vpw born again or not?

[Oakspear]

I'll assume that this isn't a Christians-only discussion and throw in my 2 cents:

Sometimes the doctrinal battle over salvation and how it's gotten overwhelm the question of how we're supposed to act while we're on the earth in this physical body. On one extreme we argue over degrees of sin and get all judgemental about soemone's shortcomings and on another extreme we declare that muttering a magic formula absolves us of all responsibility to live a godly life.

With regard to Wierwille's "born again" status, my opinion is that any god who would withhold "salvation" from a person who lives a "Chist-like" life, yet somehow misses out on "believing and confessing" the formula due to any number of possible reasons and awards it to someone nominally "born again" who lies, cheats, rapes and abuses his "flock" is an unjust god.

To me the point is somewhat moot; I no longer believe in a heavenly "Get Out Of Hell Free" card or that belief in one religion's standard somehow sets me apart.

[waysider]

I'll assume that this isn't a Christians-only discussion and throw in my 2 cents:

Sometimes the doctrinal battle over salvation and how it's gotten overwhelm the question of how we're supposed to act while we're on the earth in this physical body. On one extreme we argue over degrees of sin and get all judgemental about soemone's shortcomings and on another extreme we declare that muttering a magic formula absolves us of all responsibility to live a godly life.

With regard to Wierwille's "born again" status, my opinion is that any god who would withhold "salvation" from a person who lives a "Chist-like" life, yet somehow misses out on "believing and confessing" the formula due to any number of possible reasons and awards it to someone nominally "born again" who lies, cheats, rapes and abuses his "flock" is an unjust god.

To me the point is somewhat moot; I no longer believe in a heavenly "Get Out Of Hell Free" card or that belief in one religion's standard somehow sets me apart.

:beer:

[excathedra]

i hope i am

[cheranne]

i think dolly parton is going to heaven.

[WordWolf]

Hi Bowtie. Regarding your question of Judas, I do not believe he was "born again."

The Bible is quite clear in calling him the man of perdition. If you read Peter in Acts, he is quite clear when he says Judas has no place with them. Peter does not hide what he thinks of Judas.

I believe Christ knew when he called him to follow him, who he was and what his role would be, the one fitted for Perdition - destruction.

Yet, what I find incredible, is even then, Christ treats him as his closest friend when he hands him the sop. He trusts him with their money. What this shows me is that, even after offering his love and friendship to Judas, it shows me that a man's nature - one who does not love God - even if Christ were to be with him in the flesh, if he does not accept Christ as Messiah/Savior, he cannot be forced to believe, his nature cannot be changed, and God will not overstep the man's free will. Man's nature is still enmity with God. Judas after being with Christ (Emmanuel - God with us) still did not accept him, nor his love.

There are times when Satan, faced with a monumental and pivotal task that must be done right to accomplish his will, will do something himself, such as when he tempted Christ in the wilderness and Adam and Eve in the Garden. Satan, in order to get the ball rolling for Christ to be killed, thought this so important, that he entered into Judas. He entered into Judas.

The only other person Satan will ever enter into in the Word is yet to come - the Antichrist.

So, to me, there were only two men ever entered into by Satan in the Word - Judas and Antichrist.

Thus, I personally do not think Judas was ever then or now, born again. But that is just my opinion. :)

Ever notice they're the only 2 men referred to in the KJV as "son of perdition"?

I've wondered sometimes whether that means that "the Antichrist" as you called him, or,

as II Thessalonians called him, the "man of sins",

would be-like Judas-

a man claiming to be religious,

given to making pious displays and statements

("that could have been sold, and the money given to the poor")

and using a position as a servant of God to satisfy his lusts ("he had the bag, and bore what was therein.")

I don't have any answers to that.

And I've been wondering it for a long time.

[WordWolf]

I've wondered about II Peter 2, also.

KJV

"2 Peter 2

1But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

2And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

3And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

4For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

5And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

6And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

7And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

8(For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)

9The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

10But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

11Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.

12But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

13And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;

14Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:

15Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;

16But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb foot speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet.

17These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.

18For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.

19While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

20For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

21For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

22But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

============

I wonder about the last 4 verses.

If "those that were clean escaped" are supposedly "born again",

what could it mean that they can face a "latter end" "worse with them than the beginning"?

