TLC

Okay, I sense that it did become that way in later corps. (hence, perhaps the e is rightly added to the word.) Although the "roots" of such thinking may have started growing from very early on, I really don't know at what point it may have become so pervasive that it can be said to be either normal, or "the way it was" among most corps. From my own perspective, there were (far too many) cases of it, but I didn't view it as being good, right, or "normal." Okay, thanks for clarifying what you meant. Seems I wasn't relating well to it. Fair enough. I like most forms of genuine thinking (as long as it's reasonably coherent.) Sound sorta like someone that only thinks they're thinking. (oy vey... I'll stir some memories with that line!) Yeah, those lines were a bunch a crap for the most part. Just a "rubber stamping" of what they wanted to do.

Then how much honesty is actually in the post (shown below) that you previously made, judging all the intent of a man and his life? What qualifies you to speak so brazenly?

And you were what age at the time?

That (using "and" instead of "or") appears to me to be an oxymoron. While that appears rather black and white (as I don't see how both are feasible at the same time...) Agreed. I guess I've always thought that thinking was critical, but maybe there's some kind of thinking that isn't. And apparently there must be some differences of opinion as to what "direct revelation" is or how it works. (I presume that you're thinking "direct" means something not via another person, or through any previously written or revealed information.) Frankly speaking, I don't see or know how it's even possible to receive "direct revelation" and for it not to result in thinking about it, or that it somehow automatically eliminates any further choices.

How well do you think you knew the man, Bolshevik? How much time did you have or spend with him? Perhaps you wouldn't mind elaborating a little.

Escaped isn't necessarily a bad or a wrong word, but I'm not so sure that it's necessarily the right word for everyone. (Some were fired, but I shant say who... lol.) Considering that even in a physical sense certain times of rapid growth are not without pain, perhaps it could be viewed by some folk that their pain of separation was, at least in part, a result of significant growth. You look back, and see tremendous learning... but not without pain, and not without questions still looking for answers. Could, moreover, should it have been much better than it was? Absolutely. But life can't be lived in the rear view mirror. God was, is, and always will be a tremendous teacher. At some point in time, we have to reconcile with the reality of who the real teacher was (and is), and whether or not we've learned what (or all that) we could or should have learned. Maybe some can look back and say, they grew away from twi.

While that might apply to some things, it would be a blanket statement (not to mention less than kind, unfair, judgmental, dishonest, or even cruel) to say it was true of every doctrine or practice that he taught or lived. (Not that I think you or anyone else said or meant that, I'm just sayin'.) The difficulty always resides in honestly separating the good from the bad.

Well, perhaps I'll risk mentioning that from a particular perspective, all (mankind) are a mark or a victim, and the point where we start to see any man or woman as the enabler, facilitator or perpetrator of it is when its analyzed from a fleshly point of view. So, in a certain sense, it might be fair to say that even vpw was the victim of a spiritual abuser. And likewise, it might be just as fair to say that all of us were (and still are) enablers, facilitators or perpetrators of some number of spiritual abusive things if (or whenever) we fail to walk in the spirit. So yes, it's a complicated question, as no one escapes the certain (spiritual) dichotomy of it. But let's not forget that the struggle that we faced (and continue to face) is not merely one of flesh and blood. Just as none of us were "all good," none of us were "all bad" in what we did or how we lived. So, rather than looking at individual lives as either victims or perpetrators, perhaps it is easier (or more sensible) to stick with analyzing which specific actions or doctrines were wrong or abusive.

Yep, had to look that word misogynist (corrected sp) up. I guessed I've reached the point of realizing that no one's probably ever going to be 100% right in what they teach, and even though it's quite a chore to separate the truth from error, it's a never ending task that we'll face over and over and over if our hunger and love for the truth runs deep within our soul. And where ever or whomever we hear and learn something from, it takes a good amount of courage and a lot of honesty to either change, or NOT change, based solely upon what the truth is, regardless of our assessment of the moral character (or worthiness) of the source (which so easily taints one's perspective.) But, as for these CF&S classes... well, they're so freakin' wacked out (even in comparison to pfal) that it actually still pains me to think I didn't wake up any sooner to the ulterior motive behind them, and there's little doubt that they caused more damage than you can shake a stick at.

Well, there is the little matter of 1 Tim.2:14 to contend with. (Which might not be so hard, if the teachings on the original sin weren't so f'd up. There were 3 he taught that I'm aware of. Last time I tried to listen to the tapes from one of them it started making us (I'm married) sick, so we shut 'em down and haven't revisited any of them since. Ever look to see how much anything in any of them have an actual basis in scripture? A real departure from PFAL (and just about any other class I can think of.)

