Jump to content

Doing Greater Things


Recommended Posts

"Doing Greater Things"

 

"There’s a wonderful passage that has intrigued me; I’m sure it has raised questions in your mind. It’s in the 14th chapter of John, the 12th verse, where Jesus says to his disciples: "The work that I do, ye shall do," and then he adds this, "and greater works than these shall you do, because I go unto my Father."

 

"I remember reading that as a boy and asking the very serious question: Why is it that we can’t do what Jesus did? The works that Jesus did were amazing. He walked on water, he healed the blind, he made the lame to walk, he even raised up the dead. If Jesus was for real in his statement, then we should be able to do the things that Jesus did. And listen to this: greater works -- greater works! -- we should be able to do because he has gone to be with the father.

 

(snip)

 

"When I asked my pastor about that when I was a young boy he said it’s because we don’t have enough faith. That didn’t quite wash with me because Jesus doesn’t say you might do it if you have enough faith. He says, you will do it. I think that the problem is this, that we are so impressed with the power of God that we fail to see that the miracles are not about his power but about his love. What Jesus did he did not so much to demonstrate his power but to express his love. How many times does he perform a miracle and say to the people who benefit: don’t tell anybody, keep it quiet; I don’t want people to get the wrong idea.

 

(snip)

 

"This is what the gospel’s about. It’s about love. We can’t duplicate the power of Jesus. I mean we can’t walk on water. I don’t have the ability to raise up people from the dead, neither do you. But this we do have, the opportunity to express the love of Jesus. and when it comes to the bottom line, Jesus was more committed to expressing love than showing off his power.

 

"I was in Haiti. I checked on our missionary work there. We run 75 small schools back in the hills of Haiti. I came to the little Holiday Inn where I always stay and shower and clean up before I board the plane to go home. I left the taxi and was walking to the entrance of the Holiday Inn when I was intercepted by three girls. I call them girls because the oldest could not have been more than 15. And the one in the middle said, "Mister, for $10 I’ll do anything you want me to do. I’ll do it all night long. Do you know what I mean?"

 

"I did know what she meant. I turned to the next one and I said, "What about you, could I have you for $10?"

 

"She said yes. I asked the same of the third girl. She tried to mask her contempt for me with a smile but it’s hard to look sexy when your 15 and hungry. I said, "I’m in room 210, you be up there in just 10 minutes. I have $30 and I’m going to pay for all 3 of you to be with me all night long."

 

"I rushed up to the room, called down to the concierge desk and I said I want every Walt Disney video that you’ve got in stock. I called down to the restaurant and said, do you still make banana splits in this town, because if you do I want banana splits with extra ice cream, extra everything. I want them delicious, I want them huge, I want four of them!

 

"The little girls came and the ice cream came and the videos came and we sat at the edge of the bed and we watched the videos and laughed until about one in the morning. That’s when the last of them fell asleep across the bed. And as I saw those little girls stretched out asleep on the bed, I thought to myself, nothing’s changed, nothing’s changed. Tomorrow they will be back on the streets selling their little bodies to dirty, filthy johns because there will always be dirty, filthy johns who for a few dollars will destroy little girls. Nothing’s changed. I didn’t know enough Creole to tell them about the salvation story, but the word of the spirit said this: but for one night, for one night you let them be little girls again.

 

"I know what you’re going to say: "You’re not going to compare that with Jesus walking on water." No, I’m not, for very obvious reasons. If Jesus was to make a decision which is the greater work, walking on water or giving one night of childhood back to 3 little girls who had it robbed from them -- giving one night of joy to 3 little girls that armies had marched over -- which do you think Jesus would consider the greater work, walking on water or ministering to those 3 little girls.

 

"And Jesus said, "The work that I do, Ye shall do and greater works than these shall Ye do because I go unto my Father." I can’t replicate the power acts of God in Jesus Christ, but every time I perform an act of love in his name, I am imitating Jesus and he is saying, "Well done thou good and faithful servant."

