David H.

There are some additional good responses to this question in the "outer court" > apologetics section http://www.worthyboards.com/index.php?show...=44437&st=0 Rather than posting similar responses here, I'd just recommend browing the forum titled PLEASE HELP: Is church for everyone? Just before my mother-in-laws funeral, the pastor of the church got in a big tiff with the former pastor of the church, who was asked to come and do the funeral because he had known my mother-in-law throughout her time there and had only recently moved on to start a care-giving ministry. The new pastor got in a turf war and said he'd shut down the funeral if we didn't let him do the the whole service. (This was after he had agreed to share the service, and this was twelve hours before the scheduled funeral.) The entire church body (I mean even the head of the conference got involved by phone) became in an uproar over this self-centered pastor's power trip. I told the pastor that we were having the funeral there with our without his blessing on it and that the former pastor was going to officiate because the he (the new pastor) had originally OKed it. I pointed out that the announcements had all been run in the paper, and there was no changing the fact that twelve hours from then, cars would be rolling in the parking lot. I said, "We're not going to come here and redirect everyone to a new location as they arrive and turn the whole funeral into turmoil; so, we're going to have the sheriff here, and if you want a parking lot full of angry people standing at the door, that's up to you. I'm going to stand on the porch and tell them that we just spent twelve hours decorating for the funeral and that you've decided to lock everyone out because you couldn't do the whole service yourself. And then the former pastor is going to officiate from the porch while everyone in the parking lot seathes at you for being locked out." That was the only thing that changed his course of action. He realized there was nothing anyone could do to keep cars from coming to his church the next morning -- not even if any of us wanted to. But this little conservative church was in such an uproar over it, that they split and disolved over this one event within a few weeks. It was not a church we were even a part of. My mother-in-law had gone there for the last three or four years of her life. Oh, and what was the issue that made the new pastor witch originally from allowing the former pastor to officiate to not allowing him to? The former pastor still had a set of keys and opened the office door to let one of our members in for a little bit while we were decorating. Maybe or maybe not a good decision; but hardly a reason to cancel a family's funeral twelve hours before the event. Can you imagine a young pastor on such a power trip that he would cancel a family's funeral after all the decorating, planning, announcements were done just the night before the event in the middle of a family's grief??? Jesus save me ... ... from your followers (Favorite bumper sticker) Check out the nextdoor forum: http://www.worthyboards.com/index.php?show...=44437&st=0

Maybe it would be helpful if we used the "community of believers" or just "believers" or "saints," instead of using the word "Church" with a capital "C" when we're talking about the "body of Christ. And use the word "fellowship" when we're talking about an assembly of believers. You can't leave the Church -- the community of believers -- except by rejecting Jesus. (Some, of course, would say you can't even do that.) Either way, there's no point in talking about someone not being in Church. If you're a believer, you're in the Church -- the universal community of believers. Fellowship, on the other hand, is something we go in and out of during different phases of our lives. Such as, we make a move, and we may find ourselves with no place for fellowship for awhile -- no group to interact with. We're sick and nobody comes to be with us; so we cannot fellowship. We're burned out from a very bad fellowship experience, and so we're going to be real slow about getting back in the water so as not to get burned again ... and we have some things to sort out in order to make sure we don't repeat the mistake of joining a group like the last one. Or we decide to become a hermit monk for a year to learn some things in solitude. Some have chosen that path for a lifetime and have still lived venerable lives of service to others, such as producing very helpful writings. Fellowship is not commanded, so it's no sin to be out of it. It's just a very good thing to be in if you can find good fellowship to be a part of because believers are meant to live in community, hermit monks non withstanding. Fellowship is a terrible thing to be in when you're with a group that seeks to control its members or that legalistically measures your spirituatilty by how regularly you attend. It can be very damaging. I hope not-so-"FailedChristian" finds some solace in knowing that he/she may have made a very good choice in moving out of a bad fellowship and that his or her caution in considering any other fellowship right away is probably wise. Find someone to have coffee with on a regular basis (or whatever works for you), and let the dust settle for awhile. (Preferably NOT someone who will try to drag you back into the group you just left; but a new start, a space for a breather.)

I can say amen to that.

Yeah. That's cool!

