JeffSjo

(edited to remove a double post)

To everyone concerned, I'm past being concerned about it going public now.

And a few more. I'm planning on reviewing them after I've got them on this "My Story" thread.

Now, back to some older posts. (added in editing) I'm going to do some more of this later, but I will leave now. I hope that you are willing to bear with me as I continue to come to grips with the events in my life and post my story in this style.

These are some of my newer posts. I decided it was time to name names.

I'm going to go back over the things that I've shared about my little splinter group in the last year-plus since I've come to the greasespot. I hope my quoting of things that I've said before makes sense. Well, here goes.

Yeah, I like to cool stuff too. It has always fascinated me that he never did anything to harm anyone but people were still afraid of him. It got to the point where they were afraid to ask him any further questions because the had gotten tired of being trounced. Unless idjits like these happen to be harming someone that I know I usually won't have much to say. It's sad to me that their mocking this recored seems to account for a better understanding of what is said than Wierwille's teaching on blasphemy of the spirit. I hear you geisha, I've been considering it. In everything it seems a sad part of the human condition that it is easy for us to point fingers and hard to evaluate self. (added in editing) Pride cometh before a fall. Over and over again in the scripture people have seemed to think that they've had it made in the shade only to have someone tell them that they were lacking. And most often it seems they've rejected these calls to change. It still holds true IMO that what God told Ezekiel is true. The righteous who sin will be held accountable for their sin. But the wicked who turn to the Lord will be forgiven. Then God said that the righteous would say that this isn't fair. But God told them that it was fair, they were wrong. A person can talk about this changing with the new testament all they want, but where does it say this has changed? God has not changed. Paul feared the Lord's judgment and could say with a clear conscience that there was no blood on his hands, it sounds to me like he still applied these things as they were taught in thew Old Testament to himself. Peter taught that Christians should know how to behave because of the Lord's fiery judgment too. I can give a non-believer more of a brake than a believer because of these things. And on top of that, the scriptures say that among the believers, the teachers will get the more severe judgment. It looks to me like TWI leadership is in deep doo-doo.

Don't worry about me worrying about what Wierwille said Geisha. :) One of my purposes in this thread is to point out that the doctrine that Wierwille introduced using these scriptures totally misses the point of these scriptures. I believe that for TWI's benefit I am sharing that not only did Wierwille miss the point, but that leadership's manner became damnable because in their arrogance they have not only spoken against the Spirit of God but have destroyed lives in the very same manner that the Pharisees are recorded as going after the Lord in Mt12. All the things that you've said in this last section will take me some time to take in. But even without in-depth analysis on my part I believe that the lord showed them how their attempts to discredit him in truth only showed how they made no sense whatsoever and that they were missing out on the blessings that He actually were bringing to God's people. Earlier in this chapter the scriptures record that the Pharisees were already scheming on how they might destroy Him. It is sad to me that TWI leadership has sought to destroy people that were trying to help them in the same manner. Their have been many accounts here of people who tried to confront TWI in the old days. And by all accounts here TWI has only gotten much worse since the eighties which was my time of association with TWI. Since What the Hey took it upon himself to speak of those that had "real devils" right here at the Greasespot I thought it might do him some good to explore the options. In my thinking these are two of the options.... 1. What the Hey was getting all worked up about "real devils" for the wrong reasons and was actually fighting against good people and bringing the judgment of God upon himself by fighting these devils that he thinks he sees. If I understood anything about the biblical doctrine of a spiritual contest it is that when we are deceived off of God's Word we have already lost. If those who are fighting devils are just as wrong as the Pharisees were then they need someone to tell them that they are making no sense whatsoever and will be judged for their obstinate refusal to see that what they are doing is wrong. 2. What the Hey might be willing to defend his accusation of seeing "real devils" WHAT THE HECK What the Hey? I've given you this chance anyway. One thing about this record that I'm reminded of is that it was not academic. The Lord himself was working and people were taking sides as a result. I believe that our judgment will be as the Lord has said in these verses. So it would behoove any of us to think about our own words. This is much better IMO than any pointing at other folks outside of what is going on right here and now. It is evident to me that all of us are capable of pointing some imaginary folks out there somewhere who've rejected the Lord. But what about the things that are going on right here and right now? Are not we taking sides and are not some thinking that they are fighting "real devils" even now? Do they even know what they are rejecting before they resort to every nasty trick in the book to put another down? In my former splinter group they rejected every chance that I gave them to stop fighting the devil that they percieved and stand corrected on their bogus doctrines. They have foolishly decided that it is o.k. to follow a man who has allowed ten young women to in one of the girl's own words to be "married to the christ in Victor." They have decided to follow a man who before they kicked me out had made several false prophecies concerning the Lord's return. Most all of them has given everything in their own life over to a man who IMO really fears and despises them. But in their mind, to not listen to me was successfully fighting the devil. pffhhh! I'm giving What the Hey a chance to make his case out here in broad daylight where we all can see it. I believe that in like manner we need to give the non-Christians a brake and focus on bogus Christian doctrines and practices. In my mind it seems plain that corrupt belief is more damnable than those who haven't heard enough to believe yet. Who can say if and when someone may believe in Christ? not me. But some of these people's words condemn themselves and others through bad doctrines and nasty practices. Again, it is about doing, and I intend to do my best to focus on right here and now. As I said in my profile," Their may be some fellowship out their that is good for us." (added in editing) It seems consisted to me that the Lord was patient with the unbelievers who rejected him. Like the time the disciples wanted to call fire from heaven on the Samaritans because they rejected Him. But upon those cities he upbraided for hardness of heart, well, they were of Israel. Even when they crucified him he asked for mercy because they did not know what they were doing, which right now brings to mind the idjits in your next post Geisha. At least about the not having a freakin clue as to what they are doing. But as to the times and places of the lord's eventual judgment of us all, I believe it is most important to let him do it. He will have the timing right, and his disciples always seemed to get it wrong. When we judge people as coming up short we run the risk of becoming no better than the Pharisees. They sat in Moses' seat, but still managed it seems to get harsh reality from the Lord himself. Are we any better if we in our own high-mindedness wrongly say of a non-Christian,"They should have believed by now." I think not. It would be a sad day if we condemn people like the disciples tried to do to the Samaritans without it being of the Lord. Why the next thing you know we have developed some kind of bunker mentality and think that the whole world of unbelievers are damned and we are the only ones. Why we might even start calling the wrong people devils. we might even destroy the lives of those whop are only trying to help. WE MIGHT EVEN END UP BEING JUDGED AS WE JUDGE.....IT IS WRITTEN. (edited for spelling)

