Oakspear

So what? The existance of a landmark or structure mentioned in the bible doesn't answer the question posed in the title of thread. Absence of any supporting evidence doesn't disprove it either.

by Imbus :D--> thanks Socks quoth Wordwolf

Originally posted by def59: Here is a response I saw in reference to biblical unitarianism I thought some might enjoy to take a whack at. -DEf It's very "wackable", def! I've seen much better defenses or explanations of the trinity --> The Bible establishes the Trinity by declaring that there is only one God, can't argue with that! that each of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit is God, and that each of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are real persons. Hence -One God in Three Persons. Well I would say that even the best arguments for the trinity show only that the bible implies these things without ever coming out clearly and saying it. Trinitarians infer the trinity from things that they feel are inconsistant with a purely human Jesus The Persons of the triune God. How does one describe a person? A person has three qualities which set him aside from objects or forces. Firstly a person has a will, he is able to make decisions, secondly a person has emotions, he is able to love or be upset, and lastly a person is able to intelligently reason, he has an intellect. When some undefined object or item has these three abilities it is defined to be a person. Not necessarily a human being but possibly an angel, demon or even a member of the Godhead. There are three important questions which must be asked concerning the persons of the Trinity: do they have these qualities? The writer is not arguing that Jesus Christ is God, that is assumed. What he is arguing is that each aspect of God is a "person". I didn't leave in the supporting scriptures, but jumped down to his next point, where he does argue about the deity of the three "persons" The last point to labour for proof of the Trinity is that of the deity of each of the persons. Firstly, the Father: Well, yeah...who's gonna argue with that? The Son The Father is called God. There is no doubt about that, but what about Christ? In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1, NASB) Wierwille would have (and did) called this a "difficult verse". Although it doesn't say "the Word" was Jeus Christ, later it says that "the Word was made flesh". I think at least this biblical writer considered Jesus to be God. For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6, NASB) Not every translation renders it thus The Son is called God. For a thorough discussion of John 1:1 see below in the chapter on the New World Translation. It suffices to say at this point that the clear teaching of the Bible, as cited above, is that there is only one true God. All other gods are false. These references must therefore show that Jesus is the true God. I doesn't appear to me that there is an absence of contradiction in bible verses about the nature of Jesus. The few verses cited here don't really settle anything Lastly, the Holy Spirit: But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit... Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. (Acts 5:3 , 4, NASB) The Holy Spirit is thus called God. A thorough treatment of the deity of the Holy Spirit also involves a careful examination of His names, works and attributes. This is done below in the section dealing with the Holy Spirit. Nothing cited here shows that "the spirit", or "the holy spirit" has a "personhood" separate from "The Father". A trinity is assumed to make the argument. The Trinity is thus proven. It is argued, but certainly not proven There is one God and three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; each person is called God. No more proof for the Trinity is necessary. Yeah, I think there is more proof needed. The reasoning is somewhat circular.

Oh, you said SNOWjob :D-->

There are different definitions of "forced" being used among the various posters. Some of us prefer to see "force" as being literal and physical. Oldiesman, I don't think that I'm out of line to say that you are in this camp. Others of us use "forced" in a different sense: blackmailed, backed into a corner, given a "choice" between two bad alternatives. We get into these stupid arguments when we aren't using the same definitions. One us claims to have been "forced" to do something, another of us scoffs that the other was most certainly not "forced", but the two are talking about two very different things. Can we just accept that we use the word and concept of force differently? When one of the ladies says that she was "forced" to service the MOG, can those who adhere to the literal definition just shut up? I find it hard to believe that you don't know what is being referred to. On the other hand when a poster insists that we are responsible for our own actions, can we refrain from gang tackling that person, because surely we know where they are coming from? A couple of other notes: In the spirit of full disclosure, I am the "one person" among Rascal's supporters who she has met. But guess what? We don't always agree! We exchanged a few PTs a few months back after I stuck up for Oldiesman on a thread. I didn't mention any names in my last post. If the shoe fits, pull it out of your mouth. If not, maybe I'm not referring to you

dante: I know where Shenandoah is! I was there when I worked for the Omaha World-Herald; we're practically neighbors! But I'm going to Tennessee for the Weenie Roast :D-->

Actually "W" is German is pronounced as "V", so Wierwille would have originally been pronounced Vierville. The spelling change probably occurred when the family moved from France to Germany.

I've stayed out of this argument until now mainly because I don't see clearly when human life begins. There are good arguments, biblical and scientific, for almost all the alternatives: conception, viability, first breath, and I'm sure others. Maybe erring on the side of caution would be best. Whether we technically had a choice in cases of abortion, or any other matter, is really irelevant. Whether our own actions and decisions put us in a position where "leaders" were telling us how many sheets of toilet paper to wipe with is also irrelevant. What is relevant is that once in that position, "leaders" took advantage of our love for God, our desire to succeed, our ambition to be in the corps, our need to be part of "the household" or our perception that only TWI had the truth to get us to act in the way that they wanted us to. I don't care if there was never an article in the Way Magazine or a chapter in the collaterals outlining the need to have an abortion to stay eligible for Corps training, I don't care if Wierwille never announced from his pulpit the same thing, it happened, and not just to rascal. Do any of you really think that rascal made that up? That she was exaggerating? That she was merely refusing to live up to the demands of the corps program? Open your friggin' eyes! You know, when I first started coming to Waydale I read with skepticism many of the accounts, having never experienced much of what I saw there. I thought people were exaggerating or making things up. At first. The more I read, the more things had the ring of truth. Then I started meeting some of the writers in person. After a while it didn't seem so fantastic or unbelievable anymore. And you posters who are challenging rascal: you weren't there. You have no basis to disagree with her. She isn't saying that what she was told was said to every pregnant woman in TWI, she's relating what happened to HER. Stop publically calling her a liar whatdoncha? Maybe stop the analysis of HER actions, and concentrate on TWI's culpability.

