carlos123

Alrighty then...it looks like some are still "listening" to this thread so I guess I will post more of my thoughts for what they are worth...although I seem to be going against the grain . But that's okay. I figure it won't hurt to post my further thoughts. By the way...hiya Wayne. I figured you were around here somewhere . Incidentally, for anyone who has not read this whole thread, what I am posting about the 4 Spiritual Laws is not to take away from whatever good may come of using them. Certainly good has come of it. Much good. Far more good than I certainly have ever done in sharing the gospel. But at the same time I do think they can be made better and in view of my starting a web site for local Christians to interact and where I hope to share the gospel with many more than I have in recent times...I figure it's a good thing to discuss the gospel as it is commonly shared today and to see if there might not be a more biblically sound way of sharing it. I want to go back to the roots of the New Testament and see if what is used today stacks up to what they shared then. Perhaps as I hear from others here and take a closer look at the 4 Spiritual Laws through this discussion I will come to realize that it does indeed share the gospel accurately. More accurately than I have thought in the past or as my initial impressions lead me to believe. On to page two of the 4 Spiritual Laws . So far I have not seen a balanced presentation of who God is and of His anger against man's rebellion and sin. Instead I have seen a very positive, lovy dovey, impression left of God as being this all loving, wonderful being, who has a great plan for our lives and who wants to give us abundant life (an abundant life that most unbelievers will understand as being where God helps us make more money, have better marriages, enjoy a more comfortable life, get a great job, etc. none of which is what Jesus meant to say by abundant life). Page Two of the 4 Spiritual Laws is much better I think though still very lacking I think in presenting things as Jesus would have done and would want us to. The 2nd "Law" is stated as such..."Man is SINFUL and SEPARATED from God. Therefore, he cannot know and experience God's love and plan for his life.". Now to you and I, the Christians, we understand what that means but again let me, if I may, place myself in the shoes of an unbeliever.... Hmmm...sinful heh? Well I am imperfect. For sure. So is everyone else. Nothing new there. But I am really not that bad. I mean I have never committed adultery, or robbed a bank, or killed anyone. I'm actually much better than most people I know. Separated from God...hmmm...not sure what that means but as has already been said in the first Law...He LOVES me so whatever that seperation entails...it can't be that bad. I mean everyone is imperfect right? Doesn't that make everyone seperated from God in the same sense? Now I am back to me, the Christian.... The first verse given in support of Law 2 says that "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". Again most unbelievers are going to look at sin as just being imperfect. A state that everyone is in. Certainly not sin in the sense of offending a Holy God by our own actions and attitudes. Such that instead of God's love and favor we deserve nothing from Him at all. And of course if the unbeliever has any understanding of what the glory of God means they also will agree that everyone falls short of being like God. Of course they will realize that. But again they will not readily connect the dots and associate their individual sin with personal responsibility and becoming accountable to a Holy God for their own sin. Such that they will be judged and found wanting. Enough to be seperated from God for the rest of eternity. They will tend to lump themselves in with everyone else as not being like God. I mean who is...right? So what they might conclude. God is not going to punish everyone for not being just like Him is He? Of course not they will think to themselves. That would make God unloving. Wouldn't it? The explanation in Law 2 says that an attitude of active rebellion or passive indifference is evidence of what the Bible calls sin. When I was an unbeliever I would not have seen myself as either actively rebellious or passively indifferent. At all. This had to be explained to me and the Holy Spirit had to convict me of how utterly lost and sinful I was before a Holy God. According to His righteous standards. The wages of sin is death it says. All well and good. But again the explanation in parenthesis is that this means spiritual seperation from God. Why is the word "hell" never used? One is still left with the impression that God is LOVING (and He certainly is), that He wants us to have an abundant life (a life which is never clearly explained as to what that means), that we can't have the abundant life on our own but that He wants to give it to us, and that we can benefit from God. The whole presentation so far strikes me as being mostly about what God can give to us. How He can enhance our lives and give us more of what we want. Here are some of Jesus's words to bring this into perspective... I have taken the liberty of paraphrasing the King James (which is not copyrighted) into modern language... "But I say to you, that every idle word that men speak, they shall give account for it in the day of judgment." Matthew 12:36 "The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and those which do iniquity; And will cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." Matthew 13:41-42 "Then said Jesus to his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." Matthew 16:24 One more... "Therefore if your hand or your foot offends, cut them off, and cast them away: it is better for you to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if your eye offend, pluck it out, and cast it from you: it is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire." Matthew 18:8-9 Now that is just on a cursory look at the book of Matthew alone. There are probably hundreds of such verses. Jesus freely and openly spoke of judgement, hell fire, denying self, taking up your cross to follow Him, everlasting fire, and other such things. He called the Pharisees hypocrites and white washed tombs. He didn't mince words. I get the impression that Jesus did not try and make the gospel popularly acceptable. He just told the truth as God the Father told Him to speak. If Jesus thought such things were important to say to the masses does it not stand to reason that we, as His Body, should consider whether such things are likewise important to say to the multitudes? Especially in a presentation of the gospel? Carlos

