Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Pete

Members
  • Posts

    84
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Pete last won the day on August 25

Pete had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Pete's Achievements

Rookie

Rookie (2/14)

  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • Week One Done Rare
  • One Month Later Rare

Recent Badges

9

Reputation

  1. I wonder if you can stretch the rules for me. I was apprentice 14th Corps but I got dropped by LCM before I went in resi because he wanted to shag my girlfriend who was in res. I guess he thought he had a better chance if I wasn't around. Broke my heart, by the way. So sue me Loy, you piece of sh1 t.
  2. I'm just wondering if the Way still teaches that you must pay at least ten percent of your income to the organisation or God will not "spit in your direction", because if they do, it ain't mentioned here. I'd consider that to be a major part of their belief system, if this is still true. Come on Vern, fess up!
  3. We believe the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were “given by inspiration of God” [theopneustos, “God-breathed”] (II Timothy 3:16) and perfect as originally given; that the God-breathed Word is of supreme, absolute, and final authority for believing and godliness. We believe in one God, the Creator of the heavens and earth; in Jesus Christ, God’s only begotten Son, our lord and savior, whom God raised from the dead; and we believe in the workings of the Holy Spirit. We believe that the virgin Mary conceived Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit; that God was in Christ; and that Jesus Christ is the “mediator between God and men” and is “the man Christ Jesus” (I Timothy 2:5). We believe that Adam was created in the image of God, spiritually; that he sinned and thereby brought upon himself immediate spiritual death, which is separation from God, and physical death later, which is the consequence of sin; and that all human beings are born with a sinful nature. We believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, as a representative and substitute for us, and that all who confess with their mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in their heart that God raised him from the dead are justified and made righteous, born again by the spirit of God, receiving eternal life on the grounds of His eternal redemption, and thereby are sons of God. We believe in the resurrection of the crucified body of our Lord Jesus Christ, his ascension into heaven, and his seating at the right hand of God. We believe in the blessed hope of Christ’s return, the personal return of our living lord and savior, Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto him. We believe in the bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust. We believe in the receiving of the fullness of the holy spirit, the power from on high, and the corresponding nine manifestations of the holy spirit for all born-again believers. We believe it is available to receive all that God promises us in His Word according to our believing faith. We believe we are free in Christ Jesus to receive all that he accomplished for us by his substitution.
  4. I spotted this while googling for more info: It pops up on the following link: https://www.law.com/radar/card/vozzo-v-the-way-international-et-al-36457014-r/
  5. Anyone know anything about the Yvette Vozzo versus Michael Minnetta child sexual abuse lawsuit?
  6. No guesses? OK I'll tell you. It's Robert Wilkinson. I have the address if you want to write.
  7. Hi Twinky I think that I was being too obscure. This isn't me, it is someone else. Hence the "I wonder who lives in a house like this" bit.
  8. "I wonder who lives in a house like this." [Spoken with the accent of Loyd Grossman]. Shucks, you can't even go to the garage without getting caught out by Google.
  9. Raf I want to do some further research before I respond to some of the previous discussion, and a response is needed as I don't like to see open ended ideas being left written off without proper consideration. However, I do need to clarify something that I tried to explain but has not been understood. I will draw a comparison here. Take a steam engine that you are watching travelling along a track. You see puffs of smoke coming from the stack. That's enough to tell you that the engine inside is running. The puff of smoke is not the engine. You don't see exactly what the engine is doing from your stand point. What I am alluding to is that the SIT is the puff of smoke, but the working of the spirit inside is the engine. So when you "pray in the spirit", the spirit is making intercession on the INSIDE and that is the engine, whereas the SIT is the puff of smoke on the outside. So if my SIT is "Loshanta malakasheeta rakistaani" one day, the spirit on the inside may be making one type of intercession, whereas if my SIT on another day is still "Loshanta malakasheeta rakistaani", the spirit inside may be making a completely different type of intercession. The spirit of God is not limited by me. The work of the spirit on the INSIDE is perfect. (By the way, I don't think VP SIT during the recorded class, but that's a separate issue). There are other things I have to say. But I would like to remark at this point in time that this thread has become much too long for any new person to be inclined to follow, in my opinion. I know this is Raf's thread, so I respectfully refer this back to Raf to consider decanting any good points onto a new thread so that newbies can pick up. Otherwise, I will have to consider joining Excie.
  