I'd generally attempt to refute or at least present another viewpoint to anyone who said Paul was the VPW of his day if I thought it would do any good but saying...
You got my attention but are wrong,
there are volumes written that say you are wrong,
you hardly have to be a human being to come up with your points,
pray, study, and possibly God will open your eyes.
Sheesh Caribousam,
I already don't give a fig what else you may have to say. Nice 'tude BTW!
JeffSjo, one of the downsides of a site like this is we can't see who we're talking to. Caribou might be some young guy or girl just trying to find their voice and maybe haven't mastered the best way to frame something. You seem a bit more seasoned. How about we give this guy some room?
JeffSjo, one of the downsides of a site like this is we can't see who we're talking to. Caribou might be some young guy or girl just trying to find their voice and maybe haven't mastered the best way to frame something. You seem a bit more seasoned. How about we give this guy some room?
Hi erkjohn,
The internet being what it is you are right that Caribousam may be anyone. The profile gives a fifty year old person of indeterminate gender, for whatever that is worth. And I believe that in certain circumstances a fifty year old person may fit into the same category of a little boy or a little girl in terms of needing to find their own voice and be met with the same patience. But Caribousam has been a member here since Jan.07 and it seems most likely to me that his/her own voice is somewhat developed already.
And as I took it upon myself to send Caribousam's words back at him/her trying to be clear in what I heard in that voice I still feel ok in that I made it very clear that what I objected to in that voice ran far, far deeper than simply the intellectual content in the post. I have no problem implying fairly directly that Caribousam's voice I find to be objectionable and if I heard it correctly I'm hoping Caribousam takes it to heart and quits looking down on people like Waysider who IMO (as I've stated) has brought up a hard topic that I can see potential profit in, especially here at GSC where some folks see exactly another VPW when they read of Paul.
And even if I didn't have any further info about Caribousam to evaluate as if in conformation to my opinion as soon as I was done posting I saw that Caribousam had posted in "Rosestoyou's" thread in the "CES-STFI" section.
Caribousam posted what IMO is an ill-informed opinion of the health of CES, and in doing so completely ignored Rosestoyou's comments as if they were not even there. And in that post it seemed to me that Caribousam came to this thread in well worn TWI leadership manner in order to stomp all over Waysider and impress us and the CES folks with his/her bigshotness. (Yeah, I know, it's not a word, but maybe it should be. :) )
And if I'm wrong about Caribousam's intentions I'll be the first to admit it, but I am not backing down in suggesting some tweaking of Caribousam's voice needs to be done by Caribousam.
I don't mind Erkjohn's comments at all because I consider the caution to be a good one and one that I needed to hear even though I don't believe it applied in this instance. And I certainly feel no need for him to apologize to me or anyone else.
But if you have any issues you want to deal with other than simply pointing out you don't see it my way, try bringing up a thread to deal with our differences straight up Tzai, if you are willing to do something possibly productive and worthwhile that may be good for all who read it.
I don't mind Erkjohn's comments at all because I consider the caution to be a good one and one that I needed to hear even though I don't believe it applied in this instance. And I certainly feel no need for him to apologize to me or anyone else.
But if you have any issues you want to deal with other than simply pointing out you don't see it my way, try bringing up a thread to deal with our differences straight up Tzai, if you are willing to do something possibly productive and worthwhile that may be good for all who read it.
I don't do unproductive. I'm pretty sure that anything I offered wouldn't result in the kind of paradigm shift necessary to stop the behavior.
How many times have you heard someone say, "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me."? (Philippians 4:13) It became a mantra, even found its way into retemory cards and songs. But, look it that verse again. Is this verse really something that God is declaring to be one of the "over 900 promises" to the body of Christ talked about in PFAL? Or, is it simply something Paul said? Forget about administrations, to whom it is written, Jews, Gentiles, Church of God and all that stuff. It is simply not saying this is anything other than a declaration Paul made, of himself, to the people of Philippi. In other words, "Thus saith Paul."
I don't do unproductive. I'm pretty sure that anything I offered wouldn't result in the kind of paradigm shift necessary to stop the behavior.
Sorry, this will be brief.
I am about to be gone for most of the entire weekend without any real time in order to respond to anywhere this one might go. So it is with a little regret that any further response to this post may of necessity lack for the time being.
That is a very nice way of saying that your attempt to better my behavior is a waste of your time Tzaia, but the content of that sentiment seems a little off to me.
I'm still not sure what behavior you are referring to, so my chances of bettering myself right now is 0%. Heck, I had an entire splinter group w/ my ex-wife included who condemned me without giving me a chance to answer their accusations. Rest assured Tzaia, compared to that experience your "unknown to me" complaint is relatively inconsequential.
