TLC

shoot, didn't recognize the term. (popularized in the 1990's according to what I just read on the Internet... ) sure fits right along with vpw's interpretation of Rom.13:1ff, though...

A lot of talk (some might say bloviating), the essence of it being what you (or, others... depending on the perspective taken on it) need to do to be doing (or fulfilling) God's will for your life... No, I didn't listen to the whole of it. But enough to pick up on a few quips from it (and what I think is the essence of it): "If you come here, what you're telling me is, Curry, I want you to push me, so that I can fulfill the will of God in my life." "What you've been hearing here, most of the world has never heard." "I'm here to train soldiers for Jesus Christ." "Do you want to change the world?" "To keep his commands means consistent obedience." "Before you can grab a hold of God, you've got to let go of the world." ___________________________________________ So, Jim, I really don't see why you think this is so great. Boiled down, it has all the appearance and trappings of a works ministry, empowered by a "name it and claim it" brand of faith. Which isn't too surprising, given it's basis in the gospel of the kingdom (which Jesus Christ and the 12 preached.) If that's where you want to be, fine. But not me. I'm into the gospel of grace.

I'm inclined to think that applies rather universally to what most anyone really believes (whether they know it, or say it like that, or not.)

From behind, I suppose. (Karma's been known to be a bitch at times,,.)

Well, I disagree. I'd say our home provided what it should... a safe and peaceful meeting place, where people could (and mostly did) speak honestly about whatever might be on their hearts. Whether the reason for that is from the way we were raised, from something learned during the years with twi, or from the heart we had for the truth... I don't know. Seems it doesn't much matter. If others missed (or abused) the opportunity to offer or provide that to others, well that's on their heads, regardless of whatever reason (or excuse) they might come up with.

holy smokes, sky. can it get worse? okay, maybe so, if 4 thugs showed up to handcuff you and haul you off to some farmhouse in Kansas (again)...

Arrogance, even when (or if) supported by "well researched information" (which btw, yours here isn't), is a real turn off. So for now, sayonara.

Why the attack on me, Mark? If it truly means so much to learn from other people (or perhaps what you really mean, is that others learn from you), then why be so opinionated on how (much less, what) they learn? Enough of that ad hominem stuff, and try to stick to the topic of the thread. And/or if you want to stick the issue of universalism up on its own thread, maybe a few others will care to pin the tail on that donkey. Okay? P.S. I am not one that believes God's judgment in the future is only to torture, nor do I believe that death is torture. Regardless of whether or not it's perfect (which it isn't), I've studied & thought long and hard enough about the issue to have what seems (to me) to be a reasonable and biblically sound perspective on the matter. Unless or until a better understanding presents itself, why suppose that I should (or am going to) change?

Not even close to what I'm doing, Mark. But, given that you fail to recognize (and obviously don't appreciate) my style of inquiry/learning/teaching, and evidently don't have the desire or ability (I'm not sure which at this point) to either see or explain this issue in a way other then the one angle you're already bent on, I suppose you'll probably just resign yourself to grading any of my posts here with an "F." However, if instead of relegating me to the trash pile so quickly and mistakenly presume that I have no understanding of what's being discussed here, and gave a bit more honest thought as to why I ever questioned you in the first place on this, perhaps you'd realize that it came directly from the following one line of (what I perceive as being) "non-biblical" doctrine in this earlier post of yours... which post I happen to mostly agree with (namely because over the course of 40 years, I've mentally taken this doctrine apart and put in back together after looking at it from different angles more times that you can shake a bloody stick at... and can think of it, talk about it, maybe even makes sense of it with dang near anybody that wants to be honest enough with it. Which is getting to be more of a rare occurrence anymore.) That's obviously your opinion, Mark. Which stems from your belief in universalism. Okay, so you don't see or think of it being directly related to the doctrine of the Trinity. However, years ago (and I do literally mean YEARS ago), I went chasing down some long and winding rabbit holes on a (Yahoo) discussion board (long since deleted, unfortunately) where a rather intricate (and extraordinarily logical and tight) web linked certain beliefs together in such a way that if you believed any one of, the path of logic would axiomatically lead you to believe all the others. And interestingly enough, the Trinity (i.e., Jesus Christ is/was God) and Universalism fit together on the same premise. So, somewhere deep within me, I'm quite sure that universalism doesn't actually fit with the other beliefs that I see you write about. Thus, I wondered just how well you understand the issues, or how much you might have thought that relationship through. Maybe you had some way of looking at it that I hadn't thought about or considered before. Or, so I thought. But, no. I see that was a waste. Evidently you haven't. Aside from that, though, I agree with most the other stuff in your post. You'll probably agree that it is his resurrection that marks the point of his actually becoming the only begotten son of God. Or at least, I'd hope so. Our adoption is, of course, temporary. Until the trump of God. My apologies for nitpicking, and the intrusion into your space. P.S. Please be careful quoting word studies or definitions copied out of Nelson's, or Strong's, or any where else. TWI's research is infamous for missing the mark with them, and besides not being much help (we mostly all have those same tools), they can tend to come across as quite condescending.

