Forgetting, or refuting, or killing the past, and reaching forth to the future, is a Christian concept, and those who practice those things shouldn't be condemned for it.
Why don't you condemn the Apostle Paul for writing it, and God for authoring it?
What makes you so right, those of you who endlessly focus on past sins of others?
There's a difference between looking towards Christ, and
living in denial that others have done wrong.
If we were meant to REALLY forget the past, there would BE no Old Testament, since
the New would have REPLACED it.
The Apostle Paul was well aware that there was a difference between
"living in denial of past wrongdoing"
and "looking towards the present"-
otherwise, we wouldn't know Alexander the coopersmith did him MUCH evil.
======
Those in positions of authority are to be of good moral conduct overall,
and BLAMELESS in matters of stewardship.
If a steward is found to be UNJUST, then, first of all, he is to no more be steward.
There ARE standards to be held in leaders, and you should know where to find them in
your sleep.
vpw, who failed MISERABLY to live up to those standards, taught about them quite a
bit-demonstrating that he UNDERSTOOD them, but chose not to LIVE them.
I Timothy 3:1-10.
3:2 "must be blameless" , above reproach.
His actions must be meet or exceed reasonable expectations for a leader.
3:2 "husband of one wife"
He must not have doctrine or practice of multiple wives,
including acting as if it is acceptable to have sexual congress with a multitude
of his flock
3:3 "not given to wine"
He must not abuse alcohol
3:3 "no striker"
He must not be swift to resort to violence or wrath
3:3 "not greedy of filthy lucre"
He must not seek to use the family's money for his luxuries
3:3 "patient"
He must be patient.
3:3 "not a brawler"
He must not be quarrelsome and get into fights.
3:4 "not covetous"
He must not seek out the privileges of those in the chief seats, the politicians
3:4 "one that rules well his own house"
He devotes sufficient and appropriate time and dedication to his earthly family/household
3:4 "having his children in subjection with all gravity"
He takes the job of childraising seriously, determined to do it right-
as a result, his children RESPECT him.
3:7 "he must have a good report of them which are without"
His reputation in public must be a respectable one.
============
Who here would like to use the above criteria to evaluate the viability of vpw
to hold the "office of a bishop",
which, as he often agreed, was the list for leaders in the church today?
Seems to me, they choose to continue in their "sin".
Still going strong.. the same practical error, the same mark and avoid those who dare to disagree with you even in a private context,and would not humiliate you. The same "turn them over to da adversary because we are obviously correct" mentality. The same "debt is sin" nonsense. The same "obeying your leadership, right or wrong, is obeying God" doctrine. The same opinion that the wrong country won WWII.
The same opinion that there was no real holocaust, that somehow the Jews faked all that stuff at the death camps. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Somehow, we are supposed to act "Christian", forget the past, and let some poor new blood to get sucked into that cesspool without bringing up what they did to US.
It's still the same old sad organization. They can "use" you, until you are old, sick, or "unprofitable" for their business. Don't think so? Try going back.
They are not CHRISTIAN to begin with, only act the part when it is convenient.
otherwise, we wouldn't know Alexander the coopersmith did him MUCH evil.
Wordwolf,
You may have a point, if the Apostle Paul mentioned Alexander the Coppersmith's sins almost every day, for 20 years.
Now maybe some folks would consider endlessly mentioning Alexander's evil works "the introduction of light" oh glow-ray -- but I would call condemnation of that frequency more like mega-preoccupation with evil things of the past, and the endless perpetuation of victim mentality -- as if nothing else matters other than Paul mentioning for decades how he was abused by Alexander.
JB has it right ... there's no need for another website to talk about how evil twi was and is, ad nauseam.
We have one up and running that's doing just fine. :)-->
And quoting JB's private communications like that is no way to gain credibility... with anyone. It puts a face of deceit on all of us here. I know I will think twice now before I ever send a intended-to-be private e-mail to GJ.
I was tough on JB when he got nasty to me, but I pretty well calmed down when I was done.