Although I enjoy your outspoken and somewhat brusque manner it has become obvious that you and I have some differences Tzaia. I would be happy to openly explore these too. But from my point of view any differences we might have and our possible discussion of these is only limited by your willingness to open up.
It might be that one or both of us will need to reevaluate something. But since the tenor of your post is that I am the only one needing a paradigm shift it seems unlikely that you would be willing to consider your own perspective as openly as I am willing to examine my own.
_____________________________
SORRY EVERYBODY, I HAVE NO IDEA HOW OR TIME TO TRY TO BRING THIS ONE BACK ON TRACK. Bye for now.
How many times have you heard someone say, "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me."? (Philippians 4:13) It became a mantra, even found its way into retemory cards and songs. But, look it that verse again. Is this verse really something that God is declaring to be one of the "over 900 promises" to the body of Christ talked about in PFAL? Or, is it simply something Paul said? Forget about administrations, to whom it is written, Jews, Gentiles, Church of God and all that stuff. It is simply not saying this is anything other than a declaration Paul made, of himself, to the people of Philippi. In other words, "Thus saith Paul."
This might be enough Waysider, to bring it back. let me bring this one to the end before I go.
How many times have you heard someone say, "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me."? (Philippians 4:13) It became a mantra, even found its way into retemory cards and songs. But, look it that verse again. Is this verse really something that God is declaring to be one of the "over 900 promises" to the body of Christ talked about in PFAL? Or, is it simply something Paul said? Forget about administrations, to whom it is written, Jews, Gentiles, Church of God and all that stuff. It is simply not saying this is anything other than a declaration Paul made, of himself, to the people of Philippi. In other words, "Thus saith Paul."
I BELIEVE THE CONTEXT OF THIS VERSE IS PAUL TALKING ABOUT LIVING CONDITIONS. THAT IS, HE IS ADEQUATE WITHIN CHRIST HIMSELF IN ALL SITUATIONS. IT DOES NOT MEAN, AS TWI SUPPOSED THAT HE COULD DO ANYTHING SUPERNATURAL OR OTHERWISE BECAUSE HE HAD THIS "FORCE" HIM. I SUPPOSE YOU CAN TAKE THIS AND MAKE IT MEANINGLESS IF YOU WISH BUT I THINK IT TRANSLATES INTO A LIFE LESSON. THAT IS "BE CONTENT".
I BELIEVE THE CONTEXT OF THIS VERSE IS PAUL TALKING ABOUT LIVING CONDITIONS. THAT IS, HE IS ADEQUATE WITHIN CHRIST HIMSELF IN ALL SITUATIONS. IT DOES NOT MEAN, AS TWI SUPPOSED THAT HE COULD DO ANYTHING SUPERNATURAL OR OTHERWISE BECAUSE HE HAD THIS "FORCE" HIM. I SUPPOSE YOU CAN TAKE THIS AND MAKE IT MEANINGLESS IF YOU WISH BUT I THINK IT TRANSLATES INTO A LIFE LESSON. THAT IS "BE CONTENT".
I can buy into that. One could conceivably find inspiration in seeing how Paul was able to make the best out of a bad situation. Lots of good lessons in there when seen from a non-mystical perspective. It might serve as an example of forbearance. I don't think that qualifies it as "meaningless". The point I am seeing here is that the verse is about what Paul felt HE could do because of the "Christ which strengthened" him, not what God said WE could do. (ie: It wasn't God telling us what we could do; it was Paul telling the Philippians what he, Paul, could do) It has a completely different meaning when viewed in that light, much different than the way we applied it in The Way. I'm not saying it's bad advise to be optimistic. Perhaps, as you say, the message here is, indeed, to "be content", "keep your chin up", etc. That's not necessarily a bad thing. On the other hand, I don't think it justifies irrational behavior, such as hitch-hiking to L.E.A.D., in some ridiculous time constraint, with virtually no money, and saying "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" as if that would make the venture anymore reasonable or possible.
I can buy into that. One could conceivably find inspiration in seeing how Paul was able to make the best out of a bad situation. Lots of good lessons in there when seen from a non-mystical perspective. It might serve as an example of forbearance. I don't think that qualifies it as "meaningless". The point I am seeing here is that the verse is about what Paul felt HE could do because of the "Christ which strengthened" him, not what God said WE could do. (ie: It wasn't God telling us what we could do; it was Paul telling the Philippians what he, Paul, could do) It has a completely different meaning when viewed in that light, much different than the way we applied it in The Way. I'm not saying it's bad advise to be optimistic. Perhaps, as you say, the message here is, indeed, to "be content", "keep your chin up", etc. That's not necessarily a bad thing. On the other hand, I don't think it justifies irrational behavior, such as hitch-hiking to L.E.A.D., in some ridiculous time constraint, with virtually no money, and saying "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" as if that would make the venture anymore reasonable or possible.
