soul searcher

Is this the new name of the Spirit & Truth Fellowship International? Also, can anyone tell me how are they doctrinally different from CFFM? I'm just wondering if they are significantly different from each other. I've listened to classes by both and they both sound like Way doctrine warmed over. Very similar content. P.S. I do realize that both organizations are run by ex-Way people.

My ex-Way friend likes to trot this out as "evidence" of the bible's "mathematical precision." And, while it seems that there is little, if anything that is patently false in Bullinger's work, I still think this book (along with his "six denials" and "four crucified" theories) is very interesting and creative hogwash. http://philologos.org/__eb-nis/ I'm wondering now Bullinger had access to any hallucinogenics like LSD.

Thanks, geisha. Your post makes a lot of sense.

So then I take it that you reject a purely literal reading of the bible. Would that be right? Because when I read it literally, I have difficulty. Not the least of which is that the order of creation according to Genesis 1 is plants, then animals, then man. But Genesis 2 says it was man, then plants, then animals. All I'm trying to do is get the story in my head.

No problem, Spec. Good luck on your book. Do you have a working title? Publisher?

Genesis 2:9 (NIV) And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In any polygon there is only one centroid, one middle point. The two trees couldn't have been that far away from each other. How big was the garden? Even if it was miles wide the trees wouldn't have been very far apart. I suppose that would depend on a) whether I was hungry, b) had belly fat and c) needed hair. At any rate, who would I blame for my choice except myself? And what's the point, anyway?

Well, okay. And plenty don't. How old do you believe the earth to be?

I "sidestepped" your questions (actually I ignored them) because I honestly thought they were rhetorical. Either way, I thought they were irrelevant and, truth be told, somewhat patronizing. Well, God knows I've done my share of mocking over the years. But even so, I wasn't mocking... No matter what language you translate it from, or what language you read it in, God put the tree of knowledge of good and evil right next to the tree of life. He didn't put it in another land (in Nod, east of Eden, for instance) or five miles way, or down the road, or up the river, or on top of a mountain. He put it right there in the middle of the Garden of Eden where A & E were bound to see it. And the tree had some very interesting things growing on it. And then there was a serpent (where did he come from, anyway?). So, if I wanted to appreciate the story of creation as an allegory -- which I might be persuaded to do -- I might be persuaded to believe that God actually gave early man a choice: "eternal paradise" in Eden, or free will. Free will is the more desirable (to me, anyway), but with it comes the hard fruit of the tree knowledge of good and evil: a moral sense, knowing right from wrong. [Come to think of it, why was the tree of knowledge of good and evil necessary in the first place? Why did God put it there, if not to let man choose free will on his own?] Anyway, I look forward to reading your book. Will it discuss the Nephilim and how they got on earth?

Thanks, Waysider. Actually that may have been among the several pieces of literature by Weirwille that my ex-Way friend sent me, but which I have since deleted off my hard drive. I'm still listening to some classes from CFFM. I'm sure they'll cover it.

Mark, excellent paper. Thank you.

Thinking about it some more... Another counter-argument to mine would be that "message of wisdom" is the first manifestation mentioned in the list. And of course I believe that all individuals should maximize their message-of-wisdom skills, regardless of how good they think they are at it. :B)

That's what I'm saying. Not everybody is capable of doing everything. We're all challenged in various ways. While there may be good spiritual or psychological reasons to SIT (whatever we mean by that), I don't think that SIT, in and of itself, is a "critical indicator" or a natural manifestation of holy spirit. The SIT that I've heard my ex-Way friend speak may mean something between her and God, but it's not the same phenomenon as what happened to the apostles at Pentecost, I'm pretty sure of that. :)

What do I know about God's ways? Innocent people suffer and die everyday. The story in Genesis is a stretch to begin with. It conflicts with my knowledge of the laws of the physical universe. Dinosaurs walked on this earth millions of years ago. We have bones and fossils to prove it. And just because Moses didn't write about the Ice Age it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Finally, it seems to me that God did many mean things in the OT. I've posted some examples.

Hey Spec, thanks. Great post. I like that "spiritual DNA" concept. I do think that we all may have the "potential" for each of the manifestations but the reality is that people tend to specialize in certain vocations that suit their tempraments. We're all good at certain things and not so good at other things.

I always wondered why God put the tree of knowledge of good and evil right smack in the middle of the garden Eden (directly next to the tree of life) where either Adam or Eve was bound to find it. Anyway, I think the fall of A & E was bound to happen: you had two innocent humans (what did they know?), the tree was there beckoning, the serpent was there goading Eve on. God specifically told them not to eat the fruit, but did He really expect them to forever resist the temptation? Could God have foreknown the outcome?

