T-Bone

I think the mindset one absorbs through long term involvement perpetually obscures this bait & switch scam; which is further reinforced by TWI leadership. If I'm not experiencing prosperity, my PFAL circle of reasoning blames MY lack of believing. If I mention to someone I think I see a discrepancy between PFAL and the Bible, you can bet all the loose change at the bottom of the cornucopia a leader will attribute that to ME not mastering PFAL. Maybe a perpetual motion machine hasn't been invented yet – but yowser bowser - TWI has the patent on ceaseless deceptive crap. Another facet of this came to mind while I'm writing this. I remember a night just before a bunch of us married and single folks were all heading out to go bar witnessing – the leader wanting to put the women at ease – maybe over an assumption they might be giving out mixed messages – said something to the effect of whatever it takes to get someone interested in coming to Twig is ok. It's their problem (meaning the person they witnessed to) if they mistake the love of God for something else.. . Thus a follower learns to become adept in the fine art of bait & switch.

Excellent post Skyrider! You got me thinking about the "benefits" listed on the back of the PFAL sign-up green card. They were the bait – and each supposed benefit is destined to become its own polar opposite depending on the follower's commitment level, years of involvement, etc. Could only remember a few.. I guess that's a good thing. Makes life meaningful – switches to – a life outside of TWI is perceived as meaningless. Develops more harmony in the home – switches to – be antagonistic toward anyone that is not in TWI Enables you to separate truth from error – switches to – the inability to differentiate between the Bible and PFAL books Teaches you how to prayer effectually – switches to – enables one to spin wheels at incredibly high speeds while remaining stationary. Increases prosperity – switches to – sacrificing a big chunk of income, savings, career goals, and anything else of value to TWI.

The expanded literal translation according to vpw: "The greatest thing in the world today is not Victoria's Secret - but it's close to it!" I wish you could see it in the original peep show - it's just so ho.

sorry to hear this site is closing. thanks to Pawtucket + all the folks that help keep this place afloat - and thanks to all the "freedom fighters" [aka posters] with their valuable 2 cents! i really appreciate the great folks, healing and wisdom of this website.

me & LSD didn't mix - every trip was bad.. .but mescaline - that was cool - no problems and a nice mellow high.

:biglaugh: alright GT ya got me! though for a minute there I was thinking your dad was a real MF my GF thinks my MF is sexy

I believe that's sort of the agenda in any systematic theology. And kinda along the same lines - I've shared in doctrinal before of a botanical garden analogy for doctrine that I picked up in an Alister McGrath book .. . scripture as it appears in the Bible is analogous to flowers & shrubs in the wild - they don't appear grouped in any logical fashion other than the natural way they would sprout & thrive in a particular area. Along comes the theologian [like the botanist] - who gathers up certain samples and then arranges them according to different categories to suit their particular study. Whereas in botany my layman brain assumes there would normally be objective, rigid, distinct categories [for ex. all perennials over here, all annuals over there, all poisonous there, etc.] - in theology there can be some debate over which passages have any relevance to a particular topic.. . then there's the whole thing of whether or not the topic is even valid - I'm thinking of the TWI's "law of believing" for example. But getting back to my point - "legitimate" topics that try to address the overt issues of theology [the nature & identity of Jesus Christ, the nature of man, the church, etc.] I can see valid points made by those on different sides of an issue - and the deeming of a certain passage as appropriate or supportive of a certain doctrine appears to me as hinging entirely on one's interpretation.

