geisha779

It has been awhile. . . so the "word" was PFAL right? Since historically most evangelists that actually did preach the gospel to so many. . . . were uninformed unbelieving believers(Or some form of that)? Didn't they can PFAL? Okay, clueless here. . . what went over the world that LCM took credit for?

I don't think it makes you pitiful at all. Courage at 34 is still courage. I don't think VP's behavior was pitiful either. It was disgusting, unforgivable, vile, and it was extremely manipulative. And since he knew it was wrong, but his own lust was more important to him than resisting temptation and yielding to the higher authority he claimed to know and love above all else. . . . I don't have any pity for him. None. VP's actions are not to be pitied as unavoidable, they were not a product of some circumstance he could not control and no one with an honest bone in their body can say he didn't know better. He left the church because they told him it was wrong. They held him accountable. Why do we really think he vaunted the scriptures above all else including Jesus Christ? Because being beholden to a book he could manipulate and use to justify his actions instead of a personal God who shows us right from wrong. . . . allowed him to indulge his lust with seeming impunity. . . no, actually with what he claimed was God's permission. I have a theory, he spent all that time reordering truth because he was once held accountable by it. He was angry and bitter because he could not do as he wanted. He created a "truth" that would allow him to continue in lust with God's permission. There is no such thing. I personally don't believe he loved God, or respected the scriptures and Jesus Christ(the revelation of God) was so much a burden he had to file him in the waste basket. . . . or minimize Him to such an ineffectual pal that He was easy to dispose of. . . . . . nope. . . .VP didn't love God IMO. . . he loved himself, and he loved to sin.

Did I push some buttons? It wasn't my intention, but I stand by what I advised. People are free to take it or leave it. Considering our shared cult experience. . . . it didn't seem like threatening advice to me. BTW, I have to depend on experts, I don't know it all. I depend on Christians with talent in other areas. I have simply learned to be wary of who I listen to. Gee. . . I wonder why?

Here is what I wrote. From what I read . . . I think he may be or has been part of STF as well. There was some Truth or Tradition verbiage scattered about. One option was "fellowships" so, maybe they are part of a larger group. I found it because I was looking up Bishop Pillai . . . .most things that come up concerning him are TWI related in some way. This site came up in the search. Bishop KC Pillai/The Brown Bible One thing I noticed is they are very vague concerning things like WHO ordained him into WHAT denomination . . . and where this" theological training" came from. Although, the donate button was prominent. . . . and with scripture attached. I didn't delve too deeply into your site, but your "About Us" page says the following: Ken Brown received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Mathematics in 1971 and earned his Bachelor of Theology degree in 1974. He was ordained in 1975 and served many years in full time Christian ministry. He has worked as a Biblical research editor for an internationally published Christian magazine and has served as senior faculty for a variety of college level Biblical research oriented classes. And the donate button is on the first page with 2 Corinthians 9:7 It is what it is. . . . . Not sure if you are with a larger group, but it appeared that way to me. I am sure you are a great guy. . . .I just wondered what your credentials are for teaching the bible. . . . as you do claim some. Where you were ordained and into what. . . . I can get an ordination online. I would assume if you have a real BA in theology. . . . TWI is not where you received it. :) Reasonable questions . . . and curiosity at the vagueness especially if it was TWI.

I read VP's stuff first. . .. that did not serve me well at all. . . . . . of course, I couldn't make up my own mind. . . . I didn't know sound doctrine. . . I just got my ears tickled and backside patted. I would give different advice. Go to those recognized and respected teachers in the church. There are a great many people proposing a great many things. . . all convinced they have the newest light. Then there are those recognized for excellent scholarship and conduct. N.T Wright, Daniel B Wallace, John Lennox (Oxford) to name a few. I once posted a list here. If we have a question . . . I say seek out those trained who have not jumped the tracks. . . Just my opinion. Wish I had once followed my own advice. :) And, prayerfully consider.

I think it makes Him out to be clueless myself, but God is very kind.

