TLC

Well, so happens that I don't. But neither do I agree with that. However, allow me to ask this of you... If you suppose that it can or will purify man's sin nature, do you likewise suppose that it can or will purify the devil? If not, why not?

So, you've said absolutely nothing about what you believe, or that makes any sense whatsoever.

You want undisputable, concrete, verifiable by the senses "proof," Raf, before you can believe it? Ha! You will never have or get it, until it's too late. Why? Because that methodology or approach just doesn't work. Never has and apparently, it never would. God has already tried it for hundred and hundreds of years with Israel - yet, here you are, thinking you're so much better, smarter, or less stiff necked than they were. Believe it or not, the law was actually given to convict Israel (separated and elevated above all other nations of the world), that they - at best - were still... well, in your words, outright stupid and in need of a diaper change. Ya, you go, Raf. Have your fun here. You's (and so many others nowadays) are all so much smarter and more intelligent than all them back then were!

Likewise, I don't find much reason to believe in some sort of eternal torment, as fire eventually consumes whatever is fueling it. However, I do read that at, or after, the end (i.e., the great white throne judgement), those that are not saved or "whosoever is not written in the book of life" are cast into the lake of fire. What do you suppose that means, Mark?

Not that you said this, Twinky, but I trust that you know they didn't strangely or suddenly just "become" legalistic overnight. Hindsight being what it is, the roots of legalism within twi were well developed long before any of us (old timers included) were involved. So much so, that frankly speaking, it can be somewhat shocking when you really start digging around beneath the surface. How else do you think ego's became so easily puffed up and bloated, if not through legalism? You ever see grace do that?

You know, the more I think about this statement, the more troubling it becomes. Why? Well, primarily because of the deceptiveness of it. Here it is in a nutshell: 1) Intricately associate TWI with dispensationalism and "the gospel of grace" (which has been so easily done by so many, for many, many, many years.) 2) Discredit TWI (which has also become rather easy to do.) 3) Point to dispensationalism as being one of the main, root problems of TWI. 4) Conclude that dispensationlism itself is all f'd up and must be avoided at all costs. (And you might as well toss Paul's epistles in with it while you're at it.) To one degree or another (some more, some less), it's been happening here at GSC for as long as I can recall reading here. (and previously, I've been rather viciously maligned or slandered for even daring to bring up the issue or speak out on such matters...)

yeah, so what. lots of repetition and/or being more popular doesn't necessarily make it any more right or more scientific. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47vDpY3eMXg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd5-dHxOQhg go ahead and call them fake, it's your choice to think whatever you want to. I just think it's unfortunate that you think others looking at this from a different perspective than what you're accustomed to is so incredibly "stupid." (although you seem to define arrogance differently, that appears to me to fit the mold for it quite well.) anyways, I'm done with this thread. it's obvious that you're not here to honestly discuss, but rather, just to garner more support for and/or promote your own religious (purported to be "more intelligent") beliefs.

If you were more concerned with finding or learning how it's possible than you've been with finding or learning how it's not possible, perhaps you'd end up with something closer to the truth. But, not only might that conflict with some of your other beliefs, it would undoubtedly take a lot more time and effort, which you evidently don't have nor care for. And, given your rather obvious disdain for much of anything that I might think or have to say on this thread, neither do I care to butt heads over it. However, I think there actually are some plausible answers to these issues that can be found on the Internet, IF one is sufficiently motivated and intelligent enough to know how to look for them. This is the result of a two minute search on google, so it's probably barely scratching the surface of what's out there: http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Chaldeans.html#.W8UET2nn-Uk And as for the length of years they lived, evidently you've never looked at or consider the possible (and probable) effect of the hyperbaric condition that likely existed prior to the flood (which, of course, you suppose and say never happened...)

Oh, I'm quite aware of what was and wasn't taught "back in the day," which is why I rather specifically referred to what was practiced. You can talk about the apostle Paul and the grace administration all you want. But, if you miss both why and when it started, and fail to adhere to it on a practical level... how well "aligned" with it do you honestly think that is? (Perhaps you might try reading my previous post a bit more carefully.) Quite frankly, I suppose anyone that thinks that vpw (or twi) aligned themselves with Paul's gospel, evidently doesn't know one or the other of them very well. That said, if one isn't capable of making a clear distinction and separation between the gospel of the kingdom and the Paul's gospel of grace, what do they really know or understand about dispensationalism?

