Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Human without the bean

    Triple Movie Links Game

    I'm glad someone broke through with the clue Next of Kin because I drew a blank. Mr. Brooks Dane Cook Good Luck Chuck
  3. WordWolf

    Triple Movie Links Game

    Patrick Swayze Ghost Demi Moore
  4. WordWolf

    Movie Mash-Up

    ""I'd better sit up." ["Need any help?" "Oh... all I can get." ""Hey, maybe you should eat somethin' first." "No thanks, food makes me sick."
  5. WordWolf

    Hi

    I'm glad you're benefiting from the posts. Personally, I think it's better to post with a bit more kindness, as it is friendlier for the readers who don't post here. The usual argument against that includes people who say that there's nobody doing that- and I obviously can't prove they do because they don't post! :) I'm glad you've been helped when you weren't posting, and also now that you are. There's an old poem I heard about in twi. It sums up why I keep hoping new people find us and read around the forums. The Bridge Builder By Will Allen Dromgoole An old man going a lone highway, Came, at the evening cold and gray, To a chasm vast and deep and wide. Through which was flowing a sullen tide The old man crossed in the twilight dim, The sullen stream had no fear for him; But he turned when safe on the other side And built a bridge to span the tide. “Old man,” said a fellow pilgrim near, “You are wasting your strength with building here; Your journey will end with the ending day, You never again will pass this way; You’ve crossed the chasm, deep and wide, Why build this bridge at evening tide?” The builder lifted his old gray head; “Good friend, in the path I have come,” he said, “There followed after me to-day A youth whose feet must pass this way. This chasm that has been as naught to me To that fair-haired youth may a pitfall be; He, too, must cross in the twilight dim; Good friend, I am building this bridge for him.”
  6. Raf

    Thus Saith Paul

    A distinction, yes. A dispensational distinction? No. One instruction is pre crucifixion. The other is post resurrection. You don't need to inject anything to draw that scriptural distinction. Jesus explicitly told the 12, post resurrection, to preach to the Gentiles. They didn't. Paul wasn't uniquely sent to the Gentiles by Jesus. They were ALL sent to the Gentiles. Paul is the only one who took it to heart. Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom. So did the 12. So did Paul. Their audiences and timing were different. Their instructions were different. But the gospel was the same. Nobody reads Matthew 10 and follows it with Matthew 28 and then "gives up in confusion." People are smart enough to see the difference between pre crucifixion and post resurrection without resorting to the unbiblical position that the GOSPEL changed. You've employed a straw man argument with points 1 and 2 and falsely present 3 as the only logical alternative. Your premises are false and your conclusion is falsely presented as the only viable alternative.
  7. Yesterday
  8. TLC

    Thus Saith Paul

    Anyone who attempts to interpret plain this [Matthew 10:5-10] commission, which forbade the disciples to go to the Gentiles, and the commission that commands the same group to go to the Gentiles (Matt. 28:19-20) either (1) gives up in confusion or (2) resorts to spiritualizing one of the passages or (3) recognizes a dispensational distinction.
  9. Hey, annio! It's quite something, isn't it, when the scales start falling from the eyes! You won't untangle everything all at once, so don't beat yourself up about it. You will soon work out what's most important for you to know, to understand, to put right. I'd say (though others here would differ) that the Lord will show you where you need to start. If you are attending a church of any kind, how do the people interact? Does it seem forced, too friendly, not friendly enough; do they seem to care for each other without being intrusive in each other's lives? How do the leaders behave? Quietly, humbly, approachably, listening; or overbearingly / dictatorially / or otherwise a bit uncomfortably? It's okay, you can check out various churches. Or, should the desire take you, check out non-Christian organisations. I try to love God; love my fellow human beings and try to help them; and try not to be too cynical or jaundiced when people say things that seem a bit "off" (you and I probably say/said wacky things too in early recovery mode!)
  10. Hey folks! Let me know if I should try to find a thread that already is on this topic... To restate something from a reply I just posted, maybe my Trust-o-Meter is functioning well enough that I can now return here to GSC and interact more... This past week I have had several marathons in which I read lots here; so helpful to see various POVs, individual ways of processing, different folks' experiences, and DWBH's posts re: restorative justice and not sweeping abuses under the rug. Again, thank you SO MUCH for keeping this site up and running bros and sis's!! Rebuilding trust post vpw w/ new spiritual sight and confidence re: doctrine/Biblical interpretaton- It was a good exercise to stop and separate what "the teacher" stole from others, and what was original to his dossier/public pontificatings. Yes! The latter was a bunch of hog wash phooey! Damn! And when it came to teaching re: the non-virgin birth, getting all excited re: Esther's preparation for her big night with the king, ETC ETC... That doctrinal sexualizing (along with the accompanying filthy practice) was a factor that resulted in powerful men feeling entitled to helping themselves to young women, with a trickle down effect, and in personal injury for the victims, myself included. This is one area of vpw's many slippery slidings, of course, but is the one that I am focusing on in recovery right now. It has been so good to have the veil lifted re: the BLATANT PLAGUERIZING AND ALL OF THE IMAGE BUILDING, NARCISSISM, MANIPULATIONS OF ALL SORTS. I could write much more, but for now will just say that I am so very glad, along with several others here at GSC, that Jesus and the Father will be the final JUSTICE/INJUSTICE NAMERS. And 2 Peter 2:21 "It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them." WOW!!! Leaving the final judgment up to God and Jesus, getting in my punches here and there, and going on my merry way! Blessings to all this fine day!!! <3 <3 <3
  11. annio

