Twinky

Interesting, and agreed there are a lot of different figures of speech. All have something to offer. After all a Bride can hardly be a city, no matter how physically beautiful it is. And what does a Lamb want with a Bride anyway? TWI did teach that a godly marriage (=between Christians) is like the relationship between Christ and his church; but the marriage relationship is a symbol, an example, of that Christ and believer/church relationship. (VP also I think went so far as to say that marriage was only suitable for believers! Unbelievers don't have the stamina to see it through and don't get the fullness of the spiritual connection between spouses. What a crock!!) We are to be subject to Christ as the Head of the body. As members of the body, we have a responsibility to exhort and encourage both Jews and Gentiles alike (ready to give an answer to everyone; God wants all [men] to be saved, etc.) The Jews, as God's chosen people pre-Christ (not that God ever turned anyone away!), didn't and don't have the same evangelical function. They just lived their lives and if outsiders chose to join with them, they could do so, on particular conditions (inc circumcision for men) and were excluded from full participation for several generations. "Wives" weren't expected to be proselytizers and in fact probably got very little opportunity to do so, being confined to home responsibilities in a Jewish environment. Men by contrast did trade and travel on journeys but even so weren't given any "ministry of reconciliation" equivalent. I find it significant that there is very little in the post-Acts writings mentioning "bride" or "wife" except representationally, and so much more explicitly saying "body".

Right early on in the article: Started from a premise and then looked for something to support it. Didn't ask teh question, Is the action of covering true for today?

An interesting topic, Dot. Especially in relation to TWI, many came to it already Christians from who knows where, but got better "instruction" via PFAL than they had had in their churches. They weren't "fathered" by VPW, more like "adopted." Unless you allow for the Master/Apprentice relationship that is referred to above like Paul/Timothy. For those that fancy being "fathers in the Word", please note the following: Eph 6:4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Col 3:21 Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged. Would you agree that the self-appointed Father in the Word had discouraged one or two of his "children"?

Oh, and the previous hymn was, "O Father, you are Sovereign" But the tune also carries the words of "The Church's One Foundation" which is a really good old Wesley hymn.

Can I play, can I play?? I just found this thread. ---omitted line--- Christ is thy Strength, and Christ thy Right; Lay hold on life, and it shall be Thy joy and crown eternally. Run the straight race through God’s good grace, Lift up thine eyes, and seek His face; Life with its way before us lies, Christ is the Path, and Christ the Prize. Cast care aside, upon thy Guide, Lean, and His mercy will provide; Lean, and the trusting soul shall prove Christ is its Life, and Christ its Love. Faint not nor fear, His arms are near, He changeth not, and thou art dear. Only believe, and thou shalt see That Christ is all in all to thee. In view of the athletic urging to "run the straight race" this could have been a good TWI song but it never appeared in SATW, perhaps because it is Christ-centred.

Hey I just discovered this thread. Can anybody play? Can somebody give me a potted version of the rules? If I win, maybe I could completely baffle you with some Brit quotes.

Lifted from the CFFM internet newsletter (I hope they don't mind...) Investment Tips for 2008 With all the turmoil in the market today and the collapse of Lehman Bros and acquisition of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America this might be some good advice. For all of you with any money left, be aware of the next expected mergers so that you can get in on the ground floor and make some BIG bucks. Watch for these consolidations later this year: Hale Business Systems, Mary Kay Cosmetics, Fuller Brush, and W. R. Grace Co. will merge and become: Hale, Mary, Fuller, Grace. Polygram Records, Warner Bros., and Zesta Crackers join forces and become: Poly, Warner, Cracker. 3M will merge with Goodyear and become: MMMGood. Zippo Manufacturing, Audi Motors, Dofasco, and Dakota Mining will merge and become: ZipAudiDoDa. FedEx is expected to join its competitor, UPS, and become: FedUP. Fairchild Electronics and Honeywell Computers will become: Fairwell - Honeychild. Grey Poupon and Docker Pants are expected to become: PouponPants. Knotts Berry Farm and the National Organization of Women will become: Knott NOW! Chipolte Restaurants and Smith &Wesson will merge under the new name: ChittyChittyBangBang