Supposedly, this would mean verse 21 says it would have been better NEVER to have been

"born again", than to have been born again and THEN turn aside and serve lust, wantonness,

and greed.

Does that mean that-

if a man is born again,

then decides to serve his lusts, and treats others like merchandise,

that God will deliver a punishment so severe, that he'd rather have never been born again,

because he would never have faced a punishment so severe?

Edited February 27, 2008 by WordWolf

[WordWolf]

What She said! (Sunesis). Very well put : ) about Judas. I do not believe he was born again either.

I asked the very same question at my local churches study group two weeks ago. The concept of perdition & destruction outweighed and trumped all of those pronouns (apostles he had chosen, to whoms, thems, and theys) leading up to men of Galilee, that we heard in PALF.

That was also a beautiful side point about Jesus demonstrating love to Judas.

wing

He also died before Pentecost. I thought that meant-by definition- he couldn't BE

"born again."

John the Baptizer, according to Jesus-who would know- was even-up with the greatest of

the great ever born, but he was less than the least in the kingdom of God.

He also died before Pentecost.

Edited February 27, 2008 by WordWolf

[WordWolf]

Honestly, I don't really care if he(VPW) was or wasn't.

And I no longer believe that speaking in tongues is some infallible proof beyond proof of someones' spiritual state.

Even VPW admitted that he successfully faked it at least once.

Then later, he stated that it was impossible to fake it.

What I do believe is that he was an unscrupulous snake oil salesman who developed a very successful multi level marketing scheme at the expense of a lot of good hearted(but gullible) people like you and me.

If you just take a moment and look at it all, stripped down and naked, without all the religious trappings, it becomes a whole lot clearer that he scammed us.

Of course, there are some people who will never dare to do that because they were so thoroughly(or was that throughly ) indoctrinated to never allow their minds to consider any alternative to what "the teacher" assured us to be the ultimate enlightenment.

They have my sympathy.

I do not believe there's a device we can point at someone and detect "born again" or not.

I do not believe there's any single thing a person can say or do which allows us to detect "born again" or not.

Did they claim they made Jesus their Lord and believed God raised them from the dead?

How do I know they weren't lying? Any actor-or any con artist- could make a CONVINCING

display of emotion at the podium, claiming convictions concerning God, and it could all be lies.

Do they speak in tongues?

Again, any actor-or any con artist- of any passing skill can clearly and lucidly pronounce syllables

not in a known language, and make them sound as if there's conviction behind them.

(Now that I think of it, I DID have a class in college where one exercise, we did exactly that.

In our case, it was to demonstrate the ability to convey a scene through tone, and through

action, but without telling anyone what the scene was. The teacher was able to get EXACTLY

what was happening-and it was pretty complicated. But I'm rambling off-topic.)

So, I do not believe there is any one thing we can do to determine if someone we're looking at

is "born again" or not. There's no miraculous tattoo, there's no "Highlander buzz", there's

no nothing.

[markomalley]

I still believe what we learned it twi, that once born again always born again, that we're born again of incorruptible seed. I still believe that Judias Iscariot is born again and was saved, that we'll see him in heaven. By this train of logic, I also think vpw and lcm were/are born again and all hell can't stop them from heaven like I learned in pfal.

Does anyone have any good reason to believe otherwise?

Tie that together with galatians which says uncatagorically that those who did what wierwille and his buddies did, will have absolutely no inheritance in the kingdom of God....I have to suspect the whole notion of wierwille being in heaven, simply because he recited a couple of verses...as questionable.

21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

I'm wondering if the fruit of the spirit is what we display when we're walking by the spirit, as opposed to because we're born again. Maybe it's how we can see that someone is actually walking the talk.

I'm thinking there might be a way to see who actually is born again and I'm not sure I believe that it's speaking in tongues. I don't believe it's being kind to others, as I'm sure there are atheists that are very kind to others as a normal part of their lifestyle.

18For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.

19While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

20For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

21For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

22But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

============

I wonder about the last 4 verses.

If "those that were clean escaped" are supposedly "born again",

what could it mean that they can face a "latter end" "worse with them than the beginning"?

Supposedly, this would mean verse 21 says it would have been better NEVER to have been

"born again", than to have been born again and THEN turn aside and serve lust, wantonness,

and greed.

