Biblefan Dave

I don't want anyone to go to hell, even if it is a consuming fire rather than eternal torment. Really don't think plagiarism and adultery were reasons to for God to condemn someone to hell. As for LCM, I think he did a lot more bad things intentionally, after being told exactly why those things were wrong, than VPW, but still he's born again, so, he can't go there anyway.

Maybe we should clarify things somewhat. If I were to used material that our authors had written for my own personal use, I never had to credit the source. If I were to compile some information and share it with family and friends, I would not have to cite sources. As soon as I attempt to make to market or to a profit from my compilations of material, then my must have cited my sources. Then, that is plagiarism. Simply using someone else's material is not wrong, selling it without citing sources is not wrong. As long as a book is in the public domain, it is never wrong to use material written in that book. I am free to use a sentence from one book or a phrase from another book, if I don't try to sell the material. Also, there is such a thing as common knowledge. A book mentions that hydrogen plus oxygen produces water. That is common knowledge, thus there is no reason to cite the source. If a person reads that Lincoln was the President during the time of the Civil War, that is common knowledge and need not be cited. If there is some uniqueness and/or originality to the writings, the sources must always be cited. That is legal plagiarism. In academic standards, using someone else's term paper which with a few rephrasing of words and claiming it to be one's own would be considered cheating, academically. Even if the person never profited from their paper, copying it and making small revisions would be academic plagiarism and could result in academic penalties.

Isn't it a great thing when a Christian can be right in his thinking about a subject without having to know the details to the nth degree. Can a Christian simply accept the truth that Jesus Christ was crucified, without having to affirm that it was either a straight pole or a t-shaped object? It is important from God's perspective that we realize what was accomplished by Jesus died upon that object. Or, maybe we do need to know exactly what shape the object was, exactly which day of the week it was, the exact temperature at the time of his death, the exact composition of the soil, the exact number of people present, the height and weight or each soldier present, the wind direction at the time. Or we can just realize what his death represented, period.

Knew John Lynn. Trusted him. Didn't like the way some Corps people went through this very dramatic personality shift and started ranting and screaming all sorts of nonsense about him tearing down God's ministry. Got lots of info from JAL about the continuing, ongoing adultery, about what happened to John Schoenheit regarding the Adultery Paper, etc. After 2/26/87 letter, went to the aforementioned "Limb Meeting", endured all the rantings and ravings, saw John calmly explain his actions, then made the decision that I could not continue to follow this organization. If BOT's including LCM had apologized, made corrections to wrong doctrines, and seized adulterous affairs, I would have been more than happy to continue. No apology. No correction. More affairs. Obviously, right decision to leave. My sympathy and heart goes out to all who stayed around after '87 and endured all that ridiculous stuff that went on.

I don't agree that class was bad. I thought Stiles research was very thorough and comprehensive. In VPW's presentation of Stiles materials, there were a few minor flaws, but overall it was fairly accurate. Now as far as teaching and counseling people outside of classes. Sure, many people helped prepare the classes so that they were generally designed to teach people in an understandable and systematic manner. Yet, people tended to rely upon the classes too much to do the counseling of others that they should have been doing personally. Corps were often too busily devoting themselves to TWI activities and maintaining "physical details" to devote their time to personal one-on-one counseling and teaching sessions. I actually thought the topic was VP and Me. When I first read that, and recently read it again, I thought LCM's heart at that time was truly desirous of one who one's to serve God by helping his people. Of course, LCM changed his priorities from the Word to the "ministry". He didn't care if people were 100% committed to God, he wanted them to be 100% committed to the "ministry" which chose not to minister any more. If LCM had kept his life according to what he wrote in VP and Me, it wouldn't have turned into peepee and Me.

Steve, I have heard it, but I didn't know that people had found out it was true. The person married to the greatest "homo spotter" of all time has the hots for Rosie. How come he never kicked them 2 out? I guess he must have missed a couple. But, then he was probably spending more time with the Corps honies than he was with Donna. LCM on Corps principles. Acquiring an in-depth spiritual perception and awareness. Couldn't even tell his wife was a lesbian. Grade F Being trained in the Bible in preparation for teaching others. Couldn't even teach his wife how to avoid becoming homosexual. Grade F Keeping physically fit. Adultery does burn a lot of calories. Have to give to him on that one. Grade A - Implementing Biblical principles to live abundantly. 15%, not biblical principle. Grade D - Working after graduation in areas of concern, interest, and need. Rosie was concerned for, interested in, and needed his wife. Grade D -. LCM you failed the Corps Principles.