And, not-so-"FailedChristian," I hope you won't let legalism tell you HOW you should be assembling with other believers or even demanding that you do. That's good. If you broaden your horizons, not-so-"FailedChristian," you may find that he has a new expression of fellowship available for you to be a part of. It may be very different than anything we think of when we think of going to church. And let no one tell you that fellowship is required, as if it's some sort of command. Fellowship is encouraged as a good thing for your health. But Paul was not writing a new commandment. He, of all people, knew the law was finished, and that God had no intention of adding new laws that we should feel guilty of breaking. So, fellowship is not a command; it's just a good thing that we should try to have in our lives. We need for our spiritual health and mental and physical health to be in community with other believers ... somehow. But no one has failed who is not in community. The community you were a part of failed you because ... And it was your perogative to leave their ministry forever if you felt they were being too legalistic about attendance. And probably very good that you did. Now, you can keep your eyes open (if you so choose) for a much less legalistic and much more caring group. Any group can set its own rules of engagment; but anyone is free to leave that group and does not sin if he or she does leave the group. If the rules of engagement are overly strict, I would encourage anyone to find the freedom to leave and seek a less legalistic group. Or maybe it reveals a family that has problems that interfere with attendance. Or anything else. It could well be a heart issue, but it's not an issue of a bad heart. Maybe just a failing or troubled heart that is not finding any joy in being part of such a legalistic group. It's time for that heart to move on. The group may have been good for it for awhile; but it no longer suits the journey nor even understands the journey you're on; so ... Exactly. Be free to move on. You have always had that freedom. Some "churches" use attendance as a way to control you and as a way to judge your holiness. Let no one judge you by such outward things that are not required by God. Do as you feel your spirit needs to do. You have that freedom. Anyone who judges you by your attendance is too small to deserve your fellowship. (It's fair for a group to expect attendance if their leaning on you for your role in that ministry and not attending throws a burden on them; but its also fair for you to move on from them if you are not able or inclined to stay with those rules of engagement. What isn't fair is for them to treat you as if you are in some sort of sin for not being there. Patent nonsense. Don't buy into it.)

He might be the head of the Church, but did he go to church? that's the most absurd thing I ever read here, and that's saying something! Of course He did NOT, He hadn't established the Church until He ascended on high and sent the Holy Spirit--Acts 2. Dang...this is Theology 101 here, for Pete's sake! You would think so, and, yet, look at how easily people drift into talking about "church" as something you go to. So, theology 101 is apparently needed. I drift easily into talking that way, too. Jesus didn't "go to church" because church isn't something you go to. It's something you are. To be precise, something you're a part of.

Not quite. "Church" IS all believers. When we say the church is FOR all believers. We're saying it is something they can join or not join. It's something that's good for them. No. Church IS them. Fellowship is for believers. It's good for all believers. But it doesn't have to happen in what we've limited "the church" to mean. We talk about the assembly of believers, and we think of a congregation of believers in some building someplace. The church is wherever two are gathered in his name. So, going to church (small "c") is not for all believers. Fellowship of some kind is, but the expression of fellowship we choose is infinite in expresion and may change with time and circumstance. No one need ever feel guilty or like a "failed Christian" for not "going to" church. (Not that Marnie was suggesting anyone should feel guilty.) In fact, they're not guilty of anything, even if they are not in fellowship. It's just that being in fellowship is important for all of us, for Christ's Spirit dwells in community; but that can be a community of two. When the institution of church has failed, it may be better for us to meet for coffee and prayer with a believing friend. Not-so-"Failed Christian," I pray that you're able to find a new expression of fellowship that helps lift you through your present times. Allow creativity to bring about new kind of fellowship for you, and feel guilty (if you do) ABOUT NOTHING when it comes to fellowship. By the way, that was a wonderfully expressive letter you wrote to your pastor/"church."