Does that mean that-

if a man is born again,

then decides to serve his lusts, and treats others like merchandise,

that God will deliver a punishment so severe, that he'd rather have never been born again,

because he would never have faced a punishment so severe?

The passage I would quote here is from Luke 15...particularly the story of the prodigal son. We can learn a lot from that passage. I'm sure that we're all familiar with it, so I won't bother to quote it here (you can look it up if you need), but a couple of things I'd want to point out:

• The son dishonored the father and voluntarily left (went to a far country)
  
• The son lived riotously, not in accord with how his father wanted
  
• The son then reaped the reward for his actions (started slopping hogs -- a MOST unclean animal in the eyes of the Jews, btw)
  
• The father didn't go after the son...he stayed on his estate.
  
• When the son repented and humbled himself, he went back
  
• The father welcomed him back with open arms...but the son had to take the first step and repent of his actions and walk back, before he could reap the reward of his repentence.
  

See, there are the disconnects that Rascal and Wordwolf pointed out (quoted above). On one hand, the scriptures state that you are born again with incorruptible seed and that you are sons of God. On the other hand, there are many, many passages that call folks to good behavior and warn against the consequences of improper behavior. Why would there be consequences as clearly stated? Of course, VPW and his ilk did some scriptural gymnastics and said that it didn't really mean that you would go to h3ll. Rather, it was just talking about broken fellowship, or something along that ilk. Of course, those with Calvinist attitudes indicate that the person continued in his tendency of utter depravity and never was predestined for heaven in the first place. And those who are free-willers say that a person didn't truly repent in the first place and needs to come forward again.

How about this, instead? How about separating the idea of "born again" from the idea of "salvation" a little bit?

In other words, when you are baptized you die with Christ and are raised with him? (i.e., born again)

But you always have the choice, like the prodigal son, of walking away, blowing away your inheritence, and then reaping the reward of that choice? Naturally, like the prodigal son, you are free to repent of that decision and walk back at any time you'd like, but, like the prodigal son, you are not going to be forced to act one way or another.

Look at the oft-cited Romans 10:9 -- "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

If you'll note, this is a conditional statement. The action: "thou shalt be saved" is contingent upon the conditions: confessing the Lord Jesus and believing that God raised him from the dead.

• Does it say if you do it once and then have regrets on doing it, that you will still be saved?
  
• Has anybody really considered what it means to confess the Lord Jesus?
  
• What happens if you stop believing that God raised him from the dead?
  

Salvation is typically presented in light of an "if" condition, either implicit or explicit. If you look at all these other passages in Galatians, I&II Corinthians, Phillipians, Thessalonians, the letters of Peter, and so on, that becomes clear. All of these places giving warning to be nice or else. Well, if you say that unconditionally, you are going to be saved regardless of your behavior (as VPW taught), then all of those verses ring really hollow. Why should I believe? Why should I act with grace in my heart? Why bother??

If you look really hard at the Luke 15 passage about the prodigal son, you recognize that you have the liberty of walking away. You can make the deliberate decision to live as an unbeliever. Does that change your status as being a son? No. But, do you get to reap the full beneifts/ consequences of your actions? Yes. Is God going to drag you, kicking and screaming, back? No. But, will He forgive and restore you if you come back? Absolutely.

Something to consider.

In the case of VP, the question for me is "did he repent of his multiple sins before he died?" If he did, I'm sure that God's mercy will cover a multitude of sins. If he didn't, then, well, ....

[oldiesman]

if so...how does that fit with what Jesus said? what does that do to the "born again" formula of PFAL and Christian evangelicals?

it seems to me that there is much scriptural evidence to support a multi-layered process by which one is "spiritually born"

if "process" sounds too much like "works"...it is...but so is 9 months of gestation...a process in the works that we had no choice in

Sirguessalot,

Romans 10: 9, 10 is the word of God, and a promise of God. So is John 3:16. Once you start mislabelling and disparaging the word saying they are "formulas" you're watering it down and doing it harm. You are trashing it.

Yeah, your process sounds a little like "works", and you know what the bible says about salvation by works.

[oldiesman]

Honestly, I don't really care if he(VPW) was or wasn't.

And I no longer believe that speaking in tongues is some infallible proof beyond proof of someones' spiritual state.

Even VPW admitted that he successfully faked it at least once.

Then later, he stated that it was impossible to fake it.