I finally have a bit of time to get back on this thread. I just had no time the last few days to do much of anything internet wise. I spent some more time reading more of Bill Brights book on reaching the lost using the Four Spiritual Laws. And while my initial post might have implied that the Four Spiritual Laws was no good in terms of presenting the true gospel I want to say that much good has come about through the use of that booklet. God has indeed used what is said there to bring people to Himself. And for that...I am thankful and encouraged. I still think it's very worthwhile to take a closer look at what is said in the booklet though. Not to dissect the booklet itself for it's own sake but as a reflection of gospel presentations that seem so prevalent in the Christian world. What I say next is based on the web version of the Four Spiritual Laws which can be seen at http://www.godlovestheworld.com/. The first Law says "God LOVES you and offers a wonderful PLAN for your life." All quite true. Absolutely God loves the unbeliever. No question about it. Likewise He does have a wonderful plan for each life. Also true. But let me if I might place myself in the role of an unbeliever and see how I might interpret that statement...hmmm...let's see God loves me...that sounds real nice....my mom and dad loved me too. God must love me that way. He would never do anything to harm me (such as end up sending me to hell). A plan for my life heh? Hmm...well I haven't succeeded too good at making money and pursuing a comfortable life for myself. Hmm...maybe God can help me with that. In the verses that support Law 1 there is the one about God wanting us to have abundant life. Hmm...abundant life heh? I could sure use some of that. My life has been rather frustrating up to this point (I am speaking as an unbeliever mind you). Okay...now I am back to being me, the Christian, again . On that first whole page there is only one word that even hints about an eternal hell. The word "perish" in the first verse presented. But that one word is included in the context of the whole rest of the page. Which is all lovy dovey and nice. How God loves me, has a wonderful plan for me, that involves living a more abundant life. And if anyone knows anything about how humans process what they hear...a single word like "perish" can be drowned out in the rest of the lovy dovey context in which it is presented. Nowhere is there a single mention of God's holiness. Of how we have offended, yes offended, God by our unholy behaviour and rebellious attitude. Nowhere is there a single mention of God's wrath hanging over our heads for how we have offended Him. Nowhere in the first page is there any picture presented which would make God's mercy truly seen as mercy. That we are undeserving of anything at all from a holy God. It's all about what we can get from a loving and nice God who wants to give us an abundant life...a better life than we have experienced so far (who in their right mind wouldn't want that?). May I point out that the Lord God is not just Love but that He is also a God of anger, and justice? That His anger at sin was demonstrated on the cross in what happened to His own Son? Mind you...I do not want to swing the other way and make God out to be this mean spirited, cold, authoritarian being. It's a matter of balance where the Lord God is presented fairly in terms of who He is. Not as we might wish Him to be or as might seem more winsome in order to get people to be "saved". I'll add more if this thread still appears to be alive with people who might want to continue this discussion. Sorry again that I am so late to this discussion but I had little choice...time wise. Until now. Carlos

Hi kross. Do you think Jesus statement to the effect that we must deny self and follow Him is applicable to an unsaved person asking "What's in it for me?". Are you saying then that it is possible to get saved while hanging on to self and that as we mature...we slowly but surely start to surrender to God...over time?

Hi Mike! Thanks for sharing your thoughts You bring up some good points. May I ask you, based on what you said above, whether you think there is a difference between getting saved and choosing to follow Him? Can one get saved without choosing to follow Him as a disciple? I don't have a whole lot of time today or even tommorrow to get back on this thread but your statement caught my eye and I thought I would ask you for your further thoughts on this.

Hi all, Just had a question for anyone that could give me a heads up on whether we could discuss this booklet here at Worthy. I recently bought a book by Bill Bright talking about how to use this booklet to lead others to Christ. While the book was very encouraging to me I was also struck by how the contents of the 4 Spiritual Laws booklet has probably resulted in many false conversions. As a result of it being worded in such a way that an unbeliever might end up getting a wrong idea of what it means to become a Christian. The gospel as preached and promoted today certainly does not seem to be what Jesus and the New Testament Church preached. Oh there are some essential parts still there...that Jesus died for our sins, that we are sinners in need of salvation, and other things. But it's all embedded in a feel good, get something for nothing from God, message. The 4 Spiritual Laws booklet seems to contain some of that and I think it would be instructive to discuss it. As an example of the kind of gospel that is generally promoted today. A gospel that has become seeker friendly and leaves out the many parts that are not so pallitable but which are an essential part of becoming a true Christian (like denying self, taking up one's cross to follow Jesus, and surrendering to the Lord as Lord). I am not sure how we could discuss it openly since it is copyrighted. Perhaps this kind of discussion would best be done by private email. Don't know. Just thought I would ask. Carlos

Thanks for clarifying what you meant AnotherTraveler. No biggie about missing my direct question. This thread is starting to get a bit long and that's understandable. If I missed what anyone said to me directly or otherwise I also apologize. Regarding tongues I was thinking about this some over the course of the last few hours and am inclined to believe that it was indeed a known language. That is, a language like English, Spanish, or any other human language. That is not to say that it may not also in certain people be a language that is not known. That is angelic or out of this world somehow. I am not sure the Scriptures are clear on which one it is or whether both are true. The important thing for purposes of our discussion I guess is to realize that whatever tongues was, Paul made it very clear that no more than 2 or 3 should speak in tongues in a church assembly and then only if someone having the gift of interpretation was present to interpret the tongue into something that could be understood by those gathered in the common language of the day. One could interpret their own tongue if they had the gift of interpretation or others having that gift could have done so too. This goes completely against the grain of some church assemblies today that allow anyone with the gift of tongues (assuming it is the real thing) to speak them publicly without interpretation. I have been in such assemblies where what sounds like gibberish is spoken by many different ones at the same time. If one is not used to that it can be quite scary. I suppose in Paul's day it would have also been considered barbaric and perhaps crazy. I am not quite sure what the rational in such tongue speaking churches of today is...for allowing everyone and many to speak in tongues at once in view of 1 Cor 14 which very clearly does not give such liberty to tongues speakers. Here is a question for anyone still following this discussion.... Let's assume that Paul said the following for a moment (and really such an assumption is not without grounds since it seems to me that Paul did indeed say the following - it's there in black and white and in plain English after all). That no more than 2 or 3 tongues speakers should speak and then only if there is an interpreter. That no more than 2 or 3 prophets should speak and that if one of them is speaking and something comes to someone sitting down that the one speaking should become silent so that what is coming to the one sitting can be shared. That women are to remain silent and not speak out in the assembly of the church. That it is a disgrace for them to do so. That each one (in view of the prohibition against women speaking out - that each one of the men) should participate by initiating to sing a psalm, a revelation, something to share in tongues, a doctrine to share, or an interpretation of tongues. Barring any underlying Greek or other plausible reason to think Paul said something different and assuming for a moment that I correctly summarized what Paul said....WHY are we not seeing that kind of church meeting today?? I mean the meetings of today, and in my life I have been to a whole slew of them, are more along the lines of spectators watching what is going on in the front where only a very few, sometimes just one or two are sharing anything at all with the rest of those sitting. And sometimes, perhaps more often than we might imagine, those doing the sharing are not even gifted to be sharing what they are sharing at all. I look at the meeting described by Paul in 1 Cor 14 and the meetings of today and see little resemblance. Unless I am blind or something, and by all means if someone thinks that please correct me in love so that I might see what I do not presently see, why is it that the meetings of today are not like what Paul described?? Why did what Paul describe cease to exist? And if what Paul described is as I summarized above why do we not implement such meetings again?? I mean if God is a living God, and I believe He is, does it not stand to reason that He would want to lead our meetings again through the Holy Spirit operating as He wills within the Body? Whomever He wills to operate through at any moment in time during such meetings? As Paul described? Anybody? Carlos

