Oakspear

Why do you insist on viewing the outcome [corps person] rather than the source [wierwille]

of the problem.

Skyrider - for many of us, the outcome, as you call it, was all that we ever saw, Wierwille just being a guy we saw on tape during PFAL or from afar at the ROA. It is not unreasonable for a person to view Way Corps people in a bad light if that's all that was seen.

In my own experience I tended to blame individual Way Corps (and non-Corps) twig leaders & such, for their behavior at the time, but from the vantage point of many years later I see that it was a bit more complex than that. Wierwille was indeed the source of the evil, but individuals still had free will to act ethically or not.

It would carry a bit more weight if some partial ID were provided.

MRAP - there are often very good reasons for concealing ones identity here. Since Day One here at GSC posters have always been free to reveal or conceal at their own discretion. You of course are free to believe or disbelieve what you see written here and judge whether you have enough information. Posters are not likely to publish their own names or previous positions in TWI just to satisfy your curiosity.

I can see some sense in holding questions until the end, sometimes you have to have more complete information before you can formulate a question, but that's not what was going on in PFAL.

It wouldn't have been too bad if questions actually were answered at the end of the PFAL class, but more often than not you were still told to hold it "in abeyance" until you understood more, or took another class...

In general, it's a good idea to question everything

God must have had some obvious or hidden motive in what He said, where He said it, how He said it and so forth.

Good point. I highlighted "hidden" - I cannot believe that the creator of the heavens and the earth caused his book to be written in such a way that you had to be a sudoku master to divine the "real" meaning behind it. How many teachings involve skipping all over the bible to make a point? Yeah, there are verses about confounding the wise and all that, but if you need a degree in advanced biblical Greek and hours a day of free time to wade through it all, it's not very accessible to the common man is it?

Biblical Twister, Scriptural Pickup Stix, Divine Dominoes and Jehovah Jenga

Nice

:evilshades:/>

One of the things that I try to apply the "outsider test" to is prayer

I'm not talking about the kind of prayer where you talk to God, or praise God, or anything other than asking God to do something, or provide something

I know a lot of people who are sure that "prayer works", and are vocal about providing examples of the many times where prayer "worked", i.e. they asked God for something and they received it, or it came to pass

My outsider test in regards to prayer is that even a superficial look at the track record of prayer "working" would likely result in a very low success rate

I understand that I am not proving anything - maybe your individual experience is that you receive 100% of what you pray for 100% of the time, but it has been my observation that people who make this claim employ rationales or weasel words to explain why not receiving what was prayed for: God answered, but he said "no"; the ever-popular "God works in mysterious ways"; "God gives you what you need, not what you want"...the list goes on and on

Confirmation bias, selective reporting, rationalizing lack of success all serve to explain away the times when prayer doesn't "work"

My own favorite reason for disbelieving in the effectiveness of prayer: disasters, either natural or man-made, when the survivors claim God's blessing for sparing them when many others were killed, or lost their homes

Applying the same standard that is applied to psychics, fortune tellers and predictors-of-the-end-of-the-world to prayer and you'll get the same results

What is often missed by those who make these assertions is that for every person who pegs their position on the bible, there is an equally sincere and honest person who holds a different position also based on the bible.

Sometimes one or both of the debaters are unfamiliar with parts of the bible that do not support their position, but sometimes complex biblical gymnastics are used to harmonize conflicting sections of scripture.

One of the hallmarks of Wierwillism was the belief that the bible, in "the original", was inerrant, and that any contradictions are only apparent contradictions. This was not new or unique to Wierwillism (surprise!) but can be found in many fundamentalist denominations and is evident in the writing of E.W. Bullinger.

It is obvious to anyone who reads the bible in any depth that there are contradictions, ones position theologically determines what you do with those contradictions. The early Christians bent logic into a pretzel to harmonize the many contradictions about the nature of Jesus, resulting in the doctrine of the Trinity, Unitarians (like Wierwille) bent things in a different direction in order to justify the lack of a Trinity.

A couple of examples (one of which was pointed out to me when I was deep into WayWorld, but which I chose to ignore) are the number of people crucified with Jesus and the number of denials of Peter.

Most people know that there were two other guys crucified with Jesus and that Peter denied Jesus three times. The reason that they know this is that in every mention of the others crucified there are two, and in every mention of the denials there are three. Readings of the Gospels in church generally will read one rendering of these events, that is, they don't stop to compare two gospels side-by-side. If they did, they would notice there are discrepancies, i.e. contradictions.

