GandalfTheWise

I didn't recall it either. I looked it up. I think it was added to the colors being sold as a pre-mix of darker stuff that he normally made by mixing colors together.

The real question is who is the unique person God created you to be? We often get hung up asking what God wants us to do rather than asking who the unique individual is who He wants us to become. The starting point for that is not us trying harder to be better but to accept Jesus Christ in our hearts. Christians use a number of different terms for this, born-again, born of the Spirit, accepting Christ, being saved, and conversion. Most Christians' testimonies are similar about this. It is a point in our lives where God makes us aware of our spiritual situation and that we cannot fix ourselves, but need Him to do it. Most Christians' testimonies include acknowledging our sinfulness and inability to change ourselves, but that God has to forgive us and change us. Most testimonies include some sense of becoming aware of God's presence and feeling different. Some describe it in terms where it seems the heavens opened and others talk about simply starting to feel a calm peaceful presence of God within. This seems to vary person to person. At this point, God makes us into a new creation and starts to change us. I think a good analogy for our Christian walk is like God having planted a garden. As the garden is tended, it will grow and flourish. Some things show up quickly and others take time. Galatians 5:22-23 lists fruit of the Spirit which is a description of what we will be like as we are transformed by God's work in us. This is not like new year's resolutions where we try to use discipline and resolve to change but rather that God works in us and starts to change us from within so that those things naturally emerge as part of our lives. Patience does not mean taking an anger management class and learning to count to 10, it means God changing us so that certain things simply no longer cause a negative reaction on our part. In addition, I believe God created each of us to be a unique individual that will reflect God's glory in a way unique to each of us. There's an enemy and a world that hates God and wants to stop that from happening. Sometimes, we get attacked and crushed at the very points God intends to be our strengths and uniqueness. An artist or creative person might face severe discouragement and insults that hurt them and lead them to stop sharing their work. A caring loving person might be abused to the point they stop trusting and helping people. A part of what God does in our lives is heal and restore those things that were injured and damaged so that we become the work of art He intended for us to be. Learning who God created us to be is a lifelong journey and adventure where we walk with God and become that person. He may use others at times to give us good advice and wisdom. At times, God's Spirit might touch someone to speak things to us (perhaps what you call prophecy) for particular situations for encouragement and guidance. However, God is the One showing us through various means who He created us to be. He wants us to look to Him, not the means He is using. A few books that helped me on this point about 10 or 15 years ago were "Waking the Dead" and "Wild at Heart" by John Eldridge. Ultimately, a "good life" is walking through life as the person God created us to be. In some ways, it might look like what we expect. In other ways, it will look completely different.

I ran across this thread by chance and I'm glad I did. I just listened to your newest tracks for the last half hour or so. Nicely done. I've been a musician for 40+ years now and appreciate the effort it takes to do this. Is that your violin playing recorded live in Snow Fall Night? I'll be putting those on to listen to at various times as the mood strikes me. Thanks for sharing. Unfortunately, I don't have any good recordings of my playing. My strength as a musician tends to be improvising and flowing with a chord progression. It's been many years since I played in groups or worship teams. Now my only recording capability is my computer or phone microphones which make for pretty poor quality recordings.

@Wynona Roughly speaking, there are 3 general environments for how we dress: public, casual around home, and in the bedroom. What's appropriate in one might not be in another. But phrasing that another way, what not's appropriate in one might be in another. Our dress, hygiene, hair cuts, appearance, etc. in private and public does have an impact on our relationship with our spouse. A part of how I dress is driven by avoiding my wife saying "you're not going out looking like that, are you?" Going someplace and having part of her mind occupied with being embarrassed over how I'm dressed is simply not constructive. Wearing something during the day that bothers her affects our relationship. She hates cargo pants though I think they are the greatest clothing invention ever. I don't wear them because she simply cannot get past her dislike for them and they constantly distract her. Obviously that's not a modesty or morality issue, but it strikes to the reality that such things can affect our relationship and how much we enjoy being around each other. To some degree modesty is a subjective thing. It is different to dress attractively than to dress to advertise availability. It is different when it comes from guilt and shame rather than positive motives. It is different to dress when our spouse is the only person to see us versus strangers. We should have different levels of modesty around our spouse versus casual acquaintances or strangers. Without knowing the real fundamental reason why your husband is asking, it's not possible to give a helpful answer. Sometimes the particular issue being argued about in a marriage is a symptom of something deeper. I think the important thing is to figure out what his real motive is. Is it a selfish one he should back down from? Or is he just tired of never seeing his attractive wife in anything other than a gunny sack and looking like his grandmother? I'm not saying this is the case, but if how you dress reminds him of his grandmother, that is going to really mess with his emotions in a negative way. If there is something like that going on, it's worth doing something about it. It can take some work to figure out what the real issue is sometimes. Often we aren't aware of it ourselves. I think the real key here is figuring out what it is that he really is asking for and why. If how you are dressing is causing negative feelings in him, it's not constructive in the long run and needs to be worked out in some manner you are both comfortable with.

