Goey

Rafael, HOw can you even suggest that The Amazing Sea Monkeys are "silly" ? To many folks they are very real and border upon being the very meaning or essence of life itself. Prepare yourself for some serious reproof from fundamentalist ASMB's (Amazing Sea Monkey Believers.)

Dorothy, Nope, not at all. What a gross misrepresentation there Dorothy! If you had much of a clue about me you would know that that was not true at all. I welcome spirited debate and diverse opinions. Yet I am not afraid to call them as I see them. I don't expect anyone here to think like I do. But I do expect someone who freely shares his own opinions about how others think, and presents himself as a cult expert, to not whine and come of so puffy when others speculate about his thinking. And yes, it does bug me a bit that Refiner, who has absolutely no background in TWI is now one of the most prolific posters here at GS, and he starts topics like "Why I Reject Jesus".

Refiner, Now ain't that the pot calling the kettle black? Here is a fellow who has offered numerous opinions on what how people think, opinions on a cult he was never involved in - yet when one dares offer a "guess" about his thinking he whines in protest! Come now .. Refiner, are you really here to learn and understand others opinions like you said? It seems kind of doubtful to me considering you are posting on a site where you are basically an outsider, with no background in TWI - and you are starting topics like "Why I reject Jesus" in a place like GS cafe? Goey

Garth, Your reply makes my point as to why these discussion are generally fruitless. For example you gloss over or make fun of my point about what the meaning of "badly" was back then, showing your (intentional?) ignorance of OT culture and your lack of willingness to do any actual investigation - and then simply declare it "lame" by fiat... Think it through Garth - use your brain instead of your emotions. I could hardy think that debate with you on this would be anymore than trying have a civil conversation a mud fence. I find your style childish and annoying anyway - Certainly not conducive to intelligent and thoughtful discussion. And what's up with all the strawman stuff about atheists in prision or on death row and religious people and crime? It is irrelevant.

From my own Christian prospective I have no problem with the mean old cruel God of the OT. The atheist/agnostics complaints seem to usually point to the same OT stuff and the "victims" are usually portrayed as "innocent". Little if any effort is usually made understand the historical and cultural context of the offensive events. Also, the events are mostly viewed in the context of a feel-good modern western view of what folks think God ought to be. Take the the little "innocent" children that were mauled by the she bears in 2 Kings. I bet not one of you critics has done an inkling of study of the historical, cultural or religious context of the events leading up to this one. I bet you don't know or don't even want to know these things. That is why these kind of debates are usually fruitless. Would it matter if I pointed out that these were not actually little kids but actually young men up to 30 years old? Would it matter if I pointed out that calling Elisha a "baldy" was tantamount to the complete rejection amd mockery of God himself - Or that these young men (and their parent's) were worshipers of Baal? -- Or that Baal worshippers sacrificed their own sons in fire and sold their own daughters into prostitution? Refiner, no disrespect intended but I serioulsly doubt that you made your decision to reject Christ and ultimately God purely based upon reading the OT and seeing the verses you mentioned in your original post. Atheists have been using these same verses to argue the unfairness and cruelty of God for a long time, yet they seldom seem seek to understand what could have been the reasoning behind these "cruel" events. Many atheists/agnostics and anti-Judeao- Christians will define God in terms of what they think he should be (nice, sweet, warm fuzzy, non-jugemental, non violent at whatever the price, non-demanding, etc and then take these verses out of context to show that the God that they don't even believe in - is mean, cruel, and unfair and not worth worshipping. Or that since their unlearned perception of the God of the Bible does not meet their imagined dream God that He must not exist or is too mean, cruel and unfair to believe in. My guess is that your revelation of the biblical events you mentioned you came after your rejection of Jesus and God, and are being used as justification for a decision you had already made. My guess is that your rejection of God and Jesus runs much deeper than a few verses in the OT that when taken out of context seem to show God as mean and cruel, but probably has a lot more to do with your negative experiences with cults, and with "Christian's" that misrepresent God and Jesus. Suffice it to say, I find the athesist/agnostic arguments weak at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Unfortunatly at times, I find some Christian rebuttals just as weak and intellectually dishonest.