I need to see examples or specific verses. Forever could mean forever without exception or without distinction. Or would it would forever with distinction as separating it from another period of time. Okay, my head is starting to hurt. Prepositional hell, for all eternity as long as people use prepositions. Yes, I know that was TWI terminology. That was intentional. Would you rather I use Saturday Night Live terminology? Isn't that special!!! Simply maaarveloussss!!!!

A momentus (that's lowercase, if you noticed) day in history. Oak and I absolutely agree on something. God did not identify the particular fruit. God did not say whether it was literal or figurative. If God did not specify it, and it cannot be garnered from the context, then it doesn't matter. Yeehaw, hooray. If God didn't say or imply it, it really doesn't matter. Hey, I was honestly hoping someone had uncovered some hidden information that identified exactly what the original sin was. But, I am perfectly fine just having it be disobedience, and disobedience, alone. One can't determine obedience unless there is something to obey. Why did God have this one thing Adam couldn't do? He had to be able to determine Adam's obedience.

Why yes I have, thank you.Are there not different portions of the Bible where God gives specific information and other times general information. I can't, don't plan to, and don't want to know every single Mosaic law or memorize every genealogy mentioned in the Bible. It doesn't help me know Christ in a better way. _SOME_ people were expected to live by those laws, not all. Israel only. The law was never sent to China, or North America, or Sub Equatorial Africa. So non-Israel would be functioning under the same divine expectations that they had all along.Context, Oak, context. What are we talking about? What's mentioned in the Bible, I hope. I apologize if I left out specifics. God gave the law to Israel. Of course, I understand that. If God doesn't label the time period, why do you feel the necessity to do so? Calling the Law that was given to Israel an adminstration makes an assumption that may or may not be warranted without more thought than you appear willing to give it. Administration comes from the Greek word "oikonomia" which means the administration of a house. It is also translated stewardship and governing. We are dealing with how God governs his creation. Dispensation was the King James English translation of oikonomia. So, administration and dispensation basically mean the same thing. Governing or reigning or ruling over a specific time period fits with current terminology in how we, in America, describe our executive leader term in office. So, administration is widely used terminology, especially for Americans, to refer to specific definable periods of time. I like the term "administration" because people can generally understand the term. In order to share God's Word, but it must be in terms that people can understand. If I yelled at you that your rumpelstilskin was on fire, you wouldn't know what I meant. No you haven't by youOh, yeah, of course, uh huh. But we really know who is the culprit. Is that MainstreamBrain, never admitting when you are wrong? That would be you once againSee above. I am not going to get into this childish "you are, no you are, no you are" nonsense. I think that you just made the opposing viewpoint.But, for the sake of communication, we need to have common terminology so that when we communicate the Word to each other and to one other, we are able to convey the correct meaning and concepts. For someone to just arbitrarily decide that they hate TWI, therefore all TWI terminology or descriptions is wrong, is not logical. If one looks objectively at many things TWI taught, there is both scriptural integrity, common logic, and understanding terminology. To arbitrarily dismiss all of that is not using sound logic. I guess calling something that would be as biblical as calling it an administration since neither are biblical The Greek word "oikonomia" is translated as administration, stewardship, and governing. Administration is to oversee, steward is to properly care or oversee, and governing is overseeing with rules and regulations. It is not logical to claim "administration" is an unbiblical word. The word "administration" also perfectly fits with current language, as in defining a presidential term of office. So, the word "administration" can convey a well understood meaning. But, I am not declaring that that is exactly what the definable and distinguishable time periods in the Bible must be called. For that matter, "dispensation" coming from the same Greek word "oikonomia" would be just as Biblical, but less used in modern language. Pharmacists dispense pills. ATM dispense money. Dispense in modern language commonly refers more to the giving out of something, than the oversight of. I repeat, I don't care what people call it. But it's helpful if people can understand the meaning.

