Leaderboard

yup !!!! I agree...or as Grace would say "bingo"

Just an IMHO here: I believe Wierwille's "all sins are equal" was really a preemptive ploy on his part to silence any dissidents . It certainly explains the lock-box and "not thinking evil of your brothers and sisters in Christ"...like a "You're just as guilty as me." sort of thing.

Individual polls. In person, phone, email. And you found many who did not remember nor care about VPW's last teaching. Then because of this, you formulated a thesis. This thesis is along the lines of the "my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" scam fronted in PFAL. In logic, this is called a flawed major premise. In truth, many did not remember nor care about VPW's last teaching mainly because his life and the fruit of it negated the teaching.

Contrary to a popular belief in TWI there are many Bible passages that suggest there are degrees of punishment depending on the degree of sin - here are just a few: Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town...Matthew 10:15 NIV Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.” ...John 19:11 NIV 20 Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodomand Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.” ....Genesis 18:20, 21 NIV 13 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.[14] 15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are....Matthew 23:13-15 NIV 38 As he taught, Jesus said, “Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, 39 and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. 40 They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.”...Mark 12: 38 - 40 NIV I tend to think wierwille pushed the idea of all sin is the same in God’s eyes so his sexual predations wouldn’t look so bad when compared to someone just losing their temper with their spouse.

If you need me to explain this, you really aren't half as smart as you're advertising. I don't even have to expound- just post the verses, and the meaning of his fulfilling the law should be plain enough- for those not trying to be deliberately obtuse, that is. Hebrews 4:14-16 KJV "14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." Hebrews 5:1-12 KJV "1For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: 2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. 3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. 4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. 5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. 6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. 7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; 10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec. 11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. 12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat." Hebrews 7:23-28 KJV "23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: 24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. 26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. 28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore." Hebrews 9:24-28 KJV "24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."

Some great points, RottieGrrrl - I think along those same lines and enjoy garnering things from other belief systems and philosophies… I just wanted to add a few comments…not really addressing you or anyone in particular… …anyway… there’s been some threads on Grease Spot that basically ask “did you throw out the baby with the bathwater?” (I think there’s even a thread by that name too) – personally I don’t really consider PFAL / TWI-doctrine as a valid belief system or philosophy simply because it’s a cobbled-together mess by an incompetent plagiarist ( a theological liar and thief). If a Christian is that concerned about “the baby” how about the baby Jesus…keep it simple, start from the gospels and work your way around the rest of the scriptures – concentrically speaking - with Jesus Christ at the center of it all. And I don’t think it’s a bad idea for Christians to rethink their attitude toward the Bible anyway - after leaving TWI…it wasn’t really declared out loud – but TWI followers tended to worship the Bible…perhaps even to the point of sometimes overshadowing the reverence and adoration that’s truly due to the glory of God displayed in the face of Jesus Christ (II Corinthians 4:6). I think Christianity should be more about a relationship with our Lord than about your relationship with some book. Looking for what is of value in PFAL is like looking for what is valuable in counterfeit money. Counterfeit money looks like real money but has deleterious side effects – like reducing the value of real money, causing inflation, and losses to citizens and businesses; it hurts the economy because it’s not based on something of value but on deception. A lie ! It is the illusion of resources. But there’s nothing to back up those fake bills. PFAL and TWI-doctrine is an illusion of resources – lots of promises…lots of claims about what PFAL can do for you…but there’s nothing to back it up…God is not a genie-in-the-PFAL bottle, to be at your beck and call. That’s all I’ve got for now, Grease Spotters have a good night, sleep tight, and don’t let the emoticons bite.

