markomalley

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...1&st=&p=entry We filed in the trash can a ton of stuff, we sold some things, gave away a ton of memorabilia, and kept a small select. ----- Threw it all away....didn't want it, didn't need it! ----- We threw it all away...stuff people apparently still want...even a set of PFAL videos....But our son, knowing the angst of our former cult invovement, and being quite amused by it, wore a way staff namebadge on his shirt....Yeah, he freaked us out! ----- I threw out tapes and tapes and tapes, some old notes that had nothing more than the title of a teaching and some bible verses on them. ----- Two months ago I came across GS and "saw the light"! Last month I held a BBQ with both Christian and Non-Christian friends. I broke out the champagne for everyone as I threw all TWI materials into the bon-fire I created. It was emotional for me but its gone and over with. ----- I kept mine for about three years after I got out. One day, after I was married, the Holy Spirit convicted me that what was in these books, tapes and magazines were ungodly. So out they went...I even tossed my companion bible because I didn't want the confusion...I still have a Youngs, Tyndale New Testament and Word study, but all the way stuff is in a trash dump. Fitting isn't it ? ----- Lots of things got dumpsterized, after several moves things just sort of dissipated, every once in awhile I run across something.Stray notes in a box mostly-- No PFAL videos, somewhere I have the never available Living Victoriously Videos that I got as a gift that I keep around for I dont know what reason, maybe in case I have to torture an overstaying guest From: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...wtopic=2397&hl= Any old way magazines running from the late 60s to late 80s are a gold mine. The research papers in there and the historical information is valuable. I was just looking in an old magazine from 1985 or 1986 and was saw a GMIR article actually explained the thinking behind the Aramaic (or Palestinian Aramaic) being the original. A long article! I’ve heard that before but never thought that the actual information was just readily available. Almost all these magazines from the 70s to 80s have these research articles. The magazines have leadership profiles and other stuff starring your favorite Way characters, like: Geer, Lynn, Dubofsky, and so on. These things should be made in Adobe Acrobat format and made available to everybody. If not that, they could or should be sold for $100-$200 a Way Mag maybe more. ------------ ll sell mine to you for 200 bucks a piece. Hell what else you want? I got AC notebooks, original PFAL stuff. Got a tape from 1982 of VPW yelling at the Way Corps....Hey I think I'll start a new business!...I'm excited. Just e-mail me your CC and SS# and I'll send it all to you....you know I'm kidding don't you? Your not serious about the $200 per mag right? ------------- Yeah, Way Magazines are cool,but I've got a collection of old T.V. GUIDES! Oh the truths that can be discerned from them! What a treasure-trove of wisdom! These must be worth thousands! ------------- A gold mine is a piece of dirt that contains gold...After mining, the gold has value...TWI magazines, like anything else from TWI contains regurgitated stuff, fools gold at best and hurtful doctrines at worst... ------------- More of the same, plus or minus... The point: the comments are not all that different than what was on this thrread.

So let's review. From the first link: I couldn't in good conscience sell my stuff, knowing what poison it is. I tossed it all. But then I heard how much it was fetching on ebay. --------- Im sure you could get alittle money for the books on EBay or somewhere but wouldn't a burning ceremony be much more satisfying? ---------- I like *********'s idea.... we could have a burn night at the next weenie roast!!! Everybody bring at least ONE piece of ministry garbage....lol I have a small chest of daily fliers from roa back to 79.... tickets .... booklets wow bands....heart mags ....kids mags....I have tapes....might even dig out my reel to reels!....sns tapes....roa tapes !!!! I think it`d be a HOOT! Note that there was plenty of slam dunks on TWI on that particular thread. The second link refers to some music by TWI followers from the 1970s and does not have any negative comments on it. Third link: I am putting up my TWI tape library for auction on eBay....This tape is a classic example of how TWI has a history of intimidating people who dare to question them and how they make examples of those who do in order to control their people. ------ If people paid for the Velveeta Virgin sandwich (or whatever that processed insanity was...lol) there no doubt would be somebodies willing to pay for the cassette baggage. But even to come to the same conclusion that TWI was corrupted, unpure, and ferociously intimidating would take aaallll those hours of listening and considering....blech. I toted my library to the dump many years ago, knowing that among the crap were also some very dynamic, wonderful teachings (truly wonderful)that I always meant to "get back and relisten or re-research," but never did. Now I use the wall unit to house family pictures, photo albums, World Book Encyclopedias and maps of the world...lol...a good reclamation of space (the final frontier). --------------- Thanks for publishing some of the content of that tape. Boy, that is TWI at its purest! Intimidate the followers by accusing them of being intimidated. And more of the same on this thread... Fourth link: a 'friend tracker' link that asks about the current name of an artist who did a print that the poster wanted to sell. The rules for the 'friend tracker' forum is: This is for tracking lost friends. Do not put phone numbers in here. Obviously not a discussion forum. No responses to that link. Fifth link: a notice of an auction for a piece of artwork. You know..despite my aversion to anything twi...lol I like it....I really LIKE it! Sixth link: a notice of an auction for a number of diverse items. Can't we just donate directly to the college fund without defiling our houses with that stuff??? Seriously--leave a link I couldn't find it--maybe I'll bid on something and in the fall we can also have a Bonfire For K*****. --------------- The discussion went into a bit of talk about WOW pins (most people made an exception for this due to it representing the hardships they went through to earn it. A couple said that the WOW pin was the only thing they kept) I`ll bet that sob canceled the wow program and eliminated wearing the wow pin because he was jealous.... It wasn`t something that he ever did....that pin was a sign of status that he hadn`t earned....so he had to negate it`s value. He was that way about all of the things that made the ministry a happy place to be...the roa, spontanious twigs ....inspired teachings....talented artists....I think that he was jealous of anyone that could do things better than he...so he negated their value and dismissed them. ------------------ You help me to realise that even though I am so deeply disgusted with twi, and heartily ashamed that I was so foolish...deeply angered at being manipulated and used........it still doesn`t change what that silly little pin represented to me. ... The pin represented the selflessness of a pure heart. Sure it was stupid....sure we were naieve.....so what if they snickered behind our backs at our gullibility, sso what if they marveled at what we would endure for a silly little piece of metal....martindale would never have understood what it took to even make the commitment...much less survive past the first little bump or two in the road...face it, from the beginning, he was always a bit of a privledged character in twi. I still can`t quite bring myself to throw it away with all of the rest of my twi junk. Going WOW had nothing to do with lcm changing twi's doctrinal teachings...it had everything to do with the idealistic hearts of a lot of young people who wanted to serve God. No matter how screwed up twi was, the young kids who gave a year of their lives to do, what they thought, was God's will...was indeed a noble and great thing. I don't care if you were a Hari Krishna, a Moonie, or a follower of David Koresh...it was the pure intent of giving of yourself to help others and to be of service to God...it was what we THOUGHT we were doing...and I do believe that God looks on the heart. Again, a lot of bitterness expressed but an acknowledgement that the hearts of those folk who went WOW did so, even if in error, out of the purest of hearts. So WhiteDove, what, exactly, was your point?

