JeffSjo

Well Oakspear, :blink: I just checked out your profile when I got here but before I logged back on And I must say that that is quite some personal photo.

I hope I would always be willing to say as Paul did, even while in prison to the rulers of the land, "I wish you believed what I believe." I never really found a good reason for NOT holding out hope that anyone might someday believe in Christ. After all, Paul said that he was set as an example and he called himself "chief among sinners." But as for "those durn heathens" I think the best thing is to not worship their gods nor honor their sacrifices if I was bidden to eat a meal dedicated to their gods as stated in 1 Co 8:1-13. It's not that I think any less of believing that there is one God, it's just that I prefer to learn how to best apply that knowledge as it may benefit another's conscience. But as the believers in Ephesus (Acts 19:37), I will not speak against their gods either because they did not and I believe that they were right. So, in a nutshell, I believe what I believe. But in this case I seek anothers benefit. Does that make sense to you? I hope it isn't rambling. (edited for spelling) p.s. Actually, I'm kind of jazzed to have a situation where so much scripture seems to apply so directly. (added in editing) I'm fairly certain that "those durn heathens" need to get more from us than EEEWWWW!!!

You know what, I've heard of folks who have said that they would not believe in Christ change their mind. I think where I'm at is even if they say they will not, I think...who knows, they may change their mind. Paul mentions this same concern for the unbelieving spouse- 1 Co 7:13 Even God mentions justifying the gentiles who did not seek after righteousness.- Rom 9:30 For me it stands to reason that at times, none of us sought His righteousness. Who's to say what might happen tomorrow. But when I think of those that cannot hear the gospel because they've been turned off by hypocrisy or abuse I think that someone else may have to answer for their blood. Or who is to say for sure who has willfully rejected truth verses someone who has not yet found the answers that they will believe someday. In all these things I think it is best to not know anything but Christ and him crucified.- 1 Co 2:2 (added in editing) :) right back at you, and thanks.

No, it is not your job to convict people. IMO that isn't that far from what Paul said. Except when he said that it wasn't his place to judge those that are outside of the church I'm pretty sure that it meant that he did not judge them. I'm not exactly sure about the "more tolerant and pluralistic gospel to entice those who do not accept the righteousness of God" remark, but both the scriptures and my remarks have more to do with a believer in Christ than anyone who does not believe. That statement of yours seems to be a judgement of them while I'm reasoning from the scriptures with a sister... go figure.

I wasn't corps, but that must have been madening to be pumped up as capable Ambassadors and super-conquerors only to become glorified go-fers and chair stringers. I think my compassion for the Corps Grads just got stepped up a notch.

:D Did you really mean "out load" or maybe out loud? :D

Dear Geisha, Even though you didn't think I was asking you what you meant, I assure you by telling you what I saw in your posts along with plainly saying that I wasn't sure what was on your heart would suffice. IMO Bramble did not get that you love her from your posts. What she said was that she thought that you looked down on her. I don't see any reason in her posts to think that she was going after you because you are a Christain, I think that she was being honest like she seems to be to me about pretty much everything else when she said that she felt that you were looking down on her. I think that we should in general quit preaching anything but Christ and him crucified to "them durn heathens", and live and speak honestly that we are just as undeserving of that as anyone else. For me it is not about you humbling yourself to my liking, it is in this case about you actually being humble enough to convey the love of Christ to someone who has in past times been worked over by religious jerks who abused people in the Lord's name. The scriptures that I refered to directly and indirectly speak for themselves, as do I. (Added "them durn heathens" to the third paragraph in editing)

Hi themex, I'm thinking that the direct answer to your question may be something like,"Because things at TWI" were not as we were told that they were. At TWI the politicing, the backstabbing, the seeking power, and the corruption was just as bad as anywhere else except that in this case it was all done in the Lord's name. But I'd be interested in hearing other perspectives. (edited for grammar)

Dear Geisha, I hope you know that I consider you a sister in Christ. The same for Rainbowsgirl. Since I do, I responded to you with scripture since I appreciate that you are very bold in your desire to believe the scriptures. What I am looking for is for you to respond to the possibility that your presentation of the scriptures were in fact un-scriptural. Because even though I give you credit for quoting scripture, in this case I think that it is evident that your own words don't seem to convey concern for Bramble and Oakspear as much as they seem to convey that you actually look down on them. No matter what your intentions were I wouldn't presume to know them. What I do know is that you guys have a history which I do not know. Whew... I hope you can make sense of that. :blink: Could you find it in your heart to respond directly to the scriptures that I brought up? My honest assessment of those scriptures is that they would help you present Jesus Christ to any person who does not happen to believe in Christ right now. We at one time did not believe the scriptures either. And considering the price that the Lord paid with his own flesh to bring me to God I think that I should be able to not even write off a man who actively persecutes Christians like the apostle Paul once did. Let alone folks like Bramble and Oakspear, who I happen to appreciate for their honesty in saying who they are. And to be even more pointed than I was before, if Paul was willing to tell the Corinthians that it was not his job to judge those who were not in the church, then why have you judged Bramble and Oakspear?

