Charity

I stand corrected on the "THE" and thanks for the reply!

I appreciate that Raf. As much as learning to accept and give love is cultivated or hindered in childhood, being in twi made things so much harder to know what love is. Example, the rod (spoon) of correction used for years on toddlers and children. In their recent magazine, no mention of this old barbaric tactic is mentioned because they were told during the lawsuit against them that it had to stop. But what about the emotional and physical fear and pain children lived with and most likely carried with them for years later, as well as the guilt parents felt later on by following twi's doctrine of how to love our children? Question: Was the prominent habit of using the spoon taught because of vp's belief and practice of how to train his dogs? There are so many examples of twi teaching us how not to love ourselves or others and having to unlearn it all doesn't come overnight - it takes for some people decades to work through it. However, you're the moderator and I respect your decision. (hot chocolate with whipped cream for me ) I'll PM you.

Thinking this could have been a very real possibility made me chuckle at first, but cognitive dissonance does come into play in the arena of our minds when thoughts of love meet up with thoughts of being unlovable or unworthy of love. Snappy was blessed when someone reached out to him/her with kindness and love. What prevents us from reaching out to ourselves in that way. Experiencing a lot of shame as children comes to mind as shame results in "I'm" statements - I'm bad; I'm useless, etc. - it's a focus placed on self and keeps us away from wanting to be with others. Shame is not only very different from guilt, but it prevents us from having guilt. Guilt focuses on our behaviour (I was rude to my friend) which makes it possible to choose to make amends. I'm beginning to understand now that when I have trouble accepting the fact that I've made a mistake, I'm probably feeling shame instead of guilt. How much was shame used to keep believers down and subservient to leaders in twi. Shame is not of God.

Thanks very much, Rocky. It's touching how the pup fiercely resisted an unperceived gesture of kindness and love because of fear and pain, yet the woman persisted in such a gentle way. Also, to see how Snappy learned to accept love and give love while letting go of both the fear and pain. It makes me think how isolating oneself from others out of emotional fear and pain brings no enlightenment or healing. As well is how reaching out to someone who is hurting but wants to be left alone, is loving not only in words, but in deeds. When you see the power of human love, how much more powerful is Godly love once one learns to trust it. The way ministry helped both to damage, and in some cases, ruin that trust for many.

I remember that claim and get what you mean

Feel free to correct me any time. I remember reading something about this but I found it confusing, although I did look up the meaning of radicals which I'm sure only confused me more . So, are you saying that since vp was inaccurate with the "sitting" stuff that rest and ceasing work is a correct translation?

He's determined to make scripture fit into the teaching and terminology of the collaterals which have vp's name on than the other way round. It's a blatant way to trash the verses that describe what a true servant of Christ is to be.

I don't fully understand David's love for the law as he speaks about it in Psalm 119. I have not studied the OT much or read any secular books about the history, culture, wars, beliefs, etc. of those times. But David obviously knew something about the law that pleased him greatly. Paul said in Romans 7 that the law was holy, just and good - people were just not able to keep it. Gal 3 says that the law was added because of transgressions until the promised seed should come. The law was called a schoolmaster to bring the Jews unto Christ that they might be justified by faith. This explains why under the law, anyone who deliberately broke the Sabbath was put to death. The 4th commandment taught the Jews that in order to enter into God's rest, they had to cease from their own works. This pointed towards the coming Messiah whose work alone on the cross would save the world from sin. The penalty for breaking the Sabbath was severe (death) but it is also the penalty for those who try to be saved through their own works (eternal death).

Thank you for catching that typo - it made me laugh. Speaking of the quote being an organic whole, I often think of the first and second great commandments as being independent thoughts instead of being interrelated by the word love as it is talked about throughout 1 John. I've also spent much of my adult life with the goal of understanding myself and others even to the point of studying the brain and how it figures into all of it. Learning how the past influences our thoughts, feelings and behaviors of the present is fascinating to me. My experience though has shown me that understanding myself isn't enough to move me forward very far nor does it prevent slipping backwards from happening. That's why my goal now is to stay focused on the healing power of love, especially the love of God, instead of visiting the topic now and then. I just need to get clear on what "staying focused" involves .

