Keith

While I can't document it, at least right now, I think we would be foolish if we thought that the only reason for the civil war was salvery. It was one among many issues. One of the primary ones was the right of states to govern themselves and their own commerce. Even to day these are often issues between states and the federal government. The move by the government to end slavery was a manifestation of this issue. It could have just as easly been a different issue. Many of the people fighting in the South had problems with slavery, but believed that the Federal government had no right to deside such a thing across the board. My minor was history in college, and I left TWI long before the reign of Martindale. You might check out the PBS Documentry series "The Civil Wary" by Ken Burns. It gives and pretty good insite to all of the different causes of the Civil war. You local library is likely to have a copy of it.

Regarding J. Stiles leaving his book in Public Domain. According to the Copyright Office, there isn't any such thing as Public Domain until after the copyright has expired. According to their Webpage, all materals are copyrighted automaticlly. However you must register your copyright if you intend to make any type of claim of infringement. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr

Basicly, yes. If the comparsons I've seen posted are accurate. I would add the word "biblical" to your last comment ..."Which is a disgraceful commentary on many" biblical "writers of the time, correct?" I don't know that it was happening in other areas of writing. I doubt it was happening in other areas of knowledge. I would also add, that many writers who did come up with orginal ideas, either didn't bother pressing charges, or didn't care as long as the material was taught. Only they would know what they were thinking. Plagerism is plagerism, whether the person from whom the material is plagerised cares or not. It's a legal term.

I was trying to put it nice way when I worded my posts, but that is what I was talking about. Not just ideas, but almost word for copies.

You are right he did copyright his own books. So did almost all of the others that I refered to in my previous posts. Having read a lot of "spirit-filled" books written from the 1900's up to the 1960's, I found that many of them, gave the same impression and I found many of the same examples used in books by different authors. I didn't say say VPW did not lie, nor did I say it was right. What I said is that it was a fairly commen practice in books of this type. So I understand why he did it and why he thought he could get away with it. Doesn't make it right. What this really is a sad commentary regarding the ethics of many bible teachers.

I do not have problem accusing VPW of plagiarism. Legaly and ethicly plagiarism is not justified. However, and this is not a defence of VPW, you would be amazed at the amount of plagiarism in the Christian world; most of it in the full gospel, tongue talkers groups. It was common and to a large extent accepted; less so now, than from the 1900's to about the 1960's. Many ministers wrote books and pamphlets and were just thrilled if someone used the material, even the wording, with or without credit being given to them. Even today, many teaching are simply a re-wording of others teachings. There is very little "new revelation." Many ministers simply said, I learned from so and so, once in a while a left it at that, even when they wrote it down. It was only in the Scholarly books that you found all of the required references. Now in defence of VPW, this is the type of thing that was going on at the time he was learning. It was only just beginning to change, and those teachers who were upset often adopted a "turn the other cheek" attitude, "after all the gospel was being taught." so VPW most likely didn't give it a second thought. Does that make it right? No, but it is understandable.

Just noticed Belle's question about my definition of believing; I don't really have one. I really prefer "faith" over "believe" because it has a connotation of faithfulness, trust, as well as confidence and steadfastness. I think this lines up more with the idea behind the Greek word "pistis," which is a noun and not a verb. I would personally define it as "that which you believe, trust, and have confidence in." In its verb form I would define it as "having confidence and trusting in". But I think of faith as different from believing, because I may believe someone, but not trust them or have confidence in them. But if I trust them, or have faith in them, I will believe them also. Of course I could be wrong in my understanding; I would be stupid not to be aware of that possibility. Belle, I"m not as legalistic as you make me sound. I really do agree with your response to rascal.

It's the phrase "confesses Jesus as Lord", that I am referring to. If I hire you as an employee and was your boss, if you confessed me as your boss (while at work only of course) you would do what I said (in regards to the job). In Romans 10:9 it is not a cut and dried as that, but the idea is the same. I would at least begin to change my behavior to line up with what Jesus Christ said I was to do. Will I succeed every time? No! Will I do it every time? No! It is a learning experience and an ongoing one. I have at no time said that this change in behavior is an instant thing. (Wouldn't it be great if it was?) I have known people who have taken years to show any change in behavior, even a small one, but I never doubted that they were born again. We have bad habits and attitudes that we have to unlearn and it takes time. Praise God that he looks at the heart, and not at our actions. So to answer you question, if a person really believes and confesses according to Roman's 10:9 & 10 he is saved, born again he will, because he has confessed Jesus as Lord, begin working to change his behavior and if he is like me, often he will fail terribly. When I left TWI in '76 I ran from God for over 13 years, but I still knew I was born again. My heart still nagged at me to correct myself and come back to God. Even when I had hardened my heart, He still guided someone to me, to remind me that He loved me. During those 13 years I did some things that were horrible, Drugs, booze, etc. My behavior actually changed for the worse, but my heart still wanted to change for the better, and God looks at the heart. I'll let Him decide who is born again, it's not my place.

