Goey

Mark - Oak, It seems that the vast majority of Christians have blindly accepted the canon without so much as a question. To many, possibly like RG and Shoenheit, and many other research heavies, the canon is a sacred cow - not to be questioned. Personally I have doubts that some what is included in the Bible (NT) is "god-breathed" at all as in direct from the mouth of God. Other writing that may have been excluded - like Enoch, Tolbit, and others, (even if not god- breathed) can certainly be quite informative and usefull - and were even historically read in the early Church gatherings. Think about it. If the goal is to make things "fit like a hand in a glove", then for example, removing the book of James from the canon eliminates the argument/contradiction of "faith vs works" which basically is what Luther tried to do. Luther also rejected Revelation. Other problems can be eliminated by removing the Pauline Epistles as simply personal letters from Paul represting Pauls opinions(as many others have done). I am not suggesting that the canon be rejected, but rather that it be explored and not be looked at as a sacred cow beyond question. Who gave these 4th century churchmen the right to decide for us today and forever - what is God-breathed and what is not?

For those of us who believe that the Bible reveals the way of "salvation", I think it would be prudent to take a look at what others (like this fellow teach). TWI gave a very simple "formula" for becoming "saved" and I doubt that it encompases the whole of salvation. TWI minimized repentance (change) among other things, and reduced salvation to a simple confession of Romans 10:9-10. Personally I think there is a bit more to it than that. I do not see where understanding and teaching salvation in a certain way, is being "judgmental" in the least - except possibly to those who reject the Bible or Christianity in general or even the idea of "salvation" itself. To these folks, it seems that any notion of "salvation" that is not all inclusive is "judgmental" or "devisive", yet their own self-conceived "truth" excludes Christinity or any other religion that claims a specific path to enlightenment, and seems to judge others even more harshly than they themselves are being "judged".

Posted by RG: RG, I fail to see anything that could back up your statements unless I take "official" to mean "accepted". Even then there is no one accepted canon among Christians. First, who says that the bishops and cardinals of the 4th century church got it 100 percent correct when they decided which books would be in the NT canon and which would not? I speak of the 3rd Council of Carthage which happens to only have been a regional council. If you don't want to decide for yourself, that's fine. But as for, me after studying to canon and it formation, I reserve the right to decide for myself which books I believe to be inspired and which ones I do not. I see nothing at all (exept blind acceptance) that limits this generation from deciding which books get in and which don't.

Here Ya Go ...

TWI (meaning it's current and former top leaders) will never listen. Their consciences have been seared. But if they could listen and would act, I would have them open their books (all 5 sets) for say the last 30 years, and then turn themselves in to the U.S. Attorney General while freely admitting their criminally fraudulent practices. TWI Inc. should then be dissolved, the money distibuted fairly, and the responsible leaders tried for their crimes by a jury of their peers. (No Plea Bargaining). Those found guilty should be held personally liable, fined, and then sent to prison for the maximun allowable terms.

Because like VPW the Emporia "teachers" were also hipocrites. In one breath trinitarians were condemned as evil, possessed scumbags and in the next, many of their teachings were held up to support and give credibility to select TWI doctrines. I wonder how all these evil, possessed Trinitarians, were able to come up with the canon of scripture (accepted by TWI) - translate the scriptures, and produce 99 percent of everything that VPW/TWI ever taught?

If it's in a book or on the Internet then it must be true .... -->

Posted by What The Hay: WTH, Where did you get this "data" ? From something that VPW wrote or had written about himself? It seems about as credible as Wierwille's "snowstorm" and some of the other myths and lies he told. No one mentions that he was "invited" to Oxford, because it cannot be substantied anymore than the snow on the gas pumps. The fact that Pike's Peak Theological Seminary was not accredited by any known accrediting authority CAN be substantied.

Danny, Praying for you my friend ... Can I have some of that lemonade ? Bill

Posted by Sky4It:

Today, circumcision in the West, outside of Judaism, is pretty much meaningless except for the (debatable and questionable) health benefits. It seems that infant curcumcision in the West among non Jews became prevalent in Victorian time as a "cure" for the sin of masturbation. According to surgeon and sexaphobic Dr. E.J. Spratling ( 1895): Doctors like Spratling, believed that male masturbation caused everything from TB to heart disease - not to mention blindness and those pesky hairs growing on the palms. Here's another Doctors assessment of the situation in 1888: Of course there is also the "hygenic" argument which I think is just an afterthought and excuse for continuing the practice. So now to the actual topic - Is it possible that the Jews "invented" the story of Abraham and the covenant God made with him, in order to spread the same kind of ignorance that Western culture did begining in the Victorian era? Possible I suppose, but I kind of doubt it. What about Sky4it's specualtion concerning OT circumcision as being "God's way of saying, don't commit adultry, don't defile yourself or your neighbor." Possible maybe, but I think that is reading a bit too much into it as well. As I read the OT after Abraham, it doesn't seem to me that male circumcision did much at all to prevent the Jewish men from commiting adultery, or defiling themselves or their neighbors. So if God instituted it for that reason - it doesn't seem to have worked. I see nothing in the scripture that implies that circumcision had anything specifically to do with sexual purity. I do not see this as "insanely obvious" at all. Insanely obvious? Isn't that kind of like saying if you don't see what I see and understand it my way that you are insanely ignorant? Anyway, If it were God's way of saying to folks to be sexually pure, then it would seem to me that it would have been commanded done at an age where the person had a sense of morality, rather than upon infants with no absolutely no sense of morality whatsoever. It also seems to me that if there were a sexual moral lesson involved with circumcision that it would at least be hinted at in the scripture if not spelled out plainly that this were the reason.

Johniam Posted: No one can do it all? -- Now that's a non-answer/dodge if I have ever seen one. I am not "attacking" CES, but rather asking a legitimate question. Have they taken the same stand as TWI and rejected the concept of helping folks with physical/emotional needs? Do they, like TWI, think that the only way to truly help folks is by giving them "The Word" like it has not been known since the first century? Johniam, this could only really be (mis)construed as an "attack" if the answer is a defensive yes. Is that the answer? BTW the "form" of TWI that I am complaining about is their blatant rejection of the Words of Jesus Christ in regards to helping people with their physical/emotional needs, errantly believing and teaching that a class or a tape that teaches "The Word" is the solution to all human needs. No one, and certainly not me,(as you have implied) has said here that Jesus said that "widows, poor, and needy are the only ones who need God's word." - that is missing the point completely - what I am saying is that scripture alone is never enough. People need have other needs as well. And if CES or any other Christian organization is promoting a notion that denies or ignores these oither needs, then my assessment is that the organization is of men and not "of God".

Posted by Johniam: Johniam that's not a point at all - it's a presumption. Anyone could make the same claim about their neat little religious package when it is attacked or when it fails. How do you know what "these people" do or don't do? How much time have you spent with "these people"? Seems like you are drawing a conclusion based upon - well, nothing really except maybe Wierwillian and related religious propaganda that says that "theology" is bad.How many widows did TWI attend to? How many poor/needy did they cloth and feed? What are the folks associated with CES "DOING"? Is the "doing" just getting people into the "Word" according to CES so they can buy tape and classes so they can get others into the word according to CES and buy tapes and classes? Or is there a higher purpose? - Like actually helping folks in need?

You'd pretty much have to pay me to go to a live concert these days. The high pathetically high prices that these greedy musicians demand, the large crowds, bad parking, and poor acoustics - it just aint worth it to me. 100 - 300 bucks to see a bunch of old farts performing tunes from the 70's? The music sounds so much better through a good stereo system in my living room - and the price is right. For live music, I would much rather go to one of the free concerts in the park,a music festival, or to a small night club. No football staduims and crappy acoustics for me. (UNless Elvis, Hendrix or Joplin made comebacks.)

Posted By Mike: Mike, If it didn't work while the great master Wierwille was alive and in charge of "The Ministry" - then what makes you think that it can work now?

Posted By PR: "...When the Feds bring an indictment, it won't be for only the bot. It will be for all the staffers and fellowship coordinators also." Pat, how do you figure that? Why on earth would the feds want to indict a unwitting little Home Fellowship Coordinator, who you have already implied by the title of this thread, is in the dark and being fed crap by the BOT? If anyone is ever indicted (and that is a very big if), it would most likely be be the BOT and former BOT members, Country Cordinators,and Limb leaders and folks like John Linder - not the little folks who have no knowledge of the inner workings of TWI. But, in any case, in the event of a criminal investigation or criminal charges, the BOD would probably never spend money on legal fees for anyone other than themselves - if the law will even allow them to do that.

If you actually look at the intial responses, there were a lot of "welcomes", and "thank yous" mixed in with with some tough and not so tough questions. If you look at the first 20 or so posts (initial response) there are just as many positive or neutral responses as negative ones. I think is is unreasonalable to expect a red carpet welcome by everyone here. In fact, the inital response was much better than I expected. I personally have no set opinion of JAL or CES but he certainly will not gain any respect from me if he does not return and take on some of the tougher questions. Mr. Lynn, come back and take on some of the tough stuff and show the "bitter and angry" folks here what you are really made of. You may not get a whole lot of converts, but I suspect that a quite a bit of good could come of it, to you personally, to CES, and to many of the folks here at GS.

