Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

troubledwine

Members
  • Posts

    112
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by troubledwine

  1. I would put money down that you could trace a streak as wide as a 8 lane LA freeway through the history of TWI showing all the little half truths and mostly trues that were told over the years. I know I have seen some of them. The problem that I see is justifying it instead of correcting it. I don't see it as much of a stretch and it has been discussed here before that they think lying in the name of God is ok. I know for a fact because a top national leader was confronted for being dishonest and she EXPLAINED WHY IT WAS OK!!!!!!! Right before my very eyes. This was paid salary waycorps well before they went full time. I was too stupid to see it for what it was. UUUUGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH -- yet another charlie brown miss at a field goal for me.... Would it be a stretch to document the following: -they don't think underlings are mature enough to handle the "deeper" things of the ministry - David acted crazy (lied) to escape the king - therefore we can lie too when needed - the new testament minister is the ot king and has all the priveledges and "flexibility" the king had -their thought that lying be revelation happened all the time in the ot Strange strange strange positions for sure
  2. 2 cents: I think the appearance of evil comment has a lot of merit. I keep going back to the thought that I haven't EVER read or heard of a teaching that was done on adultery even after the stuff come out publicly. I mean the PR man RM couldn't even make a statement that the ministry does not condone it?? Your "answer in the face of accusation" is "we are not prepared to make a statement at this time... we will be releasing a statement in the near future..." ?!?!?!?! Where is the "clearing of yourselves"?? I can't fathom how some claim to be so "spiritual" and can not uphold the BASIC precepts of godly sorrow. For the sake of those in the ministry they should have done that if not for the principle itself. Seriously, how many still in hang in doubt of them to this very day because they haven't really taken a stand against it?
  3. weout1200 can you explain this "The "ministerial insurance" lie..." quote? I don't follow. BTW I agree wholeheartedly about a lack of christ in TWI
  4. Guys check this out! Evan Posted: Wow, do i have a quote for you: as written on page 92 Born again to serve Dorothea Kipp Wierwille copywrite 1996 american christian press Wow, talk about VPW being FULL OF HIMSELF when Elena interviewed him !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  5. After reading the Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse book and particularly thinking about the last few chapters about how or when to make a break or stay for awhile to make a difference I decided not to be hasty and make an emotional decision. Not because emotions are wrong or anything like that but just because I wanted to do what I could to help (if that were even possible) and give myself time to process my options. By staying in for a little while now, i have been able to listen to their teachings for once and actually be objective (like VPW said to be from day one btw) and was surpised at how milky they really were. As far as it being hard to leave; it depends on your ties I guess. I have a family so that is part of the consideration. My course of direction was to look at the doctrine. At first I approached it from a let's prove them wrong on one point but Goey advised me to just approach studying from a neutral point of view and then I would be able to see both sides and letthe research do the talking. That has been helpful. Part of the twisted scriptures thread I started is just some of the things they have taught that i noticed on this little quest. I am entertaining writing a research paper on my findings or at least a good thread. Perhaps I am overly concerned about what some way believers may say about me or what not but I refuse to be labeled a heretic or possesed or let them push me into saying "i don't want the word anymore" -- this is their tactic so that they can wash their hands of you. I prefer to either just leave quietly or with a quiet discussion where I expose the biblical blindness on certain key issues. But I frankly could care less about writing the "bod" about my "concerns". TWI has had 70 years now to clarify certain doctrines and they HAVE NOT DONE IT. What fool would actually think he could write them a research paper that they would give them credit for and implement??? Look what happened to hope and john and napklinlady and MANY MANY OTHERS. I do care about people I have known for all these years and i would prefer to handle myself wisely to at least give myself an opportunity to discuss certain issues. Not with leadership (check out theemerson quotes about the paid preacher) mind you but with my friends. I don't think I will put this off for long though. I already have no interest in their teaching direction of collateral rehash. My spouse has been giving them every opportunity to make a positive impact but they are coming up empty. I guess, i am trying to proceed to the nearest emergency exit in a calm an orderly manner...