In following this thread a couple of things piqued my interest – discussing conflicts between science & theology, classifying people in general broad strokes.. .I am trying to understand a little bit better the rationale behind fundamentalism – and maybe make some sense of the evolution of my belief system thus far.. . so anyway just wanted to throw in my 2 cents. I've just started reading Karen Armstrong's The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism – and thought I'd share something pertinent from it – and also an excerpt from another book that this thread made me think of. On pages 18 to 20 of The Battle for God Armstrong talks about Orobio de Castro [a Jewish philosopher, physician, and apologist 1617-1687] who had lived in Spain as a secret Judaizer for years. He was arrested and tortured by the Inquisition, recanted and taught medicine in France as a fake Christian. Having grown weary of deception and a double life Orobio moved to Amsterdam in the 1650s to become a forceful apologist for Judaism and an instructor of other returning secret Jews [from T-Bone: they were labeled Marranos by Christians – a Spanish term for "pigs" – Wikipedia for what it's worth says it stems from the ritual prohibition against eating pork practiced by Jews & Muslims; the term acquired the meaning of "swine" or "filth"; in Portuguese the word refers only to crypto-Jews, using another word for "pig" or "swine"]. Orobio "described a whole class of people who found it very difficult to adjust to the laws & customs of traditional Judaism, which seemed burdensome to them. They had studied modern sciences in Iberia, such as logic, physics mathematics, and medicine, as Orobio himself had done. But, Orobio reported impatiently, 'they are full of vanity, pride and arrogance, confident that they are thoroughly learned in all subjects.' .. .These Jews, living for decades in religious isolation, had been forced to rely on their own rational powers.. . .. .Some of the New Jews, Orobio complained, had become 'unspeakable atheists.' They were, to be sure, not atheists in our twentieth-century sense, because they still believed in a transcendent deity; but this was not the God of the Bible. The Marranos had developed a wholly rational faith, similar to the deism later fashioned by Enlightenment philosophers. This God was the First Cause of all being, whose existence had been logically demonstrated by Aristotle. It always behaved in an entirely rational way. It did not intervene in human history erratically, subvert laws of nature by working bizarre miracles, or dictate obscure laws on mountaintops. It did not need to reveal a special law code, because the laws of nature were accessible to everybody. This was the sort of God that human reason naturally tends to envisage, and in the past Jewish and Muslim philosophers had in fact produced a very similar deity. But it never went down well with believers generally. It was not religiously useful, since it was doubtful that the First cause even knew that human beings existed, as it could contemplate nothing short of perfection." End of excerpt ~~ Armstrong's term "religiously useful" struck a nerve with me – and perhaps I'm taking liberties with it or straying way off base from her intentions - - but coupled with my broadening viewpoint of late.. . and I guess also factoring in having been burned by a cult, so you might want to take anything I say with a few grounds of Grease Spot coffee.. . but anyway.. . imho organized religion always seems to throw a wrench in the works. I mean.. .if life is a journey it seems you can always rely on organized religion to set up speed-bumps, detours & confusing traffic circles [aka religious circles ]. I guess you're always gonna have religious experts & expositors.. .and having my share of "near-truth experiences" - maybe I'm at the place now where I've decided to come out of the closet and declare that I have my own religion. That's right. I am a force of one. Just a lone turd floating around [ah yes, the aforementioned religious circles] in the porcelain bowl of life – oh Lord I pray I'm ready when it's flushing time. ~~ After reading of Orobio's "unspeakable atheists" – I kept thinking about TWI's tightly constructed theological box and that for all practical purposes it meant that if you didn't worship their idea of God you were worshipping a counterfeit. TWI's doctrine & practice are an exemplary case illustrating Armstrong's point of a fundamentalist putting religion to "good" use – developing an extremely flexible theology to suit an agenda – I also think wierwille's agenda came before the doctrine. And reading of the Marranos' rational faith & deism of the Enlightenment philosophers I remembered something in another book I finished a few months ago – that reminded me of how I still tend to use broad brushstrokes to describe other folks' beliefs and that there's a lot more that goes into how our beliefs are formed than we realize and maybe there's not always simple rational reasons for holding to a particular belief. The book is "The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism" by Timothy Keller. Keller talks about some studies conducted to see if scientists thought that their faith in God and their line of work were incompatible. In two surveys some eighty years apart scientists were asked the same question – asking them do they believe in a God who actively communicates with humanity, at least through prayer. Results were just about the same: at least 40 percent said they did, 40 percent said they did not, and 20 percent said they were not sure. Keller remarks that "The surveys were only designed to "see" scientists with conservative, traditional belief. Those with a more general belief in God are screened out by the way the question is formulated.. . Alister McGrath, a theologian with an Oxford doctorate in biophysics, writes that most of the many unbelieving scientists he knows are atheists on other grounds than their science. Many complex factors lead a person to belief or disbelief in God. Some are personal experiences, some are intellectual, and some are social. Sociologists of knowledge like Peter Berger have shown that our peer group and primary relationships shape our beliefs much more than we want to admit. Scientists, like non-scientists, are very affected by the beliefs and attitudes of the people from whom they want respect. In McGrath's experience, most of his atheists colleagues brought their assumptions about God to their science rather than basing them on their science." [pages 92 to 94] End of excerpts ~~ Fundamentalism no longer holds much appeal for me. My religion is a very personal thing – a convoluted amalgamation of faith, reason, assumptions, hopes & fears. Hadn't come up with a name for my religion yet – but I guess it should have some snazzy label for when I speak ex cathedra [from the porcelain throne ].

