Twinky

Clearly that's a worship site for you-know-who. It seems to be associated in some way with "Living Tree Academy" in Nashville, TN, and supports children in need in Belize. The books on their "Our e-books" are a motley selection of Tarzan, Uncle Tom's Cabin, Sherlock Holmes - and Walter Cummins's "How to write a research paper." Bizarre! Even more bizarre if, whilst still looking to Wayfer "heroes," some ex-Wayfer(s) actually wanted to help somebody, especially folks in another country. But it might be that the website owner has hooked onto something that it thinks will be a draw for a wider audience. Living Tree Academy 2817 West End Ave, #126-211 Nashville, TN 37203 The goal of LTA is to help every child pursue education. This will enable them to maximize their ability by giving and serving to their family, community, country and the world. Our mission is: Giving access to educational opportunities worldwide.Living Tree Academy helps supply educational materials, scholarships, books, and uniforms for education in Belize as well as community service in the areas of medical and public works. Anyway, I'm "eternally blessed" enough without spending time exploring the website of this worshipper.

Never heard of it before. So clearly, despite VPW's adulation of Martin Luther, celebrating the nailing of the 95 theses didn't hit VPW's radar. Wouldn't surprise me at all if he'd never heard of Reformation Day (or Reformation Sunday).

Likewise,Outie.

Heck, if they were aware, they could use that as justification for plagiarising. All part of the same body, so what belongs to one part belongs to all parts. Therefore, what that person worked out belongs equally to us, and we can pass it off as our own. (I hasten to say I never heard this as an argument by VPW or TWI for plagiarising, but that might be because VPW never acknowledged that he pinched anybody else's work.)

'Course, all this thread presupposes that A&E existed as individuals and not as types or symbols. And also presupposes that the story is true and not a stylised form of storytelling or moralising.

Actually dispensationalism wasn't Bullinger's baby so much as JN Darby's idea (Darby predates Bullinger by a few decades) - Darby was a cultie too, member of the Exclusive Brethren. And his ideas (including "The Rapture" caught on big time in the USA, not so much in the UK. The UK has an "established church" that didn't give much credence to Darby's ideas, but in newly-growing USA, wow, this new idea gave rise to a lot of fanciful new psalms and doctrines. Anyway, this thread is not about dispensationalism, as WW suggests. It's about ideas of "spiritual death" as taught by TWI. The whole idea seems nonsense to me (it did at the time, but hey, I was trying to take on the "right way of thinking" at the time). God is not some thing that is limited by what we think. God can communicate with human beings (and with other creatures) in whatever way he chooses - by putting ideas into one's heart, mind, by physical signs and wonders, by the awesomeness of the skies around us and by what we see in nature. I don't think that God never communicated with A&E again. Perhaps he could not communicate in the previous way, because by now their minds had become cluttered and doubtful of their own ability to perceive - after all, together they had just made the very first and most monumental f-up. If any one of us had (let's be kind) accidentally or without understanding the consequences done something that had caused the death of hundreds or thousands of people, wouldn't we be a little antsy and confused? Hard to talk to? How much worse for them? Would others still communicate with us? Yes. In the same way? Maybe; maybe not; definitely with a lot more caution, I'd think, and they wouldn't necessarily trust us in another similar situation. We do know that A&E had children after "the fall" and they brought up those children (we know of only two, but likely there would be many more) in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. We know they made offerings to the Lord. One offering was acceptable, the other not - not because of its content but because of the heart behind the giving. How did A&E know how to bring up children? They'd never seen children before, much less know what their special needs were. So who do you suppose taught them, and how?

Ha ha! I score both WC22 and WC21. Was part of both. Probably affiliate more with WC21. Spent all my time at HQ (what a joy) with just the last 8 or 10 weeks at Gunnison (liked that better, children's camps, a lot more freedom and space to breathe).