Hi Grease Spotters, I wanted to revisit my post after some things I read on another thread. Recently on a couple of questions thread, Rocky had a great post with some fascinating links that addressed the question “are humans fundamentally good or bad?” here are partial excerpts from those links: "Fundamentally speaking, are humans good or bad? It's a question that has repeatedly been asked throughout humanity. For thousands of years, philosophers have debated whether we have a basically good nature that is corrupted by society, or a basically bad nature that is kept in check by society. Psychology has uncovered some evidence which might give the old debate a twist. One way of asking about our most fundamental characteristics is to look at babies. Babies' minds are a wonderful showcase for human nature. Babies are humans with the absolute minimum of cultural influence – they don't have many friends, have never been to school and haven't read any books. They can't even control their own bowels, let alone speak the language, so their minds are as close to innocent as a human mind can get. The only problem is that the lack of language makes it tricky to gauge their opinions. Normally we ask people to take part in experiments, giving them instructions or asking them to answer questions, both of which require language. Babies may be cuter to work with, but they are not known for their obedience. What's a curious psychologist to do? Fortunately, you don't necessarily have to speak to reveal your opinions. Babies will reach for things they want or like, and they will tend to look longer at things that surprise them. Ingenious experiments carried out at Yale University (see also Yale abstract excerpt and link below) in the US used these measures to look at babies' minds. Their results suggest that even the youngest humans have a sense of right and wrong, and, furthermore, an instinct to prefer good over evil"...from a BBC.com article == == == == the Yale abstract: "The capacity to evaluate other people is essential for navigating the social world. Humans must be able to assess the actions and intentions of the people around them, and make accurate decisions about who is friend and who is foe, who is an appropriate social partner and who is not. Indeed, all social animals benefit from the capacity to identify individual conspecifics that may help them, and to distinguish these individuals from others that may harm them. Human adults evaluate people rapidly and automatically on the basis of both behaviour and physical features1,2,3,4,5,6, but the ontogenetic origins and development of this capacity are not well understood. Here we show that 6- and 10-month-old infants take into account an individual’s actions towards others in evaluating that individual as appealing or aversive: infants prefer an individual who helps another to one who hinders another, prefer a helping individual to a neutral individual, and prefer a neutral individual to a hindering individual. These findings constitute evidence that preverbal infants assess individuals on the basis of their behaviour towards others. This capacity may serve as the foundation for moral thought and action, and its early developmental emergence supports the view that social evaluation is a biological adaptation."...from Yale abstract link == == == == == In my above comment (way up there at that top of this post ) I tried to summarize...and perhaps refocus this thread…in my opinion - whether you believe the conscience was something a higher power endowed us with or that it was simply a function that developed in the evolutionary process - I think it is safe to say that the conscience is something innate to our makeup and furthermore from those links one possible inference we could make is that the conscience may initially be already setup…preprogrammed, if you will…to act as a guide – to give one a moral sense of what is right or wrong. In considering another insidious aspect of the mindset that TWI promoted and how it tended to sabotage a follower’s conscience, one particular passage usually comes to mind: Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron… I Timothy 4: 1, 2 KJV One commentary on that passage really dramatizes the destruction of the conscience by the cauterizing agent of hypocrisy: "Having their conscience seared with a hot iron - The allusion here is doubtless to the effect of applying a hot iron to the skin. The cauterized part becomes rigid and hard, and is dead to sensibility. So with the conscience of those referred to. It has the same relation to a conscience that is sensitive and quick in its decisions that a cauterized part of the body has to a thin, delicate, and sensitive skin. Such a conscience exists in a mind that will practice delusion without concern; that will carry on a vast system of fraud without wincing; that will incarcerate, scourge, or burn the innocent without compassion; and that will practice gross enormities, and indulge in sensual gratifications under the mask of piety." from Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Back there in the back back, the question about 'all men being liars' and if Jesus Christ was a man did He lie.... It is an excellent question! and one that allows vigorous discussion, discussion that ultimately leads to a greater appreciation for who and what Jesus Christ was and is. To me the answer is simple, if it's true that Jesus didn't lie it's true because he decided not to lie but decided to tell the truth. One could probably say it would be against his "nature", abnormal. (Example - I love my wife. I have never once in the 50 years I've known here said anything to anyone else about her that is critical or negative, and I have literally never whined over a beer with a buddy about how lousy she treats me. Why? First, she doesn't treat me lousy, second I don't have lingering negative feelings about her and lastly I would never go to someone else and tell them something we hadn't already worked out, because - I just wouldn't do that