I agree, except that I believe Paul is implying the same holds true for all believers. That is, we are adequate and should be content regardless of our physical state. One thing I'd like to add, the idea of being content with what you have, trusting God, as it were, is not unique to Paul's teachings. Jesus taught it, Psalmists (David?) wrote about it, even other religions teach it. I heartily agree with you, however, that TWI butchered the application of this verse. In the WC, you were put to shame if you didn't make it to LEAD within a certain timeframe. I was shocked my first year when a team of 3 were arrested by the Kansas Highway Patrol as hitchhiking on the freeway is illegal! I thought, "Gosh, if people are getting arrested, maybe we should think of another way of doing this. But no, TWI just posted their bail and back on the road they went not being given any consideration for the time they spent in jail!
To justify themselves, TWI used this verse to knock us over the head. You know, you look back and ask yourself if there were ever warning signs you might have missed. Well, duh!
BTW, I wrote my last post as I was running out the door. The comment I made about "meaningless" doesn't fit with what you were saying and I would like to "strike it from the record".
Brothers, be imitators together of me, and observe them which walk so as you have us for an example.
Brothers, be imitators together of me, and observe them which walk so as you have us for an example.
Maybe?
too bad we don't have very many modern day "examples"..
at least in the boastful land of da prevailing word..
or offshoots.
what do we really have to imitate..
they all moved on.. got a life..
and I mean.. that's not bad. Sometimes all one can do is make a small, very small difference..
its better than nothing..
jl comes to mind. What real difference has he made.. maybe.. with his sat preparation thingy.. he got a few kids into a better college.. or at least got them better prepared.
if I were he.. I would put 99.7 percent of my effort into this..
but he chooses less than the tithe..
starts another damned *ministry*..
well, it's my opinion.. I wish he'd read or consider..
This is what Jeremiah the prophet told Baruch son of Neriah in the fourth year of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah, after Baruch had written on a scroll the words Jeremiah was then dictating: "This is what the lord, the God of Israel, says to you, Baruch: You said 'Woe to me! The Lord has added sorrow to my pain; I am worn out with groaning and find no rest.'" The Lord said "
Say this to him; "This is what the Lord says: I will overthrow what I have built and uproot what I have planted, throughout the land. Should you then seek great things for yourself? Seek them not. For I will bring disaster on all people, declares the Lord, but wherever you go I will let you escape with your life.'"
for "the record".. the message is written in stone, so to speak. If you don't choose to come to my domain, of "undisclosed persons", though I am hardly anonymous..
The - whatever Paul said, is whatever God said - thing, is something I've paid attention to a lot in the past.
Okay so - first you have that concept that God is the author, even though there were many writers. So okay,... I can buy into that because God outlives them all anyways (for one thing).
But in places it's clear that what God has had recorded, do not reflect his views, but rather, accurately describe the views of some person(s).
Sometimes it even says this outright, such as "But I speak this by permission and not of commandment." Interestingly enough my parents almost broke up over this and some really terrible advice being given to them (By a Way Leader) as though it were a commandment.
So the scriptures are pretty clear on this. It's possible for the words to be giving us Paul's understanding of a situation rather than God's - even while it's God telling Paul what to write.
I think about those men (prophets?) who accurately wrote concerning the manner of their deaths before they died.
Some of Paul's "logical arguements' seem strange when I ask my self IF I can envision GOD making the same arguement. Well no, not really I can't. If God were saying it, it would sound silly. --- "...Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?..." --- well, duh...!
In most of Paul's writings the letters seem to be authored by Paul, written by Paul. I'm just saying that, that's the style they are written in.
They convey God's will? well,... they tell the story God wanted told. You get free choice out of the starting gate, you read it, you decide. If you love God, you'll probably trust him, if you were in twi, you'll unserstandably be cautious of any man. IT's one heck of a position to be dumped into.
I'm not sure of - at what point - you begin to trust God. There's been so much written on the subject across so many years by so many people. But choice is key!
Wierwille's doctrine in his own words was that people should treat his suggestions as commandments.
So it is no surprise for me that Wayfers; but others too I suppose; had a hard time handling the things Paul spoke of permission and not commandment.
When I hear Paul and understand him too as best I can, I'm looking for commandments. But when I see him write of permission I know I have the liberty to think and decide for myself, period. But it wouldn't surprise to end up seeing merit in what Paul said if I decided on another course, which in these cases is my right IMO.
