Can we switch analogies now? Sorry, but as a mother of two wonderful girls I cannot keep throwing out babies...
:) Well, it's Roses analogy but if she wants to switch it to the one I mentioned that's ok. The point is still the same. But then again -- if you're a vegetarian -- that one won't work either.
have you been able to find one that is not lying about their so called revelations, right teachings?
Welcome!
You make an excellent point. Amongst the never ending lineup of televangelists and assorted religious business enterprises hawking special "Christian" insight and the assorted claptrap (aka "income streams") that inevitably accompanies such swill, "honesty" is a word whose definition moves with the user and adjusts for conditions. But...
I don't consider these generations of money-sucking tics a good basis for comparison unless it's to determine which one has the better marketing plan or tax-dodge going.
I do highly recommend finding a local church you like, finding one by visiting several, as many as you like and once you find one with a pastor who seems honest and where you enjoy the activities and teaching giving them some time.
I recommend reading the bible for pleasure and edification and having some friendships and hang time with other Christians.
Learn to expect a reasonable amount of honesty from normal reasonable people who aren't trying to get you to buy something or make a committment to take a class or join their group. People interested in helping others.
I'm new here, although have read posts for many years, off and on. The brainwashing post has sparked a reply. Why throw away all we've learned?
Hello.
A few people have made a cold evaluation and determined that EVERYTHING they learned
from twi-official doctrines, teachings, and practices used at twi-
were of no real use, and are no longer Christians.
They're adults, and those are their decisions.
As for those of us who are still Christians, usually we still agree with SOMETHING twi
taught, whether or not we trust twi teaching on it.
(For example, almost all the Christians here still believe Jesus is the Messiah,
and so on.)
Blanket statements like "ALL we have learned" tend to make me look twice,
since things are usually NOT that simple- but they are when someone's accusing someone else
of doing them, as in
"why have you thrown away all you've learned?"
I'm not saying you're doing this, necessarily, but it's an easy habit, and a bad habit,
to get into. I would keep an eye out for it if I were you. (Since I'm not you, you are free to
ignore this advice.)
I have tried to decipher what was wrong and what was good in TWI. It has taken years to fully understand the impact on my mind of what the TWI has done to me, but I am thankful for the word (some) I learned. Yes, VP was wrong in that he claimed all was his "revelation" or through his own research, but when it really comes down to it, who cares?
Well, since you asked....
vpw's character is at the core of a number of issues, and the heart of how twi functioned and operated
(and to a degree, how it STILL does both.)
He claimed he, and he alone, had exclusive knowledge from God that Christians were missing
for 2000 years, and that all other Christians reside in error, and are inferior Christians AT BEST.
He claimed their leaders were untrustworthy.
All of those were lies, carefully designed to get people to look to vpw as the finisher of our faith,
and to seal themselves away from all other forms of Christian to avoid error.
That error still applies whenever anyone ex-twi claims that
"all other Christians and all other Christian leaders are petty, error-ridden, and selfish!"
That's only the FIRST of many issues.
In short, YOU care, because that's what was carefully taught to you.
They carefully taught it to me, too, but I've had years to address this specific point.
If you look at all the "supposed men of God" on TV, and others, have you been able to find one that is not lying about their so called revelations, right teachings? NO and I have looked at many of them.
If I MUST pick a televangelist,
then I shall say ONE of them is a true man of God- Billy Graham.
HONEST inquiries into his life have shown a man who "walks the talk" and "talks the walk".
However, I consider this a trick question for two reasons.
A) this "man of God" thing, where one man has the Special Knowledge and is to be obeyed,
that's reserved for Jesus Christ, and him ONLY-
not ANY representative on the earth. All leaders have the respect of their organizations,
but blind ANYTHING-trust, obedience- are completely wrong and DANGEROUS.
B) The best men of God (and women of God) I've known have rarely gone on television.
They follow their calling where they are at-and that usually means that instead of a
television studio, they're in "the valley of human need", ministering to others.
I do not believe that anyone has the key to GOD. I was very involved in TWI and saw many things, some I was too naive to know what was really going on, but some would make your skin crawl! Why throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater? Does this mean I'm still brainwashed???
Just looking for a few more answers!
:)
I agree with you about any one person-or group- having The Key to God.
I can work with you and agree at any point, but I'm NOT just going where you point.
As for the "baby" "bathwater" analogy, I wince when I hear it now.
There's a saying I heard once: "Never mistake a slogan for a solution." (John Capozzi.)
