Leaderboard

Right. The goal of the law is to get to know Jesus, the Christ. Get to know the Man, the King, the Shepherd, the Redeemer. The goal of the law IS NOT to get to observe any specific day, or time, or season. We are to do as Jesus did, in heart, soul, mind, and strength. That means: loving and obeying God. And then, loving our neighbours (=those around us, those we come into contact with). It doesn't mean: following all the ritual that Jesus followed, and much of which he poo-poo'd.

When I was in grad school, a collaborator from England came to work in our lab for a few days. Wasn't it John Cleese who said that America and England were two countries separated by a common language? He'd ask me, "'Ave ya a gum bung?" After some thought, I realized he needed a rubber stopper. "'Ave ya a retort 'older?" Ah! A ring stand! And let's not forget the pronunciations: Instead of "I put some trimethylaluminum in a CAPillary tube," it was tri MEEthilealuMINium in a caPILLary. Of course, this worked the other way, as well. I made a business trip to England and decided to to use the hotel exercise room. I couldn't get the locker to open, when a local said that I needed to "give it a poundin'." Well, banging it didn't work, and I finally found out he told me to "Give it a pound (coin) in." (Put a pound coin in the slot.) George

Yep. Everything I, and others on this thread, goes right over your head. We don't live in OT times, Waxit. We have a little more freedom than that. I am not "finding legal loopholes" (which you seem to think is wrong) - I am explaining how law works. I am jolly sure that God intended man to take regular rest from his normal labours. Absolutely! And I have always made it clear to you (should you choose to look) that I do exactly that. I set out in detail how I enjoy my "sabbath rest" and use it to glorify God. I love doing that. Where I absolutely do not agree with you, Waxit, is that it is a special day (that you see as Saturday) and only that day, that must be utilised for the sabbath rest. I do not think it is possible to say that any "original" sabbath day was on any particular day of the week. In fact, I'd say the task is absolutely impossible. And furthermore, I don't believe that God would be one jot upset if anyone (at all) chose to enjoy their day of rest, their sabbath, on some other day of the week, because of whatever commitments that person might have. If you think that, you know a different God from the one I do. Mine is loving, caring, graceful, compassionate, peaceful, forgiving and a lot of other wonderful things besides. My God is not vindictive and will throw me away forever if I happen to celebrate a day of loving him - on the wrong day of the week. Think about that.

I'll admit my memory isn't as sharp as it once was, but I seem to recall a discussion addressing that very topic, some time ago. I have no idea how to find it again or where it all led. I seem to recall, though, when the dust all settled, we found ourselves down the block inside at 23 Skidoo.

Waxit, a "productive discussion" must be both "productive" and a "discussion." To "discuss", each of us has to listen to the POV of the others, and probably get something out of it, whether big or small. We have to acknowledge that we are ALL trying to communicate, and are entitled to courtesy, and, at least here, a chance to be heard. To know if it's possible to have a "productive conversation", we need to know if the participants are really willing to converse. If one or more are just interested in advertising, mudslinging, trolling, or insulting, then we can't really have any kind of "conversation." It really sounds like you're disinterested in anyone here- except as an AUDIENCE or as someone to AGREE WITH YOU automatically. We're often open to changing positions, but only if the other side makes more sense than our own, not just because someone insists they're right, or insists they know what God wants, or insists they're right because they have great conviction. If you really want to change minds here, you'd actually have to DISCUSS and CONVERSE. Stop and ask yourself if you're really ready to do that, please.

Here is one of DWBH's posts on John Summerville and TFI......

Hi all! Wow what a trip this is here. I was marked and avoided in 1995. How many people get to say they were shunned? I became involved in 84 Little Rock AFB Ar. Was a WOW Amb and advance class survivor. They started to get a bug up their butts when I decided all the dead end jobs were dead end and wanted to go to college. The twisted justification on the Ways part was how dare I rely on education and advancement to supply my needs. Also Martindale was becoming a person who seemed far from Christ like. There was already strike one from moving to go to school.My questioning the crap coming out of Loys mouth got me the mark and avoid. How dare I question.

Hi everyone, although I did not disclose his name in my memoir, Undertow, Dr. Joseph Bishop was my father-in-law. I was married to Tim Bishop from 1973 to 1991. In Undertow, Tim's name is changed to Ed.

That was Rev. Bishop. He was Tim Bishop’s father, and his church was in Rye, NY. Remember the “Groovy Christians of Rye”? (Life Magazine article, May 14, 1971) As I recall they held Sunday fellowships and larger meetings in a room in Rev, Bishop’s church at the time.