To fill in a bit of historical background (at least how it was related to me). I once had a talk with an old AOG minister at a campus ministry retreat back in the 80s. He'd grown up pentecostal so was acquainted with the first generations of them. Take this as my recollection of firsthand and secondhand comments from someone who saw some of this occur. This is an oversimplification, but I'm trying to hit the high points. The topic of water baptism in the name of Jesus versus Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was a serious matter among some early pentecostals. Basically, pentecostals split ways over this argument. Some saw using Jesus' name in prayers and everything else as a necessity for Christians and that using the formula Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for prayers and everything like many mainline churches did was an excuse to keep the name of Jesus out of churches. They saw water baptism in Jesus' name as being a defining mark of being a Christian. Over time, the two camps went their separate ways. He (like many) used the term "Jesus-only" to describe them. His view was that the Jesus-only camp became very rigid on this with some not accepting Christians who were water baptized via the Trinitarian formula in contrast to in the name of Jesus explicitly. As far as I can tell, most oneness Pentecostals are not that far removed from standard Trinitarian belief. The big thing for me is that they believe Jesus was both God and man and that salvation is through Him alone. This is in contrast to most non-Trinitarians who either explicitly deny the deity of Jesus or explicitly deny the humanity of Christ. The oneness Pentecostals proclaim Jesus as God and man. As are as I can tell, they reject the term Trinity (the few I knew seeing it as an RCC invention meant to keep the name of Jesus suppressed) but seem to use descriptions and explanations that are not far off those used by most Trinitarians. It's been years ago since I looked at this in detail, but back when I did, I was satisfied at the time that most of the differences were more based in word choices and definitions than actual differences in beliefs. I'd emphasize this is a post based on anecdotes rather than exhaustive research.

I see most of the issue in things like this being when Christians do not exhibit clear fruit of the Spirit in their lives, actions, and words. One debate that seems to arise over and over again is assuming that one has to choose between "being kind and loving to all" and "standing up for the truth" and then debating which is more important. In my opinion, those most effective at standing up for the truth are those whose tone, words, and attitude constantly exemplify Galatians 5:22-23. I think some Christians lose sight that we are not fighting people but rather power and principalities. When it turns into choosing between "love" and "truth", I think we've lost sight of the big picture which must include both.

That's why I call it "leaning". Those are the two things that I am least comfortable with as well. I've spent some time attending a few meetings of the local group and am connected via social media (mainly to get to know more about them). One observation is that there appear to be two "factions" for lack of a better word. The "pragmatists" (the majority) who see a role for limited gov't as a protector of individual liberties and freedoms and the "anarchists" (a vocal minority) who theoretically see no role for gov't believing that voluntary associations can completely fulfill that role. The second observation is that the membership I saw was a combination of devout Christians and devout agnostics and atheists. Libertarian writers and proponents tend to fit into these different categories so any particular thing you read or hear often reflects those differences. There are those who see no absolute morality and there are those who hold to absolute morality but don't trust any gov't to have the power to enforce morality. Though motives differ, the net approach to what gov't should and shouldn't be able to do is similar. I've also been looking at the American Solidarity Party which was largely Catholic to begin with but is starting to expand. Definitely a fringe party compared to the Libertarians (who were on the ballot on all 50 states). I've been connected with their social media groups (mainly to learn more about them). They are a relatively new party that is feeling its way out and still developing a more detailed platform. The bottom line for me is voting Libertarian or any other third party is ultimately the only "None of the Above" vote available to most people that does anything tangible since it gives 3rd parties potentially more ballot access in the future. It provides more incentive to the two dominant parties to be responsive to voters than not voting or always giving them a vote as a less of two evils compared to the other.

Often when we are young and vulnerable, things happen to us and we start to believe lies about ourselves. Those lies become so embedded in our hearts that we think of them as reality and we react and feel as if they are real. Lies such as "I'm useless", "I'm stupid", "No one could love me", "I'm a loser", "It's all my fault" can become things we believe about ourselves. We really need God's Spirit to work in us in some way to shine His light in our hearts to see those lies for what they are and reject them. I've heard testimonies where this just happened all at once when praying with someone. I've heard testimonies where it took some time with a Christian counselor. Here's a link to a page at the Transformation Prayer Ministry site. I've known some people who've been ministered to by this. God did some emotional healing in my life some time ago, and when I read about this ministry found that it was much the same thing. Ed Smith is a pastor and counselor who was led into a ministry to help people find emotional healing. That's an overly simplistic description, but this page has links to a few videos where he talks about this. https://www.transformationprayer.org/preparing-journey-introduction/ What we believe about ourselves, others, and situations can have a huge impact on our emotions. Ed Smith gives a good example. He talked about waking up in the middle of the night hearing something in the house. If you believe someone broke into your house, a lot of strong emotions will probably take hold. When you walk into the kitchen and find your dog digging through the garbage, you'll feel emotionally better because your belief now matches a more benign reality. When we believe things such as that we are useless or no one loves us, we tend to cease to believe anything positive people say to us and we interpret things they do in a negative way. Instead of being thankful when someone does something nice for us, we potentially get cynical and wonder what their ulterior motive is or think they are doing out of pity. There are some things in our lives that we change by working on them ourselves. There are other things that require some type of healing and help. Things like this often require God's healing touch in some way. For myself, I had a few ingrained lies for decades in my life. One of them was "I don't know what I'm doing." In a time of prayer, God had me reflecting on a time where I'd been essentially physically and verbally abused for "not doing something correctly" during a HS sports practice. As I reflected on it, I just suddenly realized, "Hey, I did know what I was doing. The coach was an idiot teaching bad technique." In that moment, that lie just vanished away. Within a few weeks, my wife and kids had noticed a difference in me.