As that what this whole discussion is about. What it was called? VPW called it administration. People think bad of VPW therefore we shouldn't call it administration. Some people don't like dispensation, but they of standing in line waiting for the nurse to give them their medicine, I guess. As I said, I don't care what people call it. God never demands that we develop a cleverly crafted, original, resonating off the roof of the mouth title for everything. It's not a commandment of God to call it administration or dispensation or age or era. It's important to know WHAT HAPPENED in that time period. It's important to know how past time periods led us to the time of Jesus Christ. It's important to recognize what Jesus Christ did that brought us to our current time period or era. Is it helpful to use common or familiar terminology (oh, well, here we go talking about terminology again, boring!!!!). If I call cranberry sauce mashed potatoes and you call applesauce turkey, our meal is going to get very mixed up. If you refer to an automobile as your car, jalopie, "wheels", or get-up-and-go machine, I could probably figure out what you were talking about. If you referred to your car as your gizmo, well a gizmo is a generic term used for many different objects. So, it's a free country. We can refer to the time periods in anyway we like, especially to deomonstrate our very independent way of thinking. But we get blank stares we people don't recognize what we are talking about, then that's on us. It's irrelevant where it's different or not TWI terminology. It's irrelevant where it's mainstream terminology. The idea is to grasp what God had holy men wrote, and be able to share that with others.

I have come to the conclusion that I really don't know what the original sin was. But, I see garden + tree + fruit + eat. There was a garden. Well, it was called the Garden of Eden, so I assume it had the characteristics of a garden regarding living and growth plants. I know there were animals because Adam was naming them. Ok, in the Garden are trees. One particular tree has fruit which Adam and Eve are forbidden to eat. Garden, tree, fruit, and eat all seem too literal to me to be symbolic, not when they are all mentioned together in close connection. Therefore, I don't believe it to be self-pleasure, as taught in CFS. I forgot what LCM taught it was in his class, but that didn't sound right either. Nor could I definitely conclude it was an apple, although an apple is a fruit. I have decided that most likely it was a mango. If man eats, man go out of garden.

Oak, Have you ever heard of the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. There was a period in which God gave laws to Moses and expected people to live according to those laws. God never demanded that we have an exact label for that time period. Therefore, if it makes no difference to God, it makes no difference to me. Again, I have been accused of only using Way terminology. Another gross exaggeration. But, some people in this forum seem to thrive on wild accusations and gross exaggerations. God did not demand we label time periods. As a matter of facts, we were told not to get hung up on holy days, etc. If someone wants to call it the Law Disemcantankerotamus, it's fine with me.

Pardon my goof. Jesus Christ will defeat the adverary. And his "production" will be a lot better.

