oldiesman

Rascal, Asking for clarification on one's theology is a snare? I don't think so. You still haven't clarified your position about what fruit of the spirit is and how we can detect it. Please give examples. Understanding your theological position is important. Thank you.

There's no need to have an attitude ... all I'm asking for is clarification of some beliefs and theological positions.

But a case is attempting to be made that Dr. Wierwille was not a Christian. So then what is a born again Christian? What is your definition of one? Please give 3 examples of folks who you believe to be born again, and explain why you believe they are. Thank you.

Bowtwi, you are incorrect, I didn't call anyone a liar. Rascal accused me of misquoting her, which I didn't, and then I provided the exact quote I used. She said I misquoted her by deleting *after the new birth*. I didn't misquote her. I didn't delete *after the new birth*. I used a quote of hers from several months ago that didn't have *after the new birth*. So if anyone should apologize it should have been Rascal for jumping to conclusions. Rascal hasn't clarified her point about fruit of the spirit and how it can be detected. I believe this is important to understand what her theology is all about, so I'd like to get clarification on that.

At the same time? No. It says in Galatians that when a Christian walks in the spirit, they won't fulfull the lust of the flesh, and vice-versa. Do you really believe that if a Christian fulfills the lust of the flesh one day, or one week, or one month, that that means a Christian can't walk in the spirit another day, another week or another month? If so, please provide the scriptures. What seems reasonable to me isn't the issue? To me it is. My answer to the rest of your post is above.

Well, I'm entitled to make a judgement about the man based upon my experiences with him, just as someone else is entitled to make a judgment based upon theirs. Seems reasonable to me.

Thanks Jonny, but you know my avatar is Suzy Parker, you guessed her during the contest back in December. How long will she be up there? who knows... but I like her looks don't you?

Wordwolf, you say your uncertain whether VP Wierwille was a born again Christian. But what IS your definition of a born again Christian and how does one know for sure? Please define. Take 3 people who you believe are born again and please tell me why you believe that. Rascal, you mentioned fruit of the spirit in the past dozens of times. Please describe what fruit of the spirit is, and how we can detect it. You said in the past that it wasn't good works. Take 3 people you believe manifest fruit of the spirit and please tell me how we detect that and what are the attributes. Thank you.

My answer to that question would be my own personal observation and fellowship with him. Along with his 40+ years teaching ministry, 15 of which I observed; I also have observed fruit of the spirit; love, joy, peace, gentleness, meekness, goodness, faith, etc. in my dealings with him. I've spent some very short time with him in 1973 and 1975; spent a whole month with him and Mrs. Wierwille in June of 1984 on a motorcycle trip. If he was the man *of the flesh* that some posters relentlessly portray of him, then I saw a different man when I spent time with him. I know him in a different way that contradicts the way he has been portrayed here. So yes, he certainly may have seen the error of those ways and asked God for forgiveness and moved on. But even IF he didn't, I believe it still would not negate his standing as a child of God because of his belief in Jesus Christ, and I believe it wouldn't negate the truths he taught. The sins of a teacher do not negate the truths in the teaching. The teachings should be viewed separately and stand as truth or error on their own.

I agree Mike. Galatians 5 doesn't say they who do such things shall not "enter" the kingdom. Says they shall not "inherit" the kingdom. Another verse says "no inheritance" which suggests no rewards, bonuses. Perhaps we should start a thread sometime on that word "inherit" in Galatians 5 so folks who may want to view another choice besides the Rascalian Theological view of a Galatians 5 eternal death sentence may participate and do so.

I am posting on a Sunday! Wow. No I didn't. Below is the entire post which says nothing about *after the new birth* at the end of the sentence. YOU please be HONEST. In Rascal's past post it's evident that Rascalian Theology supports the idea that there are no qualifiers to Galatians 5. "it says uncatagorically that the people who do the things that wierwille did have NO inheritance in the kingdom of God ...shrug" Now a qualifer is added, i.e., Paul converted, and didn't murder anymore after the new birth, so Galatians 5 doesn't apply to Paul. Well ok, but remember, Paul did continue to sin after the new birth. He still had the old man nature after the new birth and was still stinky on the inside. But it does sound a bit dismissive, like whitewashing Pauls horrible acts, because he converted. It just seems a bit of a double standard ... that some posters could be so relentlessly condemning of Wierwille and others while dismissing other equally horrible acts (and worse). And so my feeling is if one is going to have such relentless moral outrage over sin, at least be consistent across the board. BTW, Wierwillian Theology teaches that when one is converted, born again, no matter what they did or how horrible the sin was in the past, they receive a clean slate. Rascalian Theology agrees. So would appear that Rascalian Theology uses parts of Wierwillian Theology when it fits!

Not only that, according to Rascalian Doctrine (from a past posting) "people who do the things that wierwille did have NO inheritance in the kingdom of God ... shrug". Well, Paul murdered. That is a lot worse and much more damaging than young sex, so why whitewash that? "read it ... there is no room to wiggle." Have a nice weekend, one and all. :)

Ex, please feel free to PM anytime, the invitation is always open.

He sure did. He murdered Christians in the name of God. I think that's a helluva lot worse than young sex.

But we agreed to it. If we didn't, we could always leave. Ya can't seriously claim victimhood when there was always a way to escape from being "a victim."

dmiller, VMP = Victim Mentality Propaganda The key for me to believe something is mind control, is if free will is taken away. I suppose we can claim we were brainwashed by just being there, but that's not enough for me. Who chained us to the seat? Who locked the door? Who held a gun to our head? Remember, this is the U.S. of A. with freedom of religion, and we had the freedom to walk out anytime.

Yeah she does... she says its a cult because of "mind control". Of course I disagree... but I do think it's that viewpoint that feeds the VMP that helps to sell the cult books.

I found this link on GS page above. It's pretty good: Why Forgive?

I thought it was flawed ideology because it asserts that the victims' healing is contingent upon the repentence and apology of the perpetrator which may never be forthcoming. In the case of Dr. Wierwille, it will never come; in the case of Craig, Rosalie and other cast of characters, it may come, but don't count on it. So then the victim is in a state of perpetual hurt because of the inaction of the perpetrator. So basically I think this is a formula for wound addiction and perpetual victim entitlement. In contrast, Jesus is the healer of broken hearts, in him is all the keys to one's healing.

Sounds like the Democratic Party.

Stimulus Stupidity

Wow. Sorry to hear that.

This was previously covered in a GS thread here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=375330 There's a lot more information on that video than just the income tax. I think it's worth viewing.

I haven't gone back in years, but am not opposed to checking them out, singing some songs and having a cookie. And I think it'd be better to check them out in person, rather than surmising through anonymous internet sources that they're currently engaging in evil and sin.

Apples and oranges. It appears he's talking about (then) current events of a living person who (then) was currently disrupting the church with malicious words, and so forth. Current tense. I think this has NOTHING to do with the perpetual condemnation largely by anonymous sources of past tense decades-old sins of the deceased and displaced. It is interesting to note that if one compares this verse with twi; ... twi doesn't appear to return the fire of internet defamation with malicious words about their critics, and they don't forbid to receive brethren who may want to attend their fellowships. So I don't think this verse has any application to modern twi. I think it may do some folks some good to go back to a twi fellowship and check things out, see what's happening. See in person if they're hurting people and engaging in sin. Have a twinkie. There's nothing to fear and I bet the booogie man won't get ya.