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.

I have no knowledge of anything about this website, much less how to answer this poor girl, but maybe one of you can figure it out:

Even though we have "protections" in place (supposedly), there are so many governmental infringments on the American's Constitutional rights, it is ridiculous. Those that are opposed to Christians being involved in government use "separation of church and state", however, this is actually not part of our Constitution. It was a line in a private letter (Jefferson?) not a government document. However, I now believe (after experiencing some of this for myself) if those that want the church to remain out of governmental affairs, then the government needs to stay the heck out of church affairs. You know what? THEY DON'T LIKE HAVING THE TABLES TURNED ON THEM!

My "unbelievable" was rhetorical, really... ANYTHING is believable and done in Wayworld!! -- RIDICULOUS!!! was more my intent.

It's been longer for Montana, so they must REALLY be due! :lol: I love the counterinductive reasoning people attribute to these things. They even speak of a "law of averages," as if there were such a thing. Hurricanes happen when certain climactic factors are right. You're no more "due" than you were last year, and will be no less "due" next year. George

A yes or no answer doesn't work. . . nor does trying to explain to you about God's sovereignty. . . God is justified in overthrowing anything He wants. . .the rest you figure out.

We're about due. We haven't had one of these in a long time.

Hi Tzaia, It seems pretty clear to me that the ones who tell you this concerning your husband most likely intend it as an insult to you both concerning how your family runs. It sounds like you aren't refering to life in Wayworld, but as things are for you now. And even outside of TWI insults, put downs, and ignorantly judging folks like you and your hubby seem to be not an unknown occurance. But personally, I don't see how they feel they have the right to give the two of you such an unsavory commentary.

Further . I'm keeping track of all the 'green votes' vis-a-vis' the 'red votes' here, and I agree with MarkO (I think it was MarkO). They are a rather stupid ... no, infantile, way of showing approval/disapproval in various posters. For example, I disagree with MarkO a lot, but I _know_ he's someone who speaks honestly and gives us all something to think about, ... yet he's being bombarded with negative 'red votes' as tho' he's the bad boy here. ... Gimme a break. ok, done with my rant. P.S., Here MarkO, want some of my 'green votes'?

Mark, Uhh, ... liberal leaning churches? ... You mean to tell me you don't see conservative churches doing the same thing? .... you know, Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson? Focus on the Family? Ted Haggard, who even had a direct line to the White House under Dubya? All the fundamentalist churches who either downplay separation of church and state, if not outright opposing it (all because they decry the 'loss of God' in the public square). ... Where do you get your news from? First off, it isn't the _individual_ expression of religion by individuals in the public square that many of us SOCAS supportes are against. It is using the 'public square' ie., the government facilities to propagate, evangelize, and otherwise propound religion that we are non-apologetically against. Now (believe it or not) I have noticed those on the SOCAS side who do/have overreacted (particularly school officials who go kneejerk because they're scared of attorneys), and overreached in that manner. I also recall a particular court case that struck down a school's ban on a voluntary bible meeting by individual Christian students, meeting _after_ school hours on school property. Yes sir, it did. ... But it wasn't and isn't SOCAS supporters as a whole that supports that kind of overreacting behavior. Ie., if said religious behavior is using government offices/property/equipment/influence/etc. to propagate religion, conservative or liberal, then it is contradicting the 1st Amendment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently you have more-or-less accepted the "They are trying to banish Christianity from this country", townhall-level-of-hype (that really has no basis in reality). If you have any _evidence_ that this type of banishment is occuring (and at the wide spread level please. Isolated occurances doesn't count.), please show me. P.S., sort of here, yet maybe not so much. (At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist ;) ) As for the term 'public square' (ie., just another term for 'government' when you stop and think about it), the term is a more vague and round about way of saying the more specific term 'government', but its used that way for a reason, I think. To cloud it. Use the term 'government', and people get a kind of hard edged view (almost like Ron ;) ) about government. Ie., "they make laws, they tax us, they can throw you in jail, etc.". But you say the term 'public square', people have a more friendly image of government; a place where people meet and deal with the issues of the day, voice their opinions in the townhall, stuff like that. Things that also occur in government, but 'public square' seems to be more accomodating to people. Now if it was stated that "God was being kept from government", not too many people would be up in arms, (except maybe fundamentalist politicians who want to be elected) as more people would think of the part of the 1st Amendment that says "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion", ... but if it was stated that "God was being kept from the public square", a different reaction often occurs. Ie., "OMG, they're trying to ban God from the public square, and eventually drive Him from the country! ... We have to fight this!!", ... you know, garbage like that. <_< Again, this is basically my observation re: 'public square'. YMMV.

