Goey

CM, I am not gonna let you you weasel out that easily. ... Here is your comment in it's full context. "if you want to stay not understanding fine you aren't asking any questions just ride off with that kind of comment... is that your Jesus Christ?" I will point out that you addressed this line for line in your last post - with each line out the context in which you wrote it. Language does not work that way. "Is that your Christ" has to refer to what was said before. It is not a question pulled from thin air. "If you want to stay (remain) not understanding - fine" -- sets the context of the question. -- It says that you think that I do not understand - (which I have said is true) "You aren't asking any questions" implies the reason that you believe that I will "stay" without understanding. "Just ride off with that kind of comment" , seems to imply that I am turning my back on understanding - Just riding off .... "Is that your Jesus?" is not just a simple question as you later tried to suggest. While aparantly rhetorical, it has far reaching implications when considered with the rest of what you wrote in the same paragraph. The term "your Jesus" itself has implications. It implies that there may be a "my Jesus" or a "his Jesus" or a "their Jesus". Go ahead and weasel out if you want. No matter to me, I know what you said. It's either that or you should learn to write more plainly/cogently and avoid words with implications that you don't intend. And for goodness sake CM , use some dad-gummed punctuation! Periods go after sentences. First word is capitalized ...

That would be true. However, I did not say it was nonsense. Well, I think that your response/comment above may be typical of what Todd is trying to show as a result of monochromatic thinking. -- eg. think your way or remain ignorant then questioning who my Christ is, infering that yours is better. Neither you sir, nor Todd are Jesus Christ. I resent the comparison. (Todd, I know that you did not make or infer that comparision. This is directed soley towards CM.)

You are welcome Todd. I and I want to make it clear, that I did not consider that providing further examples would result in any beneficial dialog but would only have been met with further "esoteric jargon" requiring more explanation requests ...followed by more esoteric jargon .....etc. etc. etc. Just because a person claims understanding of a thing and the ability to communicate it - doesn't mean that it is understandable by everyone or even that is understandable at all. Some things are simply nonsensical. Some things aren't.

I disagree that it it empty of meaning as it sits. It seems you have offered your personal esoteric meanings and unnecessarily complicated what it commonly means to millions of Christians. IMO, You have neatly dodged the question and responded with a plethora of esoterical jargon impossible to understand without a secret decoder ring. This is why I don't particiate in your threads Todd. I will kindly bow out.

Rascal, These unthinking, sycophantic morons can only open wounds if we allow them to. Why give them them the power to do that? -- They are morons.

Hmmmm Danny, I would be reluctant to suggest that folks only look at works that support the negative view or only my view. Like I have said many times before, many folks are unaware of any division at all concering Pauline authorship of these epistles. I would agree that the fact that there is a debate is "common knowledge" but only among those who have delved into more advanced theology than TWI's kindergarten version. However I would not accept that any particular conclusion is "common knowledge". I think that folks should look at both sides of the issue. The fact is, and you know this, is that the issue is still very much divided and that there will NEVER be a concensus. And more imnportantly that there are good arguments on both side of the issue. Best I can tell is that about 1/3 of theological academics accept Pauline authorship and 2/3 do not. As for me, I don't necessarily accept something simply because of a majority opinon. (Not saying that you do) Anyway, my point in challenging you and Alan, was not to get actual proof. I wasn't expecting any from either of you. My point was along the lines that Alan can no more "prove" that Tim/Titus are "God-breathed" than you "prove" that Tim and Titus are forgeries. There is no irrefutable proof of either. IMO, establishing authorship (Pauline or any other) for the pastoral epistles a problem either way you slice it. On another note, I think the whole idea of "god-breathed" has been mistaught, especially concering NT writiings . In its context, 2 Tim 3:16 refers specifically to OT scripture. Historically, it was many, many years later that the wirtings of Paul or any other NT writings (including 2 Tim 3:16) were considered to be the "God breathed, straight from the mouth of God, inerrant, infallible Word of God. Here's something for folks to consider: Lets say that the hypothetical debate is the authorship of 2 Tim. Now, let's say that I strongly accept the fundamental doctrine of scriptural infallacy/inerrancy. I would naturally then to lean towards any evidence that 2 Tim as authentic - since it supports my established belief. Everything I contemplate is interpreted in light of that belief. But now, let's say I am of an opposing camp, then natutrally I would want to lean towards any evidence that 2 Tim is a forgery, because doing so supports my established belief. (and I neatly get rid of any reference to "God-breathed" in my bible). Everything I contemplate is also interpreted in light of my established belief. Both approaches are "biased". We all have bias to one extent or another. Bias is not necessarily bad but it can be. The challenge is to identitfy it in ourselves and try to approach things with that in mind. Maybe we should ask oursleves, is my bias getting in the way of my understanding? Just some thoughts.

