Leaderboard

TWI plunders individual sovereignty.....every class, every program. Wierwille's pfal pitches a "stand on the word".....but really, the message is "stand with twi and against all others." Keep your distance from "worldly influences".....from secular learning, family associations, denominations, etc. Further, in the Dealing with the Adversary class.....one of the FOUR FRONTS of the Devil is YOURSELF. Yeah, you are the culprit. You cannot trust your discernment, your critical thinking skills......you NEED wierwille/twi to do THAT for you. You just surrendered your individual sovereignty. Now......twi has power over you. Classes, more classes......way homes, wow ambassador, fellowlaborers, corps, university of life.....all with the same goal: TWI ASCENDANCY. Every dollar, every hour of volunteer work, every day of witnessing for twi....was profit to the organization. Today, twi sits on some $52 MILLION. Is there any wonder why twi targeted the youth? As youth are easily absorbed into groups, teams, clubs, gangs, they are more susceptible to groupthink and authority figures. Not adults. Generally speaking, most adults have experienced deception and scams and political/religious rhetoric to see the wolf in sheep's clothing. The corps indoctrination had so violated individual sovereignty.....that it seemed like there was a corps cloning factory in Emporia.

Well I guess it took some time to be official but I'm sure you knew you didn't believe a lot quicker than you were willing to admit it was true to yourself. Perhaps you could describe that moment where you had the aha moment that God and the bible were just nonsense. Perhaps it was a gradual process I really don't know what goes on in the minds of people who admit to faking tongues then claim that means others were faking as well.

Raf, I never commented on this thread initially, but since I participated in so much of some of this original discussion in the area of SIT, I just wanted to tell you I respect your conclusions and statements of belief or lack thereof even if they differ from my own. I appreciate your writings here and interacting with you, you have a logical mind and good expression. Many of us who joined a cult did so in pursuit of virtue. We mostly have all taken different paths since that time. My only hope for you and all of us is that whatever the path, seeing the dark won't cause us to give up on our pursuit of virtue, but rather to continue to grow as human beings in our capacity and compassion, wherever that may lead us.

I don't recall anyone asking you to.

Soooo........If the books were so great, why weren't people encouraged to or even allowed to purchase them without the formality of a prescribed dosage plan? (I love the smell of rhetoric in the morning.)

Right you are, waysider..........systematic indoctrination. Wierwille set the "complex indoctrination process" in motion: The collateral books were NOT available for purchase. The collateral books, generally, were NOT to be found in libraries. The collateral books were methodically and systematically issued in tandem with those who took the pfal class. Wierwille had a process, a systematic outlay, for newbies.......guarded by controls. Not just the information (collaterals).......but the BUILD-UP PROCESS of "receiving holy spirit and speaking in tongues" in session 12 and accrediting it all to wierwille's pfal class. Praise be to wierwille.......NOT. The Game of Incrementalism Twi Plunders Individual Sovereignty Corps Program: "Mission Creep" .......and now, twi is consumed by indoctrinated corps who run errands for the "spiritual elite" (cough, cough) at hq. Any serious scrutiny or consideration of wierwille as some type of "man of gawd" is flawed six ways from sunday.......perpetrated by a ruse..

That’s a good point about the indoctrination process; that doesn’t occur with the casual reader….which is another thing that makes me wonder about the credibility of some who come to Grease Spot, making like they’re an outsider – not affiliated with TWI in any way, shape or form – and yet as crazy as this sounds, they rave about the merit of wierwille’s books. Like the person – earlier on this thread who claimed to have a degree in theology – yet deemed some of what they learned in that degreed program was crap compared to wierwille’s books. And on top of that implying they had mastered wierwille’s works - to the point they could reprove TWI leadership who deviated from wierwille’s great “truths”….. By the way – most of the folks that I remember using terms like “mastering PFAL” (wierwille’s books and class) were in the Way Corps. I used terms like that myself when I was in the Way Corps program. I’m not saying that is the only context where phrases like that were used – just saying that even at the highest level of supposedly academic achievement in TWI, “mastering PFAL” was the gold standard of “truth” - - uhm….wierwille’s version of truth that is. I tend to think with such a tenacious grip on wierwille’s stuff from a supposed outsider- that might be a red flag that they are not being upfront with us - but rather indeed they have been indoctrinated through some level of involvement with TWI. On a side note – Waysider, thanks for the link to the Waydale repost – glanced through some of it – and will definitely read it in its entirety later – great stuff on applying critical thinking as you wade through wierwille’s mishmash.