Oh, in hindsight, it's not only believable, it's OBVIOUS. vpw HIMSELF didn't really respect JE Stiles until Stiles was rude to his own wife and "put her in her place." vpw enforced his world-view and indoctrinated the Corps and the other insiders (staffers, etc). As he planned, his views-including his carnal, unChristian, devilish ones- became widely embraced.

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.

lcm spoke of it in his autobiography: "vp and me." We discussed it in the thread, "vp and me in Wonderland." http://www.greasespotcafe.com/main2/waydale/waydale-corps-notes/vp-and-me.html

There is a downside to having the knowledge of genetic predispositions. One who has a documented predisposition will not be able to get life insurance (I've actually had to fill out forms asking that very question). And, under our current system, a predisposition will also be considered to be a "pre-existing condition." Likewise, certain jobs may be closed to the person (such as military service). This is not to say that one should not go have regular checkups. But when you start marking a person because of a genetic condition, it can be a scarlet letter. So I can fully appreciate somebody not wanting to be tagged with a certain condition. Again, let me stress that I am not trying to justify this as an excuse not to have checkups. The only thing I'm talking about is getting genetic tests to determine risk.

Oh man! Squirrels are rodents! You might as well eat a rat. Squirrels are "tree rats".

2 Thess 3:10: For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. This verse refers to those who are able but not willing. It is unfortunate that many churches have fallen down on the job and do not care for the unfortunate ones in their midst, but I doubt that ever changes, since the government does it for them. No wonder people think church is boring; you go Sunday for a couple of hours and there's not much else to do. The people in the first century church didn't just say it; they lived it. The Romans considered them to be inferior people; they weren't too interested in lending a helping hand to the Jews or the new church. Am I supposed to apologize that I never got beat to a pulp by one of those girls? I did get cursed a lot because of the color of my skin. Does that count? WG

I used to work in a place where I was routinely thrown around. :) By 200-300 lb men!! I had to restrain them more than once with applied non-violence. That is the rule. . . applied non-violence. Sometimes it worked. . . . . sometimes I booked and sometimes took a few punches! I was no match size and strength wise. Yet, I loved that job. These men could not help themselves. . . had anger issues and the cognitive ability of a three year old. One guy broke someone's neck. We were partially state funded. Respected their rights and tried to treat them with dignity. . . it is a fine line when you are giving the most basic care. Sometimes it is about keeping people, clean, dry, fed, and having a place to lay their heads at night. Who would care for them if there was not gov't money? Their own families could not keep them. . . state hospitals closed. . . and they would be dead if not for these funded homes. We agree then that those who cannot help themselves are a given? How do you judge those who will not help themselves? What is the criteria? Does past mental abuse and trauma count or is it just able bodied that makes one capable? What about anger issues in those adolescents? Does that come from willfulness or something deeper? Is it evident to the untrained eye and can we be the ones to make these snap judgments? Should we leave it to the trained professionals and in place systems to judge? Can we work within those systems to better them? Helping those who maybe really can't help themselves. . . not everything is so black and white. ". . . . . but I do not have any interest in helping those who will not help themselves. And that's Biblical." Is that really a biblical sentiment? Let us hope God's compassion goes beyond that . . . . because we didn't save ourselves. . .1 Thess 5:14 And we exhort you, brethren, admonish the disorderly, encourage the fainthearted, support the weak, be longsuffering toward all. Take Care. . . :)

What version of the Bible is that? Romans 13:1,2 etc refers to being subject to the higher powers in the church (who have not so far in the 21st century been worthy of it IMO) Most of us pay taxes whether we want to or not. Paying taxes that are used to supposed social welfare programs takes all the choice out of charity. My one brush with the system was when I was a receptionist for a year at a former orphanage which was then billed as a "residential treatment facility for troubled adolescent females." I have absolutely no sympathy for these kids. They did as they pleased - stole, beat the crap out of each other and the counselors, ran away, turned tricks whenever they could. And there was no discipline in place, for they were poor innocent children according to the all-knowing State, and under no circumstances should they be taught right from wrong or even accountability. "IT'S NOT MY FAULT" was their battle cry. They were schooled on grounds, got an allowance, and pretty much lounged around the rest of the time, when they weren't threatening murder and mayhem. One of the pitiful little darlings decided to commit suicide by setting her room on fire, changed her mind, and wandered off to play. Three people who crawled into her room to rescue her suffered smoke inhalation, while she was out enjoying volleyball with her friends. Another little lady threw a plugged in radio into the shower where a girl was bathing whom she didn't care for. The problem, as I see it, with this "charity" was that there was no godliness in it, no accountability, no real caring. Most of the counselors were just babysitters in bedlam. I think it would be much better if such charities were privately run. Like George Mueller. These chicks were turned loose on society with no skills, no home, no clue how to take care of themselves. The State should have just taken all the money it poured into that place and had a nice bonfire with it. WG

