oldiesman

"wouldn't even help one of their own people" have lots of mixed feelings about this. on the one hand, you'd think they should've helped when there was a need; on the other, should ABS money be used like that? don't know... i wonder how the Mormon welfare system works?

check out:Passover and Promised Seed wow...

Tom, if you haven't a problem with giving them a ride, fine. But what if you did have a problem and felt that you were doing enough already (running the meeting, teaching, providing refreshments, etc.) and you thought that this person wasn't "doing his part" or "believing enough" to get there? In other words, is it too much to insist that if folks want to attend the meeting, they are responsible to try to get there themselves without expecting you to arrange your schedule around them?

For me to think VPW was innocent, I'd have to ignore and refute all the accounts of his wrongdoing -- which I don't do anymore. Having said that, I'm not in favor of continual, unrelenting condemnation of the man... but he's not innocent...

Here's something similar, along with a question. Let's say someone wants to go to fellowship but doesn't "believe enough" to get there on their own. (They don't have transportation, a vehicle, money for a cab, etc. etc.) And you are the TC. ...Would you consider it your responsibility to pick the guy up and take him home? What if you refuse because you figure, hey, I am making my house available, teaching, providing refreshments, etc etc. I can't do everything, can I? What would you do?

Redemption isn't about the current or future mental condition of the old man. It's all about Christ's sacrifice, and one's acceptance of His lordship and resurrection...

I voted for #4; although it's not precisely what I believe, it's the closest of the 5; and it's nice to be on the side of popular opinion for a change. :D-->

Wordwolf, I believe we discussed this in the past in the context of folks from TWI (presumably Victor Paul and Craig) and others who royally screwed up, following TWI's teaching that "shall not inherit the kingdom of God" means "no rewards at the gathering." Presumably the evil works destroy (burn?) the rewards, or at least that's how I understand that at this point.

Raf, From what I've google-searched on the net, the "miscarriage" interpretation seems to be the predominant Jewish view from the Torah. Do a google search on Jewish thought on this topic, and you'll see what I mean. Also, I figure that the Rabbi wouldn't have made such a definitive statement of Jewish thought on a very widespread and popular radio station if he was just talking about his own opinion. I feel certain that if he were making a comment as "just his own opinion" he would have paraphrased it with that condition. But he didn't. Having said that, I'm willing to call him up next Sunday myself and ask him if what he meant was only his opinion. Do you have one or two authoritative Jewish sources who dispute the miscarriage interpretation?

I was listening to WABC radio in NY this weekend (Sunday), "Religion on the Line" or something. It's hosted by a Roman Catholic Father and Jewish Rabbi. The topic was abortion, and the Rabbi mentioned that "there's some room for abortion in Jewish thought", and "there's a difference between life, and potential life." He quoted Exodus as being a miscarriage, in Jewish teaching. No mistake about it. I think his name is Rabbi Joseph Petasnik or something.

Raf, my apology was indeed heartfelt and serious, and the only reason why I asked Imbus that question was cause she stated earlier that she didn't take anything I had to say seriously. I'm glad she didn't that one condescending comment seriously, but I hope my other comments are taken seriously. George, I hope to earn respect with folks, but if it doesn't happen because of my beliefs, that's something I'll live with. But I do wish the namecalling would stop. If I expressed myself the way you did, feeling futility and using that word, I'd be thoroughly grilled.

I was there too, but didn't take it literally, obviously, cause I don't even remember the comment. I opine that if it was to be taken literally, really literally, that it probably would have been written down and documented in some way, for us to make no mistake about its meaning and importance.

Imbus: Imbus, so then I assume you didn't take the apology seriously as well? George: George, I see where you're coming from, but don't think VPW meant that we take that literally, and folks didn't. PFAL on par with Ephesians? I take that as a figure of speech, but you believe whatever you want. I'm sure Mike believes it wholeheartedly. Your last line comment looks like namecalling, and again, I really wish folks would cut that out. MO, I realize you were upset, thanks so much for the apology.

Yeah it feels great but it seems things are just so boring now.

Imbus said: Folks, thanks for feeding my secondary needs. Imbus, I apologize for saying..you know...

no man anything, but love ...

Goey, not this again. Every time I say I have you pegged a certain way, you come around and say I'm falsifying your position on TWI-1. I don't see you as thinking that it was from God. That's why you left, and that's why you have little nice things to say about it. At least I don't get it. Perhaps you can elaborate, for the record, the godly elements and fruit of Wierwille's stand and TWI-1. I'll jot them down, so I don't forget. I didn't respond to the rest of your post because I'm still thinking all of it over in my head. In spite of what some folks might think, I do read and consider diverse opinions.

Raf, that wasn't ALL I said, but thanks to your nagging, I do admit it was condescending of me to say it, and / or say it the way I did. It didn't have to be said. Thanks for pointing that out. Iron sharpeneth iron.

Goey, when did I say that TWI-1 was abuse free? I've consistently said that there was both good and evil going on. Haven't you been listening? or too busy listening to yourself to hear what I've said? I do still believe that TWI-1 was a true movement of God...at least that's the way I see the good things that resulted. But some folks here like yourself just find that thought repugnant, and that's unfortunate.

Raf, I disagree with your reasons for the apology, and judging from Imbus's response just now, no apology will be forthcoming. Also, I'm getting tired of your namecalling. Please cut that out.

George, if you're referring to PFAL '77, your analogy doesn't fly. If that was really true, that PFAL 77 was God Breathed and he portrayed it as such, don't you think he would have made it one of those mandatory classes everyone should take? After all, it replaces the old one? As it turned out, I don't think any of us saw the finished product on tape, I know I didn't. I still disagree that adultery in TWI had its roots from PFAL.

Raf, What exactly are you asking me to apologize for? For equating Imbus's act with adultery? or for mentioning it here?

Watered Garden, I already agree with what you're saying so I'm not sure what you're point is. PFAL isn't 100% truth. It has errors.

Excathedra, I may not respond to you nearly as much as I could, or should, so it might not look like I'm listening to you; but please know that I do read and consider what you say.

Tom, there's plenty of accusatory b.s. to go around, and there have been plenty of things said that hurt me, as well. I think the problem why some folks get so emotional is maybe the level of hatred they have toward Wierwille and the BOT. Some folks just can't tolerate differing opinions. Therefore challenging very strong hateful emotions can be hurtful to those who harbor them. It happens to me as well sometimes.