Homosexuality is usally derived rom iniquity from the foreparents. But it is still the choise of the person to choose to sin in this manner, it is not inevitable that a person with this iniquity will absolutely sin. You're right, it is their choise to sin and doesn't belong to anyone else.

A few threads got me really thinking about this topic--Tolerance. Is Christianity tolerant? What exactly does tolerance mean? It is defined as: The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others. Seems to me I hear more and more these days that Christians are intolerant. Am I not doing a good job expressing my Christian Faith?--It is hardly an intolerant belief system. The bible exhorts us to life peaceably with all men--as much as we are able. It tells me to love my neighbor as myself. It tells me Jesus died for all. Christianity tells me that humans are made in God's image. That gives all an inherent RIGHT to respect as human beings. So, why the criticism of Christians? Who is leveling it at our faith in general? If one redefines the word tolerance to mean we must accept all lifestyles as good and faiths as true--then yes--Christians are intolerant. But, then that would make those in opposition to Christianity intolerant as well. That is not what tolerance historically means. It means a respect and recognition of the beliefs of others. It does not mean an embracing them as true. I can disagree completely with someone's faith and still respect them as a person. In fact, Christianity doesn't imply that everyone else is 100% WRONG. I can agree ethically and scientifically with many people who are NOT Christian. In fact there are posters here I often agree with who are NOT Christian. Abigal oftens says things I agree with--Bramble sometimes--even Oakspear. All non-christians. Truth is universal it belongs to God. We as Christian differentiate between beliefs and the person holding them. We can disagree with the belief and respect the person. I wonder if the same can be said about those who level accusations at Christians as intolerant? I do have to wonder? Tolerance operates at differing levels as well. I can tolerate something in someone elses life and not my own. You may do something with your children, allow something I would not--I can easily tolerate others right to raise their own children(Safely). The church does not tolerate adultery in its clergy? We don't throw them in jail, but we should not tolerate their behavior. Christianity emphasizes grace and humility. It does. I am a sinner--a bread beggar--I came to my faith broken--not arrogant. The spirit of the gospel does not say that Christians are better than non-christians--in fact quite the opposite. We recognize our inability. We despise our sin and repent before God. We look for the free gift of salvation in Jesus--unable to save ourselves. We tell other beggars where to find it. That is all. We seek out others who yearn for salvation and point them to the cross. If we tell you the way there in the process--how does that hurt you? You are free to say no thank-you. By the very nature of truth--there can't be many ways--think about it? Many truths--everyone's point true. True for you-not for me. Truth is not an opinion. The moon is made of cheese--well, no it is not. As Christians, we claim the bible as true--because it conforms to the actualities of God's existence and His dealings with human beings. Truth is a relationship. A match up with what is real or actual. Truth is not molded to fit whatever you want to make it. Anti-realism. Think about this--if I disagree with that idea--anti-realism--then those who hold to it--think I am wrong. Blows the whole premise up right there, because then there is one thing absolute--I am wrong. So, Christianity with its adherence to truth can be called intolerant--but I gotta tell you--it makes the one doing the calling look pretty hypocritical. Is Christianity intolerant--One truth?