I like the words cultivate and grow because babies are not born with self-esteem issues - those are developed along the way. The environment you describe above gives a true sense of safety and contentment - where people can stand tall and breathe in confidence and happiness. It's so life-affirming. The author goes on to talk about how today's culture is particularly shame based which brings to mind the image of wilting flowers. By shame-based, she means the use of shame, personal attacks and teardowns in order to be heard which basically is what some reality shows are built on and then called entertainment. In fact, this can be seen here on GSC from the posts of a certain member. Now that's interesting. Was the unloving nature of this habit cultivated only while in twi or even earlier in life? I would think though that everyone everywhere has to be on watch against doing this either habitually or if only now and again.

Oh, the shivering he does is so sad. But that's how trauma affects our minds and bodies as well. And you're right about the power of love - it took his fears away and brought healing to his cute, cuddly little body.

When I read your post, I felt like I did so many months ago when reading the Absent Christ thread - wanting to learn and grow and know Christ more. Separating the verses in Deut 6 that speak of obeying God from the one that speaks of loving God got me thinking about some things and questioning others. I'm still working it. One thing I thought of was the lawyer who asked Jesus which was the great commandment in the law merely for the purpose of tempting Jesus. Jesus knew how self-righteous the Pharisees believed themselves to be by "obeying" the commandments; yet he also knew that they did not love God in their hearts. He pointed out their hypocrisy by quoting verse 5 in Deut 6 and naming it the first and great commandment - meaning greater than all of Yahweh's laws which they were gloating about keeping. (Reminds me about faith, hope and charity abiding, but the greatest of these being charity.) To me, this is Bibliolatry - exalting a knowledge of scripture above a desire to have charity as it is defined in 1 Cor 13:4-7. Doing so makes the person a nothing with no spiritual profit gained whatsoever. Finally, your last paragraph is why I started the thread about love and what it is. "To love completely is to know Christ" is very inspiring as is reading 1 John to understand more about the love of God. Great post - thanks!

And yes Rocky, I know Mike won't read my post - but I enjoyed writing it.

Warning: A longer post with scriptures! Mike, do you know what God said about those verses in Deut 6:1–12 that you are gloating about? Jer 31:3-33 Behold, the days come, said the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake (sorry - no bible freaks here), although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, said the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. We just happened to get holy spirit before them thanks to the mystery of Christ that Paul talks about in Eph 3. Why did Jesus reduce all the law and the prophets into the 2 great commandments? Because the 2 great commandments are based solely on the love of God – the same love that God poured into our hearts by the holy spirit which He gave to us. What happened to the law in Deut 6? Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. For the letter kills, but the spirit gives life. What do we do now? Mike, the written word is not just letters on a page to be simply quoted like OldSkool spoke of above. And Oldiesman left out a critical truth in his post – the holy spirit. We would get absolutely nowhere with God’s Word without the spirit of God within us. To be living epistles of Christ, we cannot be written with ink in tables of stone, but we must be written with the Spirit of the living God in fleshy tables of the heart.

I agree with OldSkool that God is a very generous giver of free gifts because of His love and through these gifts we are able to love ourselves and others. Again, I think of "charity never fails" which speaks of the power of the love of God. I was wondering what you thought of the quote from above: “We cultivate love when we allow our most vulnerable and powerful selves to be deeply seen and known and when we honor the spiritual connection that grows from that offering with trust, respect, kindness and affection. Love is not something we give or get, it’s something that we nurture and grow. It’s a connection that only can be cultivated when it exists within each one of them. We can only love others as much as we live ourselves. Shame, blame, disrespect, betrayal and the withholding of affection damage the roots from which love grows. Love can only survive its injuries if they’re acknowledged, healed and rare.” In the quote above, she speaks of cultivating love as opposed to giving or getting it, but she does use the word "offering" when talking about allowing our "most vulnerable and powerful selves" to be deeply seen and known. I think that is something we do give to others to receive, as well as honoring the connection she speaks of - it also implies a giving of ourselves to do so.

I really like that you mentioned boundaries. I immediately thought of what I've learned previously about them from books and counselling, but then I thought of googling if there are boundaries in the Bible. I expected to get a bunch of websites about O.T.'s division of land, but I was wrong. This is one of them that I liked (haven't read the whole article yet). It mentions Jehovah Rapha in a title at the top which means "The Lord who Heals" and a short "Meet the Author" speaks of personal healing within her marriage where sexual addiction was involved. 5 More Principles of Biblical Boundaries we Learn from God. - His Dearly Loved Daughter Ministries Your last sentence has two very good questions to come back to and think about.