This is not factual. There are millions of Christians in communist China. Where did you get the notion that there were no Christians in China?

VPW taught that the people who where Paul's thorns were mostly those who were trying to Judaize the gentile Christian's. This seems doctrinally sound to me. But, VPW getting incensed over someone saying that Paul's thorn was that Paul was a sex pervert seems rather ironic since it has been revealed that VPW himself was a sex pervert. I wonder what was going through VPW's mind when he was getting incensed about what someone said about Paul, knowing that there were many young girls that he himself had already sexually exploited - and new ones yet to conquer. Oh, and yes some have speculated that Paul's thorn was sexual in nature. Bishop John S. Spong, a gay rights advocate in the Episcopal (Anglican) Church, speculates and writes that Paul was possibly a repressed homosexual. Was the Apostle Paul Gay?

According to these verses those WE should have Marked and Avoided TWI's leadership (BOD and cronies) long before they ever implemented the practice.

Danny, Yeah, I was witnessed to by a babe in a bar.Danny, do you remember the name of that bar there in Baton Rouge where I was first witnessed to? Was it Jesters? I recall a bar with a small dance floor and dancing with your roomate "F--- N--- " who then invited me over to your place on Edson St. for a "bible study" the next week. I got there about 10 minutes late and y'all almost didn't let me in! Wow, that was over 25 years ago ... Bill

WhiteDove, WD, I am not speaking for the offshots in general, only those who may divide themselves and establish a hierarchy of clergy at the top and laity at below that. If they don't do this then fine. The three main offshoots that I am aware of seem to do this. However, since there are so many little offshoots from TWI, am sure there are those that don't do this. My purpose though was not to throw rocks at "all" offshoots, but rather offer my prospective a (biblical one I hope) concerning ordination as it is commonly practiced throughout most of organized Christianity. The system as it is commonly used lends itself to abuse. So what I will say then concerning "all" TWI offshoots is, if the shoe fits ... Whitedove, if I had wanted to say that, I would have - I didn't and I am not saying that at all. My paper was not directed at offshoots in particular but of all Christianity that supports an non-biblical clergy-laity division. There are no hidden implications in the paper. Those who know me well, understand that I seldom if ever use absolutes like "all" or "no". So the broad statement you think I may have made, I didn't. I am not here to condemn "all" offshoots. However, I think any Christian that attends a church of any kind including the TWI offshoots would do well to consider the paper I wrote, or even to do their own objective study concerning ordination and the clergy - laity division.

Ordination as it is practiced today in TWI, the offshoots and in Christianity in general is non-biblical. The church was never supposed to be divided in to a ruling class "clergy" and an obedient following class of "laity". Here is an article I wrote several years ago on this. Traditional Ordination

I did quite a bit of work with lexicions and texts. And saw quite a few problems. I was on of those renegades that never really swallowed everything that VPW taught. Well maybe at first, but soon after taking te PFAL class and doing independant study I began to see where Wierwille did not use his own keys to research very well at all. At the time, my observations and protests were usually meet by my peers with looks of disgust or of condescending pity.

Wondering, I bet you saw a copy of "Rise and Expansion of the Christian Church". Maybe it was reprinted with a new revision date. I would be quite surprised if LCM wrote any new books since being defrocked. Please find out the name of the book you saw and let us know. It would be news indeed if Martindale has a new book out and that TWI is publishing it. Insurgent, do you know anything about this?

