Goey

Clay, I am not sure who you addresed this to but I will reply with some thoughts. Clay, You seem to be presuming a bit here. As for me, I have been out of TWI for around 25 years. I have been studying Christianity and investigating various ways of looking at scripture since then. I am not a neophyte when it come to biblical hermeneutics. Would it suprise you to know that I do not necessarily believe that the Bible is the Word of God - at least not in the way that TWI and many fundamental and evangelicals teach it. I think it is generally reliable and inspired, but having a human element in it, I accept that there are some inconsistencies. I don't espouse a purely literal interpretation of the scriptures. I dont necessarily believe that all the books in the "Bible" actually belong in the Bible or that a dictated canon is even necessary in regards to Chrisitanity. So how do you know what I (or anyone else) has or has not investigated in the time they have been out of TWI? In the last 25 years, I have investigated many intetpretation methods and doctrines. In these investigations I have accepted some things and rejected others - it is an ongoing process. I don't think you know at all what I or anyone else can bring to the table unless you allow them at the table without preconceptions. You have prejudged what you don't know. Wanting to go further that TWI teaching ( I assume that is what you meant) is a great thing. As for me, I have moved far beyond TWI teaching in the last 25 years and I am still moving. The fact that someone may not be moving in the same fashion as you, does not make their spiritual growth or understanding any less valid than yours. I think this as addressed to Oak ? Did you know that Oak was an agnostic? I think that demonstrates pretty well his willingness to consider other prospectives. Anyone with a cursory understanding of theology knows that the more commonly accepted interpretation 1Thessolonians did not originate with VPW. This goes way way back. Seems you attempting to associate the more common understanding with VPW in order to somehow discredit it ? -- That won't work here. Not everything VPW taught was wrong. VPW taught that God loves you - didn't he? This is not a TWI or VPW issue. Clay, no one is standing in the way of anyone believing or compreheding what you are attempting to put forth. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that you jjust don't want anyone to see or consider any other view than your own. The fact that some folks may choose different approach than yours to understanding the Bible, God, Jesus, et al ... does not mean they are not interested in finding the hidden deep treasures of God. I find that kind of thinking rather obnoxious -- Be careful that you don't fall in to the "my way is the only way" trap... We know what happened in TWI ....

Now wait a dongone second Todd, Lack of agreement & questions were met by Clay with foul language, ridicule and beratement. He said or implied that those who disgreed or couldn't see what he was proposing were friggin blind, "entrenched in literalism" and "twi thinking." Clowns... These are indeed the kind of discussion methods and tactics that Mike uses. I was not comparing the mesage - only the tactics. I think it was a fair comparison. Too bad to see you defending this kind of stuff. Your threats are rather outlandish. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clay, I made a couple of posts in regards to my views on 1Thessalonians . Nothing in these was was rude, ugly or attacking. You didn't even bother to address them. You ignored me. Fine, thats your perogative i guess. However this is a doctrinal forum where ideas are discussed. Discussion implies two way dialog. There are bound to be opposing views. Disagreement is not "attack". If you want to simply post your ideas concering doctrine, scripture or whatever and then make them off limits for debate or discussion (except to those who seem to agree with you) -- then I suggest that this may not be the proper venue.

Clay, this kind of behavior/attitude is not very becoming, particually in a doctrinal discussion. One must wonder if you actually want doctrinal discussion -- or just to be stroked. Isn't this the similar to how Mike presents his message? -- And then when it is not accepted, folks are berated, ridiculed and told they not willing or "ready" to receive the "truth" ?

WaferNot, Mike was "sent" to GS to deliver his message. His message is to be directed to OLG's (Older Leader Grads) and is not meant for the masses. GS probably has the highest density of OLG's to preach to on the Internet so it only makes sense for Mike to post here.

Safari, If you can come to terms with the flaws in TWI's "law of believing" then the associated mind set will fade away. It did for me. Below is a link to some short articles that Rafael did that may be of some help to you on this. I think these are what Tom was refering to. This is a MS Word document. If you right click on the link, then select "save as" it will sauve to your PC. Then you can open it in MS word. To Wit Archives

It would certainly make sense to address physical death in the context of a relatively new christian church established withing a pagan community that basically did did not believe in life after physical death (others that have no hope). It would make perfect sense to address physical death if the church there at Thessalonica was grieving over brothers or sisters that had physically died. (Wherefore comfort one another with these words.) Clay, it is debatable if your interpretation reveals a "mystery". One does not have to be "entrenched in literalism and TWI thinking" to interpret of 1 Thessalonians in terms of physical death. I fail to see the profit in this apparant jab and unnecessary labeling of those who might take issue with your opinion.

