Raf

Ok, I gave it another try and, I'll admit, it is watchable. It just seemed like they were trying to hard and forgot to have fun. I'll go to the theater to see the next movie, which I believe is called "The Matrix: Craptacular Crapfest of Crappy Crap."

No Way, I remember that chat. It was a few months ago, maybe more, right? I contacted you because I was surprised to read your questions on a Christian message board that had nothing to do with TWI or cults, and you were asking sincere, honest questions. Welcome to the Greasespot Cafe! I hope to read more from you. Raf

O Holy Night. Most versions. I haven't really heard this ruined, although I prefer hearing it done by a tenor. Little Drummer Boy as sung by Air Supply. Very nice.

Which one? The Bravenet? I haven't been able to get into that one at all. I'm just going to have to enjoy the firewall.

Dang.

Give a litle whistle...

deleted [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on December 06, 2003 at 16:05.]

deleted [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on December 06, 2003 at 16:06.]

No, that didn't work. Back to the old drawing board.

Tinker...tinker... CRASSHH!!!! Sorry. That's my fault. I did that. Ok, here... Click to Chat!

That last one sucked. How about this one? Never mind. It was a bad idea. Trust me.

More experimenting. http://livingepistlessociety.org/cgi-sys/m...tlessociety.org

I think saying "it was a cult" raises more questions than it answers. The question is, "what was it like?" It was an endless series of classes accompanied by endless requests for money. It talked about "Biblical Research," but discouraged the searching of publications it did not either produce or endorse. "It was a cult." Okay, what do you mean by that?

Anyone read the Newsweek story on this a couple of weeks ago? Amazing story, pictures, etc. The film apparently opens with the Smeagol flashback.

A few months back I covered a story about a six guys who hijacked a plane from Cuba to Key West. The six men were arrested and charged in federal court. When they were being led away from the courthouse and into the bus taking them back to jail, one of the reporters called out, "Why did you do it!?!" One of the men yelled back "FREEDOM!" as he was led away, his hands cuffed and his legs shackled. That's what the Way is like. Bondage in the name of freedom.

I totally agree with you, Zix, about Andy Serkis getting robbed. Wasn't even nominated! But the Smeagol flashback was actually filmed for The Two Towers. In the extended dvd, Peter Jackson says he was going to insert the flashback in the scene where Frodo first calls him Smeagol. But he didn't want to slow the movie down. Saruman's death, according to Jackson, does indeed come at Wormtongue's hands. It's filmed and will be in the extended DVD of Return of the King. (This was a last minute decision: in the Two Towers, Jackson promises Saruman's death will open the third movie. He has obviously since changed his mind).

Finally saw it tonight. This movie is UNWATCHABLE. It SUCKS. There's nothing interesting about it, and the eye candy factor vanishes right after the title frame. YAWN!

Romans 8:35-37 IN all these things we are more than conquerors. Not OVER all these things, but IN them. Philippians 4:12-14 Paul SUFFERED. A lot. The early church SUFFERED a great deal. How arrogant to think we've got a pass from suffering because Christ suffered. We identify with the risen Christ even in our suffering. There's no Biblical pass from suffering, and if you don't want to tolerate suffering, you chose the wrong walk.

Well, her theory is far from devilish. I think she observed some things you clearly did not, and rather than dismiss her theory as "devilish," you should allow for the fact that the whole of the TWI experience was more complex than the limits of your own. I personally never saw LCM utter a profanity while teaching. But it doesn't surprise me that he did. Do I find it appropriate? Absolutely not. Have I condemned him in violation of Romans? No, I made an observation based on the facts and the truth. That's what we're supposed to do. Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? This isn't a license to sin. TWI never said this was a license to sin. A lot of people ACTED like it was. And they were not reproved, sad to say. In fact, you were reproved if you dared to point it out! What a shame.

Thank you, insurgent, for answering my question rather than resorting to Wierwillian namecalling or simply declaring it "obvious" and ignoring it. I think you touched on the exact issue I was trying to explore: the complexity of the scripture on these subjects. Oldiesman is correct in pointing out that in its doctrine, The Way never taught "it's okay for me to continue in my sin and get away with it." However, I think it's safe to say that "grace" was treated as a license to sin by many, from the top down. Wierwille was fond of quoting the poem, "I'd rather see a sermon than hear one any day." I agree. I think the sermons we heard NEVER taught licentiousness. But the sermons we SAW, did. That's the answer to your question, Oldiesman. It was in the sermons we saw, not the books, not the sermons we heard. There is NO condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. Yet there is a great responsibility on us to "walk worthy of the calling with which we are called." Self-condemnation is BAD. Godly sorrow, on the other hand, is GOOD. Judging is BAD. Distinguishing a true brother from a wolf in sheep's clothing is GOOD. Contradictions? No, complexity, a subtlety lost on the mathematically exact and scientifically precise world of TWI. P.S. Stop the namecalling, already, Oldiesman! You rake me over the coals for daring to imply that my fellow Christians are "shallow," yet you show no restraint in accusing her of "spiritual halitosis" and calling her theory "morbid, devilishly accusative," "arrogantly judgmental" and "overly condescending." Why don't you do a little practicing of what you preach there? There's a word for that, you know.

Yes, I am accusing carnal Christians of being shallow. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. If you can't do that, then you've abdicated a part of your Christian responsibility. All Scripture is profitable for doctrine, REPROOF!!!! and CORRECTION!!!! You've accused people of advancing devilish theories, oldiesman. What's a little shallowness by comparison? Other than that, I agree with ex10: you didn't answer my question. What do those verses in Romans mean? Do they give us the right to sin without being held accountable? If not, what do they mean?

Oldiesman, What do these verses mean? Can Christians, and Christian ministers in particular, sin with impunity? Are they above accountability before men? What are these verse trying to communicate?

Early2it: Care to list any specifics? If not, that's cool. Feel free to disagree. No prob. God Bless You and be well.

Oldiesman, I've been saying all along that TWI made a distinction between the symbol and the "cross of Christ." That distinction was unbliblical and unnecessary. And in disdaining the symbol, they drew from the emotional impact of the symbol. That emotional impact is Biblical. It's fair game. It was unnecessary and WRONG for TWI to do what it did, even if its intentions were good (that is, even if its intentions were to flee idolatry).

Okay... we're making some headway... If you feel that TWI's position was not to disrespect the cross, would you at least agree that TWI's practice was often just that? That TWI's position and its practice were, every now and then, in a wee bit of conflict?