Waysider,

I think he said that true SIT can't be counterfeited, and that makes sense. If a person knowingly fakes SIT, they know they are faking. If the same person knowingly SIT with a sincere belief in the heart, that is not faking. That is SIT to that person. Like a lot of stuff in the bible, it is an act of faith and belief. Anybody can say SIT is nonsense and many christians do. But at that point in PFAL when we asked God to manifest holy spirit, that was real. The born again experience we had, was real. Asking God to help us manifest the gift is real. Now, if someone says many years later that they were faking it, then I have to take them at their word. But it wouldn't negate anyone elses experience.

i think dolly parton is going to heaven.

Me too.

Oklahoma, please clarify your belief about whether or not someone can be saved if they don't believe that Jesus is God. Thanks.

Edited February 27, 2008 by oldiesman

[oldiesman]

With regard to Wierwille's "born again" status, my opinion is that any god who would withhold "salvation" from a person who lives a "Chist-like" life, yet somehow misses out on "believing and confessing" the formula due to any number of possible reasons and awards it to someone nominally "born again" who lies, cheats, rapes and abuses his "flock" is an unjust god.

Oakspear, I believe when one rejects Christ, they are rejecting God's redemptive plan for themselves and mankind. Jesus is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Doesn't matter how "good" we are or appear to be or live, we are still sinners. Every one of us. But folks are not living a Christ-like life anyway who wilfully reject him, no matter how good they think they are and how many good works they think they do. I know it sounds a bit narrow, but there's only one Messiah to go around. Folks are not saved by good works.

Besides why would any devout, honorable person who does good works want to wilfully reject Christ's messianic mission? Something else is going on there. To those who never heard about Christ, I believe God will take that into full account. Young children who died for instance. Perhaps even our beloved animals.

Edited February 27, 2008 by oldiesman

[oldiesman]

But you always have the choice, like the prodigal son, of walking away, blowing away your inheritence, and then reaping the reward of that choice?

When we are in the Kingdom of God for all eternity, do we have a choice to leave? I don't think so. Who would want to leave anyway?

But if that's true, then when one becomes born again, they are a new creature. That new life has no choice, its eternal life. You can't kill eternal life. It's a different kind of life, a perfect life form without free will to reject God, like we have today in our bodies.

[Ham]

I think he said that true SIT can't be counterfeited, and that makes sense. If a person knowingly fakes SIT, they know they are faking. If the same person knowingly SIT with a sincere belief in the heart, that is not faking. That is SIT to that person.

so what you are saying is there is no *real* standard for a person OUTSIDE of the one speaking to make ANY valid comments about the genuineness, or lack of..

and if that is the case:

speaking in tongues means absolutely NOTHING to anybody, except to the one speaking. Only he knows whether he is supposedly sincere, or faking it. Then It is an external evidence to others- of absolutely NOTHING.

The vicster wouldn't be exactly self-serving when he claimed it could not be counterfieted, would he not? I mean.. whoda think that a false prophet or jackal in sheeps clothing could possibly be "born again" or something? Sure.. he "speaks in tongues."

as far as the "sincere belief in the heart".. almost every successuful scam involves one portraying that illusion. They can rain tears.. "cry like a baby" if they have to..

Besides why would any devout, honorable person who does good works want to wilfully reject Christ's messianic mission?

I think WW posted the answer to that:

1But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

2And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

[bowtwi]

Thanks for the great responses. I'm going to spend some time on the subject of Judas - you make fabulous points, some that I hadn't considered previously.

OM - Please stop passing judgment on others' contributions to this discussion. You're not the final authority and if you want a thread where you can dub someone's thoughts as mislabelling and trash go start one. Don't act like you're involved in an intelligent, friendly exchange of ideas and then whammo - out of nowhere insult the other participants and their ideas.

THIS thread was started for honest and safe discussion of the subject at hand. Your comments are not only rude, but distracting from the point.