I've heard this analogy a lot over the years, and rarely is it a sign someone's thought
the issue through-it's been used IN PLACE OF THINKING, very often.
(Not that YOU necessarily have had this problem, but MANY people have.)
I've seen it very common that twi'ers-both IN twi and OUT of twi- will avoid a
difficult question-or a problem they don't want to face- by invoking some stock phrase
and pretending that answered the question.
(Not that YOU necessarily have had this problem, but MANY people-especially
leadership types-have.)
I prefer sayings like "prove all things, hold fast to what is good."
HOW one will put them to the proof is up to them.
It's often recommended to put aside the twi books, get a new, clean Bible
(the New American Standard Bible is THE best Bible for ex-twi'ers looking for a new
perspective, since it's got the italics, clearer language, and a stronger document
history than the KJV, but you may use any version you wish, of course)
and start over. If the Bible truly reflects something, it will be there.
Of course, all the head-knowledge in the world won't help build a RELATIONSHIP
WITH JESUS CHRIST. How about putting down the Bible and doing some acts
of mercy with no hope of being recognized for them?
How about finding some other Christians and building them up without putting
the focus on you?
These are at LEAST as important.
Jesus never told his disciples that people would recognize them by their
KNOWLEDGE, but by their LOVE.
How will others see your love if you're not putting it in motion?
Funny, we use a catchphrase and we sometimes assume others are using it the same way we are. To me, "the baby" is the Lord Jesus, or the truth (same thing). The bathwater is religious pride, the shortcomings and foolishness of men, and bad doctrine.
Remember the *listening with a purpose* questions that were covered at the end of each session of PFAL?
In session #3, one of these questions posed the query"how do we stand approved before God?"
The supposedly correct answer to that question was " By studying in order to rightly divide The Word."
In retrospect, it seems rather silly that we accepted that to be correct.
For centuries and centuries, the vast population of Planet Earth was illiterate.
So what does that mean?, that they were just SOL because they had no avenue of satisfying this "requirement"?
This is just a small example of how the class was designed to put a disproportionate emphasis on "knowledge obsession".
Wierwille had a vested interested in this "knowledge obsession".
It (the knowledge obsession) was the backbone of his skeleton of classes, books, programs, advances and so on.
In other words, he was a business man and "knowledge obsession" was the core product that he sold.
Even after all these years, we're still talking about what we "learned" instead of what we actually accomplished that had any lasting, redeeming value.
That doesn't mean we didn't accomplish anything of lasting, redeeming value, only that our priorities were way out of kilter.
Wierwille, on the other hand, had his priorities in clear focus(IMO).
He identified his product correctly and set about launching a very aggressive promotional campaign.
Maybe "the baby" grew up on his own and climbed out of the dirty bathwater when no one was looking.
Part of what fuels discussions/arguments here is that there is no clear consensus on what was "good" in PFAL and what was "bad". What one person throws out for what they consider sound reasons is viewed as "throwing the abby out with the bathwater" by others.
Like the phenomena whereas many posters feel that TWI was great until the exact moment where they realized that it wasn't, and that anyone who stayed one minute past their departure was foolish, many of us view the TWI teaching that we have retained and those that we have discarded as just the right mix.
Well..it seems like pfal...was the foundation or the spring board into the teachings that caused such harm. It is very hard to discern what is good and spiritually healthy from that which was utlized to enslave people.
I think Evan made a good point about a little leaven, leaveneth the whole loaf.
Funny, we use a catchphrase and we sometimes assume others are using it the same way we are. To me, "the baby" is the Lord Jesus, or the truth (same thing). The bathwater is religious pride, the shortcomings and foolishness of men, and bad doctrine.
Yes, I agree that "we sometimes assume others . . . ." I suppose there's really nothing wrong with that but, I think it's important that we're all on the same page that Roses is on or she/he might not get the answers sought. Unless she/he clarifies what is meant by the analogy at best we can only filter it through our own opinion of what the analogy means.
In Roses OP you have two entities (or nouns) mentioned.
Why throw away all we've learned? <snip> It has taken years to fully understand the impact on my mind of what the TWI has done to me, but I am thankful for the word (some) I learned. <snip>
1. TWI
2. the word.
