T-Bone

MarkO, with his attitude I was actually expecting him to start calling everyone vultures - figuring he was somebody's Twin anyway.

Yo, pay attention! I haven't been arguing with you about the law – didn't you read my post # 29? You can go back to PFAL – it sure is a step backwards. Your posts read like one who has fully mastered PFAL gobbledygook. There's no hope of having a normal conversation here – not when PFAL incoherency is on the loose. You know...that might be a lot of your problem - using PFAL to interpret the Bible. Hmm…yes that's quite obvious by your posts…That's okay…my Lord Jesus was known as the friend of sinners. I'd rather have Him as a friend anyway. Confusing theology, to say the least…equating man's physical body with the image of God. Rather than reviewing PFAL nonsense – try reading a systematic theology by a real scholar. I don't think VPW's PFAL book would fare too well in the real world – being how he plagiarized just about everything in it and did an excellent job of twisting Scripture to push erroneous doctrines. His book only goes over big in select circles where people have turned their brain off and sedated their conscience.

My, you have a very short attention span...or maybe a little problem comprehending sentences that are not written in TWI-speak [commonly referred to as plain English]…It looks like a one sided discussion on this thread – you preach and rant….someone challenges you on a point…you preach, rant, accuse and insult. I'm not surprised you have many students on the Internet. There's a sucker born every minute. Heck, I used to believe VPW was the man of God for the universe a long time ago – that image is forever soiled of course by seeing what he was really like when I was in the Corps. There's a vast difference between his Christian façade that was paraded around for the public and his actual character that schemed and connived to feed his sexual perversions. But alas, I speak a foreign language to someone poisoned by pride and arrogance. I hate to burst your bubble – but your poisonous doctrine is showing. Better not let any of your students come to GSC – we wouldn't want them to see that mean-spirited two-faced "charity of the law of liberty" of their teacher, now would we.

Word Wolf, excellent post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It might help if you would provide scriptural evidence for your assertion. What you’re saying still does not convince me that man lost the image of God. Your reply is confusing. Matter of fact, your rhetoric sounds like bits and pieces of a typical VPW sermon – instead of specifically addressing my point, you plug in a VPW-like phrase with spiritual sounding terms and double-talk your way to a totally different point. I really don’t mean to offend – just thought I’d point out something about GSC. This is a DISCUSSION forum – not anyone’s personal pulpit. You sound like you’re preaching – I came here to discuss. I’m giving you the benefit of a doubt that you mean well – but it comes across as insulting when you don’t talk WITH people but talk AT them. It would be easier for me to understand your thinking if there was real communication happening on this thread…Anyway…we could start over again - if you’re game you can try a direct reply to my post # 29 where I say Genesis 9: 4-7 indicates man still has the image of God.

I have to disagree with you on the image of God being lost – Genesis 9 clearly indicates it's still there after the fall of man: Genesis 9: 4-7 NIV 4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. 6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man. 7 As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it."

Yup - isn't that the truth! You know you’re in TWI if you live vicariously through neighbors talking about where they went on vacation. It’s definitely not envy…it’s believing images of vacations.

Gentlemen, I’m here today to tell you – if you aim to please urine good company. Brethren, can I get an “A Men’s Room.”

What a great thread!!! I love this kind of stuff and it’s a big reason why I come to GSC. Thanks everyone.

Thanks Java Jane for the Cats clip. Tonto and I had a cat for seven years. While we were watching the clip, she said, “I forgot how weird cats can be.” What a great way to start my day! DMiller your scuba diving pets was interesting…just wondering if the owner had any issues with the pets doing their “bidniss” in the pool.

Dogs are smart. Whenever a Frisbee lands on top of a house – they’ll always tell you right where it is – “roof.”

Wow, Socks – that's a great point right there! It struck a nerve with me anyway…I guess because while I was in TWI there was a part of my brain disconnected from reality…Nowadays I'm more apt to ask myself how well does my belief system jive with reality. My tendency now is to suspend any idea in a state of flux when I'm not sure if and/or how it fits with real life. And to be honest, I usually give what's apparent, simple, and resonating in the world around me precedence over concepts I wrestle with inside. The more years and differences I put between me and TWI – the easier it gets to settle a lot of doctrinal issues by one question: what's the practical consequence of this idea? If it's negligible then the issue isn't worth much processor time. As I was saying in post # 7, "there appears to be an assumption on Jesus' part about the comprehension level of His audience. He'd throw out certain terms and phrases with an expectation that folks already knew what they meant – like love, forgive, pray, etc." Maybe His message was not so much about teaching something new – but teaching/persuading folks to explore/apply what they already know…where the rubber meets the road…Jesus was a master at unfolding the great stuff bound up in seemingly simple things like love.

