Goey

Greek,

I am not sure that we agree on what constitutes a "spiritually-minded" Christian. What do you think makes a "spiritually-minded" Christian?

Lovematters,

I would think that "IF" Jesus had been married to a woman, Mary Magdalene for example, then the alegorical marriage to the Church would not have worked.

Wiewrwille's claim of God's audible promise that was sealed with a snowstorm, along with the "new light" contained in PFAL and his own personal definition of apostle -- were all cleverly crafted so that, while he never had to actually claim it, many of his adoring (but duped) followers would see him as being an Apostle, thus establishing his little kingdom and the unchecked authority that went with it.

As we can see from the examples of a few posters here, some are still duped.

Biblically, the "new light" that an apostle brought, was the Gospel of Jesus Christ -- That he lived, died for the sins of the world, and was raised from the dead -- that he was the Messiah. It was the Gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ.

Wierwille's "new light" consited of no more than an eclectic mix of teachings borrowed or stolen from others before him. None of it was new to his generation. Most, if not all of it was off-the-shelf teachings.

Bullinger had already taught four crucified and the six denials of Peter. For years, the JW's and others had been teaching Jesus is not God. The "manifestations" had been taught by Stiles and Leonard. The "law of believing" (word-faith theology) was already being taught by others long before Wierwille saw the snowstorm.

The only thing "new" about any of it was that Wierwille compiled and repackaged it and put his name on it.

Posted By Greek2me

That's the point... exactly! To me, it seems those that are liberally minded politically see the words of Jesus 'feed the poor, heal the sick' etc. as directives to form government programs to do said acts and NOT the church.

In fact, one poster in the other forum used the above words to say that Jesus would be considered a liberal today.

The words Paul wrote to the Thessalonians are directed to the Church. Period.

The fact that a scriptural directive(suggestion?) was given specifically to the church, does not mean that a secular government is forbidden to follow the principle within that directive. Neither should it be bound to follow that directive.

Sometimes biblical principles overlap secular ones. Many non-Christian "liberals" also want programs to feed the poor, yet they do not necessarily base their reasons upon the Judeo/Christian scriptures.

By Greek2me

I would think that social assistance programs, Biblically speaking, fall under the jurisdiction of the Church, not any government agency. When Jesus fed the 5,000 it was not society at large but people who were there listening to Him. Whether they were Christians or not He, at least, didn't differentiate or exclude. Everyone there was fed. Then again, He didn't tax all the people to feed some of the people as do governments today.

I would disagree here. The Bible addresses Christians and the church - not the secular government.

Once again, my take on this, is that Jesus' general ehortation to the feed the poor, was not a directive 'against' a secular government from also feeding the poor.

Besides that, from a practical standpoint, considering the fractured state of the Christian church and its differing twists and beliefs, thast it could not handle, and neither would it be collectively willing to take on the social programs that the secular government does.

Seems to me that what you are suggesting is to have a particular variety of "spiritually minded" Christians, mold a secular government by majority vote, and then force a particular version of Christian values upon the general populace through that secular government.

There are social mores that are not based upon Christianity, or religion at all for that matter. The desire for well-doing is not unique to Jews and Christians or religious folks.

What you are suggesting seems to be a particular Christian mindset that would forbid others from well-doing through the taxes they willing pay to a secular government. -- Should the Red Cross and other non-Christian charities also be forbidden from feeding the poor, since the Bible does not specifically direct them to do so?

It would seem to me that a "spiritually-minded" Christian would first and foremost be concerned with his own personal walk with God in "minding the spirit". Then next, how his own "church" may also collectively "mind the spirit" in well-doing. Then some where way down the priority line he may then concern himself in matters of a secular government.

If the collective Christian "church" would FIRST first go about "feeding the poor" as Jesus suggested - its own first, and then those without, then maybe government would not have as big of a burden as it does.

Yup,

Wait till Mike arrives there with his unique message.

Hey CK,

Will folks be allowed to have taglines that say "The Law of Believing Is A Myth" or "Thank God For GreaseSpot Cafe" ?

Why not get an old riding mower, remove the blades and mower parts and start from there.

Change the drive pulleys and you can easily get it to go over 25 mph.

How can a site dedicated to the adoration VPW be "in the middle" ?

That's right Galen...ABSOLUTELY NOTHING taught by VP et al twi was CORRECT. You've been here long enough to know that by now, shame on you !!