Some people never notice the contradictions because they don't ever compare records, and don't "research", they just read. Others kind of know about the contradictions, but aren't bothered by them. But still others attempt to reconcile the contradictions, because to them there aren't any contradictions in the bible. These people notice that in one gospel Peter denies Jesus three times before the cock crows, in another before it crows twice; in one gospel the denials take place in certain places, in another the locations are different; the people that Peter denies Jesus to change from one gospel to another. At the crucifixtion the others are malefactors in one gospel and robbers in another; in one gospel one rails against Jesus and in other they're both silent; in one they are led with, in another at a different time. So what the inerrantists do is compare each detail side by side and see which details agree. If a detail appears in one gospel but not another, then that's a separate detail. What we end up with is four others crucified and six denials.

The problem with that is that every gospel says that there were three denials and two crucified, not six and four. Believing that there were six and four requires inventing a fifth canonical gospel, one where everything is in harmony, but where the details contradict what it plainly says in the "real" gospels.

Whether there were three or six denials, two or four others crucified may be a matter of biblical trivia, but this manner of thinking extends to matters of doctrine as well. Even though there may be (well, there are) differences in the view of the afterlife, sin, church government, etc. from one biblical writer to the next, the inerrantists naturally want to make it all fit together. Words are given meanings that the writers would be very surprised at!

What inspired me to start this thread was a discussion that I had elsewhere at the cafe where another poster assigned a meaning to a word that contradicted every biblical use of the word, mainly because the implications of using the obvious and natural meaning of the word would be a contradiction of something that another biblical writer wrote. This is what we learned was "research" in TWI and is considered legitimate in many fundamentalist circles.

If you throw out the notion that the bible is inerrant, that it is perfect in all particulars and can therefore contain no contradictions whatsoever, that the writers were mere mortals who were just writing what they thought was the truth about Jesus, that they had differing views about him and were emphasizing different aspects of his message and the meaning of his death, then the need to harmonize disappears. You can say, "Paul meant A and the writer of Luke said B" without having to twist and squish one or the other or both views to fit the other, or to come up with a third option that harmonizes the two.

We have no Facebook friends when it comes to The Word.

You win the internet today

It's not either/or, in my view

It depends on what the Corps person did and with what attitude they did it

It depends on what individuals did with the power and authority that they had over other people

From what I read here, some of you Corps grads were on the receiving end of mental abuse that I can't even imagine...but I also observed Corps grads dishing it out and who were (apparently) willing participants in the top-down abuse that originated with Wierwille, and I was lucky enough to know Corps grads who were good people who did nothing but "bless" the lives of those they came in contact with

But you didn't have to be a Corps grad to be a victimizer, to be an abuser of power

I did not go through the Corps (I signed up, participated in Apprentice Corps meetings etc, didn't get my money together and never tried again) but I am not proud to say that I was party to and complicit in abuses as were other non-Corps people. A couple of people who I categorize as those whom I would most like to hit in the face with a hammer were not Corps...you just can't make a blanket statement about a whole class of people

Well Roy my friend, there is certainly some disagreement regarding your thread topic, but it's evident that the church didn't have to invent hell, since a place of eternal punishment is mentioned in the gospels, by none other than Jesus. Whether it's correctly translated or interpreted seems to be an open question. Jesus evidently thought that certain sins would be punished by a "firey" eternal punishment, while Paul had a different view, a "sleep" culminating in a resurrection of all at some future time. The question of whether the church used the threat of hell/eternal punishment/torment to control by fear is a separate question that can best be answered by looking at history, rather than the bible, but I don't think you'd have to dig too deep to see that the threat of damnation was used extensively to control by fear.

Thanks for the effort, but I do not think that you have demonstrated that aionios/eternal means different things when describing God and his works or describing Satan and his works. It appears to require an assumption about what God would or would not do to ignore the fact that the same word is used to describe eternal life and eternal punishment.

I don't believe that the meaning or translation of the αἰών (aiōn) is in dispute. Clearly it refers to a time period which is limited in time, although it appears to refer to a long period of time. I think we derive our English word "eon" from it. You have, in detailed fashion, made your case that αἰών does not necessarily refer to a time period without end. However, no one was arguing the other side of this argument.

I do not have time this morning to list individual verses with uses of αἰώνιος, (aiōnios) translated "eternal", however, in all but three of its 70 occurences, it is translated either "eternal" or "everlasting". Many, if not most, of these occurences refer to eternal life.