Alan, you have created your own glass house here at GS and you painted a bullseye on it with you incessant stalking and harrasment of Mo (among other things.) You pet peeve is laughable. <Sound of glass breaking as Goey lobs a stone>

I think scripture can have more than one level of meaning .....For example: Mat 11:5 The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. I think this applies just as much if not more to the spiritually "blind" as it does to the physically blind. Same with the lame and deaf. Lepers were "untouchable" as the Gentiles were to the Jews. While physical healing is most certainly good, isn't the spiritual of a higher order ? Does one have to preclude the other? Can we have both? What I am suggesting is that one level is not mutually exclusive of the other. Both can be true. However, we must be careful not to read something into scrpiture that is not there. Neither should be force a meaning that is not there. In other words all scripture is not necessary layered with meanings. In regards to 1 Thessalonians I am not so sure that death refers to anything but physical death. I would need more than a list of scriptures and speculation to seriously entertain the possibility that 1 Thes is not refering to physical death. I see nothing in the context or a natural reading to suggest otherwise. Consider 1 Thessalonians 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. In this verse Jesus' death and ressurection clearly corelate [even so] with "sleep" and "God bring with Him". If I am to entertain the possibililty that "sleep" and "God bring with him" in this section of scripture does not refer to the death and resurection of the physical body, then I must also entertain the possibility that Jesus did not suffer a physical death or ressurection. To me it seems clear that 1 Thessalonians 4 is refering to "at least" to a physical death and resurection. If there is another layer there, I don't see it.

Isn't "throwing stones" a term derived from the Bible? In John 8, a woman caught in adultery is brought Jesus by the scribes and Pharisees. They wanted to stone her according to the Law. They ask Jesus his opinion and Jesus says to them: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." Later after they all leave without stoning the woman , Jesus says to the woman: "Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? ... Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." To me "throwing stones" implies judgment unto condemnation. That grace and mercy are withheld. Jesus acknowledged her sin, when he told her to "sin no more" yet his judgment was not unto condemnation but rather unto to mercy. I attempted to locate a definintion of "throwing stones" on the Internet but couldn't find one. In our conversations and debates here at GS from time to time someone makes a charge against another of "throwing stones". Sometimes the glass house analogy is used. But only the one making the charge of throwing stones really knows what they mean. The term is used rather loosely here IMO. Sometimes it is used as a defense. As in how can you "throw rocks" at VPW when you are a sinner too? . The implication is that only the sin free are allowed to discuss VPW's ungodly behavior or any ungody behavior for that matter. It is thinking evil or throing stones. Sometimes it is used to try to silence a differing opinion . An idea is brought forth and when another disagrees with that idea the charge is made of "throwing stones". Sometimes it is used in response to an ad hominem argument. You are throwing stones .... Sometimes it has been used when a poster has been needlessly abusive. I am sure there have been more. However I have yet to see a poster here at GS actually judged unto comdemnation for their ideas or behavior. I think the closest thing to that has probably been the "millstone" analogy, but that was never directed at a poster than I can recall. I think the term is generally misapplied and is therfore pretty worthless in regards to our discusions here. But then again, it may mean something different than I understand it.

Foggy, Goad you? -- And you know that ? --- And without asking me for clarification of what I may or may not have meant with my "sarcasm" ? I was playfully asking for "clarification" of your post. My rock throwing comment was to show how silly such "rock throwing" "accusations" are. I am playing with the terms "rock throwing" - "clarification" and "accuse". In light of the recent introspect related to miscommunications here at GS, resulting in "accusations" of "throwing rocks" and other such things, my post was done tongue-in-cheek to show how certain things (like the picture you posted) "could" be taken in a way not necessarily intended. Sorry you didn't appreciate my "sarcasm" ... I should have been more clear .... :)

In the state of Texas there are only 2 dairies licensed to sell fresh raw mikk. Both have been smeared and excommunicated from the American Dairy Association and both have been harrassed by state health officials. One recently won a lawsuit against the state health department , but it was costly. The licensing and permit costs for a fresh milk dairy of 10 cows is about 10 times that of a commercial dairy of hundreds of cows. The American Egg board, a quasi-govermental agency, is making a false statement concerning free range chicken eggs. They claimed there was no nutritional difference between a free range chicken egg and a commerical produced egg where the chickens were confined to cages and only fed commerical feed. Here is what they claim .... "The nutrient content of eggs is not affected by whether hens are raised free-range or in floor or cage operations." -- Link So we are supposed to believe that there is no difference between eggs from chickens that eat fresh grass, clover, insects, worms, etc and those fed a commercial feed. "In 2003, Pennsylvania State University researchers reported that birds kept on pasture produced three times more omega-3s in their eggs than birds raised in cages on a commercial diet. They also found twice as much vitamin E and 40 percent more vitamin A in the yolks of the pastured birds." (Mother Earth News) Last year, I personally contacted Lou Raffel, the chairman of the American Egg Board, and aksed what studies had been done to warrant the AEB statement. He didn't know of any, but said he would check. The USDA got involved. After a month of back and forth emails between me, him and Dr Richard Reynnels of the USDA, the AEB did change the statement to make it "less misleading" than before. However that lasted only a few months and the original false statement was recently put back up when their Web Site was revamped. To sit on the Board of Directors of the American Egg Board, one must operate a facility of at least 75,000 chickens which means that the smaller range operators are not represented at all. The commercial operators see the small range operators as a threat, and therefore are willing to give faulty information to protect their industry from a consumer shift to better quality eggs. BTW, Mr Rafeel can be emailed at LRaffel@aeb.org ------