  6. Isn't this a great thread? I just wanted to add another idea about the pleroo concept of taking something to the uttermost of its capacity. It would be a fascinating study to contrast how Jesus Christ got to the intent behind the law BUT the religious leaders after Malachi corrupted away to the point where they wore book on the fingers and heads instead of keeping the word in their actions and heads / hearts. There are many such examples in the Gospels. The classic "strain out a gnat and swallow (gulp down whole) a camel" comes readily to mind. I bring this up because of JBarrax insightful comments about standing approved before God. Dare I ask did Wierwille's teaching creep ever so close to this type of thinking / religion?
  7. I agree with what Oldiesman said Was it Steve Lortz who pointed out how Wierwille clearly states that Rom 9,10,11 are a parenthetical statement? But he makes one hell of a case that they are absolutely not. I bring this up because the part several parts: So is this to say that Acts is not written to us either? Even if you held this position you would have to admit it is the one and same theophilis -- beloved of god I believe is the interpretation. VPW taught that acts was a transtion book from the Old to New testaments. I would like to put forward the idea that the Gospels are the transition books that most fundamentally teach HOW to get your mind from the letter of the law to the intent / spirit behind the law - namely walking in the love of God. We know that Jesus Christ came to fufill the law It seems pleroo does not just indicate to just keep those laws because the example of JC was so much more than just keeping but fulfilling to the utermost or pushing something to the limits of its capacity. And also to reiterate the teaching that was done before: It just does not hold up to scrutiny that we are some seperate body from the believers than Israel or that what God gave us is not the eternal purpose which he had in christ. Of course it wasn't fully revealed because Paul had to receive revelation to understand it. But it says we are grafted onto the same tree. Paul makes the case that the Israel of God is them that believe -- like the father of faith Abraham. We know that Paul cannot be referring to rejecting his gospel because ISRAEL was rejecting Jesus Christ's message even as he was giving it. There are things in the gospels I don't understand like Oldiesman was saying as well. Perhaps they are yet future but that doesn't mean the book isn't written for "our learning" which is doctrine (I think Goey pointed that out). And who did Jeses come for??? Was it all the sheep of Israel or the "lost" sheep? And the words he spoke -- were they for all of Israel or him that had ears to hear? And who continues to hear him today? We know we get the spirit by the "hearing of faith". And who does it say we are builded on?? Does it not seem like a continuation starting with Jesus Christ? Just a little more fuel for the fire of number 9 I guess. [This message was edited by troubledwine on January 31, 2003 at 6:21.]
  8. Rafael, Pertaining to number one Faith vs. Believing I hope you at least include before THE faith came portion we all discussed because that is the ROOT of his problem. He doesn't believe there was faith in the old testament so he has to make up an advanced theology to cover. but the definite article is in the text -- it is not faith in the abstract.
  9. Jerry's response to Mike brought up some incredibly interesting insights. Since we are discussing "the image of God" and body soul spirit I would like to offer an interesting article that sheds light on the uniqueness of ALL humans. (I am not advocating any particular doctrine by posting such.) I think this relates to the topic of the idea that the image of God is more than just spirit and offers some scientific background as well. Sorry for the loooonnnnngggg post. One angle that I am looking at a little more closely is that this "spirit of / from God" may be the icing on the cake / the catalyst that energizes the realationship / that which allows mankind to personally interract with God and works towards the purpose of revealing the image of God in man. On a side note could the image of God also relate to the ever confusing "fruit of the spirit" topic? If we haven't menitoned that one I think that is a definite error as well. This is a huge topic and maybe deserves its own thread but here is the article that discusses this uniqueness:
  10. This paragraph is one of the most moving I have ever read here:
  11. Erick, I admire you for stating your beliefs strongly. It takes balls to tell people how you feel and let it all hang out. But I think that most things in life are like a pendulum and most of us swing back and forth between extremes. Moderation is key. The Word you quote to reprove others and others quote to reprove you has elements of truth in it. But are all the words in this thread "fitly spoken" and in "due season" to each of the readers? What the proper season for some of these words is to one person may be the improper season to another. Words that you say to help may not have that effect and vice versa. This may be exactly why there is a verse that says "weep with them that weep and mourn with them that mourn." Would anyone here say forgiveness is an invalid concept? Of course not, but people will differ as to who and when to forgive according to the Word (or not the Word if that is their postion). To set forth a biblical survey of how and when to give forgiveness to men in these extreme circumstances is quite an endeavor. Even God has requirements for His