In The Power of Vulnerability, Brene Brown says, "We can only love others as much as we live ourselves." and she gives an example why she believes this. Matthew 22:39 says, And the second is like unto it, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. Many others, including me, would say I love my children more than I love myself and I find some truth in this. I would do anything for my children to keep them safe, loved, cared for, etc., and I mean this with all my heart. But how is it that I would know how to love them one way, a better way, than I know to love myself and if I could, why would I not love myself in that same way? Is it because they're more deserving than I am, or that I want them to "turn out healthier" than I did? Yes on both accounts. However, I believe one has to take into account what we grew up learning about love and has since become "hardwired" in our brains like a default setting. If a child grows up believing love cannot be trusted, that they're unlovable or not worthy of love, that loving someone means neglecting their own needs or that love means sex, these negative beliefs are not easy to change as an adult. What are the chances then that they might affect how I act towards my children, spouse, etc. On this forum, I've heard how time spent in twi changed healthy beliefs about loving yourself and others into self-hatred or a distrust of love. We learned that even the love of God was conditional and became hard-hearted towards certain others. When trying to figure this all out, there are self-help books, counselling and therapy on the one hand, and on the other are what scriptures teach like 2 Tim 1:7 For God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of love and of power and of a sound mind; and 1 Thes 4:9 But as touching brotherly love, ye need not that I write unto you: for you yourselves are taught of God to love one another. What works and what doesn't work?

The following is a post of mine from the "New John Juedes video debunking Wierwille Books" thread. I think we all agree that love is a basic need of us humans so a new discussion about love - both human and God's - might be beneficial to some. I’ve been listening to the audiobook “The Power of Vulnerability” by Brene Brown. From what I’ve heard so far, she’s made no reference to God so I think it’s safe to say she is talking about human love. As a result of her research on vulnerability and shame, she gives her definition of love as being: “We cultivate love when we allow our most vulnerable and powerful selves to be deeply seen and known and when we honor the spiritual connection that grows from that offering with trust, respect, kindness and affection. Love is not something we give or get, it’s something that we nurture and grow. It’s a connection that only can be cultivated when it exists within each one of them. We can only love others as much as we live ourselves. Shame, blame, disrespect, betrayal and the withholding of affection damage the roots from which love grows. Love can only survive its injuries if they’re acknowledged, healed and rare.” Concerning God's love, two verses I’ve been thinking about lately are 1 Cor 13:8, “Charity never fails” and verse 13, “And now abides faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.” The first is an incredible promise and the latter is a pretty significant fact. Why is charity the greatest when compared to faith and hope? With faith, Gal 5:6 says For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love; and with hope Rom 5:5 says, And hope maketh not ashamed (disappointed); because the love of God is shed (poured out) abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. I haven’t given much thought as to the accuracy of vp’s and twi’s actual teachings about the love of God, but we know that the opposite of it was manifested towards many, many believers. This would be one reason for their lack of faith/trust/believing being demonstrated. That leaves hope. How was our belief and understanding of the hope affected back then and what do we think now about this topic that is spoken so often of in scripture? The topic of human and God's love is broad. I'll start a new thread and see where it goes from there.

I think we all agree that love is a basic need of us humans so a new discussion about love - both human and God's - might be beneficial to some. I’ve been listening to the audiobook “The Power of Vulnerability” by Brene Brown. From what I’ve heard so far, she’s made no reference to God so I think it’s safe to say she is talking about human love. As a result of her research on vulnerability and shame, she gives her definition of love as being: “We cultivate love when we allow our most vulnerable and powerful selves to be deeply seen and known and when we honor the spiritual connection that grows from that offering with trust, respect, kindness and affection. Love is not something we give or get, it’s something that we nurture and grow. It’s a connection that only can be cultivated when it exists within each one of them. We can only love others as much as we live ourselves. Shame, blame, disrespect, betrayal and the withholding of affection damage the roots from which love grows. Love can only survive its injuries if they’re acknowledged, healed and rare.” Concerning God's love, two verses I’ve been thinking about lately are 1 Cor 13:8, “Charity never fails” and verse 13, “And now abides faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.” The first is an incredible promise and the latter is a pretty significant fact. Why is charity the greatest when compared to faith and hope? With faith, Gal 5:6 says For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love; and with hope Rom 5:5 says, And hope maketh not ashamed (disappointed); because the love of God is shed (poured out) abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. I haven’t given much thought as to the accuracy of vp’s and twi’s actual teachings about the love of God, but we know that the opposite of it was manifested towards many, many believers. This would be one reason for their lack of faith/trust/believing being demonstrated. That leaves hope. How was our belief and understanding of the hope affected back then and what do we think now about this topic that is spoken so often of in scripture? The topic of human and God's love is broad. I'll start a new thread and see where it goes from there.

