GeorgeStGeorge

I remember a teaching years ago about Proverbs. The teacher pointed out that Chapter 31 is there for the young man to know how to choose a wife. When asked if there were similar instruction for women on choosing a husband, he replied, "That would be Chapters 1-30." Here's a hint, ladies: wise man GOOD, foolish man BAD. ;)--> George

Hooner, The purpose of reproof is to get you to believe rightly and act accordingly. If someone offers you reproof, it's up to you to decide if there's merit to it. If so, change! (I guess we'll have to wait for the Vulcans to show up to handle Rascal!) :D--> George

Well, I'm debt-free, own my house and cars, have a reasonable 401k and pension, and have a LOT of valuable comic books. My only concern about the future is how fast my wife can spend! :D--> :D--> :D--> George

Never mind. Your gender isn't in the profile. Nice to meet you, MS. Rockin!

Sorry. Should have checked the profile! :o--> George

Except for the Trinitarian aspects, I found the article very cogent. God clearly doesn't "need" us, but created us as a manifestation of His love. The reference to Kierkegaard, opining that it would be dismal to think that having created us, God would become dependent on us, was interesting. It would be as though we were some sort of designer drug He concocted to please Himself! I also thought that the point that grace is meaningless if God does it to please Himself was well-taken. George

Mr. Rockin, I remember LCM mentioning work he had done on a "black thread" of sons of Belial throughout the Bible. Give him a call. I'm sure he's be glad to share his insights. ;)--> George

Last verse: Never let your heart be discouraged. Rather, be ye strong and take courage. Standing together in power and might, And walking each day in His glorious light. I alway thought that this was the best TWI-original song, as well. George

MJ412 and WhiteDove, Before this thread gets TOO derailed, the figure of speech George A. used was idioma. It's a phrase used in common (vernacular) speech whose meaning is well known. George was not making a theological statement. ;)--> T'other George

Belle, I've only shared some of your experiences. Fortunately, my wife and I got booted just after getting engaged, so TWI didn't mess up our marriage. I'm sure that that breakup must have been devastating to you. (And probably to your ex, as well. I'm sure that for him it wasn't a choice between you and a cult, but between you and God. That sure would have torn me up. :(-->) It's amazing how long someone will put up with the invasive micromanagement and hypocritical secrecy that abounds in TWI. If you're ever near Houston, PM me. My wife and I can barbecue some Brats and throw back a Shiner or two with you. George

Indeed, Dude! We don't always see eye to eye anymore, but I've always appreciated your guts to say what you believe (or disbelieve :D-->). The other George

This has been a wonderful short course in metaphysics and gnosticism, but if I may interject briefly about what the Bible calls good and evil spirits: Angels are messengers and warriors. TWI had them under the juristictions of Gabriel and Michael, respectively. Whether that is accurate or not, I do'nt know; but it's clear that Gabriel and Michael fall into those categories. Since the spirits of the churches brought messages to the churches, they are, obviously, messengers. Their names aren't given. Though the RC Church had a whole hierarchy of types of good spirits (Thrones, Dominations, Cherubim, Seraphim, and others I don't remember now), other than angels, the only type of good spirit being (except God, of course) that I can find in the Bible is cherubim, who, unlike angels, DO have wings (though no halos!). Their description is given in Ezekiel and Revelation. Their purposes seem to be worship and protection. George

My, this thread has grown in the last couple of days! I took PFAL in Champaign, IL, in 1978. At the time, the Intermediate class was offered as an addendum to the Foundational Class, but about a week later, to let the FC material sink in. Since I had not been told about the extra sessions, and would be out of town during them, the class coordinator played the TIP "short form" for me. Fast forward a couple of months to a "Witnessing and Undersheperding" class in Peoria. At a believer's meeting after one of the sessions, the leader asked me to SIT and interpret. I did, and to quote dmiller, it was a "rush." When I finally took the IC later, the class coordinater (the branch coordinator) noticed that I appeared confident and asked if I had interpreted before. When I told her about Peoria, she sort of grinned and said, "Oh...because they didn't know!" I told her about the TIP class, and said that that was all the teaching I needed for me to believe to interpret. She agreed that everyone has his own needs in that area. Incidentally, I have given "third person" interpretations and prophecies, but rarely. And sometimes a biblical theme is in my head before manifestations are done in fellowship. I try to block them out, so as NOT to fake it if I'm called upon. George

WWJLA, Non-Christians get married all the time, and their "success rate" is probably about the same as Christians. To me, the common belief system is integral to a marital relationship, so it took me 41 years to get married. (Ironically, my wife and I both were kicked out of TWI right after our engagement.) If what you believe about Christ and the Bible isn't that important to you -- I don't mean this condescendingly -- then you can probably be fine with whomever. Others in this thread have posted some practical wisdom worth heeding: WHO IS HE, as opposed to who does he say he is; and don't expect to change him. George

As usual, I didn't find this thread until it was edited, so I have no idea what Exie first intended. But, as usual, that won't stop me from adding my two cents. Exie, don't take everything too seriously. Just seriously enough! ;)--> George