One thing I remember doing is practically canonizing Wierwille's oneliners as a Wayfer. Now that I know Wierwille's private issues better it kind of galls me (almost to the point of nausea sometimes) to think I considered his oneliners with such reverence.
What I'm considering now is this question....
How likely is it that I can treat Paul's statements with as little thorough consideration as I did Wierwille's?
Right now I'm thinking that Paul's statements may be misconstrued as easily as anyone's.
But personally, I'm still thankful to be considering Paul's words with reverence and I'm thankful also to know that Wierwille and his words are not to be held in high esteem, except in the rare cases where they actually may be in harmony with the original intent of the scriptures.
Considering how poisonous TWI's leaven was it seems no easy task to seperate the good from the bad. IMO it might be safer to start from scratch rather than lionize any accidental good that came from the "leavened lump" of TWI. But certainly to each his/her own according to conscience.
One thing I remember doing is practically canonizing Wierwille's oneliners as a Wayfer. Now that I know Wierwille's private issues better it kind of galls me (almost to the point of nausea sometimes) to think I considered his oneliners with such reverence.
What I'm considering now is this question....
How likely is it that I can treat Paul's statements with as little thorough consideration as I did Wierwille's?
Right now I'm thinking that Paul's statements may be misconstrued as easily as anyone's.
A lot of what Paul said did not "fly" as it was so outside the realm of the common Judean understanding of God. It didn't necessarily agree with new-found Christianity, either.
I think quite a few of VPW's oneliners were pretty good. The only question is whether they were really his oneliners or someone else's. A common problem is giving someone's words more weight because of who they are. I think the question needs to be asked what that person has done to deserve influence in your life. There is nothing wrong with maintaining a healthy skepticism. That was where so many went wrong. There was/is nothing healthy about how that man was/is regarded. And it wouldn't matter what he had or hadn't done behind closed doors to deserve or not deserve it. You've gone from revering the man to him making you sick. He really doesn't deserve that much energy. For me, the man was never all that. He definitely had a presence about him, but he was also creepy. I got that vibe the first time I had a conversation with him. Paul - I don't know. I am less inclined to believe that everything he did or wrote on behalf of Jesus was necessarily inspired. I refuse to be held hostage by someone else's unproven assertions.
Sure Paul's statements have been misconstrued. The lack of women in positions of leadership in some denominations comes from words right out of Paul's mouth. Women don't cut their hair because of Paul. The treatment of homosexuals in the church is another example.
A lot of what Paul said did not "fly" as it was so outside the realm of the common Judean understanding of God. It didn't necessarily agree with new-found Christianity, either.
The lack of women in positions of leadership in some denominations comes from words right out of Paul's mouth (emphasis added). Women don't cut their hair because of Paul. The treatment of homosexuals in the church is another example.
Actually, history points out that women had more voice and more involvement in church administration under early Christendom then they had historically up to that point. The same held true when Jesus walked the earth. There were actually women in leadership in the early church. This is in comparison to the Jewish, Greek, and Roman religions of the time. I have to admit I do not understand the passage about women not cutting their hair. While Paul and Christianity often get tagged for being chauvenistic, in reality the opposite is true.
Actually, history points out that women had more voice and more involvement in church administration under early Christendom then they had historically up to that point. The same held true when Jesus walked the earth. There were actually women in leadership in the early church. This is in comparison to the Jewish, Greek, and Roman religions of the time. I have to admit I do not understand the passage about women not cutting their hair. While Paul and Christianity often get tagged for being chauvenistic, in reality the opposite is true.
I understand that, but what he says is taken as being anti-woman and used against women when it comes to holding positions of authority.
A lot of what Paul said did not "fly" as it was so outside the realm of the common Judean understanding of God. It didn't necessarily agree with new-found Christianity, either.
I think quite a few of VPW's oneliners were pretty good. The only question is whether they were really his oneliners or someone else's. A common problem is giving someone's words more weight because of who they are. I think the question needs to be asked what that person has done to deserve influence in your life. There is nothing wrong with maintaining a healthy skepticism. That was where so many went wrong. There was/is nothing healthy about how that man was/is regarded. And it wouldn't matter what he had or hadn't done behind closed doors to deserve or not deserve it. You've gone from revering the man to him making you sick. He really doesn't deserve that much energy.
Well it seems that after PFAL and after some TWI style socialization that most everybody in TWI at the time had an unhealthy reverence for Wierwille, and after him there was Martindale, Geer, Rosie, JAL and who knows how many more mini-mog. Looking back it seems obvious that Wierwille did not deserve this reverence, especially because him and TWI so effectively hid the type of man he was behind closed doors.