THIS THREAD IS HEREBY DECLARED AN INSULT-FREE ZONE.

is this evangelical "born again" formula really anything like the pattern of a natural birth, like Jesus taught?

from what i understand, natural births can be messy and complicated

and only come after a prolonged period of complex development

is spiritual birth going to be less amazing? less of a journey? less of a trial?

its been a while since i looked, but has anyone else noticed that greek word for "born" in the "born again" of Peter's epistle is the word for "conception"

if so...how does that fit with what Jesus said? what does that do to the "born again" formula of PFAL and Christian evangelicals?

it seems to me that there is much scriptural evidence to support a multi-layered process by which one is "spiritually born"

if "process" sounds too much like "works"...it is...but so is 9 months of gestation...a process in the works that we had no choice in

and there is typically a struggle to being born...but that struggle is still not something we choose to do...but something that we must do

we are "made whole" by grace...not by simple magic formulas that only exist as concepts in our minds

...

and too...what if a non-christian manifests fruit of the spirit?

what if a non-evangelical christian teaches wisdom, heals the sick, feeds the poor, helps transform lives and bring peace?

is it possible that "biblically christian" is actually much much higher than what we think is "biblically christian"?

wider?

deeper?

why not?

what is possible?

do we need new tongues?

SirG,

I find these ideas fascinating and will spend some time with them. Comparing the born again experience with the phyiscal birth after 9 months' gestation is something else I'd not considered before.

Hi Bowtie. Regarding your question of Judas, I do not believe he was "born again."

The Bible is quite clear in calling him the man of perdition. If you read Peter in Acts, he is quite clear when he says Judas has no place with them. Peter does not hide what he thinks of Judas.

I believe Christ knew when he called him to follow him, who he was and what his role would be, the one fitted for Perdition - destruction.

Yet, what I find incredible, is even then, Christ treats him as his closest friend when he hands him the sop. He trusts him with their money. What this shows me is that, even after offering his love and friendship to Judas, it shows me that a man's nature - one who does not love God - even if Christ were to be with him in the flesh, if he does not accept Christ as Messiah/Savior, he cannot be forced to believe, his nature cannot be changed, and God will not overstep the man's free will. Man's nature is still enmity with God. Judas after being with Christ (Emmanuel - God with us) still did not accept him, nor his love.

There are times when Satan, faced with a monumental and pivotal task that must be done right to accomplish his will, will do something himself, such as when he tempted Christ in the wilderness and Adam and Eve in the Garden. Satan, in order to get the ball rolling for Christ to be killed, thought this so important, that he entered into Judas. He entered into Judas.

The only other person Satan will ever enter into in the Word is yet to come - the Antichrist.

So, to me, there were only two men ever entered into by Satan in the Word - Judas and Antichrist.

Thus, I personally do not think Judas was ever then or now, born again. But that is just my opinion. :)

Sunesis - As always, I'm delighted to consider your thoughts. You have a wonderful understanding and very clear manner of communicating. I'll spend some time with this post today. Thanks so much!

Ever notice they're the only 2 men referred to in the KJV as "son of perdition"?

I've wondered sometimes whether that means that "the Antichrist" as you called him, or,

as II Thessalonians called him, the "man of sins",

would be-like Judas-

a man claiming to be religious,

given to making pious displays and statements

("that could have been sold, and the money given to the poor")

and using a position as a servant of God to satisfy his lusts ("he had the bag, and bore what was therein.")

I don't have any answers to that.

And I've been wondering it for a long time.

Wordwolf - Another thought-provoking post from you that quenches my thirst for understanding of these matters, as well as the following post you offered. I wish I could stay here and study this subject, but work beckons. I'm looking forward to reading these more thoroughly this evening. Thanks so much!

[rascal]

You know...this guy used the scriptures to teach people that it was ok NOT to do what God says we should.

He used scriptures to teach that adultery was acceptible under certain circumstances, that drunkeness was ok, that cruel behavior was at times justified if one was spiritually angry...lying was at times necessary....etc.

He used the scriptures to teach contrary to what Jesus said about examining fruit.

Biggest of all...he used the scriptures to teach why the two great commandments weren`t applicable, and why we didn`t need to love others. He redefined neighbor to suit his purposes.

Yeah he taught bible, but it would seem mostly as an escape clause and justification for any activity or perversion that he wished to indulge in.

I think if we weren`t emotionally involved because he was *our* teacher, we might be a little more circumspect about this man and his activities.

I think to label him as a christian is giving him WAY to much credit. To treat him with the respect and love due a brother in Christ when the fruit that we were told we would recognize one another was conspicuously absent through out his life, is I believe a mistake

You know oldies? The scriptures talk about how easy it is to be nice to the people that you like....it says even the most evil people can manage that. So your stories of his pleasantness to a small group of people during a small time period, are not indicative of fruit that would identify him as a brother.

