chockfull

It looks like a Jehovah's Witness Watchtower magazine cover? You know, I like DWBH's post. It kind of reminds me of Jesus expression that you can't put new wine in old wineskins. I can't really say that I know what the new wineskin is in our day and time. But it is easy to see the old wineskins.

Sorry - just had a chance to read through this and comment. Mike you are presenting a logical inaccuracy here - by saying that bringing up stories of negative things that happened in TWI is "focusing on the negatives", "DWELLING IN , or ON" negatives, repeat, magnify, and exaggerate negatives. You are saying that people who repeat stories of abuse are choosing to live in the negatives to the exclusion of positives. This is somewhat delusional, and it is very similar to the type of logic you hear from TWI leadership - rather than acknowledge, confront, and change patterns of spiritual abuse, they teach at length a type of "Pollyanna" viewpoint similar to the logic you extoll. This is a classic ploy to shift the attention off of the abuser and on to the abused. It is similar to attacking a rape victim for going to the police, telling their story, testifying in court, continuing to openly talk about the experience to help others through trauma and take a stand against injustice. What it does is excuse the leadership who abuse and puts pressure on the abused to "forget about" their treatment and "just focus on the positives". Here at GS many will refuse to excuse the abusers and focus on the abused. Most of the time this is because the abusers have kept their position, power, and influence, and have continued to abuse going on to other victims. Many want to speak up until these types of people have been removed from the power, position, and influence of being able to abuse more and more people. And you will not hear people standing for the truth like that in your typical TWI fellowship. You will hear more of your Pollyanna type of thing, where even when very clear examples of abuse locally are in their face, they refuse to address it, talk about it, and move on forgetting about those involved or hurt. You see - it's much easier just not to deal with it under the guise of "not dwelling on negatives". God doesn't want your sacrifice of "positive attitude". He wants mercy and justice. He stands against those who abuse, and with those who have been abused. He is on the right side of righteousness and justice. Unlike many people in cults.

Jesus said that the divorce laws in OT were written because of the hardness of their hearts. He said what God joined together let no man tear apart. But you can't determine another's freedom of will, you can't control it, and at times it's very small how you can even influence it. We are all broken. We all fall short. That's where His love makes us whole in spite of that.

Back to the topic of whether it's actions or theology that makes a cult, I'm going to chime in with an opinion that it is by far more of the actions that concern me in that category of TWI than it is theology. (Although the topic diversion into the Trinity is interesting reading and I started another thread on it). To me the controlling and abusive behavior is the crux of the issue as opposed to theology or viewpoints. They break down an individual's boundaries, personal and family freedoms, and substitute the "greater good" of the group for them. They have a viewpoint of "unity" and "one accord" meaning an unquestioning belief in and support of leaders who are governed by baser motives of political power and the furthering of the group for their own baser gains. There are so many stories of individual boundaries being crossed here on this site - of course the sexual predator stories are the most despicable, but the others are just as bad - dictating who someone can date, controlling making people move from where they are, whether they can own property, pets, controlling the number of children they can have, whether or not they can have a profession or not (even though some of those is just for their way corps). One big one is the shutting down of dissenting opinion. Rather than an open discussion, debate, and investing resources into a defining result, a very few in high places determine what they think and shut down all opposing views. The debt topic is one very clear example of that. A few in high places have determined their viewpoint. Opposing research is rejected and ignored, the leadership is required to teach on the party line quarterly, and participation in classes and leadership is hinged upon not having any debt including a baseline family mortgage. Top leaders were forced to sign a paper indicating their support of the issue for fear of losing their jobs. I'll tell you the times I've most felt like I was in a cult was when I was trying to explain to other Christians why it was I didn't own a house - all relegated to one marginal interpretation of a New Testament verse. And trying to explain to someone why leasing a car wasn't debt but purchasing one on a loan was. People would just look at me and say "why do you let some group tell you what to do like that?" I don't know. To me TWI is a cult because you can look at the wasted trail of the destruction of lives behind their leaders operations. That hasn't changed over time. That is fruit. And fruit defines the tree.