So, in other words, you think the lake of fire is really just going to "purify" the beast, the false prophet, and the devil? (not to mention death and hell) If not, then why suppose that the destruction spoken of in Matthew 10:28 means something different? What do you think or say concerning the "brute beasts" of 2 Peter 2:12, which will "utterly perish"?

Readable, perhaps. But not understandable (not by me, anyways.) That might be an interpretation (maybe yours, or maybe not) of certain other events or words, but it doesn't explain who or what the "second death" is (or applies to), nor the effect(s) of it. Whether viewed figuratively or not, Rev.20:6a rather plainly states "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power..." The implication is that there are others that the second death will have power over. The beast and the false prophet are cast into the lake of fire (Rev.19:20). The devil joins them in Rev.20:10. Also into the lake of fire go "death and hell" (Rev.20:14.) "This is the second death." So, it appears that "death" itself is subjected to "the second death." In other words, this is not merely "death" having a second go around, or a second pass. This "second death" is... different. Similar to death, perhaps. But, NOT the same as. This one evidently operates on (or at) an entirely different level, and in a (probably inappropriate) manner of speaking, is a horse of a different color. And the only other clarification or distinction that I can possibly think of at the moment, might be what's written in Matthew 10:28. If the first has the ability to kill, the second has the ability to destroy. (I say "might," because I just haven't dug very deep into that verse.) But, going back to Rev.20, is the next verse (15) telling us who else is subjected to the second death. "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." Please note that this is written AFTER verse 13, wherein "the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works." Do you see anywhere it is written that there are (or will be) any that remain dead at Rev.20:13? (Because I don't.) And, it is AFTER this that the second death is unveiled. Perhaps you have another way to explain this.

It's somewhat surprising to me that more hasn't been said in this thread about (or around) the first unveiling of the POP paper in '86. (Perhaps it was simply over discussed elsewhere on GSC.) Okay, I realize that most here aren't (and probably weren't at the time) fans of CG. Not saying it (the report of it) was perfect, nor was CG. Nevertheless, it was at the time (having left HQ less than a year prior to that), a breath of fresh air. Catching the jist of it (the same night it was first read at HQ), it plainly accounted for much of the... what should I sum it up as... "crap" happening (while at HQ, and around us where we fled to.) We had already (prior to the first reading of the POP) surmised that TWI might be in deep trouble, given the legalism we encountered out in the field, and had already made plans to move again to find out and/or confirm just how widespread or deep the infection ran. Little did we know at the time, how little we knew. Yet, relative to the misinformation - or simply, missing info - that other (WC) seemed to have, as surprising and as unexpected as it was, at least we weren't blindsided by it (the POP.) But neither were we blindsided by vpw's death. So, in short, we were very thankful for the relief that the POP paper brought. In retrospect, perhaps it was like the needle that popped an infectious sore. There was an immediate sigh of relief, realizing that there were reasons behind that dull, aching pain in our hearts, stirring up hope that things might soon improve. But, they didn't... at least, not in ways that we expected or thought they might. So, we continued drifting away... which perhaps in certain respects, made it more difficult to relate to or understand why those with more insight or knowledge (apparently much more) than we knew, continued on with TWI for as long as they have (or did), especially after reading how much farther down the road of legalism, control, and outright manipulation it traveled.