Guess this shouldn't apply to VPW -eh? He gets a free pass ? I think this fellow is bitter and thinking evil of folks that only "might" have sinned. But all men sin. So what? They were doing the best they could. Just forgive them and move on. Shoulda closed his eyes. (Right CK? )

I was hoping for something more specific here, so I will provide some specific examples for discussion ans see how they may fit. Sunday before last, about 5 of us men were at the local store/truck stop having coffee and general discussion. Another fellow came in on his way to church. There are 2 churchs here - one Baptist and one Church of Christ. He is from the Church of Christ. Anyway he began to chide us for not attending church - not just any church but the Church of Christ. He said that the Church of Christ is the only true church and that the rest are all going to hell. I won't tell you how I reacted to that But anyway it seems that according to that doctrine "salvation" requires attendance within a particular denomination, in this case the denominational Church of Christ. Here is another doctrine that I would like to offer and see how it flies. It is that of the exclusivity of Christianty itself - that salvation is only through Jesus Christ. How does this one score on the color scale? As a Christian should I reject the idea that salvation is only though Jesus Christ? Does this doctrine dumb folks down and dull their abilty to interpret life? -- It would seem to be monochromatic...

Todd, You recently posted this: Ok, I will play for a while And maybe later I will tell you why I have avoided your threads. But first, so that that I am not wongly labled, understand that I do not advocate biblical absoluteness. However I do have a great respect for the Bible as a primary source for faith and practice and may draw from it in my part of this discussion. Todd can you please expound here a bit? May I suggest that you give some examples of what you perceive to be monochromatic doctrines? And then relate how/why these doctrines are monochromatic in nature and, how/ why adhering to them may dull the ability to interpret life. What would you do, in a practical sense, to correct these doctrines? My purpose for the above , in case you are wondering, is not to draw out a doctrine and then defend it with the Bible, but instead so that I can get a better grip on what you are saying (in more practical terms).

The ability to cut and paste Bible verses demonstrates neither knowledge or nor understanding.

Roy, I don't think anyone is really holding up the Book of Judas as the Word of God. Fundamentalists are sure to reject it as to having any authority and will be crying heresy for a few months until the ferver dies down. For me, it's significance is mostly historical, possibly revealing a little bit of about a branch of Christianity that did not follow "orthodoxy".

I was WOW Vet in 80, or 81 I guess, and a normally nice and likeable branch leader stood up in a twig leaders/Wow meeting and began frothing at the mouth with vein popping, snot slinging reproof, publically humilliating of most of the WOW's there. The sin? Not enough ABS. As the spit and mucous was flying , I thought to myself, "this just isn't Godly, what are these Corps people being taught." That was the beginning of the end for me.

Linda, I have had up to 120 at chickens at time and have never had one attack me or my daughter. That includes the big roosters, some of are which are the game type. Now I have about 25 adult birds left (after the massacre) and about 40 chicks at various stages. Except for a very few, I have raised all of these chickens either from the time they were day old chicks, or I hatched them from my incubators. Each chicken has its own personality and I have gotten to know each one individually. (As much as you can know a chicken). We have a couple of Cubalaya hens, Myrtle and Katlin, that like to ride around on my shoulder. I wonder why the chickens were so mean at Rome City? Poor cramped conditions can cause agressive behavior. What were the conditions for the chickens like there?

I agree that VPW's "sins" and his "teaching" are 2 separate things, always have. For example, the fact that VPW raped women does not make his teaching on Roman 10:9 wrong. A fool should understand that. But no one here is saying that. That is a your red herring. Your lie. However, the fact that one may be forgiven, does not mean that what they teach is "spiritually correct". That is absurd. Doesn't God forgive me? Does that necessarily make me spiritually correct? According to you, it would. So why don't you follow me? Oh, I know it only applies to Wierweille. No, they haven't, I have already shown that to be untrue. Only a small few have said anything like that. See the poll. You want to keep promoting that lie - go ahead. VPW "might" have done wrong? Is that the same as VPW only "might" have sinned? Let's see then .... all men have sinned except Jesus , and VPW only "might" have. That's putting Ol' Doc Vic right up there pretty close to Jesus isn't it? -- That's pathetic.

This is a good neighbor. He is my friend. The dogs getting out is not a patern or something he irresponsibly allows. In three years this is only the 2nd time they have gotten out - this time due to the carelessness of his 15 year old daughter who left the gate open. He came over after he heard the shot. He helped me clean up the mess and has already apologized and paid me for the dead and dying chickens. While we are both sad about the loss of the dog, it is not an issue. He does not blame me. He has goats and has had to kill mauradings dogs himself. I guess I can't ask for much more than that. Caca Pasa

Danny, LOL, Not by me Danny - I was thinking of a few others and how they might respond to Marcion's ideas with a noose and daggers. But, as for me, I would much rather lynch an unthinking fundamentalist than a thinking gnostic.