From another thread in ATW comes this: I checked this out in my Concordance and did some online searches. The people in my church all think they are part of the Bride of Christ; that's why I started checking. Now John Juedes brings it up. I have never heard the expression "the wife of Christ" in any church. What I find is this (and this is not all the scriptures, just a selection of what seem the most relevant): Relating to the Bride/Wife of Christ: Joh 3:29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled. Re 18:23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. Re 19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready Re 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. Re 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. Re 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. Relating to the Body of Christ: Ro 12:5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another 1Co 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 1Co 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 1Co 12:18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. 1Co 12:25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another Eph 1:22,23 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. Eph 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: Eph 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Eph 4:16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. Col 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church Col 2:19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God Col 3:15 And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful. Heb 13:3 Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body JohnJ uses Eph 5:23 to support us being the bride of Christ; but that ignores Eph 5:30 which calls us members of his body. TWI taught (teaches?) that the Bride of Christ is the believers at and before the coming of Christ. The Jewish church, if you will. The Revelation scriptures refer to the bride as the (physical) city of Jerusalem. Since his death and resurrection, all believers, whether originally Jew or Gentile, are made into one ("he broke down the wall of partition") and since that time all believers have been part of the Body. We have a different function now, since Pentecost, and that's why we are not merely the bride, but the body. Seated in the heavenlies, with all things in subjection under our feet - as we are in Christ. John, TWI taught that in the Revelation period the pre-Christian believers (the Bride) and the Christians (the Body) will be united (in some way which is clearly figurative). TWI didn't spend a lot of time in Revelation, which is clearly into the future. I'm not really concerned with that period in this thread and don't want to derail in that direction. What will happen, will happen, and it doesn't matter what we think is going to happen. Right now, though, in our earthly existence, I think it does matter how we see ourselves. If we do not see ourselves as part of the Body of Christ, how can we effectively act on his behalf? How can we do the "greater things" that are promised? Can we fully exercise the "ministry of reconciliation" - as the earthly Christ did? Yet all the time we must remain in subjection, holding fast to him as the Head (of the Body) not exercising our own wilful minds (like a wife not in subjection). (At the same time, we are also Sons of God and Brothers of Christ... just using familiar human relationships to express a relationship which is so far beyond words.)

Actually John, TWI teaches that we are the body of Christ, not the bride or the wife. There are very few references to the "bride of Christ" in the NT but there are a shedload of references to us being the Body of Christ, especially in 1 Cor 6, 10 and 12; Ephesians, Colossians and Hebrews. I was going to post something else but it would derail this thread so I'll start something in Doctrinal. Perhaps you would care to join me there? If we are going to have a relationship with anyone - it's important to know who they really are, and that can only be found out through time and effort. You can know a lot about a person by what they read or what is written about them - but you can also find it's completely misleading. We read about the President or the Queen or a film star or a rock star - we can read all we like, it's someone else's understanding of that person. But if we met the President/Queen/film star, they might be quite different from what we'd thought, from reading about them. How much more so if we read about someone who is dead - a president or monarch of the 1800s? So much study, yet so little time spent quietly growing the relationship.

I never heard of them before, but they have great Brit accents. I have given up listening to the news. Makes me want to stick my head in something and crunch it (my head). I guess not having a job (market slowdown!!) and having a mortgage to pay isn't helping. But in reality all my needs are met - life itself, health, food, a roof over my head, some savings (being eked out very carefully), a garden to grow things in, and people who love me. Some good true friends. Best of all: peace of mind. We all have a lot to be thankful for and it's better to focus on that.

You're assuming they have any money left, to get drunk with. Anyway George, are you enforcing a two-drink limit at the BBQ? Oops derailed my own thread... Haven't even had a drink yet. Just wait about an hour...

A slight deviation from topic: Now come on, Ham... you know they were teaching you how to serve. Anyway, as you know, you can still learn to serve (or work). The tradition continues. Seems those "students" at McM's farm are doing just the same. But I don't think they get a pseudo degree, Bachelor's or Associate's, at the end of it. BTW some of the Corps sponsorship when I was in was given back to the in rez Corps, at the rate of $30 per month spending money. I guess the rest went to provide board and lodging. At the McM farm, they get free board and lodgings and have to provide for all of their expenses themselves. They don't "pay to work there."