Who anointed you as the primary judge of all women and men on Earth today? I wish YOU would humble yourself and pray. Then you might see the way you have been trying to communicate your understanding of God's law isn't getting through to us. As it stands, the only thing you're telegraphing as to your intentions is that you have judged us and found us lacking. Will you be sitting at God's right hand on judgment day? Just sayin'. I wish you growth.

Calm down, Waxit. We've all had our journeys out of TWI. Some of us have been very badly abused. Some still have good memories. Your journey is your journey; do share the bits that you think will help people. You don't know where others have "been" - I do know my own experiences of life during TWI and particularly the enormous injury afterwards (that I have told you about) have enabled me to reach out to others with much greater compassion. If you permit it, God will enable you to bless and help others, when you share your journey (but only to help others and show that recovery is possible when they are "down the bottom of the well." - ie, not share because your story is better, worse, more/less lurid, etc - the story is how God rescued you, not about you, glorify Him not you). People here have tried to understand where you are coming from, and have asked you questions, both to understand you and perhaps to help you. Your responses are often repetitive, hectoring, lecturing, generally unresponsive and less than respectful. Would it be true to say that you think those who disagree with you do not love God? Despite what they do, believe, how they act - they will be banished for ever? Please, Waxit, have a bigger view of God. He sent Jesus to die horrifically so that all might live - not be banished. All have sinned, all have done wrong, and all will continue to do wrong, despite best efforts otherwise. God allows us to go wrong, time after time. He knows we (all) are imperfect, we are foolish, we don't understand enough. He's not looking to catch us out - he's looking to draw us (all) in. If people do their best but it's wrong, or at least, not perfect, does a loving God slam the door? If a child does wrong, does a parent banish the child from the house? Or look on, smile, and be glad that he has a child, even though the child does wrong? We bring JOY to God, Waxit. He smiles on us with pleasure. He doesn't slam the door on us.

This TED talk about storytelling got posted to YouTube today. Storytelling is a very important part of life.

How is that at all about Gabe? I'm not nitpicking. Stories can communicate powerfully and effectively when/where just telling people that you know they're doing it wrong doesn't get the message across that you wanted to get across. At some point, perhaps when/if you get frustrated enough with lack of response to your preaching, you might explore the idea of trying to express what really motivated you to make the decision in your life. It's a ministry of reconciliation, isn't it? How can you reconcile people to God if you are so frustrated with them that you can't tolerate their feedback to you?

I think you have it a little upside down, Waxit. For one thing, things don't "hang" on a foundation. But if you substitute "depend" for "hang" as some versions do, then yes, all things depend on these two laws for their foundation. Strong's translates this as "All the law and the prophets depend on these two commandments." You do realise, don't you, that when laws are passed, the statutory law is usually not the be-all and end-all of it? There are many subsidiary regulations (in Commonwealth countries called Statutory Instruments (SIs), possibly different in other jurisdictions) But the SI regulations must adhere to the sense of the law itself. It's my view that all the Big Ten commandments, and all the following commandments, are just like that: Statutory Instruments, further defining what is meant by the foundational law(s) but not overriding them. The foundation is just that: the foundation. The most important part. The building atop the foundation can be cleared away entirely, it's just overlay. But the foundation remains and can be built upon afresh. The most important part of the foundation is the Cornerstone. Try checking out what a cornerstone is, architecturally. Here's a start: https://www.newstudioarchitecture.com/newstudio-blog/architectural-cornerstones Do you need even one "guess" at who (not what) the cornerstone is of the church? Who orients his church in a specific direction? And whose apostles and prophets also form part of the foundation? Here's a little clue, from Eph 2:20: The apostles and prophets observed the sabbath, as did Jesus himself, in pre-crucifixion times. I'm not sure it would be true to say that they observed the sabbath in the same way afterwards; can you say that? The ones who remained in Jerusalem got rather legalistic (it's so easy to do that, isn't it? = do the actions without refining the heart and intent); maybe they continued to be sabbath-on-Saturday (as you say) observant; but all the apostles, helpers, converts, who helped spread the early message didn't seem to be sabbath-y on Saturday. They just met together regularly.