Thanks, Twinky. I went back and read the KJV and, notwithstanding "VPW's logic", the underlying message seems the same: to each his or her own gift. Maybe some of us are lucky enough to receive and manifest more than one gift, but most of us aren't. Or, at best, some of us may be more talented at one gift over another. At any rate, it seems to me that SIT is not available to everyone. P.S. You had the honor and distinction of replying to my 100th post.

Let's break it down, shall we? Starting with verse 4: *There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. *There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. *There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men. *Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. *To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, *to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, *to another faith by the same Spirit, *to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, *to another miraculous powers, *to another prophecy, *to another distinguishing between spirits, *to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, *and to still another the interpretation of tongues. *All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines. Two messages seem to jump out at me: 1. Not everyone has all the gifts of holy spirit, thus not everyone has all the manifestations. 2. Humankind is a community...no man is an island...we depend on each other...just as the different parts of our bodies make up the whole, so do individuals make up the community of mankind to work for the "common good." So why do the TWI, CES/STF and CFFM organizations all insist that God wants all of us to speak in tongues? Given the verses above, nothing could be further from the truth. Chapter 14 goes on to tell us that it is preferrable to prophecy rather than SIT because SIT isn't of use to anyone who hears it except God, while those who prophecy "speak to men...for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort."

You're attributing religion to superstitious behavior and, from a behavioral viewpoint, that hypothesis is hard to dismiss. Superstitious behavior comes about when a reinforcement or punishment for a particular behavior occurs very close to (temporally or spatially) to the behavior itself. The organism (animals engage in superstitious bevavior, too) may then continue to respond in a similar fashion (repeating the behavior) to the reinforcing/punishing stimulus.

Great story!

Yeah...all that. Nice post. @ Garth: LOL, I'm with you, man. @ sky: Who cares if stoning equals execution or not? It's a barbaric act. Check out the Islamic fundamenalist pigs in the video geisha posted. Enough said.

Great post, geisha. Not to hijack Roy's thread or anything but you said, "Is God really dependent on His creation . . . . any of His creation to actualize His love? That would make the creation just as important as God. . . . wouldn't it? He would be incomplete without it. God is anything but incomplete. God is eternal." I agree with what you said there. And since God is eternal and we (the earth) are not, I have to believe that we (the earth's inhabitants) are not the only sentient beings He has ever created. After all, he created the universe (Genesis 1:16) and it's a very big universe and it's been around a long time and it will be around long after the earth is gone.

Roy, I can't answer your questions, but your post did make me wonder... If God is love, then to whom or what was His love directed before he created the earth? And where will it go when we are gone?

Another good example are the Hasidic Jews, who manage to carry on their traditions while living in the middle of a huge metropolis (Brooklyn, NY). Interestingly, very few individuals in this community break away from their parents' beliefs. I've always wondered why.

Many say that the closest thing to a "first rock and roll song" was this.... Gotta consider this one... And let me just say that, whether it was the first one or not, surely this is the definitive rock and roll song... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_Bd5-APPBw

Personally, I embarked on my journey into the bible as an attempt to reinforce, or re-create, my belief in a loving God because -- even though I consider myself Christian -- I still need to be convinced of that. (I also find the bible very interesting to read.) As far as the events in the bible themselves, or the accuracy of the descriptions of them: it always irked me that those who believe in the bible in a literal sense (for example that Adam and Eve lived 900+ years, or that Noah managed to get every species of land-dwelling animal onto his ark, etc.), and who also believe in the laws of physics, chemistry and biology; will completely abandon those beliefs in the physical sciences to accommodate their religious beliefs. Why can't the Christian world sort of relax, take a deep breath, come together, and agree that there is no physical evidence that any man or woman ever lived 900 years? Because once we get past the apparent physical contradictions, then we can talk about 1) the underlying message of scripture (which I think is a very important message), and 2) why these seeming contradictions exist. Invoking faith as a sort of spiritual mulligan is not going to convince many non-believers. With regard to scripture being inspired by God -- I can accept that much of it was. But I wonder if you or chockfull can accept that many other things in this world -- for example, certain artistic performances or even ideas -- can be inspired by God? There are many, many truths that are not described in the bible. I'm not talking about "technical" or mathematical truths. I'm talking about things like mental illness, which wasn't even recognized as a possible cause of behavior until hundreds of years after the NT was completed. As far as the bible being "perfect"...how can it be? Taking music as an example, a musical piece may be perfect when represented on paper with musical notes. Is every performance of the song perfect? Not any more "perfect" than the men and women who perform it. Is any performance of it ever "perfect" in a mathematical sense? I don't think so (but there is beauty in that imperfection!). So the bible doesn't have to be perfect, or even accurate, for me to enjoy it. I read it and use it within the context of modern realities. @chockfull: Nice post. Well put.