Ok, dealing with administrations, or dispensations, or ages, or eras, or the like. I don't much care what they are called. But we are dealing with God's relationship with or governing of mankind. Upon Adam committing the original sin (BTW, I don't see where garden + tree + fruit + eat results in self-pleasure of anything related to that), there was an abrupt change in God's relationship to man. Prior to original sin, 1 commandment: see that tree, don't eat anything on it. Afterwards, it was basically man ruling man, as God permitted such to happen. Some dramatically or radically altered events happened upon original sin. There was a period of time before sin entered the world. Then sin entered the world. Eventually Jesus Christ will destroy sin. Time Periods: Pre-Sin, Sin, Sin Destroyed. During the period in which sin has been introduced into the world, there is a time when man rules man. There is a time under which God gives written laws to Israel Before laws, only communication with God through revelation or some from of coming into concrete form and the sharing of the information by word of mouth. When God starts giving the laws to Moses, all of Israel is expected to obey the laws. Jesus fulfilled the law, thus people no longer expected to obey the laws, except 2: love God with all... and love thy neighbor as thyself. Ok, there wasn't a radical difference between the period where man ruled over man and the law of given. Man was born as body and soul creations possessing a sin nature. Men (and women) could have spirit upon them both before the law was given and afterward until Pentecost. Yet, the way God governed or oversaw His people did change with the giving of the Mosaic laws. There was a different means or standard for measuring obedience. Jesus Christ most certaily did fulfill the law. Upon and following the day of Pentecost, I was now available for a person to have spirit within them. There was never any record of a person being born again before Pentecost. Upon Pentecost, there was. Jesus Christ said he would build his church. That was putting it in terms of the future meaning it had not happened at that time. Before Pentecost, only Jews and Gentiles are mentioned. After Pentecost, we can see a whole new group of people, church of God. The church of God or the body of Christ is never mentioned prior to Pentecost. Peter asked Jesus if he was going to restore the kingdom to Israel. A kingdom means rulership or governing. The word "oikonomia" means either stewardship or governing. Both stewardship and governing takes place over time. The kingdom wasn't presently restored to Israel, that would take place at a later time. Jesus did not read "and the day of vengeance of our God". Day most certainly refers to time. The day of vengeance of our God is a future event. Now the so-called Appearing Administration. There will be numerous radical changes the way God deals with mankind. First the rapture (or gathering together for those of you who don't get come up in whose terminology belongs to who). The rapture changes how God deals with the body of Christ. People will get new bodies. Chaos will exit on earth. There are both of the resurrections of Israel. Radical changes will happen during those periods. And finally Craig Martindale will destroy the devil. Sorry, I had an "Athletes of the Spirit Production" flashback. No, the devil will defeat the adversary. There are the sufferings and the glory which follows. Those are distinct periods in time. Do I think that the administrations, or dispensations, or eras, or epochs, or ages, or gumbafornicadeedles (yes, I made the stupid word up) are exactly as Bullinger and VPW laid them out. No. But, I certainly know that the conditions necessary for the new birth did not exist before Pentecost. Otherwise, Christ died in vain. So, the Covenant Theory that things just kind of evolved to this point doesn't ring true. Personally, I would divide the Appearing Administration or Era or (insert preference here) into 3 different periods. Each event, coming of Christ and resurrections of Israel represent a distinct change in God's relationship to mankind.

I do think VPW in PFAL said that it was all without distinction within a certain type or category. If someone was at an NRA meeting, all would refer to gun enthusiasts, only. All with distinction meant that there would be a distinction between people who are gun enthusiastics and those who would be distinctly not. Hey, I know, in and of itself its really simple. But people can get lost in prepositional hell.

Not liking to engage in vague generalities, I would have to say that some of TWI's leadership were full of crap, up until mid-1987. There were some very consientious TWI leaders who did not like the way the BOT were handling things. Those leaders who voices their concerns were summarily fired from any positions of autnority and told that they would never run anything higher than a "twig" for the rest of their lives. Some TWI leaders did take a stand against the rest of them.

Furthermore, Steve, I apologize if I misjudged your intents. Maybe I reacted more angrily than I should have. But I am simply amazed that people who have had an exposure to God and to God's Word could ever develop some of the viciousness and hatred that if obvious from some here. I don't care if people have different conclusions, viewpoints, opinions, ideas, or the like. But when I see the constant personal attacks, character assassinations, insults, and general lack of gratitude that's behind some of these opinions, one certainly has to look for the underlying agenda that motivates these things. You know what, I did not like John Kerry for President. I simply did not feel he could handle foreign policy in our current circumstances of terrorism and other hostilities. I wanted someone to find some provable "dirt" on him that would substantiate my preferences. It never happened. In the end, I simply liked Bush more. There were the Swift Boat people, but they never really proved their case. As much as I would have liked to believe the negative about him, the negatives I heard were not substantiated. It came down to a simple preference. Yet, there were plenty of negatives floating around about Kerry, but I don't like to buy into rumors. I haven't been in TWI since '87. I really don't count a few months in '89 when some WOW ran a fellowship near me, as I had already left TWI in my mind and I felt it harder to relate to things they said and did at that time. I left voluntarily in '87. In '89, 2 years after I left, I was asked if I was 100% committed to the "ministry". I responded by asking if the "ministry" would be 100% committed to teaching accurate knowledge, treating people correctly, and correcting the errors and problems that had crept in. I was told I was no longer welcome at any Way function, which was no big deal since I had already left. So, I have no bandwagon to climb onto and no special reason to come to TWI's defence. I am not interested in TWI, I am interested in truth. But I am eternally grateful for the things I did learn in TWI. Not interested now, thankful for then.

