waysider

I like Ike!

Yes. There was a huge push around the time of the bicentennial. (1975) Supposedly, the communists were plotting to invade us. In FellowLaborers, we had an emergency meeting where we physically destroyed the mimeograph plates used for the state newsletter (so the enemy couldn't get hold of them and know our identities). We built a root cellar in the side of the hill behind the Ohio BRC. to store food stuffs. We had our own rather large garden plot where we raised vegetables for the groups' consumption. There was a lot of other similar activity. Wierwille had supposedly gotten revelation that something big was about to happen. Of course, the real truth was that Wierwille was reacting to information he was getting directly from extremist groups, such as Liberty Lobby and the John Birch Society. Ultimately, our collective believing was effective enough to stave off the evil hoards. (Does that remind you of anyone?... Hint: the Seekers)

The question: what would present day Christendom do to a man like David?

rrobs Try using something other than PFAL material as your point of reference.

To clarify, this is the part of rrobs post I found humorous: " Like I said, in wit and doctrine, I have no equals here at gsc."

"I see what's going on here." Haha! There you go with that humor thing again.

Well written and insightful. Thanks, Rocky.

You forgot about humor. You're way up there in humor, too. Hahahahahahahaha!

In the U.S., his fate (for his actions, not his beliefs) would be decided by society and governing entities, not.Christendom. If Christendom became part of the decision making process deciding David's fate, it would mean we have entered a Theocracy. The Constitution warned against this. It would be in conflict with the first amendment. In 1802, Jefferson wrote this in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists: 'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.'] It was emphasized in The Treaty of Tripoli, Article #11, which, though discussing a specific scenario, set the tone of future dealings. (1796) "Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. On this basis, I propose the aforementioned question raises a moot point. Dave's not here.

"Dave's not here, man."

HERE is an old discussion that may interest you. edit: Please be aware that some of the people who posted in this thread have since passed away.

I didn't ask you what Bullinger or Darby said. I asked you what the scriptures say.

May I kiss your ring, Your Holiness?

Heavy, dude! Allow me to rephrase my comment: Are you saying that, in light of of this verse, the Bible has offered proof of itself that it's been sub-divided into distinct time periods?

So you're saying that verse proves the Bible is chronologically compartmentalized?

If you need a non-scriptural concept to make sense of scripture, you may want to reexamine your methodology.

Definitely not maybe.

I guess I'll be the party-pooper who spills the bean dip. There is no difference. There, I said it. It might have been Steve Lortz or Raf who examined this rather extensively, I'm not sure. If not, I offer my preemptive apology to whoever it was that did the leg work. It's all here if you are curious enough to seek it out. Kingdom of Heaven and Kingdom of God are used synonymously in the scriptures. edit: There is THIS for starters... http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/19171-kingdom-of-god-vs-kingdom-of-heaven/

Yes...and no.

Their ABC's

All men are liars...and that's the truth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heNLjW4o5XE

Considering his propensity for falsehoods and misrepresentation, why should we believe anything at all that he says about himself, including his supposed time as a pilot and his retirement income?

I see a lot of cherry picked scripture references supposedly supporting a man-made concept. What I don't see is something showing me the Bible has been sub divided into neat little compartments. But, hey, if that's what you need to make it all fit like a hand in a sock, more power to you.

So there you have it. A guy comes in here under false pretenses, admittedly plays a bunch of deceptive head games and then expects us to grant him some sort of award for his unwavering integrity. Yeah...not so much. A hypocrite in all his might, So wrong in that he thinks he's right. Still he hears not Still he sees not. Will he?