I think wierwille probably really was nice to the people he liked, the folks that did the things that he liked, maybe you and your family saw that side of him. That however isn`t the mark of a christian or a rightious man who is kind to all.

Do you know that even his treatment of his dog is condemned in the scriptures???

Edited February 27, 2008 by rascal

[oldiesman]

so what you are saying is there is no *real* standard for a person OUTSIDE of the one speaking to make ANY valid comments about the genuineness, or lack of..

and if that is the case:

speaking in tongues means absolutely NOTHING to anybody, except to the one speaking. Only he knows whether he is supposedly sincere, or faking it. Then It is an external evidence to others- of absolutely NOTHING.

Ham,

It's still a question of faith. The whole bible is like that for us today. Did anyone here ever actually see Jesus? I haven't. Its faith. "Blessed are those who have not seen yet have believed".

OM - Please stop passing judgment on others' contributions to this discussion. You're not the final authority and if you want a thread where you can dub someone's thoughts as mislabelling and trash go start one. Don't act like you're involved in an intelligent, friendly exchange of ideas and then whammo - out of nowhere insult the other participants and their ideas.

Bowtwi,

the forums are here for lively discussion and debate. This was never meant to be a safe zone where ideas and viewpoints go unchallenged.

Edited February 27, 2008 by oldiesman

[bowtwi]

... Bowtwi,

the forums are here for lively discussion and debate. This was never meant to be a safe zone where ideas and viewpoints go unchallenged.

Oldies - Attacking people's thoughts is not lively discussion and debate. Accusing them of "mislabelling and disparaging the word saying they are "formulas" you're watering it down and doing it harm. You are trashing it." is not lively discussion or debate - it is insulting, condescending and rude. What makes YOU the authority? What makes you think you know so much better than anyone, everyone else?

You might try reading what you plan to post in a preview fashion and considering if you'd like that said to you. I think you'd run to the moderators to report that as a personal attack if what I just quoted you saying to SirGuessALot was said to you.

If you're so sure of your position why must you speak this way to your brethren?

I still believe this thread can be lively discussion and debate if you would simply address others as you would like them to address you. If not, please start your own thread to be rude and insulting - I'll gladly stay away from that one!

You know...this guy used the scriptures to teach people that it was ok NOT to do what God says we should.

He used scriptures to teach that adultery was acceptible under certain circumstances, that drunkeness was ok, that cruel behavior was at times justified if one was spiritually angry...lying was at times necessary....etc.

He used the scriptures to teach contrary to what Jesus said about examining fruit.

Biggest of all...he used the scriptures to teach why the two great commandments weren`t applicable, and why we didn`t need to love others. He redefined neighbor to suit his purposes.

Yeah he taught bible, but it would seem mostly as an escape clause and justification for any activity or perversion that he wished to indulge in.

I think if we weren`t emotionally involved because he was *our* teacher, we might be a little more circumspect about this man and his activities.

I think to label him as a christian is giving him WAY to much credit. To treat him with the respect and love due a brother in Christ when the fruit that we were told we would recognize one another was conspicuously absent through out his life, is I believe a mistake

You know oldies? The scriptures talk about how easy it is to be nice to the people that you like....it says even the most evil people can manage that. So your stories of his pleasantness to a small group of people during a small time period, are not indicative of fruit that would identify him as a brother.

I think wierwille probably really was nice to the people he liked, the folks that did the things that he liked, maybe you and your family saw that side of him. That however isn`t the mark of a christian or a rightious man who is kind to all.

Do you know that even his treatment of his dog is condemned in the scriptures???

Rascal - These are great points and a perfect example for Oldies to see how we can speak our differences of opinion without insulting the other people. This is much more conducive to helping others learning and growing. Thanks!

[oldiesman]

You know oldies? The scriptures talk about how easy it is to be nice to the people that you like....it says even the most evil people can manage that. So your stories of his pleasantness to a small group of people during a small time period, are not indicative of fruit that would identify him as a brother.

I think wierwille probably really was nice to the people he liked, the folks that did the things that he liked, maybe you and your family saw that side of him. That however isn`t the mark of a christian or a rightious man who is kind to all.

Do you know that even his treatment of his dog is condemned in the scriptures???

