T-Bone

I was in meetings all morning and couldn't wait for a lunch break

Let’s break that down using the ex-TWI secret decoder ring of roundabout reasoning rounded off to the nearest unbeknownst absurdity which is part and parcel of the Advanced Class that explains to people how they were often subject to smooth operators - sometimes up to nine all the time. The key words in LCM’s statement are “giving”, “The Word” and “love”. I wish you could have heard it in the original broadcast. It had the ego-shattering sonic-anomaly of a Big Head Marshall Amp turned up to eleven. “Giving” – implies it’s free ! But bear in mind wierwille never had an altruistic bone in his body...and...there’s no such thing as a free lunch...so there's that. ~ ~ ~ ~ “The Word” a term peculiar to pseudo-Christian-filling-in-for-the-real-deal-also-he’s-known-as-a-cult-leader-you-know-the-type-plagiaristic-pathological-liar-chain-smoking-Drambuie-guzzling-sexual-predator-delusional-megalomaniac-with-a-flair-for-the-dramatic (or PCFIFTRDAHKAACLYKTTPPLCSDGSPDMWAFFTD for short ). If you have received, retained and released wampum mechanics, you’ll remember that you forked over good money for a foundational class in order to be filled to overflowing with the pseudo-scientific-bloviating-mucky-muck-and-theological-nonsense-just-use-the-Force-stupid properties of PFAL. ~ ~ ~ ~ “Love” – depends on how you define it. It was during my way corps training that I learned from PCFIFTRDAHKAACLYKTTPPLCSDGSPDMWAFFTD (or wierwille for short ) himself that “anything done in the love of God is okay”. Those were his EXACT words, spoken shortly after he showed us a disgusting porn video under the pretext of preparing us to counsel porn stars (human and canine). Now we’re getting somewhere. I looked into free love and found this: Free love is a social movement that accepts all forms of love. The movement's initial goal was to separate the state from sexual and romantic matters such as marriage, birth control and adultery.It stated that such issues were the concern of the people involved and no one else… Much of the free love tradition reflects a liberal philosophy that seeks freedom from state regulation and church interference in personal relationships. According to this concept, the free unions of adults (or persons at or above the age of consent) are legitimate relations which should be respected by all third parties whether they are emotional or sexual relations. In addition, some free love writing has argued that both men and women have the right to sexual pleasure without social or legal restraints… …United States: The Oneida Community was a utopian group established in the 1840s, which practiced a form of free love. Postcard of the Oneida Community Mansion House from 1907 (see image below)... ...Free love began to coalesce into a movement in the mid to late 19th century. The term was coined by the Christian socialist writer John Humphrey Noyes, although he preferred to use the term 'complex marriage'. Noyes founded the Oneida Community in 1848, a utopian community that "[rejected] conventional marriage both as a form of legalism from which Christians should be free and as a selfish institution in which men exerted rights of ownership over women". He found scriptural justification: "In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in heaven" (Matt. 22:30).[26] Noyes also supported eugenics; and only certain people (including Noyes himself) were allowed to become parents. Another movement was established in Berlin Heights, Ohio. From Wiki: free love ~ ~ ~ ~ For review, let’s look at that stupefying statement jammed packed with salacious “goodness” "We're giving people THE WORD. . . THAT'S love." LCM Remember wide is the gateway to cult-world and broad is their definition of love. (Free range ex-corps translation of Matthew 7:13 ) postcard mentioned in Wiki page on free love...reminds me of the Rome City campus

You got me thinking of another aspect of wierwille’s anti-Trinity tirades. his diatribes were more about control than a concern for “doctrinal purity”…I think it was to tighten up the ranks of TWI-followers…this got me thinking about other mutations of shunning in TWI – the homo-purge and mark-and-avoid. creating red herrings makes me wonder WHY. In logical fallacies and mysteries red herrings are intended as a distraction to what’s really going on or what’s at stake…wierwille’s strawman of deliberately misrepresenting the doctrine of the Trinity made it easier for him to shoot it down…paint it up as idolatry…after all, who wants to be known as an idolator or even be associated with known idolators...playing on fears of ostracism is a great tool of groupthink. “Ostracism causes real pain…because our basic need for belonging, self-esteem, control, and recognition is thwarted.” From: Web MD: Why Ostracism Hurts Decades ago, cult-leaders like wierwille were ahead of their time – but not in a good sense – rather foreshadowing more recent (since the late 2010s) anti-social methods like cancel culture …I recently saw Woodward and Bernstein commenting on 50 years after Watergate and also on reactions to the January 6th hearings. Remarking on America becoming more divided than ever, one of them said we’re in a cold Civil War. I made the point in an earlier post - here - that sometime in the future, Satan along with the antichrist and false prophet copy the Godhead and the resurrection. Revelation 13 speaks of the ultimate threat of ostracism – imagine if you were excluded from the world of trade…you can’t buy or sell anything…how will you eat? How will you pay your bills? How will you get fuel/energy for your vehicle? How will you obtain medicine and medical services? Well…no need to worry…the Satanic trinity has that all figured out: 1 The dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. 2 The beast I saw resembled a leopard but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority. 3 One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast. 4 People worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast? Who can wage war against it?” 5 The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise its authority for forty-two months. 6 It opened its mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. 7 It was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them. And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. 8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world… …11 Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon. 12 It exercised all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. 13 And it performed great signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to the earth in full view of the people. 14 Because of the signs it was given power to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived the inhabitants of the earth. It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15 The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. 16 It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, 17 so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name. Revelation 13: 1-8, 11-17 ~ ~ ~ ~ For extra credit here’s a few other links on social ostracism: The Silence of Shunning…Shunning is an act of control and aggression, with powerful consequences What You’re Saying When You Give Someone the Silent Treatment…Social ostracism Shunning: The Ultimate Rejection; What does it mean when we shun others or are shunned?

