Leaderboard

Sunesis, ((snickers)) Look who's talking, lady. Look who's talking. And many times you don't even see it. And the same arguments for supernatural occurances could be said re: other characters in the Bible. Or other characters in other religions, and the respective followers believe in them just as much as you do yours. Uuhhmmm, ... you don't? (For an example of why I voice my doubt about this, check out your posts re: Obama, ... then come back and lie to me again.) Tell ya what. You look at the critter you see in the mirror, and tell her exactly that, m-kay? Mark, ((here comes the onslaught, ... ;) )) You, no doubt, have read in that letter where Jefferson explains _why_ there is the 1st Amendment. So that it supports separation of church and state. And, (IMNSHO) for it to be effective, that wall must go _both_ ways. Has to, or else that 'wall' is a sham. And frankly, if your church (or any other) _needs_ the support of the government in order for it to carry out its doctrine, well, as Ben Franklin once said: Think about that one for a moment. How about _that_ as being a proper usage of said wall.

Community Reformed Church reborn as The Way The website How long before they have to change their name yet again? And, why on earth would anyone want a name that could easily be confused with TWI?

My husband is basically non-confrontational. He usually keeps his mouth shut. On a number of occasions we would get called to do stuff that he didn't want to do, like clean up someone else's yard, whatever. At the time, we had 3 small kids and quite a bit of work we were doing on our own home (which we were buying), so essentially, he didn't volunteer to help out. So, someone would invariably ask me to volunteer him, and I'd invariably tell them no. A conversation would go something like this (usually on the phone): We're cleaning x's house and need someone to clean out the gutters. Would your husband be available to help out at 10am Saturday? Me: No. Them: I'd like to talk to him myself. Me: No you're not. I already know he's not going to have the time, because he has plenty to do around here. Them: He needs to grow a pair. I can't recall how many times I was told my husband needed to grow a pair, but it was more than a couple of times. Why would someone say something like that?

This last post has been bugging me steadily since I posted it yesterday. I don't REALLY mind the crudeness, because LCM was often a very, very crude man. And when describing his actions it seems abundantly clear that he was often rude, crude, and lewd in his private actions and in the things he did and said as the president of TWI. So while typing words that themselves are crude I feel there is justice in describing LCM's lewd, crude, and rude behavior with language that makes it very, very plain that in spite of the times that many Greasespotters legitimately remember interaction with LCM that was kind and even times he was charming, that he used his charm to cover up and give people reason to excuse his many, many lewd actions. What I DO REGRET in the previous post is ascribing lewd actions to LCM that I can not be specifically certain of. I can not with certainty ascribe to LCM specifically encouraging his wife's fairly thoroughly reported lesbian activity. The truth is that I can not be 100% certain that LCM thought about it at all, except to feel fairly certain that considering the crapola he learned from Wierwille that it is possible he considered his marriage to serve as a kind of sexual healing for his wife. But as this possibility is concerning a man such as LCM whose many lewd actions have been testified to by many people it also seems likely that any considerations he might have had as concerning "sexual healing" were twisted by the things he learned by Wierwille. So as to the specific issue of how LCM's lewdness might have played out in his marriage I regret speaking beyond that which I can feel certain of, but not for using crude language to refer to a crude, rude, and lewd man such as LCM. I also think that I will not do a lot of that anymore, unless I feel especially certain that it might actually help someone see LCM for what he was, but in most cases tried to hide or simply put a pr style spin on for the sake of the TWI faithful for years now.

I'm so thankful my family didn't kick me to the curb like I did to them because of their unbeliever status. I've done some apologizing too. I even apologized to a child friend for being judgmental of her life-style. Who am I to tell her how to live her life? We were so self-righteous. We were so busy seeing how effed up everyone else was that we didn't see our own crap. What a joke. What a tragedy. What a cult.

Somewhat off-topic, but this reminds me of an old joke: A newlywed couple enter their new home together. The husband (much larger than his wife) takes off his pants and tells her to put them on. They're obviously much too big, and she says, "I can't wear these!" "That's right," he replies,"because I wear the pants in this family!" The wife then takes off her panties and tells her husband to put them on. "I can't get into these!" he exclaims. "That's right, and you WON'T be getting into those until you change your attitude!" :lol:

A dickless Cabinet Member and a sacless Department Coordinator once went before Queen Q-tip herself to tell her Mrs. B was wearing the pants. What was Mrs B doing? Exactly what her husband had "told" her to do. Absolutely nothing wrong. Was I ever confronted? Did anyone ask me? Was Almighty Q-tip receiving revelation? She was too busy to get the facts. What did any of it have to do with anything? There are a few trees on grounds missing some a lot of bark. Who do you think they represent?

WW.....you beat me to it. I was just about to say the same thing. Wierwille was idolized......warts and all.

Mark, You are not seriously telling me that taxes impede charitable giving are you? Because of net and gross? Well, I guess you are. . . not much I can say to that kind of logic. I think you really miss the heart of the matter. One thing is not the same as the other and God does not say if your taxes are too high. . . don't give. He says pay your taxes. He says give. And he tell us do to things without whining or grumbling, moaning and complaining. Do you think God actually NEEDS your money? Money is a great heart indicator. Render unto the government what is theirs and to God what is His. . . doesn't get much simpler than that. . . . Jesus did not say if your taxes are being used this way don't give. . . if it has an effect on the net don't give. If you want to give 10% of your income. . . you know what you earned. . . give it. ________________________________________ As for the examples you cited about countries that overthrow despotic government. . . did you read the verses I gave you? Did you follow my line of reasoning? God is Sovereign over nations and NOTHING happens that He does not allow. God does not carry out His will in spite of man. . . we are ALL subject TO His will. . . . and if He has a purpose for something. . . Forget it. . . it is not worth more of my time. . . you figure it out.