Wierwille makes his case for man having no spirit after the original sin through a process of inductive logic. First he take verses in Genesis 1 & 2 and Isaiah 43:7 and make large distinctions between made, formed, and created, which he then corleates with body, soul, and spirit in 1 Thessalonians 5:23. Then from Genesis 2:17 he builds further, "...for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" Wierwille notes that Adam and Eve continued to live and breathe after they ate from the tree, but that Genesis 2:17 clearly states that in the day - that very same day that Adam and Eve would die. So the only possible conclusion is that the body and soul remained alive but the spirit the he created within them "died" on the very same day that they ate. The truth of the conclusion is dependant upon the premises being correct. So I would first question the distinctions Wierwille makes between made, formed, and created. Create = bara made = asah Formed = yatsar A look at "bara" will show a fallacy in Wierwille's logic. Take Isaiah 43:7 for example. It reads: "[Even] every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory , I have formed him; yea, I have made him. This was written after the fall of man - yet God says that every one call by his name is "created" - which according to Wierwille's definitions would mean that they had spirit - which he claims they do not have. In Psalm 51:10 David writes: "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me." Why would David ask God to "create" in regards to the heart which VPW correlates to the soul. He also says "within" in regards to to a right spirit instead of "upon". It seems the "spirit" David is refering to is his heart(soul). David does not seem to make the same distinction between soul and spirit as Wierwille. Psalm 89:47 reads: "Remember how short my time is: wherefore hast thou made all men in vain?" In this verse, "made" is translated from "bara"(create) which could be translated created all men in vain. This according to Wierwille would imply that all men had "spirit" ... Made and Create ie bara and asha are used synonomously in many places throughout the scriptures. IMO, Wierwille's distinction between made and create is eroneous as is evident from looking at the many other usages of "bara" and "asah" in scripture. This should be reason enough to seriuosly question the validity of Wierwilles conclusion that man had no spirit from Genesis to Pentecost.

Refiner, Wierwille attempts to explains "spirit upon" on page 78 & 79 of PFAL. Wierwille's "spirit upon" theory fails his own definition, because Wierwille states that God cannot speak to the human mind becase He is spirit and spirit cannot communicate with flesh. Well, the spirit upon is also "spirit". Why can't God who is spirit speak to the human mind when the spirit that he gives can? His "Law" is contradictory. Makes no sense at all.

Whoever taught that was ignorant of the Bible. And where in the Bible does it say that? In Acts 8:26 an angel of the Lord speaks to Phillip and give him directions. Philip was already saved. In Acts 12 an angel busts Peter out of jail. Peter was already saved. Trefor is right. So much was taught concering devil spirits that any teachings about angels were easy to miss. TWI could give intricate details about devils spirits - names and kinds and exactly how they operate, but very little was ever mentioned concerning angels where they now fit in.

First, this would really only apply to the dictation theory of "theopneustos", which basically says that God gave the writers each word that they wrote or even each letter in each word. It presumes that a writer could not have misspelled a word or made a grmamatical error. Second, it also blindly presumes that the canon of scripture given us is also inerrant - that is that people that decided what books are included or excluded in the canon of scripture from which our bible are translated were inerrant/infallible in their decision. I think both positions are untenable. The Word of God is not the paper and ink. It is the ideas and precepts that are contained within and transmitted by the words on the pages.

Nice folks or not, if they solcit money from ex-wafers without even giving their names, backgrounds, credentials, etc, then they are fair game for Internet conversation. Why the secrecy? Per their website, the LTA is all about the secular education of children. Unless I missed it there is nothing there about Biblical Research Centers or moving the Word. However, the same group soliciting donations to build a Biblical Research Center that replicates the one from the good old days of TWI seems like a conflict of sorts amd makes me wonder what they are really up to. If I send money to LTA will it go directly to educating children, or will some of it go to some ex-TWI corps/leader's non-profit attempt to re-create the good old days of TWI-1, with Wierwillian type books, classes, and a BRC? In other words do they keep the funds separate? Is this really about educating children or is is about moving "The Word" ? I might would donate LTA for the education of children, but I would certainly not want to unknowlingly finance another TWI offshoot down in Belize complelte with a BRC, classes, books, SNS tapes, etc. If LTA is Christiain ministry hoping to move the Word in Belize and they also want to operate schools as a charity that's fine. It's a lot more than TWI ever did. But 'IF' that is what they are doing then I think they should come right out and say it. Let's hope they are not mispreresenting what their true goals are on Website.

George, VPW was a "doctor" with a ThD. He knew the keys becasue God spoke to him. This was part of the hook in PFAL. VPW convinced us that he was smarter and more spiritual than we were. How could we question a a great researcher with a ThD, that was taught by God himself? If what VPW said didn't make sense it was becuause we were not smart enough or not spiritual enough to see it. - Or so we were lead to believe.

