Oakspear

We have an base near here, had WOW's back in the 70's and 80's and this was never the case.

Yup, I know you do, as many people here at GS do. I doubt that you, me, or anyone else could find any meaningful difference among the actions and lifestyle of Christians, Buddhists, Humanists or any other belief system. Sure it sounds narrow, but you're entitled to that point of view. No, but the good works sure make them more pleasant to be around Because they don't believe that it's true perhaps?back to our scheduled discussion...

I'll assume that this isn't a Christians-only discussion and throw in my 2 cents: Sometimes the doctrinal battle over salvation and how it's gotten overwhelm the question of how we're supposed to act while we're on the earth in this physical body. On one extreme we argue over degrees of sin and get all judgemental about soemone's shortcomings and on another extreme we declare that muttering a magic formula absolves us of all responsibility to live a godly life. With regard to Wierwille's "born again" status, my opinion is that any god who would withhold "salvation" from a person who lives a "Chist-like" life, yet somehow misses out on "believing and confessing" the formula due to any number of possible reasons and awards it to someone nominally "born again" who lies, cheats, rapes and abuses his "flock" is an unjust god. To me the point is somewhat moot; I no longer believe in a heavenly "Get Out Of Hell Free" card or that belief in one religion's standard somehow sets me apart.

Never once did I literally "scratch it out". I have a lot of notes in the margins, and color-coding to indicate different points of Wierwillian doctrine, but I never crossed out anything. It kind of makes it difficult to read.

Hmmm...interesting. I don't believe that I've heretofore heard that "position" - Viewed from a certain angle it kind of makes sense.

Right, you didn't, but you "think" that seemingly contradictory sections, such as the rich man in hell and Lazarus in Abraham's bosom, should be interpreted in light of Ecclesiates about the dead not knowing any thing. That's your "position". Paul also talks about departing and being with Christ, if the bible is true, then that would be what you have to go with as well.

Okay, you're just "clownin"...so you know that we're not talking about the dead being physically alive.

I thought we were talking about what the bible says about the state of the dead. If I did produce a dead person who talked to us, those who believed that the dead were conscious and able to communicate with us would say "See, I told you so", and those who were convinced that the dead had no consciousness would have an alternative explanation, like that they were "devil spirits". Rachel, you may very well be right, I'm just pointing out that your position isn't as self-evident as you claim that it is. bridepfjc expands a bit on my point and says it more clearly than I did.

If it was as clear as you say, we wouldn't be having this discussion! Well their bodiies, sure... Does that mean their memory? Or peoples' memory of them? The English translation indicates the latter IMHO. Do these verses really say what Wierwille said they said?

Heart?Nobody knows that, but actions do speak

Because he's reviving (or attempting to revive) his grandfather's legacy, which many here beieve is harmful.

The guy was a blowhard and a liar. So what? Maybe because we didn't allow ourselves to stay entranced by Vicster the huckster.

Acts 1 seems clear enough to me. I think socks mentioned the reference even if he didn't cite the chapter & verse. It appears to me that you take a more figurative interpretation than some folks. I've got no problem with that, but it makes it difficult for to have a discussion with you (that's my problem, not yours) since I'm never sure what you're seeing when you read a section of the bible. It seems to me that you and follow different rules of logic and discussion, so don't get offended if I don't engage you in debate over this issue.

First, I think that the bible is pretty clear that Jesus physically left this world and that at some point he will come back, if that's not a "return", then I don't know what is. I guess it depends what the proportion of the bible is figurative vs. literal. Does the bible say that the dead are alive? Like so many topics it depends on what verses that one wants to magnify and which ones are to be explained away.

I was not at a point where I expected to be supported. I was 19 and living with my parents when I took PFAL, they were not happy, but mostly respected my decision. I found out many years later that they considered deprogramming, but did not go through with it.

I'm not sure if I was officially marked and avoided or not, but in August or September of 2001 the Region Coordinator told me that I "was no longer welcome at Way fellowships" Because I "did not believe that the Trustees were leading the minsitry in the right direction." This came on the heels of the WayGB figuring out that I was posting on Waydale and Grease Spot Cafe and my speaking up about several doctrines that I did not believe could be biblically supported.

If my memory of TWI teaching is correct, they taught submission primarily to the written "Word", i.e. the bible. Everything was to be measured against that, even direct revelation. As I recall, the teaching was to master what was written, rather than waiting around for revelation on everything. Of course, leadership's mastery and interpreetation of said scripture trumped your own, so submitting to God was equal to submitting to leadership, a perversion at the very least. My opinion, based on limited contact with people who subscribe to the "surrender" doctrine is that some of these people need to grow a brain and think a little. Some of them couldn't decide which hand to use to wipe their butt without praying about it. I'm sure that there's more to it than that, but that's the inmpression that I was left with.