You just don't understand...this isn't about you...I certainly do not seek your approval, believe me. No disrespect intended there, but your approval or disapproval of me, Oldies, dmiller, Mike, Jonny, Watered Garden, Excathedra, Galen, or anybody else is not really terribly relevent.

Keep in mind one thing: this is an ex-Way site. Not a TWI site. Not a reminiscent of the good old days site. From what I gather, the site management allows all of these views and encourages people to speak their minds, as long as they don't make personal attacks against other posters and maintain the anonymity of non-posters (with the exception of the current or past board of trustees/ directors of TWI). Nobody has, to my knowledge, violated those rules...

No, it doesn't. And i never said she might end up homicidal. I suggest you read what I posted again. Just to make it easy, I'll paste it in here: Well, all I can say is that if she can't take that little tiny amount of joking, she'd better never try posting on this site as a Catholic... She might end up homicidal!!! You will kindly notice the bolded text, above. You might then choose to go through and review the venom that has been spewed in the direction of the few of us who dare reveal publically that we are Catholics. Then you might understand the comment. Another thing: You know, if it was Mike or Oldies or What the Hey posting something pro-TWI or even reminiscent of the days in TWI (though doubtful that they'd ever sell a PFAL poster), they would be gang-raped on this site (as they have been multiple times). And nobody, but nobody would be defending them (at least I don't recall anybody ever saying "C'mon, lay off poor old Oldies."). So, I guess because it is Saint Watered Garden, everybody needs to be sensitive, but if it were Oldies, it's open season, right? Give me a break.

Sort of funny. Watered Garden said, Ya know, I was not actually posting this so people could throw eggs at me. Let's look at the eggs thrown (Galen was an exception so I won't list his eggs): Now, maybe I am just a little too thick skinned, but I didn't see any eggs thrown at her. I saw 2 people make some snide comments about the piffle class, but there were no personal attacks at all...no eggs thrown in her direction... Oh, I know, you all must have been PMing the personal attacks toward her. I got it! More comments: I majorly doubt if I ever post here again. What bitter, bitter people! ... ...I have moved on, and in fact, forward in my life. I don't need to spend endless hours dissecting TWI, cursing and villlifying every person who hurt and maimed me, all of the lies and pain are in the past. I really don't care what other people think of PFAL. I feel like just because I did know there are those who would like to have it and offered it, I am being attacked as this stupid piece of crap moron who doesn't "get" it. Maybe I don't "get" it. I'm just not as educated about how to really spend the rest of my life hating, being hardhearted and unforgiving. This is the year I am asking God to teach me about forgiveness. I think it's obvious I have a long way to go. But it's a worthwhile journey. At any rate, I'm not going to bother the elite here by posting anymore. Well, all I can say is that if she can't take that little tiny amount of joking, she'd better never try posting on this site as a Catholic... She might end up homicidal!!!