Alrighty then...I have about 65% power left on my computer and about an hours worth of spare charge through my truck battery for my portable internet modem so I have a bit more time to add something to this thread . First off I would like to take some liberty in violating the very thing I asked that we limit our discussion to. Namely I would like to make a few observations about how we might apply what is written in 1 Cor 14 to today or perhaps ask some questions about modern day application. The reason I wanted to stick only to what Paul meant to say to the Corinthians was because in my experience, talking about modern application of what Paul said tends to lead to arguments. But given the respectful nature of our discussion so far...well...I hope no one minds if I take some liberty to talk about applying what Paul said to today. I hope and pray that we can continue to have a relatively nice discussion. If I was an unbeliever I would keep my fingers crossed but as a believer I guess I will...let's see...hmm...keep my eyes on God to help us I guess . I am going to skip going verse by verse and instead get right to some things that I would like to get further input on from anyone who cares to give it (be they a theologian or shepherd tending sheep ). Paul says that those who speak in tongues (whether they are known languages or completely unknown to anyone in the world does not seem to be made absolutely clear in the context to me) should keep silent if there is no interpreter. I think we can agree that those who speak in tongues were being told to keep silent if there was no interpreter. Seems pretty clear to me. Now regarding women speaking in the assembly Paul says that they should remain silent. Those who speak in tongues should remain silent if there is no interpreter. Those who are women should remain silent. This does not seem like a very difficult concept to understand. Perhaps it is difficult to be willing to apply it. But it seems pretty clear in terms of what Paul said to the Corinthians. Now I don't think that Paul was saying that a woman should not speak at all in any respect whatsoever as in not saying hi to anyone, or telling her children to behave, or telling her husband that she needed to go use the washroom (whatever they used in those days I have no idea) or any other such thing. That would have made it near impossible to practically have women in the meeting at all short of them using sign language to communicate about such matters which is a bit...well...ridiculous to suppose that Paul meant. I think in the context...let's see... Verse 1: for he that speaks in a tongue Verse 3: he that prophesieth speaks... Verse 6: speaking a revelation, prophecy, knowledge, or doctrine Verse 19: Paul would rather speak five words... Verse 23: all speaking in tongues... Verse 26: speaking a psalm, doctrine, tongue, revelation, interpretation... Verse 27: if any speaks in an unknown tongue... Verse 28: but there is no interpreter let him keep silent... Verse 29: let the prophets speak two or three at most... Verse 30: but if something is revealed to someone sitting down let the first hold his peace (or keep silent to let the other share). Verse 34: let your women keep silent...for it is not permitted for them to speak...for it is shameful for women to speak in the assembly. Seems very clear to me my brethren....that just as those who speak in tongues are to keep silent in the assembly if there is no interpreter, just as those who are sharing a prophecy are to keep silent if a revelation or otherwise comes to those sitting down, just so the women are to keep from speaking out in the assembly. I didn't make these words up. God inspired Paul to write them. And they seem pretty clear at least to me. I don't even understand why Paul instructed the Corinthians to allow only two or three tongues speakers to speak (if an interpreter was present), or two or three prophets to speak. Why not 3 or 4 or even 5? Why so few? Why did he likewise say that women were not to speak out in the assembly. Beats me. But as they say in the military...mine is not to question why but to do or die. Seems to me that we need to obey what is written here and apply it. Whatever the consequences. However much it goes against the grain of our culture. Regarding tongues being an unknown tongue that is not present in the world becuase "no one understands" the one speaking in a tongue.... Just a couple of thoughts... Verse 2: For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. Seems to me that verse 2 could be talking about either a weird angelic language OR a language like English or Spanish not understood either by the one speaking it or those listening. If one is speaking Spanish...obviously what he is saying cannot be understood by those who do not know Spanish. In that sense he is just speaking before God or to God. Just between him and God. And since he himself cannot understand Spanish then that which he is speaking is indeed a mystery. Something that is hidden and not evident. Verse 10: There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Paul is still speaking about tongues in context. He is saying that there are many different kind of voices (I will have to look up the Greek word here to see if it is the same as that which is otherwise translated "tongues") and that all have meaning in the world. In other words known voices, or tongues. I am not saying definitively that tongues are known languages like English or Spanish only. They certainly were in Acts. Just that I can see how they could certainly be known languages in this chapter and not some kind of unintelligible, unknown language, that does not exist among the tongues spoken by mankind. Just my further thoughts to add to this discussion. I look forward to hearing your all's thoughts on what I have said. Please do try and continue to keep this discussion civil. I do so much appreciate the posts so far in that they have not veered off into arguments. I hope that we can exhibit maturity and godliness in keeping it that way still. Carlos