1) I think glossing over their complicity to the Martindale purges and rfr's draconian policies that are only reined in when a lawyer insists they must be is the wrong approach. (If your "Christian" group exploits its workers and only stops when lawyers and law enforcement say they have to stop- as with twi- then your group is not as "Christian" as it claims to be.) They were perfectly comfortable with that for DECADES. That's not some piddling little detail. It says a lot about what they value more. 2) Nobody said it was "ALL about money." Some is about money- thus the timing when retirement is looming. Some is about POWER- now they can make the decisions. Some of it is about AUTHORITY- now other people hang on what THEY say. Some of it is about prestige and privilege- they have titles with cachet now, and possibly some of the chief seats. But dismissing all of that because itá not "ALL about money" is a convenient way to blow off a position you don't like. (Make up a caricature of that position, knock it down, then pretend that was the actual position, and you can dismiss the original position casually.) I don't think you MEANT to do that, but it looks like you were definitely in that neighborhood. 3) Last I heard, there was a "donate" button on R&R's Facebook page, which you can't see unless logged in. So, casual inspection may not make it obvious. BTW, just because they ALSO have normal jobs doesn't mean much. Having a standard source of income, among other things, makes it easier to hide "slush fund" expenditures. It also keeps the lights on at home.

Why are you apparently so intent on judging them? Do you know what's in their hearts?

It's not a scripture slug-fest, Waxit. That's a very TWI-thing ("I know better scriptures than you do"). And don't indulge in adding words in your own PI. I (and many others) have stated a different view, which you cannot accept. Fine. End of. It's not even what scriptures one knows - it's the ones one acts upon, puts into practice, that matter. And you cannot see the entire outworking of my faith - but the Lord does - and those who have eyes to see, do.

I disagree with you - it appears to me that Paul is using a rather broad general term in the context referring to days appointed to be observed by the Jewish law – Paul does NOT exclude the Sabbath. Rather in a brief but comprehensive manner Paul is talking about regarding a certain day above another – it could be a feast day – days of unleavened bread, the Passover, feast of tabernacles, etc., or even the Sabbath…You are contradicting yourself saying Paul was not talking about the sabbath when in fact you said he did - you said: “In those days they had religious activities on certain days of the week and that's what Paul is addressing” – yes, you’re absolutely right - they did have religious activities on certain days - such as the Sabbath set aside as a day of worship – a religious activity. In Romans 3 Paul is starting to develop the theme of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Does that mean everything Judaism stood for is wiped out? Not at all – Paul says in Rom. 3:31 that faith actually confirms the purpose of the law. As I stated in a previous post – the law was a means to provide payment for when people sinned, to show mankind’s inability to obey God’s righteous demands and to point to Christ as the Savior...Romans 4 talks about Abraham being justified by faith - not by works. I don’t see a contradiction with what Paul said in Romans 3 with what he said in Romans 14. Because in Rom.14 Paul addresses the latitude we have regarding the observance or non-observance of certain days. Perhaps if you ease up on the Sabbath bias (inserting Sabbath-keeping parenthetically in your mind - and in your post ) you might see that Romans 3 and Romans 14 do not oppose each other. Paul introduces saving faith in Romans 3. By the time he gets to Romans 14 Paul is detailing some practical aspects of faith. (Selections from Romans 3, 4 & 14 are given below). As to dogma-scare-tactics like “if there’s contradictions the Bible will fall apart” – that is really just a false dilemma - As Wikipedia says “The false dilemma fallacy can also arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception.” - ...Sometimes we may think we're stuck in an either/or situation when in fact there may be several more options available. When it comes right down to it – the Bible is what it is. Ever hear that expression before? What does it mean? It indicates the immutable nature of the Bible - meaning whatever was written down in those ancient texts is not going to change - what's done is done.... Yes, there are a lot of translations and versions out there which reflect various translation philosophies (form-driven, meaning-driven, etc.) – but if translators are worth their salt their rendering of the ancient texts usually convey the same basic ideas of God, Jesus Christ, sin, redemption, prayer, brotherly love and so forth. An interesting book about the trustworthiness of these ancient texts is The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable by FF Bruce ...I think a more apt phrase might be “if there’s contradictions in a theology – one's religion might fall apart.” For the aim of systematic theology is to arrange religious truths in a self-consistent whole. ( see systematic theology for more info) == == == 21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those ]who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. 31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law…Rom. 3:21-31 NASB == == == == 4 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, And whose sins have been covered. 8 “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account.” 9 Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, “Faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness.” 10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. 13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not [m]through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; 15 for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation. 16 For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,...Romans 4: 1-16 NASB == == == 14 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God....Romans 14: 1-6 NASB

It looks like I beat you by 2 minutes George. I was actually viewing some other Oscar trivia (Lawrence of Arabia) at the time I checked the post so it registered with me pretty quickly.

I haven't fallen out with you, Waxit. But I (and many others here) would prefer that you be brief and to the point, and address questions asked of you in simple manner. I'm still waiting... well, no, I don't expect you to answer now.

