Watered Garden
Members-
Posts
2,994 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Everything posted by Watered Garden
-
Actually, Bolshevik I think it was similar to what we experienced. LCM was louder and had less finesse, but he was the WC coordinator for years and helped train the limb leaders who did this to us. After the first "advance" I would have left but I didn't want to admit to my parents I'd screwed up and entered a cult, and then there was the fascinating Mr. Garden - I did want to be around him. WG
-
Garth, honey, I'm no expert in anything, except maybe translating medical mumblings into readable documents, but I witnessed the same incident that Waysider is talking about. It was so horrendous I have blocked large parts of it from my mind. So has the very stable Mr. Garden, who was one of the persecuted and can't remember a damn thing. They actually did this on two occasions, I think and Mr. Garden was involved in the first "advance." It just absolutely scared the living dang out of me. I remember being in a skit that weekend and I remember wearing white pants and blue top with lace trim, and I remember telling the snotty Branch Coordinator I wanted to go home and being told I was not permitted to do so. I remember crying and telling him how wrong it was. I remember being freezing cold and shivering throughout the whole thing. The young lady in question lived in the same apartment as me. She was an artistic personality, volatile, wonderful, aggravating and full of life. After that weekend she was dull, monotonous, as predictable as a metronome. She was always down on herself. She dressed in dull clothing. Later, before our wedding, I was able to do something for her that brought her real self to the surface, if only for a small while. God, I loved that girl. If I knew where she is or even if she is alive, I would be more than happy to track her down and take her to a psychologist I know who is very good with extremely traumatized people. This same professional thought I had been pretty well adversely affected mentally by TWI. Of course he didn't know me before, but my treatment brought out some pretty weird stuff. He was pretty amazed. So here again I offer no solid proof. I will be glad to do some research on the internet if that would help you. But honestly, Garth, I think it's hard to tell what is happening to the person next to you when it's happening to you at the same time. But she sure as heck snapped, if that's what they call it. And I'm no shrink, but I'm no dummy either. WG
-
What gets me going in the morning is a little dog who may well pee on the carpet if I don't rise and shine. And Mr. Garden who teaches kiddies then does landscaping part time for a relative - he deserves a decent breakfast. And the very first cup of freshly brewed Columbian Supremo - a former coworker called it "the virgin cup" - that I pour for myself whilst preparing that breakfast. And then, as 2Life says, "ya just never know what the day will bring!" On a more serious note, I guess I'm somewhat responsibility-oriented and just want to make the most of every new day. WG
-
I certainly never saw the stained glass portrait of "Our Lady of America" though it does seem some of the stained glass windows in the chapel had been replaced when we were briefly there in 1993. I would imagine had we been told of the apparitions there would have been no small stir, since TWI teaches that any apparitions or visions or whatever are devil spirit manifestations. I do recall that the stations of the Cross were portrayed in the little niches at the base of that hill and they had to be taken out because devil spirits were said to hang out around them. Actually, a gentle vision of Jesus's mom sounds a lot less menacing to me than the hell we went through there at the hands of those calling themselves God's special people. WG
-
Submission---Who has to do it?
Watered Garden replied to brideofjc's topic in Doctrinal: Exploring the Bible
I don't think there are clear cut rules and regulations in ANY relationship, let alone a marriage. Experiences, upbringing, teaching, faith, all play a part. You work out what works for the two of you. He decides where the money goes because he's GOOD at it; I pick out the color we paint the bedroom, where I work and for whom, what goes on the dinner table because that's what I'M good at. If I handled the finances we would live in a cheap apartment and drive a very nice car. If he did all the cooking, well, some things he's good at, but the curried potato soup was NOT a winner, except for the dog. We submit to each other in love. Christ is the head of the church, yet He washed his disciples' feet. He is our (Mr. Garden's and my) ultimate example of how to treat each other. WG -
Submission---Who has to do it?
Watered Garden replied to brideofjc's topic in Doctrinal: Exploring the Bible
You scared me there for a minute, Garth! :unsure: And I hope you are correct. I'm not ranting about Obama or gay marriage or anything else, okay? -
Submission---Who has to do it?