forgiveness (according to the Bible.) Are men to have NO requirements for their forgiveness? I do not have a complete understanding of the Bible on this topic so I cannot say much else. Part of your message is to seek God but also to "get over it". The seeking God can be very rewarding for many but the getting over it can be very difficult for just as many. If you study the human grieving process you will find that each person grieves in different ways. For some it may be writing or "typing" a message expressing the anger and hurt of betrayal. For some it is denial that the hurtful event even happened. It is a complex process that can be quite different for each individual. Encouraging people to discuss and talk about it has been shown to be one of the most KEY elements in recovery. If people can express their deepest feelings it may help them to make sense of what they are going through and perhaps find a way to cope / deal with / resolve / or perhaps even put behind them what has happened to them. But allow me to put forward the position that even in the Bible the Tresspass offering has an element of restoration back to the wronged party which was typically 20% - so when a man tresspassed against some one and even though it was "in the holy things" of the Lord he still had to make it good. The point was the WRONGED party ended up not just being evened up with but getting MORE than they were tresspassed against. So to God (if I am reading my Bible correctly) forgiving the trespasser was not the only issue. An integral part of the process was SATISFYING the wronged or injured party. You could very well argue the forgiveness to the trespasser was not completed until the restoration happened to the wrong. Perhaps these verses take on additional meaning: I found great inspiration in your story of how you spoke out against the abuse and found yourself fighting though all the "spiritual lightning rod" propaganda in your mind. I would encourage you to keep speaking but also to remember both sides of this story.
  12. The absurdity of all this is they just got done with last years theme of speaking (i.e. living) the truth in love. AKA Truthing It.
  13. Well you are up against a lot. REv. R*pp just ended his last STS teaching with "And by our works we prove that we are Christ's." This is where this things is headed. When they asked back in late december if every one attending was into doing a count they really weren't asking. Telling and asking how you feel about it is much different than dialogue. The truth is I have witnessed to more people in the couple weeks since I started coming here than I have in the last 3 years. Once you start getting the funk out of your mind and get back to what does the Bible really say YOU WILL HAVE SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT. I don't give a darn about "getting someone to a fellowship". The point of getting "someone to a fellowship" is for them to hear the word. That can be done in a variety of contexts as proven by J.C. You can argue one way or the other about the "best" place to learn - and most would agree the best place to learn is where there is a willing student and a willing teacher --- (Philip and the Eunuch on the chariot ring a bell?) You can try to go the legislating spirituality route but demanding works to prove you are spiritual to me is the equivalent of requiring me to be circumsized. Now believing without works is dead but works with out love are dead before they get off the ground also. So which is it with TWI??? If they stress performance of works OVER the grace god gives to all of us and our response to god's love then it is wrong IMO. [This message was edited by troubledwine on January 29, 2003 at 13:04.]
  14. Ok Mike, fair enough explanation. I think that you fit into this little analogy Most people cannot answer direct questions because they really don't have the truth. They talk around it. That is why you talk around every issue and error that is presented.
  15. Dear Mike, I am sorry everyone but I just have to say... Please just come out and say that PFAL is the "new" "last revelation" "forgotten epistles" or something like Joseph Smith did and all the rest. You can summarize your complete position in this one sentence "God wrote PFAL therefore it cannot be wrong or contradictory and supercedes all previous written revelation even if at cross purposes with what has already been revealed." Well, I for one am not going to commit to PFAL. I believe that Dr Wierwille was wrong to challenge people to master the collaterals. It's arrogant. Why would I want to MASTER writings that are trying to explain the Bible? The point of the collaterals is to help me understand the Word not replace the Word. I would rather MASTER the Bible not a set of loosely written materials that tend to be under researched , over plagiarized, and misdirected. It appears, that you will never know subjects not written in the collaterals. You will never know about the spiritual significance of the sacrifices, the temple etc... because THEY AREN'T IN THE COLLATERALS. ATTENTION EVERYONE!!! I HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT!!! THE REASON MIKE CANNOT PUT UP A DEFENSE FOR ANY OF THE ACTUAL ERRORS WE ARE DISCUSSING IS BECAUSE HE DOES NOT ACTUALLY READ THE BIBLE. You are firing an empty gun Mike. Or blanks at best. I have been waiting for you to post one good explanation and (yawn) you bore me. You would at least be entertaining if you offered your own blend of shoot from the hip, charisma filled TEACHER spooge with some Bible verses. Have you ever even quoted a verse? We don't even get that from you.