Not exactly. He didn't "institute" anything. He created the Church with a capital "C." That's not something you "go to." And it's not an institution. Its an entity, a living, breathing communal, spiritual, physcial creature. Jesus never even suggested we should "go to" church. We are a Church, collectively. Wherever we gather, there is the Church. It might be better if we didn't even use that word and staid with the word he used, which was "Kingdom." I have nothing against houses of prayer and all that; but we were never instructed to go to them or join them, and it's no sin to stop. And we can do that anywhere on any day. It doesn't have to be on Saturday or Sunday morning. It doesn't have to be with an order of worship or a liturgy or in a building or with the same group of believers that we gathered with last time or under a set of rules or credes that we all agree to be bound by or in pews or with music. We are a Church, even when we meet communally on this web site. Not-so-"FailedChristian" is just as much a part of the Church in this forum or in a coffee house meeting with a single understanding Christian friend because we are not always That clearly wasn't happening for Not-so-"FailedChristian where he/she was; so, one could say that Not-so-"FailedChristian" was not part of a Church even when in church because there was no meeting of the minds and hearts happening there, no sense of filling or freeing or being built up ... at least, not for not-so-"FailedChristian." So, we don't need to be ... or ever because the Lord does not dwell in houses anymore. That's not to say we cannot have an experience of him while in such places that may even be augmented by those places. I love the power of place; but if you never walked into such a place, it would not be a sin or even necessarily a bad thing. It's that constant human drift toward "instituting" that I've grown a little tired of. See how constantly we go back to saying "go to church," as if it is something we CAN go to. That's what institutionalizing tends to do. We say we know the church is not a building, and yet we talk about it as if it's something we can "go to." The Church is not even a meeting we can go to. It simply is "us." I know you know that, but our thoughts constantly drift toward thinking of the church as something we go to. So, if you don't go to it with regular attendance (going back to not-so-"FailedChristian"'s great failing), then we're failing to live as we should ... so the thinking goes when we think of the Church as something to go to, be it building or meeting. And those churches merely refer to the groups of Christians who lived in those cities, not to a particular meeting that needed to be attended or a particular gathering that happened on a regular basis in a particular place. It was just the people of that place. And Paul instructed the people of any place to get together with each other -- but not necessarily in any kind of formal meeting ... just get together to support each other ... however that might happen. Maybe in a game of golf. Maybe on the beach. Get together and talk about your lives and talk about Jesus and ... live your lives together in mutual support. Maybe for not-so-"FailedChristian," this forum is it for the time. Then maybe it'll just be a family prayer time or a friend over a cup of coffee. Maybe it'll be real simple for a long time; but even if it's not with an institutional body (like a congregation with a covenant or a constitution or bylaws), it's still living as "part of" the Church, v. "going to" church.

I thought scripture was revelation. What good is a prophecy like that? How would it warn anyone? It's so vague it's useless (unless you left out the most important parts in restating it). It doesn't say where the event will happen. It misnames what the event will be by saying it's a tornado, not a hurricane. There is no way for the prophecy to help a single soul. All you have is an eagle and flag (the U.S.) hit by a whirlwind. No date. It's a big country, so that's exactly like saying, "It's going to rain" without giving the time and place. Of course it is ... somewhere sometime. And "dumped into a ditch by a forklift"? That helps. Can't God raise prophets who are not self-proclaimed who speak intelligible ACTIONABLE words? Now, that's a little more helpful. However, "confident enough" seems to put it in the realm of Jean Dixon. You mean the storm was delivered by forklift? First, you apply it to Katrina, then you apply it to Ivan. Proof that it's the kind of prophecy that you can apply to any hurricane that comes along during any year that follows ... so long as you're willing to call a hurricane a tornado and allow minor mistakes. I can make those kinds of prophecies all day long without God's help. The only reason I don't is that they're useless. I sure understand it. You're excoriated because you make predictions about alarming events that are as vague as "It's going to rain" without a time or place. Then when the first one comes along -- Ivan -- that's the one. And then when the second one comes along -- Katrina -- that's the one, too. And if Alfred hits tomorrow, well why not include it as well. You get to apply it to any hurricane you want (even though it was supposed to be a tornado). There are hurricanes every year, so you're certain to be right. I want to go on record right now as predicting that I envision a great eagle getting its tail-feathers burned. The next time we have a heat wave like the one last week, that's the one I envisioned. You read it first here. It's on record. Why won't you all take me seriously? It's going to happen, and when it does, I'm going to send you all right back to this post to know I predicted it.