 

Tony Campolo, Evangelist :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I diagree with a good bit of Campolo's teaching and views. But I am in COMPLETE agreement with his desire to minister to the least of these. Search online for a similar story called "Agnes' birthday," another story of compassion from him. (Lolly, you will need your kleenex again)

 

You guys know I'm pretty conservative, but I just want to reiterate that you progressives don't corner the market on love and compassion. :D

 

My pastor said a few weeks ago, "You can be liberal in love, and conservative in doctrine." That's exactly how I feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't agree that he was a conservative. To this board, maybe, but not in the whole spectrum. I read his recent book, and there's quite a lot that someone of a conservative bent would have a problem with. I think he has actually had some issues with prominent conservatives.

 

All that said...NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE, who remotely claims the name of Christ, should have any disagreement with his desire to minister to the downtrodden. His radical compassion is sobering and inspiring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Doing Greater Things"

 

"There’s a wonderful passage that has intrigued me; I’m sure it has raised questions in your mind. It’s in the 14th chapter of John, the 12th verse, where Jesus says to his disciples: "The work that I do, ye shall do," and then he adds this, "and greater works than these shall you do, because I go unto my Father."

 

 

Great story!, but the damnedest thing...I thought about this very scripture all day today. What brought it on was an encounter with a website authored by a guy who claims to be James, the Apostle, Brother of Jesus reincarnate. And I'm thinking...why? do we need to be James or Jesus or Alexander the Great? Why is it that we don't recognize the incredible place in Gods Purpose that the human race serves, and not as angels, not as disembodied spirits, but as flesh and blood? Didn't he say "and greater works than these shall YOU do,..."?

 

I have many thoughts on this and absolutely no time right now...

 

but I'll be back,

 

lily

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>You guys know I'm pretty conservative, but I just want to reiterate that you progressives don't corner the market on love and compassion.

 

Not hardly, darby. (hey that rhymes, sort of)

 

Anyway, I think Campolo would be considered a moderate, no?

 

 

--des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My pastor said a few weeks ago, "You can be liberal in love, and conservative in doctrine."  That's exactly how I feel.

 

You know what darby? I actually consider myself quite conservative as regards doctrine. I do not support an "anything goes Christianity" at all. What separates the orthodox from the unorthodox is the question of authority. The unorthodox want to obey God and not men as the scriptures teach. That does not mean that we do not have teachers or those in "the Way" who have progressed farther along who can point us in the right direction. It means (at least to me) that Christ in us is the ultimate authority and not man.

 

It is my belief that the role of the Pope in the RCC is actually the role given to all who are called in Christ; that one man, chosen much in the same way as we choose political leaders, is NOT the only mediator between God and the creation; that ALL the sons of God are called to be mediators of Gods Will.

 

For those of us who are "babes in Christ", the Church is a good mother and Her milk nourishes our growth. But we are supposed to grow up into full grown Sons weaned from the Tit. This does not mean that we have to leave the Church at any point (or shouldn't), only that the Church needs to realize that the "milk" of the simple faith: Christ Crucified, Repentance from dead works, baptisms and etc only take the developing Christian so far.

 

It is my belief that many of us leave the Church because we are starving to death. We are ready for more solid food and keep being told that the "milk" should be enough. Some of us turn to other traditions outside Christianity to taste a bit of "herb", a bit of "strong-meat", but this should not be so IMO. All the nourishment we'll ever need is found in Christ. The problem is that the Churches' don't want "full-grown" sons. (and this is not just a RCC problem either...the non-denominationals may even be worse in my experience.) Full-grown sons are not so easy to handle. And not just the "Churches" either, but our own "brethren" will hold us back, because heaven forbid that any of us should grow beyond the common denominator Christian walk. As Jesus is reported to have said, "Your enemies will be those in your own Household".

 

When I first joined this site I mentioned that I believe in a tripartite salvation: salvation of spirit (the outer court), salvation of soul (the inner court) and salvation of the body (the most holy place). I believe this corresponds with "milk", "herbs", and "strong meat", as it does with "the called", "the chosen" and "the faithful". The problem with most Christian churches is that they stop at "milk" for the "called"....which is salvation of spirit by grace, the "once saved always saved" doctrine. But this is not the end of the matter.

 

 

lily

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lilly,

 

I'm curious as to how you define spirit, soul and body. Are they seperate? Are they the same thing? Do you define them based on the original Hebrew and Greek usages? Whats the word ... etymology? (spelling?) :D Do you use them in an "original" sense (your own meaning and usage) or did you come to an understanding in the way you use them from some where else?