I know you weren’t Rocky. And I was okay with you still maintaining in your post that vp’s entire enterprise was based on and revolved around bibliolatry. I wrote earlier that I felt the topic of bibliolatry did belong in the About the Way forum when it was being used to refute vp and twi. To answer your question - no I have no problem whatsoever with a thread in the doctrinal forum on the subject of bibliolatry.

Atheism, nontheism, skepticism: Questioning Faith I thought I'd add what the moderators posted about this forum. "The Greasespot rules apply here just as they do on any other forum. They apply to everyone, regardless of forum "status" or authority. They apply FOR everyone, regardless of faith or lack thereof. This forum on Questioning Faith was started in order to isolate discussions on atheism from other discussions on doctrine. It was started specifically in response to complaints in the Actual Errors in Genesis thread. There was an ERRONEOUS belief that the doctrinal section is for believers only, and that people who are not believers are "wasting their time" posting in doctrinal. Let it be clear: anyone of any faith (or lack thereof) is free to post on any thread in doctrinal. Efforts to make posters feel unwelcome in the doctrinal section because of their beliefs will not be tolerated. The same goes for Questioning Faith. ANYONE can post here, no matter what you believe. But whether it's an atheist in the doctrinal section or a believer in Questioning Faith, it is expected that your contribution to the discussion will be On Topic." If two people are discussing who is the best active player in Major League Baseball, you can't decide this is the right place to talk about whether the Red Sox blundered trading Babe Ruth to the Yankees. You don't get to declare the thread to be about baseball in general just because baseball is an element of the conversation. If you are not interested in a conversation, you do not get to unilaterally change it. If you would like to start a related discussion, feel free to do so. That will keep the thread on topic while still allowing you to explore ideas inspired by but not directly related to the topic at hand. Calling someone deceitful will not be tolerated. Calling someone demonic will not be tolerated. If you're going to call a statement untrue, be prepared to back it up. The issue is the statement, NOT the person making it. Believers are more than welcome to challenge atheist ideas in Questioning Faith. Believers are welcome to start threads and initiate discussions. They are more than allowed to participate in discussions -- they are invited to do so. The point is to have a discussion, not a monologue or an echo chamber. Challenging someone's beliefs = fair game. Mocking them or demonizing them for holding a belief = NOT fair game.

I wrote in my post that I agreed bibliolatry did fit in with the "About the Way" forum which is described as "discussion about The Way International and its leadership." I was thinking in the sense that vp taught the written word replaced the absent Christ. Bibliolatry is also about questioning the inerrancy, infallibility and supremacy of Scripture, something vp claimed God had chosen him to do by wanting him to research and teach the Word like it hadn't been taught since the first century. He also declared he had accomplished this. His declaration, however, has been proven to be wrong because of the inaccuracy of his teachings as revealed in this forum. In both cases, vp and twi were the focus of the discussions. My point was referring to topics and posts which speak of no longer believing in God or in His Word at all. The forum below includes the topics of skepticism and questioning faith. _________________ Atheism, nontheism, skepticism: Questioning Faith For me, I had mainly noticed only the first topic of this forum when reading its title. I was a bit surprised when I looked at it fully after waysider posted the link. I appreciate GSC for having these options available for they do serve a useful purpose for many people. I was not familiar with the definition of nontheism so I looked it up and read the website below. It explains the difference between it and atheism. What is nontheism? What does it mean to be nontheistic? | GotQuestions.org