Geez, are you still listening to that dispensationalist preacher? Now there’s a real dinosaur for ya.

those are really funny...but that second one...I don't know...I wouldn't post something like that out of fear a T-Rex would get me.

I’m inclined to think the context stresses the importance of the Holy Spirit’s teaching…I also think wierwille-ideology gave intuition a bad name… and in this day and age we also have the convenience of printed Bibles. So how does the Holy Spirit’s teaching work? Perhaps one of the avenues is through intuition. Maybe our intuition should be integral with our more analytical study of the Scriptures...in TWI we were taught to trust wierwille’s intuition over our own. That eroded our self-confidence. But it’s important to realize that intuition is not perfect, and it can be misinterpreted or even compromised by a seared conscience – certain passages like Proverbs 16:25 and Judges 21:25 will attest to that – we find that one’s feelings can be wrong, and not all inner leanings should be heeded. Because of our sin nature, we are occasionally prone to error and poor judgment. If relying only upon our own powers of discernment, we can be led astray. I believe people are created in God’s image and as such we reflect some unique characteristics of our Creator – like a moral compass, the ability to judge what is right from wrong and act accordingly. At times we may acquire knowledge without obvious deliberation. Perhaps that is what Ephesians 1:17 is talking about - “that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you…” We have freedom of will and some passages seem to suggest the more we align ourselves with the sentiment and moral demands of the Bible – the more reliable our instincts become – Psalm 37:23 and the Bible does seem to suggest that when we seek wisdom as our highest priority, our intuition can very well be a safeguard against tragic mistakes Proverbs 2:3-5 , Ecclesiastes 7:12 , Psalm 37:23 Psalm 111:10 , and James 1:5 . I agree we can learn from the work of genuine, honest, altruistic Christian leaders, teachers and scholars. I appreciate their work for the way they have broadened my horizons and provided clarity and depth to my faith. But we should also remember the words of Jesus Christ in John 7:17 “Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.” I believe there’s something to this verse that might have to do with how our intuition and God may work together – in that metaphysical truth is self-authenticating through the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit – perhaps that is also implied in passages like John 16:13 and I John 2:27 . The Baker Illustrated Commentary also explains I John 2:27 along a similar idea: “Here the emphasis is placed on the spiritual anointing that believers have received from the one who abides in him and in whom they abide. Reminding them of the words of Jesus about God’s direct instruction through the Spirit (John 6: 45; 14: 26; 15: 26; 16: 1–15), the elder affirms the importance of abiding in Christ as the present teacher (2: 27; cf. John 15: 1–15).” From: The Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary by Gary M. Burge, Andrew E. Hill

Thanks, Raf – great post! The essence of your post should be part of a preface for Grease Spotters to read before posting in doctrinal. For want of a better way to put it – for me atheists and agnostics are a secret weapon in my battle against fundamentalism. The reason I believe that is because of the way I understand critical thinking skills, the Socratic method and such. Not that I’m really good at any of that – but I imagine the goal is to breakdown an idea or an issue into its nuts and bolts…and then keep going until every element is seen for what it is…I’ll take someone who is honest and sensible and can read the Bible like any other book. Leave the business of faith to each individual…but a discussion over WHAT the text says or means is up for grabs. what’s really the harm in putting scripture under intense scrutiny? John 1 says the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. If you cut the Word, he bled. If you crucified the Word, he died. It’s odd, Jesus Christ never wrote a gospel. That God…a higher power would try communicating with mere mortals through the agency of mere mortals seems problematic. For some reason my mind jumps to “the medium is the message - it is the medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action. "The medium is the message" is a phrase coined by the Canadian communication theorist Marshall McLuhan and the name of the first chapter in his Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, published in 1964. McLuhan proposes that a communication medium itself, not the messages it carries, should be the primary focus of study. He showed that artifacts as media affect any society by their characteristics, or content…my mind is trying to find some correlation between that idea and the Word became flesh. The medium literally was the message. I don’t need someone with a TWI-mindset - cuz they don’t realize they’ve got wierwille-blinders on. I think an unnamed sublime philosophy that was promoted in TWI – was the idea that the Bible…”The Word” was akin to a magic lamp. Your believing…your faith was needed to rub the lamp and release the genie…I mean make God do your bidding. Back in my TWI-daze, I would have taken offense if some “rank unbeliever” was being critical about anything in the Bible. But since I joined Grease Spot, I’ve come to appreciate the perspective of others. If memory serves – wierwille had a term “faith-blasters” – I don’t remember the context in which he said it, but I think I had a latent fear of “faith-blasters” when I first came to Grease Spot. Fortunately since I left TWI in ’86 I knew I was venturing way off the reservation and quickly came to terms with the status of my faith…For 12 years in TWI I thought my faith was in God and His Word…after my escape - one of the mind-blowing-confidence-shattering realizations was that my faith was really in wierwille and the belief that he was faithful to always “rightly divide the word” or in less clunky King James terms – I believed wierwille was always correct in his interpretation and explanation of anything in the Bible. It's funny how things change. I will always think of PFAL as getting me interested in systematic theology, hermeneutics, and philosophy of religion. For 12 years of involvement – PFAL was like the gold standard of all that for me. Upon exiting – the more I got into checking out non-TWI authors who were honest and had a lot higher intellectual standards – the more I found out how screwy wierwille was! As a hobby I’m still interested in those subjects – and now it’s more often a remedial process to my faith…and not a misplaced faith in a human being – and a really flawed human being at that - but a reaffirming faith in a higher power that I know so little about. In reading up on systematic theologies from scholars of various theological “pedigrees” I’ve come to realize what chaotic and stupefying nonsense wierwille pushed. Reading commentaries and books written for the layman on how to understand the Bible I’ve come to realize what shoddy, manipulative and obfuscating methods wierwille used to interpret the Bible. Reading up on philosophy of religion I’ve come to realize how biased, ill-informed, narrowminded, and delusional wierwille was in PFAL and any situation where he could bloviate off-script in tirades against Roman Catholics, the Jews, other Christian groups...and really anyone else that challenged wierwille's ideology.