Belle, I always hope that we can communicate with honesty and lack of hostility since I am long done with the days of theological arguing. I will always respect your right to speak and I hope you will offer the same. You say my statements smack of egotism. Well that just depends on what your theology is. Look, if God doesn't exist, or if He does exist as some metaphysical ball of energy of whom we can never know anything about, then your accusation would be correct. It would be quite presumptuous of me to imply that anyone's behavior or belief system other than my owns is faulty, since we could never know for certain what the truth is. However, if there is a personal being called Yahweh who is who He says He is i.e. the creator, the originator, the giver of truth and one who will judge all men, then my statement would not be egotistical. I do not believe it is difficult to document that the bible speaks against homosexuality. But if God truly is the "Author" of it, then how is it egotistical to say to someone that what they are practicing is incorrect? For you to say that my statement is egotistical is presumptuous of you. Do you truly know my heart? If God doesn't exist, then everything is an illusion and the existentialists are correct. However if God truly does exist, then I would not be egotistical, I would be a defender of what God has spoken. Wouldn't I? How would that be egotistical? If someone is offended at what God has to say, that makes no difference to me. I have had to overcome the "uncomfortable" realities of my own sin and just what a wicked little person I can be and have been. Even if no one ever spoke out against anything anybody did or practiced, the words and instruction would still be recorded in the pages of scripture. That means Paul and Moses and Jeremiah and even Jesus himself would have to be accused by you of the same charge. I'm sure you know you can go to the gospels and find some pretty "egotistical" statements made by Christ himself. Well, they would be egotistical if he was a false Messiah, but since he was not, what he spoke was the truth straight from God. Did it matter that anybody got upset about it (which they did)? All I can say is that if God doesn't exist, in this matter, I am the fool. If He does exist, then you are the fool. All in fun!! :D Free

Bramble I LOVE IT!! Thank-you because that is one of the things I am talking about!! Pluralism--all inclusiveness--just because you say I am not a Christian--you don't define me kinda thinking!!! Aberrant forms of Christianity--or new religion all have something in common--similar to TWI!!! They seeks to redefine Christianity--one historically--and two from the outside--by redefining or changing the basic tenants of Christianity and are supported by those advocating TOLERANCE!! :) I am so glad you chose those sites--because much of my discussions with others here--are based on these very ideas. The idea that you can be a Christian--remaking traditional biblical understanding. Isn't the basic doctrines of the bible what make us Christian--The Jesus of the bible?? Bramble, I honestly think this is what frustrates people in TWI and those who still hold to the doctrines they learned here. I would love to calmly and honestly have this discussion because I am genuinley interested in this. Not out of zeal, but because I actually understand both sides. It comes down to truth again. A REALITY that has a corresponding OBJECT. The details about that reality---cannot be opposite and both be true. Therefore it comes down to a CHOICE on what you believe to be the reality. Conditioning--must be considered--a certain trained perspective has to honestly be evaluated. FEAR MOTIVATION on both sides has to be dealt with before we come to an understanding. If we decide our idea is the right one and it puts us at odds with the ORTHODOX(Which is NOT a BAD word--it means rules and beliefs which are approved)then we are OUTSIDE the norm. The Church defines itself by its doctrines Bramble--that is a GOOD thing. It defines itself by biblical truth. If we break away from these basic doctrines we are then defined as ABERRANT(straying from the right or normal way ). No longer Christian in the accepted and approved or Orthodox way. There has to be a right way. Truth requires it by its very nature. However, if one decides this is not the case and reacts out of frustration at percieved intolerance--a deeper look and understanding of the why's are a most important factor for the one claiming "New Truth" or "Special Knowledge" or a widely differing understanding of basic biblical doctrines. Truth has an object to which its reality corresponds. Tolerance does not mean accepting all truths as reality--that is not what it is--it is not even a LOGICAL possibility. Therefore, the one advocating a "NEW' truth--and calling it Christianity--may actually be in rebellion(NOT ALWAYS A BAD WORD opposition to one in authority or dominance) to the ORTHODOX. Denominations are often born from rebellion or renewal. That is one of the many reasons denominations are not always BAD things--if they hold to the basic tenants of Christianity. The reform movements of the 16th century were to restore teachings the church had eclipsed by then--justification-salvation by faith-the sovereignty of God. Some presbyterians caved to the pressures of liberalism and new groups were formed to preserve the traditions. Often a denomination is formed to combat some aberrant form of the same denomination. Baptists came along in the reformed tradition advocating these principles--justification by faith be applied to the church. Pentecostals and charismatics formed unions based on their views of spiritual gifts. They are also formed out of churches seeking fellowship. The important thing to look at--the standard by which we evaluate a denomination--is its teachings and practices and its adherence to scripture--in its Orthodox understanding. See, it is alot bigger than everyone is right. That is an impossibility. As a seeker of Christ, you must choose the aberrant or the Orthodox--which seems to be a word that grates on some. That should be examined as well. Why would such a simple word grate? Could it be percieved intolerance? I submit the onus is actually on the one with "New Light" or opposing theology. I know there are biblical warnings on these very issues. Where or from whom did we learn our theology(NOT a bad word The study of God and of God's relation to the world) must be deeply cosidered. If we did not understand similar issues before we were taught by TWI--as many claim--could it STILL be our own understanding--seeking a system to validate our rebellion to the Orthodox? New Religious movements like TWI--all share common characteristics--one of those being EXCLUSIONARY and ELITIST in theology. You see, I can respect your faith or Abigails so much easier than I can an aberrant form of MY FAITH. BEcause, I see it as a breaking away from the right theology to embrace and elitist and exclusionary form with "New Authority" "Justification and defense of false teaching" "Untrained lay people as leaders" "Central MOGS" "An understanding of being the 'True" body" "Predatory recruitment" "Sanctioning of heretical figures" "Legalistic demands of members while leaders living sin filled lives" . These groups who claim "Special Revelation" also usually have a highly autocratic system which controls every aspect of its members lives. They usurp Christian vocabulary and change the meaning of words or phrases. They emphasize secondary issues and minor points of theology. They emphasize EXPERIENCE over doctrine. They dabble in the occult. I can see tolerating anothers beliefs--but if they claim Christianity and by their very nature are destructive--I must as a Christian--speak out. Christianity is actually ONE FAITH --and CHRIST CENTERED. So, it has to be one truth about Christ--hope that makes sense??? Caps are for emphasis NOT shouting! :)