And neither is it correct just because the great VPW taught it. You castigate those who

look beyond or question what Mr. Wierweille taught and erroneously conclude that many folks here say "Nothing" he taught was correct. --- Yet YOU Alan seem to accept what he taught blindly and without question or investigation. -- Which is the wiser? -- Blind acceptance or questioning and investigation?

Take the Incorruptable Crown for example. According to Galen's notes it is:

Striving for the mastery of what? This is vague...

I could be wrong, but my guess is that this came straight from something VPW taught and not from any real study of 1 Cor 9:24-27

Actual study of 1Cor 9:24-27 will show that it much more about HOW one "strives" than the striving itself.

"Striveth for mastery" is from one Greek word, agonizomai which means:

This word has nothing to do with "mastering" something in the modern English sense. It is more about entering and competing in a contest with the hope of winning a prize at the end. My guess is that we get the English word agonize from this Greek word.

"Temperant" in 1Cor 9:25 is from the Greek "egkrateuomai"

1) to be self-controlled, continent

a) to exhibit self-government, conduct, one's self temperately

b) in a figure drawn from athletes, who in preparing themselves for the games abstained from unwholesome food, wine, and sexual indulgence ( Strong's)

"Striveth for the mastery" in the KJV is a poor translation. The ASV reads "And every man that striveth in the games exerciseth self-control in all things." The NIV reads, "Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training." .

Receiving the incorruptable crown is not simply about "striving for mastery"... It is about HOW the race trained for and HOW the race is run. It is about self-dicipline, self-denial, and temperance.

This thread is, (more or less) in response to a thread started by Groucho in the politics and 'tacks section. Some believe a spiritually minded Christian is as likely (if not more likely) to be liberally minded politically.

I contend that this is simply not so. In fact, I hold the belief that a spiritually minded Christian would be more conservative in their political beliefs.

As proof, I offered the stark contrast between the liberally minded political idea of a government welfare program and the spiritually minded directive to the Church from the Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, which states; "that if any man not work, neither should he eat."

I dunno Greek.

I think Paul was probably refering to those who busibodied all day, playing church, and then expected to sit at the collective dinner table eating the food suplied by those that worked outside of the chuch. I think Paul was refering to something that was specifically going on witihin the church in Thessalonica. I don't think Paul was speaking to society as a whole but rather a specific situation in the church at Thessalonica.

My question is can we or should we remove this "don't work / dont eat" rule from it historical/ecclesiastical context and force it upon society as a whole?

For example, a man is a lazy drunk and won't work. However he has a family - a wife and 3 kids. The wife is basicaly undeducated and barely makes minimum wage. In regardes to social welfare for this family, how could the don't work/ don't eat rule be fairly applied?

Doesn't God allow the sun to shine on both the evil and the righteoous? My point is that He does not dim the sun to prevent the unjust from getting sunshine, becasue if He did that, then the just woudnt get any sunshine either.

Now that some of us have been shamed into coming clean ...

One time I didn't line up the chairs properly for a meeting. I am sure they were

at least 1/4 to 1/2 inch off. This probably allowed devil spirits to infiltrate the meeting.

Hi Eagle,

The idea of crowns and rewards is biblical and is not unique to TWI. Below is a link that attempts to explain the 5 Crowns.

5 Crowns

Like you, I was never really interested in seeking crowns. However I did know a few folks in TWI that seemed pretty concerned about them.

It seemed to me some folks did things for the purpose of receiving a crown or reward and not necessarily from the heart or to please God. In other words, the motive was purely selfish.

It's kinda like giving money to the church. -- Some may give, not because it could bless others in need, or further the Gospel, but rather for the sole purpose of receiving something back. (Giving = receiving).

I guess what I am saying is that the idea of crowns is in fact "biblical". However it may not have been applied biblically by some folks.

Well Roy, I can't argue with the spirit. If the spirit told you that the egg came first, then who am I to question God?

But I wonder why the scriptures don't say that the earth and waters brought forth eggs. Something like ....

Yes God may of just told the parts of earth that could become a seed to make a seed

Or He could have just planted the plant and let it bear seed at the end of the season.

Consider the beasts of the earth, such as the cow. Don't cows have eggs? Sure they do. Every cow is born with all the eggs it will ever have. These are contained within the ovaries. When the cow is in season, an egg is released and can become fertilized. It then attaches within the womb, develops and after about 265 days a calf is born.

The difference between a chicken and a cow is that the chicken embryo develops inside the egg which is outside the body of the chicken, whereas the bovine embryo develops inside the uterous of the cow. But both begin with eggs.