I think they thought you were controlling him instead of the other way around. I understand that you weren't controlling him....you were just helping him keep his own calendar focused on the family. They wanted him to tell you that he would make up his own mind and come over to do the gutters like THEY wanted. I hope that made sense.

I have no idea what you mean by the last part of this. . . I was just sharing part of MY life with you. We are to love our neighbor as ourselves. . . if your neighbor or enemy is hungry do you check their employment status first? I would just read the specific context of the verse you quote and why Paul said this. . . or not. God looks on the heart and I don't think Jesus is going to be mad at us if our worst sin is we were too kind. I don't question your heart in the least. . . as I have told you before. . . you have helped me. :)

Taxes are not charity. How they are dispersed is not charitable giving. Do you understand the difference?. . . . Taxes do NOT impede charitable giving required of a Christian. Perhaps your understanding of this needs tweaking. Even the most dictatorial governments prevent lawlessness. . . even or especially the most tyrannical ones. What's next. . . Hitler? Like I didn't see that coming. Hubby owes me five. Pharoah, Pilate, Caiphas (Who prophesied!) Did God use them? He used all of them. . . . for HIS purpose and they were bad men. . . He used the most TRAGIC of events. . . . the death of His Son for good. . . for His glory. It is not about us, but about God. His purpose which may not be ours. Should be. Persecuted Christians in dangerous countries submit to laws and governments. . . .even to the point of death, but still perfectly obeying God. . . Did Jesus perfectly submit to God's will? Did He overthrow the Romans? Isn't that what they were crying for Him to do? Was God's providence and sovereignty what happened? Just as it is in the examples you presented. For the LORD Most High is awe-inspiring, a great King over all the earth. He subdues peoples under us and nations under our feet. He makes nations great, then destroys them; He enlarges nations, then leads them away. Ah, Lord GOD ! You Yourself made the heavens and earth by Your great power and with Your outstretched arm. Nothing is too difficult for You! Who should not fear You, King of the nations? Let the heavens be glad and the earth rejoice, and let them say among the nations, "The LORD is King!" From one man He has made every nation of men to live all over the earth and has determined their appointed times and the boundaries of where they live. . . God chose Israel and then raised up Egypt to enslave them. . . then delivered them and drown the Egyptians! God is sovereign over nations. . . nothing happens that He does not ordain.

Hey WG, It is the HCSB(Holman Christian Standard Bible) the version I use . . . Romans 13:1 is about civil obedience. Some theories have it as an interpolation. . . I don't think so. . . but that is me. Taxes don't take the choice out of charity. . . you can still give to whomever you wish. :) Sounds like a tough place you worked. . . I am sorry you have no sympathy for these kids. Most of them sure as heck break my heart. That is no way to grow up. No way to live.

Nice thread! Those trips down Memory Lane aren't always quite as rosy as we remembered (wince). Shellon, good on you for having the guts to apologize. And good on all those people who took your phone calls, and accepted the apologies. You must have some great family and friends. Growth and healing to our hearts is always possible.

How long has it been since we've had a caption contest? Well, that's TOO LONG! So caption this... <img src=http://www.rock103.com/pages/crew/pics/monkeybusiness.jpg>

Maybe some examples would make your point clearer. Like what infringements on the "American's Constitutional rights," or how exactly certain people use separation of church and state to keep Christians from being involved in government, or how the government is involved with the affairs of churches?

LOL tazia at the time we felt like we were flaking out and really until I found Grease spot it felt like we had quit on God's Word.. We truly left before so much of what you all left about happened.. not that it wasn't going on but since we were in the more remote and less populated areas we really didn't know most of this stuff.. We just knew we were not happy ... Well he was not happy, I was beginning to really question and One night I told him how much sometimes I wished we were not twig coordinators and that it was difficult to be watched by all of the people in your twig who were just waiting for you to make a mistake, (we were running a twig near the Limb) and he said what if we left. and I said you mean Idaho and he said no I mean the Way. Would you come with me.. and I said with out a moment of hesitation of course I would come with you I love you why wouldn't I... Two nights later we left in the middle of the night Minus much of our belongings.. we took only what we could carry in our back packs... We felt like we were failures, we were struggling with making enough money to be financially stable and had been for over a year. and Hubby had been reamed out several times... We left the state and began our lives anew and it took a long time to feel like we had made the right decision... in fact it wasn't until sometime in 88 that I ran into a TWI believer and got invited to twig that I realized I would never go back... That gut feeling when something is dangerous that you get sometimes when know something is wrong but not what exactly. Well for me it wasn't until I came on here that I knew why I got that feeling. Now I know.

Yes, the lawsuit is certainly a possibility. I can hope that they'd choose to win the fight, but it is up to them to figure out how to respond to TWI if a lawsuit happens again. (grammar)

"Grow a pair!" Said innocently: "Oh, our yard is too small for that. We already have two apple trees and some fruit bushes. No room for a pear tree."

And how long before TWI decides to sue them for stealing the name?