In case anyone is interested, here's a summary/transcript of a video of Lester Sumrall that seems to be what is being referenced in this thread in case they want to listen/read things for themselves as to what he said. I don't know anything about the site in this link and cannot comment about other content there or anything. http://whygodreallyexists.com/archives/7-warning-signs-for-america-a-prophetic-word-given-to-lester-sumrall-in-the-1980s

As far as I can tell, this is what is being referenced as the authority on at least part of this thread. Here's a link to an article by George Howard about this. https://bfainternational.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Howard-updated-1998-explanation-1.pdf It is included in a brief article https://bfainternational.com/hebrew-gospel-matthew/ discussing it. I skimmed through these articles and here is a summary of what I found. I strongly emphasize that George Howard himself says "I conjecture that a Shem-Tob type text of Matthew goes back to an early period of the Christian era." (I added the underline to emphasize it.) He is NOT making any type of claim that this manuscript tradition is superior to the Greek one NOR that this tradition was the basis for the Greek one. He looks at the doctrinal peculiarities in it to attempt to figure out what groups might have produced it or used it. As far as I can tell, here is what he is saying versus what he is not saying. He is saying that some existing Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew (in particular The Shem-Tob one) appear to have descended from an early manuscript tradition. It is not a perfect copy of such an original, but likely contains sections that reflect the original form as well as sections from later works. There is a good possibility that some parts of this manuscript come from a Hebrew text of Matthew that existed early on. He attempted to date it by looking at variations between it and the Greek text that produced doctrinal differences and comparing those things to beliefs of various early groups. He was unable to date it any more precisely than somewhere in the first to fourth centuries of the church. He is saying that there is evidence that suggests that this manuscript tradition was Hebrew in origin and not a translation. This does not mean there was no Greek influence or that this was written first, but rather that the original author was not merely translating Greek. He presents NO evidence NOR suggests at all that the Greek Matthew tradition came from this one. He is NOT saying that this manuscript tradition is canonical nor that it was accepted by Christians as a whole nor that it was a basis for the Greek text of Matthew. Here is the final part of his summary: "I further suggest that this form of the Gospel of Matthew was produced by a Jewish Christian or a Jewish Christian group that was all but forgotten in early times. This person/group maintained strict observance of the law, believed that the righteous among the Gentiles would be saved in the age to come, observed only the baptism of John, elevated John the Baptist to an exalted position, and may have believed that Jesus became the Messiah sometime during his career." In other words, his best guess is that this was a work produced by someone outside the mainstream of many Christians and churches. In other words, it might have been something that would have found favor with groups such as those early Jewish Christians that said that the gentile believers had to adhere to the law of Moses. My initial reaction is to put this into a similar category with works by early Christians such as the Didache or Shepherd of Hermes which were read by many Christians but not given the status of canon. I'd be hesitant to consider unique sections of the Hebrew Matthew to be canonical. One thing to be aware of is this. The Jehovah's Witnesses have strong doctrinal reasons for wanting the Hebrew text of Matthew to be the original one with the Greek one being a corrupted version. My sense of things is that some articles written about the Hebrew text of Matthew draw from JW writings on the topic. I'm not saying this about George Howard, but rather that his work seems to be taken by some as revealing a lost truth of NT origins rather than a conjectural scholarly exercise (which is what it seems to be).

Here's my take on what I've been seeing. As a disclaimer, my US political leanings are best described as Libertarian. In one oversimplified sentence, I think that federal gov't overreach in the US needs to be reigned in with most political power being in the hands of local and mid-size government (meaning roughly county to state level) with a reduction of government control over many things and a reduction of the federal government scope. As far as I can tell, here's my current best guess in describing the US political scene. The real control of things in the US is in the Washington DC/New York City region by people whose background tends to be Ivy league schools and come from families that have known each other for generations and have various degrees of ties to the old money families. Many influential employees, managers, and directors of large financial firms, banks, news outlets, and various federal government agencies have connections of various sorts with each other. They think they are smarter and better than everyone else and entitled to run the country and ultimately the world for their benefit. By controlling the US media, finance system, and ultimately the US military, they can do just about anything they want to around the world. I'll just refer to them as the establishment elite. This is not some secret group in black hoods meeting at midnight. This is just a bunch of people who grew up in the same system, share a common worldview, have a lot of social connections, look out for their own interests, and via various forms of nepotism, get influential positions in many places. It is to their benefit to consolidate as much power as possible at the federal level to make it easier to run things. My impression is that something similar is happening with the EU but I haven't been following that closely enough to have a good sense of that. Politicians in the US (at the federal level and to an increasing degree at the state level) ultimately get elected by having two things. The first is the support of the establishment elite. This means favorable news coverage and publicity, lots of money for campaigning, and the expertise and manpower to navigate the complicated system of election laws that make it virtually impossible for 3rd party candidates to have a chance. In order to win elections, the elite needs to create voting blocs whom they can target and emotionally manipulate. People with similar demographics are targeted to make them scared and angry with other demographic groups. In other words, they only "care" about whether you have lots of money and favors you can do them or you are part of some demographic group that will give them votes. Also, as long as they can get various groups terrified and enraged with each other, no one will notice who is pulling the strings. For the elite, poor people (meaning pretty much all of us) are pawns they use to increase their wealth and influence either as employees and or in the military. Oversimplifying things here for space: Ivy league business schools have lead to the decimation of the US economy at a local level. They taught "managers" how to increase shareholder value. In other words, how to gut a company in the short term to make stock prices go up and how to run mergers that you can get paid huge fees to merge two competitive companies in a single less efficient one. Pocket the money now, go on to the next job, and leave a trail of unemployed people and empty buildings behind. I've lived in the midwest my entire life and have watched the economy slowly decline. Federal legislation and oversight of various things often benefits large corporations by requiring things that only established companies can easily afford to do. Gov't reactions to COVID have accelerated this process by moving years of economic decline into weeks and months. My impression is that the elites have no clue what is happening to the masses since their comfortable lives in DC/NYC have been unaffected. This is not even getting into US military, economic, and financial influence around the world that expands the wealth and influence of this group. I think that this is the backdrop to really understand Trump support. Trump campaigned as a populist for the masses against the system of elites. It's an open question if he is a populist or merely saw a huge untapped business opportunity that the elites had been overlooking. He gave voice to tens of millions of frustrated people who saw the elites as out of touch parasites in DC and NYC who were slowly taking away their jobs, resources, and way of life. As far as I can tell, many of the elites saw him as a critical threat to the status quo and pulled out all the stops to vilify and get rid of him. I've never seen such radicalization of opposition to someone in the four decades I've been following US politics. I don't think it was so much Trump they despised but rather what he represented, people who were fed up with the elite. The biggest thing I'm hoping for is that the establishment elites will pull out the welcome mat from the radical marxists who've been allowed an oversized voice lately in academia, social media, political protest, and the burgeoning far left in the US. That's the only thing that deeply concerns me. There is simply no place for Christians with those people in charge except as an underground church. I'm hoping the establishment elite merely saw them as useful idiots to create a lot of unrest to help get rid of Trump rather than actual allies who will get a seat at the table.