Rascal,

I don't know about the treatment of his dog but whenever I viewed one they didn't look abused.

Regarding my experiences with the man, I'm bearing witness to what I saw and experienced. Anything other than that for me would be bearing false witness.

[oldiesman]

Oldies - Attacking people's thoughts is not lively discussion and debate. Accusing them of "mislabelling and disparaging the word saying they are "formulas" you're watering it down and doing it harm. You are trashing it." is not lively discussion or debate - it is insulting, condescending and rude. What makes YOU the authority? What makes you think you know so much better than anyone, everyone else?

Bowtwi,

When someone says that Romans 10:9 and 10 is a formula, that comment is trashing scripture. It's making a derogatory comment about a promise of God. That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it.

You might try reading what you plan to post in a preview fashion and considering if you'd like that said to you. I think you'd run to the moderators to report that as a personal attack if what I just quoted you saying to SirGuessALot was said to you.

I don't think so Bowtwi. It's not a personal attack to say that someone's post is trashing scripture. We are talking about ideas here, not people. But if you do think that a posting is getting personal with a poster please go ahead and report it and see what the moderators say.

If you're so sure of your position why must you speak this way to your brethren?

What way? Being direct? Challenging viewpoints and communicating what I think of those viewpoints? This is exactly what the forums are here for...

I still believe this thread can be lively discussion and debate if you would simply address others as you would like them to address you. If not, please start your own thread to be rude and insulting - I'll gladly stay away from that one!

I AM addressing others as I would like them to address me. I am speaking to the viewpoints, not getting personal. I like that others do the same.

Bowtwi, please, if you don't understand the difference and what it means to get personal, please email Paw and he will explain it to you. But wasting your time judging my posts are just that, a waste of your time and mine. Let's talk about the issues.

Edited February 27, 2008 by oldiesman

[cman]

And what does it mean to confess Jesus as Lord and the rest of those two verses oldiesman?

What does it mean to you? Personally, If I may add.

Instead of some big scripture quoting contest.

[rascal]

Rascal,

I don't know about the treatment of his dog but whenever I viewed one they didn't look abused.

Regarding my experiences with the man, I'm bearing witness to what I saw and experienced. Anything other than that for me would be bearing false witness.

More than one poster here have related accounts of him beating the holy h`ll out of his dog while the dog screamed in pain writhing beneith the blows. He claimed it was necessary to teach the dog not to dissobey. A rightious man regardeth the life of his beast. A rightious man is kind to all....are a few things scripturally that come to mind.

[oldiesman]

And what does it mean to confess Jesus as Lord and the rest of those two verses oldiesman?

What does it mean to you? Personally, If I may add.

Instead of some big scripture quoting contest.

Cman,

What it means to me is an individual's full belief in and acceptance of all the works of Jesus Christ while he was on this earth, personal belief in all the accomplishment of those works, personal confession of him as one's lord and saviour, belief that God raised him from the dead, and personal acceptance and belief of God's redemptive plan for mankind through belief in his son Jesus Christ, the Messiah.

Edited February 27, 2008 by oldiesman

[bowtwi]

Oldies - The rest of that section from page 1 of this site says the following:

"These forums are meant to be a place of discussion, where ideas and debates are encouraged. We welcome your opinion.

In that light, please be courteous to fellow posters. Disagree all you want, but respect the fact that someone else may feel as strongly about their ideas as you do about your own. Please don't make it personal. A lively discussions of ideas is both more polite and more relevant. "

I bolded the last sentence in hopes you would see that the sentence containing "lively discussion" also contains the words "polite" and "relevant".

In the quote of yours I brought up, you used 5 different choices to describe your opinion of what SirG said and what he said was presented in a polite manner.

1 mislabelling

2 disparaging the word

3 watering it down

4 doing it harm

5 You are trashing it.

Personally, I disagree with your assessment of SirG's statements. I think he communicated very clearly and stayed on topic. If this is what you consider direct, again, I respectfully disagree with you. This appears completely IMpolite - rude actually - and even personal in my opinion. This is the type of thing I'm asking you to please stop doing on this thread. It distracts me personally from the subject at hand.

Thank you.

[cman]

OM, would this also include accepting all that Jesus taught?

Not trying to set you up, but just to point that out also.

As well as being shown by the spirit what he was talking about.