At the risk of spouting "Wayspeak," it's not about feelings, it's about the spirit of God. All the feelings you've expressed -- nervousness, fear, uncertainty -- just mean that you're human; but it doesn't invalidate the truth. If the Bible IS the Word of God, then you CAN speak in tongues, etc. (You also CAN fake it, but why do so? Whom are you trying to impress?) Hooner, if you're still an "innie," (I don't remember) you may have trouble expressing your concerns to your coordinator; but you might give it a shot. Hopefully, he/she will take the time to work with you.Just sitting in a Bible class isn't always enough instruction. (I remember LCM saying that he didn't SIT at the end of PFAL.) As far as the manifestations getting repetitive is concerned, there are two possibilities: people manifesting are just acting out of habit, or maybe God has something to say that nobody's been listening to! :D--> George

Respect for God's name is important, of course; but GOD is His job description, not His name. His full name is given in Ex. 34:6,7, though I guess He's most often called by the abbreviated form, Jehovah. Using God's name is not the same as using it in vain. George

Really? The same can be said for The Odyssey. Raf, You have me there. I guess any writings that people consider very valuable will be transcribed with caution. ;)-->

I was one of the minority who were recruited by strangers "cold witnessing" (not witnessing to friends, family, or co-workers). A couple of college students sat near me at the student union cafeteria and started talking to me about their Bible fellowship. They used some cheesy line to start the conversation, but after that it was pretty up-and-up. I said that I might be interested, so they gave me the address and phone number of the fellowship location. They offered to give me a ride, but I said that I would rather get there on my own. On the night of fellowship, I was planning to watch a Reds game on Monday Night Baseball. When I turned the game on, though, it was a White Sox game, so I decided to go to "that Bible thing." I showed up a little late, and I think they were surprised to see me at all. Fellowship was certainly different from RC Mass, but I found it interesting. The speaking in tongues was certainly new. I enjoyed it enough to begin attending regularly. Soon afterwards, there was a "public explanation" of the class after a fellowship. There was not a lot of pressure; they simply played an audio recording of the first hour of PFAL. It sounded good to me, so I signed up. (The class cost $100 at that time.) As is probaly clear from some of my other posts, I found the class and fellowship to be worthwhile. That's why I witnessed to others. George

and wouldn't that just be the end of the world. Not the end of the world, no. Just like Judges 21:19.

Refiner, It might be apparent to you by now that a lot of Wierwille's writings were derivative of E.W. Bullinger's. If you have the time, I strongly recommend Bullinger's How to Enjoy the Bible. Another of his books, Figures of Speech in the Bible, is an exhaustive (and exhausting :)-->) work, but full of little doctrinal gems. Considering Goey and Trefor's comments, I admit I have no way to defend the present canon, per se. I've read the Old Testament apochryphal (or "deuterocanonical") books, and found little to conflict with the canonical books. I'm sure the inconsistencies I did find could be "worked." The New Testament apochrypha that I've read were just bizarre. As to God giving His revelation exactly, I see no reason to consider that "untenable." That the scriptures have become only slightly corrupted over centuries of transcription is, in my opinion, evidence of His hand in guarding His Word. My question is still, if you don't believe all of it, why do you believe what you do?

What impressed me most was the basic fundamentalist principle, which I first heard in PFAL: If the Bible IS the Word of God, given by revelation, then in its original form, it must be inerrant. There can be no internal inconsistencies. I still choose to believe this. If it's not true, then anybody's opinion about anything is as good as anybody else's, and the Bible is just literature. Of course, there are apparent inconsistencies, and so these must be explained. (To whom was a scripture addressed? What were the circumstances? Do different texts have variant readings? All these things must be considered.) Though not a Hebrew scholar, I learned to read Greek in high school (something of value from my Roman Catholic upbringing); and in almost every case, I found VPW's analyses of New Testament Greek to be correct. (There are a couple of verses in 1 Cor. that seem wrong, but nothing that invalidates the premise of the manifestations of holy spirit being available to every Christian.) So, unlike the other George, I don't feel that I blindly accepted dogma. I agree that VPW, shall we say, insufficiently footnoted his work; but if he plagiarized correct biblical interpretation principles, that doesn't invalidate the principles. Refiner, draw your own conclusions about the work. Being "undersheperded" by gainsayers is no less intimidating than by believers. George St. George

To follow up one of Ex10's comments, I also think that when times were sweet in fellowship, we enjoyed the music more. Of course, when the music all became "This Week's Lesson -- AGAIN" fellowship wasn't as much fun. (It's a chicken/egg thing.) ;)-->

Interesting analogy, M3C, though I think there's a difference in heart between witnessers and spammers. At least the witnessers have the guts (and take the time) to meet you face to face. George

I don't know if this actually fits in this thread, but it is a memory of being witnessed to. I was a TC, just beginning a fellowship in which I had planned to teach on the redemptive names of God. I started by playing Kenneth Copeland's recording of "He Is Jehovah." (Back then, I could get away with that.) Anyway, who should come to the door at that moment but two JW's! We had a brief conversation about the name Jehovah; they handed me a Watchtower and went on their way. I'm sure that was God's sense of humor. :D--> :D--> :D--> George