There are a few options:

1. The translators got it completely wrong and "eternal" is a wrong translation and it should have been translated "long, but ultimately limited, life"

2. The adjective αἰώνιος has nuances beyond the strict, literal, meaning of αἰών and came to mean "unending" while the root word only meant "really, really long

The implications of pinning a meaning of "limited time period" onto the word translated "eternal" when referring to punishment is that eternal life isn't really eternal life

I'd agree with you, Oakspear, that a wedding officiant is hardly a "shepherd" to the wedding couple, nor a pastor to the same. More inthe nature of (administrative) "helps" - if anything :)/>

Honestly I'm uncomfortable when people call me that, like I don't think I've earned it. But I think people get ideas in their heads about what people are and stick them in pre-grooved slots...maybe that's another thread

I use the title "reverend" in my advertising in order to communicate that I'm "legal", but always introduce myself to couples by my given name

From my interactions with church people over the years, I have noted some variety in how these "gift ministries" (I know the term isn't strictly biblical, but I put it in quotes to stay in line with your thread title)

In general, people call their minister their pastor. It seems to have become a generic term among many Christians. Catholics call the head, or senior, priest in a parish the pastor. I'm ULC ordained and officiate at weddings - I get called "pastor" all the time (although I discourage it)

Evangelist seems to be a description of somebody who is well-known as a preacher, usually to large groups. I believe Billy Graham and Oral Roberts, among others, are referred to as evangelists

I have never heard anyone described as an apostle

I have heard some people informally referred to as prophets if they have demonstrated firey preaching ability, kind of "preacher" on steroids

Teacher is a description that I have heard only ascribed to someone who is actively teaching, say at school, or in a formal setting, never as a "minsitry" per se

Of course this is only my own experience and observation, which may be limited compared to what is actually out there

In religious discussions, what we call "Doctrinal" here at the ol' GS Cafe, there is often recourse to "what the Word says" in an attempt to settle arguments. This tactic is not only found here at Greasespot, but in many discussions that involve religion. On the national stage it comes up in debates about abortion, marriage equality and immigration.

What is often missed by those who make these assertions is that for every person who pegs their position on the bible, there is an equally sincere and honest person who holds a different position also based on the bible.

Sometimes one or both of the debaters are unfamiliar with parts of the bible that do not support their position, but sometimes complex biblical gymnastics are used to harmonize conflicting sections of scripture. We saw a lot of biblical contortions from Wierwille and his "research team" to justify non-traditional views, but look at the doctrine of the Trinity (which is a lot more complicated than just "Jesus = God) and you'll see a very complex maze of beliefs that attempt to not only solve contradictions among various parts of the bible, but to make sense out of the implications of the various doctrinal positions that led to the Trinity.

It is my observation that we cannot assume that the bible will be free of contradictions (it has been amply demonstrated that it has them) or even that it is a product of inspiration from God (however you define that) but that it's an anthology of what various people, at different times, with different agendas, and (in the case of the New Testament) different views of who Jesus was and what he accomplished.

I think that one can hold this position and still consider oneself to be a Christian.

Are you saying that-

ACCORDING TO STRONG'S-

it might be equally accurate to render the same Greek expression either

"forever and ever"

OR

"to the ages of the ages"?

Last time I worked on it, I rendered it the latter, since it seems the most direct translation.

WW, I haven't dug that deep. My purpose was to show that the word translated "eternal" refers both to eternal life and eternal punishment (specified as "fire") and that one couldn't logically define aionios as both limited in time and eternal in the same verse

Then I get negative comments from another poster here that says, "I don't see how this follows logic",

Actually, what I said was that I don't see how this follows logically, but perhaps that is too fine a point. I'm not breaking any rules, or even using bad manners by expressing my opinion that you are not connecting the dots logically.

from post #424 and "that's not relevant" from post #428.

I have stated on several occassions that my personal beliefs are not relevant to the discussion

I guess what I'm saying is, as you're challenging Mark on his posts, can we ascertain whether you guys are actually disagreeing about anything substantive?

The differences aren't earthshaking.

My arguments have been more about peripheral issues and assumptions (for instance, that contradictory verses have to "fit")

So then Oakspear you sound like one of the people that believes in eternal torment for a lifetime of sin. This belief originated in pagan religions. Egyptian had some of this and then Greek philosophy added to this. So apparently you also believe in ancient Greek philosophy. Do you believe in Jesus Christ?

Mark, this is a doctrinal discussion forum. My personal beliefs are irrelevant to the discussion and I will not be discussing them with you. I am asking you nicely to discontinue your attempts to make this about me and my beliefs, or what you believe are my beliefs.

Once again I read what you wrote, but disagree with your conclusions, which do not really address what the author of Mathew is saying that Jesus is calling eternal punishment.

Just for fun I looked up Strong's Concordance online

While the noun form is sometimes translated "age", here's Strong's definition:

αἰών aiṓn, ahee-ohn'; from the same as G104; properly, an age; by extension, perpetuity (also past); by implication, the world; specially (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future):—age, course, eternal, (for) ever(-more), (n-)ever, (beginning of the , while the) world (began, without end).