Belle, I guess that depends how you are thinking about what I say. If I confess Jesus as Lord and mean it with all my heart (which I believe is at lest the heart behind this verse), then I do what he says. If He says, don't lie, and I lie, I stop - Because He is my Lord and I do what he says, resulting in a change in my behavior. If I do not make him lord in that area I don't change if I do.. I change or at least try to. Notice that I said what he (Jesus) says, not a minister. It is not ever law, it is supposed to be an act of the heart.

I want to first of allrespond to the first post concerning Romans 10:9. Confessing Jesus as Lord and believing at the time is really all that is needed from what I can see...But believing it means really doing it. If Jesus is Lord in my life, I do what he says, resulting in a change of lifestyle. If your lifestyle isn't changing, you don't really belive it.

While this may seem a little paranoid, it really is a pretty standard set of statements. I am part of a team that works on my library's terms of use statements and while the wording is different the key elements are the same. These elements are common among most of the use and privacy statements that I've seen on web. So I can't really falt them here.

Yes we should forgive them. But that doesn't mean we let them take advantage of us. Should we let them back in a leadership position. Maybe. It would take a while for them to regain enough trust to be alowed to do so. But if they showed clear and obvious evidence of repentance (equalling a change in behavior and attitude) I believe that one could become a responsible leader. Jim Baker, I believe, is back in a leadership position of a small ministry. From what I remember seeing he is doing very well and is very responsible. He was quoted on the program I watched as saying that he was much happier and more fulfilled than he ever was while he doing TV.

Sounds to me like you've hit the nail on the head as far as what's going on. Pretty accurate discription from what I know about it. Any group that only offers a canned Biblical product I believe is not really going to grow. TWI grew because they offered a really good home fellowship system for free, at least in the begining. As the home fellowship begain to be more controled and the teachings more controled, this was lost. Off subject again...I agree that a church income should not be much more than it's outflow, for charity and other work and even support of its clergy. And I don't have a problem with classes run as a business by the church, but the money should be used for the good of the church (the people) and to help the needy and the class should never become the goal of the church.

Socks, That's as far as it goes a good point. However I believe a biblical teacher or author should receive material blessings as well as spiritual ones for his work. (before anyone asks me if I do... I don't) The priests in the OT lived off the offerings and from what I can tell even though Paul made every effort not to live off the people he was teaching, local leaders did receive some, and Paul used offerings from one area while he worked in another. I don't see any way around dealing with the business system for book publishing and I really don't have a problem with charging for classes to off set cost and expenses which would include living expense while the class was put together if I worked full time on it. My prefered method of payment for classes and instruction however would be to take an offering and let God work in peoples heart how much to give. I guess I've taken this tread somewhat off track and for that I apologize. So to put it slightly back on track in Geers lack of presences, the lack of an Advance Class, his terms of licence and the fact that many churches (and I do mean churches, not TWI splinters) that teach very simular things without the rules and restrictions has led to some shrinking among Chris Geers followers. I know of many die hard Geer followers who have realized that they can get spiritual food else where.

There is very little original work in any biblical class or book. Most every one of them is re-working of someone's work. Copeland learned from Oral Roberts, Oral Roberts learn from someone else. Unless the work is the result of some newly discovered biblical texts and the person writing is the original worker almost everyone is teaching something that they learned from someone else. This is true also in music instruction. Mel Bay learned how to play guitar from someone, so in that sense those books are simply a reworking of someone else's material as well. We seem to have a double standard in this area when it comes to Bible teaching. VPW - appears to have done some word for word plagerizing, and that really is not acceptable. I am not justifying this type of plagerizing.

Yes, the tapes are from Pallai's teachings at TWI. Geer did spend some time cleaning them up and putting together a very good book to go with them. I really don't have a problem with people charging for a class or even putting one together. This is really no different to me than writing a book an charging for it. If I did the work I would expect to get paid for it. I have no problem with someone making a living teaching the word...as long as they are living the word that they teach, or at least trying to. What I would have a problem with is people taking the class and blindly accepting anything in it.