 

LOL! Sorry, many questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lilly,

 

I'm curious as to how you define spirit, soul and body. Are they seperate? Are they the same thing? Do you define them based on the original Hebrew and Greek usages? Whats the word ... etymology? (spelling?)  :D Do you use them in an "original" sense (your own meaning and usage) or did you come to an understanding in the way you use them from some where else?

 

LOL! Sorry, many questions.

 

If I understand your question correctly...then, yes, I believe that spirit is distinct from soul. I would use the Hebrew etymology....nephesh = soul, ruach = spirit. I believe in an eternal spirit, not an eternal soul...which is why, I suppose, I have problems with "channeling" and individuals claiming the personalities of those who have "passed" into the underworld through reincarnation. I believe that the "soul" is the seat of personality and that this is not eternal. This passes away with the flesh at death. The "salvation of the soul" is therefore this worldly...it comes to those "who die before they die" and ushers in the Christ nature in this life. I also believe that the "salvation of the body" is this worldly; that our bodies are actually and literally changed by the "renewing of the mind" and in a particularly "religious" view of evolution, I believe that the 'changed bodies" of the "faithful"....evolve the body of humanity in general (our thoughts literally evolve our bodies) and All of Creation Herself. I believe that the "faithful" experience the Kingdom of God in their own flesh. Sort of a Christians view of Rupert Sheldrakes "morphogenetic fields".

 

Are these my thoughts? Hardly. I believe the Bible points us in this direction. But they may be a personal compilation of thought, my own sense of things, certainly...or, my own interpretation if you prefer.

 

lily

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lilly,

 

I'm curious as to how you define spirit, soul and body. Are they seperate? Are they the same thing? Do you define them based on the original Hebrew and Greek usages? Whats the word ... etymology? (spelling?)  :D Do you use them in an "original" sense (your own meaning and usage) or did you come to an understanding in the way you use them from some where else?

 

LOL! Sorry, many questions.

 

If I understand your question correctly...then, yes, I believe that spirit is distinct from soul. I would use the Hebrew etymology....nephesh = soul, ruach = spirit. I believe in an eternal spirit, not an eternal soul...which is why, I suppose, I have problems with "channeling" and individuals claiming the personalities of those who have "passed" into the underworld through reincarnation. I believe that the "soul" is the seat of personality and that this is not eternal. This passes away with the flesh at death. The "salvation of the soul" is therefore this worldly...it comes to those "who die before they die" and ushers in the Christ nature in this life. I also believe that the "salvation of the body" is this worldly; that our bodies are actually and literally changed by the "renewing of the mind" and in a particularly "religious" view of evolution, I believe that the 'changed bodies" of the "faithful"....evolve the body of humanity in general (our thoughts literally evolve our bodies) and All of Creation Herself. I believe that the "faithful" experience the Kingdom of God in their own flesh. Sort of a Christians view of Rupert Sheldrakes "morphogenetic fields".

 

Are these my thoughts? Hardly. I believe the Bible points us in this direction. But they may be a personal compilation of thought, my own sense of things, certainly...or, my own interpretation if you prefer.

 

lily

I, too, generally subscribe to these notions of the terms. Many writers, including Ken Wilber, would define the "soul" as the final seat of the "person's " identity, which he believes through further evolution in awareness can ultimately melt into identity with the Divine. The only question than is when does the "soul" pass away-obviously possible for such not to occur after physical death and most likely doesn't-that would leave open the possibility for some sort of communication with those still in corporeal form. don't have to be psychic to communicate either, apparently-some interesting books have been written on what is termed "after-death" communications between deceased folk and their still very much living loved ones. It seems buddhists have no better idea how to relate to such stuff than traditional christians judging from the discussionI've seen re this thing @ the buddhist forum where I hang out :) Their response is to spout the standard Buddhist belief that the only permanent thing is impermanence-i.e., all changes. true but doesn't stipulate the time-line for change or the nature of that state change does it? As for doing greater things than Christ as mentioned in the Bible. i interpret that line to in part suggest that Jesus was saying that ultimately we are of the same nature as he. But alos love the story posted. buddhists speak of 2 types of "special powers," or siddhis: worldly siddhis and non-worldly. the first correspond to various supernormal abilities and the second to the rare ability of enlightened wisdom and compassion. Buddha and follwers point out that the second is really what it's all about. Take care, Earl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understand your question correctly...then, yes, I believe that spirit is distinct from soul. I would use the Hebrew etymology....nephesh = soul, ruach = spirit. I believe in an eternal spirit, not an eternal soul...

