of our relationship with God. And it adds layers of depth to what we then actually DO in life. It is a "religious" view, if Christianity and the teachings of Jesus Christ are your religion of choice. No Christian or follower of Jesus, so-called, can deny the simplicity of what those verses state. We may not like it, think it too strict, too difficult but if we ignore it we're missing one of the most basic consistent messages throughout all of Jesus' teachings. Chuck it here but not other places - we've then selectively sliced and diced the gospels into a new version. So it goes, I guess. Whatever went on between VPW and other women that weren't his wife was wrong, bad, against the teachings of Jesus Christ and the extrapolations that appear in the epistles' doctrine. It's not an issue of human sexuality or choice - we are the people we are and we make the choices we make. People make bad ones, develop bad habits, character traits, and pursue things that are wrong. Human behavior can fall into gradients of gray but the shades are defined by the black and white.

"really? doesn't the bible say that if you think a thing you've done the thing?" There's a couple of things that balance in that brainfixed IMO. You're absolutely correct, Jesus drove a hard bargain in teaching on this very topic. Therein is a consistent point in the gospels - a person's heart. A point to balance there is "not what goes into a man but what comes out", paraphrased. Everyone's exposed to thiings that are wrong. That comes to us. What we do with it is the issue. In the middle of that is our brains and how we think about it. There's a process there that will produce the actions we take and God, looking on the heart, sees what's important. . Jesus was forgiving and is painted in the gospels as very understanding of the human heart and psyche, yet when applying and interpreting the scriptures of the Torah (and the extrapolations of the day) he was far more strict and dare I say harsh than most people are today. Yet, he put that into a context of forgiveness, love, faith and human choice.