Did I miss a detail mentioned on this thread? WHO is the deceased ? sorry - I'm confused - is the "deceased" tied to the property in anyway? sorry again - never mind my questions - I reread your first post explaining that !

Coming to a Grease Spot thread as soon as it’s this day and time and hour a new book from ex-way corps titled wierwille Is Not Jesus Christ Look for it wherever you find these other dubious TWI-lights exposed by using the ex-Way machine…(cue Elmer Fudd’s laugh): Are the Dead Held in Abeyance Now? Cower in Redundant Nonsense Cower in Redundant Nonsense Today The Wino Tells Me So The New Dynamic Cult-Leader The wierwille Way God Dang It -It’s More of wierwille’s Magnified Nonsense Reviving that Unholy $hit Today (subtitle : How to Start an Offshoot) Christians in TWI Should Be Promiscuous Deadlines …quotations of victor paul wierwille that were dead on arrival. Are the Deadlines Alive Now? I don’t think so, vic! The Way: Living It Up and Loving It - Lifestyles of Those Bi+ching Infamous Cult-Leaders The Way Magazine - high-capacity storage of propaganda to assault cognitive skills

if he was just injured, he could get worker's comp...also if he be daid - check if his company insures him for death or dismemberment ...but go over the policy with a fine-tooth comb - if he's not covered for risk to life and limb - maybe he could claim life and trunk...or uhm I mean, the trunk claimed his life. the swan's guts going splat would

what's with the typos on the packaging ?!?! I'm am alone where is frend that makes it even funnier ~ ~ ~ ~ true story: stenciled on 4 parking curbs outside attorney's office: AFW pkring

With great power comes great electric bills

wow wee wow! It took me reading that several times - dang - that's a great one I'm sitting here going "What the heck is Bolshevik talking about? the Holy Spirit is another case..." Then it finally dawned on me - you pointing out how wierwille subordinated God and Jesus...then - oh yeah, he didn't capitalize "Holy Spirit"...holy spirit in lower case!!!! dang you're good! I had to work for that one....uhm I hope that was the joke - or did I misunderstand something? and now I'll let you in on a little secret - I know we should capitalize a proper name - but the reason I don't capitalize "wierwille" is because there's nothing proper about him. and now you know the rest of the story.

thanks for the cool link, Bolshevik! and yeah… perhaps the rut of mental-masturbation that many TWI followers may fall into is part of the problem. Maybe the “intellectual” stimulation of wierwille’s brand of Gnosticism was enough to provide a delusion of instant gratification…so why bother responding to the invitation of Scripture – which amounts to DOING what Jesus Christ bids us to do…which leads to a dynamic life-transforming relationship with Him. 31 “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true. 32 There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is true. 33 “You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth. 34 Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved. 35 John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you chose for a time to enjoy his light. 36 “I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to finish—the very works that I am doing—testify that the Father has sent me. 37 And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38 nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. 39 You study[c] the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life. John 5:31 – 40 Jesus’ words in Luke 6 also address the hypocrites and procrastinators: 46 “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? 47 As for everyone who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice, I will show you what they are like. 48 They are like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. 49 But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete.” Luke 6: 46 - 49 the missing step in TWI-world is WALKING the talk