That's why we should all endeavour to set a good, Christian, example of how to live, both in and out of churchy settings. To "normalise" decent behaviour, as best we can. We cannot model a better way to live, if we are busy condemning someone else's lifestyle or behaviour. In my (voluntary) work as a Street Pastor, I get to hear many stories from people who have had very bad church experiences. Some of the saddest are from the homosexual community. Many of these males have once had a love for God and know much scripture. But they have been exorcised, ostracised, beaten, pummelled with Bible verses, all sorts of stuff, to try to make them renounce their homosexuality. But I have totally shocked some of them by asking, "Did you know that God loves YOU?" This is one message they never heard in church. I don't know or care what you think about homosexuality (and I'm not telling you my views) - the way some of these people have been treated is very far from Christian. All of us can model kind words and attentive listening. Spouses can model a loving and respectful marriage, where each has a voice: who knows how that might impact the abused woman next to you in the line at the supermarket - or even in church? Parents, discipline children in public gently but firmly setting appropriate limits. Who knows, someone who's only beaten their kids into quietness (or more, those beaten kids) might see a better way. Ministers can show that they respect their congregations by being approachable and listening to concerns - and also by being accountable to church governing bodies (in the UK, to the PCC as well as to the bishop). Bosses can treat employees with respect and appreciation for their skills and abilities, and the benefits they bring to the boss's business. That arrogant TWI "I'm the leader so you must do what I say without question" has absolutely NO place in a decent church environment, and even less in daily life.

Is applause in church esp for a sermon a peculiarly American thing? I don't know anybody who would applaud a sermon. Or the music (aka "worship") group. Nor would it be expected. Goodness me, the rest of the congregation would look at you, if you did such a thing. We Brits are very undemonstrative.

Socks, music is a very good way of thinking how something is a "whole," with scope for improvisation and development. Good post!

It's four weeks now and my wrists still haven't hurt. Very thankful. However, my need for healing remains. I have found a new challenge for God (!). On Friday I was working with a very large hedge clipper, big grunty professional model, very long blade, would easily take a finger off. It can also do some lovely delicate shaping. Nice piece of kit. I have had this equipment for a couple of years and have cut many hedges with it. So how come I wasn't paying attention to it on Friday, and somehow managed, in a completely easy section of hedge, to touch this thing against my leg? It's ripped a hole in my jeans leg, and two or three deep gashes in my left leg just over the knee. (First thought: this needs stitches.) I washed it off as best I could under a cold tap, stuck half a dozen bandaids over the wounds, and carried on. Had a shower when I got home and on inspection decided to take myself to Accident & Emergency(great place to be at 10pm on Friday - actually, it was surprisingly quiet, the drunks obviously arrive later). It was inspected, washed again, and bandaged up. My friend who was with me joined me in prayer for healing and no nasty complications. Changed the dressing yesterday. The two biggest wounds are now healing very very well. I feel inclined to leave the dressing off, but that's probably unwise. Dirty jeans, filthy clipper blade, significant risks for introduction of unhealthy bacteria - and I walk away with a bandaid. Very very thankful. Another time, in this same garden, I slipped out of a tree onto the open blade of my long loppers. Stabbed myself in the wrist. The injury is 1" from the tiny veins and nerves in the wrist, again quite deep, but 1" further over could have been catastrophic. Again, big prayers, and now only the slightest silvery scar. I am not a foolish worker, I'm often alone and need to take care of myself. As a former Personal Injury lawyer, I'm perhaps more aware of risks of injury than many might be. But I still make many mistakes, have minor accidents, and need to rest in God's great grace to cover my own stupidity.

I understood your reply, Lifted Up. People have different styles of responding to things they quote. And sometimes the function doesn't work as well as one might expect. It would be fair to say that everyone who gets to, say, 25, has some baggage to "process." Heck, even by 5 years old, some have already waaaay more than their fair share to have to deal with. Unfortunately, TWI burdened anyone with more than a passing acquaintance, with a lot of unnecessary baggage - guilt, fear, intimidation, abandonment by God, sexual mores shot to pieces, family relationships shattered - they took our vulnerabilities and exploited them; they took our strengths and told us we were relying on our own strength not God's (not even on the abilities that God himself may have given us). No wonder many escapees were confused (at best) and terrified (at worst) when getting away from the place. Oh yes. TWI leaders were very good at "confronting" people (what an aggressive term!) and not at all good when it came to being confronted themselves. They thought God was in their every word and action, or so they'd have the minions believe. Most churches would prefer to "come alongside" someone with a difficulty - whether a difficulty caused by lack of knowledge, or a difficulty from their own wilfully inappropriate behaviour of some sort. We are ALL sinners by nature. And we ALL need grace to extinguish our sins. Real grace and loving kindness, I mean. Not pretend grace to match the often pretend anger and the definitely pretend faults.