Here is a synopsis of Open Theism from Bible.org . . . . . the rest of the article can be found at bible.org under An Examination of Open Theism for many, it is an extremely problematic theology. http://bible.org/art...ion-open-theism Open theism is concerned with how God experiences the world. It asks and attempts to answer the questions, "What does God know?" and "When does He know it?" The essence of the questions open theists ask are not dealing with how God knows the future, but if he knows it at all.3 An early proponent of open theism said, "God experienced the events of the world He has created. . .as they happen, rather than all at once in some timeless, eternal perception. This also means that not even God knows the future in all its details."4 Open theists maintain that God does not know what a given human being will do until he acts. They refer to such human actions as "possibilities."5 Because God remains unaware of human possibilities, the future remains "open" in His mind. This means that rather than God knowing all things, He is in the process of learning new things as they take place.6 This is a significant redefinition of the classical doctrine of God's omniscience.7 The open theist's view of omniscience is that God has complete knowledge of the past and the present, but not the future8 What God does know of the future is in reference to what he knows of "present dispositions, proclivities, inclinations, intentions and probabilities as well as they can be known."9 Along with the doctrine of omniscience, open theism questions and redefines a number of historical and theological formulations of the attributes of God. Independence. Grudem defines God's independence as, "God does not need us or the rest of creation for anything, yet we and the rest of creation can glorify him and bring him joy."10 Open theism teaches that God is dependent on the world in certain respects.11 Immutability. Classical theology defines God's immutability as, "God is unchanging in his being, perfections, purposes, and promises, yet God does act and feel emotions, and he acts and feels differently in response to different situations.12 Open theism teaches God is, "…open to new experiences, has a capacity for novelty and is open to reality, which itself is open to change."13 Trying to have it both ways open theism says, "God is immutable in essence and in his trustworthiness over time, but in other respects God changes."14 Eternality. Classical theism states, "God has no beginning, end, or succession of moments in his own being, and he sees all time equally vividly, yet God sees events in time and acts in time."15 Open theism teaches that, "God is a temporal agent. He is above time in the sense that he is above finite experience and measurement of time but he is not beyond "before and after" or beyond sequence of events. Scripture presents God as temporally everlasting, not timelessly eternal….Clearly God is temporally related to creatures and projects himself and his actions along a temporal path."16 Omnipresence. Classical theology teaches that just as God is unlimited or infinite with respect to time, so God is unlimited with respect to space. God's omnipresence may be defined as, "God does not have size or spatial dimensions and is present at every point of space with his whole being, yet God acts differently in different places."17 A leading proponent of open theism says, "I do not feel obliged to assume that God is a purely spiritual being when his self-revelation does not suggest it….The only persons we encounter are embodied persons and, if God is not embodied, it may prove difficult to understand how God is a person….Embodiment may be the way in which the transcendent God is able to be immanent and why God is presented in such terms."18 Unity. The unity of God in classical theology is defined as, "God is not divided into parts, yet we see different attributes of God emphasized at different time."19 This is also called in theology the "simplicity" of God, meaning that God in not composed of parts and cautioning against singling out any one attribute of God as more important than all the others. This will be examined when the hermeneutics of open theism is discussed. Open theism reveals that, "The doctrine of divine simplicity, so crucial to the classical understanding of God, has been abandoned by a strong majority of Christian philosophers, through it still has a small band of defenders."20 Clark Pinnock, having abandoned this doctrine says, "Let us not treat the attributes of God independently of the Bible but view the biblical metaphors as reality-depicting descriptions of the living God, whose very being is self-giving love."21 Omnipotence. Classical theism defines God's omnipotence in reference to His own power to do what he decides to do. It states, "God's omnipotence means that God is able to do all his holy will."22 On the other hand open theism states that "we must not define omnipotence as the power to determine everything but rather as the power that enables God to deal with any situation that arises."23 Pinnock openly states that, "God cannot just do anything he wants, when he wants to….His power can, at least temporarily, be blocked and his will not be done in the short term.

