Raf

OM, I think you have a point, as long as we all keep it in perspective. Of course it makes sense that people who oppose TWI should leave TWI. Craig was right to expect that. Based on what's been revealed here and on Waydale, I don't think there was necessarily a right or wrong decision at the time. I think history proves those who left at the time made the right decision. We were spared the "thank God for making Craig Martindale the spiritual head of this ministry" nonsense. We were spared the "homo purges" and the patently unChristian, gutter-language letter LCM sent on that subject, we were spared WAP, we were spared the no-debt policy, the cancellation of ROA, the "genuine spiritual suspicion," and the list goes on. Those who left were also far less likely to stick to Geer as time went on. Sure, some people did. Some still do. But many more do not. It seems a whole lot of us took that "no carnality" rhetoric to heart. Even if VF did make a carnal decision at the time (I don't know if he did, but you make a decent case), in the long run he did not. I think there's something to be said for that. I for one am glad LCM sent that letter. And I'm glad I went to ROA for myself, rather than blindly following the New York leadership out the door. The whole episode taught me, in ways that words never could, that leadership and trust SHOULD go hand in hand, but WON'T necessarily do so. If titles impressed me at one point in my life, they no longer do.

Ultimately, yes. By refusing to choose between one man or another, Finnegan effectively chose to be fired. Once that was done, he could make the decision to pay attention to Geer (promote his newsletter and tapes, etc). However, there came a point when Finnegan rejected Geer's leadership, and now Finnegan's teaching, to the best of my knowledge, is markedly different from Geer's. This, to me, is evidence that the decision to "stand with Geer" was not necessarily carnal. Ultimately, it was not, because ultimately, the decision was NOT to stand with Geer. I'm sure there were times when it was, in fact, carnal ("I'd rather follow this man than that man.")

That's great, WTH, but perhaps we detected a little cynicism in the "Gee that's great..." which is not necessarily unreasonable. It is a figure of speech to call something "great" when you're really saying the opposite. I think it's fair to ask for a clarification on that, because I don't think it's reasonable to think that they felt Mel Gibson's movie was great. It sounded like they were dismissing it. But in this case, I don't know what was actually said. Insurgent, is there any way of being more specific about what was said, without compromising your identity? Did they literally say, "Gee that was great?"

Hmm. I guess one iota does make a difference.

Well, I've been reading reviews of Dawn of the Dead. Can't find any warnings about excessive violence, or any qualms about the director/producer's obsession with gore. Fascinating. Get this: one of the reviews calls it "surprisingly touching." Dawn of the Dead. Touching. Unimaginable. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on March 19, 2004 at 16:57.]

I don't remember ever being taught that was an improper translation.

Oldiesman, That's not your call.

I am totally blushing. I can't vote for myself, since I generally don't inform myself of anything. So picked PJ.

Egad I hope not.

waaaaaaaaah!!!!!!!! It JUST WON'T DIE!!!!!!!!

Perhaps someone could start a "substantive errors in PFAL" thread, this one having served its purpose.

For the sake of an actual error, I would say I want it to be indisputable. Four crucified is certainly disputable. While I think the two crucified position was not nearly as weak as Wierwille suggested, I don't think anyone can say Bullinger and Wierwille were indisputably wrong. Oakspear, I'm inclined to agree with you. Wierwille set the parameters of his example, so he was at the least inconsistent in its application.

Back to topic: I don't know if Zix beat me to this, what with his fondness for Orson Scott Card and all, but here's a statement with which I cannot argue.

EXCELLENT! He's in the world today... so much for being ABSENT!

EWWWWWWW!!!!!!!

Don't forget, Pirate, that Mel had two "gimmicks" (for lack of a better word) to propel the word of mouth. First, he filmed it in foreign languages. Second, he went for visceral authenticity. Next to The Passion, "The Gospel of John" can't help but have a "Gee, I've seen this movie before umpteen times" feel to it.

As much innuendo as people have cast on this subject, does anyone have even the slightest bit of proof that Donna Martindale has sex with women? I mean, with all the people who despise LCM, I have not heard a single woman come forth and say "Donna came on to me." Not one. And so we make snide comments about how close she is with Rosalie. I don't remember anyone suggesting ol' VPW was gay because of his closeness to Chris Geer. But let two women have a friendship, and suddenly innuendo is okay? This is cheap. It's unbecoming of us to speculate on this. Proof is one thing, but this isn't proof. It's slander.