Don't you mean, broke through the (thin) ice that vpw's teachings were skating around for years on? Instead of projection one's own weakness onto Paul, and teaching that was Paul's real "thorn in the flesh," it appears they both just kicked it up a notch and taught it (their own weakness) as "the original sin." Who's next to teach what the real original sin was? In the words of the Preacher, "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."

Seems much of what is on your website was written by others. However, I did briefly look over what you linked to (that you wrote.) What do you think the second death, spoken of in the book of Revelations, refers to? I don't see that you address that anywhere in what you wrote.

I agree Waysider - vp’s (and other dispensationalists) use of addressed to you vs for your learning – seems to be something deliberately fabricated rather than a natural sense of what’s written – and as such it comes across as something artificial or unrealistic (and conveniently favoring vp’s licentious agenda – more on that later). Dispensationalism ignores context and even the big picture – the whole enchilada – the entire Bible – uhm…..Genesis to Revelation. Y'all's opinion, of course. This simply isn't a thread I care to discuss it in, 'cause simply put, I concur that vpw (and certain others) didn't teach it right. But neither do you! The fact that the bible does speak of various oikonomia's is NOT something which is "contrived," and clearly refutes any ostentatious efforts to sway some into thinking otherwise. However, as already noted, this isn't a proper thread to say more on the matter. (Though I probably would on some other, such as this: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24185-oikonomia/#comment-571969 )

Appears to me that's rather presumptuous. What makes you so sure that he didn't receive the vast majority, if not all, the revelation of the gospel given to him while he was in the Arabian desert (Mt. Sinai ?) before he ever started preaching a word of it?

Maybe it's just too difficult or complicated or personal a matter to discuss on a forum such as this.

Yeah, but not just less. It's a lot less. It's also much less complicated. In other words, easier. Maybe some that have the money choose it just because is relatively quick and easy, and they don't want to invest the time, or effort, or emotions that a more traditional burial require. Then again, maybe some that have the money choose burial just because it's held in higher esteem, and let's the rest of the world know that they do indeed have the money. (Hey, the pyramids are classic examples of the extremes some went to.) Lots of ways to look at this issue...

Simply put, this is not a subject that I have given a great deal of time or thought to. However, it is one that does comes up from time to time, especially as the years seem to passing by more quickly. Frankly speaking, at this point I'm not all that convinced there is much of an answer (doctrinally speaking) from the Bible, appropriately addressed for our day and time. Yes, I know what was taught in TWI. But given the errors that were mixed into other things taught, perhaps this is one that others of you have already had a chance to "re-think" and would be willing to share your perspective on the matter. (With or without the use or reference to scripture.) From a very practical point of view, cremation appears to be a sensible solution (especially from the standpoint of costs.) To be honest, I find myself hesitant to think or ever suggest anything otherwise. Yet... I find myself wondering at times. Does it really not make any difference whatsoever? Aside from the rather obvious financial benefits, what do some of you think are the pro's or con's of cremation vs. the more traditional burial?

I ditched that hat long ago, R. What you frame as "blinders".......I deem as stating my perspective.

Could be, I'm old enough. Think I should see everything the same way you do?

Early for you, perhaps. Not so much for others of us. There was a lot that already happened there before she refers to it in 84 (or maybe it was 83.)

Fair enough, but consider that I was simply stating what it (and the passion of it) looks like.

sorry, it drifted. but it's sure not worth a thread of it's own.

Seems this may have started much earlier than is indicated by the time frame of this thread, sky. BTW, until reading some of your more recent postings, I sorta wondered why you held as much animosity against TWI as you do. Guess I didn't realize that you were involved as long as you were, or how far downhill and bad things really got in these 89-98 years. Most everyone I knew or had kind of contact with had left HQ or was out by then. As for departures from the research dept., some of those with the rare combination of heart and ability had already left. Don't know much about where they are now, but B.Mahone and J.Wise rated high there, imo. (Dan M. had a more an intellectual approach, but didn't have the oversized ego that $choenheit had.)