Rocky

And you clearly are not at all curious about why I believe that's underlying the issue you want to talk about. Your declaration of certainty reflects a markedly intellectual disingenuous approach to biblical research. All you've been doing is resisting consideration of the reasoning why YOUR viewpoint could possibly be wrong.

Interesting questions you ask... but they might not be related to the issue at hand. You're on a trajectory that seems incongruous with recovering from TWI.

It's a figure of speech. He's in a prison of his own making between his ears.

There's a vast gulf between "anything can be twisted to result in oppressive cults" and a social structure which cannot result in anything but. Your brazen lack of curiousity in exploring the underlying issues inherent in the subject you brought to GSC claiming to not be convinced about the veracity therein disappoint me greatly.

"Having them on a pedestal" isn't necessarily the only criterion for foolishness in this scenario.

The underlying issue IS that the doctrine you claim you're not yet convinced of can ONLY cause leaders in church/ministry settings to teach and model and gradually develop unwritten rules that can ultimately and exclusively result in oppressive cults.

Does the expression "can't see the forest for (because of) the trees" mean anything to you? Again, you're not looking in the correct place to identify the problem.

I failed to correct you when you said earlier that I was only speculating. I was not and am not. For that failure, I apologize. The argument on "once saved, always saved" was long ago settled. If you're asking how or why I believe Dan's paper is nonsense, it's because I believe in a just, merciful God who, if He's interested in having believers fellowship together in groups at all, precludes social structures that can only lead to oppressive authoritarian cults. That's not speculation. IF I were to engage in debate over a convoluted list of bible verses and comparison of the meanings of Greek and Hebrew words, THAT would be speculation because I'm not qualified to speak on that subject. And frankly, based on the inferences (some worded as conclusions) that you made about the subject of Dan's paper and the scriptures you cited, I think you probably overestimated your capacity to speak authoritatively on the subject also.

You're not seeing the underlying issue that is an unavoidable ramification of the doctrine you propose. I am not criticizing Dan's paper, or rather the minutia he obviously spent untold hours figuring out. I am criticizing the concept of whether or not it is possible to determine God's will by convoluting scriptures and conflating behavioral concepts. I will not engage on the minutia of Dan's paper. I think the entire notion is rubbish and not worth the effort. Decades ago, well after I left the alleged "household of God" as Wierwille and Martindale loved to call their ministry, I started examining the concept of critical thinking. Among the things I learned was that it's all bull$hit if you're not addressing the underlying issues. From the linked article in the Harvard Business Review, "The example is like many we’ve seen: Someone in the bowels of the organization is assigned to fix a very specific, near-term problem. But because the firm doesn’t employ a rigorous process for understanding the dimensions of the problem, leaders miss an opportunity to address underlying strategic issues. I appreciate the effort you made to communicate whether or not you understood my point. Here's what I understand you to have meant: you think that my effort to get at the underlying, fundamental issues is irrelevant. By all means, if I didn't get the gist correctly, please clarify. This is not a matter of whether I "know the Word" better than you or anyone else.

Just making the statement (that I highlighted in bold) does not constitute even an acknowledgment that you understand my point. OTOH, I have asked you pertinent questions and posed hypothetical situations that directly go to the heart of your point. As I said in the STFI forum, that while you are not allegedly "100% convinced" on Dan's claims, you have ONLY commented in such a way that you are, in fact, 100% convinced. If you were not, you would at least be open to discussion on the issues I presented to you. I said more in the other forum. I'm not interested in a pi$$ing contest over convoluted meanings of scripture verses listed in whatever order and comparing the meanings of Greek or Hebrew words. I have presented feedback based on real life experiences that demonstrate the sociological and "organized religion" ramifications of the claims at issue. Take them or leave them. I have no need to have the last word on the subject.