and have never had to do that. It's against the nature of our relationship and how I think about her. So it's a choice but it's not a difficult one to make. I just don't do it. Other things, not so much, so I'm not perfect in this regard by even the slightest bit but in regards to this I don't think of it as perfection I think of it as natural. I see Jesus, the Son of God, as having God's intentions and thoughts, His "will", foremost in his natural inclinations.) So - for a baseline, let's consider two verses we've all probably heard in relation to this and if not here 'tis: Numbers 23:19 - God is not a man that he should lie, neither the son of man that he should repent: hath he said and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken and shall he not make it good? And Psalm 116:11 - I said in my terror all men are liars. And to expand the topic a little Matthew 5: 33-37 - Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ 4 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil. So - if Jesus was a man, part of humanity and with the faculties and capacities of humanity he clearly had the human faculty to, if not the capacity, to "Lie" and I would extend that to mean something different than telling someone their horrible haircut looked fine, or that Martha's lentil soup tasted good when it didn't. If Jesus dealt with his family and friends in the order of life and it's affairs to any degree I could probably assume that while he didn't get too wrapped up in things outside of his scope and interest he probably developed social skills to maintain a gracious presence in all his relationships. That's a guess, but it's arguable. On matters relating to God and our relationship with God Jesus was more specific - as in making oaths - don't use the values of things outside your range of authority like "by God I'll be there no matter what", or "as heaven and earth stand today, I will pay you back tomorrow" or such things. Just say what you mean and then do it, don't promise, as any number of things can, might and will change whatever it is you're swearing to do or be. Yes/No, and go with that. To me the answer is simple, if it's true that Jesus didn't lie it's true because he chose not to. A good example is the series of questions asked him in the desert after his fasting, in Matthew 4. We begin to see in the life of Jesus a different frame of reference than whether he would lie or not. We can examine this scenario in light of his humanity since the questions address things that he could choose how to respond and he didn't actually answer them all directly - And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. He didn't answer no I can't or yes I can to provide proof of who He was, rather he answered by saying it was not most important. In fact for all three "temptations" he didn't argue whether he was able to do them, rather he placed them in a different or correct context. Imagine if he had said well, I could get angels to help me sure, but that wouldn't be profitable, as angels have better things to do. No, they do, you know that, I'm not going to waste God's time or theirs or - no, I'm sure they would if I asked but...." etc. etc. etc. Another place it says the people were amazed when he spoke to them with "authority" rather than like the teachers they were used to hearing. Like the time the man asked him to settle an inheritance squabble and Jesus told he wasn't a judge over him in those matters....who wouldn't want Jesus settling whether or not you get the vacation home or the dog house, in the will? He stayed out of it - "not my job, sorry". Anyhoo - did Jesus lie? No. Why? Because he chose not to. How did he accomplish that is another question really, but given that he was the Son of God, sent forth as the Living Logos and fathered by the Creator whatever genetics produced him were above average it would seem. It's not a case for having an "Uber Jesus-Man" like Martindale created to get Jesus down to his level, rather Jesus was literally "the son of God". And the bloodline of Adam is a non issue in this question IMO, as all men were under the "curse" at that time, and while you had a "believers line", it didn't endow any of those people with the ability to not be in sin and subject to the fruit of sin, death. All mankind was then born of a "human nature" that would ultimately die if not reborn as we see later, through Christ. David states this in - Psalm 51:5 - Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me... Romans 5:12 - Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned... Romans 3:23 - for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God... And of course 1 Cor. 15:45 - "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. Peace, beautiful people!

It's not proof. It's argument. Btw, your argument that all people are dead inside is one paradigm. I believed it 30 - 40 years ago... because Wierwille said that's what the bible meant. I no longer believe that to be the case. I read too much to still accept that paradigm. There are MANY references online to explore that issue. Here's one that I found. I didn't prove anything, but I did present an argument to support what I said I believe... (or don't believe) The significance of this paradigm, as I see it, is that the Wierwille fundamentalist (extremist) mindset is the basis for abusing children and spouses. I regret having bought into that paradigm for far too long. Yes, regrets... I have a few. (I think there's a song about that) I can also say that I'm thankful my daughter (and son-in-law) know(s) better than I did when she was the age my grandchildren are now.

Yeah word but the Seventh-day Adventist and Jehovah witnesses etc. etc. etc. consider themselves to be the only real Christians too. I can still watch teachings from just about any religion and get something from it if it's accurate. I do not throw the baby out with the bathwater because then I would not listen to anybody. Hey this was supposed to go under WordWorld's post .I don't know what happened !