I do not think that smarts was neccessary to a proper understanding of God's Word Bibs . I believe that it was rather more a matter of heart. Paul said that not many of the Corinthians were wise by human standards (1 Cor 1:26). Or influential or of noble birth. Most were probably foolish in the eyes of the world but God chose them to hear and believe the gospel despite their apparent lack of smarts . It seems to me that they were more humble in heart. More childlike in their faith and thus more pleasing to God. I do hope that whatever they had that we can learn to imitate them at it!! I sure hope I didn't respond seriously to what you meant as a joke with your addition of the whistling thingy . I agree that order is spoken about in this chapter. But what kind of order was it that Paul spoke of? The only order I see is that prophets were to speak one at a time. Women were not to speak out in church. And tongues speakers were not to speak unless there was an interpreter present. I do not see an order of the kind that we normally associate with order in a church service as in step 1 - sing a song (5 minutes), step 2 - preach a sermon (45 minutes), step 3 - sing another song (5 minutes), step 4 - get up and go home (5 minutes). To all be done in a span of a one hour service. Rather I see an order that allowed God to direct a church assembly through the Holy Spirit as He prompted different one's with different gifts to speak out. Paul's order allowed for the operation of different gifts in ways that we, of today, would probably consider out of order . It's the difference between anyone can say whatever they feel led to say...one at a time (Paul's order) and there is only time enough for one person (the pastor) to say what he feels a need to say and anyone who interrupts him is out of order (the order we practice and wrongly justify by a mistaken notion of what Paul meant by "order").

What a shame that these days it takes bravery to discuss what Paul said so plainly? Have we as Christians become so prone to biting and devouring each other to pieces that one must start such a discussion with fear and trembling at what the Christians will dish out? So far so good on this thread. I hope and pray that we can maintain a respectful and healthy discussion

I'll say Amen to that!

I went to the movie theater and there was nothing good playing so I decided to come back to the Tim Horton's coffee shop, plug in, and get back on this thread . AnotherTraveler...I was wondering based on what you said above if you think the tongues Paul spoke to the Corinthians about could not be understood by any man? In other words were tongues simply an unknown language to the person speaking them but a language nevertheless that was present somewhere in the world (and understandable by those speaking it natively) or a language that could not be understood by anyone for it was not a human language? If you don't mind sharing any further thoughts on this I would appreciate hearing them. Carlos

I don't have much time to add my further thoughts to this topic...yet, but I hope to do so later. When I have more time. Among other things my computer is about to shut off from lack of power LOL. But I did want to say one thing...I must commend all you who posted here for not getting into an argument so far. That leads me to believe that there might indeed be hope for fruitful discussion among those who profess to be Christians. To be sure the thread got sidetracked just a tad with something about what someone else said on another thread - I read it too quickly to remember what it was about exactly but overall I am happy to see no arguments developing. And that is wonderful! I will add more thoughts later once I find a plug to get power from. Although I may decide to take a break from internet anything and just go see a movie for tonight. We'll see . Thanks for all the thoughts so far! Carlos

I was wondering if anyone would care to discuss 1 Corinthians chapter 14? Verse by verse. I looked around at the various forums available at Worthy Forums and General Discussion seemed like the best one for this. But if that is not correct please let me know. Now before saying yes to such a discussion I would like to say a couple of things. I DON'T, DON'T...let me say that again...DON'T want to get into the usual Christian arguments about what is written and whether or not we should apply what is said today and how. I DON'T want to argue. Discuss...yes. Argue...NO!!! If anyone cares to argue about what is written I will leave the thread to whoever wants to argue...and let them argue by themselves. Quite frankly there is altogether too much flesh in most such discussions on Christian forums with respect to how Christians get into arguments. It's downright ridiculous. Perhaps it's foolish of me to think we might be able to do better on this forum but I would like to try and see if we can. What I would like to do is discuss what is WRITTEN. And ONLY what is written. To determine what is WRITTEN in so far as we are able to understand English and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit operating within His Body on this forum. In other words I want to stick to discussing the meaning of what Paul wrote to the Corinthians. Not to get sidetracked into whether we should apply what he wrote to today or not. Perhaps we can save a discussion of modern application for another thread. What did the Corinthians understand Paul to mean by what he said to THEM. That's what I want to discuss in this thread. If anyone wants to enter a friendly discussion with me about that....GREAT. Let's go for it. I think there is a lot in this chapter that we can learn from. If we, as Christians, can keep the flesh under check by the power of the Spirit and keep from arguing over what is written. At least I hope there are some Christians here who can control their natural impulse to argue enough to have a fruitful and profitable discussion to the greater glory of God. We'll see I guess. Carlos

Thanks for the added input Shiloh. Much appreciated. You are correct in pointing out that his insurance company is the one that will pay. My goof! Ah...but this is Canada. Everyone and everything is more trusting up here. I have a whole year to file a claim. Doesn't make sense to me either but that's the way it is up here. I haven't read the fine print mind you but that is what a claims adjuster told me the last time I discussed a hit with her. I wish that was the case up here Shiloh but it ain't so. Along with being more trusting here they are also less prone to get involved in lawsuits. Much less prone to that. The last time I got hit and ended up with a severely damaged gas hose that got knocked loose from the body they weren't willing to pay to fix it unless I gave up my truck. I still got a dangling gas hose to this day . My personal opinion is that insurance companies in Canada are...well...yes...quite sorry. The same exact insurance companies down South can't get away with half the stuff the one's up here seem to do routinely. That's just a gut level impression so I could be wrong about that but it does seem like that is the case. Carlos

Hi Mike, Good observation Mike! I should have said that his insurance company would probably not pay me over $500. It is indeed true that MY insurance company won't pay me anything for an accident that was not my fault (unless as you say he is insured by the same company as moi). Boy...you sure sound like you went through the ringer with that hale and all. Wow! Thank God those children had you around. Your wife must have been very proud of you Mike! Thanks again for your input. Much appreciated. Carlos

