Abigail

Awwweee, don't give up on us that easy. Stick around a while and we'll begin to grow on you. Ya know, my Sushi says, you can check out anytime you want, but you can never leave. :D Tell us about you, perhaps? How long were you in TWI? How long you been out? Or whatever you care to share. I did 10 years, been out almost 7. I don't frequent the "About the Way Forums" too often anymore. Couple times a year a thread pops up that gets my attention. I spend quite a bit of time in the basement, in the doctrinal section. Hit tacks from time to time. I like to chat, but there doesn't seem to be people there when I'm still awake very often anymore. :)

Thank you, Sir! And as always, it is wonderful to see you down here.

LindaR, I loved the rant and would really like to read your dissertation some day! Personally, I continually waiver back and forth between literal and figurative. I think they are both in there, I think there is meaning in both - that in all things it is a balance. I just have a difficult time finding that balance - lol lol.

Where are you? I am missing you in the doctrinal section. Mark, I think you have done some studies that would be pertinent to some of the threads down there. I would love it if you would join us. SirG, as always, your input is missed when you are away. I hope you will drop by again sometime soon!

Okay, this week's study encompasses Deut 11 - 16. The blessing and the cursing . . . Again we have the admonition about worshipping strange gods. I think we covered a bit about who some of those gods are, though I am sure not nearly all of them. So now I am thinking, how does one know they are worshipping the right god? And what exactly does it mean to worship anyway? Is prayer worship? Is obedience to certain scriptures worship? What constitutes worship?

Bold added by me. Just because someone thought PFAL was a good class, does not immediately mean that person has a more balanced approach to TWI. Likewise, just because someone has serious issues with VPW does not mean they are unbalanced in their approach. I would suggested instead, that perhaps this place could be an appropriate setting for anyone who has had their life touched by TWI, regardless of their opinion of PFAL, VPW, Bill Clinton, or George W. Bush.

Pond, I am sorry if I didn't communicate clearly. I wasn't trying to put down working moms. I am a working mom too. It is equally challenging, just in different ways - different challenges. Perhaps I should have simply said being a good parent is one of the most difficult jobs there is, and we don't get paid for it, nor do we receive thanks for it until our own kids are grown and have kids of their own.

Your darn RIGHT it is WORK!!! Being a mom, especially a stay-at-home mom, is one of the hardest jobs there is. Add to that, you do not get paid and rarely even get a thank you until the kids are grown and have babies of their own! Anyone who can criticize someone for being a stay-at-home mom has probably never actually done it before!!

I read the record, it is in II Kings, not I Kings, BTW. It is an odd record. It would be interesting to study in further, but I don't have the time at the moment. I would like to come back to it sometime in the near future though.

Wow, Oldies, welcome to the thread. Going to stick around for a bit? Linda, what you said about hate, in regard to Jacob and Esau is pretty much what I have found in my research these past two days as well. I think someone else in this thread said it too, but I can't remember who. The idea being that God didn't literally hate Esau, but rejected him as the heir. One of the articles I read on the subject, in fact I think it was in this weeks studies, was on what is called transmutation. Don't ask me to explain the word, because I can't. But the jist of the article was there are two ways to go. You can go God's way and receive the biggest blessings, or you can go your own way and you will still receive the blessing, but you will have some natural consequences to face before you get there. Esau, by his own choices, went the hard way. Jacob didn't.

(((Outfield)))) It took me a long time to learn how to ignore ignorant, unwarranted, and unsolicited opinions from others. First, I had to spend years and years spinning myself in circles trying to please everyone. Eventually, it just became exhasting, dizzying, and nauseating. I still spin a turn or two here and there out of habit, but I'm getting better every day. :)

I guess I would wonder what made the person think they had a right to criticize you in the first place? Have they walked a few miles in your shoes? Do they really have any idea of what it is you do? I also wonder why you would let someone else's opinion of you supercede your own opinion of yourself? Why would you grant that much power to another person?

ROFLOL - and she isn't kidding about the 20 miles of winding, unmarked logging trails. That had to have been God, because without God the man never would have found his way there!!! ROFLOL ((((Rascal))))

Amen to that. I still struggle with the whole "jesus as a savior" thing, at least as it was taught to me via TWI and how some other Christians seem to view it. Almost as a license to do whatever they want, regardless of who they hurt and step on. But, I agree whole heartedly with what he taught, especially regarding 'sin', 'judgement', etc. Likewise, there is great depth to the law when one digs into them.