1) That sounds like "beating around the bush." and 2) The best way for you to ensure it will be a productive discussion is for you to contribute productively -- cogently explain YOUR position. 3) We can't control what other people do (i.e. you either controlling me or deciding that you time isn't worth engaging with me because of _______ (you name it) 4) Now that would equate to you dismissing me, wouldn't it? Actually, if you want to help people clarify their understanding, the only thing YOU can do is make your argument as clear and simple as possible and then ask questions to figure out if what you tried to explain is clear to your readers.

Waxit, I believe we all can have a productive conversation if we all really listen, ask questions, be respectful and find common ground. And generally speaking, folks like to have their ideas validated – nothing wrong with wanting that. I've found that really productive discussions involving theology, doctrine, theory and practice tend to go through a refining process – where everyone tries to get down to the nitty gritty of the issues – by focusing on the most important or fundamental aspects of the issues. There is often a give and take that goes on – concessions and compromises – and sometimes something significant is achieved. From my own experience on Grease Spot there’s been times: I’ve abandoned, modified, expanded, changed or simply validated my position on something; broadened my horizon; gained a deeper understanding of something by listening to someone else’s perspective on it. Per your request and as a gesture of good faith, I will briefly state where I’m coming from – although I think one’s belief system is very complex and usually doesn’t lend itself to being conveniently pigeonholed – as you’ll see in the qualifiers I tack on to my position on stuff – and maybe you’ll find some common ground in all this. I am somewhat of a Christian agnostic - I do follow the basic tenets of the Christian faith – but when it comes to God - I do believe in God but feel that there is so much more about the Creator that goes way beyond my understanding or any theology. I do regard the Bible as the Word of God. Even though it has obvious errors and contradictions, especially in some historical or scientific matters – However, I believe any problems are few and far between in matters of faith – the basic tenets of Christianity – such as the birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ and all that accomplished…loving God…loving my neighbor as myself…sin, repentance, forgiveness, etc...and anyway "technically" speaking my faith is placed in a person (Jesus Christ ) rather than in a book. But if anything the Bible is certainly one of the means of developing my relationship with Jesus Christ. Also I wanted to be honest and upfront with you about your statement “an agnostic that doesnt regard the bible as the word of God when rightly divided with no contradictions in other parts of the bible”…”Rightly divided” is an interesting and unusual KJV phrase. I think it has been co-opted by various groups – becoming something of a catchphrase that goes well beyond the original idea that it was intended to convey. For some folks “rightly divided” seems to function as loaded language to persuade folks that their interpretation of the Bible or a particular passage is the correct and only valid explanation…Just wanted to let everyone know when I read “rightly divided” in a post, I automatically translate it to “in my opinion the correct interpretation of the passage is as follows…” . Hopefully some sound principles of interpretation were involved in the process…for more on principles of interpretation see Wikipedia Hermeneutics and Stanford Ency. of Philosophy: Hermeneutics and regarding KJV phrase "rightly dividing" see What did Paul mean by rightly dividing for an interesting read. Waxit, hopefully we all can look past what folks say regarding their own beliefs – not dismissing or pre-judging them. That will encourage folks to think outside their own theological box – and that will truly be a productive discussion. == == == Having said all that – I want to address your other post. Waxit, I agree that the basis, foundation…the reason behind obeying the law and the prophets should always be doing it out of love for God and neighbor. But I don’t see why you assume that means the command to keep the Sabbath is still in effect. You may be technically correct in claiming Jesus ".. never said, you can ignore His laws & commandments (Including the 7th day sabbath)"...But I don't think he needed to say that, because he is obviously explaining a "law" that supersedes all that...the law of love...The way Jesus explained the law in Matthew 22 makes me think of an attorney in the courtroom interpreting what is the intent of the law...This "law" of love is obviously a ruling factor in Romans 14 regarding how one should behave around others who may have different convictions than we do...the intent of the law has always been to engender love. Matter of fact there are several passages in the epistles that echo that simple summation in Matthew 22 of “love thy neighbor” and actually do not mention any specific laws that we are obliged to keep – see Rom. 13: 8, 9; Gal. 5:14; James 2:8…it seems to me "the law" has always been about love. Love is the common denominator of anything God has asked of believers. so if a verse like Galatians 5:14 says “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” and “fulfilled” means satisfied, brought to completion or accomplished – so I was wondering why do you think Christians are duty-bound - morally or legally obliged to keep the Sabbath?

