Rather, I’d say that (with James), “Everyone is put to the test by being attracted and seduced by that person's own lusts (over-desires). Then the desire conceives and gives birth to sin, and when sin reaches full growth, it gives birth to death.” Love that “gives birth to death”!
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the James verse is saying that "lusts", not love, give birth to death. Love doesn't give birth to death. Your observation seems to be equating love with lust.
Okay Steve, I am done . . . . sorry for the derail. . . . back to VP and his exegesis, eisegesis, and what he practiced. :)
I don't think you derailed the thread, geisha. I am remined of something my brother used to say when he was teaching his students, "Words have meanings, meanings lead to ideas, ideas lead to actions, actions have consequences. Therefore, words have consequences." Your posts, geisha, remind us that we aren't just playing some Greek crossword puzzle.
Wierwille's horrific depredations were the consequences of his eisegesis, his habit of making the Word say what he wanted it to say.
The fruits of all the wonderful Christian leaders you point to are the consequences of exegesis, reading what the Word actually says.
In your post of 8:24 am today, you wrote, "....they are praying to God. Not with perfect knowledge....but as Christians....in relationship to Jesus Christ....the same God." [emphasis added - Steve]
I think the primary thing about being a Christian is to be in relation with God through Jesus Christ. The written Word is a secondary aid to that relation. But Wierwille taught that "the written Word takes the place of the absent Christ," and the way things worked out, of course, his INTERPRETATION took the place of the written Word.
Bob - Sometimes my thinking races faster than I can read and write, and I don't communicate as well as I want to. That's what happened when I foolishly called inerrancy "foolish" on that other thread! I have had to deliberately slow down and focus while reading both geisha's and your posts. I don't think you and she are in as much disagreement as it might at first appear.
Ok, so when I was in River Road Fellowship I was likened to Nabal and Ahab. I was called a false prophet. I was referrred to as anti-christ, both before I left and referring to what I'd do after they kicked me out.
That would be examples of Barnard's thugs "exegesis" or "eisegesis", or something else?
Either way, when it was in my face a little but behind my back a lot, it was very hurtful.
I'll have to check on this later.......
I like the idea of this conversation moving into real world examples and I think some of the latest posts have cleared up my working definition of "eisegesis." However, if my working definition of the term comes up short, for me this is relatively inconsequential compared to the events and the consequences I am describing. Nevertheless, I'd prefer to be using the word eisegesis correctly and would appreciate any necessary correction.
Eisegesis worked against me in River Road Fellowship under the sway of one man, Victor Barnard.
Under his watch anyone could be terrorized any time they showed signs of thinking for themselves. And ANY negative biblical character or storyline that could be used to put people down was used, and regularly so IMO.
As I shared about somewhere in "my story" he likened me to Nabal, who died, and then his wife went to David in the biblical storyline. In a practical sense having an intellectual and somewhat sterile discussion concerning eisegesis doesn't do justice in and of itself to the amount of damage and control a free wheeling sociopath can do to somebody's life by controlling people's perception of the truth through eisegesis.
It seems true that everytime The Way International called somebody "possessed" they in effect did the same thing, and many here can attest to the damage it can cause.
Well I am glad in a way I helped with the monty python topic. I am glad I inspired here. I should respond to gandalf anyway. LOL. A lot of holy sciptures can be interpreted in many diffrent ways. For example "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". How can one interpet that phrase? Does it mean you literally mean you take an eye out or a tooth out if some does that to you? Can it also mean revenge. Can it mean justice? Or can it mean I don't like the way you look. I'll kill you how many other ways can that phrase can it be interpeted? What is the truth behind that phrase? What can one misinterpet that phrase. What do you want it to mean?
But I find that it is nigh impossible to not read "into" anything we read.
Wierwille said he let the scriptures speak for themselves but in retrospect was amazingly self-serving in terms of how he read "into" the scriptures IMO.
And for the record, he was twisted, vile, and evil in how he presented his eisegisis as exegesis. For an example..."All women belong to the king."