10. I'd like to but back in here, if I may. Firstly, a big thank you to Chockfull for supporting me on my previous post which included the "Anyone could tell that this was a language" line. On reflection, I have to concede that this comes across as inflamatory, and it wasn't itended to be so in this particular case. Maybe I should have just stated that it "sounded like a language to me at the time". If I concede that particular line, perhaps Raf can concede that his line stating that he is presenting the side of "Proof" versus "Anecdotes" is inflamatory and rephrase or withdraw it. But I'm not going to twist your arm too far - it's up to you. Now Karl is reported to have stated that he SIT when he wasn't born again. I always approach such testimonies with caution. I accept that Karl may well be sincere in his statement, but does he know absolutely for sure that he didn't already have the spirit within? No, that is not possible. In fact, because he did SIT indicates to me that he did have the spirit. Perhaps his testimony should be considered as anecdotal, rather than proof. However, as has been pointed out already, this is leading to circular arguments that cannot be resolved. I want to throw something new into the mix: SIT is the EXTERNAL manifestation. It does not show you what the spirit is doing WITHIN. It does give you an indication that the spirit is being operated. However, what you speak is not necessarily a word for word reflection of what the spirit is doing within. What the spirit is doing within is not seen. It is "groanings that cannot be uttered" or "groans that are not spoken" in the Aramaic. So if your words appear to be similar when you operate the spirit, this does not detract from what the spirit is doing within. The spirit does the groaning to God on our behalf when things are going wrong. That is my hypothesis, and it is open to debate. And, although tongues may be diluted by unbelief or simulation in the operator, this wouldn't then detract from the operation of the spirit within, which is perfect. You may still be operating the power of the holy spirit within, even though you have doubted yourself what you have spoken, because the operation of the spirit is not spoken. Likewise, for interpretation and prophecy, just because the person speaking influences what is being said, this doesn't negate the perfect operation of the spirit within. Now I wonder to myself, when Peter heard people SIT, he declared that they had received the spirit. Peter was a fisherman by upbringing, not a linguist. He didn't see the need to take take their words away and analyze them. What could be so different from hearing tongues today? I'm asking myself that question. Why bother having linguists investigate the potentially badly operated external manifestation when we know that the internal actions of the holy spirit are not only perfect but also impenetrable? And if it is proven that tongues are being operated by someone that is not born again (which would be difficult if not impossible to do), perhaps we should consider that this is still the operation of "spirit", just not God's holy spirit. That's another one to throw into the mix.
  11. Hi Preacher Quoting your post: "Feel free to comment your feelings on this". OK, here are my feelings: Since you're obviously a mole from the Way come here because you think you're better than anyone else there doesn't seem much point in anyone engaging in discussion with you. You obviously didn't bother to read the purpose of this forum, which is that: "These forums are meant to be a place of discussion, where ideas and debates are encouraged. We welcome your opinion." You seem to think that this is a place where you can peddle your adulterated doctrine and make it seem dandy by adding some nice words and a passage of scripture to finish off. Gives you a nice feeling that you've done your bit for the Lord, does it? Hey, you're only fooling yourself buddy. If you want to preach why don't you go set up your own web site and get the hell off this one. Hey, God bless you too! By the way, don't bother responding to this. I'm not interested in hearing any more of your cr@p.
  12. Bolshevik I can relate to what you say, and I experienced much the same, only I never got yelled at in that way as far as I recall. I think that it is totally shameful that they yelled at you that way. That is a traumatic experience to go through and one that could have affected you in a bad way. It wasn't your problem and you have to understand that. You didn't do anything wrong, they did! My only question would be, just because the Way scr3wed things up, does that make the whole thing false?
  13. Old Skool Thanks for posting the link. It's some time since I viewed the documentary and I don't think that this is the same one. The documentary I saw concentrated on a single subject for the tongues analysis and I seem to remember them being wired up with sensors on their brain. Also, the documentary identified the area of the brain that was active when the person was SIT. But my memory isn't totally reliable and the item shown hits on similar stuff. As far as the posted link goes, I have to say that the lady who says that she is "out of control" is experiencing something that is different from what I experience. I would speculate that her SIT is genuine, but that her "out of control" bit is personal to her. But hey, if that's where she need to go, who am I to object, only I hope that she really means that she's just getting herself in a cool relaxed state of mind, rather than actually being "out of control". I try not to get myself out of control in case when I get back in control I find out that I've murdered someone, or worse.
  14. Well, looks like I should have remembered III Peter 2:2 Young man who drinks too much on an evening, ends up having p1ss1ng contest in middle of night. Raf, you pose some interesting and valid questions. As you say, it would have been better if those types of tests were done, but possibly they didn't think any further ahead than the particular issue that they were addressing at the time. This discussion has brought back some interesting memories for me. I never SIT in the 12th session. I flatly refused. This is difficult when you are faced with a high degree of peer pressure, and everyone else jabbering away in the background. Afterwards the class coordinator took me to a separate room to find out what was wrong. I just didn't like the way it was done in the 12th session. I had no advanced warning that this was going to happen in the way that it did. I felt that I was being co-erced into doing something in a way that I wasn't comfortable with. This was all wrong to me. However, when asked to SIT afterwards, I did. And I didn't make it up and it was fully formed the first time I did it. It has not get any better from that fist time. Now I did study a bit of basic French at school. But the language and syllables that came forth that day were from an entirely different vocabulary to anything I had experienced before. And the language was consistent: not French one moment and then Italian the next if you understand. Same glutteral stops, same basic sound structure. Anyone could tell that this was a language. I've never needed to, or wanted to make up the language myself. If it is not genuine SIT, the alternative is that I somehow have the ability somewhere in my brain to conjure up a completely foreign language that I have absolutely no comprehension of as to its meaning. That's going to take quite a few dollars of research money to work out, in my opinion.
×
×
  • Create New...