That's why a lot of us old-timers continue to hang around here - to help newbies. It takes a very long time to fully recover - if one ever does recover - - let's say, till the pain of it becomes less. As time passes, more personal horrors sneak up into the consciousness and have to be dealt with. Stick around - or come back when you're ready, share your latest horror memory. We understand. We know the manipulation and mind-control you were subject to.

We're never going to agree about priestly celibacy or otherwise, Oldies, but I will definitely agree with you about the above. Peace!

Oldies, it's not a variation between RC and Prot interpretations - what I quoted is straight Biblical verses. In English, of course, but I'm afraid I can't show it you in "the original." If one wants to look at traditions and interpretations, then Jewish and rabbinical traditions would be more appropriate. And rabbis are not only expected to be married, but to have lots of children. As were leaders in the early Christian church; re-read Paul's epistles on this topic - expected to be married and have well-raised kids. That's well pre-RC and pre-Prot divisions. In fact, here's the story of Zechariah for you, from Luke 1. It's clear that he and his wife had been trying for years for children and it was only on this occasion that they were successful. In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest of Abijah’s division named Zechariah. His wife was from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 Both were righteous in God’s sight, living without blame† according to all the commands and requirements of the Lord. 7 But they had no children because Elizabeth could not conceive, and both of them were well along in years. 8 When his division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God, 9 it happened that he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to enter the sanctuary of the Lord and burn incense. 10 At the hour of incense the whole assembly of the people was praying outside. 11 An angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing to the right of the altar of incense. 12 When Zechariah saw him, he was terrified and overcome with fear. 13 But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, because your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will name him John.

Why would "he" have to pay for any abortions? Might he have caused the event requiring the abortion ? Does he mean, he did not want TWI to pay for any more abortions? Would be a first, for TWI to accept responsibility for meeting someone's (?)needs(?). Obviously, from your post, there was no hint of "don't do it because pre-marital sex is not appropriate for unmarried people" or, "God says no, to sex before marriage." (Doubt anyone would have paid him any attention on that, anyway, LOL.) (Not even going to discuss the question of abortion.)

Oldies, what weight the traditions of men? Jesus said (Matt 15, also in Mark): 15 Then Jesus was approached by Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem, who asked,† 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they don’t wash their hands when they eat.” 3 He answered them, “Why do you break God’s commandment because of your tradition? 4 For God said: Honor your father and your mother; and, Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must be put to death. 5 But you say, ‘Whoever tells his father or mother, “Whatever benefit you might have received from me is a gift committed to the temple,” 6 he does not have to honor his father.’† In this way, you have nullified the word of God† because of your tradition. 7 Hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied correctly about you when he said: 8 This people† honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 9 They worship me in vain, teaching as doctrines human commands.” And, of course, it's not limited to traditions such as the giving of "gifts of money" to the temple - what about the gift of one's own body to the church. If you prefer what Paul might have to say: Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Rocky, read the Barnhardt article. Then you're better placed to comment. However, to make it easier for you and others, here's what's said in that article. I have to say the tone is rather rabid and she seems to be as "out there" as a certain VPW. Celibate doesn't mean what she says. Unmarried is unmarried. Celibate is celibate; means not engaging in sexual intercourse (which, if one were unmarried, might well be the case). The two words are not interchangeable, never have been. "Continent" (not a land area!) means in this context control of bladder and bowels. Possibly extendable to control of ejaculate; but note, control as a part of normal sexual intercourse. There is this on Wikipedia. and article continues Of course, it doesn't stop the RC church using its own version of Wayspeak to define terms as it wishes, regardless of what the clear, non-jargon, meaning of that term is.