I congratulate JB for what good he tried to do, and I hope they at TWI try again. But many here have given them a reason to give up.
oldies -- why not go get that limb and region guy's name and head over....'cept I don't think they give a rat's a$$ about piffle anymore....but at least the folks see life in the nice, safe 2 dimensions you seem to...
otherwise, we wouldn't know Alexander the coopersmith did him MUCH evil.
Wordwolf,
You may have a point, if the Apostle Paul mentioned Alexander the Coppersmith's sins almost every day, for 20 years.
Now maybe some folks would consider endlessly mentioning Alexander's evil works "the introduction of light" oh glow-ray -- but I would call condemnation of that frequency more like mega-preoccupation with evil things of the past, and the endless perpetuation of victim mentality -- as if nothing else matters other than Paul mentioning for decades how he was abused by Alexander.
(snip)
Amazing how you read that one sentence yet somehow skipped the paragraphs following it,
concerning the standards a "faithful minister" are to be held to.
so God has a lower standard than He instructs us to have????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????
it's do as I say, not as I do... for God Almighty?? Mike, do you even have the slightest clue what blasphemy is??? YOU, SIR, are taking God and His name in vain with that kind of bs pulled straight outa yer azzzz.........
To me, that's the logical end of that argument. Sure- if God takes chances.. playing the percentages.. that we SHOULDNT take. That works out fine and everything if the supposed "annointed one" turns out OK. But if he turns out to be a real rat, you're putting more on God's plate than I would dare.
No, but God has foreknowledge. That's why I put the word "risk" in quotes in that post.
The WHOLE REASON for qualifications is to minimize risk. God can weigh one outcome against another like no one else can.
God got His job done, the books got out, and hardly anyone died. Had He not set up PFAL MANY would have been dead. Remember this was the wild 60's and 70's when we OLGs signed up.
Aw Mike, nobody's given JB or anyone a reason to give up. If all it took was a little honest criticism The Way Nash would have closed up a long time ago. They're past that. It's his site, he can do whatever he wants with it, right? And they will. It's not going to entertain discussion from all sides on Way related topics. Fine, Oldiesman is right, GS gives ample opportunity for that so as long as GS or something like it is open that 'need's been met'. If it is a need.
The record of Alexander the coppersmith is one of those head scratchers, to me. Paul may have never figured we'd be reading it directly 2,000 years later. Was it intended to be part of the main body of that epistle? Either way it's in the epistle we all read today and no one alive todays cares about Alexander, although it gets quoted a fair amount.
To what end? We can assume that Paul had a bad time with this guy. We can assume he intended to warn others about him, to some extent. We also see that Paul was perfectly happy to let "the Lord" reward him accordingly, while still taking action to tell others about him. At least Paul was venting, at most he was warning them. Watch out for this guy.
Paul only mentioned it once, but it's been read millions of times by everyone since that epistle was included in the NT canon. I know absolutely nothing about this Alexander - if he was married, loved his wife and kids, had a good job, was an excellent coppersmith, nothing of any value to say that he was a good guy in any other respect. All I know is what Paul chose to say and that wasn't a good report.
The fact he didn't harp on it is unknown. The fact he intended at least two people, Timothy and Titus, to know about him says something. (and if Paul didn't write these epistles, someone had a real case of the a$$ over this guy) In context Tim and Tite were pastors, overseers, guys involved in the mission of Christianity in Paul's time. It's not a jump of logic to expect that Paul intended that information to be of use to them. By writing it he had to know that it could be distributed. He encourages prayer for all in context, while providing ample warning of the risks he felt this guy posed.
You really have to look beyond the single verse to understand in current context the impact of a verse like that. It doesn't mean, IMO, that I'm now SUPPOSED to do the same thing in a similar or identical situation, but it does paint a picture of what COULD be done, what Paul did. And his warning remains a part of a very limited history that the NT provides on specific people - very few people are named when you consider the 1,000's of people that were part of that growth period. Paul got the word out on that guy, in a way that not only allowed for the message to be repeated then but in a way that ended up being known my millions of people who will never have any contact with that man. Interesting.