Now now Foggy, lets not start throwing rocks ..... Didn't I say "just for fun ?" ...

I think Craig needs go a bit deeper than food or money. CK, Would you help an "unbeliever" the same as you would Craig ? Luk 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. Luk 6:32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. Luk 6:33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. Luk 6:34 And if ye lend [to them] of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. Luk 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and [to] the evil.

Concering information from the Rave Diet, Safari posted: Safari, you didn't come outright and say it so I will. The Rave Diet is strictly vegetarian. No animal products period. No eggs, no cheese, no milk, no meat of any kind including fish: No Refined foods No Animal foods No Vegetable oils No Exceptions That out of the way, I would like to see the data that supports the "fact" that beef would cost $90 per pound if not for government subsidies. Let's do some math. IN 2002, Americans consumed an average of 67.6 lbs of beef per capita at an average price of $3 per pound. Thefore goverment subsidies amount to $87 according to the fact above. So thats 300 million people x 67.6 lbs x $87 for a total $1.76 trillion in beef subsidies. This is close to the entire federal budget. So you see why I would like to see the data? On another note: Attributing the cause of certain diseases to foods only the wealthy can afford beef (meat) in this case is based upon casual observation and has only a small shread of fact in it. However using this as the basis of the conclusion that the consumption of "meat" or animal products is the cause of many modern diseases, ignores many other important facts. Foods from animal products such as meat, milk, cheese, butter, etc have been an integral part of a diets that have sustained generally healthy civilizations for thousands of years. Cancer, diabetes and Coronary Heart Diesase were relatively unheard of until after the turn of the 20th century. This is when "Crisco" began to replace lard, margarine began to replace butter, Fresh whole milk became homoginized and pasturized. Meats got hormomes and antibiotics. Our farms and fields got covered with petsicides & herbicides. In the 50's coconut oil was replaced with hydrogenated soy and other previously unmarketable vegetable oils. Refined sugar consumption increased 100 fold. Chemical preservatives became commonplace. If historically, we could show that an increase of animal product consumption correlates to the rise of these diseases and we had a historical vegetarian model where these diesease were rare or absent, then we might have a case for a strict vegetarian diet. However such is not the case. We have more of the opposite. Animal products have been unfairly demonized as the culprits when the facts and good science just don't warrant it. I think it is much more likely that processed vegetable oils(trans fats), consumption of refined sugars, and processed foods in general -- along with the almost total elimination of things like fresh whole milk, tropical oils, etc are the more likely culprits. A diet that eliminates all animal products, deprives the body of some of nature's most valuable food sources. When I say animal products, I mean whole unprocessed milk. Eggs from range chickens, & meat free from chemicals, hormones, etc. Comparing todays processed animal products with those of prior to 1900 is like comparing apples to oranges.

Cute picture. It tells an interesting story - especially as how it may or may not relate to Greasepot. But I need some "clarification" ...... It could be perceived that this picture was posted in an clever attempt to portray the majority of GS'rs as viscious dogs, eager and ready to pounce on a cute little innocent diddy dat ( new poster or someone whose opinion is not among the majority). Is this picture post "throwing rocks" at the evil viscious dogs of Greasespot, or is is just simply humor? Maybe the kitty is needlessly worried and is only imagining that it is walking through the valley of the shadow of death (where the dogs lie in wait to do evil.) -- Maybe the dogs aren't really evil, and just want to play with the cute lilttle diddy dat? Just for fun .......

Now Now Kathy, That is dangerously close to what might possibly be perceived as "throwing stones". Let's be very careful not to say anything that might give the slightest the impression that we are "throwing stones" at this new poster. I am sure he will come back and clarify that for us. Probably just a misunderstanding on my part ...