Another physicist here?

I think this is the link to it. https://www.worthychristianforums.com/forum/144-videos/ Just go to the main front page of the forum and scroll down aways.

If you are posting videos, they need to be put into the proper section on the site where they await moderator approval. This is true of any video on this site regardless of topic.

I truly hope you didn't take my post as an attack or rebuke because it was not meant as such. It just seemed a good starting point for some comments on what false teaching is. For the most part, Christians agree it should be confronted, but disagree on what it is. The essentials/non-essentials statement is not a scripture quotation but rather a saying that many Christians think is a good summary of how we should act toward one another. It became well known through the Moravian revival where Christians with a range of doctrinal views and backgrounds fleeing persecution formed a community in Herrnhut (now in Germany). Many trace much of modern Christian missions to this small community. For me, Christian unity is rooted in Jesus' prayer for Christians in John 17 (specifically verses 11,21, 22, and 23). For example, 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. John 17:22-23 NIV. In addition, I'd toss in Psalm 133: 1 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! 2 It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, evenAaron’s beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments; 3 as the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the Lord commanded the blessing, even life for evermore. Ps 133 KJV The term "unity" is ambiguous today and used by various people to mean different things. For me, Christian unity is when Christians (people with apparent fruit of the Spirit in their lives, clearly transformed lives, who can testify of Jesus Christ's work in their lives) in good conscious and peace and friendship can fellowship and minister together without constantly stressing out over differences. I've been part of a few small limited communities where this is a reality. We truly saw each other for who we each individually were as valuable unique individuals created by God to reflect His glory in unique ways. Our doctrinal and political opinions were a minor blip on the radar screen compared to seeing each others' spiritual growth and rejoicing in it. I've seen that such a community and relationships among Christians is possible and I think it is what God wants for us.

Once of the biggest challenges facing Christians and the body of Christ is that there is not complete agreement on what constitutes false teaching. There is an old church adage that has shown up in many forms over the centuries. In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things love. The administrators of this site have clearly stated in the past that they wish to see this principle embodied on this site. I think we need to clearly separate out fundamental issues (e.g. Jesus Christ is fully human and divine, Christ's atonement is the means of salvation, Trinitarian beliefs) from those things that are ultimately differences of opinion and preference among those who are Christians. My observation is that I have personally known many Christians with different opinions and preferences who clearly exhibit fruit of the Spirit in their lives and show strong evidence of having their lives transformed by God over many years and decades in their lives. Off the top of my head, here's a partial list of things I've seen some label as false teaching on this site which have lead to personal attacks that someone is not a Christian for disagreeing. A few years ago there was a group of people on here who believed that the Bible taught that the earth was flat. To disbelieve that meant you rejected scripture. Some believe that any who do not believe in young earth creationism reject scripture. Some believe that acceptance of once-save always-saved is a heresy and some believe rejection of it is a heresy. Some think that anyone who disagrees is a false teacher. Some believe only one particular version of the Bible is the real one (usually the KJV but there was one advocate of only using the Wycliffe Bible here for a time). Some of them believe Christians who don't use only the one correct version are being led into error. Some believe in some form of cessationism (i.e. that spiritual gifts such as tongues, prophecy, healing, etc.) were only for the start of the church and that most occurrences of such things today are occult or demonic in nature. Others believe that rejecting such gifts is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Some believe that God does not speak to Christians in any manner today except through the Bible (and anything else is of human or demonic origin) whereas others believe that God does speak to Christians to day (in ways which will always be consistent with scripture). Some believe that not holding the correct view of end times means holding to false teaching. Some believe that it is impossible for people belonging to particular denominations or churches to be Christians. Some active on this site in the past (and probably some today) believed that disagreeing on some of these matters meant that a person was a heretic, a wolf, and not a Christian. I am very frustrated when Christians elevate their opinions to the level of fundamental Christian teachings. The last church we went to before we moved was the best I'd been in in my life. The last year there were a lot of conversions and about 100 adult baptisms in the year. It was generally peaceful and harmonious (in spite of being in a city marked by political division and strife). The church itself was a merger of two churches that had split from each other about twenty years before and reconciled. One time I showed up early for a Saturday morning seminar and found most of the senior staff there (including the senior pastor) helping to set up chairs and tables along with everyone else. The senior staff was humble and spiritual and clearly displayed fruit of the Spirit in their lives and interactions with everyone. They truly lead by example. In addition, they were wise and experienced people who could give good counsel on matters. A part of the regular services were people from the congregation giving testimonies about what God was doing in their lives. The church sponsors a satellite location for a well-known Christian university for people to get AA degrees in ministry. One of the largest food banks in the state was started by members of the church. There were a number of specialized and small group ministries which reached into the community. People were encouraged to grow and step out into ministry. When we moved to our current location, we started going to my mother-in-law's church (which we do like). But I find it sad that this church is so concerned with doctrinal matters that multiple pastors confronting "false teaching" from the pulpit had a difference of opinion with our previous church in which they were basically calling them false teachers. Most sitting in this church now believe that our previous church is to be avoided because of false teaching.