So Roy, answer this: -- Which came first, in Genesis 1: 24,25 the cow or the egg? I am talking about the very first cow.

Why would a chicken be any different?

God first

First lets look at the word seed.

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

The earth brought forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth

We see God made the seed in the earth and the seeds grow and plants have grew like this from the beginning and they still do today

But when a plants grows from seed it takes time and every seed has a set time limit in the earth until it breaks out of the earth and they grow at differ speeds

Roy, verse 11 does not say that God "made the seed in the earth". It says that the earth brought forth grass, and it brought forth the the herbs (plants) that yield seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit. We know that the seed of a fruit tree is is within the fruit that the tree produces. What verse 11 is saying is that the earth "brought forth" plants that produce seed. It does not say or imply that God planted the seeds first. The earth brought those plants that produce seed. How God made that happen, it doesn't say.

Now lets look at animals

Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Look the out of the waters came every living creature or every living animal

Does it really say that? You seemed to have missed verses 24 & 25. Before drawing a conclusion at this point we should also look at these verses.

Here we see that the earth, not the waters, "brought forth" the land animals such as cattle , much like in verse 11 where the earth, not the waters, "brought forth" the plants.

Now, what "waters" is verse 20 refering to? We need to go back to verses 9 & 10 which you also seemed to have missed and not considered .

The dry land was called "Earth", and the waters were called "Seas". So the waters (Seas) brought forth the water creatures and the fowl ( v 20,21), and the Earth (dry land) brough forth the land animals ("beast of the earth) (vs 24,25)

Now the womb and egg are like being in water and the womb is like a egg

animals in eggs used up the water in the egg for oxygen and other needs until the animal breaks out of the egg to take its first breath

Actually, the embryo in a chicken egg gets its oxygen from the air outside of the the egg. The egg shell is porous and lets oxygen in from the surrounding air and lets out carbon dioxide. If you submerged a chicken egg in water the embryo would die of suffocation.

animals in the womb are feed oxygen and other needs by their mother in the womb of their mother and they break out of the womb of their mother after a set amount of time we call it being born

OK, but remember the land animals were brough forth from the earth (dry land) not from the waters (Seas) - verses 24,25.

So why not being born out of the water and are not animals about 90% water

so each animal broke out of the waters a the time they needed to grow to be born

Why not? Becasue you are equating the water in the womb and that within an egg with the "waters" of verses 20. Verse 9 says these waters are the Seas. There is nothing scripturally that suggests the waters are anything other than the Seas. Furthermore, the land animals did not come from the waters, but rather from the dry land. It seems you are making a "leap" here Roy, by suggesting that the waters in verses 20,21 do not refer to the Seas of verse 9, but rather to the "waters" inside an egg or inside a womb. This is a leap in logic.

As I pointed out earlier, verses 24 & 25 say that the Earth (dry land) brought forth the land creatures. There is no mention of waters in regards to the land creatures or to man for that matter . Some land creatures lay eggs, some don't.

The waters (Seas) brought forth the whales, fish, and other sea creatures, as well as the fowl. Note that some of these like whales, are mamals that do not lay eggs, and some of them do lay eggs, such as fish and birds.

And animals are being born today the same way they were in the beginning out of water of waters in the beginning and now out of waters of their mother womb or a egg lay by the mother

When each animal breaks out they take their first breath

Every kind of animal breaks out of the egg or womb at differ speeds or after a set amount of times as past

By animals being born this gave time for the seeds to grow so their be food for the animals to eat

Now it does not say Mankind came from the waters but would not the soul life of man grew out of waters like the soul life of animals and could not God take a rib of a seed to make Eve

Now this tells us the egg came first.

Not really ...

Roy, it seems to me that you are speculating here and not taking into consideration verses 9 & 10, or verses 24 and 25. In disregarding these verses, you make a logical leap to suggest that the waters in verses 20 & 21 refer to the fluid inside an egg or the fluid inside the womb instead of the Seas in verse 10. Furthermore, in disregaring verses 24 & 25, you have land animals also coming out of the waters, when these verses have them brough forth from the earth, like the plants.

If your theory is true, then we must also conclude that cows lay eggs.

Roy, I would rethink your theory a bit If I were you.

Should we pronounce the benediction and all go home now ?

I shut up and listened while in TWI.

The idea of doing that here is not very appealing.

Listen? -- Sure.

Shut up? -- Not a chance ...