I think you're right that it would be difficult to find. Abigail, I see (as we've discussed before) abortion as a very ethically difficult issue. On one hand, a person should be secure in their own bodies. On the other hand, there are two lives (in my belief) involved in the decision and for one person to have the liberty to be secure in her own body, the right of the other person to be secure in her own body is necessarily compromised. Either way it comes down, one person loses some liberty. In one case, the person loses liberty for the sake of responsibility. In the other case, the person loses her life to allow the other to exercise that liberty. (Of course -- as we've also discussed before -- if you do not believe that there are two lives involved, then, in your belief, there is no ethical issue) As we discussed earlier, there is the issue of self-defense that must be considered...an extremely important point where you educated me. If the second person is, even inadvertently, attacking the first person and threatening the existence of the first person, the first person should have a right to defend herself against that attack. If that defense requires actions that destroy the second person (where the motivation is not the destruction of the second person, but the preservation of the first person's life), it is a regrettable outcome of a fully licit course of action. This is an important part of the talking points of the pro-choice advocacy groups. They state that women's lives will be endangered if Roe v Wade is reversed. However, as Stayed Too Long rightly pointed out, there was always the exception for the mother's life and health (the "and health" was essentially universal since the 1960s). So the question becomes: is that, in practice, what happened? Thus this question. Is it based on fact? Or is it hyperbole? I think that Laleo has a simply brilliant idea when she suggests that I look at maternal mortality rates as an indicator. If Roe v Wade increased the availability of medically necessary terminations, I should see a steep decline in maternal mortality rates. I'll see if I can find that statistic. Anyway, I do appreciate everybody's inputs on the subject.

Abigail, thanks for those links. What I am particularly concerned with, though, is data pre-Roe, being denied the care. Not whether or not their insurance scheme paid for it (commercial insurance or government-funded insurance being sort of irrelevant to the point I'm driving at). In the first case, the issue is medicaid (a public insurance scheme provided as a matter of government policy) funding for abortions. The state said that it would not fund abortions except to save the mother's life, or in the case of rape or incest. The plaintiffs said that this policy violated their privacy rights and that it was discriminatory. The court refused to rule on the second point because it was added to the case and not earlier decided by a lower court. They rejected the privacy claims on the following grounds: the women had a fundamental right to privacy in deciding to get pregnant and in deciding to terminate the pregnancy. The state was not involved in that decision in any way. However, the state also has no obligation under privacy to fund the result of that private decision, regardless of that decision. To me, that makes sense. Asserting a right is one thing. Forcing another to pay for one's assertion of rights is another thing altogether. As a concrete example: Rush Limbaugh has a right to freedom of speech, no matter how much his speech offends. If he was jailed for speaking his political views (no matter how desirable some may find that), his rights would have been violated. However, if a station cancels his show, the station has made a decision not to subsidize his speech. That is in no way a violation of his rights. Likewise, if the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (a government funded entity) decides not to air his program, the government has not violated his rights...he may still make his speech, the government has made a policy decision not to fund that speech. The situation of medicaid funding is almost completely analogous to the above. So what to do? Is court action the correct course? IMHO, no. Legislative action is the correct action. There are several states that support and encourage poor women to abort their pregnancies through state funding of abortions (e.g., California, Marylnad). Change the legislature and then the legislature can change the policy. The second link is a nonprofit charitable entity designed to accept contributions and make abortions available to those who cannot afford them on their own, have no insurance, and live in an area where the government has made a policy decision not to subsidize them. I have no problem with this at all and in fact think that this is the right thing to do (if you support the encouragement of abortions among poor women). The third link is a newspaper article describing the case described in the first link (thanks for sending me to the Communist Party USA's website, Abigail...geez) (BTW, when I say "encourage," I don't mean that they are going and saying to poor women, "Please abort your baby." I mean that the policy supports it. In social engineering, governments can encourage certain actions by the people by their policy decisions. The government wants you to buy hybrid cars: they encourage you to do so by giving a tax deduction for the purchase. Not that they are at the Toyota dealership saying "Buy that Prius!" -- but some people will decide between a Prius and a Corolla because of the tax deduction) The case that you mentioned is irrelevant to what I'm asking for one reason: Nobody told these women that they couldn't have an abortion. Nobnody. Doctors and hospitals often take charity cases. (speaking a little facaetiously here:) I am sure if they looked hard enough, they could have found a provider who would have been willing to take their case on a charity basis. Or they could have found a fund. The real issue is that the abortions were not being subsidized. Decisions to subsidize or not subsidize are policy issues and not constitutional ones (unless the rules for the subsidies said that they'd fund abortions for black women and not white or something else along those lines) I do sincerely appreciate you looking though... But honestly, if you're not aware of some compendium or don't have access to a database where a query could be done to mine the data, don't sweat it. I know there are a lot of raw data out there. Just finding the right stuff is the trick (if, in fact, it even exists)

I don't remember 'five to nothing.' Too many years (yipee). Can somebody summarize it's doctrine and give me the supporting verses. Does CES have something on their site that demonstrates it? Thanks.

Summary: yeah. Point 1. Most of the really bad pagan persecution started under Constantine's grandson, Theodosius I and got codified into law by his son Theodosius II. Point 2. Constantine was greatly influenced by the Arians, but kept an open mind to it all. I answered each of your points. the only one to point out in particular was the one about the Library of Alexandria. That was destroyed by mobs acting on an order of Theodosius to destroy the Temple of Serapis. More compact now?