Oh, if I had a nickel for every time someone said that to me/hubby throughout the 90's... !!! Leadership LOVED to say that whenever they couldn't get the husband to do what they wanted, ESPECIALLY if the husband was allowing the wife to speak out or if he was deferring to her expertise or wisdom. Just like they would tell the wife she was being spiritually rebellious if she disagreed with her husband or the leadership over anything. Their other favorite phrase was to tell me that I needed to stop trying to wear the pants in the family. I think the first time I was told that was in 1987, about a month into in-rez training, and the last time I was told that was a few days before I was booted from twi in 2000. The funny thing is, usually the leadership agreed with whatever it was that I was doing, they just hated the fact that I was the one doing it and not my husband. That's when he would get the "grow a pair" speech, and I would get the "wearing the pants" speech. Unbelievable.

Seems to me that he'd need to grow a pair if he could get bullied to do something on the phone. Funny how they wouldn't notice that irony. (Please to note: I am not saying he would succumb to their persuasion or not. Not implying anything one way or the other on that)

that's the way I done sees it. mumble grumble mumble grumble . . .so on and so forth

The point was not sympathy; the point is are they really being helped, and in my opinion only one or two of them were. Throwing money and sympathy at a problem isn't a solution. Those girls needed to learn accountability and responsibility. They learned neither. They learned that they were pitiful, helpless, victims and that society owed them. They were taught that they were not responsible for their problems, nor were they responsible to learn any skills, support themselves or care for themselves in any way. I can think of two who very well may be independent right now, but most of them are probably still living off taxpayer money. I believe in helping those who cannot help themselves, but I do not have any interest in helping those who will not help themselves. And that's Biblical. Here's an example from that particular place: A teenage girl was in a class in the school and decided to spend the hour or so looking out the window. When she was asked, very politely and respectfully, to please kindly take her seat, she flew into a rage. How dare that &*()_()_^&*^())( tell her what to do? She flew upon the instructor, a big hulking young man, and had to be restrained. Even while her teeth were grinding the flesh in his forearm, this young man is saying, "Now, _____, you're really not angry at me you are angry at the person who hurt you when you were a child. That is the person you are biting, not me, not really." No accountability there. The guy had to get stitches and probably a tetanus and a rabies shot. But she was not responsible for harming him, oh no, she was a victim. I think it's time for people in this country to grow up, take responsibility for their own actions, and stop depending on the government. I believe in being as charitable as possible, but I would rather give my time and money and goods to those who really need help and want to help themselves. WG

Yeah, like..... Even though I have encouraged my wife to muff dive I am sending the ministry into a homo purge. Not a quote of LCM on my part, but isn't that what he did?

I apologize if I made no sense. It is hard to explain thoughts in my head! But I will try and elaborate a little. I just hate to type long winded posts... Bore everyone to death! lol. To start, I think it is important that when we speak of love, we can be speaking of a myriad of things. But when we speak of God's love we speak of something a little more specific. In 1 John 4 we read that God is love. But it goes further, it says, 'He that does not love, knows not God.', and it answers why that is, because God is love. To know God is to be capable of love. Why? Here is where the Hebrew word for love is most revealing to me, the word AHB. The word in its most simplest meaning means 'to reveal the Father'. Now, there are other love's, such as the emotion love, the sexual love, and so on and so forth. But when we speak of God's love, we are not speaking of emotions. We are not speaking of thoughts. We are speaking of God himself and revealing His being, His ways, His care, His truth, His love. Thus back to 1 John, it is impossible to love (reveal the Father[God]) without first knowing Him. Those who honestly know only know Him in part and therefore can only reveal in part. Christ came to reveal God, the prophets revealed God, many throughout history have revealed God. They do so by imitating Him. Ephesians 5:1 'Be ye imitators of God...'. But since no one knows all, our glimpse of who God is, and His love, is limited. But I much rather like the KJV translation of agape as 'charity' because it describes God's nature of one who gives and cares, more so than our English word love which usually is just an emotional term which doesn't clearly fit the definition of agape in 1 Cor 13. ... tbc

I think "feigned" would more accurately describe it.

Hi, Revictimizing the victims of abuse is itself abusive. It speaks volumes about the one doing it. What they still adhere to shapes their perspective and ability to inflict cruelty on those so horribly hurt. So, it serves a purpose on this website, revealing VPW in all his glory. His legacy. But, how do you provide a safe place for the victims story to be told without restricting these posters access to abusive behavoir? Tough question. Maybe the circle of kind and loving support you all have put around these victims is enough to sheild them? Sounds like it is for some. Maybe others don't tell their stories for fear of ridicule, which is a shame. Banning them seems excessive. The support given might be enough to protect them--the ones revictimizing show their hearts, the ones defending theirs. Who still believes the VP garbage? Who grew up? It is obvious to the most casual lurker!