Wayferisms: The Word, The Word, Nothing but The Word. The Word of God is The Will of God. It is Written. The Word Takes the place of The Absent Christ The Word Says it, I believe it. Do The Word. Standard of God's Word. Claim The Word. God Magnified His Word above His Name Word Word Word . . . Word is The Word . . . . . . . . (no . . . I made this one up) Dang Bolshevik ! We can always count on you to ask the $64,000 questions ! definitely need that for discussions in About the Way and Doctrinal forums…Socrates must be so proud of you…have you heard about the new bestseller “Is Socrates Alive Now?” Maybe off-topic but I think when you get into a DOCTRINAL discussion on the Trinity – and since Jesus Christ is included in the formula for the Trinity and He is also called the Logos - you’re going to get into how one views the Bible and how you define the Logos... (defining the Logos is a whole other deep topic...so not getting into that right now) And besides that, it might help us understand some sneaky and perhaps unintended consequences…and how when we were followers of TWI got “from there to here” – i.e., shifting our focus from the central figure of Christianity - which we falsely assumed PFAL was all about - to focusing on what wierwille SAID about Christ and other Christian and pseudo-Christian ideas - which is what PFAL was really about…yeah ironically wierwille tipped his hand when he made that supposedly “profound” statement “The Word Takes the place of The Absent Christ”.... My ex-TWI secret decoder ring translates that as wierwille’s interpretation of the Bible replaces Jesus Christ… overrides the exemplary life, the compassionate and profound teachings, the death, resurrection and exaltation of Jesus Christ… overthrows the Lordship of Jesus Christ…I don’t care what you call it I just want to see…or rather expose the deformed “baby” of his legacy that was dead on arrival...in my humble opinion, PFAL was wierwille's bad-a$$ Kool-Aid - a dietary substitute for The Logos - Jesus Christ. Anywho…your recent posts got me to reflect on the changes to my view of the Bible after I left TWI. I’ve mentioned elsewhere on Grease Spot, ”, that scholars who have wrestled with your question have proposed many theories of how much of the scriptures are the Word of God and how much is attributable to the human authors; four of the most common are: 1. Neo-orthodoxy theory: conceived in the early 20th century, partly as a reaction to liberalism’s disregard for divine authority. Karl Barth and Emil Brunner are two of its leading proponents. Neo-orthodoxy holds that God is utterly transcendent – meaning God is absolutely different from us and far beyond our comprehension. Neo-orthodoxy differs from evangelicalism in that neo-orthodoxy asserts the Bible is a WITNESS to the Word of God or CONTAINS the Word of God – whereas evangelicalism holds that the Bible IS the Word of God. According to neo-orthodoxy the writers recorded their experiences with God the best they could – but being human, their writings sometimes contained paradoxes or errors. 2. Dictation theory: suggests God simply dictated the Bible to human scribes – giving them the EXACT words God WANTED – writing ONLY what God dictated to them. This view generally doesn’t appear in print but has sometimes been suggested by some segments of Christianity – some conservative and fundamentalist groups. 3. Limited inspiration theory: holds that God inspired the thoughts of the biblical writers, but not necessarily the words they chose. God guided the thoughts of the writers, but he gave them freedom to express those thoughts in their own style. Having that freedom, some historical errors and ancient concepts of physical science and life science may be found. 4. Plenary verbal inspiration theory: like the other views plenary verbal inspiration asserts the Holy Spirit interacted with the writers to produce the Bible. “Plenary” means “full” or “complete”. “Plenary” inspiration asserts that God’s inspiration extends to ALL of Scripture – WHICH INCLUDES when the writers recorded any historical, physical science and life science details. “Verbal” refers to the WORDS of Scripture. “Verbal inspiration” means God’s inspiration extends to THE VERY WORDS the writers chose – but it is not the same as # 2 the dictation theory. The writers could have chosen other words, and God often allowed them the freedom to express their own personalities as they wrote – but the Holy Spirit still guided the process so that the finished product faithfully conveyed God’s message. Notes are from Encountering the Old Testament: A Christian Survey, pages 24 to 26 I’m of the opinion that the way one thinks the Bible was written will influence the way one interprets and applies the Bible... assuming God is also the creator of the cosmos - omniscient and omnipotent - and the fact that we find historical errors as well as ancient concepts of physical science and life science - that rules out for me the dictation theory. I find myself leaning toward a mix of # 1 neo-orthodoxy and # 3 limited inspiration theory. I believe wierwille leaned more toward # 2 or # 4. Another fascinating sideshow of wierwille-mania is to observe that in the authorized book on TWI, titled “The Way Living in Love” (by Elena S. Whiteside, co 1972, American Christian Press, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 72-89132), on page 175, Whiteside quotes wierwille as he talked about his studies and influences: “I don’t remember much of the past. I’ll have to renew my mind. Oh yes, did I tell you I taught at Gordon Divinity School? Homiletics was my specialty – that’s preaching. I took everything I could take at the Moody Bible Institute too, through their correspondence courses. And in the years that followed, there were many men I learned from: Glenn Clark, Karl Barth from Switzerland, E. Stanley Jones, Paul Tillich, Starr Daily, Rufus Mosley, Dr. John Gaynor Banks, and there were many, many others. I tried to get all I could from anybody.” Now think about wierwille’s supposed “pedigree” in light of his professed stance on the Bible being the revealed word and will of God…yeah I know – we don’t have to go over wierwille’s peculiar and dubious litany of qualifiers and half-a$$ed “research” techniques (or WPADLOQAHART for short ) – so okay – even allowing for that – for me wierwille’s pretentious claims do not ring true. It’s kinda odd to drop Karl Barth’s name – since he was one of the leading proponents of Neo-orthodoxy (see my above notes # 1 of the four popular theories on how the Bible was written ) – which holds that God is utterly transcendent – meaning God is absolutely different from us and far beyond our comprehension. Neo-orthodoxy differs from evangelicalism in that neo-orthodoxy asserts the Bible is a WITNESS to the Word of God or CONTAINS the Word of God – whereas evangelicalism holds that the Bible IS the Word of God. I remember in PFAL that wierwille was very emphatic in stating the Bible (or WPADLOQAHART ) DOES NOT CONTAIN the Word of God but rather The Bible IS The Word of God. Here’s another idiosyncratic feature I noticed in wierwille’s-quirky-domain…which is why I highlighted in bold red Karl Barth and Paul Tillich in Whiteside’s quoting wierwille. Both Tillich and Barth are mentioned ...They are among the more important thinkers of the 20th century whose work exhibits existentialist themes. The entire existentialist theology movement has been strongly influenced by the 19th century Danish philosopher-theologian Soren Kierkegaard, besides the impact of others like Dostoevsky and Nietzsche. In general, existentialist theologians attempted to understand a transcendent God in relation to the clear and definite form of existing humans. Maybe it’s just me – but my little pea-brain sees existentialist theology as the antithesis of Gnosticism…but who knows – leave it to wierwille’s signature intuition to play host to a potluck dinner of eclectic ideologies. above info from page 266 of Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Oh yeah…back to your question, Bolshevik. In my opinion, the Bible CONTAINS the word of God. Aren’t you glad you asked?