Wherever does this nutty person get this stuff from? (1) only St John is a virgin? Missed that chapter and verse. (2) "when the Apostles were ordained priests and bishops ..., every one of them who had living wives became immediately, permanently CONTINENT" - that is, by this person's definition, abstaining from sexual activity within marriage. How's that supposed to fit with 1 Cor 7? There you have it. To avoid sexual immorality, have a spouse and do what spouses are supposed to do. Don't not get married, and don't not have sexual activity within the marriage. A wife is supposed to be a helper for her husband (y'all know that from Genesis 1!!), not a distraction. And one thing she can help him with is his God-given sexual desires. And how's abstinence fit with Titus 1? If the elder/church leader abstains from sexual activity, he isn't "blameless" - he's defying the command of the Lord as set out above in 1 Cor 7. Some versions say blameless; no doubt you'll agree that above reproach = blameless. So again, the overseer is to be blameless (see previous point) and self-controlled (so he's not going to be overly- or underly- demanding concerning sexual activity. He needs to be self-controlled enough to DO the act (to please his wife) even if he doesn't necessarily want to, for himself. There's a whole list of things that said overseer should be fulfilling - and "continence" is not one of those things. Paul knew perfectly well how to discuss sexual matters and marital relations. If he meant, "be sexually abstinent" he would have said so. But he didn't. And so far as I recall, Jesus didn't discuss it at all. The only sexual matter that I can recall him discussing is adultery (which he endorses is wrong) - he doesn't discuss or even consider "continence" or sexual abstinence of any kind. Nor (for completeness) does he discuss homosexuality, prostitution or other like matters. And (I feel I shouldn't really need to say this, but... The very first command to human beings. Go, and make more people. Get out there and HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS with each other, with that person who is your wife, your closest, deepest helper. And nothing that I can think of within the Bible countermands that, but rather reinforces sexual relations between spouses as "status normal."

Etymology (= where it comes from, how it's built up) of the word Mortify: late 14c., mortifien, "to kill, destroy the life of," from Old French mortefiier "destroy, overwhelm, punish," from Late Latin mortificare "cause death, kill, put to death," literally "make dead," from mortificus "producing death," from Latin mors (genitive mortis) "death" (from PIE root *mer- "to rub away, harm," also "to die" and forming words referring to death and to beings subject to death) + combining form of facere "to make, to do" (from PIE root *dhe- "to set, put"). Religious sense of "subdue the flesh by abstinence and discipline" is attested from early 15c. Sense of "humiliate, chagrin, vex" is recorded by 1690s (compare mortification). Related: Mortified; mortifying. Note the "root words" Mer- and Dhe- or Facere, and how these have developed and compounded to make one word over millennia; there are quite a number of steps to get to the word we use today. (See, you can do word studies in English, too!). The kids' word "deadify" sums up "mortify" exactly. If you'd known that the "mort" or "mer" part meant, or had connotations of, Death, you'd've understood this right from the beginning. Perhaps you did, but chose to accept someone else's explanation (more fool you!). If you know any French, you'll recognise the word "mort" meaning dead. Or if you know any Spanish, you'll recognise the word "muerto" meaning dead. French and Spanish are more directly from Latin than English is, so these are also worthwhile languages to study (along with "improve your English"). If you find a new word in the English language, it's always worthwhile checking its etymology and this will definitely help you expand your vocabulary. You will see one, two or maybe more "root words" (as above) and you will then begin to be able to recognise these "roots" in other words. If you aren't willing to put this effort into understanding your native tongue - don't waste anybody's time showing off your puffed-up ego in expounding on ancient Greek words.

The video goes on particularly about homosexual priests raping altar boys. It's not just boys: girls too have been subject to highly inappropriate behaviour. Girls too have a right to be heard. The RC church has brought a lot of this upon itself with the very stupid and unbiblical edict that priests cannot be married. I am certain that if the young (male) priests had a healthy sexual outlet (with their wives) there would have been less abuse of vulnerable children of either sex. Unlikely to be any changes there, current pope is dead against relaxing this man-made rule. I honestly find it near unbelievable that the RC church (along with other churches, Anglican for example) have tolerated and covered this up for decades. Such an utter lack of integrity in the overseers (bishops, and what have you), and disdain for the victims. I feel rather sorry for hardworking decent priests who do their best to live with integrity and to live a life that honours God. I foresee swivelly eyes wondering, "What about you, then? Who did you abuse?" Heh, suppose it bankrupted the church, and the Vatican had to be sold and converted to an orphanage. LOL. But that's not going to happen. It's just not going to happen.