The adjective form is not translated in a way that limits it's scope, here's its definition:

αἰώνιος aiṓnios, ahee-o'-nee-os; from G165; perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well):—eternal, for ever, everlasting, world (began).

I'm understanding just fine by the way, however I do not agree with your conclusions

I read your article

I do not think that you make your case

The same word aionios modifies both life and punishment in v.46 - if the punishment referenced in v. 46 is not eternal as we understand the word, neither is the life in v.46

The verses in Corinthians (that's One Corinthians for you Trump fans) do indeed indicate that one shouldn't expect to understand the language when someone speaks in tongues. However, this does not mean that the incident of speaking in tongues in Acts 2 is "phenomena" or that we should assume that other incidents of speaking in tongues were any different that in chapter 2. Acts 10 says that they were heard to speak with tongues and magnify God. How woud the hearers know that they were magnifying God? I suppose they could have assumed that they magnified God since they were spaking in tongues, or maybe they understood them. Same thing with chapter 19. Now maybe Corinthians trumps (no pun intended) Acts 2, or maybe the Acts 2 example trumps Corinthians. We leaned in PFAL to interpret Acts 10 & 19 in light of Corinthians, but might we alternately interpret Corinthians in light of Acts 2?

Oakspear, since I just posted the above verse on speaking in tongues, do you want to now ignore this verse?

I'm not ignoring anything, just suggesting other possibilities

What do you believe about speaking in tongues from this verse and other verses? Believe whatever you want.

What I believe is irrelevant to this discussion

Oakspear, you are misunderstanding the word fire and the many biblical usages. Here you are only looking at the usage in verse 41 as it relates to the devil and the devil spirits.

Correct, I am only looking at verse 41. Please enlighten me on how fire doesn't mean fire in this verse. I would concede that it is probably talking about fire figuratively and not literally. But it is surely not only referring to the "devil and his angels" ("devil spirits" is not a term that you will find in the bible) - Jesus refers to "all nations" (surely not including the devil and his angels) and separates them into sheep and goats. Whoever the goats are, they are told by Jesus to depart "into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels". A plain reading would indicate that the goats go to the same place that the devil and his angels end up

You are also misunderstanding the word age, which is often written in biblical usages of a limited time period.

Usages of the word Age with a time limit

Is "eternal life" limited too? Because in Verse 46 eternal punishment and eternal life are paired; it would seem illogical to assume that the word "eternal" means different things there

So are you one of the people that believes in eternal torment for a lifetime of sin? :confused:/>

My personal beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion

So how can we have a God of justice with that belief?

Not strictly the subject of the thread, but I'm not the one who wrote the book

So when you hear people speak do you understand every language? For example, if you are in a foreign country?

That's not relevant. If I hear someone speaking a language other than English, or to a more limited extent, Spanish, I don't understand because they are not speaking in tongues.

Here is the first usage of tongue in the New Testament. This is Strong's number 1100

Also irrelevant to the discussion, since it's not the first usage of speaking in tongues

Above we see clearly the usage of the word tongue (gloossa) as a body part used for speech.

Also...

Matthew 25:46 can be used to promote the pagan concept of eternal torment for a lifetime of sin. However, the context is the more simplified doing good works of feeding and clothing the poor or people who need it the most. As we know eternal torment for simply not feeding or clothing the poor does not follow the love of God and a number of other verses and godly concepts. Or as Mark 8:4, states in a question to Jesus, "Where can we get enough bread to feed them?" Here feeding all the people involved a miracle of God carried out by Jesus Christ. Should we be punished eternally for not praying and believing for a miracle of God? Or for not spending all of our own money to help feed the poor?

One would hope not, yet it says just that; specifically fire in v. 41

When using actual reason and logic, we should see the goal of correcting or improving mankind so that we all will help our fellow man.

What I see is that you have ignored the use of a place of eternal firey punishment becauase it does not square with what you see somewhere else in the bible

As we saw in Acts 2, sometimes people can understand what is being spoken in tongues, but this is rare and could be considered miraculous. Speaking in tongues is speaking to God a hidden or secret thing as inspired by the Holy Spirit. The fact that these people of different nations heard the 12 apostles speak in their own native individual languages is phenomenon, and a reverse effect of that which occurred at the Tower of Babel when God confounded the languages.

I don't see that this follows logically. the first canonical mention of speaking in languages in Acts specifically mentions that they were understandable, the others are not specific, but I can see no reason to assume that the first usage was unique.