I think Ovedya makes a really good point with this simple rule of thumb. People see prophecy as the highest office. Therefore, they love to proclaim themselves a prophet. It's the same thing when they say, "The Lord told me ..." It's not that prophets cannot say that. They do in the Bible. But why not just say what it is that you think God told you, and let others judge whether or not it comes from God. Let them be the ones to say, "I think God revealed that to you." That was Jesus' approach throughout his ministry. I don't think he EVER publically said, "God told me..." He told his disciples he only spoke what the father told him to speak; but that was not a proclaimation. That was insight given to his inner circle of associates. He didn't run around calling himself a prophet, and he didn't have to couch his words with "God told me." He just said, and people responded to the quality of what he said. One who makes a big point out of his being a prophet almost certainly isn't. There is no biblical example of that kind of behavior because it's all based in pride. Just try telling one of those people you don't think he or she is a prophet, and see how angry the person becomes. That's good, too. If the person's words are from God, then the pure quality of those words ought to be able to get attention. If they don't, then they're not gold. If they're not gold, they're not God. I don't think that's true. Paul says SOME are called to be prophets, and some are called to other things. He never says all the gifts of the Spirit are to all saints. That's good, too. Look at Caiaphas. He wasn't even a prophet and he spoke a true prophecy without noticing it. O.K. technically he was a prophet for about three seconds; but he didn't know it, and he was an unlikely voice for God to use. But God can speak through a Jack Ass if he wants. He's done it. As for someone suggesting "schools for prophets," I don't recall any of the Biblical prophets ever taking a course to learn how. Life was the course, and God probably wouldn't pick the "school's" top grad anyway. So, what are they going to prophesy without content? We always want to institutionalize anything good. It's part of the human condition. Like Peter wanting to pitch a tent on the Mount of Transfiguration. Let's create an office. Everyone should have this. Most of us would love to be God's direct spokesman. (Most, not all.) If we try to attain the role by a group that helps nurture us in that direction, we're only feeding our ego's need to be great. Most of us would love to be significant. Who aspires to insignificance; but in the area of prophecy that can lead us to hope so hard that we're getting messages from God that we too quickly assume we are. Better to let God do the calling and the training for that role. As for "Any church claiming to be the only true church of God must be led by a prophet, who has been called of God," any such church should be stoned (or is "stoned") for the being the epitome of hubris -- extreme arrogance. Any church of that kind led by a "prophet" who says he is called of God is a cult.

That's right and one means ONE. Not Jews and Gentiles in close relation. Not Jews are right and Christians are right and we support each other, while Muslims are all wrong and should be talked about disparagingly. But that ONE door has been opened for ALL people to enter the Promise. Jesus Christ is the Door. Once you're in, there is no difference in Christ between any of us, neither Jew nor Greek. The dividing curtain is torn down. We become a new creation, a new people. That's why Jesus told Nicodemus that even he, a Jew, had to be born again to enter the Kingdom. Being a Jew wouldn't get him there! The promise to Abraham was always entered by faith. Circumcision was only meant as a SIGN of faith -- a visual pledge to be faithful to the God of Abraham. And EVERY Jew had to to be circumsized to be included in the Promise. (But why didn't women have to be circumcized; because circumcision was only a sign of faith. If circumcision did not come from the heart (as an outward pledge of an internal commitment), then it was ALWAYS useless before God, for God can make Children of Abraham out of stones if he wants to. God is not duped by circumcision. Gentiles are now chosen people, too, for revelation now comes through them as well. God has called a people who were not his people ... his people. He has done this to raise the ire and jealousy of those he first called his people. The first (called into his Kingdom), the Jews, shall be last getting in because they rejected God's plan and are having a tough time getting the point of it ... because they mistook being chosen to mean they had a free green card in. Now Gentiles are chosen to reveal God's truth to Jews, but we must humbly remeber who first revealed it to us. With the arrival of God's Annointed One, God required that faithfulness be shown to His Annointed, rather than through circumcision. That means neither Jew nor Gentile are "God's people" until they are "born again" into the Promise. Why did Jesus use that figure of speech? Because a lot of Jews thought they had automatic birthright into the Promise (which included the Promised Land). Paul points out that birthrights can be lost. Esau lost his to Jacob. No one ever had a birthright to the Kingdom. God always required that Jews pledge their FAITH through circumcision or THEY would be "cut off" entirely from the promise as an individual, rather than merely having a bit of foreskin in a critical spot cut off. It was, in other words, true for every individual Jew through all time that they could not be born physically into the Promise. There were no blood rights to the Promised Land. That' why the Jews could not enter in unfaithfulness even with Moses right after the Promise was given. God was showing right from the beginning that the Promise is obtained by Faith. Abraham received what was promised because he was faithful, and God is not duped by circumcision if it is not the pledge of faithful heart. AND Gentiles could always enter the Promise as full Jews to by circumsizing themselves and becoming part of the household of Abraham. Eventually, their progeny would be considered Jews. So, there was a door for total inclusion of Gentiles right from the beginning, too. So, why "born again." Because no one ever had a genetic right to claim the Promised Land (or any part of God's promise to Abraham). Jews and Gentiles came in by faith, just as Abraham, himself, did. Jesus wanted to emphasize to Nicodemus that his Jewish birth wouldn't get him ANYTHING in the Kingdom of God. His first birth brought him into this world where he was privileged to be of the people God chose to bring His revelation of truth into the world; but he would have to be born Spiritually into Jesus' Kingdom. Jews, Arabs, Westerners all have to be spiritually born into the Promise. "Chosen" never meant "chosen to be in the Kingdom or "chosen to be God's favorite." "Chosen" meant "chosen to the the people through whom God would reveal his truth in this world in its clearest expression." They were chosen for revelation ... to be a light to the world. When Paul was asked what good it was, then, to be a Jew -- what was the benefit -- he answered, "Only this: We have a great heritage. We're privileged to start our quest for understanding in this life with a body of great writings that guide us to God. We're born into a society that gives us a head-start in knowing God because His revelation happened here." That's all. Nothing about better seats in the Kingdom. Nothing about a different door to enter through than Gentiles. Nothing about an inner court in the Kingdom or a greater part in the Promise. Nothing about special rights in the land that went to Abraham's Seed, Jesus. Just a great heritage, a great foundation to begin on. We all build on that foundation.

