Raf

I do not agree that The Way taught/teaches an equivalency between their followers and "The Body of Christ." The case that they consider themselves "the household" is ironclad, though I submit this makes them far from unique among religious sects. Others may not use the same terminology, but why even form a separate group if you don't think your group has it a little bit more correct than the one down the street.

Yeah, there's nothing Biblically required about making the tithe the minimum;

Good point. I delved into what I called "God's standard for giving," but I never got to the part of God's standard for getting. What to do with money collected from the church would make a great Doctrinal thread.

When we were in our teens, WordWolf once had a bunch of notes from which I used to study, and one of them was "Things in Which Christians Are to Abound," or something close to that. The list was believing, the Word, knowledge, diligence, love and grace. It was drawn from II Corinthians 8:7. It took me years to realize what II Corinthians 8 was doing. To really grasp it, you HAVE to let go of the tithe. Only then does the section make sense. A group of Christians was exceedingly generous to Paul, and he was using that group as an example to the Corinthians for how to approach giving. Their gift was both generous and entirely voluntary. The percentage was not discussed. And then v. 7 makes total sense. As you abound in one thing, abound in the other. A standard is being set. As you about in A, abound in F. As you abound in B, abound in F. As you abound in C, abound in F. It's not just a list of things in which we are to abound. It is a standard that is supposed to underscore our motivation to give. You call yourself a Christian who believes? Give accordingly! You call yourself a speaker of the Word? Give accordingly! You call yourself knowledgeable of the Word? GIve accordingly. You call yourself committed to the spread of the Word? Give accordingly. You say you love? Give accordingly. Our giving, according to the Bible, is to be motivated by these attributes. Not a percentage. A reflection of your commitment, of your dedication, of your seriousness about this whole Christian thing. The tithe is not a minimum or a maximum. It's not even a reference point. Abraham tithed ONE TIME, best as we can tell from scripture. No one told him to do it. No one asked him to do it. He wasn't setting a pattern. If he was, the pattern was this: YOU choose when to give. YOU choose who receives it. YOU choose how much. There is no place in scripture where ALL believers are instructed to tithe. It is simply NOT the big deal churches make it out to be. I've long forgotten my deep dive into tithing. But I do remember this much: believers should give, and give generously. NO ONE defines "generously" but you. Just don't be a hypocrite about it. When something's important to you, you invest in it.

For what it's worth, I just checked the Companion Bible and Bullinger got this verse right. Maybe the mistake was in How to Enjoy the Bible? Or perhaps it was just someone else entirely. I wouldn't necessarily dwell on why Wierwille got this wrong. The point is that he did. And it's not a big deal by itself. It's just a matter of recognizing that sometimes TWI gets something wrong AND IT'S OK. The Bible doesn't fall to pieces because of it.

To clarify my vision for this subforum: Think about each thread as an invitation to current members of TWI to explore their doctrines and teachings. Imagine you're now in TWI and you stumble onto GSC. Bunch of so-and-sos. The Word is the really important thing. So you work your way down to doctrinal. Lots of critical discussions about various issues but what do these clowns think of what we teach at TWI? So on this one, we start threads with ideas that are TWI catch phrases. I started with Private Interpretation, and explained why it does not mean what TWI thinks it means. What are the ramifications of that? Floor's open. Someone with more time might want to start a thread on The Four Crucified. Why does TWI teach it, and do you still believe it? If not, why not? "No Errors or Contradictions." Is that a Biblical position to take? [Spoiler alert, in the Bible, there's no such thing as a Bible, so no]. The Bible is the Word and Will of God? The Venn Diagram of The Bible, God's Word and God's Will should not be a perfect circle. Discuss. So I hope that clarifies things.