In this day and age, many Christians publicly practicing "discernment" are copying the social media practices of the world. Much of what I've seen in public discernment is like so-called cancel culture where a mob mentality rules. Accusation, anger, and reacting emotionally to out-of-context information are the main drivers of cancel culture. Facts have little bearing and redemption is not allowed a place in it. "I'm entitled to my opinion as well as to share it any time I feel like it and besides the person I'm accusing is so awful they deserve it" is accepted by many in the world but in my opinion is not a spiritually mature attitude to have. Practicing discernment is like wielding a surgeon's scalpel. In the hands of a skilled experienced surgeon, it can bring health and life. In the hands of an inexperienced wannabe, it will more likely bring injury and death. It needs to be done at the right time, in the right place, and in the right manner. Some Christians wield it more like a butcher working on an impersonal side of beef than a surgeon carefully healing a human being. The issue is not whether or not to point out errors. The issue is how to do it spiritually, maturely, effectively, and at God's leading in a way that yields fruits of repentance and growth and builds the body of Christ. When done unspiritually, immaturely, ineffectively, and in our own timing, it leads to hard feelings, fights, and negative consequences that drive Christians apart and hinder ministry. There's a reason most Christians in the body of Christ have expectations for a level of spiritual maturity, gifts, and abilities in anyone who participates in any ministry as well as a period of growth and mentorship of some type where they effectively learn to minister. A tone deaf person with a poor but loud enthusiastic singing voice will likely be a distraction in a choir or worship team. A new Christian who has not yet read the Bible through is unlikely to be an effective expository teacher no matter how educated they are or how good a public speaker they are. Different people simply have gifts, talents, personalities, and experience that are much more suited to particular ministries than others. Here's my analysis of the OP in light of these thoughts that pointing out errors and making accusations need to be done in an effective manner. All of the Bethel prophets said quite conclusively that God said that Donald Trump will have a second term. It is obvious that this is not going to be the case. This means that their prophecies were totally false and did not come from God at all. I wondered about that, and the answer came to me: God purposely arranged for a demonic lying spirit to speak through the mouths of these prophets to clearly expose these dreamers and charlatans to show genuine Christians that God definitely did not send them nor did He speak through them. He did it to show that not one of these prophets are sent from Him, not previously, not now, or any time in the future. Therefore, don't be deceived and drawn away from the true gospel of Christ through the lies of these false prophets. I note there is no link to the original Bethel sources. What are their names, how many of them, and was it all of them? What did they say? Who did they say this to? All we have is a minimal summary which uses leading language such as "all of them" and "quite conclusively". What were the specific predictions? Why not put it out there for all of us to see and let us all judge it for ourselves? Why do it now and not wait until after the processing of the election results are certified, all court cases are resolved, and the electoral college has officially voted the winner in mid-December? To not supply links or supporting information is poor practice and reduces effectiveness and credibility. Even worse was the later attitude expressed by some that lack of documentation is completely acceptable and that criticizing lack of documentation is not acceptable. My sense of things is that a number of Christians predicted Trump would win while claiming various degrees of spiritual inspiration and certainty about this. Did God put a lying spirit in all of their mouths to discredit them? If so, why not name all of them? If not, why only this group? At what point was it uninformed zeal and wishful thinking that some Christians turned their hopes and beliefs into predictions rather than being driven by demons? In other words, how do we tell the difference between human error and demonic influence? Does it mean any Christians predicting a Trump win are forever banned from any form of ministry? Does it nullify everything they have ever said or will ever say? To put it very bluntly, this is an accusation which in essence is claiming some degree of spiritual revelation or authority to make. It's not clear what the phrase "the answer came to me" means. Is this a claim of divine revelation of "God spoke this to me"? Or is it a claim of about having special wisdom to see things others don't? Or is it merely a possible human conjecture based on other information or previous opinion? In any case, it is ultimately a claim of having adequate personal authority to make such an accusation public. There is further a claim that "He did it to show that not one of these prophets are sent from Him, not previously, not now, or any time in the future". This basically claims to know the mind of God. Where does proof of this come from? If this is a conjecture and opinion, that should be made clear. If it is a claim of special revelation of truth for all Christians to listen to, that should be made clear. This is just off the top of my head as to why this is a less than effective example of pointing out error. It assumes a lot of prior knowledge on the part of readers. It does not provide any supporting links or information. It makes claims about what is happening in the unseen spiritual realm. It makes claims to know the mind of God in this matter. It is a serious claim that leaders of a church are demonically influenced because God wants to discredit them. Such claims need to be clearly and solidly documented. Calls for documentation should not be dismissed but rather heeded. If not, all we have is an empty accusation based on someone's opinion. In my opinion, a much more effective OP would have been to link to a number of prophecies or predictions of a Trump win from a number of different people from the original sources in context. This way we could read them all for ourselves and compare them and judge how much spiritual authority they were claiming. It would have been more effective to wait until the election process is complete (which won't be until at least mid-December) to compare exactly what they said with what happened. It would have been more effective to allow us to compare the Bethel predictions with others to get a sense of the potential demonic involvement with everyone who made an incorrect prediction. It would have been more effective to clearly state how much spiritual authority is being claimed as to whether knowledge of demonic involvement came from special revelation, from special wisdom, or was merely an unsubstantiated conjecture. All of those reading the OP would then be in a position to evaluate it. Effectively pointing out errors and making accusations requires effort, care, and research. It needs to be done with God's leading and with fruit of the Spirit and spiritual maturity evident in our tone and words and reasonings. It requires us to allow others to clearly see what evidence we have and why we think what we do. People who express their opinions are a dime a dozen. Cancel culture is full of them and they have destroyed many lives doing this. As Christians, we need to be very different from the world. We cannot simply post our opinions and ask other people to shun other Christians without presenting some compelling reasons for doing so. This post is my opinion as to why the OP was ineffective and my reasons for thinking this. This post also contains my opinion as to concrete actions that could be taken to make it more effective. I spent a few hours writing this because I think this can be a good learning example as to how to more effectively contend for the truth in matters like these. Please note that I have not commented directly on the validity of the OP but merely that it fails to give me any compelling reason to accept it. A large part of effectively confronting errors is doing things in a way that builds credibility and gives people reasons to trust what we say. Once we have established a long term pattern of saying credible and trustworthy things that people can trust, we might earn the privilege of being able to express opinions with a minimum of documentation. But until then, we need to take the time and effort to do things effectively.