Again--missing my point. I truly understand why. I could once show you scholarship for The Myth of the 6 Million. I bet you, that at one time, if not believed it-----you seriously considered it. We ALL did.Perhaps we were PROGRAMMED to question the established history for less than NOBLE terms. Possibly, just possibly, I looked at this idea while looking at the evidence presented to me. That may in SOME SMALL way allow me to see things without as much previous predjudice. It is a KIND piece of advice given with guileless motives. Discarded with so much as consideration. That tells me something. Revising history, or believing those that do, and drawing definitive conclusions based on a reworking of the same evidence, is quite a feat. You HAVE to ask yourself what draws you to the ANTI-established ideas. Were we trained to be ANTI-establishment? :) Are you predisposed to easily accept these ideas? It is not a dig or an insult. These are not MAINSTREAM theories. My question of why Polycarp would call him "The first born son of Satan" is VALID. My point that Luke would have DESPISED the doctrine of Marcion and others is VALID. Based on the theology. But, to believe any of your THEORY you have to discard affirmations of the Apostolic Fathers as too bias for real consideration. You have to give nothing written the benefit of the doubt, and draw conclusions. I am saying that not only is the internal evidence questioned, so is the external. To far-fetched when you add in the theology which is VALID. How can this POSSIBLY be offensive or incredible to you for even consideration? UNLESS--you have discarded something so wonderful and so precious on the idea the bible was not written by EXACTLY who it says or teaches us it is. Previously believing at least the idea was possible. That by any stretch of the imagination, gives you a rather LARGE stake in the outcome. I am shocked that the "Mystery Religions" have not entered the discussion. When I said this was reminiscent---I meant it. To consider what I said would have leant you much more credibility in my eyes. What would it have cost you, pride? You are willing to believe revisionist history on slim evidence, but someone who shared a very similar and SHAPING cult experience, because she still believes in God, has questionable motives? I believe in God and it holds me accountable to love you. To care about complete strangers. Our SHARED experience only serves to make that easier. Just a thought. Please remember--there is NO animosity in me toward you--no condescenion. Is it even possible that these are issues that must be CONSIDERED? Being able to discuss them with you may be a clue as to my having asked the same questions of myself. Have you ever really heard the gospel--the one everyone else hears---spoken from a voice of love. It is reasonable ?

Let me just add this on--One of the reasons why I give little serious thought to the idea that Luke would have copied Marcion, is that Luke would have reviled him. Polycarp called him the "first born son of satan". He bought his way into the church at Rome--and soon after they booted him and gave him his money back. They were hurting after that, but it was better to be rid of him. They despised his teachings which were contrary to the beliefs and practices of the church. The only good to come out of his churches was celibacy. His churches didn't last. He reminds me of the Way--teach one thing-live another. Geisha Anything else you wanna talk about?:) By the way, historians could have saved themselves a bunch of trouble--they could have come to this thread---learned the life expectancy of the average man in the 1st century and threw out the whole thing. I wonder why they didn't consider this?

Hi Lindyhopper, I agree that it is a skeletal argument. I also understand why the noncanonical books were disputed. The criterea needed to meet, so as to find them reliable. You might be interested to know, or perhaps you do, that part of the reason was historical accuracy. OH MY!!! The men who chose the cannon were men who considered the facts. Much like today, there were standards by which biblical books were picked. These men disagreed. Which is why we have books considered apocrypha or false in other bibles. Do you honestly think that those books, declared to be innacurate, have just been left unstudied for all this time? I said it was a bare bones argument. I said that it was a piece of evidence---not the entire thing. Probabilities! Do you build a case with one piece of evidence? I didn't get into the argument of the canon. Not yet--but all may not be as it appears from a cursory reading of the differing councils. Probabilities and context with a stab at objectivity can often give one a logical conclusion. If you are not willing to consider an argument, but set out to refute on your presupposed ideas--no honest evaluation is likely. Read Gant. I'll be back.:) Take Care, Geisha Bramble, I am interested in what it was about wicca that drew you. I am not preaching at you, just wondering what kind of Christianity you were exposed to other than TWI? It might surprize you to hear that I can see, after the Way, what might have pulled you toward Wicca/neopaganism. It had to seem like a more gentle and less judgemental faith. I would not tell you that you are wrong either. I also understand the shrug. I would just like people to consider the God of the bible on a more accurate portrayal of His qualities of kindness and love. Of His love for His creation. After all, we claim He made the earth and all that is within it. Worth a look, don't you think? A gentle, calm, nonjudgemental look? Perhaps hearing what He is really like, might ring somewhat true to your inner-self. You did say you missed the whole personal relationship thing. What you have been exposed to here on this very thread is enough to get you to RUN not walk to the nearest exit. There are some great things about God, that I bet we might of missed in TWI. Just a thought.

Wow, I even went to the storage shed today and dug out all my notebooks. But you are right, if you don't want to know, then nothing I say will convince you. I am more than willing to engage in civil conversation. Why on earth would I judge you for your unbelief? Is there a direct sign leading to God. Step this way? NOPE. But then, if God is ALL he says He is--His presence might just overpower our free will. Love has to be given freely. He woos He doesn't compell. I didn't tell you anything untrue. If I sounded condescending it was my horrid mistake, I sincerely apologize. Let me say that I would not engage in doctrinal conversation for sport. I really believe what I say. I know why I believe it. I am ready to defend why I believe it. That should offend no one. George, why would I take the time to discuss these matters with those here I don't respect? Contrary to what you might think--Christians have a life. I have two jobs--two kids--a husband--a home--a church--and I work on behalf of persecuted Christians. I see something in the posts here. I see bright thinking people. Christianity is reasoned thinking. It appeals to history. The data is so accesible. Jesus is a factual historic figure. Eyewitness accounts are relied upon everyday as factual. There are cognitive, informational facts, the same of which we use in legal and historical decisions today. We make important choices everyday on less facts than you have to support the reliability of the bible and its claims. The NT is the most reliable ancient document we have. The number of copies--the translations--the documents of the early church fathers. Extra biblical writings. The history of the OT is the most comprehensive ancient history we have. It is amazing. But, if you don't want to know--it will be of little interest to you. I went to the British Museum, the Library in London, and the Ashmoleum and looked at what I could. I wanted to know. Lindyhopper, Yes, there are MUCH better Christians than I who everyday defend what they believe. It is called Apologetics and there are very bright people who are able to give comprehensive answers to the questions of why? If your interested you should look into it. You might be pleasantly surprized by the academics of it all. Christianity is not only factual it is an objective faith. It has an object--Jesus Christ. There is amazing work done in the defense of the resurrection. It has been awhile, I think one book is called "Who moved the stone" or something similar. I had the breakdown of all the translations of the NT and their comparisons to other ancient lit we have. I even got ancient history we rely on today as factual and compared it to the reliability of the OT. I was going to show you why I believe it to be factual. I have a great quote from a distinguished archaeologist about the OT history. I have quotes from The Cambridge Ancient History. I started putting together my case for you on why I believe. However, I sense little interest in a really deep discussion and I will not foist my beliefs on anyone. Defend them--YES--hit you over the head--NO. I have to tell you this as well, nobody here has upset me. I lurked before I posted. I think you are all bright and articulate people. Oakspear--glad to hear you shower--it was keeping me up at night.