Ooh ooh! I know! I know! Cuz tithing ain't God's Will and PFAL is wrong! P.S. God's foreknowledge and our free will are all over the Bible. If you took the time to master it, you would see that it is the ubiquitously hidden subtext behind many verses.

Oldiesman, Get this: you're being accused of not revering VPW enough. Mark the date down, we're going to celebrate the anniversary of this event next year. So let's see if I've got this straight. Oldiesman believed CSBP was God's Will and tried to live according to its principles. Its principles did not come to pass, in spite of the fact that it was both God's Will and a Law. From that evidence, he concludes that CSBP is neither God's Will nor a Law, and he stops living according to its principles. He prospers. Because Satan wants him to prosper. God is unable to make him prosper when he follows God's Will. Satan is able to make him prosper when he rejects God's Will. Sounds like Satan has got more going for him than God does. Of course, this logic falls to pieces once you recognize that CSBP is NOT the Word of God, but rather the self-serving justification for Old Testament bondage foisted on Christians by a preacher who let his love of filthy lucre talk him out of the grace of God.

More people have seen the Passion, and have an appreciation for Christ because of it, than have ever HEARD of The Way International. And for the umpteenth time, the movie INCLUDES the resurrection!

Woah, don't make it look like I prompted this, Paw. Have I really been requesting this for ages? I forgot.

Definitely The Street Corner.

We covered this on another thread, but it's worth revisiting. Three gospels portray Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross to Golgotha, with no mention of Jesus ever touching it. One gospel portrays Jesus carrying the cross, with no mention of Simon. Two possible ways to reconcile this: Tradition: Jesus carried it part of the way (not unreasonable, since the practice was for the condemned to carry their own crosses). When he proved too weak to carry it, Simon was pulled from the crowd. TWI: Simon carried it all the way. The cross Christ bore was not literal, it was figurative. Neither viewpoint does damage to the scripture. No verse says "Jesus never touched the wooden cross until he was nailed to it."

Mike, You are in error, once again, in divining my attitude toward PFAL and my attitude toward the scriptures. This doesn't surprise me, as your idolatry blinds you to the truth in so many areas. But let me make something clear: PFAL has indisputable errors that are not attributable to copyists, as you laughably insist (dodge, distract, whatever). We were able to compile a pretty decent list of errors that are not open to dispute or interpretation. You respond by rewriting PFAL, claiming it doesn't say what it says about the perfection of the written word. Fine, be my guest. But your big mistake is in thinking that PFAL's errors are limited to the indisputable. PFAL is wrong about the law of believing. It's wrong about the abundant life. It's wrong about the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven. It's wrong about the nature of faith. It is meekness to God's Word, not antipathy toward it, that led me to these conclusions. It was the willingness to admit I was wrong, not a stubborn refusal to consider the other side of an argument, that led me to these conclusions. So you accuse me of not being meek or willing to consider an alternative point of view. It's rank hypocrisy. In the meantime your claims have become increasingly hysterical. Jesus didn't have faith (pistis) because faith (pistis) wasn't available yet. He COULD have believing (pistis) because believing (pistis) WAS available. But he couldn't have faith (pistis). Do you have any idea how much damage you are doing to the legacy of Victor Paul Wierwille by insisting on this garbage? You claim to revere PFAL, but speaking as someone who got a lot out of that class and those books, I consider your ludicrous thesis (and it is YOUR THESIS, not God's) to be an insult to PFAL and to everyone who took it. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on March 09, 2004 at 17:37.]

Well, if a move is INEVITABLE, then I would place the Mike threads in a forum in the doctrinal section, and I would call it, "Idolatrous Pigswill." Just kidding. Seriously, move it to the doctrinal section, but separate from the docrinal forums that already exist: because they are not the same thing. Just like the General section has "Open," "About the Way," and all the other forums (sic)... The Doctrinal Section should have "Doctrinal," which is what's there now, and a section called "The Way's Doctrinal Legacy," or something like that. This would be the place to discuss doctrine SPECIFICALLY in light of the legacy of MISTER Victor Paul Wierwille and The Way International. Mike's threads would fit there, but it would be open to other threads as well. Would there be crossover? Sure. Trinity threads would be at home on either forum. But if you can have two political forumses (sic), then you can just as easily have two doctrinal ones. note: in the interest of avoiding plagiarism: I stole "idolatrous pigswill" off one of Zixar's posts. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on March 10, 2004 at 13:42.]