the scene: a cheap diner guy: just gimme da chicken soup. waitress: [shouting back toward the kitchen] gimme a chicken soup! guy: uhm.. .wait a sec.. .hadn't had dis in awhile.. .make it pea soup instead. waitress: [shouting back toward the kitchen] hold that chicken and make it pea!

yo, count me in - uhm, to be honest my son & I are planning to see it next week anyway.. .but I'm open to reviewing it again after one of Willie Nelson's parties too. :biglaugh:

Great point Waysider!!!! Great posts Mstar and I really like Nyquist's article – thanks for the link! Leaving the comfortable and "safe" confines of TWI years ago was taking a big chance for me too - more on this later.. . In a pinch I usually defer to one of my favorite philosophers: “It's so hard to believe in anything anymore. I mean, it's like, religion, you really can't take it seriously, because it seems so mythological, it seems so arbitrary...but, on the other hand, science is just pure empiricism, and by virtue of its method, it excludes metaphysics. I guess I wouldn't believe in anything any more if it weren't for my lucky astrology mood watch.” Steve Martin ~~ But seriously folks, it’s really great to be here at Grease Spot – now on to some very important subliminal messages.. ~~ I figure most folks are in some sort of pursuit of truth – the ultimate reality – or whatever you want to call it – with varying levels of intensity and numerous ways to approach the task. If life is like a journey – then maybe my pursuit of truth is just a vacation. And in my opinion it ought to be a well-planned vacation commensurate with the thought process of my wife [our best family vacations have always been the ones that Tonto worked out]. The salient points of her best-vacation-strategy are: - stay within your budget - get the most bang for your buck - check out some places new & different [often means getting off the beaten trail] - research beforehand [check out reviews by both locals and visitors] - pack sensibly - please refer to the work of another of my favorite philosophers - George Carlin’s “a place for my stuff” routine http://babyboomerfla...n-on-stuff.html - And last but not least – make sure you take off enough time from work If you’re like me, vacation time is never enough and I usually need a day or two off at home to recuperate from a vacation before going back to work.. .ok if I win the Lotto – we’d probably spend 6 months out of every year traveling around the world - leaving you guys to play where in the world are Tonto & T-Bone. And if preparation is supposed to be the highest form of believing [oh gag me with a PFAL book why dontcha] then according to my wife/personal travel agent it’s a done deal. ~~ But seriously folks my time with TWI was like taking a guided tour through Las Vegas. Ain’t nothing “real” except what the tour guide says about it. Yea and while we’re on the subject of escaping from reality - what supposedly happens in La La Land can ONLY happen in La La Land. Alright, alright.. .a really serious note here.. .picking back up on what I was saying about taking a big chance when I left TWI.. . as time went on I found myself broadening my view of where to look for truth. Initially it was still focused on the Bible but at least I was making a concerted effort to remove the PFAL colored glasses – by getting a little more familiar with the biblical languages & resources available. I also got into checking out some commentaries & systematic theology. I guess some of this could be considered taking a guided tour – yes, but with a twist. Now armed with some critical thinking skills & a growing knowledge of the raw technical data of the Bible – I felt I could check out the tour guide’s spiel against what I knew. Maybe it says something about the value of other viewpoints too – it’s checking out the same problem from different angles. However – there’s another aspect of systematic theology that was probably the springboard into parts unknown [meaning outside the Bible]. By definition systematic theology employs biblical, historical, and philosophical resources to illuminate the practical application of Scripture. The older I get the more I find the philosophic angle so intriguing. A simple definition of philosophy is the love & pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means & moral self-discipline. It’s something most folks do anyway – or maybe it’s most folks are aware of doing it.. .hmm still not exactly right.. .maybe it’s most folks who have dropped a cultic mindset, tired of being force-fed and who take an active role in the process - pursuing wisdom, “truth”, or whatever it is they’re drawn to – using their noodle to analyze rather than absorb stuff. When I first came to Grease Spot my touchstone for knowledge was the Bible. That being the standard upon which I based judgment. My attitude toward it also most certainly made it a gateway – the only means of entry for knowledge. The basis for allowing entry was simple – if it ain’t in the Bible it ain’t worth knowing.. . so it’s been a gradual shift of the touchstone – or maybe getting a little more honest by acknowledging the basis for me to evaluate stuff is nothing more than a personal philosophy - and while I still read the Bible I don't limit myself to that being the only place to look for answers - I like to keep my options open and have grown accustomed to many things in my belief system being in a state of flux. Am I willing to take such a risk? You bet! Is it a flawed process? Absolutely. Does it work? Who knows? For me it does. And you have to be a little more specific in asking “does it work?”. The answer is relative. I’m enjoying life a lot more – not only since I left TWI but by broadening my horizons since joining Grease Spot. ~~ ~~ Be it known to all Grease Spotters from this day forward I’m editing my profile under interests to reflect the addition of a few more hobbies: from “Systematic theology, music, movies and cappuccino” to “Current interests are movies, cappuccino, and music – in that order; current hobbies are philosophy, playing the bass guitar, target-shooting, and systematic theology – in that order.”