Thanks for your added response MeCajunboy (hmm...maybe I should change my name to MeTarzan LOL). But...there's always a but isn't there .... The insurance company will NOT give me more than $500. Period! Fairness does not enter into their deliberations. It's a matter of them saving money for themselves. The only option I have, which really is not a very good one, is to go around and try and get valuations about what my truck is really worth. Not just the paper book value. Let's see it's my home (how much is that worth?). It's my work truck. It's my personal vehicle. It's worth more than $500 I think. Then if I can get others to testify that it's worth more I can then take the insurance company to court and fight them to get more. Hmm...not worth my time. Or should I say the Lord's time in me. The end result of all such effort is not certain. It could end up being a collasel waste of time. By the time all is said and done I will have gotten a newer vehicle. Here is what I have decided to do. I will lay it all out as I have laid it out here to the guy who hit me. And will see what he wants to do. It TRULY is better for HIM if he settles with me for say...something...like $400. But I will leave that totally up to him. I will love him as myself and give him the option to settle with me. If he chooses not to do that...I will file a claim in the Spring, get my $500 from the insurance company, and buy a newer vehicle. He will end up with a ticket, points on his record, and an increased insurance premium. He will pay much more than $500 if I file a claim. The insurance companies will rip both of us off. It will be up to him. I pray for him that he will choose to settle with me for his own good. I have no hard feelings toward him at all. May the Lord allow to happen what is pleasing to Him. I will not fight the guy who hit me, the insurance company, or otherwise get tangled and pulled away from something the Lord has laid on my heart to do and which I posted about in another thread. But I will also not sit by and do nothing. I will do what I can legally do to make things easier on myself. Namely file a claim within the year time limit. I will not contest the measly $500 the insurance company can get away with paying me. It's not worth my time. Life is short. Carlos

Incidentally I forgot to mention that I will double check with the police as to what is legally required of us. Last time this happened and I went to find out what to do from the police, they basically said that if we were working out things between us there was no reporting required if my memory serves me right. My memory hasn't been the best sometimes so I will check again but I'm pretty sure that is correct. That last time I got hit the company that hit me offered me $750 for my truck but again, that would have meant having no truck. How ridiculous was that. From what I remember, they didn't offer to fix m.y dangling gas hose they broke off as a result of their impact on me. It would have cost way too much to get it reattached and fixed. They just offered me $750 for my truck. That was it. Take it or leave it. I had little choice then either. I decided to keep my truck. Dangling gas hose and all. It's still dangling. I hate the way the little guy is forced to buy into giving the insurance companies something for virtually nothing in return. But that's the way it is. Not much I can do about it short of devoting my life to turning the insurance industry upside down I guess but that would take away from investing my life in the gospel. I'll get over this but it sure is frustrating. Please pray for me that the Lord would give me grace to get hit and get hit and get hit again and again and to respond with graciousness. Maybe I will eventually get to the point where I can stick my head out the window after the next hit and smiling say..."God loves you! Bless you." LOL. Carlos

Thanks for the input ya all . Though I must admit to some disappointment that most of the input was focused on the practicals and legalities of what to do when someone hits you. Not on what I mainly asked for which was...what I, as a Christian, should do. For the person who implied that I might have been parked illegally...I was not. I was absolutely legally parked where I was. I had never parked there before. I have no trailer or other appendage to my truck. It's just a regular truck (a Suburban to be precise) though quite old. I have legal insurance, registration, driver's licence, tag on the licence, and anything else that is legally required. There is no problem at all on my end. The hit was in broad daylight and witnessed by others. The essential problem is that my insurance company will NOT pay me over $500 for anything that happens to my truck. I have been through this before with them when someone else hit me a while back. The damage done to my truck this particular time was way over $500. So if I file a claim it will be considered a totalled vehicle such that I will not be able to keep it. The insurance company will pay me all of $500, take my vehicle, and I will end wandering the streets trying to figure out how to get some wheels for $500 . That's no good. So I've been hit again and now, in addition to the damage done to me by other hits, I must now go limping around with a door that is barely closable, a windshield that is cracked worse than ever from the impact, a front panel that is pretty much caved in, and a hood that is now slightly twisted (again from the impact). Aside from that the truck looks...well...like someone dropped it and rolled it around some . I have to explain all the more to my customers now why it looks so bad because it really does. I had been planning on painting the same door that got smashed. Now, it'd be a ridiculous waste of time to paint it. I called the guy that hit me this morning and left a voice mail. No irritation or otherwise in my tone or heart. I know the Lord allowed this for a reason. I have been learning how the Lord usually has something good around every circumstances that appears, by sight, to be very bad. And I am learning to trust Him for that now. I will leave it up to the guy to see if he is willing to pay something to me for the damage he did. If we work it out he is not legally obligated to report the hit, the insurance companies won't get involved, and it will be as if nothing ever happened. That seems best for him and as for me...well...whatever he is willing to give me is what I will have to settle for I guess. If I am upset at anyone it's at the insurance industry. An industry that can take $80 of my money every single month. Month and after month to cover me for liability only and only give me $500 max on my truck. That's just downright ridiculous. But there is little I can do about that at this point. My truck is too old and too beat up to be insurable by anyone else and besides all the insurance companies are like that up here. Whereas I could insure it in the States for $35 a month (or even less) there is almost no chance I could get down that low here in Canada. Insurance companies up here won't even sell me the minimum liability that is legally required. They won't sell me any less than a million. Only $200,000 liability is required. That is another rip off but again...there is little I can do about that either. That's the just the way it is. The state requires $200,000. Insurance companies won't sell less than $1,000,000 coverage. The little guy like me, who is an excellent driver, ends up paying as though the state required $1,000,000! Unfair...yes. Almost like a racket...yes. But that's the way it is. Personally, if I had the choice instead of being forced to get insurance, I would not pay for any insurance at all. I know, I know...that many think it's a grand thing to be forced to get insurance. But I am of the opinion that is not. I'll wait and see if the guy that hit me is willing to offer me something. If he knows his stuff though he can deny me anything and I will be stuck having to go around in a worse, more beat up truck without filing a claim that would be utterly useless for me to file. His insurance company won't give me any more than mine will. $500 dollars. And it's either $500 and I give up my truck. Or I keep my truck and suffer. Not fair. Not good. Not honorable. But that is the way our society is. I guess I may just have to swallow another hit and pray that the Lord will give me grace to just get over the unfairness of it. I mean it's ridiculous that someone that gets hit like me can't do a single thing about it. Until I am ready to give up my truck that is at which point I will accept the $500. A little better than what a junkyard will offer me but not much. I will submit myself to whatever the guy who hit me thinks best for himself. I don't have much choice. I certainly don't have any illusions about him looking out for my best interests. It's very rare to find someone that will do that. Especially if the state makes it such, through their mandated no-fault insurance laws, that one does not have to take responsibility for their actions and make restitution. Carlos