Steve, If there is an "administration (oikonomia) of grace", how could it not represent a period of time? If administer is to oversee, then there would be an oversight for the length of time grace is available. If administer means to give out or dispense or allot, then that giving out of grace is not a one-time occurrence but would happen continuously as long as born again believers are present on earth until such a TIME when grace would no longer be administered, i.e, the gathering together (oops, 40 lashes to me for using "Way terminology"). When someone oversees, they generally oversee for a period of time. The security guard has set working hours. The project manager devotes many hours to managing the project and projecting the needs as far as manhours, materials, procedures, processes, etc. to complete the project. The management takes place over time. As nothing man makes ever turns out perfectly, there are always points at which revisions must take place along the way. This takes time. When someone dispenses or doles out something that is continuously given out, then there is a commitment of time. The pharmacist dispenses medications to people who are prescribed those particular medications. The pharmacy maintains a pharmacist usually for as long as the pharmacy is in business, thus denoting a period of time. Supply room personnel generally are long term personnel because the needs of a company demand people continuously present at designated times to distribute supplies. This connotes (wait, is connote a Way word?) time. In otherwords, how can administration be void of time? You see, if someone presents things devoid (another 40 lashes for using a TWI word) of character assassination, insults, personal attacks, and blatant negatively, I am all for considering what they say. I may not always accept it as true, but will always consider it.

Also, why is "waybrain" only used in a negative way. Just about everyone I knew in TWI loved God, loved Jesus Christ, and loved the truths of God's Word. While it may not have applied to every single person involved, I believe that that one could characterize people in TWI as good Christian people who loved God and did their best to live according to God's Word. People in TWI were generally very giving. People gave of their time and their money, generally because they wanted to. Many people witnessed to others because of the great things God had done in their lives. People ran fellowships usually because they wanted to. People ran or assisted with classes because they wanted to. People offered rides to others because they wanted to. So, as most people in TWI were giving people, I would say "waybrain" represents an attitude of giving and service. When people only focus on the negative, it certainly does not demonstrate a grateful, thankful attitude.

You see, here again is gross exaggeration. If someone uses sound, fundamental, and logical processes to arrive at a conclusion how can that be considered "waybrain". To focus that characterization or insult solely toward TWI is called "tunnel vision". Did you ever meet a medical doctor who positively concluded that a physical symptom was the result of a particular virus or infection or defect? There are many medical doctors that scientifically determine that a symptom stems directly from a particular affliction. Is that "waybrain"? Of course, not. Many mathematicians are firmly and absolutely convinced of certain formulas or calculations? Does that mean they suffer from "waybrain". Is there anyone who took either PFAL or LCM's class who can't recognize that the rules that applied to Adam and Eve after they were kicked out of the garden were different than before? That's simple logic. If simple logic = "waybrain", then I am all for it. I work in the IT field. There are numerous times when a particular software malfunction is always the result of a particular problem. If one were to ask why a network has no ip address, and the network cables and jetdirect boxes are properly connected, the problem would be that the port needs to be reset. Is being convinced that the ports needs to be reset a result of "waybrain". Again, "tunnel vision". Way too much focus on "way" affects one's abilities to made logical conclusions. I would say "waybrain" is being too fixated on trying to attribute all problems in life to TWI. I suppose some people who decide that the Palestinian problem in the Middle East is a result of something VPW did or something that LCM did. As with any organization, one can find good things and one can find bad things. Believe it or not, the Roman Catholic Church has problems. There are issues with priests molesting little boys. There are also a lot of very kind people who are Catholic. Believe or not, there are variations of Baptist Churches. You have the Free Will Baptists, the Southern Baptists, the Northern Baptists, etc. Guess what, they don't all agree on everything. That's why they split into different factions. Some people consider Amway a cult. Why? Because the successful people in Amway are committed, driven people. Some people deem commitment to be a bad thing. Those people are wrong. The Bible clearly shows commitment as a good things, depending upon what one is committed to. Yeah, at one point, shortly after leaving TWI, commitment seemed to me to be a bad thing. When I went to that charismatic church, I actually had a good time for most of my time with that church. Yet, when the minister, CJ Mahaney would mention the word "movement", my skin would crawl. At that time, I didn't want to be involved in any movement or program. That was back in '90-'92. Then, I realized that commitment wasn't a bad thing. "Commit thy ways unto the Lord". Being convinced of a logical conclusion is not a bad thing. To consider people who are firm in their beliefs to have "waybrain" is a gross exaggeration and a vague generalization. Is it being fixated on TWI. And I know people who were in TWI who weren't as firm in their beliefs as others in TWI were. It is never a good idea to try and label people and put them in this box where one presumes that everyone within a certain group or organization all act the same way or think the same way. Catholics don't think all the same way, even if they all seem to know the right phrases to respond with to the priest. Some Baptists play cards and dance, and others think those things are wrong. If one took the time when they were in TWI to check out the varieties of individuals that were there, one would have realized that there was a great diversity of personalities there. This generalization of "waybrain" is not substantiated by the facts.