You sure 'bout that? Why do you suppose Adam changed her name (it was "woman") to "Eve" if he didn't believe God that she would be the mother of all living?

So you're mad because not everyone here opts to hang laundry out on a clothesline like you do, and now you'd choose to cattleprod them (if you could) into submission to your low life ways? Some neighborhoods don't take all that kindly to folk next door hangin' clothes out on a line for all the world passing by to see. Not so much here, though. A whole lot of laundry gets hung out 'round here (say nothing of how much of it is dirty or stinkin'), but there's also a whole lot that isn't. Why play the victim card if its already been tossed in the discard pile and something you no longer hold in hand? I wasn't so young, stupid, naïve, or unspiritual (or whatever other adjective you want to throw in there) that it allows me to shuck the fact that in spite of anything (or everything) that I did or didn't know, I am the one that made the choices I did back then - and no one made them for me. This isn't intended to discredit anyone that was (or views themselves as having been) victimized, but rather, to make the simple point that even though there are times when certain things in life arose to hurt me, they don't own me. Now there's an oxymoron. You're a real jokester, aren't you? (not to mention being as clueless to the truth as a rock...) When you lump them all together like that? I'd say the dissin's been rather mild.

What diff do you suppose it makes? They were all jacked up. And the original sin thing? So far off the mark it's ridiculous. Not at all how a woman thinks or what might possibly deceive her. But, men being as stupid as they are about women, liked the (very egotistical) idea the she possibly could be. (ask just about any "normal" woman - preferably your wife, if you have one - if you don't believe me.)

lol... good for a laugh, if nothing else. (but not all will, just so you know... some ego's can eventually be tamed or suppressed or caged or something. others evidently can't.) besides, if you weren't vpw, there was always someone that one up'd on you. the sooner you learned to deal with it and not let it (i.e., egonomia) get to you or distort you too much, the better off you were (or are.) no matter which end of the donkey you're facing.

Agreed. But just because we have the same (or similar) presumption - which is probably better referred to here as a premise - doesn't mean that we don't have or use them.

Yes, so what. (Which more or less agrees with what I said earlier, in my first response to you.) Definitions aren't what determines or makes anyone a Christian, it's whether or not Christ lives within you. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see the issue being discussed a matter of anyone "deciding" (as in, casting a vote to win either yes or no) who was or wasn't a Christian. They either are, or they aren't, in accordance with the criteria (i.e., believing) set forth by God. God knows what anyone really believes. However, whether you or I ever know what someone really believes is another matter altogether. But that alone doesn't preclude us from learning or knowing what must be believed to allow Christ in, nor does it necessarily prevent or deter us from perceiving whether or not Christ is present within someone else. If I can't see Christ living within you, does that necessarily mean that he's not there? No, not necessarily. You might just have him locked up or hidden from view (lol...) However, if we do see (what we think is) him at work within someone, well... I suppose I could still be mistaken about it. Maybe my "spiritual antenna" (so to speak) is wacked out and needs some tweaking. But, if we're right, and Christ is at home within them... then I also know from what is set forth in scripture that Christ never abandons ship to leave his property unattended and unclaimed. I think DWBH said elsewhere something to the effect that he looks for the fruit that's produced. While I don't think that's an exact science or necessarily fail proof, I also somewhat understand what can be meant by it and why some people would choose to use it when either thinking of (or in referring to) themselves and/or others as being "Christian" or Christ-like in everyday life. Others might choose to think or say that "walking the talk" means a helluva lot more than talking the walk. There are undoubtedly various other ways or means whereby we use some means or standards to evaluate the validity or worth or meaning of someone's claim to be "Christian." But in returning to my initial post, my point was to was saying that neither walking nor talking (nor does fruit of any sort) establish the criteria for actually being Christ's. And, in saying that, perhaps what could or should be added to that, is that aside from being Christ's (i.e., you know that he lives, and that you are his), there really is no other proof necessary or guaranteed.

Because there's no way to actually prove or disprove what is or isn't "the bible." In other words... There is no original. Why do you suppose there are so many variations or versions of it? What you take as being "the bible" is therefore an assumption (or more precisely, a presumption.)