It may be a very good idea to look at the Word together. If you have enough background to show her some alternative viewpoints or show her other scriptures, you will at least be keeping her critical thinking skills alive. TWI presents its information very "pat" and she will have an answer for everything. She will probably welcome the opportunity to share with you ("receive, retain, release"). TWI is (or was) hot on confrontation and sharply rebuking the adversary - in other words, she may speak sharply to you if you present something other than what lines up with TWI doctrine. TWI is very poor on compassion and empathy. You can make a difference here. Do take up Brushstroke on his offer of help. He's only young but he makes some really good and thoughtful points, and clearly sees through the BS that permeates TWI doctrine. BTW there will be some stuff that is accurate, true, a proper representation of what God's heart for his people is. Choose your horse carefully when you query doctrine from TWI. If your current handle is your real name, you might want to change it if you plan on bringing her to the Cafe. She may feel seriously spied upon or that you are talking behind her back, and she will cease to trust you. I can't quite remember how to do that, but if you emailed Paw or the moderators, they would be able to tell you or do it for you.

Geisha, your stories are a hoot! I am laughing and tears are pouring from my eyes. Sheep whispering...Chicken whispering... ...husband whispering?? The interests of Spotters are very varied. They never taught this stuff in the Corps!

I know, Lifted Up, I don't mean it seriously. I just wish that some people didn't have quite such an ostrich attitude. It seems pretty plain to me that there has been significant suffering at the hands of TWI. Perhaps it is the magnitude of it that makes it so difficult to swallow. All of us thought TWI was The Best, at one time. Glad that Kris has managed to deal with her history.

Tuxedo got her first outdoor excursion this week. This was fun...not. I recently Freecycled a little blue cat harness and lead. Have not been able to get this on her before but managed to do so on Friday. Tuxy endured it for a while. Actually she lay rigid on the bed occupied by my Mum, who was visiting. When I let her loose in the kitchen, she backed away from the harness and lead, unsuccessfully, of course. This upset Crypto, who also backed off, hissing at me and growling and all the hairs on her back standing up. All she was aware of is that Tuxy was upset. I wanted Tuxy to have a "reward" after her ordeal of wearing the harness and to associate it with something pleasant. So after a while I picked her up and took her outside. Held her and let her sniff a bit then set her on the grass. She immediately bolted for the nearest cover (a bush) and refused to come out. She looks so like Catcup's avatar!! After 20 mins, she hadn't emerged or explored at all so I hauled her out and set her on my lap on the garden seat. She immediately leapt off and squished herself on the concrete. After a while she sidled off and hid behind a large fern and a small shrub in pots near the door. And so she remained. A little disappointing from my point of view: I expected her to enjoy sniffing round but she didn't. And she was very wary of me for the rest of the day. But she has recovered from this and has allowed me to put her on my lap many times since. I will be persevering with the harness for a while until I am sure she is happy outside and not likely to run off and not return. As for an excursion for Crypto - that might be a long time coming. Picked her up one day and she was so terrified I had to set her down immediately.

Quest for the truth? I don't think so. I think VPW sat through somebody else's class(es) and then just took the information, lock stock and barrel, and put it under his own name. He didn't even bother to disguise it by using a different version of the Bible, say, RSV or NASB. There are much better versions of the Bible available than KJV, which was subject to political interference at the time it was compiled. Also since it was compiled, the research of others has shed light on difficult wording or mistranslations. In later versions, something may be expressed in a way that has impact in our lives today but KJV hides. I think he used KJV because he could set himself up as a teacher of old English too. (For those still in doubt - his English was appalling and he did not understand certain English expressions or pronunciations, especially as they were used a long time ago.) If he had even studied just a little Shakespeare (most of whose works are approximately contemporary with KJV), he would have a better understanding of how words were used at that time. VPW didn't use KJV because it's "the best" version - he used it to obscure the Bible, by making it hard to understand. Then he could put his own interpretation on it. Having discouraged people from looking into other versions, he had free rein to invent things. PFAL is set up to present the Bible as being The Only book that one needs to check. It's absolutely right and we just need to be able to reconcile accounts. So PFAL says, quite early on, giving a really simple account. God protected these books because these are what He wanted us to have. Or some such line. But - not necessarily at PFAL stage - how about some teaching some time (yet another class!!) of how we actually got to get that book? The scholarly debates about authenticity? How we came by some of the books or scrolls? The Dead Sea Scrolls (discovered after BG Leonard put his class together) - and there are other ancient texts - When information about those started to come to light, wouldn't a "research and teaching ministry" at least consider if there was anything we might need to know about? (Some of them back up the ancientness of the texts but other scrolls seem to go in a different direction.) As to archaeology - it doesn't necessarily back up the Biblical version, and often doesn't. As to contemporaneous records (Roman records, Josephus), where was any research and teaching on that? How about instruction in Greek by native Greek speakers? How about instruction in Hebrew by Israeli or Jewish speaker - but am I right in thinking that they themselves had to re-learn Hebrew because it had become basically a dead language? How about some discussion/teaching by one or more rabbis or other Jewish experts? At least, teach the Corps this stuff! But to introduce guest speakers or authentic teaching courses, at any level, would necessarily require the students to engage critical thinking skills. And PFAL was a crammer that from the outset overrode critical thinking skills. Things were either black or white. No rainbow palette, no choice, nothing but fundamentalism. And - as some here have posted - if "The Truth is not a What but a Who" - he hadn't a chance of teaching that because he simply didn't know the Lord Jesus. He certainly didn't quest after knowing him.