holy crap is right Bolshevik, I hadn't connected those dots as of yet. But I have been feeling sorrow for those who can not even admit to thinking that Wierwille was a perv and a predator because he was built into their faith as some kind of foundational piece in their thinking. It seems to me that the very, very best he can hope for is being burned up as some kind of hay or stubble in that day. But I think that there are still folks for whom Wierwille, the legend, is so deeply ingrained into their faith that they can not even listen to his lewdness without feeling their faith is being attacked and undermined. Heck, that might have been me not too long ago.....hhhmmm.

Thoughts of your wife, Kevin, will keep you all in prayers. My maternal grandmother had breast cancer and my mother has breast issues that keep her cautious so I, of course, pay very close attention to my own health in that regard and I'm thankful for the ability to make informed decisions when needed. My daughter had most of her cervix removed 2 years ago (she was only 25) and of course that now requires extremely close monitoring of cancerous cells again as well as her daughter's attention for the rest of her life, too. If my daughter hadn't kept up with her annual Gyn exams.......... I get on a soap box and yell kinda loud at men, specifically, who don't tend to their health, won't go to doctors for physicals, won't listen when their body is saying something because of "ah, it's fine, nothing is going to happen to me" Bullshi+ We do, indeed, have to consider both sides of our genetic make up and value ourselves enough to not just "believe" and/or not just assume.

Trust and Obey, I really enjoyed your post. . . you make so many good points. God is love. . . and we just love that verse. . . I do. . . but, I think we humans have a tendency to magnify that attribute of God's, above others. I often do. . . . because THAT is the one I am most comfortable with. Scripture only magnifies one attribute of God's . . . in it being said three times in two places. . . . Holy, Holy, Holy. . . not love, love, love. I believe it is the one attribute mentioned most in scripture. We don't really have anything to compare God's holiness with. . . it is completely unique in that He has no darkness or sin. . . hard to wrap our heads around. Even when we are living holy it is only in a vague or relative manner. So, yes God is love. . . . that is one thing He is. . . but, it is difficult to define Him(and I could stop there) by that one attribute alone.

But imagine the growth in his swiss bank account!!!! Oh, his wife would be CFO and fire him on day 2. Then she'd promote her "special assistant." Day 3, she would explain that the business hadn't shrunk, Home Depot had just become "more exclusive." JT

Okay Trust: I think I'm following along a little bit better now. And I have heard a couple of other preachers talk about this, and at the time I really didn't follow what they were trying to say either. So I appreciate the post, though it is going to take a coule of more readings to sink in. And yes, agape, charity, is a much more fitting word. When a church is spiritually dead, this is what is missing most, from my own experience anyway. They could have ( or THINK they have) the greatest doctrine of all, but without charity, it's dead. Hmm, First Corinthians 13 seems to fit in with that. Thanks for the post. The other posts, well, it's late and I will have to read them later!

separating god from man is as big of a mistake as separting satan from man twi's main problem man is spiritual

Hi Cman I love this post. It is thoughtful and honest. Can I talk with you a moment? Doctrine doesn't change, but you know what does? Our understanding of and the way we practice our faith. To have a sketchy at best, doctrine drilled into you, and then have someone-let's say, standing over you, holding you accountable for each word, is ridiculous, and abusive. Honestly, that is just insane. God expects us to use our reason and mind as well as our heart of love that He gives us. We are dust made creatures--fallible-foolish, and full of self. We are given to wandering away from good things to seek out lesser things. It is the way we are, but we CAN consider and think. So, your reaction to unchanging doctrine is understandable. I don't think THE WAY had a sound doctrine--a form of something else, but very unsound. Consider, if you want, :) An unchanging love and encouragment found in a doctrine of grace that recognizes we grow and learn and wander. That is what we find in Jesus Christ. As to the doctinal forum. It's a trip!!! Hi Sunesis--:) :) :) :)

