Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

What The Hey

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by What The Hey

  1. The ROA was discontinued by LCM. He was upset by all the "screwing around" (literally) going on at the Rock by some teenagers. (For exmple: Corp week was being called "Score week"). I think he axed it because some kids were "making out" better than him.
  2. Yep. Somehow I knew this thread would end up leading into a discussion on the Horny of Plenty.
  3. To avoid further confusion, perhaps it would be appropriate to define exactly what "Pop" Christianity consists of. Pop Christianity is said to be a version of Christianity made popular by select "celebrities". It is filled with lingo and phrases such as: "seven-fold annoiting", "latter day revival" and other such "buzz" words. These are just some examples of the phrases that have become the popular staple of modern-day 21st century Christian believers. It's no surprize to many that TWI had it's own unique "lingo" and Christian buzz phrases as well. So, was TWI a phenominal player in establishing "Pop" Christianity? When we talk of "Pop" music, we are talking about a type of music that appeals to all types of personalities and certain celebrities that often "stand-out". Is it possible there are still people today seeking "Christian teachers" who have a very unique lingo that helps them satisfy their own desire for a newer version of Christianity - that is, in order to make them stand out from the rest? By sound doctrine or true Christianity I am talking about doctrines and aspects of Christianity that doesn't come out of the mind of a man or woman who just happens to say, "the spirit has revealed unto me" or "the spirit gave me this revelation" - and other such lingo. For the Word of God to be true it can't simply come out of the mind of any man or woman. When Jesus Christ taught his disciples as well as the masses, he went directly to the Word of God and he used the scriptures to explain his purpose for coming into the world. But as the scriptures reveal there would come a time when people would grow intolerant of sound doctrine and the subjects of scripture, and then to suit their own desires they would head fables. The reason they would turn from sound doctrine unto fables is because their own desires would begin to rule their lives. When our desires rule our lives, then we begin asking for another form of teaching. (2 Timothy 4:3,4) I think we are at a place in Christianity today where most of us have been forced into this "desire driven" Christianity. Notice in 2 Timothy it says they would be come irritated with the Word of God. There was an irritation as it says their ears were "itching", and they became intolerant of sound doctrine as sound doctrine does not minister to our desires. What sound doctrine ministers to is our understanding and our faith in Christ alone and in his purposes. It says they would be turned unto myth and fables. That is just another way of saying the predominant message people would want to hear would be a message that caters to their own desires, and not to the truth of God and His Word and His will. Yes there is a version of Christianity today that often references the bible, but it has no real roots in the Word of God. So here is the question I am posing. Have we become a Christian culture that has grown intolerant of sound doctrine? That is, that we no longer have a desire or hunger to hear the Word of God itself but would rather hear teachings that cater mainly to our fleshly, selfish desires; such as our desire to become "purpose-driven" Christians? By "pop Christianity" I am talking about messages that are designed and mainly focus on the desires of people such as the "prosperity gospel", rather than the gospel and the person of Jesus Christ. The gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is clearly the person of the Lord Jesus Christ proclaimed to be the Son of God as the full payment for our sin by his death and burial, and the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ as our triumph into new life. I believe that is the true gospel and what constitutes true Christianity. So simply put, do you hear the majority of Christians today talking about growing in Christ, or do you hear them talking more about their own desires?
  4. The 1970's were an excting time as the previous decade before it was frought with moral decay. In the midst of it one sensed a genuine devotion to God's Word and a desire for understanding it, a sincere desire to serve the Lord - a renewed sense of holiness. There was a rise in evangelism while new bible translations and study aids gained in popularity as well as small-group bible studies. It was a time of birth and spritual revival - or so it seemed. Yet the 1980's was a decade that saw a steady decline - not necessarilly numerically but spiritually. Today there is the tendancy to make one's faith something other than what is stated in the Word of God. Experiences, emotions, fashions and opinions are many times more authoritative to people than the bible for determining what a Christian should and ought to believe. Our culture is filled with mega-churches, youth rallies and college kids wearing Jesus T-shirts - but where is the depth, the power, the mystery and the grace that represents the sacred? When these are removed all that remains is a commercialized self-indulgence with a "Jesus" spin to it. Authentic Christianity has lost it's flavor for most, mainly because it is too costly to persue. Not necessarily in terms of dollars, but in time. In place of the small-group bible study and biblical study aids of the 70's we now see on the shelf all the self-help, positive thinking, Christian diet and Christian financial planning among the "Our Best Life Now" books. American Christianity has created a sub-culture that looks no different from mainstream culture except that there are no cuss words in the music, no sex scenes in the movies, and God’s name has to be said at least once every other paragraph no matter what…even if it is about something God would never want his name mentioned with. This “Pop” Christian culture seems to teach that God has the same values and priorities as the American Dream. God wants, above all, for Christians to be successful in the world’s eyes, happy, wealthy and influential. You know the scripture, III John - verse 2. For many this was also the "gospel" according to TWI. Yes, we've all heard the gospel of: "POWER FOR ABUNDANT LIVING". But what does the gospel of real Christianity look like and feel like to you?