So let me get this straight... I puruse the web and am unable to find any incidents. I ask for input (not just here, I assure you) and am unable to find any incidents. I go to statistical sites and am unable to find any incidents. And then I draw the conclusion Therefore, unless somebody can show me FACTS to illustrate the contrary, I must surmise that women had ample access to safe, legal abortions WHEN MEDICALLY NECESSARY prior to Roe v Wade. (bolding added for this post) Then you say that my argument lacks ethical logic? I think you have it backwards. I think the abortion proponents who cite access for medical necessity as a partial justification for upholding Roe v Wade as precedent have not substantiated their case. I think that access for medical necessity was never mentioned in the Roe v Wade arguments to begin with. And I think that the argument that Roe is necessary to protect access to medically indicated procedures is nothing but a red herring! I think they are the ones whose argument lacks ethical logic. The medical necessity argument was one originally brought up by the pro-choice side. They never substantiated their case. Still haven't. That is, unless you can show me some facts to demonstrate where I'm wrong. Which brings us back to the starting point. And please, nobody get me wrong. I am not accusing anybody here of producing a faulty argument. This is an argument that has been supported in political circles, in advocacy circles, in civil rights circles, and repeated ad nauseum by the media so that it is an accepted fact...through repitition. Sort of like a lot of Wierwille's theological arguments...if a statement is repeated long enough and loud enough, it becomes an established fact...no matter how false it, in fact, is.

Why not? And besides, I was not asking about abortion legislation. I was asking about if anybody had ever heard of a woman being denied a medically needed procedure. Actually, the pro and con sites can basically be summarized in this way: Pro-life: AARGH Murder! 47,000,000 babies killed! Look at the child! Roe v Wade is the devil's work! Abortion causes breast cancer! AARGH!!!!! Pro-choice: AARGH! Roe v Wade most important part of constitution! Keep rosaries off ovaries! coat hangars (no documented cases mind you)! botched abortions! men want to control women! AARGH!!!!! I would have thought that the pro-choice sites (at least one of them) would have shown cases where women, who medically NEEDED abortions, were denied them and then lost their lives (or had an illegal one) prior to Roe v Wade. That would be a very powerful case to make...but, apparently, that case doesn't exist anywhere. At least nobody has been able to show me that case (and there are a couple of very, very educated, fact-based ladies on this site that I would have thought would be able to do so). Therefore, unless somebody can show me FACTS to illustrate the contrary, I must surmise that women had ample access to safe, legal abortions WHEN MEDICALLY NECESSARY prior to Roe v Wade. Getting back to the original question, can anybody prove my summation wrong? Please?

I have some problems with Bullinger's case presented in that document (as subsequently hijacked by Wierwille). First of all, they make the case that soul means breath. I have a problem with that. There are two separate words: pnoe and psuche. pnoe 4157 -- breath Acts 2:2, Acts 17:25 psuche 5590 -- soul, life force, that which animates a body Bullinger, in your linked document, states the following: This is what God says about death. He explains it to us Himself. We need not therefore ask any man what it is. And if we did, his answer would be valueless, inasmuch as it is absolutely impossible for him to know anything of death, i.e. the death-state, as we have no noun in English to express the act of dying (as German has in the word “sterbend”). This is unfortunate, and has been the cause of much error and confusion. We find the answer is just as clear and decisive in Psalm 104:29,30: “Thou takest away their breath (Heb. spirit), they die, And return to their dust: Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: And thou renewest the face of the earth.” With this agrees Ecc. 12:7, in which we have a categorical statement as to what takes place at death: “Then shall the dust RE-turn to the earth as it was: And the spirit shall RE-turn unto God who gave it”. The “dust” was, and will again be “dust”: but nothing is said in Scripture as to the spirit apart from the body, either before their union, which made man “a living soul,” or after that union is broken, when man becomes what Scripture calls “a dead soul.” His citation from Psalms does not refer to the nephesh, but to the ruwach. Likewise the citation from Ecclesiastes. Both verses refer to what happens to the corpus, the body. Both verses speak to what happens to the Spirit given by God, the ruwach. Neither refer to the destination for the psuche/nephesh. That's the problem with Bullinger...imho... and YMMV