(I added the forth line in editing for clarification)
Well I am glad in a way I helped with the monty python topic. I am glad I inspired here. I should respond to gandalf anyway. LOL. A lot of holy sciptures can be interpreted in many diffrent ways. For example "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". How can one interpet that phrase? Does it mean you literally mean you take an eye out or a tooth out if some does that to you? Can it also mean revenge. Can it mean justice? Or can it mean I don't like the way you look. I'll kill you how many other ways can that phrase can it be interpeted? What is the truth behind that phrase? What can one misinterpet that phrase. What do you want it to mean?
The law was actually to put a limit on "blood feud", the only justice there was in pre-legal societies. It means, "If somebody puts your eye out, that's the worst thing you can do back to them. You can't kill 'em. You can't chop their hands off. If somebody knocks ONE of your teeth out, all you can do to get back at them is knock ONE of their teeth out. You can't knock out two.
I like the idea of this conversation moving into real world examples and I think some of the latest posts have cleared up my working definition of "eisegesis." However, if my working definition of the term comes up short, for me this is relatively inconsequential compared to the events and the consequences I am describing. Nevertheless, I'd prefer to be using the word eisegesis correctly and would appreciate any necessary correction.
Eisegesis worked against me in River Road Fellowship under the sway of one man, Victor Barnard.
Under his watch anyone could be terrorized any time they showed signs of thinking for themselves. And ANY neggative biblical character or storyline that could be used to put people down was used, and regularly so IMO.
As I shared about somewhere in "my story" he likened me to Nabal, who died, and then his wife to David in the biblical storyline. In a practical sense having an intellectual and somewhat sterile discussion concerning eisegesis doesn't do justice in and of itself to the amount of damage and control a free wheeling sociopath can do to somebody's life by controlling people's perception of the truth thrue eisegesis.
It seems true that everytime The Way International called somebody "possessed" they in effect did the same thing, and many here can attest to the damage it can cause.
I'm sorry to hear about the development of Victor Barnard's "progress." I first met him at Momentus. He was one of the alpha-males that the trainers beat down as an example to intimidate the rest of us. I felt sorry for him. I also felt a connection with him because of the years I had spent in the Twin Cities. I hadn't known him when I was in Minnesota, but at the time we took the Momentus training, he was in contact with other people who had been very near and dear to me. He sent me a copy of his paper on the church as the bride of Christ sometime after Momentus.
It's very sad to know that he has gone the way of Dale Sides, John Lynn and so many others who decided not to throw the baby out with the bath water, without bothering to figure out which was which.
I'd almost guarantee that his later hard-hearted harshness was one of the "benefits" of the Momentus training.
In the scheme of things "the way" was just another run of the mill christian faith...
Pretty much sums it up for me. Nicely said. Been through other "cults" (I guess we have to say that to be legit around here) and took what good there was. Again and again it was those damn humans who messed it up.
Just stopped into the office for a look see at the conflagration. I'll comment more later today.
And to add. . . and just so I am clear. . . I believe the little Baptist church on the corner, the one which maybe runs a soup kitchen . . . .
Is this perhaps the little baptist church with which you refer to?
Westboro Baptist Church
. . . . is part of the church Jesus Christ said He would build. . . . . .
Is that what Jesus intended and built?
same goes for the Methodist church which might be a bit larger and maybe supports missionaries.
Comment The same Methodist church that posted: The United Methodist Church's official lobby office is urging church agencies and members to divest their holdings in Caterpillar Inc. because the company sells bulldozers to Israel.
Comment: So much for their humanitarian missions...
the little Assemblies of God congregation that runs a Christian radio station out of their basement. . . . part of the world wide church. . . .
The same church that ordained this man?
The most honorable Jimmy Swaggart.
And this man?
James Dobson the prophetic "family man" who with his inimical insight said this about the Catholic Church.
Dobson and Charles Colson were two participants in a 2000 conference at the Vatican on the global economy's impact on families. During the conference, the two Protestants met with the Pope. Dobson later told Catholic News Service that though he has theological differences with Roman Catholicism, "when it comes to the family, there is far more agreement than disagreement, and with regard to moral issues from abortion to premarital sex, safe-sex ideology and homosexuality, I find more in common with Catholics than with some of my evangelical brothers and sisters.
Comment: I wonder what it is that Dobson has so much in common with all of the pedophile priests of the Catholic church?
the Pentecostal church down the street that is hopping on Sunday morning belongs too. . . .
