Raf

Tinker...tinker... CRASSHH!!!! Sorry. That's my fault. I did that. Ok, here... Click to Chat!

That last one sucked. How about this one? Never mind. It was a bad idea. Trust me.

More experimenting. http://livingepistlessociety.org/cgi-sys/m...tlessociety.org

I think saying "it was a cult" raises more questions than it answers. The question is, "what was it like?" It was an endless series of classes accompanied by endless requests for money. It talked about "Biblical Research," but discouraged the searching of publications it did not either produce or endorse. "It was a cult." Okay, what do you mean by that?

Anyone read the Newsweek story on this a couple of weeks ago? Amazing story, pictures, etc. The film apparently opens with the Smeagol flashback.

A few months back I covered a story about a six guys who hijacked a plane from Cuba to Key West. The six men were arrested and charged in federal court. When they were being led away from the courthouse and into the bus taking them back to jail, one of the reporters called out, "Why did you do it!?!" One of the men yelled back "FREEDOM!" as he was led away, his hands cuffed and his legs shackled. That's what the Way is like. Bondage in the name of freedom.

I totally agree with you, Zix, about Andy Serkis getting robbed. Wasn't even nominated! But the Smeagol flashback was actually filmed for The Two Towers. In the extended dvd, Peter Jackson says he was going to insert the flashback in the scene where Frodo first calls him Smeagol. But he didn't want to slow the movie down. Saruman's death, according to Jackson, does indeed come at Wormtongue's hands. It's filmed and will be in the extended DVD of Return of the King. (This was a last minute decision: in the Two Towers, Jackson promises Saruman's death will open the third movie. He has obviously since changed his mind).

Finally saw it tonight. This movie is UNWATCHABLE. It SUCKS. There's nothing interesting about it, and the eye candy factor vanishes right after the title frame. YAWN!

Romans 8:35-37 IN all these things we are more than conquerors. Not OVER all these things, but IN them. Philippians 4:12-14 Paul SUFFERED. A lot. The early church SUFFERED a great deal. How arrogant to think we've got a pass from suffering because Christ suffered. We identify with the risen Christ even in our suffering. There's no Biblical pass from suffering, and if you don't want to tolerate suffering, you chose the wrong walk.

Well, her theory is far from devilish. I think she observed some things you clearly did not, and rather than dismiss her theory as "devilish," you should allow for the fact that the whole of the TWI experience was more complex than the limits of your own. I personally never saw LCM utter a profanity while teaching. But it doesn't surprise me that he did. Do I find it appropriate? Absolutely not. Have I condemned him in violation of Romans? No, I made an observation based on the facts and the truth. That's what we're supposed to do. Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? This isn't a license to sin. TWI never said this was a license to sin. A lot of people ACTED like it was. And they were not reproved, sad to say. In fact, you were reproved if you dared to point it out! What a shame.

Thank you, insurgent, for answering my question rather than resorting to Wierwillian namecalling or simply declaring it "obvious" and ignoring it. I think you touched on the exact issue I was trying to explore: the complexity of the scripture on these subjects. Oldiesman is correct in pointing out that in its doctrine, The Way never taught "it's okay for me to continue in my sin and get away with it." However, I think it's safe to say that "grace" was treated as a license to sin by many, from the top down. Wierwille was fond of quoting the poem, "I'd rather see a sermon than hear one any day." I agree. I think the sermons we heard NEVER taught licentiousness. But the sermons we SAW, did. That's the answer to your question, Oldiesman. It was in the sermons we saw, not the books, not the sermons we heard. There is NO condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. Yet there is a great responsibility on us to "walk worthy of the calling with which we are called." Self-condemnation is BAD. Godly sorrow, on the other hand, is GOOD. Judging is BAD. Distinguishing a true brother from a wolf in sheep's clothing is GOOD. Contradictions? No, complexity, a subtlety lost on the mathematically exact and scientifically precise world of TWI. P.S. Stop the namecalling, already, Oldiesman! You rake me over the coals for daring to imply that my fellow Christians are "shallow," yet you show no restraint in accusing her of "spiritual halitosis" and calling her theory "morbid, devilishly accusative," "arrogantly judgmental" and "overly condescending." Why don't you do a little practicing of what you preach there? There's a word for that, you know.