Reading back thru that thread "Face Meltings" where DWBH posted........adds a whole 'nother dimension to subjugating. Whether it was the corps program or fellow laborers......ISOLATED from public view brought out their "training methods." Face Meltings Threats to kick everyone out Prisoner of War (pow) tactics Verbal Onslaughts and Scream Sessions Sleep Deprivation Taunting, Mocking, Public Humiliation Break You Down.....Eliminate Individual Identity Group Commitment Twi is the True Household If You Ever Leave......Greasespot by Midnight It just seems to me.....1) The strong, independent ones left early and/or were gone by 1978, 2) The average, committed ones dissented on occasions and tried to right the ship, and 3) The deeply, loyal corps and staff zealots stayed into the 2000's even after martindale was ousted. Splinter leaders who still suck off the teat of wierwille's teachings to this very day are weasels extraordinaire. Yeah, I wanted to love and help serve God's people.......but did I have to go thru "prisoner of war training camp" to do it? Wierwille ORDERED this??? Break us down......and then, "put us back to together" to run missions? Subservient to their orders? Sounds like the Identity of a Jason Bourne.

Some of you may already know who Frank Schaeffer is. Some of you may already know that I don't look at the Bible in nearly the same way I (we) did when affiliated with twi.

that stuff is funny, Inkernet ! sometimes when people would ask me what's something heavy that I learned from the Advanced Class, I would say "found out that Mickey Mouse is wrong seed."

Their bodies and minds.......let's not forget their wallets and their stuff while he was at it. vpw wanted retention because he taught a 10% tithe- and pushed it with a mandatory book with pfal ("Christians Should Be Prosperous.") He wanted that 10%. Then he wanted more- and invented the term "abundant sharing" for giving OVER the 10%. Then he wanted even MORE. He taught that people should figure out what they needed to live on, and the rest they should.....invest? Plan for the future? NO- they should give that to twi! He invented the term "plurality giving". Ever heard of a group other than twi/ex-twi who ever taught that, by any name? I haven't. Oh, and twi was supposed to skimp on buying anything for the group and make due with used furniture and stuff. This policy stopped suddenly when it came to things vpw wanted. Those things were supposed to be top-notch. AND vpw considered them HIS property and not, as they legally were- MINISTRY property. So, some of the ministry stuff was earmarked for his personal use, and he considered it HIS although it was all paid for and maintained on the twi dime. Oh, and if he visited your area, someone was supposed to go buy him bottleS (plural) of booze. And before he left, they passed the hat around and handed him a bag of nice, untraceable money- any guesses where they got the idea to do that? As for their bodies, yes, join twi programs, do manual labor and PAY FOR THE PRIVILEGE. He didn't get FREE labor- he got labor that paid to be there! I have to admire the chutzpah that took. And look forward to him getting his due for every last bit of exploitation (the worst of which I didn't mention.)

…Skyrider, your comments about subjugation and corps grads needing to have a splinter group leader over their decisions got me thinking about the attachment theory… Subjugate is the old divide-and-conquer strategy…The interview article below describes the “trifecta of terror, love, and brainwashing as key to cult behavior”: “People come into cults through a variety of pathways and bring with them a variety of personality types. In addition, many are born into cults. But the one thing that seems to be supported by research is that new followers are more easily recruited when they are at a normal life “blip,” as Margaret Singer put it—if one is between affiliations, such as moving house, going to university, getting married or divorced or breaking up a relationship, experiencing bereavement. A person embarking on such changes may be looking for a new relationship, hobby, religious affiliation, or even a new gym (yes, there are many fitness-based cults). And all such changes can expose a person to a recruitment attempt. But in my view, the main vulnerability factor is ignorance. A person lacking knowledge of how cults target and recruit people and the mechanisms they use to entrap people may not be able to identify a coercion attempt when targeted." You identify a trifecta of terror, love, and brainwashing as key to cult behavior. Can you explain the intersection of the three? “The same dynamic that occurs in domestic violence also applies to cults. First a person is lured to group or person who seemingly shares their interests and concerns. They may then be subject to a kind of love-bombing, given extreme amounts of attention, which can feel flattering and seem the sign of having found a safe place. Then begins an attempt to isolate the person from friends and family. The potential recruit becomes engulfed in a new system and out of touch with their old, known network. That paves the way for the group to engage in “terror” tactics, arousing a sense of threat, whether it’s fear of the apocalypse, fear of being criticized, fear of the outside world, or some other group-specific fear. I believe attachment theory provides a good theoretical approach for understanding brainwashing, and it holds that people run to a safe haven when they are afraid. If the group has been successful, the recruit, now having had fear instilled by the group, runs to the only safe haven available—the group itself." What are the consequences? "There are two effects of running to the group. First, it creates a disorganized attachment bond, what Judith Herman described as a trauma bond in her book, Trauma and Recovery. It is strong bond that is difficult to break so long as the person remains isolated from alternate safe havens. Emotional and cognitive isolation are key, not necessarily physical isolation. Cults isolate followers by controlling their personal relationships and by restricting information sources to the cult. Second, the disorganized attachment, characterized by running to the source of fear, causes dissociation. Running to the source of fear obviously doesn’t provide escape from the threat. Because it is a maladaptive way of coping with threat, the person goes into a “freeze” mode and is unable to think clearly about what is happening. This explains why perfectly intelligent people can find themselves unable to rationally view a cult they are involved with. It is literally too frightening and disorganizing to do so. The lack of alternate information and true havens undermine a follower’s cognitive processes on matters regarding the group. The cult can now do the thinking for them—the essence of brainwashing.” from Psychology Today