Thank you for the response. I sincerely do appreciate it. Sorry about the first link...it is several posts above the thread pointed to in the second link... I never stated that the Donation of Constantine played into your viewpoint, in particular. However, it accounts for, as far as I can see, the origins of many of the Protestant myths as to Constantine's alleged corruption of the Church through imperial influence. IMHO (YMMV), the key paragraph in this document is this: For we wish you to know,, as we have signified through our former imperial decree, that we have gone away, from the worship of idols, from mute and deaf images made by hand, from devilish contrivances and from all the pomps of Satan; and have arrived at the pure faith of the Christians, which is the true light and everlasting life. Believing, according to what he-that same one, our revered supreme father and teacher, the pontiff Sylvester - has taught us, in God the Father, the almighty maker of Heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible; and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord God, through whom all things are created; and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and vivifier of the whole creature. We confess these, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, in such way that, in the perfect Trinity, there shall also be a fulness of divinity and a unity of power. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; and these three are one in Jesus Christ. This is, in fact, patently false. The great document that Constantine authored in regard to Christianity was the Edict of Milan. It's a relatively short document, so I'll just post the whole thing here: When I, Constantine Augustus, as well as I, Licinius Augustus, fortunately met near Mediolanurn (Milan), and were considering everything that pertained to the public welfare and security, we thought, among other things which we saw would be for the good of many, those regulations pertaining to the reverence of the Divinity ought certainly to be made first, so that we might grant to the Christians and others full authority to observe that religion which each preferred; whence any Divinity whatsoever in the seat of the heavens may be propitious and kindly disposed to us and all who are placed under our rule. And thus by this wholesome counsel and most upright provision we thought to arrange that no one whatsoever should be denied the opportunity to give his heart to the observance of the Christian religion, of that religion which he should think best for himself, so that the Supreme Deity, to whose worship we freely yield our hearts) may show in all things His usual favor and benevolence. Therefore, your Worship should know that it has pleased us to remove all conditions whatsoever, which were in the rescripts formerly given to you officially, concerning the Christians and now any one of these who wishes to observe Christian religion may do so freely and openly, without molestation. We thought it fit to commend these things most fully to your care that you may know that we have given to those Christians free and unrestricted opportunity of religious worship. When you see that this has been granted to them by us, your Worship will know that we have also conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases; this regulation is made we that we may not seem to detract from any dignity or any religion. Moreover, in the case of the Christians especially we esteemed it best to order that if it happens anyone heretofore has bought from our treasury from anyone whatsoever, those places where they were previously accustomed to assemble, concerning which a certain decree had been made and a letter sent to you officially, the same shall be restored to the Christians without payment or any claim of recompense and without any kind of fraud or deception, Those, moreover, who have obtained the same by gift, are likewise to return them at once to the Christians. Besides, both those who have purchased and those who have secured them by gift, are to appeal to the vicar if they seek any recompense from our bounty, that they may be cared for through our clemency. All this property ought to be delivered at once to the community of the Christians through your intercession, and without delay. And since these Christians are known to have possessed not only those places in which they were accustomed to assemble, but also other property, namely the churches, belonging to them as a corporation and not as individuals, all these things which we have included under the above law, you will order to be restored, without any hesitation or controversy at all, to these Christians, that is to say to the corporations and their conventicles: providing, of course, that the above arrangements be followed so that those who return the same without payment, as we have said, may hope for an indemnity from our bounty. In all these circumstances you ought to tender your most efficacious intervention to the community of the Christians, that our command may be carried into effect as quickly as possible, whereby, moreover, through our clemency, public order may be secured. Let this be done so that, as we have said above, Divine favor towards us, which, under the most important circumstances we have already experienced, may, for all time, preserve and prosper our successes together with the good of the state. Moreover, in order that the statement of this decree of our good will may come to the notice of all, this rescript, published by your decree, shall be announced everywhere and brought to the knowledge of all, so that the decree of this, our benevolence, cannot be concealed. From reading the actual document, it's apparent that he granted Christians the freedom to worship as they choose (paragraph 1). He also ordered the restoration of confiscated properties (paragraph 2). An interesting thing about Constantine, though. He was baptized about a month before his death. The place he was baptized was Nicomedia. The bishop of that church was Eusebius. Eusebius of Nicomedia was an Arian. The Arians (the major heresy of the time) were not, in fact, put down until the reign of Theodosius I. Now, as to your specific summary: Christianity had no set standard and beliefs were varied from extreme to extreme. I wouldn't concur with that. The apostles actually had a standard doctrine. There were widely divergent heresies going on since apostolic times (in fact, a number of the writings of the apostles specifically dealt with heresies that had cropped up already during their lifetimes) The largest division that could possibly group groups into agreement was the subject of the deity of Christ. At that time, that's true. However, as Danny is wont to point out, Marcion had a major following less than 200 years prior to that point. Constantine saw the empire in religious turmoil, not only between Christians and "pagans" but between Christians and Christians. True (he says really slowly)... Constantine called the council of Nicene, with orders to establish a standard. I believe his words were something to the effect of, "I don't care what you decide, just give me a standard I can enforce." Constantine did want a standard... The decisions at these councils were not unanimous, but very divided. Voting was along religious affiliations (much like how Congress works today). My understanding is also that there were many divisions; however, my understanding is that those divisions were, in the main, resolved during the Council of Nicea...and they cropped up again after its conclusion... Constantine declared Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, giving it the backing of its military. That is patently false, as I mentioned above. Theodosius I declared Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Dissenters of the decisions of Nicene (the first and the following) were rounded up, tortured till they recanted, or murdered. I believe that this persecution of Pagans and unrepentent Arians did not happen until the reign of Theodosius II. Documents the dissenters cherished were ordered to be destroyed, which were done in orderly fashion -- so much so that we did not know most of them until the last 60 years when some that were hidden by a monk in a cave were discovered (the worst destruction being the library at Alexandria, the best accumulation of all knowledge up to that point, burned because it contained some Gnostic texts). Again, Theodosius, through his code, deserves the credit for this. Or shall we say over-zealous supporters of Theodosius: Towards the end of the fourth century, events took a tragic turn with conflicts growing, again, between the Christian community and the Pagans - the Catechetical School and the Mouseion. In AD 389, the Temple of Serapis at Canopus fell. Sentiments reached a peak during the eventful year of AD 391, when the Roman Emperor Theodosius issued a decree which authorized the destruction of the Temple of Serapis at Alexandria, the last refuge of the Pagans and home of the Mouseion. Fourteen years later (note: this would be 405 AD...), the famous female Neo-Platonist mathematician, Hyptaia, the last person known known to have taught at the world-famous Mouseion, was torn apart by an Alexandrian mob in riots marking the end of Paganism in Alexandria. The mob has also been blamed for the destruction of the Great Library, encouraged by Christian monks who loathed its collection of Pagan knowledge. source According to this, and most other reasonable sources, there are two key points: The library was destroyed at the beginning of the 5th Century. Constantine was long since dead and buried by that time. The library was destroyed because of Pagan contents, not gnostic contents. Anyway, I do appreciate your response. Much better to engage in reasonable conversation rather than the alternative.