  16. Just a quick thought why this image idea is still fresh. I wanted to elaborate on this idea a little bit. This is a section where God is giving instruction to Noah after the flood. Now if the image of God is just the spirit of God in a believing man (as Wierwille teaches in PFAL) then are we to interpret this verse as saying that God does not want us to murder people with the spirit but go ahead and murder freely those without the spirit? But again, if the image of God is a much larger concept than just the spirit, then it would tie into the many clear verses. Thou shalt not murder immediately coming to mind. The context supports this larger concept idea as well because this is God laying the foundational precepts for the eight souls that stepped off the ark.
  17. -- grabs the remote away again and switches the channel back the 24 hr body soul spirit infomercial -- ughmmm -- An interesting word shift was pointed out by DD's thesis paper. Sounds like an actual error there. Now, man may be a three part being (not debating this one way or the other at this time) but I think you need to find a different verse to teach that.
  18. Sorry to interupt. Ok I'm still on the image of God being spirit and formed made created. It's also interesting that the word formed is also used regarding the spirit of man: Zech 12:1 "The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth (yatsar) the spirit of man within him." Yatsar is supposed to be what God did to the body of man not the soul or spirit... Dr. Franz Delitzsch a renowned OT scholar had this to say about Isaiah 43:7 From what I am studying here this section does not refer to the days of creation. A particular key to understanding the point God is making is just taking the time to back up a few verses to Isaiah 43:1: "But now thus saith the LORD that created (BARA) thee, O Jacob, and he that formed (YATSAR) thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called [thee] by thy name; thou [art] mine. " As you can see ASAH is left out here. If you go back and read Isaiah 42 all the way through the end of 43 you will see the point God is making. As Dr. Delitzch summarized summarized "to glorify Himself in it, and that he might be glorified by it. They form a climax, " This is not a section that deals with creation. The point is ASAH! That is the big buildup in the context! God wanted them complete or perfected but most of the time they weren't living up to their side of the bargain!! Read the context and look for the buildup. As I was saying earlier if you are going to teach the image of God is spirit and formed made created these aren't the verses to do it with. edited to clean up spelling and repeat phrases [This message was edited by troubledwine on January 27, 2003 at 18:32.]
  19. Rafael you opened it up to discuss the PFAL image of God idea -- so here goes... The image of God. Wierwille argues that God is spirit therefore his image is spirit. In reading different studies one point suggested that the phrases God is spirit, God is light, God is a consuming fire and God is love are regarding the nature of God not the image. I pondered that for awhile and looked up the definition of nature - here is what I found from Miriam Webster: Main Entry: na·ture Pronunciation: 'nA-ch&r Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin natura, from natus, past participle of nasci to be born -- more at NATION Date: 14th century 1 a : the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing : ESSENCE b : DISPOSITION, TEMPERAMENT Inherent character or constitution of a person or thing... food for thought. If God is not describing His image with these phrases - rather his character or constitution we would need to rethink the idea of the image of God. I am not saying this disproves body - soul - spirit but using the idea or wording of image = spirit might not be the right way to go to prove your theology. In other words the "image of God" may be quite a bit bigger concept than what Wierwille understood. Speaking of which, Jesus Christ was the only perfect man - perhaps his life would shed insight into this concept. ------------------------------------------------------- 2Cr 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. And also Genesis 9 puts an interesting spin on this: Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. This image of God in Genesis is the same phrasing. [This message was edited by troubledwine on January 27, 2003 at 8:47.]
  20. On the PFAL Errors thread when Mike made a Biblical statement Rafael felt was incorrect he replied to Mike:
  21. I thought there were 613 or so...
  22. Rafael, No I wouldn't say change of theology -- that is a little strong. But I would say that a change from uppercase Holy Spirit the giver to lower case holy spirit the gift warrants an explanation. This I think is the root of the problem -- he does not explain HOW he came to these conclusions so we cannot examine if his method was faulty.
  23. Rafael, Now you and I and most everyone on this thread seem to be able to approach his writing from a "prove all things and hold fast that which is good" point of view. By sheer logic that verse also means to not hold fast the things which are not good. Why can TWI not do the same? I'll give credit to VPW that he did debate his own research and change his interpretations in this holy spirit field but I still can't fathom the lack of explanation from him or the current BOD.
×
×
  • Create New...