You may call that into question your reaction to his behind doors behavior for yourself Tzaia, but his behavior is significant to me. And as to your attempt to qualify your opinion of my reaction whether physical, emotional, or spiritual it is still as I said before a relatively inconsequential concern to me.
For me, the man was never all that. He definitely had a presence about him, but he was also creepy. I got that vibe the first time I had a conversation with him. Paul - I don't know. I am less inclined to believe that everything he did or wrote on behalf of Jesus was necessarily inspired. I refuse to be held hostage by someone else's unproven assertions.
This part about Wierwille creeping you out in person would definitely be something I'd be interesting in hearing Tzaia. How long were you a wayfer or a participant in TWI and/or it's splinter groups after being creeped out by the MOG?
What exactly if anything held you captive to such an unhealthy and disfunctional group after being creeped out by the top dog? I guess I'm wondering because most everything I've heard about Wierwille was second hand. But after my time in RRF and much first hand exposure to a very similar disfunctional and cruel religious system as in TWI it seems to me that I understood many things better about Wierwille after seeing someone up close who called himself "a true son of Wierwille."
As my experience came with considerable personal loss I feel perfectly free to tell you that the TWI mogs and minimogs are worth a full and fully vetted emotional reaction. Victims really don't give a fig what some intellectually insulated individual thinks about their emotions as pertaining to decades of misplaced reverence, lost time, lost families, suicides of friends or relatives, or any other of the personal little hells that TWI and the splinters may have put us through IMO.
I have noted even here from time to time an attempt to insulate TWI and it's progeny from the just emotional reaction of it's victims. Sometimes it seems these attempts may be the result of sincere good intentions, but others it seemed to be the attempts of TWI apologists to silence the victims. Either way I am not accepting any encouragement to be quite or minimize my emotional reactions to TWI travesties.
Sure Paul's statements have been misconstrued. The lack of women in positions of leadership in some denominations comes from words right out of Paul's mouth. Women don't cut their hair because of Paul. The treatment of homosexuals in the church is another example.
I understand that, but what he says is taken as being anti-woman and used against women when it comes to holding positions of authority.
So as pertaining Paul, does anyone ever, throughout history record that he had victims aplenty as VPW had and has?
Does all Paul's bad press for his statements because they are misconstrued? Personally, I vote for good Pauline statements and a multitude of bad private interpretations whether from honest mistakes or outright Wierwillian style depravity.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
73
31
47
76
Popular Days
Feb 3
25
Feb 21
21
Jul 16
21
May 15
21
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 73 posts
geisha779 31 posts
waysider 47 posts
TLC 76 posts
Popular Days
Feb 3 2010
25 posts
Feb 21 2010
21 posts
Jul 16 2018
21 posts
May 15 2019
21 posts
Popular Posts
Sunesis
Well, we do have over 30,000 Christian denominations, so I don't think you're going to see all Christians agreeing. I imagine that's why it is more important to God that we keep the unity of the Spir
Broken Arrow
I think I get what you're trying to do here as far as getting people to think through something that may have simply been accepted blindly. I'm not going to offer a lengthy defense as to the authenti
Raf
First, to DWBH, please, let's keep it about content and not about people. And in that vein...I for one don't care one whit about what TLCÂ might see or think on the matter. I only care about the actual
Posted Images
Broken Arrow
JeffSjo, one of the downsides of a site like this is we can't see who we're talking to. Caribou might be some young guy or girl just trying to find their voice and maybe haven't mastered the best way to frame something. You seem a bit more seasoned. How about we give this guy some room?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Hi erkjohn,
The internet being what it is you are right that Caribousam may be anyone. The profile gives a fifty year old person of indeterminate gender, for whatever that is worth. And I believe that in certain circumstances a fifty year old person may fit into the same category of a little boy or a little girl in terms of needing to find their own voice and be met with the same patience. But Caribousam has been a member here since Jan.07 and it seems most likely to me that his/her own voice is somewhat developed already.
And as I took it upon myself to send Caribousam's words back at him/her trying to be clear in what I heard in that voice I still feel ok in that I made it very clear that what I objected to in that voice ran far, far deeper than simply the intellectual content in the post. I have no problem implying fairly directly that Caribousam's voice I find to be objectionable and if I heard it correctly I'm hoping Caribousam takes it to heart and quits looking down on people like Waysider who IMO (as I've stated) has brought up a hard topic that I can see potential profit in, especially here at GSC where some folks see exactly another VPW when they read of Paul.