Comment: Hopping is putting mildly.
the Lutheran Church which has spillover parking at a Dennys whether it be Missouri Synod or not . . in the church . . . . . I have knelt comfortably in Catholic churches and prayed. . . . . and on it goes.
Comment: In my estimate one has to be pretty hard up for fellowship to keep company with these organized churches.
Errr... No thanks I don't need a quaint little church that funnels their collection money to hate mongers...
Also: D.C. Catholic Charity Drops Health Coverage For All Spouses Over Gay Marriage Law
God forbid that a gay spouse should receive equality under the law. Perhaps the Roman catholic church should, have questioned Jesus' motives for healing the Roman centurions gay lover in the Gospels...
To seek perfection in the church is futile. One is better going solo and just loving God and abundantly sharing one on one. Then you know your money is not going to foster hate and inequality.
I am far better off with my cult of zero than you are out, "churching"...
Is this perhaps the little baptist church with which you refer to?
Westboro Baptist Church
They ain't no real church, they're a hate group.
When they came to my town to spew their hatred, we ignored them. The high school at which they had planned to protest closed for the day so as to not give them any attention.
Why would Wierwille preach so adamantly the importance of getting "to whom addressed" correct, and at the same time, so totally screw up the passage he used as an example? The implications are enormous, both for the license he allowed himself to sin, and all the rest of his theology.
Romans 11:20&21 say, "Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee." I believe Wierwille taught that Romans 9-11 is addressed to somebody other than Christians in order to rationalize his own high-mindedness. And it was his high-mindedness that led to all the evil practices described on this website. He taught us also to be high-minded, and those who have tried to perpetuate his works have done so, complete with high-mindedness and evil practices.
There's a lot more to this, but too much for right now.
Actually no Dr. W I was not thinking of that church. Coming from TWI it should come as no surprise that people twist the scriptures for gain and hate. As sensational as your post is. . . . it is somewhat redundant given where we are posting.
For every sensational thing you find about people who use faith for pain, profit, or gain. . . I can post a story of extraordinary self-sacrifice. Is that what you want? I can also dig up extraordinarily perverse acts committed by homosexuals. . . . but, I would rather speak of the people whom I love, who are extremely kind and good. . . and happen to be homosexual.
My niece just came out BTW.
If somehow you feel vindicated in your belief in zero by holding up examples of hurtful people. . . . please have at it. But note, I refrained from posting on your thread about zero. . . although I found it to be one of the most ridiculous conversations I have ever been privy to. . . . . I felt no need to point out the silly nature of your personal eisegesis . . . and was happy to let your conversation flow without comment.
As for defending the faith. . . .what do you all think was going on in the first century with Paul and the Apostles? This has really now become a joke.
Are people's ego's really so fragile that they cannot bear to hear of good in the church. . . . and must rationalize their own faith by the disdain for that which is good, while camouflaging it with extreme examples of hate? With sarcasm?. . . . Why is that so familiar to me?
I appreciate your efforts Steve, and your struggle to find sound doctrine. . . .I promise you . . . . it is out there.
Oops forgot Dr W . . . the Assemblies of God church I mentioned. . . . is the one in the next town over that runs a radio station. My son broadcasts from there. . . . and did I mention he advocates for gay rights from that basement. That station is run in cooperation of all the local churches.
Thank you for your kindness, Bob. I have to say that by myself I'm a pretty mediocre soul. It's just that the Lord has had a lot of patience with me. Not because of who I am, but because of who He is!
Actually no Dr. W I was not thinking of that church. Coming from TWI it should come as no surprise that people twist the scriptures for gain and hate. As sensational as your post is. . . . it is somewhat redundant given where we are posting.
For every sensational thing you find about people who use faith for pain, profit, or gain. . . I can post a story of extraordinary self-sacrifice. Is that what you want? I can also dig up extraordinarily perverse acts committed by homosexuals. . . . but, I would rather speak of the people whom I love, who are extremely kind and good. . . and happen to be homosexual.
My niece just came out BTW.
