WordWolf

Old time posters will find this funny, but I agree with Oldiesman. (At least I agree with this last post!)

The meaning of "household" was never exactly defined, but in practice, seemed to equate with being a Christian at all- because any act of disobedience to twi would threaten to put you out of "the household".  Further, people like lcm were openly distainful of people leaving twi, and said they put themselves outside of God's protection and so on.  Any time something bad happened to someone who left twi, it was ALWAYS "because they left the household."  (Any time something bad happened to someone in twi, either they were blamed for not being faithful ENOUGH to twi, or the devil was going after them BECAUSE they were in twi.)   And lcm was quite vocal about how God's blessings won't reach someone who isn't in lockstep with twi.   There was a lengthy list of things which would result in a situation where "God won't even SPIT in your direction", most notably, tithing.    lcm talked about God spitting in our direction a lot. 

I can't even name a single GROUP which will allow any questioning of their dogmas.  I have met Christians willing to agree to disagree, and to interact despite differences.  They've been from different denominations, for that matter.  (Not twi, mind you...)

This is a show that ran in syndication in the U.S. for a long time.  In the U.K., it did the same, AFAIK.  In the UK, it was a 1-hour show.  In the US, they snipped each show in half to make 1/2 hour shows, which is how they always aired, AFAIK.

It is next to impossible to find this show in syndication now. I strongly suspect that far too many people were offended by the show- or are predicted to be offended by the show, for it to run now.  That's a little odd, because, on the whole, it wasn't a show that specifically went for "shocking" or  "edgy."  This show was a comedy- although it did include musical numbers.  It occasionally spoofed something- like "Gone with the Wind," "Murder on the Orient Express," and "The 6 Million Dollar Man."

10 hours ago, Joe Maslow said:

I do not think there is a law of "giving and receiving", Of course I know that not everyone in this forum is Christian or Bible purist, but if we take the Bible as a reference, it does not mention giving as a law (unlike the Mosaic law or other civil, agricultural, etc. regulations) - the closest thing is "He who soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he who soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully." Is that a Law?  Does it always happen the same way? If a person gives abundantly, will that person always receive abundantly?

I believe God and the Bible, and I choose to give BUT freely, Not by coercion, obligation or pressure.

There are two books that contain a lot of information on this subject and that obviously do not coincide with TWI's vision:

"The Tithing Dilemma" by Ernest Martin

" L’identification des dîmes: Quelle dîme est donc payée par les chrétiens" by Hughes N.

 

 

I'm sure the name "Ernest Martin" won't ring a bell to a lot of people who only listen to twi's side of stories. His name is known at the GSC. 

Ernest Martin was the man who wrote the article and book upon which twi based "Jesus Christ- Our Promised Seed."  His book was called "The Star That Astonished the World."  The article preceded the book by several years, and was used by the research department-at vpw's direction- on which to base the book. Ever remember hearing his name in twi? Me, neither.

A different thing which may be a surprise to some people-but not others- is that JCOPS says "by vpw" on it and inside it. It was written by people in the research department, and based largely on Martin's work- with some interpolation of Bullinger's work from "the Witness of the Stars".    Once again, very little of that book was original, and even less was written by vpw- largely the introduction.

This wouldn't surprise some people because, apparently, it's customary in certain circles for the person in charge of the group to write "edited by" and slap his name on the work of his team- no matter how much of it was his work- and mention the team briefly, and that's all right.   I know it surprised me, at least. I expect the words "written by" to mean that this is the person who wrote a book. 

I acknowledge books that say something like "my life as told to"   as different,  and scholarly books like "Black Elk Speaks", which was compiled by a Professor, and was largely the words of Black Elk, an Indian chieftain (with notes where a different Indian was quoted, like "Iron Wasichu speaks" and so on.)

NYPD Blue????

OK, taking a stab at this.....here's my best guess.

Elvis Presley

James Brown

Little Richard

Buddy Holly

Jan & Dean

It's interesting to note how fast pfal does a 180 when it comes to tithing. 

Christians are not under The Law, we are under Grace.  All our rules come from Pentecost and afterwards...... except for tithing.

The rules quoted are all from The Law, like in Malachi.

One example is quoted that Abraham gave a donation- with nothing saying it was required or even expected. He chose to give it, and he gave it.  That's not proof nor an argument for tithing.  

The only reference in the New Testament?  II Corinthians 9:7.   In the KJV,  it reads:

⁷ Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.