A point of clarity: it's not the different conclusions that people come up with. If people don't want to believe in administrations, fine. It's a free country. If people want to believe that every grilled cheese sandwich will eventually produce an image of Christ, I have absolutely no problem with that. But there is a definite illogic to many of these conclusion. Many of these conclusions stem from personal attacks. First of all, there is never any indication whatsoever that Doctor Wierwille did not do the work necessry to earn a Doctorate. And there are many good schools that lack "creditation", because they simply don't have the political muscle to obtain the accreditation. Anyone could label such an institution as a "noted degree mill", especially if one's agenda is to try and discredit someone's character. Until someone can prove to me that VPW did not actually do the work to earn the doctorate, I consider him "Doctor". There are plenty of well-known "doctors" who matriculated at non-accredited schools. Slander and character assassination do no one any good. These personal attacks by a few posters are simply their means by trying to overcompensate for feelings of inferiority by trying to tear down someone else to make themselves feel better. As far as coping skills go, absolutely of one of the worst one can pick. An absolutely ridiculous question was asked: Well if VPW was wrong on this one doctrine, what makes you think he wasn't wrong on some other things? We have something call the Bible. We compare what someone says to the Bible. Is it completely illogical to approach the issue by assuming one erroneous doctrine negates all the rest. That is preposterous. I guarantee you that if any of us underwent the scrutiny that's being done on VPW's life, any of us could be portrayed as horrible human beings as well. If our words were twisted, distorted, or taken completely out of context, we could be portrayed in just as negative a light. Many people have to engage in personal attacks because they make no sense on doctrinal issues. They can't deal with things on a doctrine level, so they must engage in personal attacks. Sometimes, that's the only way they know how to react is to lash back in anger. The attitude is that people are mad at TWI, therefore everything about TWI must be wrong. Again, completely, totally, and absolutely illogical. Being mad at a bank teller for not cashing a check does not necessarily mean that the bank is an evil and heartless corporate monster. When I was in TWI, I never heard anyone whatsoever tell me that VPW was a perfect human. In fact, in PFAL, he said he was not perfect. Yet, people are mad at VPW, a man who has been deceased for more than 19 years. They are mad at him because he was not perfect. Yes, he did teach a few erroneous doctrines. Yes, he did engage in a few sinful activities. Yes, he did not properly credit others when he used their research and writings in his research and writings. Yet, who among us is perfect? Are people mad because he turned out not to be perfect? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Who among us is without sin? Do we not want forgiveness for the times when we have gone astray? Then, why in the world would we ever allow this anger to rule our worlds to the extent that 19 years after the man died, we still feel anger and bitterness. If you ever talked to anyone involved in 12 step programs, the people who are successful in those programs have an "attitude of gratitude". There are many people who would have never had an appreciation for God, our lord and savior Jesus Christ, and God's Word if it were not for TWI. Half-full or half-empty, your choice. Someone asked the question: Was sitting in the PFAL on my 19th birthday a good thing? Again, an absolutely ridiculous question. Of course, anything that propels us on a course toward knowing God and his son, Jesus Christ would be a good thing. But, then, some people stil have to engage in these personal attacks to make themselves feel better. Well, in just about any group, one can find good people and one can find not so good people. A person's character shows in whether they focus on doctrinal issues or engage in personal attacks and character assassination.

I don't think the all with or without distinction was exactly a doctrinal change. Most people generally understood what VPW meant, even with the verbage was a little confusing. It was more of a clarification or cleaning up of language syntax.

I'd nominate Rodney King for President. Can't we, can't we just all get along.