Dooj, I see it as two entirely different types of judgement. Knowing what I now know about VPW, I would never give him entrance into my life, if he were still alive. Were he alive today, he would not be welcome into my home, he would not be allowed near my children, and I would shout warnings from my rooftop to every woman I could, to stay away from him. That is dealing with the physical world, there here and now. As for the next life - I simply refuse to play at God. What comes after his death is, IMO, God's judgment, not mine. I won't argue that VPW is born again, heaven bound and all hell can't stop him. But I likewise won't argue the opposite either. I will simply leave that to God.

((((Oldies))))) If I weren't married I would kiss you! I think for you to have said that first paragraph is a tremendous thing, truly. If nothing else, perhaps it will help some others feel less defensive with you. As for your second paragraph, I have no beef with you there. Whatever VPW's relationship with God is/was in the end, I am not to be a judge of that. That is between him and God. It is sufficient for me to recognize that at least during some period of his lifetime, the fruit was bad. I cannot say his entire lifetime was bad, because I simply don't have enough information to make that kind of call. Again, I will leave that up to God.

I have always found the notion of Jesus Christ as our Passover a bit odd. Here is why: It seemed to me, if Jesus was coming for our salvation. If his death and ressurection were for atonement for our sins, then he should be equated with the goats of Yom Kippur, which is the day of atonement. During the days when there was a temple in Jerusalem, among other things (and these things are documented in the Bible) the following took place: 1. The high priest drew lots from a lottery box over two goats. One was selected "for the Lord," and one "for Azazzel (the scapegoat)." The High Priest tied a red band to the goat "for Azazzel." 2. The high priest made a confession over the goat on behalf of himself and his household, pronouncing the Tetragrammaton (YHWH or JHWY). The people prostrated themselves when they heard. He then slaughtered the bull as a sin-offering and received its blood in a bowl. 3. The high leaned his hands on the goat "for Azazel" and confessed the sins of the entire people of Israel. The people prostrated themselves when he pronounced the Tetragrammaton. While he made a general confession, individuals in the crowd at the Temple would confess privately. The high priest then sent the goat off "to the wilderness." In practice, to prevent its return to human habitation, the goat was led to a cliff outside Jerusalem and pushed off its edge. There were other rituals and animal sacrifices as well, but these strike me as the primary ones, in terms of atonement for sins. It always seemed to me the body and blood of Jesus would more rightly be equated with the two goats of Yom Kippur than with the lamb of passover. Perhaps Linda could shed some light on this.

I would like to add, to Concerned Uncle, be careful how much information you reveal about your family. TWI does have people who read these forums. If they figure out who your family is, they will be sure to let them know you are posting here. That won't go over well with them.

Please do!

I was doing some digging on Jacob and Esau and came across something I thought I would toss in here. Much of it is not documented in the bible, but probably comes from foklore that has been passed down. If anyone is interested, the article can be found HERE

INteresting, Dan. I hadn't thought of that verse regarding Esau. And yet, Isaac loved him best. It was Rebecca who so loved Jacob and saw the line of Israel through him. Hmmmm. Do you know what chapter and verse that is? I'd like to look at it some more. But as to the bigger question, I am not sure a God who is love could be capable of hate a living creature. It seems like an impossibility to me. I could see God hating - or as close to it as one could get - certain behaviors, but not people. I guess, again I equate it to parenting. There are certain behaviors, certain things, the kids will do that really tick me off, but never ever ever could I hate one of my children.

Cman, you didn't derail anything. I figure most of the threads down here have something of a life of their own and go where the posters take them. I have just had a very busy weekend - county fair friday night, baseball game saturday night, fishing this afternoon. Family stuff. :) The angel/nephilim thing caught my curiosity, for sure. But that doesn't mean there aren't other interesting things to discuss in all of th is. I think most verses have many layers and many truthes to them.

Larry, I wasn't forgetting or leaving it out, per se, I was simply offering an explanation for how it all came about and why Paul might have mentioned it. And I am not entirely certain that is what he is referring to in the next sentence anyway - because he seems to jump and then jump back again.

Cman, maybe I didn't explain myself well. In Corinthians Paul talks about it being a shame for a woman to have her head uncovered. The article I was reading put forth the notion that the Jewish people at one time believed that it was the beauty of a woman's hair that so attracted the angels who eventually copulated with them and gave birth to the Nephilim. So, if that is what Paul was taught, if that is what he believed - that a woman's hair was so beautiful it could seduce angels - then it would make sense that he would believe a modest woman would keep her hair covered. It takes a sentence in a verse that seems totally out of place, and suddenly makes sense of it. Sunesis, If I am reading right, then theoretically these nephilim are still alive and walking the earth today, no? Where are they? Who are they?