TLC

Well, without the afterlife (aka, resurrection), Christ has no meaning and just doesn't make any sense to me. However, if the intent is to consider life from a perspective that doesn't eliminate Jesus (his life in the flesh), that's different. Nixing the "just as," I do think this life is important, and agree with your last statement. There's no question that technologically there have been significant gains that unquestionably allow more leisure time to the average person. But morally and ethically? Seems I'm not so sure. Might depend on what era of history things are compared to, what things or issues are compared, and what we actually do (and don't) know about them. Is our IQ higher now than it was 2 thousand years ago? Is our world less "at war" and is there less global terrorism now then there was then? What weapons of mass destruction did they have or use? Did they have or use biological weapons?

It's an oxymoron to say or think that infinite knowledge or wisdom could ever be thought "all through" by anyone. And wouldn't any god "created" in or by the mind of man axiomatically (or inherently, if you prefer) be less than its creator?

How else aside from self-examination do you suppose anyone would (or could) possibly arrive at those thoughts, Rocky?

You expected something else?

If so, it probably stemmed from something LCM was into or working on. Who's thoughts on the matter, by the way, were subsequently challenged by mrs. vpw during one of the research fellowship meetings some number of years later. She was right. He was wrong. It was plainly evidently. But it was never acknowledged, nothing ever came of it, the whole thing was quietly swept under the rug... and things continued on as if nothing happened. But, don't mistakenly think that "everyone" in TWI (especially some of those in the research dept) were all in perfect alignment and harmony when it came to what was being taught in the ministry about crowns and rewards.

Seriously? No offense, but IF there's nothing beyond the grave (which is akin to no resurrection, and no Christ) then I actually think I'd prefer to have never lived. Because apart from God and Christ, I honestly just don't see the point of it. Then I have no doubt that the world would be as it was in the days of Noah.

Well, I didn't merely walk in without previewing the first hour. So, it feels to me like you blew off any possibility that I was seeing and speaking on it from a different perspective, and were content to pigeonhole it into the same old thing you've known or seen before. In other words, you focused on and spoke only to whatever similarities you could find, and either completely missed or intentionally ignored any differences. Even after plainly telling you that I was unacquainted with the Geer teaching you now appear to be referring to as "a Pivot Point in History," you now imply - in a rather accusatory fashion - that my perspective (which you evidently haven't actually identified, much less given any real thought to) is the same as it, and is therefore "evasive." Be content with your thinking and position as you have and know it, WW. I have no interest or care to somehow change or alter it.

While I may not have enough time to explain this sufficiently, I will very plainly say that there was no trick question involved in my prior post. It was a straightforward and honest question asking why you (i.e., at least some that were posting here) appeared to think it was necessary for God to already be in the future in order to declare what it would be. Furthermore, I even gave you the reason why I was questioning it. So, I'm a bit perplexed why you might insinuate that it was somehow framed or posed as some kind of "trick question." As for this: It seems to me that there is no clear or certain meaning to what is meant by "inhabiteth eternity" that indicates anything more significant than the fact that there is no beginning nor end to God. In other words, His presence is present throughout eternity. There is nothing that came before Him. There is nothing that will come after Him. To declare the end from the beginning, does not require the end to already be happening. If God says that He will bring it to pass, then so be it. It will come to pass, and that is sufficient enough information to know that it will come to pass (even though it hasn't happened yet.) To "know all things," as I see it, means to know all things that are knowable. As I see it, to think that this MUST include knowing all things which are yet undetermined puts God in a box that doesn't need to be there - saying ALL things (without exception) are determined beforehand. While I do believe that certain things can be (and are) known and determined by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, I am not convinced that EVERYTHING absolutely needs to be and necessarily is. Sure, some things (not just a mere few mere little things - but the essential and critical framework of this world and life as He intended it to be) are called out beforehand. Many (if not most) things, however, do not appear to be. But what reason or scriptural evidence do you have that indicates absolutely EVERYTHING (that has not yet happened or come to pass) is predetermined? Perhaps I simply see a place for freewill (or free course) to exist within a predetermined framework that doesn't make sense from your perspective. But I can assure you, from my perspective God is no smaller, nor less able, less knowledgeable, less merciful, less loving... nor less of anything else you care to throw out there on the table... as a result. In fact, if anything, it appears to me that it would require God to be greater, more able, and most definitely more loving to be able to operate with such mercy and grace, knowing (moment by moment) that all things will (with HIs guiding hand) inevitably work out to be in absolute perfect alignment and harmony with what He had (previously) planned.