Was probably like that stuff used in coffee... half and half.

Oh, it's biblical enough. Comes right straight from Exodus 18. You didn't know that?

Not true. Just where do you think or suppose the "Way Tree" teachings came from? Truth is that in practice (even if not as obvious in its doctrinal teachings), twi never actually aligned itself all that well with dispensationalism. So, so many things (some being much more disguised than others) were right straight out of the old testament...

Yeah, truth is, I wasn't trying to derail the conversation, and have no motive or reason for being upset, as I'm not trying to make you "fall" for anything. So, call my reasoning flawed, or whatever else you care or want to. It comes as no surprise that a two dimensional approach to a three dimensional problem might only see any three dimensional thinking as not only an insult to their way of looking at it, but as "outright stupidity."

Very well then, be happy and content with your own smartness and smugness, Raf. This will all wash out in the end, when there will be no excuses for what we thought and how we have lived. https://www.wanttoknow.info/i/what-is-reality

Science and genetics have and are built upon certain premises, which presume certain constants... which neither you nor any of your other "super smart" friends can absolutely prove. My previous post and statements are neither BS nor a bluff, and the only thing you really appear to be calling out is your own arrogance.

That's not what some have said here, but it's your spin (evidently) on what everyone says that you either don't care to consider or simply disagree with. All (meaning, ALL) of what actually happens (or happened, historically speaking) is NOT what the Bible, nor anything else, is capable of recording and communicating. Hence, anything and EVERYTHING that you or I or anyone "thinks" they have or know about history and/or what happened in the past, at it's very best can only be said to convey all the relevant or pertinent information about what happened. And the relative completeness of what is (or can be) communicated about what happened, is probably always going to retain a certain subjective element reelecting the communicator's perspective on the situation. Which, believe it or not, is going take us right straight to the question of how (or whether) each of us perceive reality in the same way. So, scoff at the idea that two people can perceive "what is happening" differently all you want. In the end, you might be in for a rather startling or rude awakening. Reality is one thing. Virtual reality is another. Augmented reality is another. are there other unnamed or unknown realities? how sure are you of what reality is, Raf? the mind of man is a tricky thing... You state and claim Adam and Eve are fictitious. I, on the other hand, disagree. And you can no further prove to me they are fictitious then I can prove to you they are not.

As skewed as his teachings on cf'n'SEX were, they pale in comparison to the widespread and very, very deep rooted damage resulting from the far more well known (and evidently still popular) "Way Tree" teachings.

LOL. Tell me you really and truly don't see what a crock of BS that "spin" is.... Just imagine if someone else tried using those lines on you, how pi$$ed you'd be at them claiming that they weren't really calling you stupid. They're just observing that you are.

well, I looked, but couldn't find said tapes. perhaps they were some time later in his teachings from Gartmore. however, I did just find this "open view of God" outline (by Schoenheit) that might have some degree of overlap with it. While I don't completely agree with it (as it seems to allow too much room for discounting the knowledge and/or wisdom of God), I do think that it points towards some things that are probably true, and do have merit.

Given that I did not (and am not) in any way or to any degree denying scholarship, nor the history, nor the reality of George Washington's existence, your statement is merely evidence of your own failure to perceive or acknowledge the extreme level of certainty within me as to the historical existence of Adam and Eve. In other words, as certain as you (very plainly) think and confess to believing in the existence of George Washington, I am saying that I am MORE certain in my thinking and believing in the historical existence of Adam and Eve. Seems you don't see the difference. But, perhaps you'll put that in your pipe and... ponder it.

Short answer is this, Raf. I suspect that you deny there being anything more "real" than that which is or can be detected and known by the natural senses. I, on the other hand, believe that everything that is and can be known by the natural senses is only PART of what is real. You can call or label my position as "obfuscation" if you want (which is little more than a continued denial of it), but it certainly doesn't describe it well, nor change it. And there are plenty of things that are untrue if or when viewed from my perspective, undoubtedly far more than you can possibly imagine. Furthermore, I don't have any more difficulty believing in the literal existence of Adam and Eve than I do of George Washington. In fact, you'd probably have an easier time trying to convince me that George Washington never existed and that someone else was the first president of the U.S.

