Goey

You seem to think that most folks that come here are somehow injured and still reeling in pain. That may be true of a newcommer just out of TWI or possibly a few others, but probably not of most of the regulars here, who for the most part have fairly well recovered from their wounds -- meaning they have moved beyond the hurts and live relatively functinal and rewarding lives. Because folks come here to discuss the negatives of TWI, does not mean they they are necessarily seeking anything other than the freedom to openly discuss things that TWI and a few others want swept under there rug or kept in the lock box. The open discussion does not necessarily mean folks are still hurting, (though some may be) nor does it necessarily mean they are bitter as it is sometimes suggested by new folks. To some of these passers by, speaking openly about the bad stuff in TWI is somewhow seen as "bitterness" or "thinking evil". Looking to God for help and healing is a great thing. I recommend it. However, it is not likely that all those who experienced evil and abuse at the hands of those they beleived to be ministers of God, would look to God for help and healing. What happened to some folks in TWI shook the very foundation of thier faith in God and in "the Word". In TWI, God was "The Word". ("The Word" being what either VPW, LCM or Rosalie said it was) -- Later the ministry itself was "the Word" and in effect God. To serve God, you served the ministry (TWI). When that very ministy or its leaders failed them, abused them, or cast them aside, to some it was just as if God did it. So to suggest that these people trust "God" for help and healing might be a bit naive. Not everyone here here believes in God. Many that do, no longer believe in God the way TWI taught or the way that you or I might believe. What do we do with these folks (assuming they are seeking something)? Force God upon them? Quote scriptures to them? Castigate them for being bitter? -- I don't think so. That is a noble cause, but like God, you also must be willing to "meet them where they are." And they may not be where you think.

Posted by Alan Ok then Alan, if you chose not to support your views with cogent thought, or something other than allusions to VPW's books - even it if is just "God told me so", then I'll relegate your comments to those of "bystander" to the discussion. Alan, have you ever studied or comtemplated this kind of stuff beyond VPW's teachings? If you haven't, I highly encourage you to do so. There is an amazing amount of good stuff out there that goes far beyond what VPW taught. --- Really.

Dancing, Welcome to GS and to the "doctrinal dungeon". I see you posted from Bullinger --in regards to Jesus story of the rich man and Lazarus. Bullinger Says: The problem here, is that what may seem "perfectly clear" to one person may not seem "perfectly clear" to another. Bullinger pretty much assumes that all people would or should interpret scripture according to his particular model and methods, which is not always the case. I would suggest that "scripture" as a whole is not perfectly clear regarding man and death, heaven and hell, and eternal life, at least not as it hs been delivered to us. If it were so clear as Bullinger suggests , there would be little debate and speculation. As I said earlier, not everyone follows Bullinger's rules of interpretation neither do they trust Bullinger's application of his own rules. For example Bullinger was a trinitarian and a cessationist, believing that the gifts/manifestions of the spirit ceased with the death of the apostles. Yet, is it not "perfectly clear" to many that they did not cease? -- Same scriptures. In regards to "hell"..... In the NT, the King James version translates both hades and gehenna/geenna as "hell" making no distinction in places. In the New Testament, the King James translates the Greek Hades as both hell and grave. Geenna is always translated as hell. Wheras the NIV always translates hades as grave and geenna as hell. In the OT, the King James translates the Hebrew "sheol" as both "grave" and "hell" as well as "pit". However the NIV never translates sheol as "hell", but rather as grave, death, or someting other than "hell". The Septuagint (Greek OT) translates the Hebrew "sheol" as "hades" and never as geenna or gehenna. However, geenna in Greek may actually come from the Hebrew gay - hinnon - the valley of hinnon, where garbage was burned, bodies were disposed of and children were sometimes sacrificed. See Topeth in the OT. What does this mean? Possibly that the King James is a poor source for understanding death and "hell", and therefore, where the dead are now, the resurrection and the practical understanding of eternal life. I am not advocating the NIV in particular, I just used it for comparison. Almost none of the modern translations have the word "hell" anywhere in the OT. And in these more modern translations/versions, InN the NT hades is translated grave and geenna is relegated to "hell". The question then arises, why did the King James translators seemingly randomly translate sheol as both grave and hell? My understanding is that the doctrine of "hell" as a place of eternal punishment and torture for the unrighteous had already been well established by 1611, and that doctrine directed the translation in many places. I wonder how much incluence Dante's writings may have had. Below are two opposing views concerning "hell" as a place of eternal torment. Not saying either is correct, but I think looking at the differing arguments can be informative. For Against (The reason I posted upon "hell" at all is that the doctrine of hell that we accept or reject (any of several versions) may directly affect what we might believe regarding eternal life, the dead in Christ, the ressurection, et al. As far as the story of Lazarus and the rich man, I think Jesus' intended message and purpose is summed up in the last part where He says --- "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." -- alluding to his own death and resurrection. I think the body of this story is probably a fictional allegory, used to illustrate the actual point.