Hi Dan I apologize. I told you I have a viseral response. I am sure you have read Dr. Sanday(SP)and his work on Luke, which is what settles this matter for most. That of Luke and his gospel. I too am thankful for the writings we have because it establishes for us after our investigation of internal evidence, the matter for many. Luke is mentioned 4 times in NT, but he is mentioned 2 or 3? times externally Knox came along and questioned Sanday's work on language he used to establish certain things. I don't mean to be vague, but it has been a few years. It might surprise you to hear I didn't react so radically to Knox, he was not conclusive or dogmatic, and his work spurred little real conversation. Until-Greasespot, Kruger(SP) some german scholars, you and others who agree. That means little or nothing to the reality of God. OR the reliability of the bible. It is an intellectual debate--which has gone on for years--critics of the bible--trying to disprove the existence of God or the reliability of Scripture. I don't mind most debates. But, I came out of a destructive gnostic cult. I saw the result of this belief system. For me it must be a discussion of the theology as well as history, does that make sense? It is as valid a consideration as what they said. Why did they say it? For a time, Marcion was pretty big. He was leading a large sect. Even after his death the same group continued and we know the outcome--again. You yourself said there is little left of Marcions writing. We can put together a slight history of his life. I would disagree that gnosticism like Marcions was as powerful a contender into History as you put forth--up to the tenth century. But, I MUST agree that it was a very powerful contender in the 1st and 2nd. Which is why we have to understand WHAT they were contending for as much as THAT they were contending. Hence, my reaction. I know that quote by Justin Martyr--yes Marcion was big. His churches spread like wildfire--for a time. And?. . . . I told you this already. There is evidence he hung around with Paul too. He was a church Bishop---He was once part of the christian church. Which he why he was given the latitude he was in the beginning. To question him was a BIG deal. His father was a Bishop at Sinope where he was raised for goodness sake. I don't dispute this in the LEAST. I am not a catholic, although confirmed at one point. They might still count me in as lapsed, but I believe they screwed up pretty badly as doctrine became corrupted. Yes, information on Cedro is little. And? He was considered a gnostic. Again. . . . .why was he outside the mainstream? What secret knowledge did he have. Well, if Marcion trained under him--we have a good indication. The deathbed thing is a bit iffy IMHO but I threw that in to illustrate a point. There are those that believe he did this. Something made him fall out with his father and get the boot. It could not have been good?? None of this is in dispute. My point to you has been the same as well, the why?? Must be looked at. What causes one to react with such vehemence? Money? Marcion was wealthy--a ship owner. He shored up the church in Rome for awhile--they gave him a refund. Was it the money he pulled away from the church? Or was it something else? Look at the internal evidence. Take Marcions theology and that of the apostles and fathers. Work it with the OT---well not Marcions--he got rid of that. And all things Jewish, or most. According to him--Chreestos--Christos--Jesus wasn't the Jewish Messiah. Faced with many problems, he had to come up with a winner of a theology--Because of this. . . Luke would have despised him. Luke was a skeptic. He looked at everything. He was logical. Luke was a bright guy. While we are on the subject here. So are you--a bright guy I mean. Too bright to let this talk you right out of God. The bible has had better critics than you over the years. It is has survived. It continues to teach and transform lives. It is too powerful for you to disprove. But, you can look at Marcion and this history from gnostic shaded glasses and see just what you want. You may take a few with you--to what end? Just make sure you understand all the perspectives. There is one you may have missed. Love is not deaf, dumb or blind Dan, there is a reason for everything. I slam VP on this site as well, with not one ounce of regret or guilt. Why? I am to love the Lord with my whole heart, soul, MIND, and strength. Many Christians forget the mind part IMHO. Part of loving him is recognizing those who try to destroy his people, and speak accordingly. Jesus called Peter Satan. I am not a wishy washy person. I call them like I see them. When it is people like you--who I believe are innocent and honest--I make a logical distinction. Sue me. I have a brain--I try to exercise it on occasion.