Hi Twinky dear, So in your case even though you did what I generally consider "making it your own" it wasn't good enough for the pollyannas.(sp) What a mess. Dear finallyunderstand, :) I'm so sorry about the involuntary wretching. :D

Hi Twinky, I don't see any reason to doubt your opinion. I've heard enough on my own and from others' testimony to believe you that what you say is how it went down. But the thing is is that even I could remember Wierwille saying things that seemed to indicate that it wasn't like that. Now, I think it was like that and the exhortations for it to not be like that were just lip-service that was not really meant. If I hadn't have heard differently I would still be ignorantly clinging to the fiction that Wierwille was the man that he was painted to be. SIGGGHHH...

This thread is challenging for me because I respect everyone involved. I have to admit that along with Kimberly I've been waiting for Geisha to simply say something like, "Gee, I can understand why you might be offended by my reference in your direction when I used the word "swine." Speaking for myself, it just doesn't seem like the kind of thing that I would have a problem with. But as long as the topic of talking to people who don't share my faith in Christ has been brought up, along with Bible verses, I'd like to share a couple..... Acts 19:37 In this verse, an impartial judge counts the believers under Paul's leadership as not having spoken against the goddess Dianna. I perceive great wisdom in this. I think that if Paul was the aggressor in Ephesus he could have been blamed, but he was not blamed. The aggressors were the craftsman who were afraid that the changes in Ephesus' culture would rob them of their trade. I think that what Paul had in his heart was the exhortations to be as wise as serpents but harmless as doves. Or perhaps the turn the other cheek exhortation which my Lamsa Bible list as an Aramaic idiom that means to not brawl. 1 Co 5:12,13 Paul plainly says that God will judge those that are outside of the church along with questioning why should he judge the outsiders. Paul seemed willing to teach the believers to grow up and handle things inside the church rightly, but to leave the unbelievers alone. As a believer, I think that it is highly likely that anyone other than a Christain may likely speak against our beliefs even as the scriptures say that the things of the spirit are foolishness to the natural man. But if because of that verse I WERE TO CALL AN UNBELIEVER A FOOL I would count myself to be the offender for going against the more subtle verses. I feel that a sound case for these things being offensive are being made outside of the scriptures in this thread. It's just that I happen to believe that the scriptural exhortations really do agree with them as it applies to a believer walking with wisdom. Now, as it relates to some of you, you've been around a lot longer than I have and I'm certain that there is a history here that I don't know anything about. But as things relate to this conversation, I do not see that anyone is asking for an apology for being a Christain. If I saw that I would clearly be rooting for the other side. But this issue of accidentally (or not) referring to someone else as a pig is not anything that the Lord did or any of the apostles that I've seen. As a matter of fact the exhortation to not offend anybody seems to apply to a "T." Dear Geisha, Please, I think that the Lord can and will fight his own battles if he's offended. But look at what he put up with (the crucifixion) for all of our sakes. LOVE and PEACE, JEFF (edited for spelling)

Dear Seaspray, I don't know for sure if you believe what Mike believes in all respects. For instance, Mike believes that the greatest secret in the world today is that PFAL is the revealed Word and Will of God. Speaking for myself, I don't think your claims hold water when held up to the years of testimonies and doctrinal discussions that I've read of while here at the Greasespot. But feel free to explore these things yourself. I really do hope that you manage to take Wierwille's own words into account when you take your stand, because the Lord will judge him according to his words, and I'd hate to see you go down with that ship. The many TWI victims that share here don't seem to hold your rosy picture of what's available in TWI, and neither do I.

Dear Potato, I really hope that whatever you "incorporate into your Psyche" works for you. :) I can understand from the things that I remember of what you shared why you'd hate the phrase "make it you own." Dear Tzaia, When you refer it to singing like that it seems to parallel how I think of it.....hhmm. Dear Waysider, I guess that if a puffed up minister is cramming an imperfect doctrine down someone's throat that they might use "make it your own" synonymous with "likemindedness." Why, the way my splinter group went they felt free to destroy lives if someone's honest questioning led to them doubting the doctrine. Then they would call the one who refused to be likeminded such things as disorderly, or a heretic. Then because I (er I mean that one) was so reprobate concerning the faith they'd deceive themselves into thinking they had the right to dismantle that one's life through a series of manipulations. To me, all these things can be dangerous in the wrong hands. It depends on who runs the show.

Another pic Ham?! I think that you could probably put together your own squirrely story line with pics Ham. HHHMMM...