    Hi

    Hey wonderful reply-ers, perhaps you will see this response made over a year after your kind responses?! Do appreciate them!! ( Maybe my Trust-o-Meter is functioning well enough that I can now return here to GSC and interact more... This past week I have had several marathons in which I read lots here; so helpful to see various POVs, individual ways of processing, different folks' experiences, and DWBH's posts re: restorative justice and not sweeping abuses under the rug.) Again, thank you SO MUCH for keeping this site up and running bros and sis's!! God bless!!
  12. Raf

    Thus Saith Paul

    The challenge in approaching scripture honestly is allowing the documents to speak for themselves rather than forcing them into some imaginary framework that raises more questions than it answers. Dispensationalism raises more questions than it answers. Requiring Paul's gospel to be different from the gospel of the 12 requires you to redefine the gospel, scripturally, and ignore the plain language of scripture. If you assume that the mission of Paul was distinct from the mission given to the 12 then you have to force Jesus to say things other than what the Bible says he said. The unbeliever has an alternate explanation, but it is not relevant to what scripture teaches. According to the Bible, Jesus, after his resurrection, gave the 12 instructions they did not follow. When Paul, despite originally preaching to Israel, recognized the scripture in Isaiah as authority to go to the Gentiles, he did so. And when he did, Jesus was able to reveal to Paul even more than he had before to the 12. That is what the Bible says. It is not an interpretation. It is a recitation. Acts repeatedly says Paul preached the gospel of the kingdom. So did the 12. Differences in their approach can be accounted for in the difference in their audience, but the destination, Biblically, remains the same: the gospel of the kingdom. The same gospel Jesus preached pre-crucifixion, the same gospel the 12 preached post resurrection, the same gospel Paul preached through the very last verse of Acts. Now, the skeptical view on this is not the same, but I've been holding that back. I do not need to rely on unbelief as a preconceived notion. Unbelief is a conclusion, not a preconception. The Bible teaches what it teaches, regardless of whether anyone believes it. It doesn't teach ultradispensationalism unless you decide beforehand that it does, and then you have to to ignore multiple scriptures to maintain your position. The skeptic's view of Paul is indeed different from the Bible's, but the Bible's is not the ultradispensationalist''s.
  13. Raf

    Name that Tune

    Time is on My Side Rolling Stones
  14. Raf

    Movie Mash-Up

    didn't we JUST do this one?
  15. GeorgeStGeorge

    Movie Mash-Up

    That last lines seems very familiar. George
  16. WordWolf

    Movie Mash-Up

    "Order, order. God^&%&it, I said "order". " Y'know, Nietzsche says: "Out of chaos comes order." " "Well, that's the end of this suit." "Yankee bean soup, cole slaw, and tuna surprise. " "We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately!"
  17. WordWolf

    Name that Tune

    "You'll come running back (said you would baby) You'll come running back (I said so many times before) You'll come running back to me." ""But just wait and see You'll come running back (I won't have to worry no more) You'll come running back (spend the rest of my life with you, baby) You'll come running back to me Go ahead, go ahead and light up the town."
  18. WordWolf

    Name that TV Show

    This was the recently-ended show, "the Big Bang Theory." I'm sorry to see it end, but it had to end sometime, and it ended on a good note. As Raf once pointed out about a different show, it will live on in reruns anyway.
  19. Modgellan

    Thus Saith Paul

    TLC- you earlier objected to an entire post being removed and falsely assumed Raf's feelings were hurt as the reason it was removed. I remind you now of what I wrote in the quote above. It is not Moderator's job to edit what you or anyone posts. Occasionally we will take the time to do so as a courtesy, but it is not our regular procedure. It is too time consuming. Stick to the topic, argue the topic, but stop attacking other posters.
  20. Rocky

    Thus Saith Paul

    Some people? I'd say that social science suggests that ALL people only see what they want to see. 1) That doesn't supercede the concept of communication whereby you are responsible for ensuring your message is clear to your audience. (that doesn't change the reality of the concept of communication) 2) You can't see into the heart (intentions) of those who would argue contrary to your position. Do you need chapter and verse for that one? (I can find it if so)
  21. Raf