That would be a good job for you Alan, since you suggested it. Why not gather those scriptures that use the term "in Christ" and then, using your own critical thinking ability, void of any predetermined outcome, do an exposition upon them, explaining what the term "in Christ" means biblically.

Oh Gawd !

They actually expected folks to sing that kind of garbage? And I thought the music sucked in the late 70's -- How truly pathetic it became in the 90's. Was there a song about having no debt?

May I kindly suggest that to expose the errors and abuses of TWI and it's leaders, is not the same as saying "negative, bitter, snide and demeaning things". Is it really "bitterness" to talk about the bad stuff that happened in TWI? Is it really "demeaning" to call in to question the character of someone supposed to be a "man of god" who abused those he was supposed to be serving ? Is is "negative" to question or disagree with the teachings in PFAL or the doctrines if TWI? As far as saying things regarding God and the Bible, I do it often and have never been called down for it. My dieas have been challenged at times, but what's wrong with that? We can learn from others if we don't take the challenging of our ideas as a personal "attack". We have a doctrinal forum here for discussion about God and the Bible, and there are sometimes heated discussions. This I see as normal. And yes, there are a few agnostics and athesists on the boards here as well, but I find them generally more pleasant to converse with than the staunch VPW / PFAL supporters. So I am not too sure where you are getting your prospective from regarding saying things about God and the BIble.. Anyway, welcome to the GS Cafe

Alan, Yes, I absolutely do. worship n 1: the activity of worshipping 2: a feeling of profound love and admiration [syn: adoration] v 1: love unquestioningly and uncritically [syn: idolize, idolise, hero-worship, revere] 2: show religious devotion to, as of a deity; "Many Hindus worship Shiva" 3: attend religious services; "They worship in the traditional manner" Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) I think V-1 above fits quite nicely with what CK and a few others have demonstrated here at GS - that would possibly include you as well Alan. When critical thinking is cast aside in the reverence and adoration of a man - then it indeed becomes a form of worship. There is little difference. Worship has several aspects. I would suggest that it goes far beyond "thankfulness" and that you and CK "get over" your pathetic adoration of Mr. Wierwille who did more harm than good. God does not give a "ministry" to self-seeking sex perverts or power mongers -- regardless of how much "Word" they happen to know. It is by God's grace that any good came from TWI. Be thankful for the grace of God - not for a man that trampled upon it.

Hi John !

I can Imagine Craig leading this old time Gospel Favorite ... Oh How I Hate Faggots Sung to the tune of "Oh How I Love Jesus" Oh How I hate Faggots! Oh How I hate Faggots! Oh How I hate Faggots! Homos disgust me so ... Purge them out of the Household Purge them out of the Household Purge them out of the Household Homos disgust me so ....

Hmm, I can read, at least I think I can, and I don't always know what they say. So then, if what others "know" is not the same as what you "know" then they can't read? Very interesting proposition ... Funny, the last time I was tested I scored in the top 5 percentile in reading comprehension. I guess the test I took must have been flawed. Or maybe it was just that the test didn't include the intepretation of the book of Ecclesiasties, one of the most difficult books in the OT. Ecclesiastes - Jewish Encyclopedia Ecclesiastes - Overview Commenary Ecclesiastes - Wikipedia

How about ...... When a highly trained spiritual leader tells you (and believes it) that dust on top of a refrigerator is a direct reflection upon a woman's genital hygiene. When a spiritual leader comes to town to set things straight and the first thing he does is try to do is boff your girlfriend. When using a string to line up folding chairs within 1/16 of an inch is considered a spiritual necessity. When you faithfully give 10-15 percent of your income and then the 3 cent styrofoam coffee cup you get after a meeting has bite marks in it.