If somehow you feel vindicated in your belief in zero by holding up examples of hurtful people. . . . please have at it. But note, I refrained from posting on your thread about zero. . . although I found it to be one of the most ridiculous conversations I have ever been privy to. . . . . I felt no need to point out the silly nature of your personal eisegesis . . . and was happy to let your conversation flow without comment.
As for defending the faith. . . .what do you all think was going on in the first century with Paul and the Apostles? This has really now become a joke.
Are people's ego's really so fragile that they cannot bear to hear of good in the church. . . . and must rationalize their own faith by the disdain for that which is truly good, while camouflaging it with extreme examples of hate? With sarcasm?. . . . Why is that so familiar to me?
I appreciate your efforts Steve, and your struggle to find sound doctrine. . . .I promise you . . . . it is out there.
Oops forgot Dr W . . . the Assemblies of God church I mentioned. . . . is the one in the next town over that runs a radio station. My son broadcasts from there. . . . and did I mention he advocates for gay rights from that basement. That station is run in cooperation of all the local churches.
These are not only hurtful people they are hurtful systems of religion... The evil travels all the way to the top with the people who make policies... I just figured that for the record since you were painting such a serene picture of these errr "churches" while you gave Wierwille the stick I thought I might just post some of the reality of what these hate churches are actually doing with their monies to "feed the poor".
I won't contribute one single dime to a church that has even the slightest affiliation with this type of hate.
Perversity is not exclusive to homosexuals, in fact, heterosexuals are the number one manufacturers of perversity.
Parts of the bible are hateful and are certainly not indicative of a God of love and compassion.
Jesus also kept some strange bedfellows, for instance why would God need a new testament if he did not botch the old one.
No one can say that Wierwille did not warn us all about "religion"...
Subjective, objective, rejective... Thy words were found and I did; receive, retain and regurgitate them. :)
The law was actually to put a limit on "blood feud", the only justice there was in pre-legal societies. It means, "If somebody puts your eye out, that's the worst thing you can do back to them. You can't kill 'em. You can't chop their hands off. If somebody knocks ONE of your teeth out, all you can do to get back at them is knock ONE of their teeth out. You can't knock out two.
I agree with you. You see you proved my point. I bet if you asked anyone here that question here how many diffrent answers would you get?
No one can say that Wierwille did not warn us all about "religion"...
The man was pure genius. . . . he warned us about religion. . . .
However, it is what he pointed to and called religion that I take issue with. . . . because . . .that would be . . . just about every Christian on the planet. ...with the exception of those whose work he "borrowed" and forgot to credit. . . . his take on "religion" cast a pretty wide net.
We liked that remember? Made us feel really special . . . .We could even wash our feet in the blood! Hey, who doesn't want to be better than everyone else on the planet? After all, we had the "knowledge".
What better way to be special than point fingers at the people who were actually doing the heavy lifting . . .VP was brilliant. . . he even found a way to cut out the loony Fred Phelps types. . . . and went straight at Mother Theresa.
Yep. . . pure genius.
Sorry Dr WW. . . . I just don't have the patience for it anymore.
The man was pure genius. . . . he warned us about religion. . . .
However, it is what he pointed to and called religion that I take issue with. . . . because . . .that would be . . . just about every Christian on the planet. ...with the exception of those whose work he "borrowed" and forgot to credit. . . . his take on "religion" cast a pretty wide net.
We liked that remember? Made us feel really special . . . .We could even wash our feet in the blood! Hey, who doesn't want to be better than everyone else on the planet? After all, we had the "knowledge".
What better way to be special than point fingers at the people who were actually doing the heavy lifting . . .VP was brilliant. . . he even found a way to cut out the loony Fred Phelps types. . . . and went straight at Mother Theresa.
Yep. . . pure genius.
Sorry Dr WW. . . . I just don't have the patience for it anymore.
I don't see why it has to be an all or nothing deal, such as superlatives and err, "the fence".
VP was what he was. I don't really care who he slept with. That was between him, his wife, those who consented to sleep with him and God. I did not care for his double standard but I do remember him on several occasions telling us with tears in his eyes that he was "unworthy". That should have indicated to those concerned that he was admitting that he was neither faultless nor sinless. I came to the way to learn what he had to teach. I don't consider adultery to be the end all of sins. Just like Tiger Woods I just don't really care at all... Perhaps VP's adultery was secretly condoned by his wife, I don't know, I don't care...
