Leaderboard

100 days and counting!!!

i think what got me going with this discussion is that in the way international they were always doing this kind of thing, comparing victor paul wierwille to the other "newsworthy evangelists in the world", and of course victor paul wierwille came up smelling not quite so crappy as he would if he had to stand on his own two feet, you know that stuff the way international always did and maybe still does, "look over there at that out in left field screw up, won't ya? do you want that life or do you want the life in the word with us? huh? do ya? what do you think? do you really want to try it out there with those screw balls?" but the thing is that there is no comparison at all whatsoever because victor paul wierwille was a charlatan and a sexual predator and huckster and an evil doer from the getgo and he never intended to serve the lord with all his heart, soul, mind and body, but instead intended to serve his lusts that popped up whenever they popped up with whoever was convienient when they popped up, even if they were underage or he had to drug them to "convince" them it was "consensual". now if anybody can find even a hint of this kind of activity going on with mlk or billy graham, then and only then can a serious and viable comparison be done. otherwise it's the same old lame stuff of the same old cult days from whence i came when i had to have some straw to grasp at to help myself believe it wasn't all so bad as it was.

No one can derail a topic like Ham with his streams of thought. Ever try to get it down on one post? Of course one can be critical of King. Abraham Lincoln was flawed also, which makes for interesting reading, but doesn't negate his accomplishments. Whether you love him or hate him, there's no question that MLK was the key figure and spokesman for civil rights in his day, and that the world was changed as a result of his life-and death. He wasn't killed because he plagiarized, or had affairs,or was as flawed as the rest of us. Ask any black person, or many of any race, what they think of King, and the debate of his impact on history is settled.

The Geer-ites do the M&A thing too? LCM did it so they decided they had to "keep up with the Joneses"? It's like both sides evolved into Nazi's or something. What's the matter with people? That M & A stuff just flies in the face of even being even a civilized human much less a "super believer". You innies and Geer-ites, I don't want to shock you, but there are actually things going on in the world, that are going to have a much bigger affect on you, me, and everyone else than people who don't view things the way you do. Oh, and another thing, if you're actually nice to people, they'll in all probability be nice back. But noooooo! Everyone has to get their points across and polarize as many people as they can in the process. M&A people. Yeah! That'll show 'em. That's sure to win people to your point of view. Hate them into loving you. Guess that makes sense, somehow. Let's get real here. What sticks in your crawl is that when someone else who came out of TWI does well and yet doesn't line up with your views, it shows that you are wrong. That is something you just can't stand to face. You have to either adjust your beliefs or reject the person. Rejecting the person is much easier. When you sink to that level, you're in the wrong camp, man.

In antiquity, nobody wrote in solitude the way we do today. Paul had a group of people around him when he wrote, including the scribe who wrote down what Paul decided to commit to writing, after he had presented it to the group for discussion and feedback.If Paul wasn't personally able to write Ephesians and Colossians, I think his close companions did. I think they replicated what Paul would have said to the best of their ability. This was NOT an unusual practice in the first century. I don't think "that Gnosticism spirit teachings" got into Ephesians and Colossians through inserted forgeries. The meanings of the word "spirit" changed between the time of Paul and the time of Augustine around the turn of the fifth century, from stoic meanings to neo-platonic. After Theodosius declared everyone except "trinitarians" (as we still understand that term today) to be deranged, insane heretics, writers like Augustine went to town to read "Gnostic spirit teachings" into the language that Paul and others had already written. The object is not to get rid of the confusion by cutting out the words we don't understand, but to recover an understanding of what they meant when they were originally written and read. Love, Steve

There may be a language hurdle to make here TMVP. I believe you said english isn't your first language. Whatever your native language is, you're doing better with english than I would with yours or any other for that matter english is all I know, a few words and phrases of Spanish, German and French. Enough to get me kicked out of any decent restaurant if I go too far trying. So I'm not much help in that area, but you're doing fine, friend. This is pretty side tracked off the "mansions" topic, like I said I don't know much about that, those, whatever. The life topic is pretty simple to my mind. I'm getting we aren't coming to the same conclusion which is fine. Hopefully what I'm positing has made some sense, but I'm not sure from your responses what you mean, which may go both ways, if so, don't sweat it. . Many religions have imaged their deities as persons, with names, physical features and what are more or less "super powers", compared to humans. They live somewhere and fuss and fight amongst themselves and occasionally it spills over into human affairs, not always a good thing by their accounts. Although "Jehovah" came and went at times, and visited and dwelt and spoke and heard, the God of the O.T. made it clear He's not one among many, He's it. No names, no dwelling place of human construction holds or frames Him. I might conjecture that the gods of ancient religions (and more current ones too) reflect the creations of Jehovah, angels and the like, and their affairs throughout time that have intersected with man. "gods" may be ways to tell the piecemeal stories of what's gone on throughout time in God's realm. I really don't know, just a thought. Jehovah - the name alone constructs the framing of how He's understood by that name - God in covenant relationship with people, "His" people. God's people are apparently very important to HIm but not the only business He's involved in or with, seems fairly clear. My point is what the bible says - God doesn't dwell in temples made by us. God's dwelling place is described as with - "in" - His people. Christianity describes the role of Jesus Christ, Yeshuah in that. For many years I think I struggled with "visualizing" God - I spoke about him in very human physical terms, and yet I really had no understanding of what that was really like or might be, in reality. I knew something was going on though and it wasn't hmmm, "this", what I see and hear of the physical. I hesitate to go much further than that because, at the risk of sounding like a goof, I believe that "true reality" must reveal itself to each one of us and it will become clear as it does. Some will see it differently, that's normal. We aren't all right but we can all try. If I come to find I'm completely wrong, nuts and crazy, that's okay too. Shoot us for trying, right?