TheEvan

"If Jesus was God, and the trinity intact, He (Jesus) would have known about it, and that prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane in Luke 22 would have meant nothing, (if he were God) "Not my will, but Yours"." This is a classic straw man because it misrepresents trinitarian belief, then argues against that misrepresented belief. No need to detail what trinitarians believe about that passage, but suffice to say, it is entirely consistent with their belief system. I'll just pick out a few problems on "administrations". The distinction between the "gift of holy spirit" (another unique and awkward Wierwillism) *upon and *in is artificial and easily debunked. Clearly something happened when Jesus shed forth the Holy Spirit, but Wierwille's explanation is convoluted and full of holes. Separating the Gospels from direct application to the Christian walk IS a real problem with Wierwillian dispensationalism. When Paul (or whoever the author of Hebrews) enjoined folks to be "looking unto jesus" he was pointing directly to the gospels. There is no higher call than the Sermon on the Mount. But its humble, otherworldly message has no place in the lexicon of 'sonship rights", so why not neatly excise it with a quick doctrinal sleight of hand? That's what "administrations" accomplishes, IMO. it may impart a "feeling" of greater understanding, but it is at a very dear cost: the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Sigh, I used to read the Bible in a very literalist sense, going into full Wierwille DECODE mode.(a/ka the mythical "rightly divided word" which, BTW, does not exist). And i'd end up in arguments like I see in this thread. Okay, ON THE SUrFACE is the blood & guts. But can't we go past the surface. Everybody seems to want to read it for INFORMATION. I suggest that reading for personal moral and spiritual instruction yields a more satisfying picture of the accounts. I see spiritual truth applicable in my life from the slaughter of the Amalekites (see my post above).

Personally, I get more out of God's command to slaughter the Amalekites (or Whatever-ites) by looking for Christ in the story. How do you see Christ in such a record? I see Him pictured by Joshua, leading us into the Promised Land, ie, my walk & life as a Christian. He commans me slaughter the enemies therein: my besetting sins, my rebellion, my pride, my lust. One by one, I conquer these territories for Christ and submit them to Him. No problem for me...

Here's the next two: Allemande from Bach's Cello Suite 1 http://s94545301.onlinehome.us/music/Allemande.mp3 1st half of Domeniconi's Variations on an Anatolian Folksong, based on folk music from SW Turkey http://s94545301.onlinehome.us/music/Variations.mp3 Not quite ready for prime time when I recorded this practice. I have it under hand much better now, as welll as the massive Finale which follows. Neat music.

I know going into dispensationalism is a strong veer off the topic, but it came up, and what's a bit of 'veerage' amongst friends? (BTW I much prefertheterm 'dispensations'to 'administrations', a usage uniquely Wierwillian). dmiller, I doubt many would dispute that the Church began on Pentecost, but I would encourage you to consider how much is to be learned by looking for and seeing the unity of God's plan from the beginning.The Church was no sudden appearance of something mysterious & unrelated to what preceeded. It is the natural outworking and partial fulfillment of the covenants God made with Abraham and promises made to Israel. There is so much written in the OT concerning the Church it is mind-boggling. To artificially segment the sweep of God's history is to lose much of the richness of texts that greatly illuminate the unity of God's plan and how it is being outworked today. In that light I consider the Wierwillian take on 'administrations' extreme tunnel vision.

This one is Marta, by Brazilian composer Marco Pereira. Soft, jazzy, untra cool. Sorry 'bout the flubs...I was just practicing. http://s94545301.onlinehome.us/music/Marta.mp3

Thanks zix. The help was needed to get the thing ripped to mp3, hosted and posted.

But I still needed professional help! I recorded this on my minisdisc which i use for practice. I mamged to find a few tracks without too many flubs. --> This is the Courante from Bach's cello suite 1 http://s94545301.onlinehome.us/music/Courante.mp3

Denying the pre-existence of Christ is probably the most glaring difficulty of the "biblical unitarian" position. I see no way of unequivocally supporting the notion without doing some serious dancing around a goodly-sized body of scripture...