Watered Garden replied to brideofjc's topic in Doctrinal: Exploring the Bible
Oh, God not you too! Well in all honesty, I was basing that on personal experience and observation of the younger individuals with whom I reluctantly associate, namely my son, DIL, FDIL, FDIL's live-in boyfriend and future babydaddy, FDIL's sister and her boyfriend, Bristol P. etc etc. So I cannot give you, with mathematical exactness and scientific precision, a head count. It was a somewhat emotional statement, but then I'm not a Vulcan so I get emotional, and tired, and wish sometimes that the children would grow up, do their own laundry, pay their damn bills and leave me be for a while. Just tired that's all. And very discouraged. Sorry for the inaccuracy of my emotional statement not backed by facts, figures and so on. Maybe the 2010 census will handle this issue. Sorry if I offended. WG -
Submission---Who has to do it?
Watered Garden replied to brideofjc's topic in Doctrinal: Exploring the Bible
Actually, marriage IS a dying institution in this country. People meet, have babies, break up, find someone else, have another baby. And the beat goes on. A lot of women today who want a child do not want a two parent family. Just give me 23 chromosomes honey and be on your way. No commitment to each other, and in the long run no commitment to the child. The children are the losers. God didn't intend it this way. He set up a two parent family, the first one. Must have had His reasons. WG -
Tom - Neat! I bet we all looked a lot younger then! And thanks for the good wishes, everybody!
-
Submission---Who has to do it?
Watered Garden replied to brideofjc's topic in Doctrinal: Exploring the Bible
I would suggest being subject to one another in love is directed to the church, which includes everyone, married and single. As far as marriage, someone has to be the CEO, and at least in my situation Mr. Garden is better equipped to fill that position. This does not mean that he doesn't ask my thoughts, seek me out for discussion, suggestions and feedback. Being the head of the household is leadership, not dictatorship. In many Christian churches, Bible studies, classes, etc. the woman gets hammered with submission, obedience, keep your mouth shut and the house cleaned and the meals cooked kind of subjection. I've had Prov. 31:10-31 crammed down my face at least once a year since I was 28 years old, and the house still isn't perfectly immaculate. I actually took one class where this lady said that "The husband is the master, and the wife is his servant." :o Marriage isn't a job description with carefully delineated responsibilities that are completely separate from the other; it's a life. We are to be heirs TOGETHER of the grace of life. Men, that's God's daughter you are wedded to. How would YOU feel if some man treated your little girl like dirt, worked her like a slave, spoke rudely and disparagingly to her? Do you think God is going to applaud you if you treat HIS little girl like that? I think love and respect go together; Paul accentuates men loving their wives, and wives respecting their husbands, but nowhere does he state that one cancels out the other. I see nowhere that I am to respect my husband, but not to love him; I see nowhere that he is to love me but be very disrespectful. At the least that is NOT how we treat our brothers and sisters in Christ. So, yes, men should respect their wives as well as love them. Think about what Christ went through for the church; the unbelievably horrific torture and humiliation and death He went through for us; that's the kind of sacrificial love men are to have for their wives. And as Christ invites us to come to the place He has so lovingly prepared for us, and we gratefully, gracefully and graciously accept, so is the wife to submit herself to her own husband. Not "yes dear of course dear" with gritted teeth, but with a joyful step and light heart. Submitting ourselves one to another in love and in the light of Christ's sacrificial love for us. WG -
Really weird and sounds like a scam is afoot. WG
-
Kimberly, the large all white chickens were probably leghorns. They had a boatload of them at Rome City. Dumbest animals God ever allowed on earth. Dirty too. They poo on their eggs in their own nests. It's finally spring here, sort of, and we have all kinds of flowers in bloom, and lovely little flats that Mr. Garden is starting lettuce and such in. He has them out of the front porch and hopefully the wind, which is almost as bad as Kansas, will leave them alone. We also have spinach started - Yum! WG
-
Now see, that's the point - there are all kinds of different thoughts and beliefs in every religion, at least the ones I know about. I never asked my physician friend about what branch/denomination/what have you he espoused. I just saw by his actions that he tried very hard to be kind and charitable. Someone once mentioned to me they wished they were as good a Christian as he was a Muslim. WG
-
Thanks again, TheEvan. I appreciate the explanation and find basically nothing to disagree with there. Thanks for being patient with me. And Garth, that was one of the points the "Times" article made; that New Calvinists are more evangelical and active seek the lost. That also makes more sense in light of TheEvan's explanation. 'Preciate you guys! WG
-
Cynic you just love to argue and sound all superior, don't you? You sound like WD in the last post. I asked an honest question. I'm not trying to debate. You don't have the answer to my question so you just act all snotty and superior. That's SO immature. Never mind. I'll ask someone who knows. Okay your very last post which I just now read sounds like an explanation. However, it just confirms what I thought.