Gotta love it when the simple....classic answers are still as true today as when they were written. Some of this stuff goes straight back to OT scripture. Thanks for bringing this to the front Frame57! I might never have read it otherwise.

Dear Geisha, I laughed when I read how you handled the initial comment. But I told What the Hey once before that the more that he put folks down, the more that I recognized him for what he really was. And once he threw the "real devil" comment out it seemed like it was a good time for a "throw down" on my part anyway. I remember TWI taking shots at another Jesus too. Considering how the Lord handled a similar situation it does make it a scary topic IMO. But considering what the Lord said was at stake it seems to me to be an overdue(perhaps) or timely doctrinal consideration. I'm real glad to finally have your take on this thread Geisha, because the post that prompted my response was directed at you. :) Peace, JEFF

Dear Rottiegrrrl, One thing that I like about this guy is that he seems to be coming from a place where he is fairly honest about his own struggles in these categories. That is always a good sign IMO. I think that even though there is plenty of scripture about guarding our thoughts, often times these issues just cannot be put into a test tube and analyzed, the heart being such a deceptive thing and all. A minister like this guy IMO has something to give if he's being honest about his sins and his victories too. But in cases where other issues, perhaps unseen ones like Waysider is talking about can turn things that worked for this guy into harmful ideas if they are wrongfully applied to a person whose biggest needs lie in other categories One of the errors in this type of teaching that I've seen is that sometimes the teacher is going to try to shove a square peg into a round whole. The teaching and the student don't mesh in other words. Stress, anxiety, depression, etc. can be the result of a bad fit. All the more reason to be prayerful, meek, and diligent when trying to help folks with their problems IMO. But I am really glad that you like where these things are taking you. I hope that it goes well for you. If you start feeling like it is not working for your benefit any more I'm certain that you have many Greasespotters who are more than willing to help. PEACE, JEFF

From my perspective, everyone has a right and a responsibility to decide what their head should be into or not into. That seems indicative of the human condition, not just the Christian condition. For those of us who have been abused with the same principles that this sight seems to be setting forth, I can understand why they wouldn't like it. But even if I hadn't have faced this type of abuse before, I don't think that I would be drawn to it. I don't think it's for me. But I won't say that it is not for anyone. But experience seems to councel me that if these folks are up to no good, that they will not admit it. And if their ideas don't help, or actually hurt folks it is still not an easy thing to deal with. Dear Rottiegrrrl, I understand where you say that you are coming from though. Sometimes I just wanna say YUCK too.

You are absolutely right. I think that sometimes I feel so betrayed and wounded by the ones who would rather ruin a person's life than admit to this type of folly that I can forget that it doesn't have to be hard.....sigh. Yeah it might go down like that. Thanks Twinky.

I think a big key for me in III John is that John flatly said what Diotrephes loved. He loved the preeminence. As opposed to loving God or loving God's people Diotrephes was only out for himself. It is interesting to note for me that one things that comes up more than once in the scriptures, OT and NT is that leadership cannot be greedy. The simplest thing to see in terms of selfishness is the taking of bribes and favors IMO. This Diotrephes has me thinking of more subtle forms of greed however. He loved the preeminence. In my words, he wanted to be the top dog. He spoke malicious words against even the Apostle John and John's felloworkers who took nothing from the believers. Given these things, I think that John spoke the truth, Diotrephes did not see God. In my words, he was a self-seeking bastard who probably spoke many things accurately. But John was speaking to what he was really all about, and part of it was not seeing God.

Dear Waysider, I tried taking in that link to "predestination" again. Eyes glazing over...... Losing focus..... What?....who?.... Darn Knee-biters!