Even Paul the apostle was haunted by his own thorns in the flesh. Yet, Paul did not have his dirty laundry published in the way magazine and the local town rag. If they were published well the catholic church and Constantine burned them long ago. I still to this day consider what I learned from VP of profound value and think it was a much better biblical education then what I could have obtained from any other biblical institution at the time or even today. I don't care if he plagiarized his message from a bathroom wall, he for the most part expanded it and made it his own and put his own character into it.
Though his character is in question, as I said, I don't consider his sins to have totally negated his message. He was a loving spiritual father with faults. Charity covers a multitude of sins. He was was a daddy with faults, aren't we all with our own faults and sins? He struggled with his own faults in his own heart, soul and mind, torn between his human desires and the will to find God and truth. We all struggle in the exact same way. I feel sometimes that VP would have boldly struck up for the weakest of the family of God, he invited us all into his ministry when we were yet sinners and had lost our way. Acid popping pot smokers and hippies he converted into disciples of God. Hindsight is 20/20.
So what is the gripe? Over time legalism set in and I don't see him as ever leaving the ministry... he just simply died. In his wake he left us to fend for ourselves and much of our own bitterness is misplaced in that we resent him for leaving us early. In this resentment we have lost sight of the legacy he left behind. We are all better people in having known VP and it is in his shadow that we are what we are in that we have this unique connection to each other.
I am blessed to be in the group of believers he left behind to pick up the pieces, carry the torch and go on with the ministry of grace.
I just don't take it all to seriously. When we wake up from the "I was abused" syndrome someday we may thank our father in the word and learn to appreciate some of the benefits to have sat at his feet and listened to him teach. Someday we may say, yes, he was unworthy but aren't we all?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
39
90
45
29
Popular Days
Mar 24
34
Mar 25
28
Apr 10
24
Mar 23
21
Top Posters In This Topic
year2027 39 posts
Steve Lortz 90 posts
geisha779 45 posts
roberterasmus 29 posts
Popular Days
Mar 24 2010
34 posts
Mar 25 2010
28 posts
Apr 10 2010
24 posts
Mar 23 2010
21 posts
Popular Posts
geisha779
Hebrews 4:12 .. . . to whom is it written? It was written to the Jews who had intellectually agreed to the gospel, the facts about Jesus, the authority and power of the 1st century church, but were no
geisha779
Hey Gen-2 I am curious what people think strong meat really is? :) Perhaps it is. . . to the measure of the stature of the fullness in Christ. . . . and not some super-duper special x-ray ability,
cman
Excuse me there Bob, but your post has a narrow view. I will not use the word you used to describe a perspective. Other words come to mind. But, you are, as all, entitled to your own works.
cman
that's ok with me
as long as i can do the same
without someone's ideas being forced on me
although i'm free to consider them
and i should abide by not forcing my ideas as well...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the James verse is saying that "lusts", not love, give birth to death. Love doesn't give birth to death. Your observation seems to be equating love with lust.
Edited by soul searcherLink to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Do the bibles come with study guides, interlinears and concordances? (Just kidding! It was a joke.) :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I don't think you derailed the thread, geisha. I am remined of something my brother used to say when he was teaching his students, "Words have meanings, meanings lead to ideas, ideas lead to actions, actions have consequences. Therefore, words have consequences." Your posts, geisha, remind us that we aren't just playing some Greek crossword puzzle.
Wierwille's horrific depredations were the consequences of his eisegesis, his habit of making the Word say what he wanted it to say.
The fruits of all the wonderful Christian leaders you point to are the consequences of exegesis, reading what the Word actually says.
In your post of 8:24 am today, you wrote, "....they are praying to God. Not with perfect knowledge....but as Christians....in relationship to Jesus Christ....the same God." [emphasis added - Steve]
I think the primary thing about being a Christian is to be in relation with God through Jesus Christ. The written Word is a secondary aid to that relation. But Wierwille taught that "the written Word takes the place of the absent Christ," and the way things worked out, of course, his INTERPRETATION took the place of the written Word.
More later...
