Oakspear

Partly because I can learn from others here, and they can learn from me. I am not locked into any particular doctrine these days, and have reconsidered my position on many things after a good discussion in the doctrinal forum. I've also gotten others to consider their own beliefs by asking questions and pointing out what I consider inconsistancies. The point of the doctrinal forum is not to beat others into submission to one's own beliefs, or to billboard one's pet doctrine. It's to discuss. After being in what I now consider a cult for many years, I also enjoy analyzing doctrines of The Way, and Christianity in general, that I once accepted without question. On an intellectual level I enjoy the give and take, the debate, the honing of logical skills and critical thinking abilities. I've also learned to be respectful of others' beliefs. Cman can tell you that he and I got on each others' case a few months back, but we both learned soemthing about the other's writing styles and thought processes. Dmiller and I are as different as can be, yet we respect each other and learn from each other. Despite our common (for most of us) background in Christianity, and in particular, the Way, this is not a Christian forum. Christians are far and away the majority, but the purpsoe of GSC is not to promote Christianity (nor to denigate it). I've been a part of GSC, if not fron day one, then from pretty early on, at least week one , and doctrinal is one of my favorite places.

As my kids were growing up in The Way, I noticed a big difference between how we were as teenagers getting involved in TWI and how my kids (and others in the state) acted. Part of the difference was, that for kids growing up in TWI, this was "their parents' religion". None of my kids are particualrly religious.

Funny thing, neither my oldest son, nor me or my ex-wife attended every session, but we were graduated anyway. My son was sick as a dog, but went up to SD anyway, ended up going to the emergency room and missing most of the sessions over the weekend. I was told to teach him the sessions that he missed. On another weekend, another son was screwing around and got something in his eye. My ex-wife stayed in Lincoln with until about halfway through the weekend, I missed the first session because I was at the doctor's with him. Of course, we were "confronted" about allowing "The Adversary" to rip us off from "the greatness of The Word".

what's a gorp?

I don't believe that there is a resurrection.

Is logic cultural? That is, could something that is considered logical in one culture be considered illogical in another? (Even the mathematical representation of logic wasn't handed down on stone tablets, some person codified and systematized it)

To follow up on what dmiller said, the doctrinal section is basically a place to debate beliefs. If you throw something onto the pile, it's more or less understood that it will be questioned and critiqued. The expectation is that ideas and beliefs will be discussed, explained, and that we will learn from each other. Your method so far has been to post some bible verses, and when questioned to reply that it's not your opinion, it's God's. This isn't a place where you can expect to answer "Just because.." and not get jumped! For that matter, cranking out bible verses doesn't always cut it either. Not only does everyone not agree on what specific verses mean, but some of us aren't Christian and don't accept the bible as a definitive source of truth. The doctrinal regulars are a tougher crowd than the rest of the forums. Maybe you just need to get the feel of the place a little better.

From beyond the grave!Any of you guys or gals ever listen to Chris Duarte? He's coming to Lincoln in 2 weeks.

Martindale mandated that all Advanced Class grads take his Advanced class, which he still called the Advanced Class on Power for Abundant Living. He had it run at Rome City two years running. After hearing that there were still AC grads who hadn't taken it, he decreed that if you weren't a grad of his class, you would not be considered an Advanced class grad and would not have any of the "priveleges" of being an AC grad. Later, when Martindale came up with the new new class, aka The Advanced Class on the Way of Abundance and Power, he again decreed that only grads of the new new class would be considered grads. At least this one was run "on the field" for grads of the old new class; one weekend a month for four months. Although for us, we still had to travel; we didn't have a Limb Coordinator, so we had to drive to South Dakota. Even though I missed a few sessions, I still graduated and was awarded my new blue nametag. (Later, after I started psoting on Waydale I wore my old green nametag and was reproved for it )

I don't think it's been covered, def. Anyway, according to the customs of this thread, that would be Wierwille's opinion, and not an "actual error". Good topic for a thread though.

Every Advanced Class Special was a boring waste of time. Sitting in too-close-together seats wondering when he would get to the point. The last couple of Word in Business & Profession conferences stopped having anything to do with business or profession and became advanced class specials. The Rise and Expansion class, taught "live" by region or limb coordinators. First of all, the book was only marginally about the history of the book of Acts, it was all about grinding on and on about the words used in the so-called "8 Great Statements" and analyzing them to death. Ditto what others have said about Way Tree. Wierwille based it (supposedly) on the "leaders of 10's, 50's, 100's, etc in Exodus that Moses set up, but you don't see anything like a heirarchal structure in Acts. Their are leaders, sure, and ministers, but no pyramid structure.

Is this when animals get together and sing hymns?