Sigh, word wolf, this is precisely why the argument becomes intractable. It becomes "duelling verses". Anybody who is honest will find plenty in the Bible to contradict their position on the Godhead. Those who insist on making their position unassailable (why, why oh why must we?) will find elaborate explanations for each "difficult" verse. Well-versed orthodox trinitarians have a good solution for the problem you pose. You'll have a good solution for the problems they pose. Where does that get us? But, first, if you really wish to refute a Trinitarian, read a few really good books on the doctrine before you do. It's not very convincing when your refutations reveal ignorance of the doctrine you think you're refuting...

It is my personal observation, as well as my belief, that adherents of both doctrines, as well as "oneness" adherents, are not hindered in the least from submitting fully to Jesus as their Lord. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop those from all three persuasions who are inclined to declare the others unsaved. But I don't fault the doctrines for that, I fault the people. I know it must drive the more "doctrinally punctilious" a bit crazy, but I happily accept all three doctrines as "true". Which I'll qualify by saying all have their problems (in my opinion) but the problems simply don't bother me. I suppose I find more to like in a correct articlation of the Trinity, but it's not a critical distinction in my practical faith.

You're right Raf, and I knew it. Don't know why I came in here with my elbows swinging like that. But I must ask, how essential is a clear delineation of a doctrine of the Godhead. My thinking is that, as He is God and we are not, He is largely unknowable...except what He clearly reveals. As the revelation He has given us seems so inconclusive, why not leave it as what it is...a partial revelation? And then get on with business of BEING Christian? The cumpulsion to spell everything out in airtight packages of logic may, just may, be at the expense of dynamic Christian living.

Sigh. Your comments, while striking some blows against some trinitarian ideas (I suppose), demonstrate more than anything ignorance of what orthodox trinitarians believe. Saying Jesus is God without acknowledging his humanity would be easily debunked. I have no problem with calling Him God (NOT the Father you guys!) when his humanity is acknowledged. Saying he is not Divine, requires some serious tiptoeing through the tulips. THE MAIN REASON IT REMAINS SUCH A HUGE ISSUE IS BECAUSE WIERWILLE MADE IT A HUGE ISSUE. Remember him? You know, the plaigarist & sexual predator. You'll find that, for most, it's not a huge issue. Most people understand that the Godhead is not explicitly described in the Bible and understand that it is essentially unknowable in its entirety. Therefore to argue its points becomes futile. I say, despite Wierwille's contant hammering to the contrary, your specific beliefs regarding the Godhead are not essential to the quality of your Christian walk. I do not believe Wierwille, period.

"Tasty Bruuuuu" is in Arizona. Tucson, if I 'member correctly. I think he & Susan split up a long time ago.

mj, it is impossible for you to know the full weight of pain & shame for somebody who has gone through this and then realizes. later, the full weight of what she has done. Impossible. I don't understand, because I am a man. But I will tell you, as a man, that I found the weight of the shame crushing. And I am a very upbeat, eternally optimistic person. Sometimes annoyingly so. Your casual dismissal of these feelings worries me. I think you're buring many of your significant feelings behind a shrug and a smile. A base my opinion of your emotional distance and inability to relate. Sound judgmental? Maybe so. It's what I'm seeing...

"What I believed then and what I believe now really has NO bearing on the destructive actions of twi leaders who demanded destruction of an unborn child simply to appease God....sometimes twi stikes me as barbaric as the aztec and inca communities sacraficing babies and children to keep their Gods happy..... " Wow, that quote rocks my world. Apt comparison. YES, IT WAS WIDESPREAD The very Corps from which you were dismissed, oldies had SCORES of abortions. I talked to a NUMBER of these young ladies and ALL were told, either by VP or LCM or a few others to abort or you're gone. They got the whole committment spiel and were warned about the viability of their future spiritual standing. Pitiful, shameful, and in my mind, criminal.

Gnostic influences on Wierwille? Not wittingly, and not in specific, but in the general sense of there being inside "secret" knowledge known by the insiders...YES.

First of all, rascal, that is a devastating testimony. I am literally heartbroken for you. Abortion is the one guilt in my life that always seem to keep coming back at me. I seek & receive forgiveness, but it is a regret that "keeps on giving", so to speak. I'm slackjawed at the callousness of some.