I doubt it. I know that God has much better things for me to do with our offerings than give them to him.

A one year licence to run his class used to be $1000 or 10% of the ABS, whichever was greater, and you could only run a class within x number of miles from your location. Our group looked into once and felt that his was too much control to suit us. One of the other reasons why these groups might be letting their contracts lapse is because it has taken so long to get an Advanced Class. It is always, almost there, but not yet. There are two classes which are available from him to run that I would concider well worth the price. (The $1000, not the 10% of the ABS) He has two Orientialism class made from Bishop Poli's (I know that name is not spelled right) which are very good. In fact the second one is really great. But then you could take these classes and play them in almost any church without cause any real problems. And Geer is not the first to licence the teaching of "word of God in this way. Many groups have classes that they licence to run. Sometimes they are free and sometimes not. Most of the licences do not cost much more than the cost of the material.

I think among a lot of ex-TWI there is a fear of churchs, but it a weird way. Let me share what's happening with my little group. First I encourage people to go to other churches. And alot of them do. Since we meet at different times than most churches. Two families attends a church every Sunday, in addition to coming to our fellowship. I've been trying to get our group to move into at least renting a building, but I've been getting a lot of flack about the idea. Not because of the money issue, but because meeting in a church building would be wrong. And guess who is hitting me with this the most often. The two familes who are attending one of the regular church every Sunday. Go figure.

"Every time that our 5 senses would kick in and tell us that *hey this is NOT a good idea* .. we were trained to shut that voice down with all critical thinking ...assuming that Satan was trying to trick us into not doing God`s will at our leaders bidding" Personally, I would say, it would say that this was not always just your 5-senses, but God telling you "this is a really bad idea." But since it contradicted what our leaders and they weren't listening, you ended up being taught not to listen to God.

As regards to any teaching that moves people away from God, and putting their trust in a group or man, (besides Jesus Christ); or that causes any kind of hurt and pain... let us hope and pray that it got smaller.....very much smaller.

I didn't really know how to answer the question. Because I don't really think of our group as teaching re-ajusted TWI teachings, but that's how I voted. I believe that we try to teach the word of God, and try and keep an open mind to change that which we find out is wrong. Of course TWI "said" they did that also. When I define our beliefs to others, I describe them more like Kenneth Copeland, or Kenneth Hagin. There was much wrong teaching in TWI, but there was also much right teaching as well. What I've notice here is that a large number of people disagree on which was right and which was wrong and most believe that what was taught that was right, was taught for the wrong motives.

Relating to the first post. II Timothy 2:15 was one of the first verses that I really wanted to understand after I left the way. So I want to share a couple of things that I worked. This is my understanding, and while I believe it to be accurate I know there is always the likelyhood that I can be wrong. To be approved = to show yourselve worthy of the value that has been placed upon you. Context is to a some one who is operating as minister, So it may be said in context to mean "to show yourselve worthy of the calling that has been placed upon you. This is after salavtion and has nothing to do with eternal life. Basicly, do what you have been called to do. Word of Truth - no problem here, but the word is Logos, which as I understand it refers to the heart behind the written or spoken word. i.e. It is not whether you know that Jesus was crucified, but whether you know why Jesus was crucified. We got so caught up in the "accuracy" that we lost the heart of the word.

[i STILL can't find a verse that MIGHT support this meaning. Anyone? You are right. I was trying to operate by memory. The word used in humiliated in the NIV and ashamed in KJV, regarding David men who had their beards shaved off in II Samuel 10. Also I should point out that I was only refering to the words used in KJV regarding the making sport of Samson and mocking Jesus and their use at the time the KJV was translated, not the Greek or Hebrew texts. As I mentioned in my first post, the correct answer is really, I don't know. The bible doesn't spell it out either way as far as Samson is concerned and really anything else is complete speculation. Personally, I don't believe that either one of them was attacked sexually.

The correct answer is "I don't know." But I have heard the teachings. It would not surprise me if Samson was molested as you put it. "make sport" has been a common term for sexual play through the years. So I believe it is possible. "They mocked him," however is not a common term for sexual play, but has to the best of my knowledge always be used of degrading someone's honor or making fun of them. There were some ambassadors that David sent to a kingdom that were mocked by having half of their beards cut off, and their clothing cut short. But it never says they dealt with in a sexual manner.