Word Wolf--That. . . was. . . an. . . AWESOME read!! Thank-you for that effort. Astute very astute!

Hi Oakspear, I read your article, and have read many like them in the past. I have 10 books in storage that have a much different perspective. I gotta tell ya, I spent 6 years of my life in the pursuit of a history degree. I have heard it all. Within the same department I have heard differing opinions on the same evidence. Historians said, well one said, that Christmas wasn't celebrated in the town of Old Deerfield, MA. Some nosey little undergrad came along--found one tiny little document that blew the whole theory out of the water. All she got was a "Mention"in the back of his revised book! But, as evidence mounts and things come to light---conclusions have to be drawn. Oakspear, I know for a fact the bible is used OFTEN as an historical reference Historians write books that cite the bible. It is by its very nature a history. It is not laughed out of Academia. I had an atheist proffesor(A tough one) who used the bible constanly in class. I corrected him on his Greek once.(Thanks to TWI) He called me into his office, where he had shelves lined with bibles, to quiz me on how I knew that. If he only knew--right? I looked at the evidence. I weighed the probability and to me it was "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt." We could go back and forth with examples. I could cite you recent finds, but we are NOT going to be able to prove every account in the bible as historically accurate. I will give you that. So what? For me, there is enough evidence to lend GREAT credibility to the bible as history. But, I have to tell you it is that way with MANY historical conclusions. We look at the evidence, try to find corrobaorating sources, and try to draw an unbiased picture. I once used a diary for an independent project. I had ONE outside source. I was able to paint a very accurate picture of a long dead women, her life and loves. Her words were my source. She could have sat in her house and made the whole thing up. Not likely, it was written over years and it painted a picture of her life. The bible goes beyond that. Many men tell the same story over many years, Think about that? Without predjudice consider that phenomenon. 40 authors--3 continents-1405BC-95AD-Same underlining story!! The bible paints you a picture--it tells a story--a paticular story. Weigh the evidence. Challenge yourself to prove it wrong. Be intellectually honest(I don't think that is a problem for you) Not only for the history of the bible, but for the existence of God. What evidence points in His direction? What evidence points away? There is both. Don't dismiss the bible because of some article you found on the internet. I heard your interview---you are a smarter guy than that. Weigh the evidence for yourself. It is what I did. But, if you don't want to be accountable to some god, your pursuit may be halfhearted at best. I must say, if you think the God of TWI and the God of the bible are remotely similar--You might have good reason to hesitate. I have come to the conclusion that God is not the cosmic waiter I once imagined Him to be. But then, to create such an vast yet intricate universe with His words--well think about it. We haven't even begun to build a case of probabilities yet. I know you may find this difficult to believe given my profession of Faith, but I understand your perspective. Been there--still have the tee-shirt. I just don't wear it anymore. I worked with my hubby today--guess what I did? THE GRUNT WORK!!!! I shoveled mulch all day while the "Master Gardener" made things pretty! I am TIRED, but I really wanted to answer you. It was important to me.

Hi Oakspear, I actually respect your questions. If I were to say to you -- I just take it on faith--that would mean what?? NOTHING!! It would mean that I don't know why I believe as I do. It would mean that I was assuming a whole lot with what is potentially the most important decision of my eternity. There was a process I went through in coming to Christ. It included weighing the evidence concerning the verasity of the bible, creation, intellegent design and historical accuracy. I was rather quick this morning--this is a big discussion. Happy to have it, but it is not something I can articulate in a paragraph. So, I apologize. I turned in a paper --the bible is historically accurate--therefor true. Is not the answer your worthy questions deserve. I would like to look at the assertion that the authors of the bible had an agenda. I chuckled as Peter immediatley sprung to mind. I am sure you have heard this, but please consider it again. If you were Peter, and you had a say about what went into the bible, would you have included---get thee behind me Satan? Or the fact that you denied the Lord not once -- not twice -- but THREE times? Yeah, I would NOT want that info front and center. How about cutting off that Roman soldiers ear only to have the Lord heal it. Or having Jesus rebuking you for not having enough faith? I don't know about you, but I like to be portrayed in a better light than having God call me Satan. But here is the thing that helps convince me that any supposed agenda was true. 11 of those 12 apostles died a martyrs death. All they had to do was to recant. I like my neck attached to my body(We are funny that way). I don't know about you, but I am not dying for a lie. Not one of them recanted. None of the 11 died peacefully. There are so many things that make me believe the bible. Historical accuracy--supported by archeology. Intellegent design, and the scientific evidence of a creation. The thing that really intrigued me though, was the history. The evidence to support the accounts of the OT. You should look into it sometime. Come at from a skeptical viewpoint as I did. For me, the evidence was powerful. If it is accurate in its history. Then it is AMAZING in its prophecy. Ancient documents written about this man who would come claiming to be God. Born of a certain bloodline--in a certain town--live a certain way--die--and raise from the dead. How did they know this? There are over 500 eyewitness accounts of his resurrection. You do believe that the prophecies of His comming were written long before He was born? Like I said--it was not one thing, but for me an overwhelming amount of evidence which lead me to consider the bible as true. Truth has to have a corresponding object. For me the truth of the bible and its corresponding God are now obvious, but I have to remember--they once were not.