Let me post a conversation that took place in 1784 between Charles Simeon and John Wesley. Simeon was a 'Calvinist' while Wesley was an 'Arminian' -- Simeon begins the dialog and asks the questions. Weslsy give the replies. Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions.... Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart? Yes, says the veteran, I do indeed. And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ? Yes, solely through Christ. But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works? No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last. Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power? No. What, then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother's arms? Yes, altogether. And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom? Yes, I have no hope but in Him. Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree.

Clay, Truce No need to delete the entire thread, there is some good stuff in here. I will try to delete any offending posts that I have made. Check your PT ------------------------------------------------------- Well becuse of the edit time limit, I could not go back and get but two of my posts.

Ok Clay, I went back over the PTs and see where you said "Dont bother me at all" -- when you really meant to say "That doesn't bother me at all" in regards to the previous post. Is that it? My apologies for misreading it. I though you meant "Don't bother me at all" as it was written and with the grammar that you actually used . When that is not what you really meant. May I point out that the pronoun "that" was ommited and you used "don't" instead of doesn't. Do you see it ? I should have pieced it all together and seen beyond the improper grammar. Guess we both need an English lesson - eh? My apologies for calling you are a liar in reagrds to that.

.

Roy, I do not think and neither have I implied that Todd is the driving force behind what Clay does or does not see. That is Alan's conspiracy theory - not mine. Please don't lump me in with Alan. Alan does his thing, I do mine. Roy, I got your email and appreciate it. And I want you to know that you have never hurt my feelings. I also read many things outside of the Bible. I have read nearly all of the church fathers and all of the apocrayha and pseudoapocrypha. I have found insight and value in nearly all of them. However from a "what to believe" point of view, I think some are indeed outright forgeries and heresies, and are in no way on par with other writings. This is where we might disagree. I think it does matter sometimes where someone gets ideals from. Don't the scriptures warn of false doctrines and false teachers? I think it would be remiss and foolish to ignore these warnings. Roy, I have no problem with looking at things in that manner (metaphorically/esoterically ) unless it also deny's Christ's physical coming/return. Many scriptures have both an exoterical and esoterical meaning. However, I don't think one should negate or preclude the other. Take the example I used very early in this thread. When John's deciples came to Jesus to ask if he was the one, Jesus told them to go tell John that the blind see and the lame walk. Was Jesus ONLY refering to the physically blind and the physically lame? I don't think so. I think (esoterically) that he was referrring to the spiritually blind and the spiritually lame. Now, do I then have to reject the miracles recorded in the Bible of the physical healing of the blind and lame in order to hold on to the idea that the spiritually blind and the spiritually lame were being healed as well ? -- Certainly not. --That would be what some folks call black & white or monochromatic thinking. But hey Roy that is just me ...

.

Clay, why do you think I "cannot handle some of the stuff you got"? --- Feeling spiritually superior again? Is that kinda like the 'don't cast you pearls before swine' kinda thing'? Like I said before, such statements wreak of arrogance and a (false?) sense spiritual superiority. It's obvious to me that "some of the stuff" you got, I absolutely do not want.

Clay, Why are you so ill-tempered and quick to anger? Why shouldn't I have blocked your PMs when YOU to told me not to bother you further? How does that make me full of ....? I noticed that you only posted part of my PT to you out of it's context. Why didn't you post the part in front of it that shows the heart of what I was speaking of ? -- No surpise to me. For the record, the dialog to Clay in his post of the PT, was a mirror of what he had been saying in his posts . I simply reversed his own words to him ( in private) to show how saying things like that were unproductive. Now Clay posts only a portion of the post to make it look as though that was posted in ernest. Pretty sneaky .... ------------------------------------------------- You last post shows why I blocked your PM's.