I guess I should have elaborated… when I suggested a reputable skip tracer who goes about the business of finding someone using legitimate/legal means – it goes without saying that they will be a private investigator…in most states – I know in Texas and New York for sure – private investigators must have training and go through certification to be licensed. “Skip tracing” is a particularly unique skillset and probably some bureaucracies might require further training for a distinctive classification. It’s not unusual for a P.I. company to have staff with a variety of skillsets. One P.I. might be adept at surveillance and countersurveillance. Another might be good at background checks. I was a security tech for one investment firm that employed such a service. The company’s executives not only did a really thorough job of checking out us employees before hiring – they used a P.I. company to do deep scrutiny of people who came into their personal lives at home – i.e., nannies, chefs, drivers, caretakers, etc. One of the responsibilities of being the firm's security techs meant we were often tasked to “supervise” a contractor like a Spectrum or AT&T tech who came in their home for a service call. No brag – just fact – there’s a lot of ways to keep an eye on your stuff – and if you have more stuff, it usually takes more money to keep more eyes on it …that’s why I mentioned specifically a skip tracer – a good one will keep an eye out for what you seek.

No - I do NOT have that Roman Catholic view of the Trinity.

Not sure what your point is. Are you saying I am being aggressive or belligerent? Are you saying I am distracting you from your research, and / or detracting from your book promo? Are you saying you don’t have time to discuss the Trinity using the Socratic method – which involves a thoughtful dialog between 2 or more people – with a view to exposing and unraveling deeply held values and beliefs that frame and support what we think and say? What were you doing that was so much more important than what the person you were working with was doing – that you had to have them run interference for you? Is it possible there might be another reason why that “aggressive-Jesus-Christ-is-God-preacher” (or AJCIGP ) walked away after your interference-runner read I Cor. 15: 20- 28 with your infamous follow-up question? There’s a lot of reasons! Sometimes people just walk away from an argument – NOT because they’ve been bested – but because they see it’s pointless to argue with someone who acts like they’re always right. Trying to have a conversation with a narrowminded person can be like talking back to the TV. I do that a lot…but my TV is never interested in anything I have to say. I was responding to what you said: “A person who believes that Jesus Christ is literally God could have much difficulty with these scriptures, especially when being adamant about this subject, while hearing or reading these scriptures”. ...My response to you was to indicate that I – as someone who accepts the doctrine of the Trinity – I do NOT have any difficulty in reading I Corinthians 15; and I thought the comment I quoted from the NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible was clear enough on explaining the subordination of Jesus Christ was in regard to his role – NOT his divinity. I did not respond to your other point: “A question for the Trinitarians, does this mean that all humans will be God also???” because your question seemed to me to be a non sequitur. Your statement does not logically follow from what I Corinthians 15: 20 – 28 is talking about – which is establishing new roles – NOT new identities. For that matter, would you ask a similar question of Colossians 3:11 where it says “Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.” In other words, would your logic ask of that verse, “Does that mean we all become Christ also?” Perhaps we – you and I… and Johniam have been talking past each other. And maybe that’s because we each have a different idea of what we mean by the Trinity…To be honest, I think it may be a mischaracterization or misunderstanding on your part, if you think I’m saying God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are identical - one and the same. I’m saying they’re all divine…they each have different roles, yet they work together as one in unity. The three testify of each other…I really don’t care what you want to call their arrangement. I think maybe you guys might have an ax to grind cuz you’re stuck in one of wierwille’s anti-Trinity-polarizing polemics…but that’s just a wild guess – I could be wrong. You said: “Because the word trinity is not in any version of the bible that can be found. Therefore, I leave this word out of my biblical teaching book.” So what ?!?! as I said in my my first post under point # 7 7. Also I don’t buy into the lowbrow arguments like wierwille used – saying “the word Trinity is not mentioned in the Scriptures” is rather narrowminded …and for that matter neither are a lot of other high concept words like theology (the study of the nature of God and religious belief), hamartiology (the biblical study of sin, it’s origin, the cause and effect, its consequences, repentance /forgiveness/ reconciliation dynamic in the Christian life, etc.), eschatology (study of the end times), hermeneutics (science and art of the interpretation of Scripture) , soteriology (the study of salvation). I call these high concept words because they easily summarize big topics… For me the Trinity is shorthand referring to how God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit work together. I didn’t say they’re identical / one and the same - nor do I see them portrayed that way in Scripture. So while the word Trinity is not found in Scripture - the concept of the Godhead is - which blends together God's transcendence and immanence...Even in the Old Testament, prophets spoke of the “symmetry” of God. Like in Isaiah 57:15 “For this is what the high and exalted One says— he who lives forever, whose name is holy: “I live in a high and holy place, but also with the one who is contrite and lowly in spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite.” end of quoting my earlier post ~ ~ ~ ~ Maybe you should try using the word "Trinity"...Be a leader and not a follower...you might get some more Trinitarians to listen.