Agreed.. . just think about the communication challenge folks experience within their own language - whether face to face, through a letter or on a website. Your sentiment is something I do think about once and awhile [and probably something I should remind myself of more often] when I get into the biblical languages - realizing there's a few "obscuring" layers I'm trying to peer through: 1. I am not familiar with the biblical languages nor their cultural & historical context 2. I am sifting through another person's knowledge/interpretation of the biblical languages 3. - and probably the most significant point imho, the biblical languages are somewhat dead - not sure if that's an accurate way to put it - you've got the Koine Greek of the New Testament, biblical Hebrew is an archaic form of the Hebrew language, and I don't know anything about the portions written in Aramaic if that is equivalent to the present-day dialect.

Then there's the Black Tread At Weekend in the Word it's the motor coach tire that crumpled your WOW mobile fender At the Rock of Ages it's the Cushman wheel that squished your WOW burger In 68 it was vp's motorcycle wheels hijacking the Jesus movement

Funny you should say that – but good thing – I looked up a couple of references and now I'm thinking wierwille fudged it on the initial definition too – these guys I cite below speak of pros as having a much more intimate connection – not the impersonal and somewhat vague rendering wierwille offered. The New English Translation, 2nd Beta Edition notes of the preposition "pros" used in John 1:1 "The proposition pros implies not just proximity, but intimate personal relationship. M. Dods stated, 'pros.. .means more than meta or para, and is regularly employed in expressing the presence of one person with another' ("The Gospel of St. John", The Expositor's Greek Testament, 1:684). See also Mark 6:3, Matt 13:56, Mark 9:19, Gal 1:18, 2 John 12." End of excerpt ~~ And from The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of John Revised by Leon Morris, footnote # 14 of page 67 commenting on the use of pros in John 1:1 Morris also cites Dods' work and a few others too ".. .Dods maintains that the preposition 'implies not merely existence alongside of but personal intercourse'.. . According to A.T. Robertson, ''the literal idea comes out well, 'face to face with God' '' (Robertson p.623). He also says, 'face-to-face converse' is in mind (p.625). MacGregor thinks that the preposition 'expresses nearness combined with the sense of movement towards God, and so indicates an active relationship. The Logos and God do not simply exist side by side, but are on terms of living intercourse, and such fellowship implies separate personality.' It is hard to see less.. ." End of excerpt ~~ After thinking about this a little more – I'd like to revise what I said of wierwille starting off with the accepted definition of pros. It looks to me like he conveniently left out a few details from the get-go. But maybe that's just me. Folks are gonna haggle over the meaning of something anyway – it happens all the time – why, it wasn't too long ago I remember someone noteworthy saying "It depends on what your definition of "is" is."