There, showered, changed and not rushed. Here is what I am trying to say. Revisionist historians provide a valuable service. I admire anyone who will take on this task, with objectivity. When new evidence comes to light, evaluation is crucial. History is crucial IMHO. Having said that, perspective and agenda HAVE to be looked at. They HAVE to. My perspective is different than yours. We are going to draw different conclusions from the same evidence if we allow our predisposed ideas to enter into the process. Revising history objectivley is almost impossible to do, if you have a BIG dog in the race. So, when I say to you---look at the big picture, including doctrine and evaluate, this is what I am saying. Perhaps they were more than ------like warring political factions. There may be things that don't fit in Marcions theology--with the rest of the bible. These guys used OT. Marcion diminished its importance. yada yada. Perhaps. there is something there you missed. AND, if you came out of a gnostic cult who exerted influence over you in matters of faith. . . . . . . hmmm it REALLY is something to honestly re-think. You were able to discard the entire matter of God on some thin evidence that a heretic was copied by Luke. Fine, but Luke would have reviled him. Because of theology. As far as the epistles go, it is telling to me, that you are not remotely giving the document the benefit of the doubt. Meaning, it says I Paul, and you are saying, in essence, I whoever but Paul. That is why I mentioned the wisecrack about Clement in the cave. You give the document the benefit of the doubt . You don't show your disdain for one side over the other. Not, if you want to be credible. It told me something. Now, couple that with what we were involved in. Step back and look at what we were taught to believe. Add in a healthy dose of psuedo mind control, and consider the task. That is all I am trying to say to you. Read, agree, and enjoy Knox et al---------- But, honestly, given our history, consider why you do. Take Care

Said it better in less words=below

Hi Danny, I have to work today, and despite my unflappable position on the subject, I wanted to somehow make this point to you. I want to make it in a kind way. Yet, my first reaction is one of bewilderment. It shouldn't be, given what we all once believed. First, Danny, Bullinger is a fairly lone voice. Christians don't use his bible as gospel truth. Why do you think VP embraced him? He had "special knowledge" that other learned, thoughtful, contexual critics, don't ascribe to. There is not a huge movement out here to explore Bullingers work. Not because he is unknown, but because he is dismissed. If you go to a Christian book store, order a Companion study bible, and the clerk has half a brain, he/she is going to direct you elsewhere. Why? They know it is the favorite bible of CULTS!! WHY???It is easy to come to similar conclusions of Marcion, if you don't have a basic gospel. An example of "Secret Knowledge" It is not like Marcion or others are a SECRET to bible scholars Danny. They don't need a library card. I don't need one. He is too easy to dismiss based on his own version of the gospel. He was not once as easy for us to dimiss. We actually embraced several of his ideas. That is where VP went, from the simple truth laid out to us, the gospel--- a Savior for sin---to a doctrine of "Free for all Grace" and an "Absent Christ". Yes, Marcion loved Pauls epistles, with the EXCEPTION of the pastoral epistles. He cherry picked the documents that circulated and he rewrote them. He dismissed the other gospel writers and focused on Luke, whom he KNEW was Paul's buddy. He was raised by a Christian father in a church established by Paul. Paul--was his guy!! There is evidence that he was excommunicated for sins of a sexual nature. "Defiling a virgin". He went up to the church at Rome--gave them a big pile of cash and stayed there for a time. They booted him as well, and actually gave him his money back!! He had to find a place he belonged. He sat under an identified and dismissed heretic. He learned "Secret Truth" that is what they themselves called it. He formed his own Church based on these doctrines. And I have to admit to you---they grew quickly for a time. But, they are gone