you mean with something like... Sunday Night Teaching duct Tape

It's sort-of a sequel. It's not labeled as one, but it can easily be considered a sequel. AFAIK, it takes place afterwards with at least 1 character from the previous movie. Just don't kill yourself trying to remember the name.

Hi Twinky, Your comment posted while I was writing mine. IMO, paradox is one of those things that many people could describe as difficult. In the context of this Sabbath discussion, it appears that both the concept of keeping the sabbath AND NT grace may be true. Embracing paradox might be an intellectual skill that could reduce the associated cognitive dissonance. Rather than denying the need for the underlying concept of a day of rest and honoring God, a person might be able to recognize and accept it, but realize it's not necessarily a dogma that necessitates a troubling bondage for the person who is unable to practice the "letter of the law."

Stay safe, stay home and wear a mask when you need to go out in public. Maintain a physical distance as much as you can and practice good hygiene and health habits. Also, avoid anything recorded by Donald "Duck" Dunn in order to maintain a positive level of musical self esteem.

GVC, welcome back, long time no see. Hopefully, it will disintegrate entirely. But what will happen to the assets? Are its assets held by a corporation, limited liability company, partnership, trust, or what? I know what they say in annual filing reports but I wonder if a little selective distribution or whittling of assets has taken place. You can be sure that none of it will be coming the way of those who contributed (us lot!).

That was a crazy time. I remember in late ‘69, the US held its first draft lottery, which gave young men a random number corresponding to their birthdays. I got a really high number from the lottery and so was never drafted. I think I have something like survivor’s guilt... whenever I meet and get to talking with a Viet Nam vet – at some point I get teary eyed and choked up. The last time that happened to me was a few years ago – on vacation in Westcliffe, Colorado. I paid the check for him and his family at this little bar & grill…To all you vets and current military, thank you for your service!

Lovely posturepedic mattress. On sale now.

Sourdough Bakers Could Save The World!! https://herald-review.com/lifestyles/health-med-fit/all-that-sourdough-youve-been-making-could-help-scientists/article_e323c5d9-019c-51d6-aa93-04b9cf22cc6e.html

Really??? damn you can’t say anything around here anymore. how weird. It’s like say ing it cant happen because it wasn’t appropriate and offended someone, so it didn’t. Tight ship? GS is an odd bunch these days I’ll give you that, but that’s the wrong way to go imo. put another way - reality’s a bitch but it’s one we know. as you were, all. As you were.