 

I asked mostly because I was taught as a JW something very different from the common understanding of soul and spirit that most Christians have, but perhaps was closer to what the early Hebrews believed?

 

In JW theology the body of man was combined with the animating force of God (breath of life or spirit) to create a living person (soul). Basically body + breath = living soul. In JW theology there is no immortal anything. Nothing that survives death. They hope in a resurrection to earth.

 

When I left JW's, I automatically (in knee jerk fashion) hopped on board the "pre-existence" train. I believed that humans have an immortal soul or spirit (it's frustrating that those words are interchanged when they mean such different things) that existed prior to being made corporeal on this earth and that after death, we go "back". I developed the attitude that we are on "Earth School" to learn corporeal lessons, perhaps with reincarnation happening until we learn all our lessons.

 

Now I've come back around to the idea that perhaps we DIDN'T have a pre-existence. The Herbrew scriptures don't seem to teach that we do. I think the idea that we incarnate just to "learn" is illogical as well.

 

However, I haven't discarded the idea that we might have an afterlife. Perhaps something happens at death, not a pre-existent immortal soul leaving the body, but perhaps we are changed into something else? The Christian scriptures seem to allow that that is the case or hope.

 

I'm not saying that the Christian message is heaven salvation oriented. I don't believe that. I believe that "salvation" is about TODAY. It's about now. But perhaps it's also MORE than about NOW. Perhaps it's both.

 

Some Christian theologies teach that this earth is just a way station. That it's all about heaven. I don't believe that. However, other Christian theologies seem to be going in the extreme opposite direction and saying it's ONLY about now. I think this is unfortunate, because I don't believe that either.

 

I really appreciate your sharing your thoughts. You've helped me think along lines I might not have on my own. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i interpret that line to in part suggest that Jesus was saying that ultimately we are of the same nature as he.

 

I'm starting to wander away from some "esoteric" views towards Jesus purpose or meaning and perhaps wandering towards some that are more "Orthodox" or traditional in nature. This may change. Time will tell. That doesn't make me Orthodox by any stretch. I'm sure I would still be branded a heretic by many. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this item has gone off topic, but I have to say, Lilly and Alethia, I agree with very much from both of you. While heaven (eternity) is certainly the end goal, the most important to me, I very much believe I have good works to do on this earth, a purpose, designed for me by God before I was formed. It's awesome to think that as all-powerful as He is, He uses US to be his hands and feet.

 

Re milk/meat--totally agree. I hate to always say, "at my church we do this..." but it's true--we try to get into the deeper things of the faith. I think the fact that we are non-denominational is huge--we don't have certain things we have to teach on certain Sundays, etc. As my pastor says, "let's just open the Bible, listen to the Holy Spirit, and do church." Very freeing--not caught up in traditions of men. We just have to be careful--we can quickly develop man-made traditions ourselves--very easy/comfortable to fall into.

 

Re once saved always saved. My position on this has changed. We went through a study at church, and there are many verses to back this up--verses about security of the believer, etc. Then we read many verses that talk about continuing in the faith, enduring to the end to be saved, etc. Which one is true? Both, I say. There is security for the believer, but there is a doing, enduring act of Christianity as well. The safe thing--abine in the Vine. As long as we are abiding, we're in a great place.

 

Back to the original post--anyone read "Agnes' birthday?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darby,

 

First off "wander away" along any topic lines in this thread that you want. :D I really didn't intend the thread to have a definite topic, although discussing "greater things" could be very encouraging and fun.

 

Reg "Agnes' Birthday", I will look it up and read it straight away. I'm gonna have to hurry and read my Philip Yancey books so that I can go and get some Campolo books. LOL! My library, I swear it is HUGE!

 

There is another story from the websight that had the Campolo study that I want to share as well. I'll excerpt it later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darby said:

It's awesome to think that as all-powerful as He is, He uses US to be his hands and feet.

 

 

Oh gee, I have always loved this concept!!!

So something else (some of us can agree on anyway :-)).