The Way International teaches that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation," meaning readers should allow the text to interpret itself rather than use their reasoning skills to decipher what the text really means. Division in the church comes from one group or more "privately interpreting" various scriptures about any number of topics (John 1:1, water baptism, etc). Instead of "letting loose" on our own, we should let the Bible speak for itself. The proof text is II Peter 1:20. The ironic problem with this is that II Peter 1:20 is not talking about the meaning of scripture. It's talking about the origin. When Peter says no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation, he's not talking about deciphering the meaning of the words. He's talking about the scripture prophecies being "God's Word." That's why the next verse says how holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (ignore the caps if that makes you happy. Not the point). So if you allow scripture to interpret itself in its verse and context, you find that II Peter 1:20 is not talking about "private interpretation" in the manner that The Way uses that term. The funny thing is, I do not have a problem with the principle of letting scripture interpret itself and bringing as little of yourself into it as possible. The author of the document is not you. It is not fair to inject your experience and presupposition into a text to decipher the author's meaning. You have to discern the author's meaning to the best of your ability. For the Bible, this opens a HUGE can of worms because everyone starts with presuppositions. The Way starts with the presupposition that the Bible is the revealed Word and Will of God. It is not correct to say "The Bible contains God's Word." It is correct to say "The Bible IS God's Word." That means under that presupposition, you are compelled to conclude the Bible has one author (many writers, but one author) and that its message on all issues is coherent. The Bible is not allowed to contradict itself, and what Paul says about a subject (say, speaking in tongues) has to be harmonious with what Luke wrote in Acts, regardless of the appearance that they contradict each other on their face (Paul says no one understands a tongues speaker, Acts has hundreds of people seeming to understand a dozen tongues speakers). So we propose explanations: Acts was an anomaly. Paul was generalizing about the norm. Without the presupposition of harmony due to a single Divine author, you could just as easily conclude Paul and Luke simply disagreed, or that one (or the other) was simply wrong. Is it "private interpretation" to use logic and reason to infer logical, reasonable explanations for apparent contradictions? Or is that allowing the scripture to interpret itself? I would argue the latter. To sum up, we could go off in a million directions on this topic, but the bottom line is that VPW, and by extension The Way International, got II Peter 1:20 wrong. It is not about the meaning of scripture. It's about the inspiration behind it. Verse 21 should be read in unison with verse 20, as both are addressing the same subject. Thoughts?

Sorry Yeah, whoever gets here first

"And since he is no longer insame, he has as much of a right to his own life as you and I."

Columbo?

What's a chewing gum wrapper got to do with the secrets of the universe?

What a cash grab. Just an awful means of providing a written foundation for relentless legalism

"Mary, I'm becoming confused again, aren't I?" "Of course not." "Don't lie to me! Not you!" *** "Stop talking nonsense. I am telling you, you did not kill anyone." "Then how do you explain all this blood? WELL?"

Yes

Airplane and Airplane 2

It is not. But you correctly ID'd the author to the extent that you've seriously narrowed down the possibilities

The author of the standalone novel on which this series is based also wrote a series of novels in which it is revealed that all his standalone novels are, in fact, interconnected. This novel was adapted to a well-received movie decades before it was adapted into a pretty darn good tv series. It ran on cable, not broadcast tv. The premise really did lend itself to an episodic approach, though the original novel and movie didn't really get to exploit that. Producers predicted a seventh, final season, but they [and fans] were disappointed by fate: the network's decision to cancel after the sixth season finale, which ended on a cliffhanger that was never resolved. Sure, you could read the book or watch the original movie to get the original ending. But the artistic freedom to take the story to a different place than the foreordained ending was eliminated, sadly. On the bright side, World War III hasn't started. Hallelujah. Hallelujah.

Yes

To love another person is to see the face of God. *** For the wretched of the earth there is a flame that never dies -- even the darkest night will end, and the sun will rise.

"Forbid me, now, to die. I'll obey. I will try. On this page I write my last confession. Read it well, when I at last am sleeping. It's the story of one who turned from hating- a man who only learmed to love when you were in his keeping."

Every line in Forrest Gump is a giveaway

A is, if I am not mistaken, Deal or No Deal. D is, if I am not mistaken, Tic Tac Dough. F is a desperate attempt to get someone to move the thread along. Also known as Fear Factor.

We all know it. We just don't want to be next

Final Fantasy

Youre up