It's easily discernible from just the second sentence that Rose is no longer associated with TWI (the bathwater -- or the environment). Yet Rose is "thankful for the word (baby)" she/he learned while in the environment of TWI. Should she/he throw away the baby (word) that's she/he is thankful for just because she threw away the bathwater (TWI) that she's not thankful for? I just don't see the sense in throwing away something you're thankful for just because it was immersed in something you're not thankful for.
yes this is how i hear it as well, I think of John Lynn when i hear this saying, and if I suppose to speak for him what he meant when he says it, it is twi was not good but its people those He wished to serve were good, so that is why he keeps going on to do what he feels he was called to do.
and for me today it is the same the blesings i may have recieved from being involved in the Way international can be kept as a joy to my life and the "bathwater" or bad can just go down the drain and be gone from my thoughts and life.
Yea, but you're making it even more complicated. What is good? What is bad? What is the "baby"? What is the "bathwater"?
If you say: "It (the baby) is good." You're not really saying what is good -- you're only describing the quality of some unknown noun because both the terms baby and bathwater only represent some other nouns.
Additionally, I don't see how it follows that you should "dispose of the good along with the bad." If your toes have developed gangrene (as a result of frost-bite) do you cut your entire foot off just because your toes are bad?
Perhaps we all didn't have the exact same content in the bathtubs, or perhaps some have different ways of perceiving what was inside...
As one who tossed it all, and am no longer Christian, all I can say is I saw other ideas and ways of thinking that made more sense to me, that seemed to fit the values I saw as important.
Do I think that everyone who thinks differently than I is wrong and bad? No. But I find like minded to be somewhat artificial, because how can individuals always think exactly the same?
Do I think that PFAL taught the greatest truth ever? No, though I did for a long time. In my mind, it lead to much destruction, and I suspect that small subtle things in PFAL/TWI doctrine can grow into ugly things in life.
The baby and how to help him grow up inside you is found many many many other places that don't have the dirty grey water, but nice clean holy spirit water.
Of course in the world there will be the world until we leave this place, but there is so much goodness to go forward with. So much that does not carry the hooks and barbs that keep people from ever knowing the Lord as a true loving God who cares for them personally.
There are lots of good reasons to go forward into the wealth of good Christian stuff available.
I don't necessarily think that holding onto bitterness is healthy, but many people have found it helps to be able to "vent" about things that we ignored and shoved beneath the surface for our twi years.
Yea, but you're making it even more complicated. What is good? What is bad? What is the "baby"? What is the "bathwater"?
If you say: "It (the baby) is good." You're not really saying what is good -- you're only describing the quality of some unknown noun because both the terms baby and bathwater only represent some other nouns.
Additionally, I don't see how it follows that you should "dispose of the good along with the bad." If your toes have developed gangrene (as a result of frost-bite) do you cut your entire foot off just because your toes are bad?
Please pardon my poor syntax.
When I stated" Dispose of the good along with the bad.", it was not intended to be interpreted as a directive.
Allow me to rephrase the expression as a question in order to convey the manner in which it is generally used.
"Should you throw out the baby along with the bathwater?"
(It is usually used in a rhetorical sense.)
The baby can be anything you want it to be that represents "good" and the bathwater can be anything you want it to be that represents "bad".
Identifying which is which is where the process can start to become complicated.
Yea, but you're making it even more complicated. What is good? What is bad? What is the "baby"? What is the "bathwater"?
If you say: "It (the baby) is good." You're not really saying what is good -- you're only describing the quality of some unknown noun because both the terms baby and bathwater only represent some other nouns.
Additionally, I don't see how it follows that you should "dispose of the good along with the bad." If your toes have developed gangrene (as a result of frost-bite) do you cut your entire foot off just because your toes are bad?
it depends on what subject your talking about. the context of the discussion larry, it is a catch phrase used in conversation.
what is good or bad will be up to each individual, in the context of the conversation, so the answer will vary.
oakspear covered this question in his post.
baby is good! if your foot is still "good" then keep it even tho the toes might have to go. understand? but if the foot is "bad" that should go as well. it is up to a medical Dr. I suppose in the example you cited to decide what has to stay or go, and up to you to decide if the Dr. is again"good" for you to rely on to cut off what.
my Dr. is Jesus the physical of my soul. He is who i try to keep as big brother I am quite His baby sister.
When I stated" Dispose of the good along with the bad.", it was not intended to be interpreted as a directive.
Allow me to rephrase the expression as a question in order to convey the manner in which it is generally used.
"Should you throw out the baby along with the bathwater?"
(It is usually used in a rhetorical sense.)
Ok. I'm with you so far.