"This forum is not a debating platform. This is not a place to engage in political, philosophical, or religious debates. There are other places on the Internet for those activities. Users who introduce debates or negative discussions will have their posts edited, deleted and perhaps even access to the message boards denied. Users who wish to discuss their questions and concerns about the Word of God or The Way ministry may contact their local ministry coordinator or email the site webmaster."
thanks galen but after reading what outie aboutie wrote, i don't think it sounds like much fun either :)-->
quote:
"This forum is not a debating platform. This is not a place to engage in political, philosophical, or religious debates. There are other places on the Internet for those activities. Users who introduce debates or negative discussions will have their posts edited, deleted and perhaps even access to the message boards denied. Users who wish to discuss their questions and concerns about the Word of God or The Way ministry may contact their local ministry coordinator or email the site webmaster."
This forum is not a debating platform. This is not a place to engage in political, philosophical, or religious debates. There are other places on the Internet for those activities.
It almost sounds like they are ENCOURAGING those who want to debate.....to find those "other places on the internet" like Greasespot.
In other words, our place is booorrring.......other places have LOTS OF ACTION AND DEBATE.
sky--we should only hope that they would encorage debate, but alas---- I think we would be fooled.
I for one think anywhere I have to LogIn with my BC annd my RC is like something under the old USSR. Frankly, it smacks of Medieval Christianity where the Church had the sole authority over ones life.
Washingtonweather
aka
Lianne Pierce
checking in without my BC or RC thankyou very much
Well, the least they could do is provide a link of the page to go to greasespot. I thought they were a kinder place now. No more, "go out there and find it on your own somehow".
They could have it featured prominently on an "about us" page. It would feature who to contact in da vey by snail-mail, and have links to greasespot for those who just want to waste their time with "unlearned and ignorant" questions.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
10
17
6
Popular Days
Feb 23
30
Feb 24
26
Feb 20
19
Feb 25
13
Top Posters In This Topic
skyrider 9 posts
Mike 10 posts
Ham 17 posts
dmiller 6 posts
Popular Days
Feb 23 2005
30 posts
Feb 24 2005
26 posts
Feb 20 2005
19 posts
Feb 25 2005
13 posts
WordWolf
There's a difference between looking towards Christ, and
living in denial that others have done wrong.
If we were meant to REALLY forget the past, there would BE no Old Testament, since
the New would have REPLACED it.
The Apostle Paul was well aware that there was a difference between
"living in denial of past wrongdoing"
and "looking towards the present"-
otherwise, we wouldn't know Alexander the coopersmith did him MUCH evil.
======
Those in positions of authority are to be of good moral conduct overall,
and BLAMELESS in matters of stewardship.
If a steward is found to be UNJUST, then, first of all, he is to no more be steward.
There ARE standards to be held in leaders, and you should know where to find them in
your sleep.
vpw, who failed MISERABLY to live up to those standards, taught about them quite a
bit-demonstrating that he UNDERSTOOD them, but chose not to LIVE them.
I Timothy 3:1-10.
3:2 "must be blameless" , above reproach.
His actions must be meet or exceed reasonable expectations for a leader.
3:2 "husband of one wife"
He must not have doctrine or practice of multiple wives,
including acting as if it is acceptable to have sexual congress with a multitude
of his flock
3:3 "not given to wine"
He must not abuse alcohol
3:3 "no striker"
He must not be swift to resort to violence or wrath
3:3 "not greedy of filthy lucre"
He must not seek to use the family's money for his luxuries
3:3 "patient"
He must be patient.
3:3 "not a brawler"
He must not be quarrelsome and get into fights.
3:4 "not covetous"
He must not seek out the privileges of those in the chief seats, the politicians
3:4 "one that rules well his own house"
He devotes sufficient and appropriate time and dedication to his earthly family/household
3:4 "having his children in subjection with all gravity"
He takes the job of childraising seriously, determined to do it right-
as a result, his children RESPECT him.
3:7 "he must have a good report of them which are without"
His reputation in public must be a respectable one.
============
Who here would like to use the above criteria to evaluate the viability of vpw
to hold the "office of a bishop",
which, as he often agreed, was the list for leaders in the church today?