Hi Free, That is a great example of a group that can call Christians intolerant. I have to wonder though if we don't do a bit to aid that perception. I spent the other day working with a lesbian couple I know--they are nice ladies--very ethical. They said that they really like hubby and I--and were shocked to learn we were Christians--they can't stand Christians because they think Christians are intolerant. She just called me a few minutes ago!! We had a nice talk--and when asked if I thought homosexuality was wrong-- I said I would love to have that discussion with them sometime when we could sit and give it the attention it deserved. I didn't want to pronounce their lifestyle abberant and quote the bible at them. I didn't want to ruin a relationship that seems mutually respectful with a two minute chat. I would rather let them know me as a person who respects them as people. Who does a good job for them and is friendly and kind. If they are really interested in what I think--I would like to sit down with love and reason from the scriptures with them. It is a hard thing to give up sin--we do it for the love of Christ. It is a struggle. We must know His love to love Him back and give things up for Him. It is a process and requires real healing. Do we show them the love of God? I hope we do. Good point --- the bible often convicts us of that we don't want to deal with. My hope is for those perishing to come to the throne now--We can change that perception of intolerance by living our faith. :) It is a fun ride!!

The fact of the matter is that if God exists and has spoken to us via the scripture, then He has spoken what He has spoken. The truth is the truth and was the truth long before I came around and darkened the earth with my shadow. People who label Christianity as "intolerant" are simply demonstrating their own lack of meekness and their intolerance for what God has to say about life. Christ said that people don't come to the light because they know their wickedness will be exposed. You can see why a homosexual might have a tough time coming to Christ because he knows God disapproves of his behavior and will be asked to change. He loving the sin, doesn't want to change and violently protects his idol by hurling insults at man and God. All will be revealed at the white throne. Free

dear spectrum, your post was not wasted on me... i have continued to post basically to respond to the multiple insinuations that have made about me... and to defend my right to post my opinion... but you are right, i really don't care what other people think about me anyway... and those who make unfounded accusations will reap what they sow... peace, jen-o