Hi Tom, Good to see ya.

Zix, Out of curiosity what router did you order? I see one from Linksys(RV042)for about $150. 99 bucks seems like a real bargain. Goey

There are a lot of myths concerning the consumption of fats - particularty saturated fats. Not all fats are equal. Medium and short chain saturated fats are actually quite healthy and do not clog arteries as presumed by many. Butter is a great source of lecithin, short and medium chain faty acids, viatmins, selenium and lauric acid. The body can absorb vitamin A from vegetables much better if they have been sauteed in butter. Margerine will do more to clog your arteries than will butter. Lard is an excellent source of stearic acid and oelic acid which are actually good for the heart. Egg yolks are very high in lecithin (choline) and naturally digestable fats. They are also an excellent source of leutine, protein and trace minerals. The fat in clogged arteries is about 25 percent saturated fat. The majority is made up of 75 percent unsaturated fat - about half of which are polyunsaturated fats. Much of the data still relied upon concerning saturated fats and clogged arteries originated from a very flawed study done in the 50's by a researcher named Ancel Keys. The study did not take into account the consumption of refined sugars or hydrogenated fats which are probaby the real culprits in clogged arteries. Time will tell if diets such as this Polish Optimal Diet are a joke or not. It does not surprise me that "doctors" don't endorse this kind of diet either, seeing that most are generally not trained in nutrition and have bought into most of the myths concerning saturated fats and cholesterol.

I was in TWI from 76 - 82. I heard some "suggestions" about music, which I basically ignored as either stupd or ignorant. But no one ever told me to get rid of anything I had. Then again few folks actually knew what I had - Beatles, Led Zepplin, Pink Floyd, Joe Walsh, Eagles, Stones, etc. I don't recall buying but one TWI album. IMO, most of it was too amateurishly done for me to take very seriously.

WG, I was started on statin drugs Zocor/Lipitor after a heart attack and discovery of blockage and elevated cholesterol. They can reduce cholesterol levels. They can also produce terrible side effects as you have seen. But is cholesterol itself the problem? I don't think so. The majority of the information that doctors rely on about cholesterol as it related to heart disesase is provided to them by the companies that manufacture the drugs. High choloesterol does not necessarily relate to heart disease. A person can have high cholesterol levels never have blocked arteries or heart disease. Studies have shown that there is a higher incidence of heart diesase in those with high cholesteror than those with normnal levels arteries blocked arteries. However this does not mean that all folks with high cholesterol will get blocked arteries or that those with low levels will not. A person with normal cholesterol levels can have severely clogged arteries. What the medical community has done, with the encourabement of Pfizer, Merck and other drug companies is to treat ALL folks having elevated cholestoral as if they will get heart disease. They are treating a statisic and not a patient. It's like aimng and firing a shotgun at a flock of birds when trying to shoot only one or two. From what I have gathered, more important than total cholesterol is the ratio of LDL (Bad) to HDL (Good). A low HDL cholesterol level is probably more of a predictor of coronarary artery diesease than elevated total cholesterol. Statin drugs are powerful. They can dammage the liver and cause numerous other side effects, such as headaches, rashes, leg pain and extreme tiredness. Many times these side effects are ignored by the doctors or are treated as separated problems. So the drug companies get you with both the statin drugs and then whatever is prescribed to address the side effects - and for what? To treat a statistic and a risk factor while they make a buck or two per day off of each person on these expensive drugs. WG, search the Internet. Read the information on both sides of the cholesterol issue. Be careful though - both sides will twist the facts and statistic to make thier respective cases. The docs just follow what the drug companies and the AHA tell them. From my personal experienece with both Zocor and Lipitor, after 6 years they have not prevented the progression of my coronary artery disease - I will be having arterial graft surgery (aortbifemoral bypass) in 10 days to bypass blocked arteries in my legs. Also, I feel much better when I do not take them. If your rash was casued by the Lipitor, it should eventuallty clear up. If I were you I would look to other ways to address the cholesterol issue.

It seems that acess to any of the forums now requires registration.