And even if I didn't have any further info about Caribousam to evaluate as if in conformation to my opinion as soon as I was done posting I saw that Caribousam had posted in "Rosestoyou's" thread in the "CES-STFI" section.
Caribousam posted what IMO is an ill-informed opinion of the health of CES, and in doing so completely ignored Rosestoyou's comments as if they were not even there. And in that post it seemed to me that Caribousam came to this thread in well worn TWI leadership manner in order to stomp all over Waysider and impress us and the CES folks with his/her bigshotness. (Yeah, I know, it's not a word, but maybe it should be. :) )
And if I'm wrong about Caribousam's intentions I'll be the first to admit it, but I am not backing down in suggesting some tweaking of Caribousam's voice needs to be done by Caribousam.
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Yeah, well, maybe I'll just mind my own business. Sorry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Well I guess he told you [sarcastic smirk].
Seriously - Jeff - knock it off. Not all of us view the world through your filter, nor do we have to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
I don't mind Erkjohn's comments at all because I consider the caution to be a good one and one that I needed to hear even though I don't believe it applied in this instance. And I certainly feel no need for him to apologize to me or anyone else.
But if you have any issues you want to deal with other than simply pointing out you don't see it my way, try bringing up a thread to deal with our differences straight up Tzai, if you are willing to do something possibly productive and worthwhile that may be good for all who read it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
I don't do unproductive. I'm pretty sure that anything I offered wouldn't result in the kind of paradigm shift necessary to stop the behavior.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
How many times have you heard someone say, "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me."? (Philippians 4:13) It became a mantra, even found its way into retemory cards and songs. But, look it that verse again. Is this verse really something that God is declaring to be one of the "over 900 promises" to the body of Christ talked about in PFAL? Or, is it simply something Paul said? Forget about administrations, to whom it is written, Jews, Gentiles, Church of God and all that stuff. It is simply not saying this is anything other than a declaration Paul made, of himself, to the people of Philippi. In other words, "Thus saith Paul."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
I am about to be gone for most of the entire weekend without any real time in order to respond to anywhere this one might go. So it is with a little regret that any further response to this post may of necessity lack for the time being.
That is a very nice way of saying that your attempt to better my behavior is a waste of your time Tzaia, but the content of that sentiment seems a little off to me.
I'm still not sure what behavior you are referring to, so my chances of bettering myself right now is 0%. Heck, I had an entire splinter group w/ my ex-wife included who condemned me without giving me a chance to answer their accusations. Rest assured Tzaia, compared to that experience your "unknown to me" complaint is relatively inconsequential.
Although I enjoy your outspoken and somewhat brusque manner it has become obvious that you and I have some differences Tzaia. I would be happy to openly explore these too. But from my point of view any differences we might have and our possible discussion of these is only limited by your willingness to open up.
It might be that one or both of us will need to reevaluate something. But since the tenor of your post is that I am the only one needing a paradigm shift it seems unlikely that you would be willing to consider your own perspective as openly as I am willing to examine my own.
_____________________________
SORRY EVERYBODY, I HAVE NO IDEA HOW OR TIME TO TRY TO BRING THIS ONE BACK ON TRACK. Bye for now.
This might be enough Waysider, to bring it back. let me bring this one to the end before I go.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
OK, I'll bring it back on track.
How many countless things did we drone on about, as if they were handed directly to us by God and meant explicitly for us personally?
The "I can do all things." quote is a perfect example.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Okay, now this is something I can relate to . . . . for a ministry that yakked about context. . . . they really missed the boat on this one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
I BELIEVE THE CONTEXT OF THIS VERSE IS PAUL TALKING ABOUT LIVING CONDITIONS. THAT IS, HE IS ADEQUATE WITHIN CHRIST HIMSELF IN ALL SITUATIONS. IT DOES NOT MEAN, AS TWI SUPPOSED THAT HE COULD DO ANYTHING SUPERNATURAL OR OTHERWISE BECAUSE HE HAD THIS "FORCE" HIM. I SUPPOSE YOU CAN TAKE THIS AND MAKE IT MEANINGLESS IF YOU WISH BUT I THINK IT TRANSLATES INTO A LIFE LESSON. THAT IS "BE CONTENT".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I can buy into that. One could conceivably find inspiration in seeing how Paul was able to make the best out of a bad situation. Lots of good lessons in there when seen from a non-mystical perspective. It might serve as an example of forbearance. I don't think that qualifies it as "meaningless". The point I am seeing here is that the verse is about what Paul felt HE could do because of the "Christ which strengthened" him, not what God said WE could do. (ie: It wasn't God telling us what we could do; it was Paul telling the Philippians what he, Paul, could do) It has a completely different meaning when viewed in that light, much different than the way we applied it in The Way. I'm not saying it's bad advise to be optimistic. Perhaps, as you say, the message here is, indeed, to "be content", "keep your chin up", etc. That's not necessarily a bad thing. On the other hand, I don't think it justifies irrational behavior, such as hitch-hiking to L.E.A.D., in some ridiculous time constraint, with virtually no money, and saying "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" as if that would make the venture anymore reasonable or possible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Brothers, be imitators together of me, and observe them which walk so as you have us for an example.