First off - welcome to Grease Spot, afriendinJesus! By the time you took PFAL in 87, I had already left TWI – after 12 years of involvement – and was reexamining just about everything I absorbed from them. I got into systematic theology, reading & comparing commentaries and checking out the biblical languages – outside of TWI's material of course. My process & motive was and still is at a very basic beginner's level – checking out certain details that I feel are important to my faith. The depth of a particular study being determined by my level of curiosity. So ain't no scholar or theologian here – maybe just a layman who had the wool pulled over my eyes - but now determined to never let anyone jack me around over the nuts & bolts of my faith! ~~ Your remarks about wierwille's handling of "pros" made me laugh and recall how puzzling I found it too as I reviewed stuff. He had a real knack for "redefining" words one way or another to suit his theology – whether it was the biblical languages or even our own English. His twisted handling of the Greek word "pros" is a dandy. He sticks to the accepted definition alright – but it's in his elaboration where the "redefining" happens. Behind his argument is an assumption that there's no way possible for Jesus Christ to have literally been with God in the beginning – so he asserts there's only one way to understand the passage. Christ was with God in the sense of being in His foreknowledge – in the mind of God. I guess in my TWI mindset I used to think of it as Christ being just a gleam in the Father's eye. In post-TWI thinking, I found a big problem with his "logic". How can someone's thought be independent of them? If I'm thinking about having children – that thought does indeed exist within me – heck, it's part of me – MY thoughts - but it's certainly not distinctly independent of me! After I checked out the usage of "pros" elsewhere in the Bible and seeing it was consistent with the accepted definition in Greek lexicons – I felt it was underhanded of weirwille to NOT refer to other passages where this key word appears. I mean – wasn't that a big deal - doing that for certain other words in PFAL? It's like he forgot about all that stuff he said on how the Bible supposedly interprets itself . I dunno – chalk it up as the quintessential plagiarist's dilemma I guess: when stealing other folks' ideas, occasionally you may have to pull an answer out of your a$ $ if you can't figure out which idea is applicable. ~~ Oh and to answer your question – yes, I now believe Jesus is God.

then you had idiots like me - rushing cuz I'm late for work or ministry meeting - believing God to make the red light go green "booms quick".

A great point guys! Maybe this isn't where you wanted to go on this but it's all i thought of on it.. .anywho.. .divide & conquer was one of vp's most powerful weapons imho. Divide and conquer is a key strategy to gain or maintain power. I see it at every phase of my TWI experience. As a newbie, I was slowly pulling away from relationships and interests that had nothing to do with TWI. Family, friends, hobbies, etc. which were a part of MY life, maybe somewhat defining who I was – heritage, preferences, likes & dislikes, habits – all being severed in a most insidious manner – by ME in my desire to achieve the happiness & fulfillment that was promised to those who sold out! Maybe it's pressing it a bit – but I even think the way vp works at getting PFAL students to disregard the five senses & any knowledge obtained by them in favor of the superior "spiritual knowledge" in his class was a divisive means of overthrowing our mainline of defense in the cerebral arena – our powers of reason. Thinking of any of their programs I now see them as a divide & conquer tactic at the most rudimentary level – breaking down all aspects of one's personality – in order to render it malleable. Makes me think of the cracking process in chemistry – the breaking down of something complex into something smaller and more useful. In regards to people – TWI's programs worked at reducing folks to some kind of a raw pliable material that they could pour into a mold to suit their agenda. I remember the theme of my first few months in-residence "world out, word in". And yeah I can even see a sick competition in the ranks generated by this. "How much old-man stuff can you get rid of? How fast can you change? Do you have what it takes to be Corps? How committed are you? Remember Paul considered it all rubbish compared to knowing the greatness of the Word!" It was a weird competition though – we weren't all striving for some unique goal or reward that cannot be shared. We were all shooting for becoming the ideal Way believer. Ya know, maybe in the background of many controversies, this divide & conquer threat loomed like a deterrent to maintain the unity. If there's 99 percent of the folks on the side of the man-O-gawd on a certain issue - do I have the cajones to disagree if I see things differently? To be honest - I usually saw things their way since I was brain dead anyway. But in the time leading up to when I left TWI - a fear of being destroyed [becoming a grease spot by midnight :unsure:] through the folly of thinking for myself was a very real hurdle to overcome. ~~ Yeah I agree – TWI's programs didn't give anything to participants that they didn't already have.. .and my 2 cents on leadership from some management book I've read – there's leaders [who have the vision, clearly see the goal] and then there's managers [who adopt the vision of the leader and plans & directs the work of those under them toward the goal]. Imho TWI had only one leader [the prez], all the programs were designed to develop managers.