  5. You should go back and re-read my edited post about people "wanting to speak" for VPW.
  6. Putting this in it's proper context, VPW was discussing these pagan's beliefs because someone "led" them into the worship of these mute idols. Certainly those "mute idols" could not speak for themselves, so someone else had to speak for them. (It sure is funny to see just how many people today want to "speak for VPW" and tell everybody what they think (or they believe) what "VPW said". But VPW is dead (in a sense he is also mute) and today he can't speak for himself! Do we sense some sort of parrallel going on?)
  7. Oldies was simply pointing out your contextomy [contextomy = "the practice of quoting out of context". i.e. a logical fallacy, false attribution]. It involves quoting someone out of context to misrepresent their position (making a position more simplistic or extreme) thereby making the position easier to refute. I really can't give you credit for coming up with this contextomy on your own accord, just the credit for passing it on. VPW was talking about someone rising beyond their believing, or believing beyond what one is taught. He wasn't talking about anybody going somewhere or someone going any place. To put this subject in it's proper context, we would be discussing the law of believing. Of course, the "law of believing" has also been attempted to be refuted here before, but only by someone elses's contextomy regarding the same subject.
  8. So what they basically had way back then was: There were no "chuch politics" and why There were no "underhanded machinations" so There were no "divisions" and why There were no "denominations" among those who followed Jesus Christ. But all of that stopped when someone decided he was: "The Leader!"
  9. The dead have limited legal rights. Chief among them is the right to remain silent. Two mains areas of the law apply to dead people: 1) disposal of bodies; and 2) crimes committed against dead bodies. In both cases, the laws are a tangle of competing rights, often pitting the wishes of the deceased against the wishes of their survivors against the police powers of the state. The disputes range from battles over the harvesting of sperm from a corpse to whether sex with a dead body is rape. (In most states it isn't, unless you thought the body was alive while you did it.) (The law's like that.) [From: Habeas Corpses What are the rights of dead people? By Dahlia Lithwick (http://www.slate.com/id/2063222/)] I found it interesting the right of silence for the dead was brought up in an article regarding the disposal of dead bodies. But the question was raised if "some dead guy" (we can assume in this case, VPW) is entitled to silence or not. Regardless of what people here believe has been "proven", the issue as to whether or not VPW is entitled to silence probably lies somewhere between the same dispute ranging from the harvesting of sperm to having sex with a corpse - IMO.
  10. Gospel simply means: Good news. There are different types of good news. Of course, part of the good news concerning Jesus' gospel was the fulfilment of the law. Jesus himself said he didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. (Matt 5:18, Luke 24:44). If Jesus' gospel had not ended or had never been fulfilled, we would still be under the law and still be obligated to keep the law. (Romans 2:25-29, Romans 3:20-31, Romans 4:9-16, Ephesians 2:11-14) If you want to "step backward" into keeping the law - go ahead. But then you are obligated to keep the whole law as the Word of God dictates. (Galatians 2:16, James 2:10)
  11. There is a poster on GSC who highly favors the idea of everyone who was ever involved in TWI should "return to PFAL". The reason I believe his message is a "hard sell" here is because for most people at GSC they immediately get the impression this means and also includes: "going back to WPW's "original ministry." Most people I know consider the bible to be a very complicated book and discussing the bible makes them (and others) feel uncomfortable. I believe the reason for that is because life itself is very complicated and messy, and the bible addresses these areas of life. Of course there were problems with VPW's "original ministry" because any ministry is made up of people who have problems that are also complicated and messy. I believe the biggest part of the problem with and in TWI is many people looked solely to VPW as the MOG who could fix all these complicated and messy areas of their life. I think that is still the biggest part of the problem in TWI today - people who are still in TWI are looking to a MOG (or rather a WOG now) to fix their complicated messy life. Does the idea of returning to PFAL (whatever that means to you) include going back to the "original ministry" as the way things once were in TWI? Does that mean going back to a complicated, messy way of life and living? What if I suggest and put forth the idea to you it does not?