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Bob - Sometimes my thinking races faster than I can read and write, and I don't communicate as well as I want to. That's what happened when I foolishly called inerrancy "foolish" on that other thread! I have had to deliberately slow down and focus while reading both geisha's and your posts. I don't think you and she are in as much disagreement as it might at first appear.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
The truth needs no defense...
Bless you all,
In the scheme of things "the way" was just another run of the mill christian faith...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
I like the idea of this conversation moving into real world examples and I think some of the latest posts have cleared up my working definition of "eisegesis." However, if my working definition of the term comes up short, for me this is relatively inconsequential compared to the events and the consequences I am describing. Nevertheless, I'd prefer to be using the word eisegesis correctly and would appreciate any necessary correction.
Eisegesis worked against me in River Road Fellowship under the sway of one man, Victor Barnard.
Under his watch anyone could be terrorized any time they showed signs of thinking for themselves. And ANY negative biblical character or storyline that could be used to put people down was used, and regularly so IMO.
As I shared about somewhere in "my story" he likened me to Nabal, who died, and then his wife went to David in the biblical storyline. In a practical sense having an intellectual and somewhat sterile discussion concerning eisegesis doesn't do justice in and of itself to the amount of damage and control a free wheeling sociopath can do to somebody's life by controlling people's perception of the truth through eisegesis.
It seems true that everytime The Way International called somebody "possessed" they in effect did the same thing, and many here can attest to the damage it can cause.
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
nyunknown
Well I am glad in a way I helped with the monty python topic. I am glad I inspired here. I should respond to gandalf anyway. LOL. A lot of holy sciptures can be interpreted in many diffrent ways. For example "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". How can one interpet that phrase? Does it mean you literally mean you take an eye out or a tooth out if some does that to you? Can it also mean revenge. Can it mean justice? Or can it mean I don't like the way you look. I'll kill you how many other ways can that phrase can it be interpeted? What is the truth behind that phrase? What can one misinterpet that phrase. What do you want it to mean?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Ideally, we should read what is said, yes.
But I find that it is nigh impossible to not read "into" anything we read.
Wierwille said he let the scriptures speak for themselves but in retrospect was amazingly self-serving in terms of how he read "into" the scriptures IMO.
And for the record, he was twisted, vile, and evil in how he presented his eisegisis as exegesis. For an example..."All women belong to the king."
(I added the forth line in editing for clarification)
Helped with the Monty Python topic nyunknown?
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
The law was actually to put a limit on "blood feud", the only justice there was in pre-legal societies. It means, "If somebody puts your eye out, that's the worst thing you can do back to them. You can't kill 'em. You can't chop their hands off. If somebody knocks ONE of your teeth out, all you can do to get back at them is knock ONE of their teeth out. You can't knock out two.
At least that's what I've read.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Or whatever the eye and tooth would be.
Should that be in a giving sense.
eye FOR an eye tooth FOR a tooth
just sayin....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I'm sorry to hear about the development of Victor Barnard's "progress." I first met him at Momentus. He was one of the alpha-males that the trainers beat down as an example to intimidate the rest of us. I felt sorry for him. I also felt a connection with him because of the years I had spent in the Twin Cities. I hadn't known him when I was in Minnesota, but at the time we took the Momentus training, he was in contact with other people who had been very near and dear to me. He sent me a copy of his paper on the church as the bride of Christ sometime after Momentus.
It's very sad to know that he has gone the way of Dale Sides, John Lynn and so many others who decided not to throw the baby out with the bath water, without bothering to figure out which was which.
I'd almost guarantee that his later hard-hearted harshness was one of the "benefits" of the Momentus training.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Yeah, it is sad Steve.
He called himself "a true son of Wierwille" last I heard and made sure everyone else did too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Amen, brother cman! Preach it!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Pretty much sums it up for me. Nicely said. Been through other "cults" (I guess we have to say that to be legit around here) and took what good there was. Again and again it was those damn humans who messed it up.
Just stopped into the office for a look see at the conflagration. I'll comment more later today.
Steve, you're a good soul.
Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
No personal offense meant Geisha.
Is this perhaps the little baptist church with which you refer to?
Westboro Baptist Church
Is that what Jesus intended and built?