Hi Abigail, The first part of your question is a definite yes. I have and do discuss issues of faith with people of differing faith. And to a degree-but not in perhaps the way you might think--it does influence my faith in Jesus. Did you know that no other faith but Christianity teaches salvation by grace? This is amazing to me. Some other religions teach a need for salvation--but by works. I recently spent some time with a Buddhist. We had a great discussion, and I learned a great deal. It didn't change my heart or my faith, it only served to affirm it. I have examined most faiths at one time or another. Which is PART of the reason I am a Christian. Since I think that most of the worlds faith's have less in common than more--it would be hard for another religion to cause me to grow in my own faith. I do love to hear what people believe and why. How commited they are and how able or willing they are to defend their beliefs.

Hi Oakspear, In what way does the bible conform to God's reality? How do you know hat this "reality" is? By your experience, or by the bible? If by your experience, or five senses, then how are they superior to anyone else's? If the bible, then that is circular reasoning. I hope that you will bear with me. I went to school for history. That is my degree and for a time my field. I didn't go to a Christian or bible school. Just a few secular, well respected Universities. I only tell you this to illustrate a point. I wrote a paper once, and at the time it was all consuming and rather important to me. I was stuck on a question about the Apostle Paul. I called a Professor who couldn't help me--but did give me the name and phone number of one of the most respected and published authorities on the life of Paul. Being blonde, bold, and brassy I called him. Do you know what he cited as a reference for me? The Book of Acts. I in turn, used this reference after working it myself. I was never hauled into the Deans office and quizzed on my bizarre theory that the bible is an historical reference. I was able to defend that paper successfully. I tell you this to emphasize the importance of the bible as an historical document. I am sure you know that the historical Jesus is not often disputed with any real credibility. That being said--your question wasn't about historical fact: it was how I know the bible conforms to God's reality. Very simple. It declares it. Exodus 20:2. Anticipating your next question--Galatians 1: 8 and 9 Now, given that the bible is a credible historical document---Jesus is a credible historical figure whom we are still discussing some 2000 years later. Given that Jesus still causes such an emotional and often vitriolic response--pretty amazing for some old, crucified, dead, Jew, wouldn't you even consider the possibility that the bible is a book about the reality of God and His relationship with man? That is what it declares itself to be. It declares that it has all things pertaining to life and Godliness. It declares He is evident in creation--a whole big discussion. It declares His existence. There is nothing circular in that reasoning. Most historical evidence is written. Magna Carta--Declaration of Independence. . . . . . . .

The letter of Assumptions--by St. John the divine of Indiana This is what happens when people isolate themselves from the Christian community at large. No accountibility. John, get out there and meet some of the Christian youth today. If you can catch them off the missions field or in-between building houses for low income people. That is if you can catch them in-between ministering to the sick==or raising money for persecuted Brethren. Go to a reputable Bible College and speak with any freshmen. Bet he/she could give you a run for your money. We were never better, or smarter, or more "Spiritual" than anyone. We were duped. Stealing Dale Carnegie, EW Bulliger, and EG Leonard does not a biblical "research" ministry make. Hasn't this all caused enough pain and suffering? Quit trying to lead people astray---What's the matter? TWI lite run out of personal prophecy? Go find some widows and orphans to pick on.

Lindyhopper, Bingo! Now hold that same standard to yourself. To think that the god that you have faith in, which is based on your own subjective experiences and POV, is absolute and universal, you would have to know everything, the ins and outs of the ways of God. That is, of course, if there is a god and if there is only one God and if there is not another universe of gods and if there is not a race of intelligent machines that has us in a virtual existence feeding off our juices and if there is not an alien race that controls us telepathically across light years of space and time etc etc. The number of unverifiable possibilities exceeds our ability to imagine them. This is why I don't engage in apologetics. I never said my faith was based on subjective experiences or POV. In fact, I have articulated that my Faith is in the person of Jesus Christ. God to Christians minus The Way, Mormons, Moonies, JehovasWitnesses and the cast of Fraggle Rock. He is --as you have heard before--the way the truth and the life--I don't have to know everything-I know Him. I am hesitant to use that term here, because it has been bandied about like a blunt instrument. As for the rest of your argument, I will let that stand on its own merit. How can you possibly know the scope of the reality of God's existence and how the Bible conforms to it and how this God deals with human beings without knowing everything? And, if you only know it in part, couldn't the parts that you don't know be rather significant given the presumed scope of God? Couldn't those unknown aspects amount to something greater or lesser or different than the absolute and universal beliefs that you hold? LindyHopper, you know what the bible is about. It is not a cookbook? Again, I don't have to know everything to know truth. I know Christ. Yes, I am positive there are things I don't yet understand about God. However, Jesus came to show us God. To reveal Him. I would never presume to damn someone to hell, or tell them they are headed there. I am no evangelist--I do enjoy reading D.L Moody and Charles Spurgeon though. It is a doctrinal thread and I have shared my faith--not judged you for yours or lack thereof. In fact, I didn't believe for quite awhile after TWI although I went through the motions. So, I might actually be able to empathize with you--without trying to convert you and possibly relate to you on a unique level. If you can get past my faith in Christ and belief in the bible--if you are not too busy being tolerant of everyones right to choose their path.