It seems like any time TWI decided to change anything, they would just change it without warning; then pretend it had always been that way (like Winston Smith's job in "1984"). Or old decisions that had to be wrong in light of the current teaching were glossed over. An example that I recall is when Martindale did the WayAP Advanced Class. He started teaching that the OT believers had six manifestations to work with, not seven like Wierwille had taught, saying that OT prophecy was different than the NT manifestation of prophecy. But he never came out and said "we were wrong before, we studied it and here's the correction". It was just slipped in as if it was always that way. In the mid-nineties our branch coordinator was M&A'ing people right and left, often on the spur of the moment, sometimes he would check with the Limb Coordinator, but that was it. A year later Martindale informed all leadership that they were to go through the three steps of confrontation from Matthew (one-on-one; with one or two witnesses; before the "church" before M&A'ing), which was "according to the Word" When questioned about all the people who were ousted "contrary to the Word" we were told something like God covered, so it was still right. One year my son was going to take the Advanced class and the local Way Corps were actually writing the test questions. Our LC was instructed to write up questions for Rise & Expansion. It was supposed to be about 25 questions total. He ended up coming up with over 25 questions for each chapter, which overwhelmed my son. We were informed by our BC that the subsequent tests would be shorter as intended. A few days later he called us back to tell us that even though later quizzes would be shorter, the loooong R&E test was "right" The biggest, of course, was the refusal to admit that anything Martindale came up with was wrong, even after his ouster & disgrace.

The BOD will never admit that any decision that happened on their watch was ever wrong. In the mid-nineties our branch coordinator was M&A'ing people right and left, often on the spur of the moment, sometimes he would check with the Limb Coordinator, but that was it. A year later Martindale informed all leadership that they were to go through the three steps of confrontation from Matthew (one-on-one; with one or two witnesses; before the "church" before M&A'ing), which was "according to the Word" When questioned about all the people who were ousted "contrary to the Word" we were told something like God covered, so it was still right.

SSShhhh....there's a reporter in the room

Okay wonder, so you're still here. Your initial post, as well as another thread that you started implied that many of us who left were overreacting by leaving "the ministry", and expecting it to be perfect and shouldn't continue to talk about it, but should just move on. (I'm paraphrasing, btw) After reading the replies, do you still hold the same opinion?

And I am responsible for the sun rising this morning ;)-->

I'm mainly talking about from outside, not stuff you figured out on your own, or heard after the Passing of the Pasties. I first heard bad press about TWI in 1979. My girlfriend and her mother had taken PFAL, and had both left in the face of family pressure following a divorce. I was in the hospital for a few days for some minor surgery and they brought me a pile of press clippings about TWI. Most of it centered on doctrine. "They're a cult because they believe that Jesus ain't Gawd". The other stuff was so bizarre, and outside what I was experiencing that I couldn't believe that any of it was true. When I was a WOW a local radio station did an negative report on TWI that included a lot of vague generalities. I ran into the reporter in a bar one night and asked her where she got her information and why hadn't she talked to us? Her stammering reply didn't impress me. Years later I pretty much ignored bad press, and individuals that I knew who had a problem with TWI didn't really seem to know anything. I had conditioned myself to downplay and ignore any criticism of TWI. It wasn't until after the All*n lawsuit that I began to take any of it seriously

I am most comfortable with people who 1. Accept me as I am 2. Have the ability to think 3. Other things too, but it's late :D--> There are ex-Way people who I do not get along well with, even some other GSers; although the ones I have met in person I (mostly) mesh well with. I don't hang out with any of the ex-Way people in Nebraska, although I run into several on a regular basis (my plumber and electric company rep for example) and have made many friends in various walks of life and with varied backgrounds.

For those whose view of Jesus is more elevated than "spiritual guy", "didn't exist", or "Jewish Cult Leader" (Imbus, George, Sudo & I can take a break :D-->) was your opinion of who Jesus is formed more from a straight reading of the bible, or from personal experience? Or both? Or maybe a different source?

George made a staement about agnostics, Cynic responded with examples of bad atheists. THEY'RE NOT THE SAME

Rosalie Rivenbark, speaking at a Sunday Service in the Auditorium (please suppply our own NC accent): It is with great joy and thankfullness that I come before you today. We have a very exciting announcement! As you know, our ministry was originally named Vesper Chimes and went through several name changes before becoming The Way International some years later. Our ministry is devoted to God's Word and His Household, and cannot become unnaturally attached to wordly matters, such as names and titles. It is with great joy that I announce that our ministry will henceforth be known as The Prevailing Household. The other Directors and I know that this name change, which more accurately reflects our ministry in this day, time and hour, will herald forth greater blessings upon us...THE PREVAILING HOUSEHOLD....[cue music...song by "Prevailing Household Productions"]

Originally I thought that the truth taught outweighed any human weaknesses that might crop up. Later, when I realized that there wasn't as much truth as I thought, I stayed to preserve my family.

Sorry for the derailment kids...

Do you REALLY want to get in a ....ing match with me?

Your name is "Cuz"?

Despite being thesaurus-boy, he really didn't know how to use words properly most of the time; getting the rough definition right, but missing the nuance. The biggest one to bug me was his misuse of the word "digress". He used it when he meant "regress". I would cringe whenever he used it in that way...and then The Singin' Ladies o' the Way incorporated the phrase into a song...LCM bad definition and all!

The only prison outreach that I heard about in 20+ years in Nebraska was when a PFAL grad was thrown in prison for some financial shenanigans. It was basically just the leadership visiting him. I don't think they ever went searching for new converts.