-
I actually worked with a Muslim physician my last couple of years as a full time employee. He was a resident, devout, kind, and charitable. He was horrible at dictation when he came there, but we worked on it and he was passable when I retired. He's a good guy and I wish him well. WG
-
I don't know jack .... about Calvinism, that's why I'm asking someone else to explain it. My impression is the elect are going to heaven no matter how bad they are and the nonelect go to hell no matter how good they are, and I'm asking someone to explain election by predestination in plain 20th century English, which seems to be a challenge even to its most ardent defenders. I don't want a bunch of extrapolated Bible verses thrown at me; the next person can throw another bunch of extrapolated Bible verses that contradict the first bunch. I am NOT trying to make anyone defend their beliefs or lack thereof. I started asking questions because Time Magazine named "New Calvinism" as the third most important idea influencing the world today. My personal experience with Biblical research and teaching is limited pretty much to the Way Ministry classes, and a few others. So please let's don't start on that "prove your point with concrete information" crap, okay. You seem to be very offended that I would ask questions or make statements you perceive as negative or whatever; I'm not trying to offend you, okay? Believe what you will. Yeah, I remember the ice cream cone analogy, which also makes a lot of sense. I'm not sure that's what Calvin was talking about, but then from his biographical information on wikipedia he sounds like a very harsh fellow who brooked no discussion of any beliefs other than his own. Actually the ice cream cone analogy is probably a better explanation than anyone else could come up with. I don't have a problem with that at all. G@il W. was a pretty smart guy! It's not the predestination part that bothers me; it's the elect. WG
-
Thanks you guys!
-
The Evan that is a very comforting statement and one I can agree with. It kind of brings me back to where I was three years ago. I've been on a long journey that led me through "women must be silent in the church at all times", salvation by works (in my opinion), and now "you can be saved and still go to hell if you aren't one of the Elect." So I'm a little footsore, not to mention heartsore. Oddly enough, the stuff that's being taught in our church is not what I would call Calvinism. It's more like what you said. So thanks. WG
-
Well, I mean, it's obvious God knows in His foreknowledge of all things who will and will not be saved. But as a loving Father He would be absolutely thrilled if that included everyone. Sadly for Him (and us) not everyone will accept the mercy, forgiveness, grace and love extended through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. There's a great book, "The Prodigal God" by Timothy Keller, that is being used in our church as a teaching platform, and I intend to purchase and read it at some time. "Prodigal" means wildly and lavishly spending or giving, and the book looks at the parable of the prodigal son from a whole different and more detailed perspective. Look, I don't want to be a Calvinist, a Methodist, an Episcopalian, or a (gasp) Wayfer. I want to be a child of my Heavenly Father. This is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Good Grief! WG
-
I really don't have any more time for this. I think you all are using this interpretation simply because if V. P. Wierwille said it, then by cracky it's got to be wrong. And no one has answered my question about election by predestination. So evidently no one else knows the answer either. WG
-
Cynic, you say that John 10:10 refers to false shepherds who would lead the sheep away, yet I see no reason why your interpretation is any more or less accurate than Wierwille's. Jesus does announce Himself as the Good Shepherd, in comparison to hired hands who would abandon the sheep (The Amplified Bible). I don't see anything about false shepherds in the interlinear I'm looking at, either. And it doesn't make a bit of sense to me that God has to be micromanaging everybody's lives either. What? I dropped my toothbrush this morning! God foreordained I drop it before the foundations of the earth, and that it would be a blue Crest toothbrush at that! WG
-
Mine are on high too with no picture. I'm not a famous journalist or anything just paranoid. I'm starting to like it now. Someday when these darn doctors stop dictating so much I'm gonna mess around with it so's people can see Bodacious. WG
-
johnj, I would say that if a minister is having such problems in his own marriage, maybe he needs to take a leave of absence and get that stuff worked out. Find out why his wife is cold and unloving; maybe it's not all her fault. A very famous and prominent pastor on the west coast irritated a lot of folks with a comment in his blog regarding the Ted Swaggart thing when he blamed the gentleman's wife for "letting herself go" and stated that if a man commits adultery maybe the wife didn't share in his sin, but she didn't much help him, either. You can figure out who; I'm not inclined to use his name much, but in all honesty I think a lot of times the fingers ultimately point at the wife, starting with Adam. ("the woman that YOU gave me.." It's a real good idea for men, ministers or ordinary folks, to just keep their pants zipped. I know it's a challenge but I don't think it's impossible. WG
-
HB from WG!