Then again, some things are so obvious they don't need any clarification. Like the potshot taken earlier in this thread: "...put up with the opinions of some of the most damaged people our country". How much "clarification" do you really need here? -- Gimme a freaking break ...

Welcome back to GS -- .Stick around. -- You should fit right in.

I think that calling what happened a "vile bashing" and "throwing stones" may be a somewhat exaggerated if not misguided portrayal of the situation. The fact that someone is honest in sharing an experience should not make their opinions off bounds for discussion or disagreement. Certainly everyone that posts here should be entitled to their opinions whether or not is is GSPC. However that entitlement should not go so far as to disenfranchise the opinions of those who might disagree.

Safari, A potato has "about the same protein as a hamburger" ? Lets break that down a bit. Have you done it? A baked potato has about 1 gram of protein per ounce, while ground beef has about 7 grams per ounce. For a baked potato to have the same amount of protein as a hamburger with only a three ounce beef patty it would need to weigh about 21 ounces. That's about 1 1/3 lbs. So to get that "fact" we have to compare a small hamburger with a huge potato. Now, lets make the hamburger patty more reasonable in size, say 5.3 ounces (1/3 lb). For a potato to match that in protein it would have to weigh about 2 1/3 lbs. To get that "fact" when we use a more reasonable sized burger, we need a enomous potato that almost no one could eat. But yeah, its a "large baked potato" and therefore qualifies as a "fact" - only quite a bit misleading. Why must these commercial diet promoters stretch the facts so much?

Abigail, The problem is we don't really know what is actually healthy. We have been told that saturated fats are "bad" for us and cause heart disease, cancer and obesity. But our ancestors did and many cultures today do live on a diet that is rich in saturated fats with little instance of any of these diseases. Did you know that real butter consists of mostly medium chain fats that are not stored in the body, but instead are directly converted to energy? That margarine is high in trans fats that can pack the weight on? Whole milk is the same as butter. There is very little instance of heart disease or obesity in tropical cultures that consume large amounts butter, whole milk, red meats and tropical oils like coconut oil or palm oil. We have been told that dietary cholesterol is bad and causes heart disease, when well known government funded studies (Framingham, and others) show that dietary cholesterol does not raise blood cholesterol levels, and neither is cholesterol the cause of heart disease. As a result of the misinformation millions of people avoid eggs - one of nature's finest foods -- And mIllions of people are taking statin drugs to lower something that is necessary and vital to life. Good for Merck and Lilly - no so good for us. I am skeptical too of fad diets and pseudo-science diets. I don't recomend them. The info on the Rave Diet Web Site is so vague that I would need to see the actual diet. I am suspicious or any diet that claims to reverse heart disease or cure diabetes. I suspect it is basically vegetarian and if it is, I would not recomend it unless at least 20-30 percent of the calorie intake is from necessary saturated fats like butter, whole milk,fish, coconut oil, etc. The Oiling of America Anyway, consdering the misinformation they have provided us, I don't think we should look to the USDA or the FDA , the Drug Companies or the Soy Bean Council - to learn what is healthy. (I am not saying that you do) . But lots of folks certainly do. Why the Current US Dietary Guidelines Are Making Americans Fat

Who's "Prime Directive? I agree though, "love" [sic] was indeed equated with the movement of "the word" [sic]. Many of us did did indeed mistakenly equate God's love with promoting & selling PFAL classes. How much of "the Word" was really "moved" is highy debatable.

Alan, it was much more than "disagree strongly". Strong disagreement is not necessarily accompanied with arrogance, smug elitism, condemnation, and ridicule ( among other things). Jesus did not exhibit these things when he "strongly disagreed".

I would think that the onus to motivate change in TWI would most effectively originate at the rank-and-file level. But, they first have to see the need for change and be willing to do something about it. Mr Pipes, having recently left, may have something to say about the general attitude of the rank and file remaing in TWI. Are they generally content, or are they generally discontent? Do they see a need for change? While non-Corps may not be perceived as "leaders" by the BOD - they are the life-blood of the organization. They suppy the money and the meeting places that allow the organization to continue in its current mode. I am guessing that it would take no less than an organized mass revolt of the rank & file to effect any real change in TWI. Even then, the BOD could just run everyone off and play church with the "remnant" that would undoubtedly stay - while holding on to their 60 million or so. You also have to ask the question: Even if real change is attempted, is TWI actually salvagable as a Christian ministry? My guess is that it is not.

"Hate" seems pretty stong Belle. I speak for myself and my time from 77 - 82. How about "dislike to the point of ridicule"? Did it evolve to actual hatred later on? In any case, even back in the good old daze, it seems that "love" [sic] was reserved only for those within that complied - and for those prospects who might potentially sign a green card.