So much for vp's screwy biology. I think there's maybe something about how our body deals with sickness that puts it in a "better" light for me. Maybe it could be classified as the "upside" of sickness – or turning the tables on sickness. If my understanding is right on this – turning the tables may be the principle they bank on - or whatever you want to call it - when using vaccines. The idea being – that once a person has survived a viral infection [a sickness – introduced via the vaccine] they have an immunity to the same virus making them sick in the future – their body now knows how to defeat it. So what is that? Fighting fire with fire or something? I dunno. But anywho - vp's sickness-is-death-in-part-or-whole thing really sounds so profoundly stupid to me now - as only his stuff can. Well, he DID have a gift ministry – of an idiot, so what did you expect anyway. Maybe there's something to the saying what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. But I just don't see the logic of sickness being death in part/whole. For that matter let's chug a gallon of antifreeze/coolant instead of getting a flu shot. Who knows - it may help deal with hot & cold flashes.

when it comes to lot of "spiritual" matters I find myself gravitating toward a position of I-just-don't-know. Since I left TWI my thought process has evolved into some kind of rationalism/empiricism combo [as illustrated in the latter part of my post]. Don't know if that's the correct way to put it – maybe just expanding the scope of critical thinking – it's basically me trying to do a better job of applying my reasoning skills not only with the biblical data but also stacking that up against personal experiences & observations. Not saying I figured out much – it's mostly been a matter of putting things in the I-don't-know pile [which often becomes the and-I-don't-care-to-spend-anymore-time-on-it-either pile as well]. Since the Bible is a religious book it is therefore extremely malleable imho, and lends itself quite easily to a wide variety of interpretations & applications. My philosophy on managing my belief system is: when in doubt, leave it out. That doesn't mean to throw it out necessarily or even to totally forget about it – sometimes it's just given a state of flux status with a very low priority. latter part of my post I think there's a few different takes on demon possession in mainstream Christianity – from charismatics and fundamentalists who chalk up most problems to demon possession or demonic influence to more conservative folks like Jay Adams who focus on confronting the individual [the human ] over a specific sin and prescribing repentance. Most of the Christian stuff I've read doesn't get into the medical science resources available – and as far as I'm concerned there's rampant misdiagnosing by even some well-meaning folks. More on this on a personal level in a little bit. ~~ demon possession falls into my I-don't-know-and-I-don't-care-to-spend-anymore-time-on-it-either pile. ~~ demon possession seems to be exclusively covered by the gospels [with a few passages in Acts]. That leads me to think it may have been one of the many special aspects of Jesus' unique ministry that authenticated both His ministry and that of His apostles. Demonic activity may be a slightly different subject – with a greater emphasis on their role above and beyond any human agency – there's a smattering of OT accounts and it's covered quite a bit in the book of Revelation. Getting back to demon possession – I tend to look at the gospels as authentic accounts – but do not think they're addressing any mental illnesses we're familiar with. I DO see a distinction made between many diseases and devil possession – noting Matthew 10:1 NRSV "Then Jesus summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to cure every disease and every sickness." ~~ I tend to think of demon possession as a subcategory, falling under the broader topic of manifestations of the spirit – and do not find much doctrinal or formalized teachings in the Bible on any of that like I see on dealing with sin, various morality issues & conflict resolution, the identity of Jesus Christ, developing our walk of faith & a lifestyle of good works, leadership qualifications, etc. ~~ ~~ Reflecting on my life thus far – my "experience" with manifestations of the spirit or demon possession are confined to a 12 year delusional period with TWI. Nowadays I write that off as to what my head was into at the time - - I've come to think of it as falling under a different "law" than TWI's – it's believing equals perceiving – in that we tend to interpret what's happening in life through the lens of our belief system. But that being said – with a different lens in place and a lot more honesty now, I have to admit I never witnessed an out & out miracle such as on the order of the spectacular biblical accounts – someone raised from the dead, someone deformed, physically traumatized or having some medically documented disease miraculously & instantaneously healed or someone performing superhuman "demonic" feats/said demons being cast out. I'm not into arguing with someone else's experiences – just stating mine. ~~ And picking up on a point made by Garth – I just wanted to add something as one who has dealt with depression most of my life. I got into TWI as a young man and not recognizing depression for what it was – waged an uphill battle to "renew my mind" to it, which amounted to the old grit-your-teeth-and-bear-it thing. At times I figured it was a battle between me and some depressing or oppressive spirit – didn't think I was possessed though. That was a looong dark 12 year journey to nowhere. After we left TWI, I still pursued some kind of a Christian/biblical approach to depression – reflected in my choice of books & Bible studies and in my prayers. Nothing stupendous to note from all that. My wife [who had taken giant steps in medical knowledge & early intervention on behalf of our daughter born with down syndrome] was instrumental in getting me to realize my little supposed bugaboo was really something that warranted some serious attention by a medical professional.. . BIG DIFFERENCE after a few months of sessions, checking out cognitive therapy and most importantly a marvelous antidepressant called Serzone!