Q. . . R. . . .S

Just chokes me up. . . (seriously) Nomar came home to retire. I love baseball.

Hi Bob, I want to really read your first post. . . . and take my time with it. I can't even express to you how much I appreciate the time you put into it. Thursday and Fridays are travel days for me. . . depending. So, if you asked me a question I am not ignoring you. I did want to answer this quickly though. It wasn't that I was lumping CES with TWI in this case. . . it was that I wanted to illustrate the point that Geisler knew of TWI and VP. The reason I know this is that I have a friend who co-authored a book with Geisler. We have spoken about TWI and the splinter groups. I think there was some back and forth between CES and some papers submitted somewhere. . . . I think Harvard may have ended up with them?? But, that blurb from the article illustrated my point. Although, all you have to do is read anything by Geisler on cults. From where I sit, Pastor Juedes has been a faithful friend to people in TWI, and I recognize his analysis of disparate groups like TWI. I don't have a very high opinion of TWI and like you have moved on. But, I am glad you are here. :)

Robert, Very nice post. I do have a few questions about things you have said. . . . . please, please do not take this as being confrontational. I in no way mean it as such. You know that I am thrilled you are here. I plan on learning a great deal from you!! You wrote (remember I'm Evangelical, conservative . . . . ) Could you clarify this a bit for me? From what I have read about your theology so far. . . . the two things, (Evangelical, Conservative. . . ) and your theology do not sync. I have navigated my way through the Evangelical world for years. The biggest litmus test Evangelicals have for determining if something like TWI is a cult. . . . is a denial of the trinity. I take it from your posting you do not accept that Jesus Christ is God or the doctrine of the trinity. Another thing Evangelicals do not accept is the idea of soul sleep. . . . or that God changes. . . . or in general annihilationism. I am not dissing your theology, it used to be mine. . . . but, it is not an Evangelical conservative understanding. Did you use the term to mean something else? The other thing I am confused about is this. You wrote Certainly the TWI view of inerrancy is not what all Christians believe, but it is quite representative of the Evangelical branch. I am not seeing this either. Evangelicals have a VERY Christ centered theology. . . . the Chicago Statement on inerrancy was Norm Geisler's puppy. . . . He is the most staunch defender of inerrancy in Evangelical circles. . . . but, I do not get the same meaning from him. He actually is very aware of VP and TWI . "CES proudly notes that Christian apologists like Norman Geisler and Keith Tolbert believe that CES is open to dialogue. But is CES open to dialogue, or is this just a pose? STTIL says that “believers have been subjected to religious junk food, oppressive hierarchical systems, nonsensical doctrines and a mediocre spiritual existence”" http://www.precastco...ah7/rec_ces.htm From Messiah Net's article Christian Educational Services The Evolution of a Splinter Group of The Way International. In case the link doesn't work. Could you explain a bit how TWI's view on inerrancy is representative of the Evangelical branch? I understand the terms TWI used may be the same, but they have a blaring discrepancy in meaning to my ears. I think we took the Evangelical understanding in TWI and turned it on its head! :) But, I am not the brightest bulb, so any light you could shed on this would be genuinely helpful.

Well, except. . . . My Grandpa never grabbed my backside or commented on the endowment of my front side. Something was altered in my perception of the obvious. . . . Grandpa was a pig. How I missed what was painfully obvious. . . . is why I come here. Something happened to me and it was subtle and persuasive. I ignored my own conscience. Not going to happen again. If Grandpa tried to cop a feel today. . . . I would smack him right across the face.

Oh please.. . . you are probably a card carrying member of PETA and a vegan! I love all of God's little furry creatures with the exception of mice, rats, and rodents in general . . . . if you feel you must. . . . . have a go at them. :)

Home Depot.