Comment The same Methodist church that posted: The United Methodist Church's official lobby office is urging church agencies and members to divest their holdings in Caterpillar Inc. because the company sells bulldozers to Israel.
Comment: So much for their humanitarian missions...
The same church that ordained this man?
The most honorable Jimmy Swaggart.
And this man?
James Dobson the prophetic "family man" who with his inimical insight said this about the Catholic Church.
Dobson and Charles Colson were two participants in a 2000 conference at the Vatican on the global economy's impact on families. During the conference, the two Protestants met with the Pope. Dobson later told Catholic News Service that though he has theological differences with Roman Catholicism, "when it comes to the family, there is far more agreement than disagreement, and with regard to moral issues from abortion to premarital sex, safe-sex ideology and homosexuality, I find more in common with Catholics than with some of my evangelical brothers and sisters.
Comment: I wonder what it is that Dobson has so much in common with all of the pedophile priests of the Catholic church?
Comment: Hopping is putting mildly.
Comment: In my estimate one has to be pretty hard up for fellowship to keep company with these organized churches.
Errr... No thanks I don't need a quaint little church that funnels their collection money to hate mongers...
Also: D.C. Catholic Charity Drops Health Coverage For All Spouses Over Gay Marriage Law
God forbid that a gay spouse should receive equality under the law. Perhaps the Roman catholic church should, have questioned Jesus' motives for healing the Roman centurions gay lover in the Gospels...
To seek perfection in the church is futile. One is better going solo and just loving God and abundantly sharing one on one. Then you know your money is not going to foster hate and inequality.
I am far better off with my cult of zero than you are out, "churching"...
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
They ain't no real church, they're a hate group.
When they came to my town to spew their hatred, we ignored them. The high school at which they had planned to protest closed for the day so as to not give them any attention.
Read, if you want to: http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/authorities-eye-kansas-hate-group-s-visit-to-li-1.1465453
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Romans 11:20&21 say, "Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee." I believe Wierwille taught that Romans 9-11 is addressed to somebody other than Christians in order to rationalize his own high-mindedness. And it was his high-mindedness that led to all the evil practices described on this website. He taught us also to be high-minded, and those who have tried to perpetuate his works have done so, complete with high-mindedness and evil practices.
There's a lot more to this, but too much for right now.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Actually no Dr. W I was not thinking of that church. Coming from TWI it should come as no surprise that people twist the scriptures for gain and hate. As sensational as your post is. . . . it is somewhat redundant given where we are posting.
For every sensational thing you find about people who use faith for pain, profit, or gain. . . I can post a story of extraordinary self-sacrifice. Is that what you want? I can also dig up extraordinarily perverse acts committed by homosexuals. . . . but, I would rather speak of the people whom I love, who are extremely kind and good. . . and happen to be homosexual.
My niece just came out BTW.
If somehow you feel vindicated in your belief in zero by holding up examples of hurtful people. . . . please have at it. But note, I refrained from posting on your thread about zero. . . although I found it to be one of the most ridiculous conversations I have ever been privy to. . . . . I felt no need to point out the silly nature of your personal eisegesis . . . and was happy to let your conversation flow without comment.
As for defending the faith. . . .what do you all think was going on in the first century with Paul and the Apostles? This has really now become a joke.
Are people's ego's really so fragile that they cannot bear to hear of good in the church. . . . and must rationalize their own faith by the disdain for that which is good, while camouflaging it with extreme examples of hate? With sarcasm?. . . . Why is that so familiar to me?
I appreciate your efforts Steve, and your struggle to find sound doctrine. . . .I promise you . . . . it is out there.
Oops forgot Dr W . . . the Assemblies of God church I mentioned. . . . is the one in the next town over that runs a radio station. My son broadcasts from there. . . . and did I mention he advocates for gay rights from that basement. That station is run in cooperation of all the local churches.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Thank you for your kindness, Bob. I have to say that by myself I'm a pretty mediocre soul. It's just that the Lord has had a lot of patience with me. Not because of who I am, but because of who He is!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
These are not only hurtful people they are hurtful systems of religion... The evil travels all the way to the top with the people who make policies... I just figured that for the record since you were painting such a serene picture of these errr "churches" while you gave Wierwille the stick I thought I might just post some of the reality of what these hate churches are actually doing with their monies to "feed the poor".