 

 

--des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mother Teresa had this to say:

 

Be the loving expression

of God's kindness;

kindness in your eyes,

kindness in your face,

kindness in your smile,

kindness in your warm greetings.

We are all but His instruments

who do our little bit and pass by,

I believe that the way in which

an act of kindness is done

is as important as the action itself.

 

in The Joy in Loving: Mother Teresa

 

 

 

 

Aletheia - Phillip Yancey made it possible for me to go to church. It's been a good thing.... something I never thought I would do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert E. Lee

 

O Almighty and Everlasting God, Creator of Heaven, Earth and the Universe, help me to be, to think, to act what is right, because it is right. Make me truthful, honest, and honorable in all things; make me intellectually honest for the sake of right and honor and without thought of reward to me. Give me the ability to be charitable, forgiving and patient with my fellow men. Help me to understand their motives and their shortcomings, even as thou understandest mine! Amen.

 

 

Wow - that's a tall order :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re once saved always saved.  My position on this has changed.  We went through a study at church, and there are many verses to back this up--verses about security of the believer, etc.  Then we read many verses that talk about continuing in the faith, enduring to the end to be saved, etc.  Which one is true?  Both, I say.  There is security for the believer, but there is a doing, enduring act of Christianity as well.  The safe thing--abine in the Vine.  As long as we are abiding, we're in a great place.

 

The way I understand it currently is this: Our *spirits* are regenerated at our conversion; a "new spirit" is awakened within us. This *salvation* is without repentence and this regenerated *spirit* is what informs and guides the "working out of our salvation" in the "salvation of soul" and "salvation of body".

 

Our regenerated spirit equips us to work our spiritual salvation *outward* so that it manifests in the soul realm (our personalities and identities) and ultimately into the material realm or *body* (which you all know by now I believe to include the Land or Earth as our bodies are *one flesh* with the Earth and ALL is the Lords Body).

 

So, essentially, salvation is a process, "line upon line, precept upon precept" until our regenerated spirits brings us to full manifestation of Gods glory or to the full manifestation of the Sons of God.

 

Salvation of spirit is a gift of grace and requires no "works", but only faith to receive. The other two, my friends, must be "worked out with fear and trembling", for "strait is the gate and narrow the way and few their be that find it". To progress pass the "salvation of spirit" into full manifestation requires "being in the world, but not of it", "laying down our lives", and "dying before you die", so that it is "no longer you who live, but Christ that lives in you", and "many are called, but few are chosen".

 

It is my belief that the "early church" was an initiatory church. That not all were taught the same things, but each according to where they were in "process". The "orthodox" church, thinking these things too difficult, attempted to stop process at our initial salvation and to refute that any among us could go on to fully manifest as a "son of God", and called this doctrine or teaching heresy.

 

Now we look at scriptures such as "and greater things shall you do" and wonder what in the world He could have meant. It is my belief that He meant exactly what He said.

 

The tabernacle is a pattern or type of the inner world of man. The "outer court" is where we all enter through the salvation of spirit. But we are not meant to stay in the outer court but to push on into the "inner court" or the "salvation of our souls" and then ultimately we push on into the "most holy place" and the full manifestation of Sonship.

 

How does this "sit" with you guys? One of the problems with this teaching is that we are not accustomed to thinking in terms of "some" of us advancing farther along the "Way" than others. Our egos don't like this much. Some of the early Church fathers didn't like it much either and so attempted to keep us all in the "outer court" and from "entering in", or deeper in. But the scripture is clear. The "many" are called or receive the salvation of spirit by grace, but "few" are chosen ie few are those who press in unto the salvation of soul, and by logical extension, as there is no "fooling God", fewer still who press on into the full manifestation of Sonship.

 

I look forward to hearing your thoughts,

 

 

lily

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found an interesting take on "many are called but few are chosen" online. Here is what it had to say:

 

Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.

 

“Then he sent some more servants and said, ‘Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.’

 

“But they paid no attention and went off--one to his field, another to his business. The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.

 

“Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.

 

“But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. ‘Friend,’ he asked, ‘how did you get in here without wedding clothes?’ The man was speechless.

 

“Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

 

“For many are invited, but few are chosen.”