??? :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh:

Sorry, I don't see the problem with her statement "was something I did not pray for, I had abused my body, used abortion (I don't want to hear your comments) as birth control and knew I had destroyed my body." Clearly, Oak, if you keep it in context, she is asking that people don't jump down her throat for having, in the past, used abortion as birth control. I think that this is a reasonable request that should be honored (and remember, I am the dyed-in-the-wool Catholic who is so pro-life as to disapprove of birth control pills as a possible abortifacient)

Again, **sigh** Been through this not that long ago... Please review this post and the one immediately following it. They contain a discussion of the Edict of Milan. Then Please review the following , where the Donation of Constantine is discussed. The problem comes in with this document, the Donation of Constantine. This document, actually written in the 8th century, is the source of the the accusations that Constantine was the origin of the corruption of Christianity. The following passage is from an introduction to the document posted at Fordham University. Please check out the link. This is perhaps the most famous forgery in history. For centuries, until Lorenzo Valla proved it was forgery during the Renaissance it provied the basis for papal territorial and jurisdictional claims in Italy. Probably at least a first draft of it was made shortly after the middle of the eighth century in order to assist Pope Stephen II in his negotiations with the Frankish Mayor of the Palace, Pepin the Short. The Pope crossed the Alps to anoint the latter as king in 754, thereby enabling, the Carolingian family, to which Pepin belonged, to supplant the old Merovingian royal line which had become decadent and powerless and to become in law as well as in fact rulers of the Franks. In return, Pepin seems to have promised to give to the Pope those lands in Italy which the Lombards had taken from Byzantium. The promise was fulfilled in 756. Constantine's alleged gift made it possible to interpret Pepin's grant not as a benefaction but as a restoration. The actual document follows (can be viewed at the above link). We had this discussion back last September already. I hate going back over the same material over and over again. But I guess this should be viewed as an opportunity to have patience. **sigh**

White Dove, Thanks for the considered response. Actually, to be more accurate with your statement, I actually agree that the dead are not alive (zao); however, I do not agree with the conclusion of what Wierwille stated happens with the soul (psuche) after the death of the body. I, frankly, think that this improper and (unless you can show otherwise) unsupported conclusion as to the destination of the soul is a key part of the overall error taught by Wierwille. Actually, I find it sort of ironic. Didn't Wierwille stress somewhere that we needed to stress the difference between body, soul, and spirit? Not meaning to derail this thread (this is your cue, Belle), but this potential misinterpretation could be a key source of the 'once saved, always saved' error taught by several (but not hardly all) Protestant denominations. You are, however, quite correct that the state of the soul following a person's death is not the point of this story; the point is to show how the rich have jeopardized the state of their souls through their love of material things. This theme, a call to repentence and away from materialism, is a repeated theme throughout the gospels. And Jesus did not invent this social gospel, we can see this 'charity' as a requirement put forth throughout the Old Testament, as well (consider the requirement not to pick the fields bare, but to leave some so that the poor can glean from them).

**sigh** Your mileage may vary. If you don't like what's served, don't eat. But I guess that's what I get...try to give a serious answer to what I perceive to be a serious question by Lindy and I end up taking crap off a smart-a$$. Hey, you're a mod...if you don't like what I write here in 'doctrine', rather than spewing short little bits of ill-conceived garbage (I like your last answer to me too...'go to the library'), why don't you use your power and ban me? You'd probably please about 75% of the participants of the site if you did. Nah, make that 90%. Or, alternatively, you could act like an adult and constructively engage in the conversation.