and Christianity is still here. My point to you was, they rear their ugly heads every so often in the form of cults. All based on similar beliefs. That is why they are considered cults. That is what gives us our defenition of cults from a Christian perspective. We consider it a BAD thing. For many reasons, but the most compelling is it is always peversion of a simple truth. Christ-Jesus-God in the flesh came and died for our sins, was resurrected and will come again. Danny, do you know what really gets me upset? I, without objectively looking at it, and with the word of a pervert VP, believed that the Church Fathers were bad. That they tried to supress poor Marcion and others. That early Christians did not believe that Jesus was God. That the doctrine and practice of Christians today is based on a lie---the winning team getting their way. I bought that garbage hook-line-and sinker. Too lazy to look myself and decide what I really thought. Let's look at it. Marcion, --Defiling a virgin, VP-defiling a church secratary---Marcion--looking for a place to go--VP the same---Marcion--sitting under a teacher with secret knowledge. VP-Stiles, Lenoard, Bullinger(Secret knowledge) Remember, the rest of Christianity is clueless. Marcion, taking his secret knowledge and starting his own churches. VP-PFAL and the Way---MArcion, big for a time--planted churches like weeds. VP - the way at its height, there was growth. Marcion, peverting grace into a sinless doctrine. VP the same--there is no sin anymore. It is grace. Marcion-preaching grace while putting his followers under the strictest legalism. VP--well we all know that one. It is Grace, but did you turn in your schedule, sell your house, and sleep with your wife last night? or how many drinks did you Way Corps have--you are moving here, did you jog today? Why do I think gnostic doctrine is bad? I think so, not only because the bible tells me, but I can see the result of its grip on the lives of its ascribers. What transformation? Where is the community? What happens to those who participate? Where is the salvation? Where is the truth-Jesus Christ? Where is He relagated? I could go on, but in the end this word sums it up. Fruit. What is the fruit of the gnostic tree? That is why the warnings -- the stark and dire warnings. It is a permeating belief system that ends in disaster--here and beyond. I would lovingly and with the most hopeful of heart Danny, submit to you, that you threw out the bible and the beauty and heart of God for YOU--based on a cultivated and fertile presupposed mindset. You didn't uncover some long untapped historical data written up by German scholars in a persuasive and scholarly manner that you looked at objectively. Or that the rest of Christian scholars missed. You were ripe with their perspective from the start. The sarcastic soliloquy of Clement in the cave was not lost on me. If you were in the Way, you were half way there. I say this as a participant--not an observer, which I hope in some small way lets you hear me. I love your questions about Jesus. They don't offend me or send me into a full blown lock-down mode. I am not so jazzed on your assertions about Marcion as equal in merit to the church fathers or their contemporary Christian faithful. My perpective there has expanded, I look with less ex-way vision. It has no real substantive weight, and therefore easily dimissed in my mind. However, I know what it is for ex-way to let go of their secret knowledge and one doctrine in paticular. The one that leads to salvation. Which is why I get chills at the very name Marcion in connection with ex-way. He is where he belongs-in the garbage dump of church history, but the defense that his ideas have merit, or somehow his gnostic view was the same thing as the Church fathers -- by someone who doesn't believe either rings hollow. If you are going to take that view, take both sides of the issue--evaluate the doctrine --seek out the reasons they were so opposed and then throw them out if that is still your desire. Danny--I really do think you are a thoughtful man--it is for this reason I answer you. Cman-Just look at these terms as descriptive necessities, and not as labels. I consider them valid labels, but maybe that will help you not to be offended.