Hi mchud11, Thanks for the feedback. I hope that the editing that I did during and after your post doesn't ruin how it seems to work for you. Peace, Jeff

I really enjoy reading the posts from you folks that were around in the early seventies and before. A lot of the things that you post on from personal recollection are things that I would never hear otherwise, THANK YOU! __________________________________________________________________ I was wondering about Wierwille's well used phrase, "making it you own." From an observational standpoint, I've heard enough to think that Wierwille excelled in what I would refer to as doublespeak. The habit of saying one thing but meaning another. Now, when I use the phrase,"making it my own" I mean to study the concept until it becomes part of the inner workings of my mind. When I can rehearse the gist of the concepts in question in my own words as an outpouring of the inner workings of my own mind this is usually the end result of success in "making it my own. But according to Wierwille's teachings, I am always suppose to remember and acknowledge Wierwille as the source of my Biblical knowledge. Wierwille said,"Never forget who taught you God's Word." For most of us, this is a simple manner of honesty and decency. Wierwille was the worst offender of his own rule. In practice he seems to have had an entirely different meaning behind his "making it his own." He seems to refer to OWNERSHIP as the phrase applied to him. He plagiarized others' material as "his own." When he plagiarised Leonard, Bullinger, Stiles and many others, Wierwille "made it his own" in a selfish way. For the things that he copied he took all the credit. I NOW PERCIEVE A CORRUPT AND SELFISH MAN THAT ENJOYED MAKING PEOPLE DANCE TO HIS TUNES WHILE PRIVATELY ENJOYING HIS OWN LITTLE SICK DOUBLESPEAK WHEN HE SAID, "MAKE IT YOUR OWN." I suspect that for those who were close enough to Wierwille to hear him often, that thinking they understood his doublespeak was an understanably easy counterfeit of spiritual understanding that only served to suck them into the Way Hole even farther. (edited for grammar and a little added for clarity) P.S. If I've accidentally copied anyone else when I said "Way Hole" I apologize. But I freely take responsibility for my use of the phrase too.

Hi BOWTWI, Next time I bring him around (Probably two weeks) I'll show him what you sent back to him. But I'm not sure how my boy will respond. Heck, I don't even come close to typeing with the technique that is in your post.

I'm sory to have to say this (not really) but your comparison is DEFINATELY NOT KOSHER, What The Hey.

Thank You dear Kimberly! (added in editing) Another thing that I've faced; and heard people share happened to them in TWI was getting called "possessed." It has been shared often that this left the one who was so abused feeling confused and/or highly discouraged. Since when did the Lord even treat those that were REALLY POSSESSED this bad. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER. It is just another case of TWI leadership ignorantly doing things that they will be held accountable for, dumb b______s!

Hi WordWolf, I only heard this information once and it was not thorough in the program that I heard it on. I was sharing everything that I heard and wouldn't mind hearing more. Especially as I already recognize Wierwille's manner of passing off things that he learned as his own. Even with sketchy information I wouldn't be surprised if the over-emphasis on dispensationalism that Wierwille learned from Bullinger was an outgrowth of Darby. I read somewhere that Bullinger recognized dispensationalism as an outgrowth of an 1800's prophetic conference of some type. Without more exacting information I cannot go any farther in exploring the options. _____________________________________________________________________________ As far as the rest goes, since the Gospels seem to use "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" interchangeably this whole issue is pretty much a non-starter IMO. Of course things change when Jesus Christ is on earth....duh. But to build an ideology on that idea that is not scripturally sound just because there are obviously SOME DIFFERENCES when the Lord himself is present is not justified. IT IS NOT SOUND BECAUSE THEY ARE INTERCHANGABLE. The effects of this doctrine in TWI the way that I recall it is that it caused us to ignore commandments that agree with the epistles because in our stupidity we would say..... "That was not written too us." We were mislead and it was mis-applied too. And it contributed to the mess.

He chose the faces and hit the keys himself. It was all him even though I helped with the rest. :)

w :D willie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

HISTORICAL INPUT I saw recently that in 1830 there was a girl in Great Britain named Margaret McDonald who saw a vision of the Lord returning twice. The first time he came to gather the believers together, and the second time he came back with the believers in order to judge the world. Then Darby started piecing scriptures together in order to fit with this vision and arranged a chronology of future events prophecied in the scriptures into a format that was very similar to some of those charts that we all saw in PFAL. I think Darby was the first who presented these ideas scripturally that resembled the idea of "The Kingdom of God" and The Kingdom of Heaven" being different. After Darby, Scofield did a similar thing. And the Scofield Bible actually was the book that presented these ideas to most of the western world, even though others did similar works. Along comes Wierwille and presents similar ideas, but he very neatly managed to present these things as if God taught him directly, thhhppp. But aside from that, I'm glad for this chance to examine these things afresh. The origin of these things as we were taught them was 1830, not the first century for whatever that is worth. (added in editing) But as I have my boy this weekend I don't have too much more time. First off, from a cognitive standpoint I don't think that there is any difference between the phrases "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" as they are written all by themselves without any theology. Let me see, how about "God's Heavenly Kingdom" or "Kingdom of God's Heaven" or "God's Kingdom from Heaven".... etc. etc. So as I start to consider this with y'all I'm already thinking that in order for me to think that the two kingdom's have to be absolutely different altogether that I will need to NOT HAVE EVEN ONE CONTRADICTION. Otherwise I will go back to just considering the scriptures without any theology that would tend to keep me from believing that the Lord's commandments are irrelevant. I mean the scriptures don't ACTUALLY SAY that "the Kingdom of God is different than the Kingdom of Heaven", does it?

Actually Ham, Because the little fuzzball is soooo darn cute, I think I like this pic more than the painted masterpiece. It is a work of art.