Well, I've been thinking about that... and how easily people get conned (in general) these days. So I found an intriguing essay about classic literature that contrasts with VP quite well. https://medium.com/@spencerbaum/3-reasons-why-you-should-read-more-classic-literature-in-2019-e762cb5c910c Call me Ishmael. The famous opening sentence of Moby Dick, so short and provocative, is welcoming and familiar to the 21st century reader, who is accustomed to snappy prose with short sentences and lots of white space. A few sentences later in Melville’s masterpiece we get a sentence that’s more representative of the novel to come. In just a bit I’m going to quote that sentence, and insist that you read it. And I mean really read it. Don’t skim it. This essay is about to make the argument that there is value to the way the classics force us to slow down and concentrate, and it will be easier for you to understand that point if you experience it first. Here’s the quote from Moby Dick. Please read it slowly and carefully: "Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodically knocking people’s hats off — then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can." This brings us to the first and, to my mind, most important reason to read the classics in 2019 2020. 1. You should read classic literature because it forces you to think deeply and concentrate. 21st century media is hell on the attention span. But you already know this. You know that our digital devices are shortening our attention spans, teaching us to only skim the surface of ideas, and making us addicts to tiny dopamine bursts that come from (among other things) the Like and Share buttons. As we near the end of the second decade of the 21st century we’ve developed widespread awareness that our devices have made us shallow thinkers. We’re less cognizant, however, of the effect of the content itself. Or the style in which the content is written. Have you ever wondered why so many of the articles you read, like this one, are organized in numbered lists? Or why the writing in these articles is so often organized into ultra-short paragraphs, many of them only one sentence long? We, the content creators of the 21st century, have learned to write in snappy lists with short sentences and one-sentence paragraphs. We write this way because this is what you, the content consumers of the 21st century, choose to read. You like content that is clear, concise, simple, and to the point. You’re in a hurry (always), and we writers know, God do we know, that we are competing not just against other essays or other books, but against the endless siren songs of Facebook, Instagram, Youtube, and Twitter. We know that if we ask too much of you, say, if we give you a long sentence or, God forbid, a long paragraph, we might be taxing your mind more than you’re interested in having it taxed. We know that a complicated, multi-layered thought, one that might require you to slow down or reread a sentence or look up from your screen and think for a minute is too much to ask when your phone is bursting with notifications and there’s a new video on your favorite Youtube channel and everyone’s talking about that new show on Netflix but you haven’t even seen the last new show everyone was talking about yet and you’ve got ten tabs open on your browser and 3,000 unread books on your Kindle and holy hell who has time to consume it all just open my vein and fill it with listicles please! There’s a cost to all this. In the book The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains (a 2011 Pulitzer Prize finalist for general nonfiction), Nicolas Carr looks at all the research in neuroscience and psychology about what the Internet is doing to our brains and determines that, yes, our ceaseless attempts to skim this glut of information is making us shallow thinkers who are far less capable of deep, focused, intense thought than our parents and grandparents were. You should read the classics in 2019 to unlearn the shallowness and impatience you are learning in your hyper-accelerated 21st century life. When you read Melville (or Hugo or Austen or Tolstoy or Plato or Shakespeare) you are sharing headspace with someone who is much better at slow, deep, meaningful thinking than you are because they’ve never lived in the shallows like you do. ***** The essay continues, but I hope you get the point. Wierwille obviously didn't want you to THINK.

You might ask if God ever changed his mind about this - because originally when the Israelite nation was founded, it was itself supposed to be a beacon of God's love, to show the nations and thus draw all peoples from all nations to Him. And this group of people was only chosen because God's pre-Israelite plan for all to know Him had failed due to people's egocentricity and hardheartedness. Genesis 11: 1Now the whole world had one language and a common form of speech. 2And as people journeyed eastward,a they found a plain in the land of Shinarb and settled there. 3And they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” So they used brick instead of stone, and tar instead of mortar. 4“Come,” they said, “let us build for ourselves a city with a tower that reaches to the heavens, that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of all the earth.” 5Then the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the sons of men were building. 6And the LORD said, “If they have begun to do this as one people speaking the same language, then nothing they devise will be beyond them. 7Come, let Us go down and confuse their language, so that they will not understand one another’s speech.” 8So the LORD scattered them from there over the face of all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9That is why it is called Babel,c for there the LORD confused the language of the whole world, and from that place the LORD scattered them over the face of all the earth. God's plan had been for all to know him, as in the beginning with Adam and Eve. But people's egos got in the way, right from the beginning, and going forward even to today. You could say, He changed his mind and scattered the tower-builders (and thus, the nations); then (maybe) changed His mind back (Plan C, D, or whatever) - resumed the original plan - when establishing Israel. But Israel was itself only a "temporary measure" because God's plan (1 Tim 2:4) has always been for "all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

It’s possible “the scripture cannot be broken” in John 10:35 refers to something other than inerrancy...Barnes’ notes on the Bible says of that phrase - the authority of scripture is final - it cannot be set aside...it appears Jesus was defending himself against the charge of blasphemy by appealing to the Old Testament - Psalm 82:6... look at other places where “broken” is used in reference to breaking the law of scripture : John 5:18 - “not only was he breaking the Sabbath “ and John 7:23 “circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses is not broken”...it I could be wrong but I take the phrase to mean something similar to how we view our country’s laws...no one is above the law - it is the final authority- no one can set it aside...can laws be broken ? Yes people do it all the time. Sorry for this aside on another interpretation of “scripture cannot be broken” that does not equate it with inerrancy - but like a lot of other interesting points on this thread, maybe it warrants a whole new thread... == == == now getting back to the topic - I would like to ask a few questions - which have been stated earlier by others as well: What is the biblical definition of “salvation “? What does it mean for the Christian? How does one know whether or not they are saved? Is salvation something that can be lost?

Dispensationalism is a rationalization. It's a way of explaining away the very real contradictions that exist in the scriptures. It's a way of deluding yourself into believing the scriptures are inerrant.