Wow great links – thanks, Paw! Cool Simpsons re-do, White Dove. And here’s a parody of the Sgt. Pepper’s Album cover that only a Mother could love [and one of my favorites to listen to as well]:

Socks, another great post – and thanks for that link discussing agape and phileo – a great link – I never looked into the shades of meanings before this thread – thanks for a great thread Shifra and thanks to all contributors on this thread! After re-reading this thread and Socks' link - I thought I'd post some stuff on agapao and phileo. Not offering any great insight here – just thought others may want to look at this stuff as something to think about. I agree with Socks the difference between the two words is highly overstated – but I think any subtle distinctions are noteworthy in the big picture of things. From Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words, General Editor William Mounce, under Love, page 427 to 428: "…agapao is one of four Greek verbs meaning "to love." In secular Greek especially before the time of Christ, it was a colorless word without any great depth of meaning, used frequently as a synonym of eros [sexual love] and phileo [the general term for love]. If it had any nuance, it was the idea of love for the sake of its object. Perhaps because of its neutrality of meaning and perhaps because of this slight nuance of meaning, the biblical writers picked agapao to describe many forms of human love [e.g., husband and wife, Ephesians 5:25,28,33] and, most importantly, God's underserved love for the unlovely. In other words, its meaning comes not from the Greek but from the biblical understanding of God's love… …A biblical definition of love starts with God, never with us . God is love itself; it is his character that defines love. Because he is love agape[/b]], he acts with love towards an undeserving world [John 3:16; I John 3:1, 16], to save them from their sins and reconcile them to himself [Romans 5:8]… …If a person loves god, he or she will also love other people [Galatians 5:6; I Thessalonians 3:6; I John 4:20]. Loving the other person is an outflow of God's love for you ["a new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so must you love one another," John 13:34; cf. 15:12; I John 4:11]… …But disciples are not only to love God and fellow believers; they are to love all people as especially their enemies. "But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" [Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:35]. The very foundation of salvation is grounded in the realization that God's unmerited love toward us is greater than any other power – including death [Romans 8:37-39; I Corinthians 15:55-57]… …phileo is the common word in classical Greek for showing love, affection, hospitality, etc…To make firm distinctions between phileo love and agapao love is incorrect, for the meanings of the two words overlap. The word can also mean "kiss"… …In John 21:15-17, some people make a distinction between the two words for love, agapao and phileo. But these words do not have distinctly separate meanings, John is famous for using virtual synonyms without any difference in meaning; he often switches between words merely for the sake of variety. Also, it makes no sense for Jesus to switch meanings from agapao to phileo in the third question since Peter has been answering with phileo. Jesus' threefold question is meant to balance Peter's threefold denial at the time of Jesus' trial. The fluctuation of synonyms is also seen in the words for "feed"/"tend" and "lambs"/"sheep…" End of excerpts After reading the above definitions, I looked at the John 21 reference – in my opinion there does seem to be some sort of distinction – though slight – that Jesus is making here: John 21:15-17 NASB 15 So when they had (T)finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you (U)love [agapao] Me more than these?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love [phileo] You " He said to him, "Tend (V)My lambs." 16 He said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love [agapao]Me?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love [phileo] You." He said to him, "(W)Shepherd My sheep." 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love [phileo] Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him (X)the third time, "Do you love [phileo] Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, (Y)You know all things; You know that I love [phileo] You " Jesus said to him, "(Z)Tend My sheep." I think The MacArthur Study Bible comments on this passage have a valid point: "21:15-17. The meaning of this section hinges upon the usage of two synonyms for love. In terms of interpretation, when the two synonyms are placed in close proximity in context, a difference in meaning, however slight, is emphasized. When Jesus asked Peter if he loved Him, He used a word for love that signified total commitment. Peter responded with a word for love that signified his love for Jesus but not necessarily his total commitment. This was not because he was reluctant to express that greater love, but because he had been disobedient and denied the Lord in the past. He was, perhaps, now reluctant to make a claim of supreme devotion when, in the past, his life did not support such a claim. Jesus pressed home to Peter the need for unswerving devotion repeatedly asking Peter if he loved Him supremely. The essential message here is that Jesus demands total commitment from His followers. Their love for Him must place Him above their love for all else. Jesus confronted Peter with love because He wanted Peter to lead the apostles [Matthew 16:18], but in order for Peter to be an effective shepherd, his overwhelming drive must exemplify supreme love for his Lord." End of excerpts R.C.H. Lenski's comments on this passage in John 21 are worth noting as he mentions definite distinctions between agapao and phileo, from The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel, page 1419: "…The verb agapao is the love of intelligence, reason, and comprehension, coupled with corresponding purpose; in this its content it vastly outranks the other type of love. And phileo expresses the love of mere personal affection, or liking, including even the passions where the context requires, and no intelligence or high purpose is involved. This content places the verb on a low level. It could never be said of God that he phileo the sinful world; as far as phileo is concerned, he could only abominate the foul world. Jesus never asked us to love our enemies in the sense of phileo; he never himself loved his enemies in this way. But agapao – yes, with this love God did love the world, and we can love our enemies, comprehending all that is wrong with them and reaching out with the mighty purpose of removing that wrong, sanctifying the world, converting our enemies…" End of excerpts And finally I found it interesting to note some select passages where agapeo and phileo occur. From The Word Study Concordance by George Wigram and Ralph Winter: Agapao [strong's # 25] occurs 142 times, used in the following verses: Matthew 5:43 Thou shalt love thy neighbor Matthew 5:44 I say unto you, Love your enemies Matthew 6:24 will hate the one, and love the other Luke 7:5 he loveth our nation John 3:16 For God so loved the world Colossians 3:19 Husbands, love your wives II Peter 2:15 who loved the wages on unrighteousness I John 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things in the world ~~ Phileo [strong's # 5368] occurs 25 times, used in the following verses: Matthew 6:5 for they love to pray standing in the synagogues Matthew 26:48 Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he Luke 22:47 and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him John 5:20 For the Father loveth the Son John 11:3 Behold how he loved him John 12:25 He that loveth his life shall lose it John 15:19 the world would love his own I Corinthians 16:22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ Revelation 22:15 and whomsoever loveth and maketh a lie