holy camoly! this thread sure grew in one day... i haven't read all the posts, but i do want to comment on the following: straw man, abi...no one has suggested that this is the "christians" only or "biblical" discussions only forum... BUT this IS a thread about biblical doctrine (or was suppose to be) as noted by the intent of the person who started the thread in his first post: "With all the talk of late on other threads and in politics etc, I thought I'd go back to the Bible and and see what it says" one could just as easily have started a thread here in the doctrinal section, and said: let's discuss the pagan doctrine of homosexuality... let's look at the doctrine in the koran concerning homosexuality... let's look at all doctrines in reference to homosexuality... (and folks can still start those threads that focus on a variety of doctrines) but that is not the intent of this thread... the stated intent of this thread was to look at what the bible says.... i.e. biblical doctrine... i agree, so what!so what did you bring it up for?? the point is to present my opinion that homosexual acts are not okay according to the bible... i definitely do not care whether anyone is interested in my opinion or not... nor do i seek to be reaffirmed in any kind of way... by any stretch of the imagination... what i say is neither popular nor politically correct... but i still have a right to post it... well, i don't know about "proclamations", but there definitely have been insinuations and innuendo...eyes has stated that she was "attacked" and that she is a "target... you have accused me of nagging, stalking (following), hounding, and harassing... you have both insinuated that eyes is a "victim" via the use of these kinds of words... i get the impression that you think that eyes is some poor defenseless victim that i continue to relentlessly persecute... look, abi, if eyes doesn't want to respond to any of my posts, she is most certainly free to do that... but instead you hurl accusations at me in an attempt to get me to shut up and stop posting, obviously, on any thread where eyes is posting... what makes you think that you have the right to tell me where i can post, and what posts i can respond to?!? more innuendo... again, you are telling me who i can and can't talk to...what gives you this right?? um, it's a free country...why do you care who i talk to?? just for the record: i asked eyes to explain the reasons for her disagreeing with the plain meaning of the verses a total of ONE time back on may 24th... perhaps you should review my posts! by may 25th, i realized that eyes was NOT going to explain her reasons or support her opinion... although i did ask her one more specific question on that thread, namely: "are you saying that the prohibitions against incest, adultery, and bestiality also refer to an idolatrous ritual?? (and there really is no prohibition against those things?)"... which, of course, she did not answer... that is the extent of my questions to eyes regarding the topic of homosexuality! so why do you keep saying that i ask her questions about this issue "over and over and over"?? maybe if you say that i'm "nagging", "hounding", "harassing" long enough, you can get others to believe you... and get others to think of me in a derogatory way... i think your accusations of me are a dishonest attempt to discredit me... i didn't think you did this kind of thing, abi... i also asked her about the alleged "attack" on her book thread... or do you think i should not have asked that either? do you think that i should let unfounded accusations go unchecked?? for the record, eyes could not provide any information about this... but then, how can one provide information about something that doesn't exist? perhaps this, perhaps that...what difference does it make? are you telling me that i should just shut up because eyes doesn't care to discuss it with me but only with other people?? what sense does that make?!? are you again telling me who i should talk to and what posts i can respond to? or are you suggesting that i be removed from the conversation... in effect, marked and avoided??? peace anyway, jen-o p.s. i just noticed that eyes made a post to me regarding doctrinal issues about homosexuality... (post #77) so how am i forcing her to "debate" with me via "nagging, hounding, stalking, and harassing"?

OK thanks Abi ... this makes more sense, you are speaking more directly for yourself ... thanks. I'm not a "literalist" ... it is more about not telling other people they are hateful for their belief. It seems clear enough the homosexual act is not "normal" ... I think bramble or someone alluded to something happening early to cause some psychic thing or whatever ... so it is like dealing with an injury maybe ... some people limp ... but that is not absolute ... it seems to me the life style is "promoted" ... and there is a political aspect ... are people naturally attracted to animals? yet that becomes acceptable in certain realms ... of all the wild sexual stuff that happens with teenagers now, is it beyond possible that the homosexual acts is "promoted" by a PC teaching? Is it really just how you are born? I think there is more to it than that. Some cities seem more given to these things, even in the Bible. Was it really genetic there? Or is it taught and accepted, along with adultery and other "vile" things? This sexual "openness" does not seem good ... free love, no rules ... do we want Woodstock to rule? Maybe the Bible offers more wisdom than most are willing to accept. wht we see here, I believe, is political correctness ... all who hold any belief that does not praise homoexuality ... must be condemned ... and it is the fact that we see that here in spades that troubles me.