It really doesn't even matter whether Gallegher quotes any verses having to do with obeying any people. Churches, including TWI and STFI are social groups. Social groups sometimes have written rules but always have unwritten rules (mores). It is ALL about obeying people whether you're willing to recognize it or not. Here's a not so far-fetched hypothetical for you. A charismatic, but privately tyrannical malignant narcissist starts a ministry that grows as people take classes that indoctrinate them into believing that obeying God requires subservience to the Teacher (PO Box 328, New Knoxville, OH 45871). As one or more of those believers develop "spiritual maturity" and skills at "researching" scripture, they come to believe the Teacher is wrong on something he taught. The Teacher marks and avoids them, banishing them forever from interaction with what the Teacher claimed was the Household of God. One or more of those who are banished suffer emotional injury and ultimately blame God. They turn away. ----- I'm not asking you to explain away or rationalize anything. That hypothetical is highly credible and has, no doubt, happened hundreds, if not thousands of times. I'm only asking you to acknowledge that not all of the answers can be found by listing scripture verses in some convoluted order and comparing the meaning of Greek or Hebrew words. It would be great if you wanted to actually discuss the issue. But I haven't yet seen where you have tried to do so.

While you are hypothetically not 100% convinced, you are arguing Dan's thesis as if you are indeed 100% convinced. If you were not already convinced, you would be acknowledging and giving actual feedback on what I have counter argued. All you've done is claim you get my point without actually acknowledging what you think my point is.

First, the passage you quoted from Romans is OBVIOUSLY allegorical or metaphorical. It's NOT anything else than that. Does it spell out anywhere with specificity what causes "branches to be broken off" or what causes the "severity of God" to come down on whoever it was that fell? Second, how do you come to make your inferences as to what you suggest the referenced verses in Ephesians 5 mean? Third, do I consider "walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us..." and "Be ye followers of God..." to be works? Well, are those things that a believer is responsible to do? Fourth, believe all you want that if you give up your agency (free will) you'll lose your salvation. But don't think that selling that behavioral construct as a foundational principle for behavior in allegedly Christian churches will do anything other than propagate dysfunctional social mores by which those with designs to squeeze out of their followers a lucrative living. By the way, you haven't demonstrated at all that you get my point. Just saying "I understand what you are getting at" is not demonstrating that you do. It's just a shortcut to avoid having to explain whether or not you do. What you have demonstrated is that you're trying (fruitlessly) to get me to believe that somehow decisions, attitudes and actions for which individual believers must take or make on their own somehow do not constitute "works."

Who is responsible for the believer's attitude? If it's the believer, that's in the category of works. A decision is an act of one's mind. If it's not the believer, who would it be? In the context of any religious/church organization, are you not able to foresee relationships such that a given generic believer would be subject to rules, written or unwritten, made and/or enforced by anyone in that group (church) setting? Have I made it not clear yet that the paper, IMO, is convoluted and conflates fundamental relationships and responsibilities among those in whatever organization might choose to adopt that paper as a governing document? So no, I am not interested in reading the paper. Clearly, I have not gotten my point effectively communicated such that you understand the social dynamics that are inevitable. But if you'd like to pose questions to me that would clarify and help you understand the point(s) I'm trying to make (accepting them and believing them is a different issue, that's up to you). But making clear what my objections are is my responsibility and I'd be happy to oblige if you can frame some questions to help me see what is keeping you from understanding what I'm trying to say.

The devil is in the details. What I highlighted does indeed show that Dan conflated. There is no getting around the fact that Dan has erased grace from the plan. Promise of salvation is not the same as a gift. It's conditional, upon certain specified works of the human(s). "Provided that" is an expression that clearly and emphatically overrules the notion that a believer receives a gift from God. Dan G blends together salvation by works with salvation by grace. It's BULL$HIT. Implicit in the entire bull$hit scheme is that it would absolutely lead to other cults because it's easy for religious knuckleheads to get tricked into believing just about anything if the preacher is charismatic enough. I don't doubt that Dan is as sincere as any "biblical researcher" ever has been. I project not menacing motive onto him or his paper. I project it onto those who would (and there certainly will be those who will, if he's ever taken seriously by enough sincere followers to build a movement) exploit the ramifications implicit in his thesis.

My friend, I just believe you don't get the point. Dan can conflate any damn thing he wants. But the reality is more along the lines of Occam's Razor.