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I suppose they were probably from a time after we weren't receiving his sunday teachings, which (as you correctly pointed out) were tagged "GWT." ...(long pause) You were 20 years old at the time? Quite frankly, this just isn't an issue where I'm extremely familiar with the viewpoints of others. However, the issue itself is something which I have given much more thought to than I probably realize (as it appears that I have very, very deep rooted opinions on the matter.) Perhaps it is simply the result of my perspective on Genesis, and the whole of scripture... which can sometimes make it difficult to put a finger on. Having said that, from what I have seen recently (here, and other places on the Internet) on it, it seems to me that it is terribly easy to set up the "opposing view" as a straw man of sorts, only to be blown down with some brand of intellectual logic or scriptural reasoning. If/when there is time, I wouldn't mind delving a bit deeper into this... but I'm inclined to think this probably isn't the right thread for it. (The other doctrinal thread that you linked to previously is probably much better suited for it, as is separates it from any sort of misguided support for this "REV" titled thread.) If true (and I've no reason to doubt that it isn't), cg sounds ridiculous. A bit surprising though, that he wouldn't look at it or see it from the perspective of a parent, considering how much so many of his GWT teachings came across like he was speaking to 5 year olds....

As it did many/most (all?) others in twi's research dept. That said, it wasn't exactly a fault that he was about to let anyone else outrank himself in...

provoked, pushed, persuaded, or possibly... fired?

I'm not persuaded that God needed to (or did) "choose" either of the options discussed there. Perhaps so, if time were some "dimensional" thing that can be moved around within. Maybe I'm just not convinced that's the case, or that it's even the best to think of it in terms of a "fourth" dimension. To a degree, perhaps. But if man sits in darkness and is in bondage (i.e., enslaved) to his senses... how "free" is he, or can he really be? Well, the "new age" spiritualists surely agree with that, and are eager to teach others how to make that happen.

Sounds like something he coulda/woulda said, but I'm not familiar with it and can't recall when he did, or with what much of his teaching might have been around it. (In other words, if I heard it, perhaps I've forgotten most - if not all - of it.) Was it a sns tape? Furthermore, I didn't see mention of it in the other thread you linked to, so I don't know why (or how) you think it that relevant here. I'm also unfamiliar with the book you referred to "The Trivialization of God." Care to explain?

Perhaps I missed it (skimming as quickly as I did), but I didn't find a post that adequately captured or expressed some of my thinking on what God knows. Oddly enough, they might lay be somewhere in between Larry N More's and certain others. In short, I probably think of "omniscient" as "all knowing." In other words, there is nothing that is or can be known that is unknown. From our limited perspective, that might appear to be unlimited. If God is Almighty (I think so), and determines the limits of what is and can be known, then for all intents and purposes perhaps what He knows should be deemed "unlimited." (As there is nothing or no one greater than He that might somehow or in someway "limit" it.) Furthermore, being fully able to lovingly and effectually "steer" the course of events along or in the way that it needs to go so as to arrive at the intended final destination (if you care to think and speak in terms of "finality" of "the end" of things... though I think that in itself is a myth in relationship to eternity)... why should or must we think that God is already there (or been there) in order to be able to do that?