Maybe?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
I agree, except that I believe Paul is implying the same holds true for all believers. That is, we are adequate and should be content regardless of our physical state. One thing I'd like to add, the idea of being content with what you have, trusting God, as it were, is not unique to Paul's teachings. Jesus taught it, Psalmists (David?) wrote about it, even other religions teach it. I heartily agree with you, however, that TWI butchered the application of this verse. In the WC, you were put to shame if you didn't make it to LEAD within a certain timeframe. I was shocked my first year when a team of 3 were arrested by the Kansas Highway Patrol as hitchhiking on the freeway is illegal! I thought, "Gosh, if people are getting arrested, maybe we should think of another way of doing this. But no, TWI just posted their bail and back on the road they went not being given any consideration for the time they spent in jail!
To justify themselves, TWI used this verse to knock us over the head. You know, you look back and ask yourself if there were ever warning signs you might have missed. Well, duh!
BTW, I wrote my last post as I was running out the door. The comment I made about "meaningless" doesn't fit with what you were saying and I would like to "strike it from the record".
I think so.
Edited by erkjohnLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
too bad we don't have very many modern day "examples"..
at least in the boastful land of da prevailing word..
or offshoots.
what do we really have to imitate..
they all moved on.. got a life..
and I mean.. that's not bad. Sometimes all one can do is make a small, very small difference..
its better than nothing..
jl comes to mind. What real difference has he made.. maybe.. with his sat preparation thingy.. he got a few kids into a better college.. or at least got them better prepared.
if I were he.. I would put 99.7 percent of my effort into this..
but he chooses less than the tithe..
starts another damned *ministry*..
well, it's my opinion.. I wish he'd read or consider..
why doesn't he just "move on"..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I don't quote the bible often anymore..
John L.-
Jeremiah 45
Take it or leave it, friend..
Edited by HamLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I'd quote a few modern prophets, but likely you wouldn't give them much credence either..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
for "the record".. the message is written in stone, so to speak. If you don't choose to come to my domain, of "undisclosed persons", though I am hardly anonymous..
blood is on your head..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
The - whatever Paul said, is whatever God said - thing, is something I've paid attention to a lot in the past.
Okay so - first you have that concept that God is the author, even though there were many writers. So okay,... I can buy into that because God outlives them all anyways (for one thing).
But in places it's clear that what God has had recorded, do not reflect his views, but rather, accurately describe the views of some person(s).
Sometimes it even says this outright, such as "But I speak this by permission and not of commandment." Interestingly enough my parents almost broke up over this and some really terrible advice being given to them (By a Way Leader) as though it were a commandment.
So the scriptures are pretty clear on this. It's possible for the words to be giving us Paul's understanding of a situation rather than God's - even while it's God telling Paul what to write.
I think about those men (prophets?) who accurately wrote concerning the manner of their deaths before they died.
Some of Paul's "logical arguements' seem strange when I ask my self IF I can envision GOD making the same arguement. Well no, not really I can't. If God were saying it, it would sound silly. --- "...Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?..." --- well, duh...!
In most of Paul's writings the letters seem to be authored by Paul, written by Paul. I'm just saying that, that's the style they are written in.
They convey God's will? well,... they tell the story God wanted told. You get free choice out of the starting gate, you read it, you decide. If you love God, you'll probably trust him, if you were in twi, you'll unserstandably be cautious of any man. IT's one heck of a position to be dumped into.
I'm not sure of - at what point - you begin to trust God. There's been so much written on the subject across so many years by so many people. But choice is key!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Wierwille's doctrine in his own words was that people should treat his suggestions as commandments.
So it is no surprise for me that Wayfers; but others too I suppose; had a hard time handling the things Paul spoke of permission and not commandment.
When I hear Paul and understand him too as best I can, I'm looking for commandments. But when I see him write of permission I know I have the liberty to think and decide for myself, period. But it wouldn't surprise to end up seeing merit in what Paul said if I decided on another course, which in these cases is my right IMO.