  12. A normal Christian? What exactly is that? They must live on some planet other than earth.
  13. I imagine it's for the same reason people are attracted to the macabre - the train or the car wreck along side the road.
  14. Yep. We've all heard this song before. TWI has become TWP (Town Without Pity) When you're young and so and love as we And bewildered by the world we see Why do people hurt us so Only those in love would know What a town without pity can do If we stop to gaze upon a star People talk about how bad we are Ours is not an easy age We're like tigers in a cage What a town without pity can do The young have problems Many problems We need an understanding heart Why don't they help us, try to help us Before this clay and granite planet falls apart Take these eager lips and hold me fast I'm afraid this kind of joy can't last How can we keep love alive How can anything survive When these little minds tear you in two What a town without pity can do How can we keep love alive How can anything survive When these little minds tear you in two What a town without pity can do No it isn't very pretty What a town without pity can do.
  15. No. What I am saying is 'learning' is not a "one-time" static event. I believe I answered that question in the example I gave JeffSio. (How credible were you in kindergarten when you didn't know how to add/subtract/multiply/divide numbers?) Like I said earlier. I see people today whose doctrine only creates in them an intolerance for others. Does that mean I think doctrine is unimportant? NO. I think doctrine is very important. But doctrine is not the real problem. What the real problem is, we often wrap our doctrine so tightly around ourselves just like a security blanket (i.e. like Linus from Peanuts) we often feel like we are losing our "security blanky" when our doctrine is being challenged or somehow is not right.
  16. Hard to say, since at one time VPW says he believed in the trinity. (He points out this fact on the first page of the "Introduction" to JCING.) I imagine what it depends upon is whether you happen to know better or if you don't know any better. Apparently at one time, VPW didn't know any better when he believed in it. (Where you a dead jacka$$ when you didn't know how to add/subtract/mulitpy/divide in kindergarten? No. You just didn't know any better.)
  17. No, but your recollection of what was taught could be inaccurate. It seems to me whatever was taugth at the AC often reflected whatever was happening or happened to be occurring in TWI at the time. For example, there is nothing about a "spirit of whoredoms" on p.20 of my AC syllabus, and my AC syllabusis probably different than yours. My syllabus does mention "possession" however. In regards to possession it says it is recognizeable by someone's speach, and often refers to itself as a "person" or as "it", but there is nothing there about a "spirit of whoredoms" in regards to equalling possession.
  18. I don't think the place where anything is taught is what matters and what cannonizes something as doctrine. If doctrine="right believing" the only question one must ask is whether or not it is right believing - not necessarily the place where it was taught.
  19. No matter how you put it, if your inner belief about someone is, "Man, there must be something REALLY wrong with this person if they can't recognize these 'simple' truths from the bible!" then your intolerance for others is showing. Here's something to ponder. Jesus Christ had crowds of people following him as he was a friend to many politicians, tax collectors and sinners, yet no one was more astute in telling others just where they were off doctrinally than he did. So many times I see in other people (as I also see it even in myself at times) those who elevate their doctrine above the relationship they have with others. Well, guess who never did that?
  20. You're probably pointing out what Mike here calls a "TVT", but not necessarily would this be considered doctrine. What often happens in Christiandom (and it happens not just in TWI but also in other Christian circles as well) is that the pre-concieved truth (or truths) I hold to often creates in me an intolerance for those who happen to believe differently than what I do. We tend to think there must be something wrong with those who are not completely on the "same page" with us doctrinally. It shouldn't be that way in Christianity, but the sad truth of the matter is, it often is.
  21. I never heard VPW say that, but I do recall hearing him say, "You gotta be stupider than a dead jack a$$ to believe in the trinity." If dead jack a$$="possessed" well, that's a new one on me.
  22. Just a simple question about this topic. Is this discussion about two separate things: that is, about faith and practice, or is it about only one thing? If we are discussing two things, i.e. someone's faith and practice, then why should there only be ONE rule or need to be ONE rule? But if we are speaking figuratively (two nouns being used but only one thing meant) then what we are discussing is what someone faithfully practices or what someone practices faithfully. If it is for that I suppose, then there probably should only be ONE rule.
  23. The reason your post reminded me of that particular passage is because what it all boils down to and really depends on is whether your posts [arguments] (or anybody else's posts [arguments] for that matter) truely holds "any water" or not.
  24. I wonder why that comment only reminds me of this passage of scripture: "For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed tem out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water". Jeremiah 2:13
  • Create New...