What do you mean? Were you looking for a sign that there really is a God? And you are trying to figure out if this was the sign? Over the years, here at GSC and in the "real" world, I've heard folks use stories like yours to demonstrate that there is a God and that he's looking out for them. Frankly, I think that, as nice as it was that you got pulled out of the ditch, it really doesn't mean anything in regard to your questions about God. Okay, if there is a God that fits the common Christian expectation, then it seems to me that this is exactly what he would do for you. On the other hand, even if there is no God, Mr. Smiley Christian acted in just the way you would expect someone who faithfully follows the tenets of Christianity to act, jumping in to help someone in need. Heck, he acted like any reasonably neighborly or mildly altruistic person would act. I've done the same a time or two (most recently today) and I'm not a Christian. What I'm saying is that if believing in God "works" for you, then do it, if it doesn't "work", doesn't fit the observable facts, then don't.

My brothers and sisters (two of each) acted as if I was their brother that they loved no matter what, treating my religion as irrelevant to their love for me. None of them are Wiccans

Gotcha; I understand that's what you're doing You tell me - I'm not sure that one can I can see why you'd have that opinion, I don't see that it would necessarily be so; our mileage apparently varies That's what I hear Okay That's certainly a valid way to look at it. The color of your glasses is a bit different than mine

For instance? There's often something that you can see and hear, but how do you interpret it? Again, for instance? Sure, do you ahve anything in mind? Okay...

You have to decide for yourself what makes sense for you. It is my personal opinion that much of what happens when folks say that they have experienced the presence of God (or gods) or have a relationship with God or what-have-you is entirely subjective and is influenced heavily by pre-conceived notions and tendencies. In other words, people tend to credit whatever their conception of "God" is whenever something spiritual, miraculous, or unexplained happens. I know folks who have similar stories to ones that I hear from Christians, and credit the Goddess, various Hindu gods or space aliens. (Really) This is a trap that many people who are considering a non-theistic life fall into, staying in "God-mode" out of fear of some kind. (I'm not saying that all or even most God-believers do this, btw). They start to consider that maybe God isn't what they thought he was, or doesn't exist, but quail at the thought of no prayers, no afterlife, no vague comfort from his "presence". So they stick with at least a superficial faith in order to cling to the things that they think that they can't do without. Looking forward to something to look forward to in the long run? How about living a good life? How about being the best person that you can be, giving to others, leaving a legacy? I personally have no idea whether there is an afterlife or not. Some of them look appealing, and intellectually lean toward one or two, but I live my life as if I am getting no second chance, no overtime in the sky, no eternal reward. I want to be satisfied when I draw my last breath that I did my best and was on balance a force for good. If there is something beyond that, well, I consider that a bonus.

Yes!Look it up, by all means! I recommend How to Enjoy the Bible by Bulinger. He cites his sources and demonstrates from scripture, making his point very well. One thing that I realized after leaving TWI was that there were several instances where Wierwille clearly misunderstood Bullinger (not to say that Bullinger was always right either), sometimes quoting him to back up a point that the quote really didn't back up. Another example was "The Lord's Brethren". Bullinger believed that the "royal" geneology was through Joseph, Wierwille believed that it was through Mary. Both had their own reasons. Bullinger used his belief that the kingship came through Joseph to back up his assertion that Jesus' brothers could not have been older half brothers from an earlier marriage of Joeseph. Bullinger claimed that older half brothers "would have invalidated Jesus' claim to the throne". [Frankly, I don't agree with Bullinger's belief that Joseph's was the royal geneology (in Matthew) and think that Wierwille made more sense. ] Wierwille, making his case that the Lord's brothers were not half brothers from a previous marriage, writes that it "would have invalidated Jesus' claim to the throne". Now if Wierwille thought that the claim to the Davidic throne was through Mary, what difference would any of Joseph's children from a previous marriage have made? Off-topic ramblings done for now

Actually, I did read what you wrote... Ah, my mistake. Wild dogs? Show dogs? Poodles? What kind of dogs are "loosed" and are set upon "game"? I know, you didn't say "loosed". Ah, you're coming up with a completely new dog analogy, not at all based on Wierwille's analogy from PFAL... Thank you. Those are some things that I did not know. I appreciate the opportunity to learn something new. Of course you thought it was excellent, it was yours <_< It did kind of look like a spoof site though I believe it is, glad I could help :B) That was a lot of effort (or at least words) expended over something you don't care about.Exactly why did you post that link in the first place anyway? Dude.