Actually, I'm somewhat inclined to think in that direction, though perhaps not exactly. Frankly, I'm just not real sure of how best to put my finger on it. Maybe like Mary said, "be it unto me according to thy word." The simplicity of it is in merely "allowing" it to happened, and giving 100% of the credit for it to God rather than trying to think selfishly and "do something" which can later be used to feel more important and boast about. On the other hand, if that describes what "genuine believing" really is, then yeah... Abraham believed God. (And if there's a problem thinking that, then maybe the problem's in our perception of how or what it means to believe God.) Still, I don't think this is necessarily a result of God's needing to exerting some cause for it backwards in or through time.

Started skimming through this thread (trying to high step over all the repetitious banter cluttering up the place), figuring I'd make it to the end before posting... but this looks as good a place as any (besides, it will help me find it again without having to jump through so many hoops.) Yeah, it's not bad. But if it was on "slow spin" 10 years ago, it's picked up a tad bit since then. (Give it another 10, and we might well be outa here and watching it get kicked into 2nd gear...) Well, I'll have to disagree with that, because I don't think the perfection that was is the same as the perfection that will be. You might think I'm nuts, but I'm actually not of the opinion that life as Adam and Eve knew it prior to the fall was ever intended or meant to be eternal. And, as far as an opinion on God knows... well, I'll read more of these posts before commenting on that.

Interesting you have a thread on the topic, thanks for pointing it out. I'll try to look it over in the next day or two.

Ah. Thanks for the explanation. While I'm unfamiliar with the "Don't Blame God" piece mentioned, you brought to mind a related issue I read some time back on their site which to a certain degree, I probably agreed with. (And, as I just had to go look it up to refresh exactly what it was, I may as well offer a link to it.) Perhaps there is some aspect of the term "process theology" that can be viewed from a different angle then how it is typically presented on the Internet (which your post seemed to somewhat be aligned with), so I'll leave room to reconsider what all that particular labeling might include or intend to communicate. Frankly, I'm not persuaded that Einstein's theory imposes some "everywhen" characteristic or nature upon God, which then goes on to be perceived as a "goes anywhere forward or backwards in time" possibility. Sure, from our static 3 dimensional vantage point, time appears measureable and moving one direction. But, in accordance with E's theory, were it possible to approach and equal the speed of light, time would appear to slow down and stop. If time is stopped (perhaps similar to an electron spinning around an atom?), then its appearance from a static vantage point can be everywhere. In the case of an electron, it evidently can be everywhere in its orbit at the same time. (One of the less mysterious oddities of quantum mechanics?) And while Science Fiction novels and movies might plainly allow "time travel" to go backwards, I don't see any support or indications of such possibilities in either Einstein's theory (which can "relatively" explain a forward jump) or in the scriptures. Now, back to this: That sounds to me about as much like a straw man argument as anything I might have every heard. Seriously? God's view is as limited as man's? What knucklehead with even half a functioning brain could ever "invent" or propose such a lunatic "theology"? (I know it's not anything you believe, Steve. So don't take that as anything personal.) Granted, as mentioned already, I haven't read the "Don't Blame God" piece. Given what I did read (see link above), I find it a bit hard to believe that any of the fellas you mention would be stupid enough to bite into and swallow that line of swank, much less endorse or promote it. Then again, the very notion that "God couldn't have foreseen the existence of evil, otherwise, God would be responsible... (yada, yada)" sounds near equally as absurd to me, so maybe in their zeal to sell themselves they've again stepped into some dogsheet. If God couldn't have foreseen the existence of evil, then why did he have a plan of salvation prepared before times? Or, do they only intend to associate that with the fall of Lucifer? Perhaps you don't know. I certainly don't, and I'm not about to continue on in fabricating some plausible or defensible position of it for them... However, as for this: I disagree. But exchange the two words "could" and "would" (i.e., flip one for the other), and I'd give you the nod. Back to this. Okay, though I plainly disagree with the "backwards" notion of it, I get how (and why) you tie it to teleological cause. But why suppose there is a necessity for anything being exerted "backwards through time" (or forwards, for that matter) if God is the all and ever present guiding hand at the helm? When "the end" is arrived at through or by way of the determinate counsel and foreknowledge God, doesn't that say all that we need to know, without any need to jump forward or backwards in time? Without a doubt there have been (and are more) clear and definitive "checkpoints" along the timeline to get there. What we lack and don't have a real handle on, is how (so to speak) God "steers the ship" to get there. So, not only do I think it's presumptuous to suppose God has any need to jump forward or backwards in time with "causation," I actually think it probably lessens or weakens the perception of His abilities to project and navigate towards the future. Which is more glorious: exerting causes backwards through time to insure the presence now of what is desire, or exerting causes now that insures the presence of it in the future? Which do you sail with?