I won't contribute one single dime to a church that has even the slightest affiliation with this type of hate.
Perversity is not exclusive to homosexuals, in fact, heterosexuals are the number one manufacturers of perversity.
Parts of the bible are hateful and are certainly not indicative of a God of love and compassion.
Jesus also kept some strange bedfellows, for instance why would God need a new testament if he did not botch the old one.
No one can say that Wierwille did not warn us all about "religion"...
Subjective, objective, rejective... Thy words were found and I did; receive, retain and regurgitate them. :)
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
nyunknown
The law was actually to put a limit on "blood feud", the only justice there was in pre-legal societies. It means, "If somebody puts your eye out, that's the worst thing you can do back to them. You can't kill 'em. You can't chop their hands off. If somebody knocks ONE of your teeth out, all you can do to get back at them is knock ONE of their teeth out. You can't knock out two.
I agree with you. You see you proved my point. I bet if you asked anyone here that question here how many diffrent answers would you get?
Edited by nyunknownLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
The man was pure genius. . . . he warned us about religion. . . .
However, it is what he pointed to and called religion that I take issue with. . . . because . . .that would be . . . just about every Christian on the planet. ...with the exception of those whose work he "borrowed" and forgot to credit. . . . his take on "religion" cast a pretty wide net.
We liked that remember? Made us feel really special . . . .We could even wash our feet in the blood! Hey, who doesn't want to be better than everyone else on the planet? After all, we had the "knowledge".
What better way to be special than point fingers at the people who were actually doing the heavy lifting . . .VP was brilliant. . . he even found a way to cut out the loony Fred Phelps types. . . . and went straight at Mother Theresa.
Yep. . . pure genius.
Sorry Dr WW. . . . I just don't have the patience for it anymore.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
I don't see why it has to be an all or nothing deal, such as superlatives and err, "the fence".
VP was what he was. I don't really care who he slept with. That was between him, his wife, those who consented to sleep with him and God. I did not care for his double standard but I do remember him on several occasions telling us with tears in his eyes that he was "unworthy". That should have indicated to those concerned that he was admitting that he was neither faultless nor sinless. I came to the way to learn what he had to teach. I don't consider adultery to be the end all of sins. Just like Tiger Woods I just don't really care at all... Perhaps VP's adultery was secretly condoned by his wife, I don't know, I don't care...
Even Paul the apostle was haunted by his own thorns in the flesh. Yet, Paul did not have his dirty laundry published in the way magazine and the local town rag. If they were published well the catholic church and Constantine burned them long ago. I still to this day consider what I learned from VP of profound value and think it was a much better biblical education then what I could have obtained from any other biblical institution at the time or even today. I don't care if he plagiarized his message from a bathroom wall, he for the most part expanded it and made it his own and put his own character into it.
Though his character is in question, as I said, I don't consider his sins to have totally negated his message. He was a loving spiritual father with faults. Charity covers a multitude of sins. He was was a daddy with faults, aren't we all with our own faults and sins? He struggled with his own faults in his own heart, soul and mind, torn between his human desires and the will to find God and truth. We all struggle in the exact same way. I feel sometimes that VP would have boldly struck up for the weakest of the family of God, he invited us all into his ministry when we were yet sinners and had lost our way. Acid popping pot smokers and hippies he converted into disciples of God. Hindsight is 20/20.
So what is the gripe? Over time legalism set in and I don't see him as ever leaving the ministry... he just simply died. In his wake he left us to fend for ourselves and much of our own bitterness is misplaced in that we resent him for leaving us early. In this resentment we have lost sight of the legacy he left behind. We are all better people in having known VP and it is in his shadow that we are what we are in that we have this unique connection to each other.
I am blessed to be in the group of believers he left behind to pick up the pieces, carry the torch and go on with the ministry of grace.
I just don't take it all to seriously. When we wake up from the "I was abused" syndrome someday we may thank our father in the word and learn to appreciate some of the benefits to have sat at his feet and listened to him teach. Someday we may say, yes, he was unworthy but aren't we all?
Edited by DrWearWordLink 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.