A few people, please.
================
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Seems to me, they choose to continue in their "sin".
Still going strong.. the same practical error, the same mark and avoid those who dare to disagree with you even in a private context,and would not humiliate you. The same "turn them over to da adversary because we are obviously correct" mentality. The same "debt is sin" nonsense. The same "obeying your leadership, right or wrong, is obeying God" doctrine. The same opinion that the wrong country won WWII.
The same opinion that there was no real holocaust, that somehow the Jews faked all that stuff at the death camps. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Somehow, we are supposed to act "Christian", forget the past, and let some poor new blood to get sucked into that cesspool without bringing up what they did to US.
It's still the same old sad organization. They can "use" you, until you are old, sick, or "unprofitable" for their business. Don't think so? Try going back.
They are not CHRISTIAN to begin with, only act the part when it is convenient.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Wordwolf,
You may have a point, if the Apostle Paul mentioned Alexander the Coppersmith's sins almost every day, for 20 years.
Now maybe some folks would consider endlessly mentioning Alexander's evil works "the introduction of light" oh glow-ray -- but I would call condemnation of that frequency more like mega-preoccupation with evil things of the past, and the endless perpetuation of victim mentality -- as if nothing else matters other than Paul mentioning for decades how he was abused by Alexander.
JB has it right ... there's no need for another website to talk about how evil twi was and is, ad nauseam.
We have one up and running that's doing just fine.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I agree, oldiesman.
And quoting JB's private communications like that is no way to gain credibility... with anyone. It puts a face of deceit on all of us here. I know I will think twice now before I ever send a intended-to-be private e-mail to GJ.
I was tough on JB when he got nasty to me, but I pretty well calmed down when I was done.
I congratulate JB for what good he tried to do, and I hope they at TWI try again. But many here have given them a reason to give up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
oldies -- why not go get that limb and region guy's name and head over....'cept I don't think they give a rat's a$$ about piffle anymore....but at least the folks see life in the nice, safe 2 dimensions you seem to...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Amazing how you read that one sentence yet somehow skipped the paragraphs following it,
concerning the standards a "faithful minister" are to be held to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
That's what I said about that....
nothing about "should a bishop abuse his office, and pervert the grace of Christ,
he is to cover it up and all the people are to pretend it didn't happen."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I think all of those "troublesome" little qualifications were thrown out the window if somebody proved themselves to be "spiritual enough".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Or could yell, scream, and confront with enough alacrity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Those qualifications are for who WE select as a PASTOR or LEADER.
When GOD selects a SPOKESMAN He is allowed to take "risks" we otherwise shouldn't.
It's too late for anyone to reject Dr as a pastor, and the spokesman's job is done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
so God has a lower standard than He instructs us to have????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????
it's do as I say, not as I do... for God Almighty?? Mike, do you even have the slightest clue what blasphemy is??? YOU, SIR, are taking God and His name in vain with that kind of bs pulled straight outa yer azzzz.........
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Ah. So, since he is da king, his claim to all the women in the kingdom must be valid.
So the guy turns out to be a real B*****d. Oh well, I guess God is allowed a few "mistakes"..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
To me, that's the logical end of that argument. Sure- if God takes chances.. playing the percentages.. that we SHOULDNT take. That works out fine and everything if the supposed "annointed one" turns out OK. But if he turns out to be a real rat, you're putting more on God's plate than I would dare.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
alfakat,
No, but God has foreknowledge. That's why I put the word "risk" in quotes in that post.
The WHOLE REASON for qualifications is to minimize risk. God can weigh one outcome against another like no one else can.
God got His job done, the books got out, and hardly anyone died. Had He not set up PFAL MANY would have been dead. Remember this was the wild 60's and 70's when we OLGs signed up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Aw Mike, nobody's given JB or anyone a reason to give up. If all it took was a little honest criticism The Way Nash would have closed up a long time ago. They're past that. It's his site, he can do whatever he wants with it, right? And they will. It's not going to entertain discussion from all sides on Way related topics. Fine, Oldiesman is right, GS gives ample opportunity for that so as long as GS or something like it is open that 'need's been met'. If it is a need.