I hope it's okay to ask about this here because...well..I could really use some wise counsel about what happened to me today. If I can't ask about this here can someone please PM me about where I can? Or perhaps PM me and share some wisdom with me . Someone crashed into me today. Or more correctly crashed into my truck when I wasn't there. They were in a hurry and backed out of a driveway right into my truck which was parked accross the street! Unbelievable! My truck is still driveable but just barely. The driver's side door almost can't be closed and is looser than ever. My radiator is leaking like crazy. It was leaking before but not like it is now. The impact apparently twisted it somehow and made the leak much worse. My windshield crack got much bigger. My hood is slightly twisted now. Let's see...aside from my door the panel on top of driver's side front wheel is completely mangled. The truck must have really been hit good since my battery was kind of on it's side even though the truck was hit on the other side! Anyway my question is this. Should I just forgive it and get on with life or should I demand some money from the person who crashed into me? As a Christian. Jesus said that if someone wants to take your tunic give him your cloak as well or something to that effect. To turn the other cheek. And other things along those lines. I want to use this opportunity to grow in my faith and perhaps be a good testimony to the person who crashed into me. But I just don't know. I mean I don't want to put up a sign on my truck, in a manner of speaking, saying something to the effect "Hit me! I am a Christian and will get over it." . My truck has been hit about 5 times like this. Through no fault of my own! In the city where I live. UNREAL! Twice it's been hit while parked legally and all. My insurance company won't give me more than $500 for it EVER. It's too old. It's either $500 and they get the truck (and I end up without a vehicle) or else I just swallow the hit. That itself is ridiculous but there isn't much I can do about that. But again...MY MAIN CONCERN...is NOT the unfairness of all this but rather WHAT should I do as a Christian to reflect Christ best in this situation. Some of you might have some tips on what to do practically about this sort of thing and such tips would be appreciated but I honestly want to hear more about what I as a Christian should do to reflect Christ in this, my present and latest hit LOL. My truck is a real beater and still running so I am okay. But I could certainly use another $300 or so. I honestly don't know what to do. PLEASE...don't nobody start down the road of...well we can't give you advice about this because it has legal ramifications. I don't give a hoot about legal ramifications. I am asking as a Christian wanting to know how to reflect Christ better. I won't sue anybody over what they say. All advice to me on this will be considered personal, unprofessional opinion and nothing more. I hate to have to add this last sentence but things are getting so ridiculous and so many Christians are walking in fear of being sued instead of walking in faith that I figured I better say what I did. Hopefully there are strong Christians here who won't look at this through the eyes of fear but who will see my heart in just wanting advice about how to reflect Christ better. So if any true Christians have sound advice for me...please pipe up and share. I have a couple of days before I have to call the guy who hit me. At least he left his number though it was kinda unavoidable since people saw him do it and told me what happened when I got to my truck. Thanks. Carlos

Gosh...I prayed earlier that if the Lord wanted me to get more involved in Worthy forums again that He would lay it on the hearts of some to post on the threads I started. I had no idea!! . I checked my email and at first thought there must be some kind of error happening with the Worthy forum. I mean something like 43 emails were from the two threads I began in the last few days. Anyway I wanted to add a little something to what I posted initially and after having read all the responses that everyone posted. Thanks very much for EVERY response. I really, really appreciate you all taking the time to post responses. It's given me a lot to think and pray over. I was a bit surprised at how many of the responses focused, not on what Paul was saying, but rather on what is happening in the modern church in regard to giving and supporting pastors. May I just say that I don't really care much what is happening or has not happened in the modern day church in regard to this issue. My focus is on what happened then. In New Testament times. I do not mean to say by that, that I can't learn anything from modern day church practices. I can. Only that at this point in time my focus is on trying to understand what Paul meant to say and applying that. I understand too that Paul did not use his rights in the gospel as fully as he could have. But...that does not mean that the rights he spoke of are not still valid for today. The Lord DID command (at least in so far as I understand what Paul said) that those who preach the gospel should make their living from the gospel. That clearly implies that if we are preaching the gospel that there is nothing wrong with seeing that as a way to make a living. Not neccessarily in connection with a secular occupation. I don't believe that this means that we should not share the gospel if there is little chance of those we share with being able to give us anything. The Lord freely gave to us. We should be willing to freely give to others. But overall, it does appear that one can look at sharing the gospel as a way of making a living. Precisely because the Lord commanded that. While Paul did not use his rights in the gospel (to make a living from the gospel) that does not mean that we should ignore what the Lord commanded in circumstances that do not make it neccessary to follow Paul's example in this. Incidentally I think the reason that so much of the Christian world today seems so lacking in money to do the work of the Lord is that...well...the sheep are not taught about the whole issue of money properly. I grew up as a Christian in a church that had absolutely no problem at all with having all the money it needed to do whatever the Lord laid upon their hearts to do. That's because EVERY member gave. Not under compulsion but because giving was taught as something that was part and parcel of the normal Christian life. And not just giving of 10% but of all that we owned and hoped to have. To lay it all at the foot of the cross to pick up what the Lord wanted us as a Body to do. So many problems in the Christian world could be avoided it seems to me if young Christians were taught correctly from the beginning. It seems that so many have so much unlearning that they have to do in many churches. The church I was in was primarily comprised of new converts. That is to say that new converts was where the growth happened. Not transfers from other churches. Carlos