Sure ... I think jen-o aptly replied in another thread. Along with the homosexual stuff were other things that are not acceptable. Then there is Romans that is clear ... and WW offered something else, since the clear verses are not allowed for some reason. (I know that sounds like piffle, but clear verses really do help) I'd prefer jen-o or WW or others handle this if it is really doctrinal ... but it really is not as I see it. I don't see what other hateful documents you are referring to. You said the victors write the history. What history are you referring to? It sure seemed like you meant the Bible. I hope you sell a million books eyes ... but I don't think you have a leg to stand on if you want to really stand up in this doctrinal forum. If that can be settled, the next step would be to decide if homosexals should be rounded up and put in prison ... well, really, the question gets down to something more like .. how to deal with marriage ... accepting that the Bible does NOT bless it. But I'll let you guys calmly discuss the doctrinal issue ... that would be refreshing.

geee... I just said It is finished .. and now you come along ... we did solve something, we've established the Bible is a hateful document ... and people that disagree with that are hateful people ... did you notice that? there .. now It. Is. Finished.

She said not nice things about jen-o ... as jen-o has pointed out and eyes has ignored ... but I am the only one that came close to "attacking" her ... but it was because her book was brought up, and she was claiming some authority ... her professors or whatever .. and not wanting to parade around her credentials ... so since that is what her argument consisted of, I dealt with that. It was a response to her claim of having credentials, but not wanting to deal with the likes of us, in essence. If an unbiased observer were to watch as bumpy took his socks off, you would find red or hot pink toe pollish ... not that there's anything wrong with that ... and don't ask me how I know ... what do you really think he wants all those animals for? there ... it is finished ...

I respond when the lies and accusations are repeated. I generally have not responded when someone else chimes in with their support against those hateful close minded people, unless I am addressed by them directly. Perhaps a different thread with the starting point being that the Bible does say homosexual acts are wrong ... then ask the questions Bramble asked. How does that get applied in our society. The same sex marriage thread was more of a double thread on Christians need to accept this, because it is right and God blesses it. So it did not really allow for Christians that do not believe it is "right". I don't see hateful Christians, I see people calling Christians hateful and their beliefs hateful.

It is YOUR judgment that I have harassed and need to justify anything. And the fact that other people are involved is why I want to get be sure the record is set straight. To be more straight forward ... Eyes lied about me, though she did not name me. Then others talk about "those people will never be convinced no matter hard hard you try" or whatever. Eyes didn't try at all, she did a hit and run on the other thread, then trash talked and lied about it on her thread. So I keep setting the record straight. If I am slandered or libeled (and hear doctrine I never heard in the Bible) then I have a right to respond. That is not harassment. Eyes has never corrected her lie ... that she was attacked before she had a chance to give her view. And she was not attacked personally, her position on the thread was "attacked". Then she responded with her verses that seem thoroughly rebutted by jen-o. Then she left .. and claimed she was attacked ... not given a chance. But we have made "progress" ... we've gone from eyes' book being about showing the Bible accepts homosexual acts as fine ... to her position that the Bible is flawed and hateful on this subject. And that double minded position is the root of this problem ... she could have said that at the start. Instead we got that she was attacked without having a chance ... then that she refuses to reveal what is in her book ... and then others joined in supporting her against these hateful people. I'm not sure that is the purpose of a support group. Maybe someone could pm her if they are her friend, and point out that she did make a false accusation, and has been dishonest about the content of her book. She respects God's Word, but the Bible is a hateful document? Good grief .... and now you think I have a thing for eyes? Are you regressing to junior high now?

No, you didn't forget ... those are questions that could be asked and answered somewhere else, it is not a question of whether they matter, but they are a separate issue. That is a matter of application or practice ... ... but why are people even in the doctrinal forum that have decided the Bible doctrine is flawed or hateful or just plain wrong? Of all the accusations flying around ... isn't this a forum for people that DO believe ... and yet some come in here to call them hateful or wrong or whatever ...