I’m far from being an expert or a dyed-in-the-wool Trinitarian but I don’t see the alleged problem you’re talking about. A note on I Corinthians 15:28, page 2076 from The NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible does a far better job of squaring away everyone’s role in the future: "The Son himself will be made subject. The subordination of the Son to the Father is not one of divinity or dignity but one of function: God the Father is supreme, not subject to anyone; Jesus the Son, fully divine, carries out the Father’s will; the Spirit (not mentioned here) communicates the reality of God’s presence, truth, and salvation." End of excerpt ~ ~ ~ ~ I had touched on this idea in my very first post on this thread ( my first post on this thread ) under point # 7 where I said: “For me the Trinity is shorthand referring to how God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit work together. I didn’t say they’re identical / one and the same - nor do I see them portrayed that way in Scripture. So while the word Trinity is not found in Scripture - the concept of the Godhead is - which blends together God's transcendence and immanence.” “The Trinity” is a short and simple way of referring to the intertwining functionality of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Of course that’s just my opinion – I could be wrong.

Great question! There’s various ways to answer that. I’m not sure that I’m correctly reasoning out this conundrum…anyway…my 2 cents is partly based on a key word in the Greek text of John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” In the Greek text of John 3:16 - only begotten is from monogenē which is # 3439 in Strong’s numbering system and you can see two ideas in the Greek word – mono = one and genos = offspring, stock…we could say Jesus was one of a kind. Unique…In one of my earlier 2-bit-theological-musings ( here ) I imagined Jesus as a unique hybrid in a superhero origin story…a hybrid is the offspring of two plants or animals of different species or varieties. So I think in Jesus we would find a being with a mix of qualities from two natures – human and divine…so technically I would think Jesus began in Mary… But there’s also the Logos to consider “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning… The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1: 1, 2 & 14 Logically the concept in John 1 predates Jesus’ beginning in Mary. How do we imagine the coming together of the two distinct natures? I don’t know. How is it possible to cram godhood into a human being? Don’t know. Was “some stuff” left out? My pea-brain thinks so. I’m thinking Jesus’ brain and body was pushed to its fullest potential – and if there was a need to fill in any knowledge or wisdom gaps – or if there was a need for him to go beyond what's humanly possible, maybe that’s where the Holy Spirit came in...and all of this is merely conjecture on the part of my pea-brain. Is there a connection to another dimension or dimensions? Marvel’s Quantum Realm ? A divine manipulation of the fundamental forces of the cosmos? Lots of things for me to get lost in speculation. Is there something to superstring theory? What happened when Jesus Christ was raised from the dead? Then his physical body was miraculously altered to something otherworldly…with capabilities beyond human reason. “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” Colossians 2:9 . I don’t really understand what that verse is talking about. But time-wise I believe it’s referring to Christ in his resurrected…changed…exalted form.