After reading John Lynn's opening post, did anyone really expect that he would actually entertain dialog here at GS? It seems pretty clear to me that he will only entertain dialog on his terms. I would be surprised if he showed back up here with anything more than a canned response that does not specifically address any of the qestions/comments in this thread. But hey, I could be wrong.

Well, someone needs rejecting ...

Hi, Thanks to God, AA, and my own willingness and hard work, I celebrated 15 years of sobriety on July 13th. There is nothing in AA that dissallows Jesus Christ as a part of your "program". However many folks have been burned or percieve to have been burned by Christianity that it sometimes "seems" like AA is anti-Christian. ( A few AA folks are indeed anti-Christian and are less tolerant than the Christian's they despise) I once attend an AA meeting in Chicago, where a person was called down by the meeting "chairperson" for saying that Jesus was his higher power, but others were allowed to say anything they wanted about their "higher power". Interesting for an organizatin that started out by hittng folks over the head with the Bible ( figurtatively) AA's Big Book says that it is "God as we (individually) understand him". So that allows for a person to adopt any concept of God or a higer power that a person wishes, including a door knob, nature, Allah or Jesus. No concept of God or of a higher power, according to AA's "Big Book" or other official material, is disallowed or promoted. You decide for yourself. I think the whole idea here is that alcohol, drugs, etc is kicking your butt and you need to get humble and admit that you can't shake it alone, and that help must come from a power greater that yourself ( whatever you conceive that power to be). Yeah, some AA groups can be a bit cultish where some enthusisastic and misguided members attempt to define God for everyone else, but I don't pay much attention to those folks. And hey, if the group holds hands as says the Lord's Prayer at the end of the meeting, just leave the meeting before that starts. That's what I used to do. And some AA members seem to try to (and do) make the group itself the higher power not only for themselves but for everyone else as well. These are the folks who after 10 years of sobriety think they will get drunk and die if they don't attend 5 AA meetings per week. (Meeting dependants I like to call them). But better that than having them drunk and on the streets driving. I dont pay much attention to these folks either. I guess what I am saying is that each AA or 12 step group has it's own "flavor" and like most other religious organizations there will be zealots and power mongers who try to run the show (especially in the larger groups). However, in spite of it's flaws AA has probably been responsible for more folks recovering from Alcohol and Drug abuse than anything out there, including well meaning Christain organizations. I highly reccomend AA for anyone who wants to quit abusive drinking and druging, especially when it is messing up their lives. But for those whose haven't "hit bottom" yet, nothing seems to work to well, including AA and other 12 step programs. Usually is is pretty futile to try to convince an alcoholic to quit drinking when they don't think they have a drinking problem.

A "vehicle in the body of Christ" ? Gimme a break. Isn't it interesting that few if any who defend Momentus offers any pertinant details about it - Like how it originated, what is involved, who the trainers are, etc. They only, seem to say "well it helped me" or "if you haven't taken it you shouldn't talk bad about it" or someting like that. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I hear that there is a lot of screaming and yelling, insults, fowl language, etc. If this is the case, it seems unlikely to me that Momentus has any place in the body of Christ. It seems more like a secular invention designed to motivate people by questionable means towards a certain predefined cause. It seems like a form of hard core behavior modification adminstered by folks not qualified in either psycology or religion. If what I have read about it is true, I doubt that Monentus training ahd it's methods can be supported biblically, which is probably why no one tries. It is interesting to me that something like Momentus is used by folks who have claimed that their objective is "Freedom through Scriptural Accuracy".

Satori, Good to see you back...

Someone forgot to take their meds. This has got to be a joke, right?

I contacted Matt Slick several years ago to in an effort to correct these errors. We had dialog via 5 or so emails. He was not interested in the facts. With him the result justified the means to get there. The man is not credible at all, and sees himself as being called to expose cults, even if he has to lie or distort the facts to do so.

I think the real question is were the Corps folks qualified to do what they were sent to do. While I was not in TWI after 82, my observation was that very few Way Corps met the minimum standards for leaders as laid out in Timothty and Titus - not their fault necessarily, but you cannot buy a "ministry" through a paid for training program - TWI or anywhere else. Many folks were in it for all the wrong reasons, others had the desire and zeal, but the Way Corps training fell short of what they really needed to serve as ministers to God's people. Then there were those rare few who were truly called to serve, and whether trained in the Way Corps or not, found a way to serve in spite of the obstacles that TWI put in front of them.