Hmm...hadn't thought of that KCO2 but thanks for reminding me of that possibility. Thing is that I really don't neccessarily want to get involved in overseeing a whole slew of domains related to the church in each city. When I say church I mean the Body of Christ not a particular local body. I was thinking that I will just focus on creating a site and seeing what the Lord does through it where I live. If the Lord blesses it I will certainly be willing to help someone else start up another site just like the one I start but for their city. That person will have to have all this on their heart too and I will pass it off to them and let them run with it. It won't be me in another city except maybe in a very loose role as an unpaid consultant type of thing. So I think having seperate domans might be best from that standpoint. I DON'T want to be a big cheese. I am a peepsqueak nobody who lives in his truck. Yes...I literally live in my truck and will continue doing so...by choice as a way of life. Rather than wasting a lot of time having to work for money to just turn around and hand it over to a bank for a mortgage or a landlord for rent on a place. I know that may be quite...well...shocking to some but I've been over this road a hundred times with others in other forums and places and it does not appear to be a stumbling block to God using me once people get over the initial surprise of my chosen lifestyle. Many have even praised my choice of lifestyle once they realize why I have chosen to live that way. I've even built a successful window cleaning business working out of my dilapitated, rust bucket, of a truck . I am talking about cleaning the windows on very high priced homes. I am not your typical homeless guy going around making a couple of bucks with a bucket and squeegie (though I respect any homeless person trying to make an honest buck). Anyway...having one main site with subdomains would also make this a cookie cutter thing where every city would sort of look alike in terms of the web sites associated with each city. I don't want that. I am not sure the Lord wants that either. I would rather that within each city the Lord raised up someone to have this on their heart who would then take what I create where I live, see the potential of it for good, and run with it locally in their city. That way each city web site would reflect the individual gifts the Lord has placed in that Body (again I am referring to the Boby of Christ in a given city not to a particular local assembly). Let me if I may go a bit more into detail regarding what I have in mind. In many church assemblies one is not allowed to share things that one believes are true if they are not in line with what is taught in that assembly. I don't think such a putting a lid on anything that does not line up with what is considered acceptable is...well...Scriptural. That type of control causes more division. Because what are those supposed to do who really and honestly believe that the Lord wants them to share something that does not line up with what is taught in their assemblies? Keep it to themselves? That would be to violate their conscience before the Lord who may want them to share it. Share it anyway? That would cause strife and lead to divisiveness. So what is one to do? Leave and go elsewhere seems like the only viable alternative but what if the new church does the same thing? There is something wrong with that approach I think. Instead I want one's who believe they are gifted as teachers or prophets to freely exercise their supposed gifts. We won't learn to operate in our gifts if not given the opportunity to potentially fall on our faces by exercising them. With the risk that we may end up saying something out of line or otherwise. I want to blow open the gifts of God within the Church by fostering an atmosphere where one's can share freely. Subject to others within the Chruch judging what is said before the Body. Just as it says to do in 1 Corinthians 14:29 about judging whatever prophesies are said. On the site I create I will allow others to post what they feel the Lord wants them to share with the local Body of Christians (I won't repeat this again but when I say Body I mean the Body of all true Christians in a local vicinity). I don't care if they are degreed theologians or the lowliest of saints tending sheep. If they feel they have something to share with the Body then I will encourage that they share it. I may not post everything that everyone wants to share on the site for the Body to see but if something is Scripturally plausible I will post it. Sure...there will be some controversy with this approach. I won't just post that which lines up with what I believe. I an inclined to believe for example that one cannot loose their salvation if they have been genuinely saved. But I also believe that their is some Scriptural plausibility to the idea that one can loose their salvation based on some verses that I know. So I would post such a "contrary" belief. At all times encouraging those in the Body to make up their own minds before God and to NEVER act toward other brethren in a condemning way because they happen to believe differently. Secondly and perhaps just as importantly I will allow everyone to talk about whatever they want to talk about. Just as we are all free to do with friends. There will be no rules that will not allow people to talk about things that the Lord Himself would have no problem with. Again there may be problems with this approach in that some might start talking about things that might not be appropriate but again, if that is the case, it will not be something the Lord would approve of and as such I will put a stop to that. I say I a lot in this because regretably I will be the main person funding this and getting it off the ground intiailly. But in time it is my earnest hope that the Lord will raise up others to come alongside of me and participate with me in keeping this on track to honor God. I don't rightly know where this will go but I do feel that there is a need for something different than what exists in our modern day churches. Perhaps it's more appropriate to say, instead of different, something that gets back to what they practiced in the New Testament church. Just today I was reading 1 Corinthians 14 again. There is NOTHING like that in the North American Christian churches. NOTHING! Why not? Did Paul waste his breath to say what he did? If one believes that the gifts are for today as they were during New Testament times the question as to why what is described in 1 Cor 14 is not happening today becomes even more pressing. I see no reason whatsoever that it can't happen just as Paul said. The reason it doesn't, in my opinion, is that we as a Church are not giving one's in the Body the opportunity to exercise their gifts as the Spirit of God prompts them to do so. I want to give one's that freedom - even in the full understanding that mistakes will be made. Anyway that's just some more details of what I had in mind. Carlos PS. Thanks to you Another Traveler and Smalcald for your thoughts as well. Much, much appreciated. Excellent input and advice. Thanks especially to you Another Traveler for taking the time to post your long response. I know how long these things sometimes take. I am fully aware of the tremendous responsibility involved in what I am talking about by the way but I can't just sit here and do nothing. To do nothing is out of the question. To get involved in your typical Sunday church assembly is also likewise out of the question for me. God knows I have tried such. I am like a round peg trying to fit into a square hole in most local churches. I just don't fit. Never have and don't think I ever will. My eyes are not on the way things are done now but rather on the way things were done in the New Testament. It has been my experience that new wine (actually more like the really old stuff from the New Testament days ) is not very acceptable as a matter of practice by most existing church leaders. No matter how good the wine or how wonderfully it reflects the Lord. Most church leaders are content to have things as they are. I am not.