The neighbors dogs got out and wreaked havoc on my chicken flock. The death toll is mounting. Many are dead - others are mamed and dying. I got one of the dogs with my Sweedish Mauser - the other one escaped. Sadness

CK, you are the one that has come up with no material for 1 Cor 13. Except your own distorted private interpretation of it. Was is really sad is your commitment and dedication to ignorance. I may need to rethink that though. Let me see .... You don't know scripture. You don't know or understand PFAL. You never met VPW. Your grammar and writing skills are 5th grade level at best. Yet you claim to be 19 years old and to believe and follow VPW's teachings. You think everything he taught was correct. Actually, more and more I just think you are full of crap and getting off on the attention.

I don't have a problem with a sinner being called either. God can call whoever he wants. Paul is probably our best example. However, after his calling Paul did not continue his ways that were contrary to God - He repented and led a decent life as it is expected of those who would minister to the Church. Best I can tell tell though we have no examples in the Bible of men that were "called" of God and continued in their sin or "waxed worse" and still retained their minstry/calling with God's blessing. Yet we do have examples of men like Saul and Eli to draw from. How did God deal with them? So If I consider that VPW was called (which I have) , then I would have to conclude that he was "retired" of his calling pretty early - when he first used his calling and position of trust to sexually exploit a precious child of God. I would also have to wonder why God would call a man, knowing he would abuse that calling do the things that VPW did repeatedly and unrepentantly *after* he was called. I see no examples of that in the Bible either. I know that is an argument from silence, but I do think it is worthy of consideration.

Neither "1 Timothy" or "Titus" were written by the Apostle Paul. You no longer need remain enslaved to this "deutero-Pauline" fictitious material. Danny Danny, looks like you and Alan both have some serious proofs to do if y'all are gonna head down that path. Alan, you have to prove that these personal letters addressed by Paul to Timothy and Titus were "God-breathed" and not just pastoral letters from Paul's heart to these men, and then that "geneologies" in these verses means researchng your family tree. Danny, you have to prove that Paul didn't even write them. I'll watch. ---> BTW, I have changed my mind about the Marcion Catechesis. I'm not in the mood for a lynching.

Abi, You can download the whole text HERE

I think some people are called to the ministy and some are not. For example, I am a Christian and I know a bit of scripture. I can even deliver a pretty good sermon -believe it or not. I care about people for the most part. And I think I love God. I want to serve God. So now I decide to go to seminary school and when I graduate, I land a job as a the pastor in a small church in Bubbaland Texas. Was I called to the ministry? Do I necessarily have a gift from God ? My guess is that VPW, like scores of other Christian ministers & clergy, was not really "called" when he decided to become a minister. By his own admission, VPW was ineffective in Christian service in his early ministry. VPW may have had a desire to know God, or maybe just took up the ministy as an honorable respected vocation. There is also the possibility he got into for personal gain - could have been a steady paycheck, want of respect and honor - stuff like that. But who can really look back and see VPW's heart when he first entered the ministry? That was before TWI though. From its inception, TWI was steeped in word-faith theology (name it & claim it) and was centered around a book/class - PFAL, and and a personality, VPW. This speaks loudly to me. It was not the model of the NT church that it supposed itself to be. Not even close. PFAL promised power and abundance - appealing not to the spiritual but to the fallen nature of people. The central message was not the Gospel of Christ, but one of how to get power, and how to get "stuff" from God. It was about what you could get more than what you could give. Want red drapes? Got em' ! Just follow the formula. Jesus Christ was relegated to little more than a one time confesion and as a name to use at the end of a prayer. In this effective absence of Christ, the Bible, (but only as interpreted by VPW via PFAL, and by him personally) was what the ministry was centered upon - in effect centering the ministry upon VPW himself. -- "The Teacher". There was no dialog concerning doctrine and practice. VPW was it. Certainly this is not what Christ intended for His Church . This was not "back to the first century" . Not even close. And this was very early on in TWI - the beginning. This was instead a formula for disaster and a recipe for cultism and its associated abuses. Yeah sure, we learned some Bible, folks got saved/born again, and some got healed. We had some great and wonderful times too. But are these the criteria for whether not a ministry is of God and the man leading it was truly called to that ministry? - -- I dont think so.

It seems to me that it is more about what the opinions of GSer's are concerning VPW -- specifically what they believe concerning VPW's behavior (sins) and how it may or may not have affected his ministy, teachings, etc. Intended I suspect, to show fairly, what GSers really believe -- as opposed to what some GS detractors/VPW fans say they believe.

Wierwille destroyed people. I doubt he actually liked doing it though. He just didn't care. Exposing Wierwille/ LCM/ TWI only destroys the false images that certain folks have of them. The truth hurts sometimes. Makes you want to close your eyes. Wrong. He was a good teacher a lot of the time. He could sexually abuse a young woman and then shortly afterwards pull of a pretty good teaching. Truly a man worth putting upon a high pedestal. Ignorance is bliss.