I really laughed at the SNL skit Mister P-Mosh. Quite a bit over the years. But in a more serious note. It seems true to me that many non-Christians have every right to make fun of Christians who throw "devilish" about every time they face something that they do not like. SNL does not seem far off the mark in this sense to me, many Christians hardly seem to have more depth and compassion than "The Church Lady." IMO all anybody has to do is apply a little common sense to this religious situation. I believe that the Bible is telling the truth on this subject and I endeavor to handle the topic in a manner that is good. But if I were to ever see anybody speak to another with the same effect as the Apostle Paul did in Acts 13 then the "hand of God" being with the speaker would be plain for all to see. But that still isn't taking into account all the fraudulent miracles out there that when exposed give Christianity a bad name. And another factor is all the people who in the course of many centuries who have been persecuted and put to death even in the Lord's name. Often times this Christian initiated persecution has included false propaganda, encouraging in many different words, "fighting the Devil." But just like What the Hey's initial sentence that inspired me to make this thread, these things do harm to anybody who has to suffer the put-down and the one who takes it upon themselves to call another "devilish." The speaker will be hurt big-time if as the Bible says, the speaker will not be forgiven for calling a person who is inspired by the spirit of God a devilish person. This last weekend it has continued to amaze me that I ever believed Wierwille's handling of Mat. 12 was correct. The Lord was being told that he had a devil. And he rebuked the accusers as directly as possible, telling them that they would not be forgiven for what they were doing. Now that I see this record simply, Wierwille's ideas of "seed of the serpent" that he introduced in PFAL from these verses only seem like a bunch of gobbledeegook that only serves to confuse what was in effect; a very simple scriptural narrative. (Edited for spelling and clarity, or lack thereof)

The last one brings to mind a trench soldier. What a little warrior..... and sooooo cute.

Dear Brideofjc, I'm not certain about why he gave his mother's care to John, but it makes sense to me that John was the best one to care for her, no matter what the entire situation looked like. But everything that you just said makes sense to me. JEFF p.s. Sometimes I wonder if the Lord will ever let those folks that promoted the idea of a sexual relationship to just feel real stupid when and if they get to meet the Lord and Mary Magdalene.

Among the last things that I heard from River Road Fellowship under Barnard's lead was: 1. The Lord was going to come back in 2005. 2. Barnard admitted several times in front of the whole church that, "If people only knew what I did in the ministry I'd be sent to prison." Of course in classic "cult of personality" style most just took this to mean that Barnard was brave and not to mean that he was twisted and paranoid. 3. It was o.k. for several of the young and unattached girls to vow vows of celibate bridehood to Barnard. One of them came to Twig and said verbatim, "I'm married to the Christ in Victor." IMO he was bitter at his real wife. For most of the women including my ex-wife it was normal to express envy (in a kind manner I suppose) towards Victor's ten maidens. and 4. He was having his most trusted followers working on a system of protecting him against the inevitable physical threats to his life that he faced constantly. When they kicked me out I was plenty angry too, but I never threatened him beyond saying that I would kick his azz (figuratively speaking) and saying that I would literally mock him, and I said it to his face. (edited for grammar) (added in editing) Yeah, some "haven" for ex-twiers. If they want to go from the frying pan to the fire I suppose.

Wasn't that location Rush City? I might have been there, but they ran more than one of those meetings in those days. Barnard was just as dishonest and dishonrable about the sources for the things that he learned from "God" as Wierwille was FYI. Pharis was going to some length to explain why it was o.k. to do something that Paul said not to do!? It figures, but I don't remember that. It seems to me, looking back on it, that Jalvis was not really in a good place to be critiquing TWI. I'm still very glad for you that you walked away that day. I thought that that latin meant,"I came, I saw, I conquered." Or am I missing something there Dave? :) (edited for spelling and grammar)

Hi again Waysider, I can't take in all the variations in that link to predestination. It is too much at one time. But it certainly seems like Tyndale was correct in the "pregnant wit" comment as it applied to the men of his time. I feel like I'm looking at these mens' great great great great grandchildren when I look at the multitude of predestination doctrines. A bunch of their little knee-biters running around.

Good point Tom, I agree wholeheartedly that we don't have the right to make inferences about Diotrephes that run past the situation that John was refering to. John also spoke of another man that had a good track record as far as the truth goes. Diotrephes was in opposition to Demetrious in the text. They were establishing for themselves two seperate manners, one was truth, the other was fraud. So the reference to Diotrephes was only present tense, but it was based on John's observation of the record that he was establishing at that time. Did Diotrephes turn? I don't know. But somewhere in the church histories there are probably differing accounts of his end. I couldn't imagine anyone that might have handled the situation better than the apostle John. He definitely had many things to say concerning the false Christs and other decievers in his epistles, but was gentle to the believers to the point that it takes my breath away. But at the risk of sounding trite, Diotrephes was then involved in many acts that were definitely looking like they were going to be part of his permanent record. After all, in this scripture he is a bad example and has been so for almost two thousand years now. And John said that he'd remember his actions. I don't think that we have the right to infer that Diotrephes turned either, but who knows for sure? Not me. (edited for spelling and grammar)