Jim, That was a GREAT post! (I won't qoute it here because of its size, but it lays things out better than people usually do.) I would add to it, however, that Israel's taking of more land than was granted to it by the League of Nations/U.N. in 1967 is also no basis for claiming the land. The "six-day" war may be the biggest misnomer ever invented, since that war continues to this day. Had Israel battled the Arabs back into their own new nations and beat them to submission until they all agreed to sign a treaty giving the land to Israel, then, at least, the line of conquest you present would now make the land Israel's. But it didn't. It merely beat the Arabs into retreat and then occupied the land. Maybe some people thought the retreat meant the Arabs were giving the land up; but that is obviously a grave error. It was a tactical retreat with every intent of returning to battle, which we've all witnessed ever since. If Israel went back to the lands given to it by the U.N., it would be in a completely polictically defensible position. It has tried to occupy more, thinking that would work; but it hasn't worked. Every nation on earth has refused to acknowledge its right of possession, and the Arabs have continued to fight to get possession back. Even if Israel went back to the boundaries as they existed in 1966, they would have most of the world's support, though that's a lot more land than they were given in '48. Of course, nothing they do is going to get full Arab support; BUT so what! If they had most of the world's support, they wouldn't need Arab support. The Arabs would be pressed at the U.N. to fall in line. But Israel currently holds a completely untenable position of defying the U.N. right from the get go. As for the writer's good question, I think it's pretty obvious that many Christians do care a lot more about Jews than they do about Muslims. It's a little hard, right at present, to love a group whose right extreme is doing things like blowing up the World Trade Center; but we do need to try to love those who aren't doing such evil things. I suppose I'm supposed to love bin Laden; but, sorry, I've got more people I need to love than I can handle anyway; so he's first to go off the list. I think Palestinians get the backhand of Christians far more than the handshake. There are so many Christians for whom the Jew can do no wrong and who always take the Jew's side in every conflict. We should know not to be "respecters of persons." There should be neither Jew nor Gentile in our thinking, but "justice for all." That's not only American; it's fundamentally Christian. We need to be concerned about what is just for both people involved in a conflict and not what is best for God's favorite people. Because being "chosen" does not mean being "favorite." It means you were chosen for a mission of sharing God's love and Justice in the world and bringing his Messiah into the world. You cannot fulfill that mission by ignoring justice and focusing only on someone's (or your own) great chosen status. The land was to be a reward for faithfulness. Let God deliver the full land of the promise if he deems you faithful enough, rather than trying to seize it by your own might. The Promise to Abraham and his Seed (Christ) can only be had by faith. And it is not the faith that is demonstrated by grasping something. It is the faith that is demonstrated by justice and mercy and love of God. Let God deliver the promise.

I know, but did he go to church? Did he sit in pews and listen to ten minutes of announcements about the ladies' social and sing hymns then listen to an off-key choir, and then listen to the lady's trio give a special number, and then listen to a twenty-minute sermon by someone other than himself, and then sing more hymns, and .... Did he go to church? Because it's not going to THAT that is a sin according to many. As for me and my house, if we go to that pub I mentioned on Sunday morning and have a cup of coffee as we talk with another Christian, we consider that we are not "foresaking fellowship." We're IN fellowship the whole time. What we're not in is pews. And what we're not doing is listening to the ladies' trio. But I don't recall Paul exhorting us to do those things. He just said don't foresake meeting together with fellow believers. Don't go it alone. He didn't say go someplace and get bored for an hour as you sit and stair at the stained glass. He didn't say, "Lead a 'worship team' and make sure your attendance is good!" (Which is perfectly fine if you want to do any of those things; but Paul didn't command any of them or even encourage us to do them or to meet in any particular kind of building with any particular number of people. "Where two are three are gathered in my name, I am with them." That was said about "gathering," more than it was about prayer, though I think it was said in the context of prayer.)