Ah yes. Sunday trading laws. Once upon a time you could buy a pound of carrots at the furniture store for some three or four figure sum, and it came complete with free sofa and armchairs... Beer is what? Fruit juice? Mineral water??

Mine are all in another country but I need to make a decision to biff or ship them. I really don't want to give house room to the things. The only reason I would keep them is to work them through with a view to seeing what if anything is true, really true, so far as I can now ascertain. And sometimes better to follow a thread at GSC. But do I want to spend that much time on them - or just start afresh? Doesn't just looking at them and considering them really inadvertently glorify that man? (He wouldn't have "cop out" materials in the Bookstore.) And I don't want LCM's Red Thread. AoS has already met a fiery doom. Raf, congratulations on being free. Are you "traveling lighter" now?

George - you will have to talk to EyesOpen about the mojitos...she makes 'em pretty good! Anyway at Ex10's last year we were yarning away ... until people went back to their hotels for breakfast. I think maybe they were on breakfast and bed, rather than bed and breakfast.

Tonto! Happy birthday!! God's rich blessings on your life. Have a wonderful day. Twinx

Dooj - funny video. We'd all had spiritual lobotomies anyway. Seth - you think the purpose of the two-drink limit was to give us another rule? So they could beat us up for breaking it? WG, Waysider - a no-drink limit? I don't recall that on its precursor, the WoW field. So - no witnessing in bars, then? RumRunner - exactly; what you drink in private shouldn't be of concern. Unless it made you completely "out of oder." Maybe Seth is right. Make another rule, then you can beat on someone for breaking it. Pharisee-ism. Maybe it wasn't about the money [that TWI didn't get] after all. Heck, one of the fruits of the spirit is supposed to be temperance or self-control. Looks like they didn't trust the holy spirit in us. Whereas those who enjoyed debauchery (a work of the flesh) knew they couldn't trust their "holy spirit" and needed a rule to control their habits. Gal 5 in The Message is pretty cute. Or shocking. :)

Matilda, absolutely, it's a good idea to drink moderately, and alcohol fuels far too many dangerous or foolish situations. And a designated driver for a group night out is also a good idea. Sticking to two drinks on an evening out (the scenario as presented was, one drink as an aperitif, followed by one glass of wine with one's meal) is a good plan. But to enforce it legalistically? Works! Requiring the substituting of someone's judgment for one's own (a well-known TWI habit). Particularly if there are favorites who are exempt from the rule - ie, not a "top down" example (I guess the higher-ups - such as HiWay mentions - would be "spiritually mature" in more ways than one? LOL). HiWay, your tale sounds typical Way double-speak and maybe you want to start your own thread to enlighten us. What I'm wondering on this thread is whether it was not just an attempt to restrict our imbibing and enjoyment of alcohol, but also an effort to ensure that we had more available cash to support TWI.

One of the WC rules was the two-drink limit. You could not have more than two alcoholic drinks. That would be per day. There were two given explanations for this rule: 1. You needed to stay under the legal limit for drinking in case you needed to go out unexpected in your car to help someone. 2. To drink more may mean that you were less in control of your mind and might thereby let in devil spirits. And it was enforced. I know Corps who have been dropped for drinking more than two beers. Given the reports of the glorious leader who allegedly enjoyed his Drambuie on frequent occasions and in amounts well exceeding the two drink limit, it’s just another example of one standard for them and one for everyone else. But now I’m wondering if the real reason is something else: alcohol costs money. And if the money was drunk (by purchase of a bottle or two or three of one’s favorite bevvy), that money could not be sent to the great coffer in Ohio. I doubt really that most people would go overboard but to enforce so strictly (read, legalistically) this rule is just another example of love of money overriding love for people. Anyone else got any thoughts?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJmTCYmo9g