The record of Alexander the coppersmith is one of those head scratchers, to me. Paul may have never figured we'd be reading it directly 2,000 years later. Was it intended to be part of the main body of that epistle? Either way it's in the epistle we all read today and no one alive todays cares about Alexander, although it gets quoted a fair amount.
To what end? We can assume that Paul had a bad time with this guy. We can assume he intended to warn others about him, to some extent. We also see that Paul was perfectly happy to let "the Lord" reward him accordingly, while still taking action to tell others about him. At least Paul was venting, at most he was warning them. Watch out for this guy.
Paul only mentioned it once, but it's been read millions of times by everyone since that epistle was included in the NT canon. I know absolutely nothing about this Alexander - if he was married, loved his wife and kids, had a good job, was an excellent coppersmith, nothing of any value to say that he was a good guy in any other respect. All I know is what Paul chose to say and that wasn't a good report.
The fact he didn't harp on it is unknown. The fact he intended at least two people, Timothy and Titus, to know about him says something. (and if Paul didn't write these epistles, someone had a real case of the a$$ over this guy) In context Tim and Tite were pastors, overseers, guys involved in the mission of Christianity in Paul's time. It's not a jump of logic to expect that Paul intended that information to be of use to them. By writing it he had to know that it could be distributed. He encourages prayer for all in context, while providing ample warning of the risks he felt this guy posed.
You really have to look beyond the single verse to understand in current context the impact of a verse like that. It doesn't mean, IMO, that I'm now SUPPOSED to do the same thing in a similar or identical situation, but it does paint a picture of what COULD be done, what Paul did. And his warning remains a part of a very limited history that the NT provides on specific people - very few people are named when you consider the 1,000's of people that were part of that growth period. Paul got the word out on that guy, in a way that not only allowed for the message to be repeated then but in a way that ended up being known my millions of people who will never have any contact with that man. Interesting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outandabout
From the website:
"This forum is not a debating platform. This is not a place to engage in political, philosophical, or religious debates. There are other places on the Internet for those activities. Users who introduce debates or negative discussions will have their posts edited, deleted and perhaps even access to the message boards denied. Users who wish to discuss their questions and concerns about the Word of God or The Way ministry may contact their local ministry coordinator or email the site webmaster."
That doesn't sound like much fun at ALL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I don't believe God authored it!
I can still focus on those sins because their effects still linger
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
excathedra:
"i'm lost too. can anyone post on this site ?
i don't know if i would but just asking...."
Yes.
register, and send a message to the guy running it.
He may 'approve' your login and 'poof' your "in".
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
thanks galen but after reading what outie aboutie wrote, i don't think it sounds like much fun either
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
It almost sounds like they are ENCOURAGING those who want to debate.....to find those "other places on the internet" like Greasespot.
In other words, our place is booorrring.......other places have LOTS OF ACTION AND DEBATE.
Take your pick.
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
skyrider, it DOES look like they are saying it's okay to go to those other places on the internet where "those activities" are okay.
I imagine, though, that the line will be removed now that it has been commented on here. The WAYGB gets most of their ideas from GSpot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DaddyHoundog
sky--we should only hope that they would encorage debate, but alas---- I think we would be fooled.
I for one think anywhere I have to LogIn with my BC annd my RC is like something under the old USSR. Frankly, it smacks of Medieval Christianity where the Church had the sole authority over ones life.
Washingtonweather
aka
Lianne Pierce
checking in without my BC or RC thankyou very much
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Belle.......it will be interesting to see if that line disappears.
And yeah....the waygb is indeed parasitical. Sure smacks at their spirituality, doesn't it???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Well, the least they could do is provide a link of the page to go to greasespot. I thought they were a kinder place now. No more, "go out there and find it on your own somehow".
They could have it featured prominently on an "about us" page. It would feature who to contact in da vey by snail-mail, and have links to greasespot for those who just want to waste their time with "unlearned and ignorant" questions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.