Good posts, T-Bone & Potato! :B) Your're right T-Bone, I don't think the information is there. Insisting that it is, and that those who disgree are wrong is a debate that will never end. It looks to me like the early Christians, including the writers of the bible were in disgreement over who Jesus was, what he did, what he accomplished...

:huh: We shouldn't...it wasn't my intention to convey that...sorry if I was unclear. My point is that neither the Trinitarian nor the Unitarian position is unassailable, and that both appear to gloss over verses that don't match their theology. Good logical explanation, but that's still your opinion, not a clear scripture on the subject. I suspect that such an animal does not exist.

Okay trinitarians, I agree that there are several places in the bible where Jesus is referred to as God (the verse in Hebrews and the statement by Thomas "My Lord and My God") and others where the implication is that he is God, or at least possesses qualities assumed to be God's exclusively. I also agree that unitarian, or at least Wierwille's, explanation of these verses is contrived to fit the unitarian position. What verses, or at least sections of scripture, explain how God can exist as two or three "persons" with distinct wills and natures, how one "person" (the son) can be fully God and fully man, etc. I know what trinitarians in general believe and how they explain it, but what does the bible say about it? My opinion is that there are contradictions. Trinitarians explain away verses that indicate a disagreement in wills between the Father & the Son who are both supposedly God. Unitarians use craetive grammar to gloss over statements where Jesus is called God. But are there any clear verses that lay it all out?

I thought that your post seemed like a Watchtower article...and sure enough: http://www.watchtower.org/e/kn37/article_01.htm

Some of us look at doubting and questioning as a virtue, rather than a vice.

Okay, gotcha. I'm really just playing Devil's advocate here. I don't worship the god of the bible, no many how many "persons" he is supposed to have. I'm just trying to encourage rational discussion. Sounds like you are too. I think we're saying the same thing...pretty much Invisible Dan has a lot of this stuff at the front of his brain, but "the whole church" didn't agree on very much until what became known as the orthodox crowded out the otehr groups. You're right, everyone else who disagrees is wrong. Gotcha. The rest of you just shut up and let starbird tell us what the bible says

Part of what Wierwille used to explain "believing", which he used to explain the "law of believing" was to make "faith" and "believing" two separate and distinct things. They are two English words translated from the same Greek word. He made a distinction where there was none and built a doctrine on it.

...and from a "the bible is the Word of God" point of view, if either side can demonstrate that something can be found in the bible, it doesn't matter if it makes sense to an individual. I would say that any number of Christian beliefs "don't make sense" but are believed just because one chooses to believe what the bible says. While my personal opinion is that the unitarian position can more easily be supported by the bible than the trinitarian, Trinitarians do back up their arguments with scripture and unitarians often include in their arguments misrepresentations or oversimplifications of what trinitarians believe.

I don't understand what you mean. Can you rephrase? What I mean is, there's always the possibility that something "doesn't make sense" because we just don't understand it, not because there is something inherrantly wrong with it.

Sure, but everybody says that they have an accurate knowledge, and their are countless differences among these "accurate" doctrines Many do, many also do not accept that the bible is a source of accurate knowledge. the bible says to read the bible, therefore we should read the bible. And who gets to choose who is worshipping correctly and who is not? You haven't convinced me. And you probably haven't been around long enough to know where i stand on the bible and it's god.

I'm going to break you down into paragraphs so I can read it better: "one faith...one god" accurate knowledge - a protection: doing gods will requires an accurate knowledge of both god and jesus christ. such knowledge leads to everlasting life. surely then, all of us will want to take seriously the matter of gaining accurate knowledge from gods word the bible. the bible encourages us to increase in the knowledge of god and his purposes. {ephesians 4:13} {philippians 1:9} {colossians 1:9} such knowledge is a protection against contamination of our worship. the apostle paul spoke of a certain spirit creature who pretends to be an "angel of light" {2 corinthians 11:14} thus disguised this spirit creature - satan - tries to mislead us into doing things contrary to gods will. other spirit creatures associated with satan have also been polluting peoples worship for paul said: "the things which the nations sacrifice they sacrifice to demons not to god" {1 corinthians 10:20} likely many have thought they were worshiping in the right way, although they were not doing what god wanted. they were being mislead into unclean false worship. these enemys of god {satan & his demons} have definately been polluting mankinds worship. unless we are careful we may do something un-acceptable to god. e.g the apostle john fell at the feet of an angel "to worship him" but the angel warned: be careful! do not do that! all i am is a fellow slave of you and your brothers who have the work of witnessing to jesus. worship god.{rev 19:10} do you therefore see the need to make sure that your worship is not contaminted by any kind of idolatry? {1 corinthians 10:14}

Aha! Something else that I never really thought about!If Eve's first step down was to "consider" (basically she was listening), what about Jesus in the wilderness with The Devil? Didn't he listen as well?

No disrespect intended, but why does something need to make sense to be true?