One thing I remember doing is practically canonizing Wierwille's oneliners as a Wayfer. Now that I know Wierwille's private issues better it kind of galls me (almost to the point of nausea sometimes) to think I considered his oneliners with such reverence.
What I'm considering now is this question....
How likely is it that I can treat Paul's statements with as little thorough consideration as I did Wierwille's?
Right now I'm thinking that Paul's statements may be misconstrued as easily as anyone's.
But personally, I'm still thankful to be considering Paul's words with reverence and I'm thankful also to know that Wierwille and his words are not to be held in high esteem, except in the rare cases where they actually may be in harmony with the original intent of the scriptures.
Considering how poisonous TWI's leaven was it seems no easy task to seperate the good from the bad. IMO it might be safer to start from scratch rather than lionize any accidental good that came from the "leavened lump" of TWI. But certainly to each his/her own according to conscience.
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
A lot of what Paul said did not "fly" as it was so outside the realm of the common Judean understanding of God. It didn't necessarily agree with new-found Christianity, either.
I think quite a few of VPW's oneliners were pretty good. The only question is whether they were really his oneliners or someone else's. A common problem is giving someone's words more weight because of who they are. I think the question needs to be asked what that person has done to deserve influence in your life. There is nothing wrong with maintaining a healthy skepticism. That was where so many went wrong. There was/is nothing healthy about how that man was/is regarded. And it wouldn't matter what he had or hadn't done behind closed doors to deserve or not deserve it. You've gone from revering the man to him making you sick. He really doesn't deserve that much energy. For me, the man was never all that. He definitely had a presence about him, but he was also creepy. I got that vibe the first time I had a conversation with him. Paul - I don't know. I am less inclined to believe that everything he did or wrote on behalf of Jesus was necessarily inspired. I refuse to be held hostage by someone else's unproven assertions.
Sure Paul's statements have been misconstrued. The lack of women in positions of leadership in some denominations comes from words right out of Paul's mouth. Women don't cut their hair because of Paul. The treatment of homosexuals in the church is another example.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Actually, history points out that women had more voice and more involvement in church administration under early Christendom then they had historically up to that point. The same held true when Jesus walked the earth. There were actually women in leadership in the early church. This is in comparison to the Jewish, Greek, and Roman religions of the time. I have to admit I do not understand the passage about women not cutting their hair. While Paul and Christianity often get tagged for being chauvenistic, in reality the opposite is true.
Edited by erkjohnLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
I understand that, but what he says is taken as being anti-woman and used against women when it comes to holding positions of authority.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Well it seems that after PFAL and after some TWI style socialization that most everybody in TWI at the time had an unhealthy reverence for Wierwille, and after him there was Martindale, Geer, Rosie, JAL and who knows how many more mini-mog. Looking back it seems obvious that Wierwille did not deserve this reverence, especially because him and TWI so effectively hid the type of man he was behind closed doors.
You may call that into question your reaction to his behind doors behavior for yourself Tzaia, but his behavior is significant to me. And as to your attempt to qualify your opinion of my reaction whether physical, emotional, or spiritual it is still as I said before a relatively inconsequential concern to me.
This part about Wierwille creeping you out in person would definitely be something I'd be interesting in hearing Tzaia. How long were you a wayfer or a participant in TWI and/or it's splinter groups after being creeped out by the MOG?
What exactly if anything held you captive to such an unhealthy and disfunctional group after being creeped out by the top dog? I guess I'm wondering because most everything I've heard about Wierwille was second hand. But after my time in RRF and much first hand exposure to a very similar disfunctional and cruel religious system as in TWI it seems to me that I understood many things better about Wierwille after seeing someone up close who called himself "a true son of Wierwille."
As my experience came with considerable personal loss I feel perfectly free to tell you that the TWI mogs and minimogs are worth a full and fully vetted emotional reaction. Victims really don't give a fig what some intellectually insulated individual thinks about their emotions as pertaining to decades of misplaced reverence, lost time, lost families, suicides of friends or relatives, or any other of the personal little hells that TWI and the splinters may have put us through IMO.
I have noted even here from time to time an attempt to insulate TWI and it's progeny from the just emotional reaction of it's victims. Sometimes it seems these attempts may be the result of sincere good intentions, but others it seemed to be the attempts of TWI apologists to silence the victims. Either way I am not accepting any encouragement to be quite or minimize my emotional reactions to TWI travesties.
So as pertaining Paul, does anyone ever, throughout history record that he had victims aplenty as VPW had and has?
Does all Paul's bad press for his statements because they are misconstrued? Personally, I vote for good Pauline statements and a multitude of bad private interpretations whether from honest mistakes or outright Wierwillian style depravity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.