Hi Abigal, I really enjoyed your post-truly. My point was--I believe what I believe and that is unchangable. Because of my faith in Christ--FOR ME--He is All. There is no other way to God--that actually is part of my faith. Perceiveable to many as intolerant. As such a steadfast believer, I can find no common ground on issues of faith with those that don't accept Him as Savoir. To me, it is not just a belief--it is the fabric of who I now am. Does that make any sense? It is not just a notion or an excerise in philosophy--it is my heart and my soul. It is how I live. BUT--if I live it the way Jesus meant--I will love, not judge--I will serve, not take and I will strive to keep peace. There is no one of any other faith not welcome in my home--with the exception of Satanist--who kinda scare me. Homosexuals --- atheists--- exway :) All welcome! I would never turn my back on anyone in need. But, that is what I believe is expected of me as a follower of Christ. I long to serve others. Do you know what I mean? If it is lived right--it is an amazing thing. I strive for this because I have been given a second chance--I am redeemed. That is my belief--confirmed to me by the Holy Spirit--but not TWI's version. LOL You might actually like me if you met me. I don't always speak of matters of faith. This is a doctrinal forum and that is what we are talking about. LOL I can party with the best of em--unless it is after 10:00pm. Then I start to fade. I sure would like to know how that happened? Christians are no better than anyone else!!!!! I really mean that. In fact, think about it. To realize you need a Savoir--you have to see you are a sinner---that is what brings us to the Cross. I know my shortcomings and they are plenty. Hope this helps explain a bit. I do really like ex-way people. I mean--we picked a podunk cult--slogged through together and all landed in different places. We share a unique experience. And as much as it irks me--it did, for a time, shape us. I still carry some scars from those days--actions resulting from a vapid system of flagrant theology. Things I can never undo--you know what? I know you "get" that. George: Isn't "apathetic agnostic" redundant?:)

HA! And then maybe you can have a judge rule that your right to believe is fine---as long as you don't act on those beliefs by raping and abusing other men's wives. Just cause your the MOG don't cha know! --if it wasn't true it would be comical. What were those allegations again? What did the Way settle out of court on? Oh yeah, I remember. When was it any "Leadership" just sat and read the bible--WITHOUT expounding? From what I remember you couldn't get them to shut-up. Our turn now and that just gets under their skin-doesn't it? Ahhh Freedom of Speech--Gotta love it.

I would respectfully disagree with you. I do believe that absolute truth can be known. However, I also think that the belief system that says no one can know truth in such a way as to invalidate someone elses beliefs is wrong, and is in itself religious. It has its own affirmations--doctrines--and denials. To say that God cannot be known at all presupposes that the one saying this knows all. Which is what saying our beliefs are similar fosters. Why is it that a broken, unworthy, sinful, repentent Christian who dogmatically holds fast to Jesus and the bible is arrogant? While the "All paths lead to God-tolerant-we are more alike than different" relativist disciple is enlightened? This system uses absolutes to say there are none. As much as I can love you, I cannot agree with you. I am positive there is no other way but that of Jesus crucified, buried, and risen. With His refining work to follow. It is hardwired into me. I am unflappable. Therefore, by many standards arrogant and unenlightened. I surely do not mean to sound harsh, but I am steadfast. Not because I see myself as morally superior, in fact I know that I am not, I am broken, sinful, and unworthy to stand before a Holy God. That is why I cleave to Jesus. I don't judge those who believe other than I---not my job or inclination. I just don't find common ground and build from there. Faith in Christ is what it is. Ah, but if the martyrs were Christians and they were blowing up innocents in the name of a holy war???? If they were killing off the Jews and heretics as was done in the 1400 - 1500's? If they were killing off Native Americans and forcing their children to convert to Christianity??? Well, if someone did do that in the name of Christianity it would not be anything to do with Christ. We are called to love. Not just our friends which is easy, but our enemies. I am called to love Hindus-Muslims, Jews, Pagans and on we go. To feed the poor, comfort the sick and to give of myself to the point of selling what I have to give if need be. No matter their faith. I said before that I could cite countless things done in the name of Jesus that are chilling. I would argue that He had nothing to do with them. He healed all that He met who were in need--denied no one--and still desires all to come to Him. What man does, in His name to cause harm--is man doing it. This includes many of the things said and done by evangelicals today. I have very little respect for most modern day American evangelicals-who distort the simple beauty of the gospel with politics, protests, and televangelism. The Gospel message is a heart-wrenching beautiful love story--written by a God who desires you and paid a precious price to redeem you. That is what makes Jesus so unique You and I and this entire universe groan and travail and wait--I wonder you don't feel it? Abigal--my best to you.

Hi, George, just an observation and in no way a judgement, you seem to work very hard at your unbelief. I am no apologist. I neither have the time nor talent to disabuse you of your narrow tenant and understanding, but I do empathize with it. I would however, direct you to a wonderful book by Frank Turek called I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. I have met the man--he is a hoot. From JERSEY. If you like, I would gladly send it to you. My treat--if nothing else it will answer those questions you have. He addresses all the items laid out in your post. I sense you would rather dwell in the land of unbelief for awhile, but the book is yours if you would like. Along with my very best. Take Care