Good post, Lindy. But.... The assumptions you cite: 1) agreed 2) agreed 3) I would rather put it that God's Word is expressed in the Bible. 4) I would also put it that God's Will is contained in the Bible. I categorically reject, as I've expressed before, the false logic that Wierwille and others espouse that the Word of God = the Will of God. OK? 2 Pet 1:21KJV: "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost." RSV: "because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." NASB: "for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." NAB: "for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." Interestingly, the words rendered in the kjv as 'came' and 'moved' are both the Greek word phero. The first usage (the will of man clause) is in the 3rd person singular, aorist tense (indicating something, looked at from outside, happened in the past), indicative mood. The second usage is a participle written in the passive voice present tense. The meaning of the word itself is "to bear, to carry" IMHO (YMMV) I would think that this verse would be better translated as (The ability of) Prophecy was not at any time borne by human will, but men, carried by the Holy Spirit, spoke from God. As pertains to this passage ONLY, ok? First of all, the word God breathed is not used in this verse. Nor is the inspiration of God. Since we're talking about this verse (2 Pe 1:21), let's stay within that context. Peter starts off by exhorting the audience (presumably a church in asia) to remain faithful. He then asserts their authority in vv 16-21. Please note the shift of persons from verse 15 to vv 16-21 (from "I" to "we"). In verse 16 he starts by stressing the authenticity of his message. He says in verse 16-18 that they were eyewitnesses, specifically mentioning the transfiguration. In verse 19, we have a statement often taken out of context by King James lovers, "a more sure word of prophecy." First of all, the word "prophecy" is actually the adjective form of the word "prophetia" (the word used in vs 20 and 21). If you look at the word "prophetia" in the classical Greek, it refers to the 'gift of interpreting the will of the gods.' In the NT, it can refer either to the ability/gift or to the message. Next, the word "word" is logos, which emphasizes the content rather than the physical words (graphe -- used in v 20, emphasizes the words over the content). There is no corresponding greek word for "more" The corresponding word for "sure" is bebaios -- sure is an OK translation. Could also be "firm, sure, certain, steady, etc." Therefore, this phrase is better translated as: "and we have the certain prophetic message" Then we have verse 20-21. Verse 20 is pretty well translated. Verse 21 was covered above. But here's the key: the structure of what is written here. Peter asserts their authority (from the context mentioning eyewitnesses, its apparent he's referring to the apostles as 'we') as eyewitnesses. He then mentions that they have the certain prophetic word (cf Jn 16:13 -- when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth.) He then says that the prophecy of the scripture is reliable. Then, if you look at 2 Pet 2, you will notice that he immediately warns them about false teachers. If you see the contra-example in 2 Pet 2, the example shown in 2 Pet 1 becomes very clear. OK, so why all of this? Because Peter is saying that the scriptures are reliable...but, in the same breath, he is saying that what they are hearing from the apostles are reliable. You really can't separate one from the other. Next, what is he talking about when he speaks about the scriptures? Immediately, he would have to be referring to the OT, as there was no canon of the NT established yet (even though 2 Pt is noted to be the last canonical NT writing). Now that the canon of the NT is set (by the successors to the apostles who have the 'certain prophetic message'), it is apparent that it should be interpreted to both the OT canon and the NT canon. Already covered above. Well, I try not to remember what TWI taught when I can. I prefer to actually go to more authoritative sources...such as the Bible itself and the Patristic Fathers... First, I undoubtedly believe that "All scripture is inspired by God." But I also can clearly see that there are multiple varieties with which this inspiration happened. It's clear that some of the scriptures are writings of visions. It is clear that others are records of oral histories (such as Mark, Luke). Others apparently are diary-type writings. Still others are records of words God inspired prophets to speak. Others are the poetry and songs written by people inspired by God. It is my fervent belief that God preserved a message to all of mankind through these words...and I also believe that God has preserved these writings. But I don't believe that any of them were a case of "automatic writing," such as TWI tried to teach (yes, I know they didn't literally teach that, but close enough). Do I believe there can be other inspired writings (or as you point out paintings, songs, etc.)? Sure I do. Do I believe that they should be elevated to the stature of the canonical writings? No. Do I believe that God cut off the spigot when 2 Peter was finished? Nope. Because I believe that God has continually worked and guided His Church since He sent the paraclete and will continue to do so until the time of the parousia (second coming), so "that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. " (Eph 5:27) [And no, that does not mean that I think that all the people, including leaders, of the Church are without spot, wrinkle, etc.] As to your discourse on the will of man, I reject the assumption from which you draw the parallel, so I'll just leave that alone for now. Hope that helps. Again, great post Lindy! On edit: to remove a duplication in the post that may have made it unclear.

Not the US Protestants. This happened over in Europe. So it's not a US problem. That's one reason why I prefer the traditional, historic approach to the problem rather than the sola scriptura approach.Consider the following verses: 1Cr 11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. 1Cr 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. 2Th 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. Jud 1:3 Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. bolding mine If you were to do a simple word study on the word "delivered," (paradidomi), you would find out that the word could be substituted with "handed over" very easily. Also, the word "saints" could easily and accurately be rendered "holy ones." The point that I'd raise is that a regard for the Bible is very proper. After all, all scripture is given by inspiration of God, right? But a regard solely for the Bible without regard for the tradition passed down by the Fathers of the Church (starting with the apostles) is, as the above-cited scriptures testify, unscriptural! (IMHO YMMV) True, there are some issues where one must consider metaphysics. The biggest issue to be considered, though, is the ontological differences between a temporal being, like man, and one who is not bounded by time or space, i.e., God. There are perceptive differences there that must be considered. For example, trying to apply our temporal comprehension to John's apocolypse renders it meaningless, silly, and in the case of some who foolishly try to set a date, potentially dangerous. One thing to keep in mind is that Jesus promised that the paraclete would come and guide the apostles into "all truth" until His return (Jn 14-16) So (with due respect to Danny), I would tend to regard the teachings preserved by the apostles and their successors with much higher regard than those that were utterly rejected by them (such as various gnostic sources). This is not to say that there is nothing to learn from those writings, but (again IMHO) one must keep in careful context those writings that advocate different positions. (And, again, with due respect to Danny, YMMV. I have the highest regard for his study, knowledge, and courtesy. We have just arrived at different conclusions to the same problem.)

White Dove, Thank you for the comments. I would note to you that I actually read the Bullinger account that you so dilligently typed out prior to posting the Luke 16 account. It is interesting that the 'figure-master' himself explicitly stated in his commentary on Luke 16:19 that this is not a parable. (Having said that, I actually agree with you that it has the 'purpose' of a parable, even though it might not fit within Bullinger's rule of parable construction precisely). You are right in pointing this out, because it serves the purpose in illustrating the importance of charity for our neighbor and that the self-centeredness of the rich man in life had consequences in death. But the story would have fallen apart had the audience not had the eschatology to accept the illustration contained in the story. Upon further reading, in fact, I would like to withdraw a statement I made that said <i>A case could even be made for Luke 16 actually taking place after the resurrection of the body and the judgement.</i> It is clear, upon further reading of the section (cf v 27-29), that it could not have happened after the general judgement. In looking at this type of story (parable), one doesn't reject all the facts to make the point...the facts in the story illustrate the point in a powerful fashion through using these points to illustrate another one. (Although, again, since there is no comparison going on here, technically it is not a parable -- even though the effect is one of a powerful message) <hr> Danny, Very good points brought up illustrating the true point of this story! This is a powerful illustration of the importance of sharing our wealth with those in need -- one that could well be pointed out to many in this society (rather than depending upon the teats of the socialist sow for our existence)