Yeah, we want to open up THAT can of worms again and have a three week discussion on the evils of Geisha praying for the heathen! Let's just say . . . my knees are wearing thin. . . . I have just about lost my voice and I know how to say your name with my eyes closed and hand folded. :)

What is inspiration? People are inspired all the time . . . musicians, artists, poets, actually people in a great many fields. . . . . we know what inspiration is . . . but, it is a very difficult concept to convey in language. People call it being "moved". . . . we still use the term "moved". . . . I was really moved to do so and so. It does imply something outside of ourselves propelling us to create or act in a certain manner. But, isn't it is still us doing the creating or acting? Our own talent, our own ability, our own use of language, our education, and our producing something as a result of being inspired. Being moved. All scripture is inspired . . . . not dictated. . . . holy men of spoke as they moved by the Holy Spirit. Those words and concepts are familiar enough to us to understand. Inspiration and being moved is a part of being human. They even give us the specific of what moved or inspired them to write about God. It was God. He inspired people. . . . to relate Himself to people. He condescended to use imperfect language and imperfect humans so that we could understand. Okay . . . that is actually a perfect choice . . . LOL I am cracking myself up here. The emphasis isn't on the specific words being used. . . . words can be substituted and have the same meaning. Funny, we call it the bible. . . . yet that word is not even in the bible. . . And. . . scripture conveys a specific message. . . . the perfect or true message about why we are here. . . . what our relationship to God is and can be, the whys of it all are answered. . . . and most importantly about a specific person. . . who was going to declare and personify Him for us. . . . who was going to come. .. step into humanity . . . condescend. . . . so that He could ultimately relate Himself to us and reveal what He is like. What did He end up doing? Dying for us. Geeze, Jesus tells us more about what it means to be human than anything IMHO. God Himself teaching us what it all means and can be. We may not like the message, but honestly, I think given our past approach to it in relating to the scripture and not the person . . . . we missed the message. Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God. The context of these words are from Deut 8 . . . . and God feeding Israel supernaturally. The miracle was that even though they had no food, God supplied their nourishment. He "spoke" the food into being. It is not a contrast between spiritual food coming from the bible and food for the body supplied in a physical way. Satan was trying to get Jesus to use His authority (do a miracle) and not depend on God for His nourishment. TWI had a really trite and controlling exegesis for this verse IMO and missed the deeper meaning of Jesus not using His prerogative as the Messiah, but enduring humiliation and remaining humble. . . . also in conducting Himself like a man should in depending on God for His sustenance. These were Messianic temptations. . . "If thou be the Son of God". Jesus used His authority at other times. . . turning water into wine. . . calming the seas. . . but, this was a contrast between how Adam acted and how he should have acted. Jesus fixed it. If it was about the bible. . . . Moses could have told the Israelites. . . . when they said they were hungry. . . Go read for an hour! Instead he asked God to give them some bread and shut them up. . . . not give me a few sayings to keep them quiet. The scriptures make a lot more sense to me now that Jesus is the focus instead of missing in action.

That makes it much clearer to me! :) Thanks for that. . . . there is a connotation, I guess, with the word perfect. .. a holdover from TWI that trips me up,

Oakspear, Just to add, I think Muslims believe the Koran to be the exact representation of God. . . . which is why it is not translated. . . . or it is frowned on. . . . . I kind of think that is what we did with the bible in TWI. That it was the representation of God instead of the witness or testimony of Jesus Christ. Still working this stuff out.