We have a judge and he DOES make such a distinction. If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine CONFORMING TO GODLINESS, he is CONCEITED and UNDERSTANDS NOTHING; but he has a MORBID interest in controversial questions and DISPUTES ABOUT WORDS, out of which ARISE ENVY, STRIFE, ABUSIVE language, EVIL SUSPICIONS, and constant FRICTION between men of DEPRAVED mind and DEPRIVED of the TRUTH. 1Tim 6 3-5 Conforming to Godliness:does NOT include sexual abuse-drinking(Drambuie anyone?), smoking(got the beanbag ashtray and Kool shorties?), abortion, abusive language, foul language, and on we go. . . . . . Concieted: Man of God for our day and time(Choke) Understands nothing: Those collaterals come to mind---- not to mention JCING Morbid: Advanced Class need I say more? Disputes about Words: I am now laughing--throughly/thoroughly-My God My God why hast though forsaken me-I could go on. . . . Envy/Strife/Abusive language--Ever hear a Sunday Night Service Evil Suspicions: Seed boys and a devil spirit under every rock or in most questioning believers Friction-Depraved--LOL Behavior does separate one from scriptural truth.(Actual Scriptural truth, not the free-love doctrine of VP the Ohio Huckster) WD -- Your arguments while verbose are ridiculous. Men like VP et al do not accept sound healthy teaching. They advocate a different doctrine and they reject doctrine conforming to Godliness Teaching not based on scripture will always result in a life that is UNHOLY and is marked by sin. These men usually have known the truth and walked away. They are predators. They can fill their bathtubs full, but cannot walk on water. VP will have his day in court. I don't want to be standing next to him shoring up his "Ministry" on that day. I think I will just stay on my knees before a HOLY God.

I heard a rumor that David repented and had some Godly sorrow for His sins. I missed TWI "LEADERSHIPs" sorrowful heart for the pain they caused. Even Jimmy Swaggart had the good manners to cry crocidile tears.

Hi Invisible Dan You said "When you gather all the citations from the gospels of such cases, it presents us a rather unsettling depiction. Unsettling in the fact that it's all too familiar." I have to agree with you that it is unsettling. I actually went through a similar thought process for awhile. For me, and I understand this is not a widely held belief here, it was the WHO of Jesus that helped me to know Him. He is authoritative, because He is the final authority. He rebuked because He lived among them and they could not see Him. He stepped into time to show them and us who God is. He actually has the authority and power to teach, chasten and refine. The difference is the love he does it with. He gave Himself for us. He proved His love. And Dan, He loves like no other. But, if He is just a man--then it very well can seem "all too familar". If He is who He claimed to be---it is beyond wonderful that He would even bother. That is to His Glory--not ours. It is hard to see through the clutter of odd TWI doctrine, but I for one am glad you ask these questions. I hope you keep looking and wondering and asking until you meet and know the Jesus who loves you and gave His life for you. Anyway you go I hope you have joy--but, please don't dismiss the joy of knowing Him. He gave us the VERY BEST thing ever possible-Himself.

Hi Again, Politically correct? Expedient? Or gentle, loving and kind. There is a big difference. It is expedient to say there is nothing wrong with homosexuality--everyone has a right--I don't care what people do in their own bedrooms. It is politically correct to support "Gay Rights" or join Rosies Cruise and march on pride day. It is gentle, loving and kind to reach out to those who are lost--anyone who is lost. I remember when I realised that God is HOLY and JUST! Post Way. It scared the H out of me--quite literally. But, not knowing Jesus from Adam, I set out to save myself with acts and words of righteousness. I was going to save everyone else as well. Turns out they were self-righteous works and words. I ran around telling people what God says is right and wrong. Nothing wrong with that--if I had done it in love, motivated by God's AMAZING graciousness. I was motivated by fear and frustration that people didn't see a Holy and frankly SCARY God. He loves everyone right? I heard that alot. How can he condemn when He loves. He is Holy (A bad word in TWI) He cannot abide sin--he cannot tempt with evil and none of us--Not a one can stand before Him on our own merit. Each one of us needs a Saviour. Someone who is perfect and accepted on His merits--to stand in our place. We have been freely offered such an awesome gift. That is love. If you liken God to a HUGE-POWERFUL - Storm--something you cannot stand-up in or control--You can liken Jesus to the sweet dry and tender shelter provided in that storm. A place to be loved and accepted. If you see others out in the storm staggering -- unable to find shelter---do you yell out their sin to them in hopes they will change and make their own little shelter? Or do you reach out and say look--there is a way to be safe and loved. Here it is--join us. When we enter such a place we find the most amazing love and peace. We are drawn to such an unspeakably kind, merciful and loving presence. When we see that love --our hearts yearn to love Him back and to obey His words. That is how we change. Being accepted and loved. We love Him because He first loved us. God never defends His existence. He declares it. He doesn't beg us for our obedience-He expects it. He doesn't call us to condemn--He calls us to love. There is no condemnation of Christians here. Not any that I have seen. If you want to see what a persecuted Christian looks like--Go to the VOM (Voice of the Martyrs) website. While you are there--pick up a pen and paper and write a prisoner in chains for his or her faith. Otherwise--I would just suck up the few little comments here or there. We were all in a very destuctive and nasty cult--many still stagger in the storm. It is a different journey for each here. Have a little confidence that God is able. Another two cents please!

I am laughing because I remember the great change hunts!!Check the couches--check the laundry! Did you check ALL the pockets??LOL I became a master dumpster diver. Once my daughter grabbed an apple at the store-took a huge bite and I worried!!- But, we had exactly 18 cents to cover her toddler purchase. A close one!! When I think now of all the houses we had to share and the basics we went without I shudder. Good life lesson I guess. Think I have it figured out now though, which is why I give where I want when I can!!

Hi, You can reach Tom at bauer777@comcast.net or tbauer777@gmail.com He lives in Massachusetts and I am sure he would love to hear from you.