Yes, I am accusing carnal Christians of being shallow. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. If you can't do that, then you've abdicated a part of your Christian responsibility. All Scripture is profitable for doctrine, REPROOF!!!! and CORRECTION!!!! You've accused people of advancing devilish theories, oldiesman. What's a little shallowness by comparison? Other than that, I agree with ex10: you didn't answer my question. What do those verses in Romans mean? Do they give us the right to sin without being held accountable? If not, what do they mean?

Oldiesman, What do these verses mean? Can Christians, and Christian ministers in particular, sin with impunity? Are they above accountability before men? What are these verse trying to communicate?

Early2it: Care to list any specifics? If not, that's cool. Feel free to disagree. No prob. God Bless You and be well.

Oldiesman, I've been saying all along that TWI made a distinction between the symbol and the "cross of Christ." That distinction was unbliblical and unnecessary. And in disdaining the symbol, they drew from the emotional impact of the symbol. That emotional impact is Biblical. It's fair game. It was unnecessary and WRONG for TWI to do what it did, even if its intentions were good (that is, even if its intentions were to flee idolatry).

Okay... we're making some headway... If you feel that TWI's position was not to disrespect the cross, would you at least agree that TWI's practice was often just that? That TWI's position and its practice were, every now and then, in a wee bit of conflict?

What is more important, the identity of the person who carried the cross, or the identity of the person nailed to it? When you see a cross on a building, what do you think? When you see a cross removed from a building, what effect does it have? Sometimes TWI got it right when it comes to preaching the cross. And sometimes they got it dead wrong. There's no sin in symbolism, despite the lies of TWI. There's no sin in seeing a cross and thinking, "Oh yeah, the sacrifice. I remember." Sometimes TWI got it right. Sometimes TWI got it wrong.

blank [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on November 28, 2003 at 18:32.]

You're so sly. But so am I. Manhunter (Later used in Red Dragon. Both movies are based on the same book).

I think TWI sent mixed signals on this. Wierwille's chapter doesn't denigrate the cross. Nor does the inclusion of "The Old Rugged Cross" in the songbook. But in practice, they removed crosses from buildings (which makes one wonder why they left it in the songbook) and boy o boy did they mock the symbol. I think Mel Gibson's movie will be interesting. I'm looking forward to it too.

Actually, I'm going through the old blue songbook and the brown one. "Banner of the Cross" appears in the blue songbook, but not in the brown one. I don't know when that particular lyric change (from "Banner of the Cross" to "Banner of the Lord") took place. Song 89 in the brown songbook is "The Old Rugged Cross." WordWolf: The phenomenon you describe appears to be something we observed after leaving TWI. It might be a Geer phenomenon. The lyric changes may have taken place before we left, and got incorporated into our songbooks. But that's speculating.

Marching on! Marching on! For Christ count everything but loss! And to crown him King, we'll shout and sing Beneath the banner of the... lord. ?

Vickles, You're very much mistaken. Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus Christ was the first being created by God, and that he abandoned his heavenly position to become the earthly Messiah.

You have a point, Oldiesman. But you're also missing one. True, TWI's writings showed respect for the cross. Thank you for pointing that out. Their practice on the other hand, was another thing entirely. Do you want a list of the number of times the cross is ridiculed in TWI tapes and live teachings? I'm sure there's no shortage. How about this: how about a list of TWI sites and locations that have a cross on them? Oh, you mean there ARE none? Oh, I see. It's true that evil people can wear a cross. It's also a distraction from the point. I'll just agree to disagree with you on this one. But more than anything else, Happy Thanksgiving. Raf

Oldiesman, You continuously draw a distinction between the cross of Christ and the cross on which Christ was crucified. The Bible draws no such distinction. To dismiss the opposing point of view as "pure folly" and even "evil surmisings" probably makes it easier for you to dismiss what people are saying, but it's incorrect and dishonest. TWI ridiculed the cross. TWI ridiculed people who looked at the cross as a symbol of the sacrifice of Christ. This is not thinking "evil," this is recognizing history.