Well, let's see. First and foremost, anything I say is my opinon only. I speak for no one but myself. That should be a given for anyone posting in these forums and should not have to be qualified. Ablsolutly no one with a similar view to mine has been in contact with me on this. Only Clay himself PT'd me (and ended his dialog with with a request for me not to "bother" him further.) It is interesting that when I wonder what might could be driving Clay's reading of 1 Theslaonians and then get berated by you for doing so, while at the same time you also "wonder" why I would make such "bold statements". Seems rather hipoctitical of you don't you think? The reason I wonder, is that the reading of 1 Thessalonians 4:13 regarding who "them that are asleep" are -- is so aparantly clear, (exoterically) that the only thing I can come up with is that another doctrine, belief, or hermeneuctic is driving an alternate reading. Especially since Clay offered so little to support his theory. I highly doubt that Clay started in 1 Thess with a blank mind. And why is that a big deal anyway? It was not a slam or a criticism. We all see through a filter of some kind. What makes it such a big deal when I wonder what filter someone might be looking through? To know that, if it is the case, might help in understanding the root of such an alternative reading. Clay says that he sees "no basis" for the belief in a second coming or a resurrection event. No basis whatsoever. Which means what Todd? Try hard and think it through ... he is telling me and others that look for the return of Christ, that there is "no basis" for that belief. No basis? -- I am just totally misreading the scriptures and distorting them somehow? Seeing stuff that is not there. Is that not bold? How then can you, Oh Holy Todd, criticise me for being bold. Is boldness bad ? I know you are a nice guy Todd, but sometimes you disgust me with your hipocrisy.

In opposition to the above, there is a multitide of scriptural evidence, some of which I provided, that there will be indeed be a "coming of the Lord". To say there is "no basis" is to ignore or unnecessarily spiritualize the many scriptures that clearly say there will be a coming "event." As far as "basis" goes, there has been no real "basis" presented here for the esoterical doctrine that "them that are asleep" in 1 Thessalonians refers to anyone but dead Christians. No logical/rational argument was made, no systematic scriptural case was built for that doctrine. Sleep is metaphorically used for physical death many times in the Bible, yet little or no evidence was provided for why it should not be interpreted that way in 1 Thessalonians 4:13. One must therefore wonder if the interpretation that "them that sleep" does not refer to the dead, is driven by a another larger doctrine or set of doctrines that was not really the main topic discused here.

We seem not to be on the same page Clay.-- I didn't see a question. -- You made a 'statement' that said : 'In the context of the Old Testament where no one knew where the dead went ..." This seems to say as a matter of fact that in the OT times, "no one" knew where the dead went. I assumed that by "no one" you meant the OT Jews. However the OT contain records of Gentiles as well, so without qualification, I suppose you could have meant both Jews and Gentiles. I then asked you where the idea came from that those in the OT did not know where the dead went. Now you seem to be asking a question ....Sorry, I am confused a bit here .... Maybe you can clarify ...

Clay, Are you taking the word hope and then bending the scriptures to force a particular meaning upon them to fit your interpretation of 1 Thessalonians? A question not an accusation. First where did the idea come from that those in the OT did not know where the dead went? Can you doccument that? Expound that ? Didn't the Pharisees (Jews)believe in a resurrection? What about the Essenes? Do you know who they were and what they believed? You quoted this verse without noting where it came from or the context: It is from 1 Cor 15 19If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. Paul is explaining the resurrection. Wherever Paul went he preached the death and ressurection of Christ. Aparantly some of the Corinthinans were saying that there was no ressurection of the dead. -- "how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? Paul makes the same basic argument he makes in 1 Thessalonians. Jesus died and rose from the dead. This was seen of many witnesses. If Jesus died and rose then therefore there is a ressurection of the body. He later states: If in this life only we have hope in Christ , we are of all men most miserable. In other words, if there is no ressurection, we lied, our preaching is a lie, and your faith is in vain. If there is no ressurection our hope in Christ is only for "this life", (our life on earth) as there is none afterward. We then are most miserable seeing we having no hope in a life after death.