Huhn? Since when isn't there room to fall short in understanding (or, miss the understanding of) either sections of, or the entirety of, scripture? (heck, I thought - perhaps mistakenly - that even the most inflated "know-it-all" savants of twi would, or at least could, recognize there's always a possibility that they might be missing something there. Maybe I'm from a different era, or planet, or universe, or ...something.) Well, it is history. (I've never - or at least, not that I remember - ever thought otherwise.) However, more precisely, I (now) think of it more as spiritual history. In other words, history presented from a spiritual perspective. But communicated in physical (or "worldly") terms. To say that it is only (or exclusively) "allegorical" sounds more like an effort to extricate spiritual things from it, rather than seeing the overall picture that is painted as the evidence of an otherwise invisible spiritual reality. yeah, okay. maybe that went through one ear and out the other. so... I'll try to say it another way. Maybe some (or many, even) of the "individual pieces" of the story aren't going to have real straightforward or obvious meanings, unless or until they are viewed as integral parts of a much bigger picture. So, if and/or when you get stuck on or obsess over what certain of the pieces might really mean, you won't (and can't) see how they fit into the spiritual story. (In other words, you can't see the forest for the trees.) For far too many years, I was rather stuck on trying to use word studies (Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, etc...) to "unlock" meanings. I'm not saying that such efforts always go unrewarded. They're simply "inadequate" in and of themselves most of the time, and many times actually get in the way of looking at it and considering it in the light of other known truth.

With all the emphasis and effort that has put into expounding 2Tim. 2:15, one might think there's little left to be understood there. Yet, frankly speaking, my view of it has changed rather radically from what it once was years ago, when I was so want to "dig into" the Greek, or Hebrew, or Aramaic... searching for a much deeper and/or more significant truth in scripture. In part, because I've seen some of the error that can (and so often does) result from an overly (and overtly) zealousness to focus on "the text" of what is written, and the elevation of it above what might be described as a much more "simplistic" understanding resulting from a more careful consideration of who it was (or is) written to, and why it may have been written. Personally, I think this verse in 2 Timothy relates very closely to what is written in Philippians 1:9,10. But, perhaps that would make more sense to some of you if the word "excellent" in verse 10 were translated (more accurately) as "different." Because many things that Paul spoke of and wrote about were, in fact, quite different from what was coming out of the church that was in Jerusalem. Maybe then this "right dividing" or separating that is spoken of of 2 Timothy makes plenty good sense, given Paul's prayer in Philippians for their love to abound yet more and more... which appears to be a prerequisite for approving things that are "different" (I.e., needing separation.)

okay, ...I clicked on it. (thinking, it's really bad, it shouldn't take too long to figure it out.) and yep... less that a minute into it, and it was pretty clear. (and a few minutes more of it was all I could stomach...) In short, if you are convinced (or persuaded) that the church (i.e., the called out) of the body of Christ start on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), I suppose it's a piece of cake for certain talented or charismatic leaders to likewise convince or persuade you - in one way or another - of incorporating and equating certain portions and aspects of the law into your own senses driven servitude. In other words, your obedience to the spirit of God within you is thwarted and/or replaced with an obedience to the spirit in others. Seriously now... merely try looking up the word "obedience" in the church epistles, and see for yourself who or what it refers to. Obedience to... some certain household ? Surely you jest, if you say that is something aligned with what is written. Ah, but this "teaching" was no joke. He was as serious as a heart attack when he equated it with your "obedience to God."

Speculating? Okay, if that's the game, here's a little more for you to ponder... Which of any of these people produced, provided, or in any way "manufactured" (for lack of a better word) a service (or product) outside of TWI that could (or would) have resulted in a means of income (or wealth, if you prefer) that any of them are now in a position that they are (evidently) independently wealthy? Aside from some sort of sizeable inheritance (which, granted, some might have been the beneficiary of some caring and thoughtful parents or relative), how is it that you suppose any of them manage to live in a society (and world) that essentially runs on money? What hidden "saddle making" skills might you suppose that any of them have or utilize? Or, who (or what) is it that you suppose actually funds their present lifestyle (if not the same - or very similar to that which did - while in twi)?