Good article; thanks for posting. See the recommendations for looking at several English versions (or if you're a non-native English speaker, perhaps in your mother tongue instead or as well). I'd like to suggest that people UNDERSTAND ENGLISH WELL. That means: having a good vocabulary - the wider your vocabulary, the more you will pick up nuances. Have a good understanding of grammar - the more you understand that, the better will be your understanding of the "actual" and the hypothetical, How many tenses in English do you know the names of, for describing past events? Or describing future events? (Hint: there's more than one of each!) What about the subjunctive? It was perfectly obvious to me right from sess.1 of PFAL that VPW didn't understand English grammar - I "forgave" him that, thinking that the entirety of the video teaching was perhaps more important to understand. But I later heard those same mistakes made by purported "teachers" and ultimately at twig level. I say: if you don't understand your native language, your mother tongue, and its nuances - how the heck do you think you understand a foreign language, and an ancient one at that, with all its nuances? Think of the differences in meaning between "I walk down the street" and "I am walking down the street." "I walked down the street" compared with "I have walked down the street" and "I was walking down the street" "I will walk down the street" and "I shall walk down the street" and "I will be walking down the street" and "I shall be walking down the street." "I may walk down the street" and "I may be walking down the street." "I may have been walking down the street" and "I could have been walking down the street." These are all legitimate tenses, some mean more or less the same depending on context, but others have big differences in meaning. You probably understand the differences without being able to articulate them clearly. You may know the names of some of the tenses, or you may not. The choice of auxiliary verb can make a big difference too. There are many other tenses in the English language. Other languages have different tenses that are not directly equivalent to those of the English language. That's before we get into things like word order, and different moods - are the words you read meant to be taken at face value, are they ironical or humorous, do they in fact mean the opposite of what they say? And spelling. And words that have more than one meaning in English, of which there are several examples in the Bible. And words that look a lot like another, but are widely divergent in meaning ("false friends," these are sometimes called). Seriously, folks, improve your knowledge of English and you will improve your understanding of not just the Bible but a whole host of other things as well. Those scholars and academicians who have worked on Bible translations have a wide vocabulary and a wide understanding of grammar in English and the other language(s). That's why they were chosen for the task. Undoubtedly there were disagreements, or at least discussions, over the choice of English words or phrases to express Greek words or phrases, according to the translators' own vocabularies and understandings. You can best respect their efforts by improving your own ability to comprehend.

Praying for you, Mark. The girlies enjoyed the petting, but gave you a shirty look. You might have been trying to eat them. That's them all over!

What came to mind this morning was how personal God is. I've always enjoyed my cup of tea (oh, how British!); coffee isn't something I enjoy much. When I was in rez, decent tea was hard to get. Sure, there were little Lipton tea bags available at HQ but the contents were terrible, barely tea at all, awful stuff. And yet, it wasn't till I was preparing to leave and return overseas that I realised I was giving away decent tea bags, half a large boxful, too, my then-favourite brand. Somehow, there were always enough of these after the first couple of months when I was settling in. International visitors would sometimes come, bringing tea, which would make its way to me. I never "prayed about" this and it never occurred to me to ask anybody; it was God's special treat for me. J, my Corps bro, loved Pringles (something that he couldn't afford to buy on the meagre personal allowance). He always had a drum of these - his friends and spiritual partners would bring them. C, my Corps sister, loved shoes. People would bring her new pairs. Right up to our graduation, when she'd chosen her dress, she needed shoes. And a pair was delivered by post to her the day before graduation. I would have hated the Pringles and the shoes. Those people would have hated the tea. I just love the personal way our individual whims were met, not because we needed them, but because we have a God who loves to give, to bless, to see that we're enjoying life. Of course, since then, there have been many individual blessings, things that "tickle me pink," or perfectly meet my needs; but to others those things are … just okay, nothing to get excited about. But I'm sure God gives them things that tickle them pink, too.

Remember this? "The greatest leader is the greatest servant." VPW and LCM used to say they were "serving" us by teaching us - all those hours they spent "researching" so as to come up with a teaching on Sunday and for Corps meetings. Therefore, we should "serve" them by tending to those things that they didn't have time to do. In "normal" life, how many church ministers need to have heaps of unpaid people cleaning their homes, tending their gardens, painting their property, cooking their food, etc? None that I know of! And if they did have someone to do these things, they'd be sure to pay them. Likewise, in "normal" life, how many academics - uni professors, heads of depts, and the like - need to have heaps of unpaid people (= the very students they are teaching) cleaning their homes, tending their gardens, painting their property, cooking their food, etc? Again, none that I know of! Oh wait. I know one retired professor did have one student who occasionally looked after his garden, when his studies didn't get in the way - and the prof paid the student very well for doing so, too.