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

Hi Oakspear For the sake of discussion I'll stipulate that it can. How then can you determine which of the competing "truths" is THE TRUTH The bible is true because it coforms to the reality of Gods existence and His dealings with us as human beings. Truth has to have a match up with what is actual or real. Otherwise it is not true. Let me ask you a question. Do you think reality can be shaped anyway you want? Interesting take, similar to the atheism = religion argument. I suppose if one were to say "there is no way that your "truth" can be TRUTH, I might agree with you. It goes back for me to theory vs. practice. In theory truth can be determined, in practice I haven't seen it done. I did say that. To say no one can know God in such a way as to invalidate what someone else beliefs--is wrong. I also said it is a religion unto itself. Now, because you Oakspear have not seen truth determined--means what? It has never been determined? Not at all. All that it presupposes is that no one has come up with an objective verifiable measurament of that "knowing". You just proved my point. You would have to know all to seriously make this statement--How the universe is wired--the ins and outs of God--if there is a God. . . To make this statement--you would have to know truth--the actual reality that there is no objective verifiable measure--

Hi, I know the stories to which you refer. Actually part of my undergrad work. Yes, there was an odd kind of ectasy in these people who fought to throw themselves first to ravenous beast. In the lines waiting for Christians to be brought out to lions--there were arguments over who would go first! Selfish? I don't know I do know that those who gives their lives for the Christian faith understand that God is JUST. An unfamilar characteristic of God to many Wayfers-Ex and present. Most Christians do understand that the glory and reward of heaven is far greater than the moments of earthly suffering. The man who was born blind--for God's glory--his reward is in eternity and never ends. His life here on earth was a blink. Paul talked about this-To live is Christ-to die is gain. But Paul lived and suffered and served. Because he loved. Other Christians do the same. Many in less than comfortable conditions. Knowing that we are slaves or servants of Christ. That is our calling. A blip on the Christian radar of a group of ecstatic self-made martyrs in no way exemplifies the heart of a servant of God. There are many examples of things done in His name that chill me. That is a whole other discussion--I could probably out cite you on those instances. The Way alone gives us enough material for a set of encyclopedias. That is why we are told to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good. That is why we follow Jesus-hear His voice and KNOW Him. As for those who die in vain for a faith such as Islam. I don't think I really even need to point out the differences, but will just say that their deaths-steal from people, kill others and destroy the lives of many. There is a great book I would encourage you to read called Prisoners of Hope. It was written by the two American girls held by the Taliban during the beginning of the Afghanastan war. It really does exemplify the love in a Christian heart for muslims. As for this world -- this is where we make our decision about Jesus. It is a question that you are asked whether you realize it right now or not. And if Vp ever said anything true it was this. "You tell me what you think about Jesus Christ who he is and I will tell you how far you will go. . . " I for one love that you ask these questions. Jesus can stand-up under your scrutiny. I hope you are asking Him these questions as you seek Him out in the gospels. By the way, I do care for my mom who is older, well not really old, but infirm and as helpless as a kitten. So, I applaud your love and devotion to your parents and the care you gave them. It is in no way easy.

Hi, It always surprises me, and it shouldn't, when people pronounce judgement on something with no more than a cursory understanding. The human condition I suppose. To see things through the small prism of our tiny understanding. I do this. To follow Him and to cleave to Him, we often give up much much more than burying a parent. We can lose parents, children, loved ones-riches-comfort-our dreams and desires, and sometimes our very lives to follow Him. He tells us to give up the world--he calls some to wretched poverty. WHY would a loving God ask this of us? Ego? Vanity, Cruelty? Kicks? Who would follow a God like that? However, the apostles had no problem dropping their lives to follow. Millions upon millions have done the same. Many-Many to horrible deaths-most SINGING praises to Him as they burned or were tortured. SINGING as they died. Some watched their children die first. Read some martyr stories--they will SHOCK you. The man who wrote "It is Well" wrote it as his ocean liner passed over the spot where his FOUR daughters had recently drowned. Peter was crucified upside down because He didn't count himself worthy to die in the same manner as Jesus. How is it that people can leave what you proclaim important? Family values was it? For what? Christians leave worldly comfort for a life here on earth that is marked with suffering. Not all Christians prosper--not all are healed--but ALL are chastened. All are tried. All are stripped of pride. Who would do this? Most would call us crazy. Not a surprise. But why do it? Why do we do it? Willingly-Gladly- Here is a term you have heard on this thread--Because we KNOW Him. A moment in His presence and we are dropped to our knees. His GLORY and HIS LOVE are unfathomable. His glance sustains us--He is WORTHY of ALL I have to give. What I have here is temporal-a fleeting moment--but what I am given is an eternity with Him. He strips me of the temporal--the fleeting and the things that draw me from Him--so that I can recieve the very best thing. Himself. He saves me, refines me, and will someday present me. He gives me Himself. He is enough. Life isn't about God, IT IS God. Joy is God. Peace is God. A verse that we are all familar with John 10:10--is true--but it isn't riches, or cars --or stuff that give us abundance--it is Him. God has no pride-or ego-He is gentle, kind and he is loving. He gives us Himself because that is the very best--that is His unspeakable gift. That is worth ALL--HE is Worthy. If I place something before Him in my life--He loves me and enough so that He will refocus me on Him. I have been given things from God and then had them taken away. GOD TAKES THINGS AWAY. He always shows me that HE is best for me. Through difficult-painful trials-I have learned to THANK and PRAISE Him. To understand that He KNOWS Best. Now here is the kicker---I am to love you---to lay down my life if need be as a witness of His love for YOU! After leaving my dying parents. It has been done many times before. A young North Korean man was tortured to death--but as he died he forgave and loved His captors. One of them was converted by his witness and now serves the persecuted Church in North Korea. Now KNOWS Jesus and would willingly die to save someone else. Why would he do that? Love--because he is given unspeakable love in the person of Jesus Christ. The same Jesus who told that man to let the dead bury their own and to follow Him. The same Jesus who loved him and understood far greater than you what it means to follow Him--Knows the greater gift He gives-knows eternity. He knows that gift is worthy. Nothing comes before Him-Nothing. Not my ideas-not my values, my family, my selfish wants, or my life. Because that is the best. He offered that man the Best thing ever possible-to follow Him into eternity.