LOL... so, in other words, the truth is akin to beholding jello. Hold too tightly to part of it, and some other part of it moves or slips through your fingers. Yeah, I've heard (and knew) that quite some time ago. Didn't know he/they were into "process theology." (Sounds rather odd, but given I've only watched a small handful of Schoenheit's video's, no comment aside from, it doesn't seem to be something obvious.) I'm not following the reasoning. Care to explain or say another way?

Follows around a poster (i.e., you?) trying to sow discord? You seem to think rather highly of yourself, sky, that such could be the case. I'd actually thought you might let go of some of that chip on your shoulder after telling so much of your story here, sky. Seems maybe I got it wrong, though. Just about a year ago I wrote that "the Rev. label seemed to change people, but not for the better." Your response was to ask if I knew anything about you, and whether I always used such broad strokes in my judgments. My statement was actually based on general observations made from years ago while in TWI, from a time before you had your label, and wasn't put forth as being judgmental on anybody. I just couldn't think of any clear or specific exceptions to the statement (although, there may be some.) Having said that, and now realizing that yes, I did know you back then when you were on staff at HQ, and nothing I've read from you here puts you in the camp of being one of those exceptions. If you suppose me to be some sort of "weirwille-apologist nostalgia underneath the cloak," how is it that I so easily recognize (and have stated, and have acknowledged) the train wreck effect that he and "the ministry" had on so many? Solely because I've steered clear of recounting much of the BS we've dealt with in times past? Why the big push for it? It no longer troubles me, and I've moved on. I'd think there would be more intrigue with the how to move on part. Seems maybe I got it wrong, though.

Nope. Not my job. If someone is bent on reading or taking what I said the wrong way, so be it. Same goes for you (and anybody else.) I didn't make a mistake when I wrote what I wrote, and it seems I may not have any better way to say it if there's no effort on your part to see or think about it from a different perspective.

Yeah, all ears for any dirt and smut that you hope might spill out on vpw or twi (the BIG part of GSC), but evidently not for anything aimed towards any healing or recovery from it. I supposed that to be some part of GSC (even if only a very little part), but perhaps I am mistaken.

Why suppose I wasn't genuinely hurt (or that I was less hurt)? You can try to spin my last post anyway you want, Waysider, but you obviously missed the heart and motive behind it.

Well, skyrider (or former skyrider... however you picture it), in light of the duality of life that you speak of here (and what some may refer to as yin and yang)... here's a thought on the matter. Noting that you said you were "listening to the music" that moved you, and given where you are now in life (and/or the music that you hear now, or the direction you are moving in or towards), do you not also wonder whether or not the Lord (being the music master) was (and still is) at work within you to best prepare you for all of eternity? If so, perhaps the things that afflict us for a (relatively) short time in this life are not as magnanimous as we sometimes might like to think they are, and may help us to realize that we just aren't as smart or as good or as unselfish as we think (or thought at the time) we are... Maybe we all too often have a much too narrow and limited perspective on what happens in life, and don't pay as much attention as we should to the music playing right now.

Maybe you just didn't hear, see or know vpw the same way that others of us might have. And I'm really not saying the healing(s) are or aren't real. But I can assure you there were incidents of (instant) healings while I was in the WC and on staff at HQ, which if that alone were the criteria used for the evaluation or endorsement of ANY ministry or denomination... well, maybe you catch my point. Or, maybe you don't. (But I suspect that some others that read here will.)