There are a number of possibilities. Here's one. We are all different and what works best for each of us can be different. I had one pastor whose devotional Bible reading time looked like this. He'd wake up in the morning, make a cup of coffee, grab his "One Year Bible" (which has daily reading passages to cover the Bible in a year), read the day's passages, and then pray over them. He's done that for decades and it's worked well for him. I'm a person who goes through seasons in life where I can throw myself into something for awhile and then need to do something else. There was one period of three months where I read the Bible through once per month. During the 4th month, I just crashed and burned and just couldn't read much anymore. I spent months trying to get back into that once a month routine and couldn't. What I failed to see is that I had gotten a lot out of that three months, but then I needed to find something different that worked and helped me grow in other areas. I now realize I go through seasons where I can throw myself into something and get a lot out of it for a time. Then I hit a point where I simply don't get as much out of it and need to do something else. Sometimes my Bible reading has looked like reading extensive sections to go through the entire Bible. Sometimes it has been spending a month or more reading and intensely studying a single book. At one time, it was reading the Bible through in Greek. Now, it's spending a lot of time on a few particular passages slowly learning Hebrew. Sometimes people burn out and find Bible reading (and other things like prayer) hard to do because they haven't figured out what works best for them.

You caught my meaning with regard to the point of rational explanations being overemphasized in importance compared to that God is really doing something. As a practical matter in my life, I spent the first few decades of my life as a Christian seeking out doctrinally correct (in my view) Christians and churches to be part of. The last few decades I've been more concerned with seeking out Christians and churches where the fruit of the Spirit is obvious and growing because it is clear those are people and places God is actually doing things and spiritual growth is occurring. My other point is more subtle. It is a question of whether our value to God comes from who He created us to be or from what tasks we do for Him. Do we see ourselves by our gifts or callings which are largely defined around church and denominational organization, functions, and offices? Or do we see ourselves as a unique individual created to reflect God's glory in a unique way? The difference is which of these questions ( "Who did God create you to be?" or "What does God want you to do?") we spend more time trying to answer. In our western world, we tend to see ourselves and others as having value based on how much we can contribute and do rather than having value based on being a unique work of art by God to show His glory to the world. I spent the first 30 or so years of my Christian walk basically burning myself out being busy serving God. My identity had become so tied into my gifts, talents, and activities that I really didn't know who I was. I saw my only value in what things I could do. God put me out into a figurative desert for a year or so away from everything, put me in front of a figurative mirror, and kept me there until I started to see myself as the unique individual He created me to be. As I emerged from that desert, I found that ministry and everything else in life just started to naturally flow. When I was much younger, there were things that God laid on my heart for my life. I saw them as goals and directions for my life that I needed to work and aspire towards, and to potentially fall short of if I failed to follow God enough. Over time, I gradually gave up on them, and started to settle, and forgot about them. I recall sitting in church one day with a sermon about Moses' call in the desert. I'd never much related to Moses but during that time, I was ignoring the sermon and reading that passage. I finally felt like I knew why Moses told God to send someone else. He was an old man who'd tried and failed and had given up on himself. I'd always seen Moses' 40 years in the desert as punishment and consequences for his failures. I now see it as something different. God didn't want Moses to be another Pharaoh-like leader or Egyptian military leader which is what he was trained and raised for. He wanted Moses to be a leader and prophet for a nation of shepherds who were more comfortable in the country than in wealthy cities. That 40 years was necessary to change Moses from a wealthy elite leader more at home in the city into a simple shepherd who could feed himself and live in the wilderness. The 40 years wasn't punishment but rather a necessary time of transformation into the person God meant for Moses to be. During this time, God reminded me of those things He'd laid on my heart about 30 years previously. I realized they were not goals to make myself worthy for but rather promises of what God planned to do as I was transformed into the person He created me to be. Anyway, a long response, but trying to illustrate my second point of the difference between "who am I?" versus "what should I be doing?"

I distinguish two different realms of things. The first are the very real changes and transformation that God is doing in us as we spiritually grow. The second are the things we decide to do because of what we believe. I've been observing a lot of Christians in a wide variety of ministries, churches, and denominations for about half a century. The work God does in all Christians is remarkably similar as is the general pattern of growth I've seen though external appearances can make this seem very different. The biggest difference I see is that Christians argue about what explanations are most correct to describe what God does. In that, most things Christians argue about don't matter though most Christians are convinced that they do. I think the biggest practical difference comes from whether a Christian believes that our life is meant to be spent figuring out what God wants us to do versus who God wants us to become. The first concern themselves with discerning God's will of what activities and things to do and believe. The first tend to see themselves as defined by the gifts, talents, experiences, etc. in their lives and to be busy using those things and worrying about what to think and believe about things. The second concern themselves with becoming the unique person God created them to be to show His glory to the world through them. Their focus is on growing into the person God created them to be. For them, gifts, talents, experience, etc. are merely tools to be used to show the world God's glory in a way unique to them.