Reminds me of a couple of 36 hour marathons getting that marked in my Bible. My friend I have a reading list recommendation for you: http://www.amazon.com/Boundaries-When-Take...3715&sr=8-1 It certainly won't cause the arguments that a more directed book purchase might. They even have a workbook model available for small groups, like a fellowship. I really would love to see as an experiment what it would stir up if a TWI fellowship really started living and applying that stuff.

I understand. I think I pretty much said I was going through changes on viewpoints on a lot of that too. I do think it's a good thing that our understanding, appreciation, and viewpoints of the Lord Jesus Christ is growing and changing. The more I see the more I'm forming an opinion that a lot of it is just labels like "Republican" or "Democrat". And that leads to a degradation of the view of an individuals relationship with the Creator. I wouldn't have a problem calling Jesus Christ "my Lord and God" like Thomas did. It's a growing relationship, like a spouse. I mean, how can you describe the word "love" relating to a spouse over many years? So many things are hard to put in words.

No such assertion - just relaying the means that a couple of people have presented that argument to me in the past. How can you assert what "most Arians" held as far as viewpoints when they lived 200-400AD? That's a reconstruction of an opinion of a belief system done from which writings? Their opponents? None of those quotes sounds much at all like any teachings on Jesus Christ not being God that I've encountered in TWI. Yes - Catholic history. You're not a Catholic, but are you trying to assert in a logical discussion that Catholic history is not one-sided? How do you prove a negative? It is at best very incomplete. Are you going to try and assert that we have similar levels of reliability in historical accounts 50AD - 1000AD that we do 1500 - 1800? Ludicrous. Most of my history professors in college who are semi-reputable sources have told me that all history is unreliable to different degrees, because it is written by fallable humans with opinions. What exactly I mean is that to draw parallels between TWI's One God teachings and Arianism and Ebionitism is a stretch for a few reasons: 1. Lack of clear ability to completely represent Arian / Ebionite doctrine & viewpoints. 2. No clear understanding of TWI's representation of Jesus Christ not being God and viewpoints related. 3. Over-generalization The word heresy itself is pretty extremist. The Greek word hairesis means diverse or other. Heresy in practical application in the early church just meant someone didn't agree with the guy who won the political election. The word heresy eventually turned into a hate crime type of word - first being associated with excommunication, then the Inquisition. It gets tossed around like nothing, but there is quite a lot of evil in back of how that word has been used throughout church history. Brand a man a heretic, and it's not much of a stretch to burn him at the stake - like happened all the way up through the Reformation. I have a question for you. What's all the mental acrobatics around the concept of Jesus being a "created being"? How exactly in your viewpoint did the virgin conception take place? Did Jesus actually go through the full fetal development or was he a fully cogniscent conscious "little God" in there in Mary's womb? Was or was not life created in Mary's womb?

B-O-R-I-N-G. And yet, the worst of the canned read fellowship teachings cannot come close to the Kindergarten-level-education-targeted STS teachings. "Hi, I'm going to talk to you like you're 5. And smile while reading from cards. Hopefully I will sound profound." NOT!!!!

I never knew about the sexploitation until the lawsuits - just simply never ran into it, except for a couple girls I knew said they had affairs with some previous leaders. The politics and control I guess I went along with it and probably came off like those above me came off to me. So in that I suppose I was a tool. I started to see things then spoke up, then got in increasing amounts of trouble, then left. Not a unique story at all. I don't know really how I deal with having been a tool. I'm not in a 12 step program or anything. "Hi, I'm a tool, but I haven't tooled anyone for 1354 days". I guess the more disgusted I became with the examples above me the less I wanted to imitate them. Hopefully that's steered me towards non-tool land.