By the way, I looked at another section of that site that attempted to deal with the Rev 6:9-11 passage that I cited... Revelation 6:9-11 (9) And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: (10) And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost Thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? (11) And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled. From these verses it is taught that the “souls” of dead people are alive and speaking. We have seen that in the Bible the word “soul” very often refers to the person himself. Here is another example: 1 Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, EIGHT SOULS [eight people] were saved by water. Such is the case in Revelation 6:9. The statement simply means, “I saw those [people] who had been slain.” How did John “see” them? In the vision that Jesus Christ gave him, recorded in the Book of Revelation, of many future events, including the bodily resurrection of those saints martyred during the period of tribulation. How then did they “cry with a loud voice”? This is the figure of speech called personification. It is: A figure by which things are represented or spoken of as persons; or, by which we attribute intelligence, by words or actions, to inanimate objects or abstract ideas. 75 “Inanimate objects” includes dead people. Figuratively, they are represented as alive and waiting, and thus this usage is similar to the usage in Isaiah 14:8-10 noted earlier. Certainly they were not disembodied beings floating around, for how could such wear robes? (For a thorough exposition of Revelation 6:9-11, see E.W. Bullinger’s Commentary On Revelation, pages 263-274.) OK, so where to start... The first thing. Yes, the word psuche is used in both Rev 6:9 and 1 Pet 3:20. One thing that the author of the quoted work doesn't mention is that the usage in Rev 6:9 is in the accusative and that the usage in 1 Pet 3:20 is in the nominative. The usage in Rev 6:9 is further modified by the word sphazo. That word means "to slay." However, in its usage in Rev 6:9, it is expressed as a past participle. That means that, even though it is a verb, it acts like a noun. This "noun"/ participle is written in the Genitive. That implies a type of possession with the noun to which it refers. In other words, the usage in 1 Pet could easily be substituted with the word "lives" (rather than "people", as the author suggests) [i.e., Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, EIGHT SOULS [eight peoplelives] were saved by water.] While in Revelation, the word psuche must refer to the participle that is modified by it. In other words, the souls [or lives] of those who were slain. So, in other words, the conclusion drawn by the author, Such is the case in Revelation 6:9. The statement simply means, “I saw those [people] who had been slain.” How did John “see” them? In the vision that Jesus Christ gave him, recorded in the Book of Revelation, of many future events, including the bodily resurrection of those saints martyred during the period of tribulation. How then did they “cry with a loud voice”? This is the figure of speech called personification. is simply in error. Had the author said, instead, The statement simply means, “I saw those souls/ lives of the [people] who had been slain.”, it would be accurate. As to the usage of the figure of speech personification, that would be mandated on the false assumption that what he saw was dead bodies. And, as one can see when the verse is understood, he isn't seeing dead bodies, but the souls (or lives/ life force) of those who were slain. Therefore, since one is not attaching animation to something inanimate, but rather describning something that is animate, the figure of speech doesn't apply. It's understandable that the author of the work I quoted would make this error. The fine distinctions necessary to understand the text cannot be gotten simply from reading a book by VPW, an interpretation by EW Bullinger, and a concordance. One must be able to discern the parts of speech and the form of the word, as actually used in the text. With, simply, a concordance-level understanding of Greek, one wouldn't catch this. Also, I honestly have a problem with this type of study, in general. It puts forward a proposition and then, rather than seeking to prove it, it shows how we should discount any scripture that disagree with it. I, frankly, find that sort of study to be dishonest. No offense to those who do subscribe to this sort of study, but it is IMHO. And YMMV, as always. The important thing in all honesty is not the answer to this question, but a belief in the resurrection of the dead. That is the key...that we know that we will see the Lord. Whether it is an ontological immediacy or a literal immediacy is not nearly as important as the fact that it will occur...

David, Your explanation works for everything except for the Luke 16 citation and the Revelation 6 and 7 citations. A case could even be made for Luke 16 actually taking place after the resurrection of the body and the judgement. But that case is explicitly ruled out on the Revelation 6 and 7 citations. And, as to the CES article, I full well acknowledge that sleep is a metaphor for death. No question. Otherwise, this article pre-supposes the subscription of the reader to the soul-sleep theory promoted by Wierwille et al. In re-examining my beliefs several years ago, I re-examined that one, as well, and found it wanting. However, as always YMMV. And, as I've said before on other subjects, we'll find out soon enough one way or another.

Pond, What you say about insurance premiums is, without a doubt, true. But it has nothing to do with the legalisation of abortion...unless the legalisation of abortion has caused premiums to actually rise. Think about it: how would you prosecute a doctor for performing a procedure that is illegal? Insurance wouldn't cover the procedure to begin with, as a doctor performing the procedure illegally would be committing malpractice by just performing it. If a woman sued a doctor for botching an illegal abortion, she would have to admit complicity in an illegal act. No insurance in the world would cover that practice at all. Thank you for verifying what I said about the procedures being performed legally prior to Roe when deemed medically necessary.