A couple years ago, this site became extremely dysfunctional due to a handful of people (now permanently banned) who took it upon themselves to expose anyone and everyone that they believed was a wolf or heretic and well as to go after anyone who dared question them. About 35 to 40 years ago, I was such a heretic-hunter myself so I fully understand the zeal, passion, and intensity such Christians have for defending the Truth and protecting the flock. I also understand the delusion the enemy uses so that such heretic-hunters become so obsessed with rooting out problems that they start to believe most accusations they hear without regard to context or further investigation. Searching out errors and heresies and exposing them is addicting. I know it well and had started to become obsessed with it. What stopped my rush to madness was when a brother in Christ simply handed me a short booklet from a preacher I was condemning. I'd been reading material about how the New Age movement was infiltrating the church. During a Sunday School class, I made some disparaging comments about how a particular radio preacher was in error and misleading people. The next week, someone in the class brought me a booklet from that preacher and just asked me to read it to see what I thought. I enthusiastically started reading to find all the errors I'd been condemning. What I read absolutely shocked me. The materials I was reading about the New Age in the church had quoted from that very booklet. I found that literally every quotation from that booklet was taken out of context. I also found that the accuser accused this preacher of saying things that he specifically spoke out against in that very booklet in the next paragraph after one of the quotes. I originally thought the accuser might have just made some mistakes or been sloppy so I got hold of a couple other books he quoted and attacked. I learned that was his pattern. He'd grab quotes out of context, make the assumption that the person he was attacking was hiding something, and then "interpret" what they said to prove they were a wolf. In other words, he'd find a target, scour their writings and sermons for individual sentences to take out of context to "prove" they were spreading heresy and occultism. I have little doubt that the accuser was sincere in his belief that his targets were unintentionally deluded and that he was sincerely ministering to them by publicly exposing their delusion. However, good motives and sincerity do not make false accusations true. Another experience that lead me to realize I needed to really understand the big picture in any ministry was shortly after the PTL Club (the Bakkers) debacle. I was teaching a Sunday school class and had soundly derided them and others for putting money ahead of the gospel and doing damage to many people. After the class, our pastor came up to me and gently told me about one person who was sitting in my class (and who never came back again). He'd been a prayer counselor at PTL ministries for a few years both on the phone and for campers and visitors. He'd been involved in a lot of effective ministry there and had a lot of good relationships with other ministers there. When the arrests came down and everything was shut down, he and other counselors and ministers there were absolutely devastated by what had happened. They not only lost their individual ministries there but suddenly had to all leave with no warning. This was in the days of fixed landline numbers for phones and little e-mail so most of them lost touch with each other as they had to move. I'd publicly dismissed and disparaged all the very real ministry that had quietly been going on outside of the public view. A few years ago, when things got out of hand on this site, I started doing fact checking and research on various things and confronting a few things that probably legally fit the definition of libel (which includes not being true). I found the same thing that had deluded me into being a heretic-hunter decades ago. There are a number of websites and authors that basically do the same thing I saw decades ago. The thing is that these accusers are passionate and compelling. They present reams of supposed research that is little more than scouring books, sermons, articles, videos, and materials from their targets. They properly "interpret" and selectively edit what they find to prove that their target is not a Christian and needs to be publicly exposed. Once they've "proved" someone is a heretic, they move onto anyone that person has quoted or that has quoted that person to prove they are also heretics. They then come up with inside jargon to label these people with various types of heresies. "Oh, so and so? They are an XYZ heretic." They rarely look in detail to see what type of day to day ministry is really going on. My first exposure to Bethel was when a few Christians I knew went out to Redding for some ministry training. The big thing they brought back was a ministry of praying for people as they had opportunity to and God lead them. Over the next months, if they thought God was leading them, they'd ask if they could pray for sales clerks in stores, waiters and waitresses, people they were sitting next to in a bus, etc. By and large, the response from people was positive. Many would share about struggles in their life. A few talked about things they'd never told anyone else. Some had just had something serious happen in their life and were starting to ponder deep questions in life. Some of these encounters resulted in answered prayers for specific things including a few healings. Some encounters lead to the gospel being shared. I suspect that type of thing probably is more reflective of what goes on there on a daily basis compared to questionable antics at times or a few individuals doing questionable things. It's easy to look at questionable things and rush to absolute judgement. It's a lot harder to really dig in to figure out what is really going on most of the the time. Every ministry has flaws, warts, errors, and problems. Every ministry has critics that rejoice in finding things to publicly and loudly disparage. The key issue is whether or not most of the Christians involved in a ministry are spiritually growing. I think what is going on in the day to day ministry in the masses of a church or ministry is the real test of what they are about. All of us go through phases as Christians that we are later embarrassed about. I'm embarrassed about my heretic-hunter days. One of the most influential pastors I had got heavily involved in the "name-it claim-it" movement when he was a teen. He prayed that God would heal his near-sightedness and smashed his glasses with a hammer to prove his faith. It was a bit humbling when his non-Christian father had to buy him new glasses later. Most Christians, ministries, and churches I've known have gone through immature phases like that as they are spiritually growing and sincerely done dumb and embarrassing things. Those phases don't define us nor does God leave us alone to remain immature. It is our long-term spiritual growth and transformation that is what really matters.