In sorting through this salvation topic (permanent/not) - it seems like one thing missing is a "glossary of terms" of sorts. I think the dictor in his "research" liberally misapplied the mathematical transitive property of equality to several things which are most likely quite different in reality and definitely nuanced in terminology in scripture. Born again Born from above Saved ... Defining all terms to the point where we all agree with everything is a tall order. However, defining these terms probably is going to be a barrier before we can proceed much further along this topic we are discussing IMO. What other phrases belong in this glossary? Any start to definitions? What commentaries or materials cover this? Thoughts?

Most modern scholars believe the first gospel written was Mark and that it was written in about 70 CE. Paul's death is placed at 64 CE. Obviously, he would have written the epistles before the date of his death.

That is a really great catch - I didn't see it. Thank you!

My 7th/8th grade History teacher (same teacher both years) would have refused to accept it. She had a rule which I've been thinking about a lot during the past few years. Our definitions were not allowed to recurse. That is, we were never allowed to use a word to define itself. (There's never a guarantee your audience knows the meaning of the word, otherwise why ask you what it means?) Most of the time, that was easy to work around. We all hit a snag on defining "fur trader" without using the word "fur". I wrote down "animal pelt" and others ended up using "hairy skin of the animal." So, if she asked you what a fur trader was, and you said it was a trader who traded in furs, she wouldn't have accepted that answer. So, knowing this, and knowing that the same issues of understanding occur all through life, I return to answer your question. To be asked what "incorruptible seed" means to you, and to answer with "it's seed that's incorruptible" is just to shuffle the order of the words you were asked. It answered nothing. If I had no answer at all, I would have left it unstated. If I was game to try to explain it, I would explain, that, to me, it means "[meaning of seed] that can't be [meaning of corrupted.]" Either is a legitimate answer, One just avoids answering if you don't have an answer, one is an answer. (There's also "I don't know", which is a legitimate answer but people seem to loathe to resort to it.) I find this sort of thing is actually an ex-twi thing more than anyone else- when dealing with adults. I've seen so-called leaders resort to dodging when asked questions about the party line when they were forced to agree with it while knowing it made no sense. They dodged in harmony, too. In fact, I was preparing to snail-mail some Saltine crackers to various leaders in reply to those comments when they suddenly all stopped parroting that same line and seemed to all reverse position. Then again, I encountered a different cult where they all parroted the same things as each other also, so it's really more a cult and ex-cult thing than uniquely twi.

This thread was spawned from another based on a discussion of Dan's paper, which brings up his point that salvation isn't an absolute guarantee. So, that's really what this topic is about. No one has called Dan's paper a standard of anything. Actually, I find this "exegetical commentary" very interesting, and obviously you have high regard for it. But for me it didn't clarify anything. And I'm guessing by the highlighted words from you that you have not actually read Dan's paper. You don't have to yell. To me, it only means the seed is incorruptible. It may mean more than that, but I don't actually know that for sure. And I have no idea why God would choose that analogy. Do you? And I don't appreciate your sarcasm.

Actually, it did, by way if implication. VPW led the students into drawing an unspoken conclusion and then said, "I didn't say it, you did.". It's a backhanded way of making a statement... the "nudge, nudge- wink, wink" approach. This tied in nicely with the appeal of speaking in tongues. "It's proof in the senses realm, etc."

Just making the statement (that I highlighted in bold) does not constitute even an acknowledgment that you understand my point. OTOH, I have asked you pertinent questions and posed hypothetical situations that directly go to the heart of your point. As I said in the STFI forum, that while you are not allegedly "100% convinced" on Dan's claims, you have ONLY commented in such a way that you are, in fact, 100% convinced. If you were not, you would at least be open to discussion on the issues I presented to you. I said more in the other forum. I'm not interested in a pi$$ing contest over convoluted meanings of scripture verses listed in whatever order and comparing the meanings of Greek or Hebrew words. I have presented feedback based on real life experiences that demonstrate the sociological and "organized religion" ramifications of the claims at issue. Take them or leave them. I have no need to have the last word on the subject.

Hard fought series down to the last pitch. Great series. I'm happy for the Giants. Bumgarner 3-0 in the world series. Out of sight. When's the last time that a team has gone on to win 3 of the last 5 world series? Who has done that? Well Philadelphia did it in 1909-1913. Red Sox too in 1912-1916. Yankees won 4 straight and 4 out of 5 in 1936-1941. In the modern era only the Yankees have had more success in winning 4 out of 5 titles from 1996-2000. Could be a New Dog in Town now. Way to go San Francisco. Pablo please stay in SF.

This new perception of reality hits you like a ton on bricks when you finally realize the law of believing was a wagon load of horse manure and you've been blindly trusting an illusion for longer than you care to admit.

You are probably right waysider. I would be more into the music than burning wooden art work.