I sometimes get into a state of mind where I ponder what I have done with my life and what the Lord might want me to do with whatever I have left. During one such time a couple of days ago or so, I read the following verse.... The quote is from the NASB version of the Bible. Just wondering what you all think of this verse. I definitely want to devote whatever time I have left in this world to getting the gospel out. To church planting. And all manner of things associated with that. I know that might sound rather presumptious of me giving that I have NEVER planted a church and such but recently the Lord led me to realize all the more that I have some kind of gift for communicating truth from God. Tying that with my desire to start a new kind of church that I have had for years and well...what can I say . It may be God's will for me to indeed be involved in church planting. Time will tell. But what I am wondering is...should I aim to make a living from the gospel based on this verse? When I say that I don't mean to aim to become some hot shot televangelist or anything of the sort. I am not sure what I should do to make a living from the gospel if indeed I should aim for that. Is it wrong to aim for that? I don't think so but...what do you all think? I mean I've only got so much time in any given day. I have also had a desire to start an internet based business such that I could then move anywhere in the world that I would want. But if I focus on that I won't have time to also focus on what the Lord seems to be prompting me to do. Namely start a local church by using the Internet to bring Christians together. If I aim to make a living from the gospel...how would I prevent that from affecting what I get involved in doing such that I only end up focusing on only those activities that might generate income for myself? I think it would be more proper for me to just do what the Lord seems to want me to do and let the Lord provide for me through it. But the verses I quoted and those in context seem to lean more strongly in the direction of one actually aiming to make money from the gospel. Not just trusting God to provide as they do gospel things. I don't know. I've never thought this through completely and would like to pick your all's brains on this if anyone wants to pipe up and say something about the whole issue of making money from the gospel. I know I won't get rich but can I look at the gospel like I would a good business as a good way of making a living? Based on these verses? Not saying that is right neccessarily but it sure seems like one could look at making a living through the gospel that way. Don't know. As usual any thoughts from anyone are greatly appreciated. Carlos

I have a domain that I had in mind to use for this but after looking at other domain names it seems preferable to use one that reflects what I am talking about better. It's surprising how many wonderfully appropriate domains there are that fit what I have in mind...well...just perfectly. It's almost as if the Lord has reserved them for me . If you all don't mind giving me a bit more input can I get input on what domain ending might be best to use? I am thinking of .ORG, .INFO, .NET, or even .CA (for Canada) domain endings. Keep in mind that the first domain I register for this will be focused on reaching out to local Christians in the city where I live. But...if the Lord does a wonderful work through my first domain...I believe He will want other domains focused on other cities to also be similarly used. Each domain will be named to reflect the church in a city. The ONE church of Christ in that city. But I don't want to call them churchofchrist whatever since that will be too confusing with a potential association with the Church of Christ denomination. I am leaning in the direction of creating domains with a .ORG or .INFO ending. .COM is definitely out since that is normally associated with a business. .CA is good. Perhaps as good as .ORG or .INFO. The problem with a .CA domain is that not being a Canadian citizen I may eventually loose the ability to renew that domain if I move from Canada. Still...that might not be a problem either since I don't plan to be the never, ending big cheese of this thing. I want the Lord to raise up other men to lead this thing along with me such that I could disappear and what is of the Lord would continue. Anyway...which domain ending sounds good to ya all and why? I guess any of them are good. Better than none heh? But I thought I would ask in case anyone had any good input on this. Carlos

Howdy refugepsa91! Nice to see you again...I guess LOL. I am so sorry but it's been so long that I can't quite recall who you are but I am sure our association must have been a positive one or I wouldn't have received such a gracious welcome from you! Thanks very much. I actually don't know if I should go and hide now that I have been rediscovered again or not . Not that I said anything bad per se before but I think I was perhaps a bit brash in how I posted back then. The Lord has since done a marvelous work in my heart and has softened me up a bit I think in terms of how I say things. At least I hope so. Don't know how involved I will get in Worthy forums again but if I do...I guess we will see . Carlos

Excellent thoughts ya all. Much, much appreciated. - go ahead and start what you are talking about and see what the Lord might do. - be aware that unless it is Him that does things your work is in vain. Abide in Him and lean on Him to bear fruit. - do what is right by Him to do and let the Lord worry about how people will react. Don't sweat the reaction of others. I took some liberty to paraphrase what you all said but I think that about covers it. I was talking to another church leader, locally tonight about all this and was refreshed to see once again that many of the principles of how a church should be are rather clear in the Word. Plurality of leadership, elders = pastors and pastors = elders, no board of elders, no associate pastors, no women in leadership positions having authority over men, liberty to exercise various spiritual gifts under the leadership of the Holy Spirit without having to get permission every time one wants to open their mouth, and so on. It's all there in black and white. This particular leader did not neccessarily agree with everything I just listed (women's roles is a big one that many leaders seem to be hesitant to embrace). The problem is that although many leaders realize some or all of these things and more besides, few; very, very few, are willing to do much about it. Most don't want to cause waves. They don't want to rock the boat. They don't want to risk their livelihood. It was also interesting to hear him tell me that he knows of someone who actually started a church over the Internet! I thought that was interesting. I will have to find out who that is specifically and go and pick his brain . Anyway...thanks again. Carlos