You know I've heard the Arianism and Ebionite heresy comparisons - usually spoken derogatorily and from a condescending type of intellectual position that only a Catholic priest can really pull off with the right facial expressions and voice inflection. It's not a compelling argument. 2000 year old views are not current views as modern viewpoints more reflect the advancement of academic achievement of mankind. Arian didn't have GPS satellites to influence his perception of the world. Also, with as many other things the Catholic church has edited in a one-sided fashion with no opposing viewpoint published, and swept under the carpet, out of courts, to the bottom of lakes, into abortion clinics, etc. I'm not so sure that Catholic history prior to 1000AD is even that reliable of a source.

Brush, I don't know if I can quantify TWI views quite as philosophically as your "divine perichosis of love" analysis, but I think I can give it a shot. The sum and substance of the belief is I Tim. 2:5 "For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus". So TWI views Jesus as a man, the one Mediator between God and men, the only-begotten son of God, the only one now raised from the dead, ascended above all principality and power, and seated at the right hand of God. He is our Advocate, and the Red Thread or title subject throughout every book of the Bible which speaks of him indirectly. So no, not God. No, not a divine being but not God. No, not a human who attained holiness or enlightenment from God like Buddha. (But a human who fulfilled his Father's will and was raised, ascended, and seated at the Fathers RH above all spiritual power). He was one of the Prophets, but no not just one, and no, not like the Muslims view him. He was a good moral teacher, but no, not only that as the Jews view him. In TWI's view the title "son of God" isn't substantially different in meaning than normal language in that "son of Chockfull" would convey the same relationship to me as Jesus to God (except has infinitely fewer benefits). I don't recall in TWI teachings son of Man being emphasized a lot, so I don't know I can answer what TWI thinks that means. All in all it's a pretty simple straightforward description and application of terms. Where it doesn't fit VP handles in his JCNG book to explain the "difficult verses". And his research principles are that the "difficult verses" must be understood in light of the "clear verses". So whatever interpretation he comes up with for John 1:1 it can't contradict I Tim. 2:5. -cf

Now that has potential. If VP was PT Barnum, would that mean LCM was a man in tights on the flying trapeze? And RFR was the bearded lady?

Hey G, Did you ever actually go through trying to answer the questions posted personally? I saw a bunch of CS Lewis quotes that were more along the lines of persuasion or debate points, and a number of other posts discussing others responses. So I gather there is somewhat of an interest in the topic title. But I didn't read anything from you personally answering the questions and describing where you're at. I mean, I guess you don't have to answer them. But it does a little bit remind me of Will Smith's movie "Hancock" that I saw last week. Hancock is in prison in a therapy group, and everyone is sharing all their life stories, and it gets around to him and he says "pass" everytime. Now that is downright hilarious.

Dude smoked like a chimney, drank like a fish, and didn't have George Burns genetics. What do you expect? All the "broken heart" cr@pola is CG's twisted megalomaniac weird worship mindset and leverage for him to climb into power. VP may have been depressed a little and feeling somewhat useless - it's called "retirement".

And yet the similarities are huge. The same seeking for power at the top, and abuses down the chain of command. The military dictatorship accomplishes this with a physical show and use of force. The religious organization does it with mental abuse - fear tactics, mark and avoid, etc.

Oh, you can really run with this one. Compared to: Napolean - same complex - a little taller. Freud - similar views - everything is about sex drive Pope John Paul II - less pure Jimmy Carter - similar impact - say you're a Christian, then screw everything up Attila the Hun - shared views on women