The baby can be anything you want it to be that represents "good" and the bathwater can be anything you want it to be that represents "bad".
That's true. But I sorta think we should discern what Rose had in mind and speak to that meaning instead of our own. We can always get our own baby and bathwater and define what we're speaking of (in another thread). But then, I've been informed that that's not the way things operate here at GS.
Anyways, thanks for clarifying what you meant to say.
Waysider, your "simplified" version is good. Thanks for sharing that; you're good at that. Of course that's what it means. It's only in the context of my experience with the Way that the baby was Christ and truth, and the bathwater religion.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
20
16
7
Popular Days
Aug 4
31
Aug 5
28
Sep 11
21
Aug 6
8
Top Posters In This Topic
Abigail 7 posts
Ham 20 posts
Larry N Moore 16 posts
anotherDan 7 posts
Popular Days
Aug 4 2007
31 posts
Aug 5 2007
28 posts
Sep 11 2007
21 posts
Aug 6 2007
8 posts
Posted Images
doojable
Can we switch analogies now? Sorry, but as a mother of two wonderful girls I cannot keep throwing out babies...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustSayNO
No more babies - thread killer!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
:) Well, it's Roses analogy but if she wants to switch it to the one I mentioned that's ok. The point is still the same. But then again -- if you're a vegetarian -- that one won't work either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
But I just don't want to get rid of the babies!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penguin
Behave you JustSayNO!! :P :P
Seriously,
Recent years claimed that the Word was the ministry and the Ministry was the Word. Also implied that if Jesus was Lord that nothing came before twi.
It's like taking apart a jigsaw puzzle and trying to erase the picture from the original pieces.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Why would someone do that? (Bump).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Welcome!
You make an excellent point. Amongst the never ending lineup of televangelists and assorted religious business enterprises hawking special "Christian" insight and the assorted claptrap (aka "income streams") that inevitably accompanies such swill, "honesty" is a word whose definition moves with the user and adjusts for conditions. But...
I don't consider these generations of money-sucking tics a good basis for comparison unless it's to determine which one has the better marketing plan or tax-dodge going.
I do highly recommend finding a local church you like, finding one by visiting several, as many as you like and once you find one with a pastor who seems honest and where you enjoy the activities and teaching giving them some time.
I recommend reading the bible for pleasure and edification and having some friendships and hang time with other Christians.
Learn to expect a reasonable amount of honesty from normal reasonable people who aren't trying to get you to buy something or make a committment to take a class or join their group. People interested in helping others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Maybe this is what's meant by the baby that VPW-wannabees really don't want to throw out:
Album cover for Billion Dollar Babies by Alice Cooper
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Hello.
A few people have made a cold evaluation and determined that EVERYTHING they learned
from twi-official doctrines, teachings, and practices used at twi-
were of no real use, and are no longer Christians.
They're adults, and those are their decisions.
As for those of us who are still Christians, usually we still agree with SOMETHING twi
taught, whether or not we trust twi teaching on it.
(For example, almost all the Christians here still believe Jesus is the Messiah,
and so on.)
Blanket statements like "ALL we have learned" tend to make me look twice,
since things are usually NOT that simple- but they are when someone's accusing someone else
of doing them, as in
"why have you thrown away all you've learned?"
I'm not saying you're doing this, necessarily, but it's an easy habit, and a bad habit,
to get into. I would keep an eye out for it if I were you. (Since I'm not you, you are free to
ignore this advice.)
Well, since you asked....vpw's character is at the core of a number of issues, and the heart of how twi functioned and operated
(and to a degree, how it STILL does both.)
He claimed he, and he alone, had exclusive knowledge from God that Christians were missing
for 2000 years, and that all other Christians reside in error, and are inferior Christians AT BEST.
He claimed their leaders were untrustworthy.
All of those were lies, carefully designed to get people to look to vpw as the finisher of our faith,
and to seal themselves away from all other forms of Christian to avoid error.
That error still applies whenever anyone ex-twi claims that
"all other Christians and all other Christian leaders are petty, error-ridden, and selfish!"
That's only the FIRST of many issues.
In short, YOU care, because that's what was carefully taught to you.
They carefully taught it to me, too, but I've had years to address this specific point.
If I MUST pick a televangelist,
then I shall say ONE of them is a true man of God- Billy Graham.
HONEST inquiries into his life have shown a man who "walks the talk" and "talks the walk".
However, I consider this a trick question for two reasons.