And just exactly how does that differ from having a so-called "man of god" declare that you have turned your back on God by refusing to obey? That's what TWI has been doing for decades. Nope, I don't buy it. No, that's just sociological justification for keeping people in emotional and social bondage to the will of charlatans. Especially since there's been, with accelerating development of medical technology, an astonishing rise in near-death experiences that consistently (exclusively) suggest that "crossing over to the other side" is a peaceful, wonderful experience. And there's been NO link to any exclusive religious belief or experience by those who have reported such experiences. Which all also raises substantial doubt about Wierwille's declaration of whether the Dead are Alive Now.

Well, Wierwillie was to take the place of the absent Christ in that formula... and look at how perversely it played out. IOW, the way VeePee indoctrinated the way corpse to be slaves to him and twi was to teach that they were to be slaves to God and Christ. But God doesn't require us to give up our free will (agency) to any old con man or woman.

How would you characterize what Mr G says about eternal life?

That deserved to be highlighted.

Word!

Btw, in case anyone didn't see my rant on the thread about Dan G in the Offshoots forum, here's the link. Essentially, it was a quick work up on the question Taxidev raised suggesting he hadn't found anywhere in the bible that suggested Paul believed that when he was being financial supported by believers, he (Paul) believed he should be accountable, besides to God, to those believers also. In part, VeePee taught "his" corpse to be slaves... unfortunately, slaves to him, not slaves to believers they wished to minister to...

May the Lord open!

Biblical roots of servant leadership For example, Mark 10:43 "But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant..." The Way International was and is a$$ backwards on this.

Biblical "research" is too easy these days. I went to 2 Corinthians 1 and found, 3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, 4 who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God. 5 For just as we share abundantly in the sufferings of Christ, so also our comfort abounds through Christ. 6 If we are distressed, it is for your comfort and salvation; if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which produces in you patient endurance of the same sufferings we suffer. 7 And our hope for you is firm, because we know that just as you share in our sufferings, so also you share in our comfort. 8 We do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters,[a] about the troubles we experienced in the province of Asia. We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired of life itself. 9 Indeed, we felt we had received the sentence of death. But this happened that we might not rely on ourselves but on God, who raises the dead. 10 He has delivered us from such a deadly peril, and he will deliver us again. On him we have set our hope that he will continue to deliver us, 11 as you help us by your prayers. Then many will give thanks on our behalf for the gracious favor granted us in answer to the prayers of many. Paul’s Change of Plans 12 Now this is our boast: Our conscience testifies that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially in our relations with you, with integrity[b] and godly sincerity. (emphasis mine) Just curious, does it say ANYWHERE in those verses that the believers were responsible to give blowjobs on demand, provide bottles of Drambuie wherever Paul went, or make exhaustive rituals of breaking in the pages of a new bible? I think not. BUT... if one does read any of that in those verses, it would be for a specific "social contract" providing that Paul or any other of the ministers provide comfort which produces patient endurance in the believers. That would be in the category of "they shall know them by their fruit." If either Dan G or the R&R RR engineers aren't demonstrating anything tangible along those lines, then they don't deserve to collect dime one from the believers. -------------- I also just did an internet search on "biblical roots of servant leadership." The first thing that came up? Mark 10:42-45 42 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant,44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Do you need me to do more of this for you? It has been 32 years since I earned my degree in accounting. I'm comfortable stating that Paul believed that when the believers financially supported him, HE was to be accountable not only to God (for Paul ministering with integrity) but also to those who provided the financial support. Easily I can also say that based on the longsuffering testimony of those who were NOT comforted by Bob Moneyhands, that Bob's ministry was NOT godly, at least in those instances where he heaped something other than comfort on the heads of believers. And as to the new "revelation" worked out by Dan Gallagher the guy who split from STFI, the notion that a person is only "saved" or granted "eternal life" if and to the extend that said person is obedient to leaders of a church is the epitome of evil. Because there can be no other purpose for that doctrine than to put chains on that person to keep him or her from self-actualizing. Too many thinkers throughout the last 2 millenia have recognized that reality. [/soapbox]