I've been a Christian for about 45 years now, and have spent a lot of time (meaning years each) in a wide variety of ministries and churches with a wide range of view points on various matters and I've known a lot of Christians with a wide range of views on things. There's one thing that is pretty common in a lot of groups but I hardly ever hear anyone talk about it except to criticize it in others. I've seen this in many forms over decades and pretty much fell head over heels for it myself at various times in different ways. Many Christians make an idol of their zeal for certain things. They then become unbalanced because their zeal takes them in unhealthy directions. Usually God will spiritual thump them upside the head in some way to get their attention and restore balance, but some will go for quite awhile before they notice it. Many Christians go through phases where they believe their sincerity and zeal and passion gives them a pass to do stupid things that are obvious to other Christians watching them. Many charismatics and pentecostals (two distinct groups) are zealous to see God do miracles like they read about in the Bible. They want to see mass revivals. They want see people healed. They want to see God do tangible things in people's lives. They want to see people become Christians. This is not a personal glory seeking thing but true sincerity to see individual Christians grow and the church grow and God be glorified. As this zeal becomes an idol, it can lead to questionable practices and behavior. They gravitate toward others Christians who feel the same. At its worst, they'll imagine God is doing things that He is not. Some Christians make an idol of zeal for polemics (which is defending the gospel and church against wolves and false teachers). They are sincere about preventing spiritual error and problems. They are sincere about exposing darkness. However, as zeal for this becomes an idol, they start to imagine problems where none exist. They start to assume the worst about individual Christians or ministries or churches with minimal evidence and blind acceptance of accusations. They start to be consumed with looking for what other Christians are doing wrong to condemn them and avoid them rather than looking for what they are doing right to learn from. They gravitate toward other Christians who feel the same. At its worst, they come to believe they are among the chosen few still true to God and that it is more important to expose error than build relationships with other Christians. I've often seen zeal for particular things slowly become an idol for many Christians. Some have a zeal for true doctrine and end up spending all their time arguing and unable to in good conscience fellowship with other Christians over particular matters. Some will develop a zeal for a particular ministry that becomes an idol to them over time. Some will develop a zeal for political activity that becomes an idol. It's not that zeal is a bad thing. It's when our sincerity, zeal, and good motives prevent us from seeing that we have become unbalanced spiritually and are becoming a disruption to other Christians. Ultimately, it's when something we are doing for God becomes more important to us than knowing God Himself.

A couple of good posts from @Starise and @Henry_iain here. Oversimplifying things, there are two aspects to dealing with addictions. The first is mitigating damage from it. In other words, take steps to limit the damage. For example, if you are addicted to gambling, make sure someone else has control of your credit cards etc. to prevent you from spending money on it and going deeper into debt. Passwords, internet filters, accountability, etc. are means of doing this with online porn. This can make occurrences of bad behavior decrease but they don't eliminate the underlying cause. The second is dealing with the root spiritual and emotional causes of things. This often requires some type of spiritual healing. Sometimes the root cause is simple exposure at an impressionable age; sometimes the root cause might be related to abuse or other such things. I've heard some testimonies where this was an instantaneous thing and I've heard others where it involved counseling and time. The common thread in the success stories I've heard is following God's leading for dealing with root causes of things.

I was fairly active here for a couple years. A little over a year ago, I just felt God steering me in a different direction to spend my time writing other things. I started a thread to let people know this was the reason I would shortly be leaving for an indefinite period of time. I think it's a nice courtesy and a chance for a few see-ya-laters and blessings for those who've been regular posters to let everyone know what's up. In terms of the level of civility now, it is markedly better now than it was a couple years ago. A permanent ban of about a half dozen people a few years ago changed the entire tone of the site for the better. They'd become a clique that seemed to view themselves as the only real defenders of the faith on the site. If someone disagreed and didn't immediately change their mind and agree with the clique, they'd go after them like a pack of hyenas or wolves with thinly disguised personal attacks and accusations. The truly sad thing to me is that I think they were sincere individuals for whom exhibiting clear fruit of the Spirit in their interactions took second place to running off anyone they viewed as a wolf or false teacher. I don't know if it was just a mob mentality where they egged each other on or if it was intentional, but the net result was their concerted attacks (often over a number of pages and dozens of posts in a thread) would put someone on the defensive until most people would eventually snap back at some point while defending themselves. At that point, the clique would report that person and try to get them banned. To put it bluntly, they had in practice become a gang of heretic hunting bullies. Once someone crossed them, it seemed to me that they'd just keep going after them trying to goad them into posting something in anger to try to get them off the site. I got on their bad side more than once, and would login to find several responses that were often more or less personal attacks as well as misrepresentations of what I'd posted. A few times, newcomers to those threads would take what was written seriously and pile on. Very few people can constantly face that volume of negativity and attacks without it affecting them. I suspect many gave up and left. Some were scared away from posting anything. Some tried to defend themselves which just drew a series of new accusations. Most who tried to engage with them at some point would post something out of frustration at which point the clique would more or less celebrate that they'd revealed a wolf and then report them and use their frustration as proof they were a bad person who should be gotten rid of. Their bullying and gaslighting methodology was pretty obvious to me so I was usually able to shrug it off, but even then it takes a toll. I had to drop out of a few threads. During the time this was going on, I suspect a lot of people just gave up and left without saying anything. "I've had it and I'm leaving" threads sometimes are for attention, but some are the result of frustration and trying to do something about it. Some people do hit the point of feeling like no one wants them here. At times when I see such a thread, I'll go back and skim that person's content for the past few weeks and see what's been going on. Some people do just want attention, but there are others that have not been treated well and are very frustrated.