A) this "man of God" thing, where one man has the Special Knowledge and is to be obeyed,
that's reserved for Jesus Christ, and him ONLY-
not ANY representative on the earth. All leaders have the respect of their organizations,
but blind ANYTHING-trust, obedience- are completely wrong and DANGEROUS.
B) The best men of God (and women of God) I've known have rarely gone on television.
They follow their calling where they are at-and that usually means that instead of a
television studio, they're in "the valley of human need", ministering to others.
I agree with you about any one person-or group- having The Key to God.
I can work with you and agree at any point, but I'm NOT just going where you point.
As for the "baby" "bathwater" analogy, I wince when I hear it now.
There's a saying I heard once: "Never mistake a slogan for a solution." (John Capozzi.)
I've heard this analogy a lot over the years, and rarely is it a sign someone's thought
the issue through-it's been used IN PLACE OF THINKING, very often.
(Not that YOU necessarily have had this problem, but MANY people have.)
I've seen it very common that twi'ers-both IN twi and OUT of twi- will avoid a
difficult question-or a problem they don't want to face- by invoking some stock phrase
and pretending that answered the question.
(Not that YOU necessarily have had this problem, but MANY people-especially
leadership types-have.)
I prefer sayings like "prove all things, hold fast to what is good."
HOW one will put them to the proof is up to them.
It's often recommended to put aside the twi books, get a new, clean Bible
(the New American Standard Bible is THE best Bible for ex-twi'ers looking for a new
perspective, since it's got the italics, clearer language, and a stronger document
history than the KJV, but you may use any version you wish, of course)
and start over. If the Bible truly reflects something, it will be there.
Of course, all the head-knowledge in the world won't help build a RELATIONSHIP
WITH JESUS CHRIST. How about putting down the Bible and doing some acts
of mercy with no hope of being recognized for them?
How about finding some other Christians and building them up without putting
the focus on you?
These are at LEAST as important.
Jesus never told his disciples that people would recognize them by their
KNOWLEDGE, but by their LOVE.
How will others see your love if you're not putting it in motion?
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Funny, we use a catchphrase and we sometimes assume others are using it the same way we are. To me, "the baby" is the Lord Jesus, or the truth (same thing). The bathwater is religious pride, the shortcomings and foolishness of men, and bad doctrine.
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Remember the *listening with a purpose* questions that were covered at the end of each session of PFAL?
In session #3, one of these questions posed the query"how do we stand approved before God?"
The supposedly correct answer to that question was " By studying in order to rightly divide The Word."
In retrospect, it seems rather silly that we accepted that to be correct.
For centuries and centuries, the vast population of Planet Earth was illiterate.
So what does that mean?, that they were just SOL because they had no avenue of satisfying this "requirement"?
This is just a small example of how the class was designed to put a disproportionate emphasis on "knowledge obsession".
Wierwille had a vested interested in this "knowledge obsession".
It (the knowledge obsession) was the backbone of his skeleton of classes, books, programs, advances and so on.
In other words, he was a business man and "knowledge obsession" was the core product that he sold.
Even after all these years, we're still talking about what we "learned" instead of what we actually accomplished that had any lasting, redeeming value.
That doesn't mean we didn't accomplish anything of lasting, redeeming value, only that our priorities were way out of kilter.
Wierwille, on the other hand, had his priorities in clear focus(IMO).
He identified his product correctly and set about launching a very aggressive promotional campaign.
Maybe "the baby" grew up on his own and climbed out of the dirty bathwater when no one was looking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Good post, waysider. Something to think about
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Part of what fuels discussions/arguments here is that there is no clear consensus on what was "good" in PFAL and what was "bad". What one person throws out for what they consider sound reasons is viewed as "throwing the abby out with the bathwater" by others.
Like the phenomena whereas many posters feel that TWI was great until the exact moment where they realized that it wasn't, and that anyone who stayed one minute past their departure was foolish, many of us view the TWI teaching that we have retained and those that we have discarded as just the right mix.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Well..it seems like pfal...was the foundation or the spring board into the teachings that caused such harm. It is very hard to discern what is good and spiritually healthy from that which was utlized to enslave people.
I think Evan made a good point about a little leaven, leaveneth the whole loaf.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Yes, I agree that "we sometimes assume others . . . ." I suppose there's really nothing wrong with that but, I think it's important that we're all on the same page that Roses is on or she/he might not get the answers sought. Unless she/he clarifies what is meant by the analogy at best we can only filter it through our own opinion of what the analogy means.