(For the curious, the NASB reads  "⁷ Each one must do just as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." )

vpw used this verse to say that we were required to give 10%- or more!  to "God"- and both he and twi push for twi to be the sole source to receive all that money.

He made no effort to distinguish it from the previous requirement- he called it "tithe"- same as before- which means "tenth." 

But even the verse he quotes says we don't have to tithe!  

If we are REQUIRED to give, the giving is "OF NECESSITY".  ("Under compulsion.")

twi keeps track of their members/"followers" and their tithes/money given under compulsion.  Try giving less than 10% and see how long you go before someone starts giving you static. 

So, after Pentecost, no donations are REQUIRED.  In Acts, there were donations requested at specific times for specific needs at that time.

In twi, that's not the final word on the subject.

Suppose you even give 10%.  That's not enough. 

Now you have to "abundantly share." 

Those are donations above the MANDATORY 10%. 

The verses for this....no verses.  "Well, under The Law, they gave 10%, we should do more!" 

Wait!

In twi, that's STILL not the final word on the subject.

Outside of vpw, twi, and possibly another group that got this from them, nobody has the sheer nerve to pull this one.

"Plurality giving."

In twi,  that's a thing. It means you sit down, figure out how much you make, calculate how much you need to get by, and subtract that amount from the amount you made.  Then you take EVERYTHING ELSE AND HAND IT OVER TO TWI!

Everywhere else, you can take anything left and invest it, put it towards retirement, save it for emergencies, use it to buy something nice, etc.

That's not recommended anywhere in the Bible.

People wondering what difference it makes should learn some of the practical differences it makes.  People in twi are NOT SUPPOSED to save for retirement, invest, etc. They're supposed to hand twi over all that money.   So, when the person gets an emergency, does twi ever donate back a little of that money to compensate! No way! They'll pray for you, but the money is in their hands and not going back.    In twi, you're supposed to distance yourself from family members who are not in twi.....

UNTIL YOU NEED SOMETHING FROM THEM.

THEN you go to them for help to cover for the absence of the money you handed over to twi!

If you're in twi, you may HEAR that you're "under Grace", but in many ways, you are NOT treated that way, and that starts with handing over your money.

Lots of people remember that "Christians Should Be Prosperous" (vpw's book that argues you're supposed to hand over 10%)  was required with pfal. Most of us were given a homework assignment right at the beginning of the class, to read it.   As soon as we got the book, we were required to read it. All the pfal material to cover- but the "give us your money" stuff jumped to the front of the queue. 

6 hours ago, waysider said:

Is this, perhaps, the basis of the "used before" concept?

Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible" outlines Bullinger's explanation of that. A lot of that book was lifted and turned directly into content in the pfal foundational class.  Sessions 9-12 were a mix of Bullinger's "Word Studies on the Holy Spirit",  JE Stiles' "GIfts of the Holy Spirit" and Leonard's class.   But a lot of 1-8 are Bullinger, and a lot of that was all HtEtB.

7 hours ago, GeorgeStGeorge said:

The Candy Man Can by Sammy Davis Jr?

George

That's it.

In this thread and this forum, we're here to go over what twi teaches, and compare the doctrine and teaching which allegedly comes from the Bible, and see if it really is in accord with the Bible.

Getting into what the Roman Catholic Church teaches is off-topic for both thread and forum.  Oldies, if you really want to get into that, please start a thread in the relevant forum.  Keep in mind, that, if you do, you might not like the thread that results.  But you can if you want to.

23 hours ago, Raf said:

For what it's worth, I just checked the Companion Bible and Bullinger got this verse right. Maybe the mistake was in How to Enjoy the Bible? Or perhaps it was just someone else entirely.

I wouldn't necessarily dwell on why Wierwille got this wrong. The point is that he did. 

And it's not a big deal by itself. It's just a matter of recognizing that sometimes TWI gets something wrong AND IT'S OK. The Bible doesn't fall to pieces because of it. 

In case you're curious, I plowed through HtEtB. (Most of it.)   The first mention makes it sound the same as in the Companion Bible. However, if you keep reading, eventually he gets to that Psalms thing about the heathen for inheritance, and people using that for missionary sermons, and the next verse about breaking them with a rod of iron and dashing them in pieces like a potter's vessel.  Bullinger confirms that it's "dividing" but that it's not "rightly dividing."   He uses the word "interpreting" later, especially in section headers, and he uses it as synonymous with "rightly dividing."  He doesn't leave a sentence that says "rightly diving" is "interpreting",  but he uses the terms interchangeably.   So, with everything else being lifted directly, that was lifted also.