Happiest of birthdays to yah, A la Prochaine !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Great posts, Socks!!!!! You have me thinking about a number of things. How real love has no boundaries. Like the Matthew 15:21-28 passage I mentioned earlier of the Canaanite woman – even though she didn't belong to the house of Israel - driven by the love for her daughter boldly approached Jesus for help…I think TWI always had a tendency to dictate the standards and conditions for love: when you are to love…who you should love…how to love, etc. A lot of it is really about a self-serving, manipulative attitude that has been labeled "love." I thought about a passage in the Old Testament that speaks of love being a powerful, unstoppable force. I don't have any comments to make about the verses – they're sort of like I Corinthians 13 – don't think I could add anything to them - they're up in the stratosphere of descriptive passages. Song of Solomon 8:6, 7 NIV 6 Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm; for love is as strong as death, its jealousy [a] unyielding as the grave. [b] It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame. [c] 7 Many waters cannot quench love; rivers cannot wash it away. If one were to give all the wealth of his house for love, it [d] would be utterly scorned.

Oops I missed this thread – good to hear from you, Smokey! You and Mrs. OFM are in my thoughts and prayers.

As was discussed earlier on this thread about self-love - I think one's love of life is a fairly good indication that murder is wrong. I also mentioned this on the TWI's Sedative to the Conscience thread – how there seems to be a common sense of decency and morality in all people of any time and culture – typically laws are made to protect life, promote honesty, protect ownership, etc. And that just as the capacity to love appears to be an innate feature of people so too is the ability to discern right from wrong, the moral laws written in the Bible merely repeating what the Creator has already written in the hearts of human beings: Romans 2:14, 15 NIV 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

Assuming that one has the correct understanding of the Bible hits me as being a little arrogant - and is reminiscent of the TWI thought process. I could list a number of biblical topics that are guaranteed to generate arguments among some Christian folk – each believing they are right based on their understanding of "clear" Scriptures. My thoughts behind what I said in post # 119 have a lot to do with the critical thinking process – of which a core element is intellectual humility. Maybe the only safe assumptions are the beliefs that I don't have all the answers, that a faulty thought may be present, and that my point of view shapes my perception of reality. I know myself enough to realize at times – under the subtle influence of my belief system – I am prone to loading an assumption into the thinking process. I'm not saying that is bad necessarily – but the more aware I am of things going on in the background the better I am at verifying my intellectual standards. I don't think there's anything wrong with reading the Bible like you would any other book. And I become very hesitant when someone starts spiritualizing Scripture for the "deeper meaning." I think most non-Christians on GSC fare a lot better at applying logic and hermeneutic principles with the Bible than most TWI folk . An active thinking process is a wonderful thing - to which most ex-TWI folk will agree! That is why I really do appreciate hearing from the non-Christian folks at GSC…whether it's about a passage in the Bible or a universal thing like love. There is value in another viewpoint and truth in other belief systems – and it's fun exploring it all! Regarding agape and non-Christians – I'm of the opinion agape is something all humans are capable of. I do not find anything in Scripture to indicate otherwise.