Just my opinion here. . . I know you come at it from a differing POV. And, I think that is exactly what happened. . . . a skewed view of scripture. At least for me, it was as if God lived in the book. I knew God only through the book. . . . . and that didn't help because it was only my understanding of the book influenced by TWI. . . . which I couldn't understand fully until I took the next class. . . . then the next class and so on. I don't really understand what the concept of the originals being perfect really means. I am not kidding. I honestly don't understand. Perfect how? Compared to what? As an aside, perfect, whatever that means, is not going to change the message or the things in there that are uncomfortable and alarming. The rain is still going to fall on the just and the unjust. . . He is still going to discipline the ones He loves. . . . everyone still gets a shot at their three score and ten years. . . . He is still willing to forgive someone who maybe has worse sins than me. It is what it is and the perfection is in the truth of it. The scriptures are not God. . . . I believe they are His witness or testimony of Himself revealed in the person of Jesus Christ. . . . . who He Himself said was the truth. I believe the scriptures are true and if they are true than I guess you could say perfect in that regard? God never gets perfection in imperfect humans. It is how He perfectly carries out His will through imperfection. That is what glorifies God. Taking something imperfect and using it for His perfect accomplished will. At least that is how I am looking at it. . . . and that is a perfect mouthful. :) Look at the great people He has used in the past. . . . Caiphas for one, Peter, Baalam, most of His prophets were disobedient at one time or another. Moses murdered. . . . and could barely speak. Aaron was melting gold and making cows. . . . Sampson, David, Solomon. . . . . who besides Jesus is perfect in the scriptures?? Yet, God still manages to perfectly carry out His will. Language isn't perfect. .. . . we are severely limited in articulating those things we understand about God. He chose an imperfect form of communication, but stills manages to testify of Himself. I do not get the whole perfect ink and paper thing. . . . there is no possible way to perfectly declare God. . . except in the person of Jesus Christ.

I think you bother because you are a good person and that is not defined by what anyone else believes or says. . . .

I love you Roy. . . . you wrote "God is in the mind of animals just like God is in our mind". That is a great statement. Insightful. Not something everyone would even consider. I don't think it is the same as our thoughts about God.. . .I don't think we are designed for the same thing, but I do so agree that they are connected to God too! Thanks for making that point. I also think about these things.

Still doesn't answer my question. I am sure some of the people from PETA would disagree with your priorities. They can make a strong case. . . . . maybe citing that humans offer very little in way of value to the worlds ecosystems and of course. . . . we are now trashing space as well. You were fairly declarative in your statement about what would be right. . . . and what would be wrong. . . . I just wonder what morality you base your answer on? Personally, I believe from the scriptures that man has dominion over the earth. It is fairly obvious we do. I also believe that without God. . . . our value is simply to ourselves and for ourselves. . . . we take from the earth. We are now destroying it at a record pace. . . . . plants, animals, insects . . . . they all have a function within the design of ecosystems. . . . they give something. We take. What is our place in the earth's ecosystems? Every time we take a step into one. . . . we alter or disrupt it. Yet, they are all under our dominion. You made a value judgment based on a very basic biblical premise. Genesis 1. It wasn't even a question of who took priority. It was just naturally assumed.

Well, I didn't ask you what you hoped I would do. . . . . I asked you why those circumstances would dictate a right and wrong choice. I understand survival instinct, but when you bring right and wrong into an equation. . . . . you are making a value judgment. Breaking it down . . . . why would a human farmer's livelihood be more important than that of a coyote's natural instinct and need for food? Why does the human have more value and right to the chickens and to the earths bounty than a coyote? We are speaking of killing another creature here. A coyote is only going to take what it needs. . . . . how many chickens can the farmer eat? There has to be some basis for your value judgment between right and wrong? Does the human add more to the ecosystem than the coyote? Is it because the coyote is stealing? Is it because the farmer paid for the chickens and they are rightfully his? What gives the human the upper hand. . . . a shotgun? That is not a case of right and wrong. . . . just who can kill easier. You said right and wrong and drew a distinction between the two. Why?

Roy, A better rendering of Exodus 20:13 might be "Thou shalt not commit murder." If we are all just animals and it is simply . . . . he who holds the shotgun wins the day. . . . then that has nothing to do with what is right or wrong . . . . . or circumstances dictating the morality of the act. Love, Geisha

Why is someone's livelihood more valuable than the life of the coyote? Why are people given preference if we are all just animals? A coyote has to eat too . . . in a sense that is his livelihood. What if he/she is bringing chickens back to feed their young? What makes that circumstance dictate that it is okay to kill another animal? Animals feel a wide range of emotions including love and loyalty . . . ever have a dog?