For those people who think I ramble and go on for a while, I have nothing on Bullinger. I'm amateur-hour compared to when really Bullinger gets going.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the "you can't understand the Bible unless we tell you what it means" position (common to both the Roman Catholic Church and twi- while twi derides the RCC for doing it, they do it too) dovetails nicely with "you need us, remember to give us money."  Both groups consider themselves the final word on all things relating to God Almighty, and the rank and file better remember that.  If you oppose the group, you oppose GOD ALMIGHTY and can face consequences from Him.

"I was born a poor Black child."

17 hours ago, Human without the bean said:

WordHusky posted this tune about a month ago in the Songs Remembered from Just One Line thread.  It's alright with me if you want to keep it.

D'oh!

Ok, scratch that one. Here's another.

"Oh, who can take tomorrow?, (Who can take tomorrow?), Dip it in a dream, (Dip it in a dream), Separate the sorrow and collect up all the cream?"

11 hours ago, GeorgeStGeorge said:

House (?)

George

Yes.

Dr House always had to diagnose some mysterious malady. Since lupus has nebulous symptoms, it was always a possibility.  And one time, it WAS lupus.    There's some lupus foundation that thanked the show for raising awareness of lupus in the public eye. 

If "All Scripture explains itself, either in the verse, or in the context, or as a term has been used before",

which Bullinger said in "How to Enjoy the Bible", and has been taught at twi since vpw started quoting Bullinger in the 1950s,

then II Peter 1:20  has to be understood in the context of the surrounding verses, which is to say, in light of II Peter 1:21.  When one allows this process, then the explanation that vpw gave- which he photocopied from Bullinger without understanding it- is seen as INCORRECT. 

This is not a notable problem in and of itself. Bullinger made a mistake, and vpw made 2 mistakes- to not examine Bullinger's conclusion, and to just pass it alone unexamined.  Men are human, and make mistakes. They will make errors. They will teach errors.

Where this becomes a notable problem is where one is taught that the entire PFAL experience- the PFAL classes as a whole, and the foundation of "wierwille's" teaching as a whole-  is not simply what wierwille taught, but that it was the product of what GOD ALMIGHTY HIMSELF taught wierwille, and wierwille just passed along to everyone else at the behest of GOD ALMIGHTY.  

Now, which is more sensible- that the error was the result of wierwille making a mistake when understanding Bullinger because wierwille did all this on his own volition and it all rested on his skill and those of the Christians whom he photocopied, even though he claimed he was taught by God Almighty, and thus, he should never be questioned on doctrine because to question wierwille on doctrine is to question GOD ALMIGHTY HIMSELF on doctrine, a mistake made by Eve in the Garden of Eden,

or

that the error was the result of GOD ALMIGHTY HIMSELF making a mistake and passing that mistake on to wierwille, who was correctly passing along what GOD ALMIGHTY taught wierwille, which is what wierwille claimed happened?

There's no third option. Using Bullinger's own techniques- and thus pfal and twi's own techniques because they were passed along entirely- to read II Peter 1, the only sensible conclusion is that II Peter 1:20 refers to the origin of Scripture, NOT whether one "lets the hounds loose on the game."  Bullinger's own techniques show Bullinger to be in error in this instance.  

"It could be Lupus."   "It's NEVER Lupus!" 

"Alone between the sheets
Only brings exasperation.
It's time to walk the streets
Smell the desperation."

"My Fair Lady."

Running Scared              Jimmy Smits            Star Wars Episode 3-Revenge of the Sith

For those who saw "Running Scared" and wonder who he was, he played Detective Tony Montoya, one of the 2 young detectives that were undercover.  "Croissant?"   "Nice car. What do you call it, 'the Chicken-Mobile'?"

Appears to be "Star Trek." (The Original Series.)

It does. The only artist I know who did a broadcast of this song was DANNY AIELLO.  He was on Saturday Night Live- which was indeed broadcast.  The song was "CHUBBY CLEMENTINE."  So, a cover of Bobby Darin's song.

Just so I can say I asked,  Cream with "Sunshine Of Your Love"????

In case there was any doubt, it's George's turn.

Wow.   *checks*   One source says he was 5'4" and 100 lbs, giving him a BMI of about 17.19.

But, yes, that was James Madison.  Apparently 3 James Madisons standing on a scale at the same time would still weigh less than one William Howard Taft (322 lbs.)