    Thus Saith Paul

    But the directive to the 12 changed and you're acting like it never did. It makes zero sense for Jesus to change the audience of the gospel, which he explicitly did, without changing anything that accommodated its expansion (which he implicitly did: he was with them 40 days) makes no sense. To suggest he was talking during those 40 days about something other than what they needed to know to accomplish what he just ordered them to do strains credibility. You can accuse me of taking the scripture out of context all you want, but you can't do it honestly. You asked a specific question with a specific scriptural answer. Seems your problem is not with ME, but with the Bible's answer to your question.
  22. TLC

    Thus Saith Paul

    You really want to go there, Rocky? Some people will only see or hear what they want to see and hear about something, no matter when or how it's said. Now, you can say and/or pretend that's not true... but it doesn't change the reality of it. Did you ever bother to go back and read the original post that Raf is still insatiably obsessed with spinning into something it never said or meant? Probably not. Here... I'll save you the effort (as it was a bit difficult even for me to find, after realizing he was went back three pages and took it out of the context of a previous discussion.) ___________ Before his death, Jesus Christ was a minister unto the circumcision. As were the 12 apostles. Period. (If anyone can plainly show from scripture where this directive for the 12 ever changed, please do so... because I don't think it exists.) ___________ Now, maybe you interpret words differently, but no where in there is there any mention of any Gentiles. However, the context of that post referred to what authority Paul did or didn't have, and I had (in the paragraphs prior to the above sentences) just finished stating that Paul's message was different from what the 12 had been given. So, if I then go on to talk about what the 12 had (in comparison to Paul's message, logically, as the context of the discussion dictates) and say what they were teaching and doing (for the circumcision) never really changed... what the heck difference does it make whether they do or don't take a message that is designed first and foremost for Israel to the rest of the world? The simple fact remains that "the message itself" that they had (to be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, etc.) didn't change, that I can find, anywhere in scripture. Argue over words if you want, but they're not all that much different from Matt. 28:19, nor verse 20, which says "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you." Not only does Raf misconstrue and then redirect the issue towards what may, in my opinion, only be an issue of timing, he ignores and/or obfuscates any subsequent effort on my part to clarify what should be a "non-issue," and so much as calls me (oh... not me... what I say) dishonest and a liar. Well then, bullpuckey to y'all, if that's your only thought of it. Have at it. Evidently there's no interest or desire to discuss the real issues, so I'm as done with this incessant stupidity as done gets.
  23. Last week
  24. I agree, that it IS a problem. Is it the root problem? Not in my opinion. But the issue you described is definitely a problem.
  25. I'm going to have some cleaning up to do. The case described and cited on this page has been dismissed with prejudice. I do not know why, but dismissal with prejudice means the person who made the allegations is not legally permitted to do so in court again. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. It only means there's no legal case that can be brought. This is painful, because as an opponent of cult abuse, I want very much to warn people about cults and those who are associated with them. But I have to think about legal liability, not just of DWBH but of everyone who assists in maintaining this site. If I am going to err, it's going to be on the side of caution and legal protection of those who own and maintain GSC. I would rather be a coward than a co-defendant. GSC has no lawyer and no legal insurance. Stand by.
  26. Perhaps "American Christianity" itself is a problem. Think of the number of inordinately rich televangelists, and those who teach that "prosperity" means "lotsa money." Which leads to the thinking that "I'm rich, therefore that means God has blessed me." And the corollary, "You're poor. You're out of favour with God." That never has been the promise, message, offer, call it what you will, that God makes. "Prosper" in its archaic meaning (=AV/KJV) means "thrive" or "do well" - animals, plants, and activities can all "prosper" and money has nothing to do with it. More on topic with the opening post, it might be salutary to consider how other Christians' traditions fare. Those in China or Saudi Arabia, for example, or even Christians in Israel. Do they see non-Christians as "the enemy"? I think not. I think they "see" much bigger than that. They see the spiritual intent - far bigger than tribalism. The treatment meted out to such Christians can be so vicious that unless the victims were convinced of something much bigger than themselves, they wouldn't "take a stand;" instead they'd recant. Bullies will, however, always find some hook for their hat (or hatred), so it's no surprise that Christian bullies (aka legalists) find a "hate thy enemy" message instead of the real message, "love thy enemy." Why are people bullies? Ah well. Let me count the reasons...!
  27. We are dragging a lot of names into this. I'm deeply concerned about the liability issues that might be raised here. Not taking action. Just expressing concern.
  28. Maybe the first time we sat through that session we were "taught," as opposed to "taut," which may have been the case for those conducting the class. But even then, to the degree that we abstained from challenging it in our own minds, we were indoctrinated, IMO. Indeed, one can, among devotees of twi, trace the stubborn attitudes to that session. But vpw was definitely not the first to come up with ideas on how to get people to give up their personal responsibility to exercise reason and critical thinking. I wholeheartedly agree that Walter Cummins's two classes that you cited were fundamental to constructing the forms and pouring the concrete to solidify the mindset for us. Insidious, really. Of course, those two classes may not have had far reaching influence outside of twi and/or offshoots thereof. But that's why I posed the question the way I did, regarding the biblical story of the various ways the Adversary is portrayed, starting with the first one.
  1. Load more activity

Announcements

×