This is all so intersting. Ellen's rationalization...its' embarassing for somebody who wrote so well and meaningfully on other subjects. i loved the book 'Patriarchs & Prophets" and the one on Love. And the first half of the book from which you quote. I read her extensively before I realized she was Adventist. Are her writings used by the JW's as well?

Oh, and does his behavior cast just a wee bit doubt on his teaching. If his personal life lacks such integrity, might it be possible he shucked & jived there, too?

Tell you what, let's make up an imaginary ministry and see where we go with it. People staqrt ministries all the time, right? Just for grins, let's say that the guy who starts it claims that God talked to him and confirmed his words with the likely stunt of a snowstorm on a clear warm day. The guy digs around the library and cobbles together a set of teachings. some seem right, others are demonstrably wrong, but to us it seems about the best out there. Seems like. Let's say this founder is a sexual predator. Wait, let's not be so hasty. We'll just make him a garden variety sexual pervert. Ya know, looks at girlie magazines, visits prostitutes in cheap motels & whack off in front of them. He gets caught. Then gets caught again. Remember Swaggart? Personally, I'd say the guy should step down from public ministry and would consider his ministry totally discredited. Rememebr Jim Bakker? Afterwards, he actually had the integrity to say he was WRONG. So did Swaggart! No, let's get more brutal. Let's go ahead and say this founder, while publicly charismatic, and teaching what we THINK are good things, is secretly a sick sexual predator. He recruits teens to his lovemobile and coerces them into sex. He does it repreatedly, over and over and over and over again. Stories from more and more hurting ladies come out about the abuses & indignities suffered under this "man of God". Knowing the above, would you: 1. Excuse the old cad, for, after all he taught "The Word". 2. Not excuse him, but figure, what the heck, he taught "The Word" 3. Look just a bit deeper and see if God really reveals His Word to sicko sexual predators. If He really ordains longtime alcoholics. If God confirms the ministry of men that consider themselves "The Man of God of The World" 4. Leave the sinful sick mess behind and seek the Christian walk with those who honor God by their love, charity, fidelity, etc. 5. Pick your alternate option. Lord knows, many here have...

Posted by Raf a good long while ago: "1. The Father is greater than the Son and therefore they are not equal. 2. The Father has (or had) knowledge of the timing of future events that He did not share with the Son. 3. Points 1 and 2 lead me to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is not God." I get the point, but it's slightly flawed. The correct conclusion is that points 1 & 2 mean that Jesus is not THE FATHER. Thus your condemnation of the Trinity amounts to the old straw man, that of accusing Trinitarians making Jesus the Father. They do nothing of the kind. They declare the Father to be God. And they declare Jesus to be God. None of which I have a problem with. The Holy Spirit? I won't even go there right now! Suffice to say I don't buy the trinitarian position...

Yeah it was rampant. In fact I remember a particular time we had way too many beers at some corps gathering thingie then piled in a friend's Volvo wagon. Yes, he drove us drunk, appearing to be on a kamikaze mission, while we fired bottle rockets out the open hatch. i may have been drunk, but i was still scared. Remember, 3 cents? :D-->

Not so fast, LLP. Your opinion IS based on a whim, a notion, pulled out of the, um, air. Mine is based on Mel's own words, which I find no reason to disbelieve. That's not a whim. And your EVIDENCE to disbelieve is your own internal feeling? Try not eating so much pizza before betime.

"I respect MG for his vision for this project. But, for me, that he “put up his own money” (or how much he invested) is not a biggie." LLP, I understand that for you this is 'no biggie', but it was for Mel, I'm sure. More importantly, this kind of personal investment on such a scale is unprecedented in Hollywood. Which makes it quite the 'biggie'. Regarding Mel's motives, all we can go on are his words. It's clear from his many interviews that he says he did not do it for the profit. His stated motives are to honor Christ and to impact others with the Gospel. I believe him and have no reason to disbelieve him. Do you have evidence, in words or actions, to the contrary? Or are you basing your opinion on a whim (or predisposition) plucked out of the air?