Actually, that's true. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, the only people in Afghanistan who could fight were the Taliban. The U.S. hated the Soviet Union so much that it trained the Taliban in terrorism to use on the Soviets. It even provided textbooks for children (published in Massachusettes) on being a terrorist. It was not that the U.S. had any affinity for the Taliban; it was just "the enemy of my enemy if my friend." Since they were fighting the Soviets, Reagan decided to help them out. Then bin Laden moved into the neighborhood, and the Taliban decided to help him out. We sowed the wild wind and now we reap it.

He might be the head of the Church, but did he go to church?

...My experience has been very poor I'm afraid. Pastor LJ informed me last summer that I could not rejoin the worship team because of poor attendance in the month of August, 2005. I

So long as it's not quoted as a command. I know a lot of people quote it as if the Apostle Paul decided we needed a new commandment. I know of churches that think you're sinning if you break this commandment. To me that's all foolish legalism. Paul, if he wrote Hebrews, would certainly not be one to add more laws. So, it's advice to his followers. He's advising them to keep fellowshiping with each other because, as you say at the end, we need each other. Still, I'm in a place where I'm not going to church right now because I found most of the relationships in my last church to be too superficial to invest time in. I left one fellowship to move to Hawaii, and only three people even said goodbye, and I had been their "leader," event planner, retreat speaker, board member, for years. So, if God leads me to fellowship with specific people that come across my path in Hawaii, I certainly will. But it won't be God looking down on me if I don't (and I'm not implying the person quoted above feels that way); it will be other Christians who believe I'm breaking a sacred command because of their own legalism. That's why I asked what church Jesus went to. I don't think people sat in pews and sang hymns and listened to sermons whenever they got together in synagogue. I'm not sure what they did; but I'll bet it was much different than churches (or synagogues) today. The fellowshiping that we are not to foresake can happen in other places than churches. I think my next church will be a pub. At least, the friendships will run deeper.

Did Jesus die for everyone? Did Jesus go to church?

I'm glad to see such smart responses about the Toronto Blessing and Benny Hinn. I was thinking about Benny Hinn last night in my prayers. So it was refreshing to see that his foolishness is apparent to so many and that it was on someone else's mind, too. I've been to one church meeting that was all about experiencing the Toronto Blessing and to one Benny Hinn in Vancouver, B.C. It was obvious to me, as I sat and watched the silliness of the Toronto Blessing how it worked. Five-hundred people gathered because they wanted a new experience of the Holy Spirit. We waited, and eventually someone started to giggle a little. Then someone next to them started to laugh, and then someone laughed and snorted, and then most of the congregation started laughing and this went on for twenty minutes as a wonderful work of the Spirit. java script:emoticon('',%20'smid_3') Oops, stop. Work of the Spirit? I think not. Haven't those people heard that Hollywood puts laugh tracks in sitcoms because laughing is contagious. Haven't they heard of comedians planting a couple of people in the audience because even two people laughing can get the crowd started. Haven't we all experienced the situation where we're waiting intensely for something big to happen. All is quiet, and then someone snorts, and the people around them laugh, and then everyone begins to laugh. Come on! It's so obvious. That's exactly how mass hysteria works. java script:emoticon('',%20'smid_2') As for Benny Hinn: He arrived in a black limo and left in a black limo. He was wearing a Rolex watch and a big gold ring and mighty-fine suit, and every guest he had come on stage was also wearing a Rolex watch ... as if they were handing them out back stage to present an image of prosperity. He preaches divine prosperity for the righteous, and the New Testament warned that false teachers in the last days would preach "godliness as a means to financial gain." Hmm. Sound a little close? I was saying to God last night that I can understand why he commanded the Jews to stone false prophets. The Christian church seems to be plagued with false prophets, who always say, when you try to test their words, "A wicked generation looks for a sign," as if they should be above such tests, which only reveals how much ego is involved. java script:emoticon('',%20'smid_19') --David