Answering my own questions… 1. What is your understanding of the Trinity? I grew up in a Protestant denomination and my understanding of the trinity is basically the substance of the Nicene Creed: We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. VPW’s discourse with his pastor who said nobody understood it they just took it on faith was not one that I could relate to. 2. Does one have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian? I would think that if it is the lynch pin to the new birth you’d actually see the word in the Bible. With myself having children I can certainly see their heart beyond their mental acrobatics and logic they go through at times. I can’t see how my loving Heavenly Father would be any different. I’m a Christian because Jesus is my Lord and Savior and I asked him to become that in my life and believed the Father raised him from the dead. When he calls my name at the bema I’ll answer. It’s not a doctrine thing – it’s a heart thing. Honestly I see a whole lot of non-Christian fruit in behavior surrounding the answer to this question. People using scriptures to beat one another down, extreme positions, being argumentative, strife, division – basically works of the flesh. If God can look on the heart, can you give your brother a break? Or just because you may think he’s not your brother doesn’t mean he’s not your brother. That’s like Jesus answer to the question “who is my neighbor?” 3. If one does not believe in the Trinity do they believe in "another Jesus"? I understand the old man nature’s penchance for choosing Jesus Barabbas over Jesus the Christ. The Jesus I know was the humble one who was later exalted. My relationship with him and belief in him has been with the same guy independent of what my viewpoints on the Trinity have taken. 4. Where is VPW's JCNG book accurate / inaccurate? As a general answer, I think that there’s some good questions and points in the book – the history is handled incompletely but gives the gist of things. It probably served a good purpose confronting the mouth-breathing militant Trinitarians and bringing up genuine questions about the doctrine that need to be sorted out. With that said, with more years of perspective I do think there’s a certain aspect of that book that falls into the straw man fallacy. What VPW is setting up to knock down isn’t a full-blown mature developed concept of the nature of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit. It’s a straw man. 5. What turns have your beliefs taken w/r to the Trinity surrounding your involvement in TWI, in and out? Before – accepted it without question and believed in it. In – rejected it. One key there for me was the question of what happens when people die. If everyone went to heaven, then if Jesus were not God he’s just another average Joe. If they all sleep to await his return, then he is a unique case – the only one raised from the dead, ascended, seated at the right hand of the Father. After – continuing to question, evaluate, grow. Views are changing. I still love the same Lord. God humors me in spite of my shortcomings.

There's also a Pentecostal branch - One God Apostolics

I asked dew, vpw's son a similar question to that once - there was a discussion going on about changing what you taught when new research was discovered. I asked if he previously taught on the trinity how did he handle explaining teaching against it later. He said vpw didn't understand the topic or wasn't resolved on it so would avoid it. If it ever came up as his assignment in a teaching pool in the denomination, he would trade with somebody.

Here's a YouTube clip - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joZnuVb9l5o...feature=related

A different and possibly more apt title for this class could have been "L is for lechery". I don't know if I remember this one correctly, but doesn't he make reference to a Tiajuana donkey video in that class, or German Shepherd or something? Or am I crazy and that was the Advanced Class? I do remember the slang terms. Which provided endless source of entertainment, and usually needed to be updated every class. I wonder which came first - the chicken or the egg? Meaning I wonder if all of the attempts to be "free" and teach in these categories caused vpw to think he was being free when lecherous, or if the lechery in practice was what produced the really weird doctrine?

And RFR, having the charisma of a band-aid and a little bit how do you say, butchy, also leads by control based upon position. Smile to the face, knife to the back, move the body off the property. In all of these cases why does anyone listen? Like JAL. Who hasn't yet realized his leadership ability went out with the hair bands in the early 80's.

For a little lighter perspective on the definition of a cult, I was watching Dana Carvey's latest comedy stand-up routine the other day. I believe it's entitled "Squatting Monkeys Tell No Lies". Which the title is a portion of a really out there mind journey he takes trying to define a religion that a Scientologist would say "now that's out there!!!". He brings in all sorts of strange and controlling behavior with weird quirks into this "cult". And honestly, after watching it, there was a part of me that said "did I believe anything that was THAT out there????? Naaaah, couldn't be." And then I walked away while sinking back slowly into denial.

I guess you could look at that like God is voting for you, Satan is voting against you, your vote is the tiebreaker. Even talking in terms of God / Satan, that doesn't remove personal accountability. That would actually be pretty much what you're getting at, talking about it in different terms.

I've seen enough of this touched on in other threads in this forum and others that I felt the urge to start a current discussion on the elephant in the room. Here's some questions related: 1. What is your understanding of the Trinity? 2. Does one have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian? 3. If one does not believe in the Trinity do they believe in "another Jesus"? 4. Where is VPW's JCNG book accurate / inaccurate? 5. What turns have your beliefs taken w/r to theTrinity surrounding your involvement in TWI, in and out?