 

—Matthew 22:1-14, NIV

 

It is easy to misunderstand the word “many” in the New Testament, because it has slightly different meanings in Greek and in English. In both languages, it refers to a large group. In English, “many” is restrictive, but in Greek it is inclusive. In other words, if I say “many of the people came” in English, it implies that most of them did not. If I said the equivalent of “many of the people came” in Greek, it would imply that practically everyone did.

 

In this case, we are dealing with a Greek usage that divides the whole into two unequal parts, which are called the many and the few. In Greek you might say, “The many are on time, but the few are late.” The English equivalent is, “Most are on time, but some are late.” In Greek, “the many” and “the few” add up to everyone; just as in English, “most” and “some” add up to everyone.

 

In this parable, everyone was invited to the wedding, but the invitation went out in two waves. The respectable people were invited first, but they did not heed the invitation or they only pretended to accept. They lied, the pretended, but the result is that they didn’t show up. So the king told his slaves to send out the invitation again to the people who were not originally on the invitation list, and these people actually did show up. One of them was not wearing a wedding garment, so he was thrown out. In those days, the host furnished the wedding garments, so anyone who wasn’t properly dressed was very disrespectful.

 

In the end, everyone had been invited, but only a few were permitted to stay for the wedding. In other words, everyone is called, but some people refuse the invitation and are not chosen.

Edited by AletheiaRivers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end, everyone had been invited, but only a few were permitted to stay for the wedding. In other words, everyone is called, but some people refuse the invitation and are not chosen.

 

sorry in taking so long to get back to you Aletheia. I've actually composed two separate posts since yesterday and decided against sending either one of them. I just want to say that the emphasis, imo, is not on the "few" or the "many" but on the fact that we are all called to be sons of God. That's the main thing.

 

I don't know if any of you will relate to what I'm about to say...but sometimes I get what we "non-denominationals" call a "stop in my spirit"...or, if you prefer, a voice of conscience telling me to be quiet. I'm endeavoring to obey.

 

 

lily

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry in taking so long to get back to you Aletheia.

No problem. I've been painting the house again. Busy busy busy. If it's not home improvement, it's yard work. :D

I've actually composed two separate posts since yesterday and decided against sending either one of them. I just want to say that the emphasis, imo, is not on the "few" or the "many" but on the fact that we are all called to be sons of God. That's the main thing.

The webpage I quoted on the few and the many is the first one that popped up when I googled the scripture. I don't know if I agree with what the author wrote or not, but you asked for "thoughts", so I googled and that is what I found. It made me go "hmmmm", but not "By jove, that's the absolute truth!"

 

I googled the scripture not because I don't agree with you, but because I have NO EXPERIENCE with any of this outside of being a Jehovah's Witness.

 

I KNOW how JW's interpret that scripture, but I don't agree with them. So, because I had no words of my own to offer, I did a web search.

I don't know if any of you will relate to what I'm about to say...but sometimes I get what we "non-denominationals" call a "stop in my spirit"...or, if you prefer, a voice of conscience telling me to be quiet. I'm endeavoring to obey.

I just hope you are not being quiet because you feel that I am saying you are wrong or that I am being argumentative. I'm not. I've said in two or three posts now that I LIKE what you have to say. You make me think. You have broadened my horizons. :D

 

I'm starting to get worried that my posts are not conveying the happy, conversational attitude that I want them to. :(

Edited by AletheiaRivers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lily - I just read about the "stop" as the discipline of silence - basically only speaking (eh... writing) when you actually feel moved by the Holy Spirit to do so. I'm impressed! I am working up to that discipline. God is helping me... everytime I try to talk and explain something that has been misunderstood (in the real world) I am soundly punished :lol: .... two ears, one mouth.... I'm starting to catch on! ;)

 

 

Aletheia - I think you're funny, interesting, thoughtful and ALWAYS well-intentioned in your posts. Happy painting! :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just hope you are not being quiet because you feel that I am saying you are wrong or that I am being argumentative. I'm not. I've said in two or three posts now that I LIKE what you have to say. You make me think. You have broadened my horizons.  :D

 

I'm starting to get worried that my posts are not conveying the happy, conversational attitude that I want them to.  :(

 

Oh no no, Aletheia, not at all. My quiet is not a reaction to you. I did not feel that you were being argumentative in the least. I always look forward to your posts.

 

No worries :)

 

 

lily

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service