No worries, as no offense was taken. I'm not only quite aware of what certainly of my beliefs are, but why they are. If stating or posting what certain of my beliefs are here is "promoting" them, well then, I guess we're all guilty of promoting something. And yes, I also realize that a fair amount of what I believe (still) aligns rather closely with certain things that were taught by vpw or in twi. It just so happens, however, that inerrancy, Theopneustos, and dispensationalism were all a part of my thinking prior to twi. As for inerrancy and Theopneustos, I doubt that I've changed a spits distance worth in over 40 years. But I sure can't say the same for dispensationalism, where I've been around the block a time or two and looked at it from nearly any angle I thought feasible or possible. Fact is, I thought it worth discussing further in few times in a couple of the doctrinal threads here, but it doesn't seemed to have (thus far) garnered much interest. In short, I haven't yet heard anybody teach or present it as well as I've seen Les Feldick do it, even if what he does isn't perfect. (I actually think he's very good with this particular subject, especially on the administration of grace.) Furthermore, I think that how some of it was taught by vp (mostly taken from others, as you know) was jacked up, and resulted in some (if not most, and certainly more than I care to list here) major problems in the ministry.

Yikes!

Regardless of how you might see or say it, and in spite of whatever it seems to remind you of, perhaps you would kindly allow me to point to the simple fact (not that it means much, but for whatever it's worth) that prior to pfal or any involvement with twi I was a theology major headed towards seminary school. I realize that some (if not many) here may not have given much thought towards their spiritual beliefs prior to what they learned in pfal, but others of us surely did... and certain things (several of which being mentioned or alluded to in your last post) haven't changed much (if at all) as a result of anything taught by vpw or twi. Furthermore, I really don't feel compelled to speak about, nor address, any of the "associations" (for lack of a better word) with twi that you've indicated may exist as the source or reason for certain thoughts, for the simple reason that it isn't.

Sure you do. What you regard as the bible is a presumption. It seems as though you may have meant to say that you would expect contradictions because it was written by different people with different agendas, but whether you did or not is unclear to me. Regardless of it being different writers, if what they wrote was "God breathed" (translate it however you will), then the presumption is that God authored it. If God authored it, then naturally, one would expect it to reveal things about God and/or the nature of God. If "it" (whatever it is) is difficult to understand and/or appears to be confusing, then how we interpret "it" is inherently going to be influenced (aka, biased) by whatever presumptions (or if you prefer, "pre-understandings") that we have or hold regarding both "it" and "God." You're certainly entitled to hold whatever you want as a definition. But that doesn't mean that it's the same as how others might normally interpret it, if it doesn't have a sound biblical basis. If the bible doesn't offer an explanation or definition for it, then there's going to be a wide variance of opinions on what it means. However, as for the last part of your statement, I'd agree that even though we might be able to observe many things that either are or aren't "Christ like" on the outside, it is ultimately always what is in the heart of an individual (on the inside), and not what is on the outside. If anyone is making a determination based only on what is on the outside, and not on what is on the inside, then they might be mistaken... even about themselves.

Pretty much. But, you did manage to stir up another question (or curiosity) with this: I get the first part relating to the types and foreshadows of Christ. But, not so much, when it comes to how or what your knowledge of quantum physics (aka, "weird science" ...lol) did for you. I suppose I could speculate (as in, "no limits - makes anything possible" type thinking), but perhaps you wouldn't mind expounding a little on how or what you see as the importance or significance of it to yourself.

ah, you're quick on the draw. a few things were edited to my post for clarity (but it's nothing greatly different.)

Importance is relative term. The distinction that you're trying to make between what Paul said and what Christ said is completely without merit if what Paul said is exactly what was given to him by Christ after he ascended. If, however, you mean to refer only to what Jesus Christ said prior to his ascending to the right hand of God, then clearly what Paul said according to the revelation and instructions given to him by Christ at a later date would naturally take precedence over what was he (Christ) instructed his other apostles at a much earlier date. Furthermore, while on earth, it is evident that Jesus Christ was a minister to the circumcision (which I am not.) Paul, on the other hand, was plainly appointed by Christ as the apostle to the Gentiles - which I is my ancestral lineage. If I honestly thought that they were ONLY the words of Paul, and not the words that were given to him by the ascended Christ, then I suppose they just wouldn't mean as much to me. However, considering that I do believe what is written in Colossians 1:25 to be the truth, I also believe that the Pauline epistles of Romans through Thessalonians are indeed more relevant to me (and hence, more important to me) than that which is written concerning Jesus Christ's words and ministry prior to his ascension. Is that a clear enough explanation of what I believe?

There was (and is) a qualifier to that statement that you evidently chose to overlook. Perhaps you won't mind if I draw some attention to it: Please note the complete "IF..., then..." construction of the sentence. Now, as for aligning any (or all) of this with what Paul wrote, I'm obliged to bring these two verses to remembrance (bolded words are my emphasis): Rom.2 (16) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. Rom.16 (25) Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, So, don't like what Paul wrote if you want to. But I'd caution you not to suppose that Christianity today should be founded upon on anything else.