I'll even up the ante on the off topic reference - :offtopic: if I had to choose between a burger at Hooters or a lobster cocktail at a gay bar.. . and we're talking strictly about food preferences and not preferred social settings - I'm going for the lobster cocktail.. .btw, not into Hooters anyway - more of a leg man myself. Since this is the doctrinal forum I'll quote one of my favorite theologians, Rev. Jeff Foxworthy: "I'd like a beer and I'd like to see something naked.".. . uhm ok then, if I had to choose between having a beer at Hooters or a beer at a gay bar, maybe I would go to Hooters then.

that all by itself just floored me - U rock Waysider! and then U had to add this, Ham - I'm already ROFLMAO - two pontifically perfect posts - thanks guys!! Perhaps you're referring to the Holy See

Tom, no offense taken and I don’t have an issue with what you’re saying – just wanted to elaborate or maybe clarify on some things I’ve said. I really like your going-to-the-doctor analogy – maybe for a different reason than what you had in mind – but anyway, the thinking behind my post was from a practical application viewpoint – specifically a wounded relationship scenario, and perhaps the “doctor” in this scenario would be a friend or counselor trying to help mend a broken relationship. I tend to think the whole point of pressing for contrition & forgiveness between both parties is for reconciliation – a healing of the relationship. Can the offended party forgive anyway – even if the offender doesn’t agree with them that an offense ever took place? Absolutely. Can their relationship continue on as if nothing happened? I don’t think so. I think it will make matters worse – on both sides. Looking at a little more of the context of the Ephesians passage I referenced earlier leads me to think unresolved conflicts can gender more sin – even by the offended party who was innocent to begin with – in that resentment, bitterness, anger and such may fester in their hearts: Ephesians 4:26-32 NIV 26"In your anger do not sin": Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, 27and do not give the devil a foothold. 28He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need. 29Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. 30And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. 32Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. ~~ I was not arguing to pin down a doctrinal point or some time line of when forgiveness actually takes place or is granted [whether by God or offended party]. For as you pointed out in the Luke 23:34 reference of Jesus’ asking God to forgive those putting Him to death – considering we are all sinners and guess in some cosmic/timelessness of perhaps God’s viewpoint – we all had a part in putting Him to death as well [in that our dreadful spiritual condition necessitated such a drastic measure as the sacrifice of His Son]. And I believe God answered Jesus’ prayer! That truly makes salvation accessible to everyone. And I guess from the perspective of lesser beings bound by space & time – our description would place the act of forgiveness before the act of repentance. Now if someone refuses God's offer of salvation/forgiveness - how can a closer relationship develop between God and the sinner? I don't see how it can. So maybe in the context of real-time relationships, repentance is a significant aspect - and perhaps my earlier Luke 17 reference warrants some further thought - Jesus talking about forgiveness and reviewing the sequence again – Jesus DID say if he repents, forgive him. That “if” makes me think maybe there's something lacking in a simplistic idea of dispensing forgiveness so freely – at least there’s a lot more to this scenario – no? I get the impression that it's putting some sort of burden on the offender - in other words they don't get let off the hook so easily. Maybe Jesus wasn't so much saying something about when to grant forgiveness as how true reconciliation can begin. But I dunno - there's a whole lot more to this stuff than I can take in with a brief discussion. We humans are certainly complicated social beings, no? Yes – I agree with what you’re saying here about the manipulative nature & erroneous thinking of those mentioned in Watered Garden’s first post: I thought I was clear on addressing that issue in my post # 28 and don’t feel the need to re-hash it again – but simply to stress that I am NOT addressing the issues of post # 1 in my post # 48 nor in this current post. I’ve been talking about the impact to RELATIONSHIPS that un-confessed sin may have. The context of the I John reference you brought up in your post # 45 talks about more than just the mere act of confessing sin – for it also draws a bigger picture showing how it affects our RELATIONSHIP with God I John 1:5-10 NIV 5This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. 7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. 8If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives. There’s a timeless aspect with the passage referring to the blood of Jesus [which has already been shed] purifying us. I guess doctrinally speaking at the time of conversion all our sins are forgiven – past, present and future! Realistically speaking I know we still sin after conversion – so confession of sin can’t be a thing to regain acceptance necessarily as it is to remove some self-erected barrier screwing up my relationship with God. And in that regard – whether it’s a relationship with God or our fellowman – I see confession of sin as a means to reconciliation – a healing, a restoration of a broken relationship. ~~ And a Merry Christmas to you too! T-Bone