Do you no think that God could not keep the egg warm and turn the egg

Do you not think God could not keep the chicks warm and feed the chicks in the

waters and outside the waters

What I think God "could" do is irrelevant. I want to know what he actually does do.

Its been my experience that the eggs need to carefully incubated and the chicks raised by a mother hen or in a heated brooder. When the eggs are in an abondoned nest and God has them all on his own, they never seem to hatch. Why is that? Don't you think that God could keep them at the right temperature? Hmmm?

What God could do and what he has decided to do, are many times different.

Tell ya what Roy, you let God God incubate your chicken eggs and raise your chicks all on His own, and I'll keep using my incubators, brooders and hens. Then let's see who has more chickens this time next year.

Yeah,

Rape, adultry, drunkeness, plagairism, general

nastiness, etc are simply "small flaws".

Yup, becase the great Doc Vic taught us "da Word" and we

all got delivered, his itsy bitsy little lapses like

rape and adultery must be demoted to "small flaws".

So let's not cast stones at the great Doc Vic cause we

are all sinners doncha know. Lets instead talk about OUR sins

and divert attention away from the great MOG in the sky.

Another Wierwille Apologist

LOL

Now this tells us the egg came first

Roy, have you ever had chickens?

A baby chick hatching out of an egg with no mother to

protect it, keep it warm, etc -- has almost no chance

of survival.

Hi Goey,

I mean to take what someone says, and the sole purpose of what someone else says is to discredit what the first person says. Rather then presenting what you believe that would be different then the other. Allowing a person the room to present their beliefs and pov's without a specific attack against it. See the difference that I'm trying to convey? Both ways would accomplish what you want though the first would be stifling another.

Sometimes we can figure out what may be true, by first sorting out what may not be true. This means considering, analyzing and then either accepting, setting aside or rejecting, certain views and ideas.

For example, we may be presented an idea or a view by someone who to insists that it is "truth". We may not have a particular set view on that idea, yet what we are presented when weighed and balanced seemingly has no basis or foundation and is not supportable, like my Rhesus monkey example.

I see no problem in presenting both the weaknesses and/or strengths of what is was initially set forth as true. It would also seem to me that the person who set the premise forth would want know what weaknesses his/her view might have. This of course, assumes that that person is actually more interested in truth and/or further understanding, than insulation of his/her view from crituque, which unfortunately is not always the case.

Not sure if that says it well and I'm not upset or anything.

Just to be able to voice our beliefs without fear ya know.

In the spirit of peace rather then a battle of ideas against ideas, we could look to see what is common more then what is different. And even the different could bring deeper understanding to all involved.

Peace

Voicing our beliefs without fear of what? I would suggest that when we are confident in our beliefs and that we have adopted them in a manner that is reasonable to us, there should be no fear in what someone else may have to say about them. To find out where we may agree means that we must also find out where we may disagree, does it not ?

Nice Post Groucho,

TWI was/is so far from the first century church that it is laughable. About the only thing in common TWI had with the first century church was meeting in homes.

The leadership structure of TWI's caste system that divides folks into a ruling Corps/Clergy class and an subservient laity class -- is antithetical to first century Christianity.

I dont know what kind of "material" you have Galen, but whatever it is, it does not justify or support TWI's errant and oppressive ecclesiology.

Peter was indeed a "leader" as was Paul. However, they were not "rulers", lording over the saints. They served rather than demanded to be served.

Good article Goey.

There would have to be no attempts to discredit

what someone else says in any way.

Or even for another to take what someone says

and key off of it to oppose rather then agree.

It takes a degree of determination to see what we agree on.

And to perhaps extend our minds into the unknown.

Meaning not to be too quick to decide what was said is valid.

It may have to be done outside of greasespot. Unfortunately.

There are many here that would be interested i think.

But do not want to be attacked as we have seen.

What does "discredit what someone says" mean?

So, If I state that I believe that Adam and Eve were Rhesus monkeys and that the garden of Eden was in southern Idaho, does this mean that no one is allowed to discredit my statement and belief by preventing facts or evidence that Rhesus monkeys are indiginous to INdia/Asia and there is no archeological evidence of them ever living in Idaho?

If the rules for discsussion dissallow disagreement by supressing facts or evidence that may discredit a proposed view or alleged truth, it is not likely that such discussions will lead to any kind of deeper understanding.

Maybe the article below can be of some help.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010413013354/...min.org/tcs.htm

Rhapsodic Rooster