Articles like this get me so upset. I just want to shake each one of them and yell, “What is wrong with ewe?!?!”

About this time there was a prophet named Harpo that said…well…he really didn’t say anything…he more or less used visual aids. He took off his own girdle [Harpo was a cross-dresser] and snapping it over the head of Groucho wrote on a white board, “As Playtex doth bind thy fly-away hair so shall PFAL bind thy fly-away heart! If thou wilt go to Florida – thy will will wilt in the Sunshine State.”

When it comes to exploring my own faith one of the things I really enjoy about GSC is the input by non-Christians. Sometimes a post will hit me like a ton of bricks – just because of its resonance…it doesn't matter who posted it. I imagine the disciples may have learned a thing or two about faith from a woman who was not even Jewish in the following passage: Matthew 15:21-28 NIV 21Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession." 23Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us." 24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." 25The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said. 26He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." 27"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." 28Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

Actually, I meant to point out that YOU were re-defining "giving" as trading. And though you may claim you are doing an exegesis of a passage on giving, it is more of an eisegesis as you tend to incorporate assumptions and speculations into your explanation. Wikipedia explains the distinction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis "The word exegesis can mean explanation, but as a technical term it means "to draw the meaning out of" a given text. Exegesis may be contrasted with eisegesis, which means to read one's own interpretation into a given text. In general, exegesis presumes an attempt to view the text objectively, while eisegesis implies more subjectivity. One may encounter the terms exegesis and hermeneutics used interchangeably; however, there remains a distinction. An exegesis is the interpretation and understanding of a text on the basis of the text itself. A hermeneutic is a practical application of a certain method or theory of interpretation, often revolving around the contemporary relevance of the text in question." One way we can alter the meaning of a passage is by yanking it out of context. Another way is by superimposing ideas onto the passage – assumptions and speculations that are not supported by the context. I've heard it said context is the way things are woven together. Certainly an alteration can be made by pulling threads out of the weave [taking it out of context]. But a serious alteration can also be made by weaving a foreign thread into the context. Your post # 35 alludes to laws and principles that must be obeyed or you suffer the consequences. As Word Wolf said, VPW's explanation of the death of the mother's little boy was the "law of believing." Perhaps you thought you were coming to VPW's defense by shifting to another topic like giving…but your whole digression is very confusing and still does not excuse VPW's erroneous doctrines – that weave into Scripture a foreign thread of a self-centered fixation on material things. And I also find there's something contradictory about your statement: "The reason some people don't have God's unmerited favor abounding toward them is because they have not learned how to become a hilarious giver." If it is God's unmerited favor then why do I have to become a hilarious giver? I should not have to do anything to MERIT God's UNMERITED favor. This is a typical TWI mindset of believing there's ways to manipulate God and reality for personal gain. You may think trading and giving are synonymous or giving is investing - but biblical usage of the word "give" does not carry with it any such idea. The apparent truth of many passages that address generosity is the focus on nobler things like service to another – with an emphasis on the spiritual impact or benefit - whether now or in the future. II Corinthians 9:10 speaks of the "harvest of your righteousness" and Matthew 19:21 mentions "treasure in heaven." II Corinthians 9:6-15 NIV 6Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. 7Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 8And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work. 9As it is written: "He has scattered abroad his gifts to the poor; his righteousness endures forever."[a] 10Now he who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will also supply and increase your store of seed and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness. 11You will be made rich in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion, and through us your generosity will result in thanksgiving to God. 12This service that you perform is not only supplying the needs of God's people but is also overflowing in many expressions of thanks to God. 13Because of the service by which you have proved yourselves, men will praise God for the obedience that accompanies your confession of the gospel of Christ, and for your generosity in sharing with them and with everyone else. 14And in their prayers for you their hearts will go out to you, because of the surpassing grace God has given you. 15Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift! Matthew 19:16-30 NIV 16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" 17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." 18"Which ones?" the man inquired. Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,'[d] and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'[e]" 20"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?" 21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." 22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." 25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?" 26Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." 27Peter answered him, "We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?" 28Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother[f] or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.

Loved your posts - thanks, Jeaniam!

It sounds like you’re describing trading – not giving. It reminds me of TWI’s mentality of giving to get something back. That was typical of their opportunist mindset – talking about supposed laws and principles like they cracked the access codes to prosperity, health, happiness and good fortune. So much of TWI’s pushing these imaginary laws and principles winds up manipulating followers into supporting their agenda all the while leaving followers with false expectations – thinking God owes them something.