I tend to think confession of sin may be something one can infer from passages that address the sin/forgiveness scenario, in that BEFORE one is forgiven there needs to be a change of heart – an acknowledgement of wrong-doing, which is in essence a confession of sin – and I would assume the admission of sin & guilt should be given to the offended party or parties. I'm thinking of something Jesus said in Luke 17 1-4 [NIV] 1Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. 2It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. 3So watch yourselves. "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. 4If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, 'I repent,' forgive him." Noting the sequence: a brother sins, you rebuke him, he REPENTS, you forgive him. I've capitalized "REPENTS" as being the confession or acknowledgement phase of this scenario. The offended party is not God of course – so the only way they could assume that the offender has responded to the rebuke is by some outward sign of the person to indicate they have indeed repented [an admission of guilt, apology, crying, whatever]. ~~ And thinking a little more on the whole forgiveness topic in light of repentance being a necessary pre-condition – I think when it comes to one of the first most significant acts of forgiveness [when we first came to Christ for salvation] – the way I understand it – and I could be wrong – God does not forgive us first. We must come to Him realizing we are sinners – maybe you could consider it an overall confession of our sinful state thus far – not like we have to list every sin we ever committed or anything – just acknowledging our current spiritual status or something along those lines. From that point we receive the forgiveness – already paid for by Christ's sacrifice. That may relate in some way to an Ephesians passage on foregiveness- Ephesians 4:32 NIV 32Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. Our model for forgiveness is how God forgave us in Christ – something He freely grants to those who turn to Him in their darkest hour when they simply acknowledge they are guilty and want to make amends – before they're even off their knees God pronounces it a "done deal" – not over what the sinner did – but what Christ had already done on Calvary - all the sinner does is accept that. ~~ And picking up on you saying I John the only place that mentions confessing our sin – I wanted to throw in an Old Testament passage along similar lines: Proverbs 18:13 NIV 3 He who conceals his sins does not prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercy. Without making it into a big ritual prescribed by some religious group – I think confession of sin by the sinner to the offended party is a natural part of the whole forgiveness & reconciliation thing. ~~ A worthy study may be checking out the Greek word "homologeo" used for "confess" - which means to admit, acknowledge, confess, profess: used in a positive way as in a profession of faith - in Luke 12:8,9; Romans 10:9, 10; Philippians 2:11. and in negative way as in a confession of sin in I John 1:8-10; James 5:16 and aCTS 19:18, 19.

That's one of the funniest things I've heard on how someone found Grease Spot - by Googling for a grease spot remover. I love it!!!! I'm sure glad you're here - I always like reading your posts - look forward to any input you have on doctrinal stuff. Amen to that Brother! Ex10, good to see ya! forgot to add this one in with the other posts I quoted - this has got to be one of the most ironic ways of folks finding reason to leave TWI ! oh and to answer your question - I never checked out Waydale - but Tonto "witnessed" to me about here. Yes, it's true - I'm her babe at Grease Spot. Yo, don't forget to bring your fruit to the New Members forum!

that depends - what's the penalty for not kowtowing to their rules?