We’ve been glued to the TV following the hearings too! And Tonto and I have also been struck by the parallels to our unique TWI-cult experience. Last week a testimony given by one witness – I think he was an election official – commenting about some people who deny the facts (i.e., no evidence of voter fraud) he said he was astonished how some people could ignore hard facts. He offered up his thoughts on how or why they do that saying something along the lines that when an idea gets to your heart it enables you to defy reason. I think a lot of Grease Spotters can relate to that happening in their TWI-daze Jordan Klepper a journalist, writer, and commentator went to a rally and showed some folks clips of testimonies from the Jan. 6 hearings - see video here - and it’s fascinating to watch the reaction of some folks who have creative ways to discount testimonies given in depositions…one denier said it’s obvious that person was bought off to lie in the deposition…another testimony validating that deposition was explained away at the rally as being a clone of the person because the real person would not validate the lie given in the deposition…excuse me for being so vague…don’t want to get sidetracked with politics. Anyway, I think related to this topic is another cultic-issue – why do people believe in conspiracy theories? Here’s an excerpt from an interesting article: "Researchers suggest that there are a number of different reasons why people believe in conspiracy theories. Many of these explanations boil down to three key driving factors: A need for understanding and consistency (epistemic) A need for control (existential) A need to belong or feel special (social)" From: Why People Believe in Conspiracy Theories ~ ~ ~ ~ See also Psychology Today: why people ignore facts 10 Reasons Why People Believe Conspiracy Theories Why do people willfully and purposely ignore facts? ~ ~ ~ ~ Also wanted to add I’m really enjoying reading Penworks' new book From the Porch to the Page: A Guidebook for the Writing Life ....and just wanted to say to Grease Spotters don’t let the words “guidebook for the writing life” throw you…writing grocery lists and posting on Grease Spot Café is about the only writing I do, and I think Penworks’ new book is inspiring and thoughtful for anyone’s Grease Spot muse.

do ya think? Comparing wierwille’s written works to his live teachings and video classes – in my opinion what was “above average” was his charismatic and engaging manner in a live setting. BUT - Intellectual-wise…scholarly-wise…apologetics-wise…theologically-wise…logical-wise…content-wise…Scripture-wise…as well as simply being straightforward and above-board, in any format - whether in writing or live settings - in my opinion wierwille was WAY BELOW PAR… WORSE THAN A LOT OF BAD TELEVAGENELISTS THAT I’VE SEEN. “I wonder if people here are sad because they did not even try to correct any leader of TWI, when they were still with TWI? So perhaps they are making up for this by writing against Victor Wierwille on this forum.” Maybe so, Mark…maybe so…I for one do have regrets that I let my cognitive skills be anesthetized by wierwille’s charm…my intellect and emotions were rendered comatose by his desensitizing techniques to overstep my personal boundaries and self-determination…I own that …I bought into this cult of personality so much I decided to go into the mini-wierwille-clone-factory (aka the way corps program). And let me be clear on this - especially addressing any diehard-wierwille-fans - since I’ve joined Grease Spot Café in 2006, I usually speak to his manipulative tactics – NOT OUT OF AN ATTEMPT AT CHARACTER ASSINATION – which is the malicious and unjustified harming of a person's good reputation. Outside of the thick fog of TWI-culture – in the REAL WORLD – wierwille has got to be one of the most DISREPUTABLE AND UNSCRUPUOUS PERSON that I have had the unfortunate experience of stumbling into his sphere of influence…so… I unapologetically state that my criticism IS JUSTIFIED…I intend to expose and neutralize his strategies to exploit and control others …and to expose and neutralize his insidious ideology…And one more thing – which I will address shortly – it’s utterly absurd and ridiculous that any Grease Spotters would refer to wierwille in a positive light IN THE DOCTRINAL FORUM! … werwille’s hocus-pocus-and-hokum has no place in a DOCTRINAL forum that is supposed to be thoughtful and analytical discussions of creeds, tenets, articles of faith… …I’m a little embarrassed - my first post on this thread stated “This thread belongs in doctrinal forum” cuz I thought the thread starter wanted to discuss the doctrine of the Trinity and as it relates to the end times ( see here ). But as this thread has played out – it seems obvious to me the thread starter wanted to rehash wierwille’s insidious ideology… so now – what? Move it back to About the Way forum where it started? I don’t care…I’ll go with the flow …I’m kinda use to the dodge-deflect-obfuscate-tactics of another diehard-wierwille-fan oh yoo hoo …I noticed a very perceptive Grease Spotter did start a thread in About the Way forum ( see here ) about this highly-enriched-diehard-wierwille-fan-propaganda post ( see here ).

Ha !!!! and that reminds me of the crummy commercial scene in Christmas Story

it's going to mean additional costs, but she could employ the services of a skip tracer - that is a person whose job is to locate people who are missing or have defaulted on a debt. There are reputable skip tracers out there who are often employed by law enforcement, attorneys, IRS, and others who go about the business of finding someone using legitimate/legal means.