Hi Jen-o Thanks for the response. I love your passion! Knowing the Lord--you know that no one can denegrate Him. His work on the cross is complete. He is who He says He is. Every knee WILL bow and every tongue Will confess Him as Lord. That is a given according to the bible. Although I did not see the mocking here you did, I gotta tell you-- Jesus was mocked by tougher guys than Invisible Dan and whoever else. One even repented! He still managed to finish His work and save us. He STILL manages to love those who don't yet believe on Him. Your job according to His command is to love them too. If you "Know" Him--obey Him. Life is a bit more pleasant that way. Everyone the Lord loves He chastens-- While I admire your stand and steadfast declaration of the Lord--I have to just wonder a bit at the shrill tone? Take a look at what picture the Gospels paint of Jesus--when He rebukes His disciples and claims He is the only way. Then imagine you regard Him as just some man. Couple that with our Way experiences with "Leadership" and then possibly rethink the question asked. Don't ever lose your passion! Thanks so much! Take Care

Sounds reasonable, except when you consider the "Word" or "Commandments of God" taught by VP. Then the whole premise is flawed. As many times as we heard--It's the word-the word and nothing but the word. We were not taught the word. We were taught a religion. The religion of VP. A very legalistic religion in fact--hmmm kinda like the Pharisees. The true word is pure-Ps 12:6 19:7 and actually does condemn adultery and abuse, both spiritual and sexual. Do I ACTUALLY have to quote scripture on this one? We never had the truth in the first place. So, VP et als behavoir fits like a hand in a glove with what he actually taught us. Let's see some of the gems carved out for us. True Godly sorrow and repentence-eh whatever-no longer have a sin problem--administration of grace dont-cha-know. Abortion-Hey a-okay! The ABSENT Christ???? MOG?? I thought the Pope was bad. The Gospels were OT????????? For our learning--yeah we may have missed a few things in there. Wasn't John 10:10 the whole premise? Believing=Recieving Works for saint and sinner alike?? Well, that sure takes God out of the equation. The suggestion of the MOG is tantamount to a command--Please don't quote David to me-- Christians should be prosperous? Who says, Jesus didn't even have a place to lay his head? Romans 13 - Taking old Billy out behind the woodshed. John 1:1--at least the Jehova Witnesses got it. The company we kept! The fear in the heart of that mother-- 4 crucified-the 6 denials I forget how many temptations he added?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What a crock! This doesn't include the more advanced teachings for the uber-spiritual. Abusing the women of the kingdom to heal them--yep that's a gem. Real pure-peaceable and easy to be entreated. No word in the Way to make void. What that man and his minions did is sadder than I can even express. The condemnation heaped on his head is frightening Rev 22: 18 & 19 Oh, I forgot we don't fear the Lord. I bet he does now. Shame he ruined the bible for so many. If you have not picked it up in awhile--it is a Great read, less the way doctrine-it makes some sense.

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.

"it is my opinion that, the conduct of these hypocritical "whited sepulchres" indeed nullifies their purported "beliefs" as being "biblically accurate"...........it is also my opinion that, despite their interpretation of what is "scriptural truth", any such "scriptural truth" they may have spoken or taught is indeed negated (as spoken or taught by them) by their blatantly "unscriptural" conduct!" DWBH Yes, God gave His HOLY-JUST-PARADOXICAL-PEACEFUL-KIND, and WORTHY-TRUTH- meant for the meek and humble to a bunch of ABUSIVE-PLAGARIZING-ADULTEROUS-DEVIL SPIRIT OBSESSED-HUCKSTERS. The rest of Christendom which (missed the snow on the gas pumps) was of course kept in the dark. Those idiots! Men and women martyred were "misguided" as they were put to death for their faith. They should have subscribed to the Sunday Night Service. Hmmm 2 things God HATES--Powerful language from a HOLY God. 1. To be a peddler of HIS word.2Cor2:17 2. To cause one of His little ones to stumble Mt 8:16--I think in IMHO rape and sexual abuse may cause one to stumble-just a guess. Peddle-Dishonest men seeking personal profit and prestige at the expense of Gospel truth and peoples souls. John MacArthur This goes for those ridiculous "Off Shoots" Who still hold the "Truth" VP et al taught them. Deep breath and here we go----Keep denying who Jesus said He was and is and look what it gets us. However, we were always in good company. The Moonies, the Mormons, the Jehova Witnesses, and the little known Christadelphians. All because VP couldn't hold up under accountability to a church. Yeah--their behavoir nullifies every last word they speak. IMHO