In Roses OP you have two entities (or nouns) mentioned.
1. TWI
2. the word.
It's easily discernible from just the second sentence that Rose is no longer associated with TWI (the bathwater -- or the environment). Yet Rose is "thankful for the word (baby)" she/he learned while in the environment of TWI. Should she/he throw away the baby (word) that's she/he is thankful for just because she threw away the bathwater (TWI) that she's not thankful for? I just don't see the sense in throwing away something you're thankful for just because it was immersed in something you're not thankful for.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
We are making it far too complicated.
The expression is not unique to TWI.
The baby= "good".
The bathwater= "bad".
Hence, "Dispose of the good along with the bad".
Can't see the forest for the trees.
Cut off your nose to spite your face.
Spend a dollar to save a dime.
Etc.,Etc.,Etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
yes this is how i hear it as well, I think of John Lynn when i hear this saying, and if I suppose to speak for him what he meant when he says it, it is twi was not good but its people those He wished to serve were good, so that is why he keeps going on to do what he feels he was called to do.
and for me today it is the same the blesings i may have recieved from being involved in the Way international can be kept as a joy to my life and the "bathwater" or bad can just go down the drain and be gone from my thoughts and life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Yea, but you're making it even more complicated. What is good? What is bad? What is the "baby"? What is the "bathwater"?
If you say: "It (the baby) is good." You're not really saying what is good -- you're only describing the quality of some unknown noun because both the terms baby and bathwater only represent some other nouns.
Additionally, I don't see how it follows that you should "dispose of the good along with the bad." If your toes have developed gangrene (as a result of frost-bite) do you cut your entire foot off just because your toes are bad?
Edited by Larry N MooreLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Perhaps we all didn't have the exact same content in the bathtubs, or perhaps some have different ways of perceiving what was inside...
As one who tossed it all, and am no longer Christian, all I can say is I saw other ideas and ways of thinking that made more sense to me, that seemed to fit the values I saw as important.
Do I think that everyone who thinks differently than I is wrong and bad? No. But I find like minded to be somewhat artificial, because how can individuals always think exactly the same?
Do I think that PFAL taught the greatest truth ever? No, though I did for a long time. In my mind, it lead to much destruction, and I suspect that small subtle things in PFAL/TWI doctrine can grow into ugly things in life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kit Sober
Welcome, too, from me
The baby and how to help him grow up inside you is found many many many other places that don't have the dirty grey water, but nice clean holy spirit water.
Of course in the world there will be the world until we leave this place, but there is so much goodness to go forward with. So much that does not carry the hooks and barbs that keep people from ever knowing the Lord as a true loving God who cares for them personally.
There are lots of good reasons to go forward into the wealth of good Christian stuff available.
I don't necessarily think that holding onto bitterness is healthy, but many people have found it helps to be able to "vent" about things that we ignored and shoved beneath the surface for our twi years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Please pardon my poor syntax.
When I stated" Dispose of the good along with the bad.", it was not intended to be interpreted as a directive.
Allow me to rephrase the expression as a question in order to convey the manner in which it is generally used.
"Should you throw out the baby along with the bathwater?"
(It is usually used in a rhetorical sense.)
The baby can be anything you want it to be that represents "good" and the bathwater can be anything you want it to be that represents "bad".
Identifying which is which is where the process can start to become complicated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
it depends on what subject your talking about. the context of the discussion larry, it is a catch phrase used in conversation.
what is good or bad will be up to each individual, in the context of the conversation, so the answer will vary.
oakspear covered this question in his post.
baby is good! if your foot is still "good" then keep it even tho the toes might have to go. understand? but if the foot is "bad" that should go as well. it is up to a medical Dr. I suppose in the example you cited to decide what has to stay or go, and up to you to decide if the Dr. is again"good" for you to rely on to cut off what.
my Dr. is Jesus the physical of my soul. He is who i try to keep as big brother I am quite His baby sister.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
You're pardoned.
Ok. I'm with you so far.That's true. But I sorta think we should discern what Rose had in mind and speak to that meaning instead of our own. We can always get our own baby and bathwater and define what we're speaking of (in another thread). But then, I've been informed that that's not the way things operate here at GS.
Anyways, thanks for clarifying what you meant to say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Waysider, your "simplified" version is good. Thanks for sharing that; you're good at that. Of course that's what it means. It's only in the context of my experience with the Way that the baby was Christ and truth, and the bathwater religion.
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.