Your statements in bold red I believe he had a one of a kind ministry. Back in 1980 or so, the coordinator of the music group I was in said that VP was the 7th "THE man of God" and that this was very significant. in case you missed it – we tackled this dubious statement in the About the Way forum > here > Who were the supposed 7 "THE Man of Gods? ...care to join in the fun? As for VP, I think his teaching of incorruptible seed brought much deliverance to much people. Many church people to this day live in fear that their salvation could be 'foreclosed upon' at any time. Nice to know that isn't true… I have lots of questions on your statements: 1. Can you be more specific on what the “much deliverance” was? 2. Who are the “much people”? 3. How do YOU KNOW the NUMBER “church people” who – to this day lie in fear of losing their salvation? How did YOU quantify all that? Please elaborate what metrics you used, what surveys you conducted, and what churches these “church people” go to. 4. The internet definition of foreclosed is to take possession of a mortgaged property as a result of the mortgagor's failure to keep up their mortgage payments; to take away someone's power of redeeming (a mortgage) and take possession of the mortgaged property. How does that relate to salvation? I understand you’re speaking metaphorically – talking about salvation in a way that is not physically or financially applicable. But can you explain how fear of one’s salvation being foreclosed resembles repossession of something when a buyer defaults on payments? I’m not trying to be facetious – but didn’t Jesus Christ pay the price for our salvation? Or do you consider all what Jesus Christ did as only a down payment made for a salvation we’re buying on credit? Sounds confusing and trivializes all that Christ accomplished. Is that something you heard wierwille say or did you come up with that inappropriate metaphor all on your o wn? 5. Nice to know that isn't true. What isn’t true? YOUR mischaracterization of salvation? 6. incorruptible seed… Do you interpret that as a LITERAL seed? If so, you’re following the wooden interpretation of wierwille. He made it out like it was actually a spiritual seed. But that is erroneous – for in the immediate context – the SAME verse even – it is a reference to the word of God. “For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God” (NIV) I’m tempted to think wierwille would get his hodge podge of ideologies mixed up - and his “ signature intuition” would shift gears from fundamentalism to spiritualism to Gnosticism in no particular order. Gnosticism has the idea spirit is spirit and flesh is flesh and never the twain shall meet. Gnosticism invites you to transcend to a higher plane through special knowledge. A key concept of Spiritualism is that there is more to life than what meets the senses - wierwille’s demonology is based on his speculations of the unseen world. Spiritualism is viewed as the bridge between the spiritual realm and our physical world. competing ideologies of fundamental ism, Gnosticism and spiritualism probably confused the hell out of wierwille in trying to formulate a coherent thought - so maybe his signature intuition i.e., whatever felt right - just cobbled it all together. Incorruptible seed from the spirt realm crosses over into a human body. The few commentaries I’ve read on I Peter 1:23 don’t even try to explain it as a literal second birth but as a beginning of a life destined for eternity. the Greek text of I Peter 1:23 indicates that the preposition “by” in I Peter 1:23 “by the word of God” is “dia” in the Greek Strong’s # 1223 and means through, on account of, because of…The new birth comes about through the direct action of the Holy Spirit (see Titus 3:5 ) but as indicated in I Peter 1:23 the word of God also plays an important role… Peter’s reference to the seed probably harkens back to the parable of the Sower and the seed in Matthew 13: 1- 23 …which seems to be more about the ground than the Sower in that Jesus is explaining the different reactions to hearing the word. It’s obvious in the parable that the differences lie in HOW people respond to the word – the distinctions are made by the differences in quantity of crop yield or even crop loss. The seed sown in all the soil types is the same – it’s the word of God…so WHY do YOU interpret the incorruptible seed of I Peter 1:23 as a literal seed? The context is obviously the word of God – as is the seed of Matthew 13. Did the Sower in Matthew 13 literally tear up little pieces of Old Testament scrolls and plant them in the ground? As Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers says of “incorruptible seed” …”That is, not of the seed of Abraham, but of the seed of God. This is the argument: “You must learn not to be selfish, or arrogant, as being of the chosen race, but to have a true brotherly feeling and earnest love for the Gentile converts, and for those who, like St. Paul, are specially working for the Gentiles, because your inheritance of the promised ‘salvation’ is grounded, not on your Abrahamic descent, but on your spiritual regeneration, in which matter the Gentile converts are your equals.” That this was the doctrine of St. Peter is certain from his speech at the Council of Jerusalem, “God put no difference between us and them, having purified their hearts by faith;” and again, “It is only through the favour of the Lord Jesus that we hope to be saved, in precisely the same manner as they” (Acts 15:9; Acts 15:11). (Comp., for the argument, 1John 5:1.) By the word of God.—“Seed,” in the beginning of the clause, is more literally the act of sowing, or engendering, which sowing is carried on “through the living and abiding word of God,” this “word of God” being the actual seed sown. The “seed” of all existence is the spoken Word of God, the expressed will and meaning of creative thought (Psalm 33:6); and so here, even when spoken mediately, through the lips of men (as explained in 1Peter 1:25), it is that which begets men afresh. God creates afresh, though men speak the creative word for Him, just as “it is He that hath made us,” although He does so through natural laws and human powers. The “Word of God” here is, no doubt, the preaching of the gospel, but especially, as it would seem, the preaching of the Resurrection (1Peter 1:3), or of the sufferings and glories of Messiah (1Peter 1:12), the “truth” of the last verse. The part taken by “the Word” in the sacrament of regeneration may be seen again in Ephesians 5:26 and James 1:18; in connection with the other sacrament we may also refer to John 6:63. “Incorruptible” (i.e., imperishable; see 1Peter 1:4; 1Peter 1:18) finds a more energetic paraphrase here in “living and abiding” (the words “for ever” not being part of the true text). The former epithet is a favourite with St. Peter (1Peter 1:3, 1Peter 2:4-5), and is perhaps borrowed from this place by the author to the Hebrews, in connection with the “word of God” (Hebrews 4:12). The epithets serve to prepare the way for the quotation.” end of excerpt from Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers