With the sensual parallel in mind, now look at how TWI perverted the manifestations of Spirit:
They intimidated people about "doing it" right.
They put it on display at every meeting and function.
They encouraged children to participate.
They boasted of their own prowess and conquests.
They forced us to fake it, or be rejected.
It was a form of abuse that is not discussed often, even here at Greasespot. Maybe that's because TWI's other abuses were more obvious. But in the same way that a rape victim suffers the fear and shame and hatred of the rapist, TWI's form of so-called manifestations actually repelled us from God, in fear and shame and hatred.
Seems like the analogies are endless.
I hope this answers you question, Abi. Just my funky way of looking at things.
Yeah, you did just fine Shifra. Even with you post previous to this one, I understood more or less where you were coming from. Your last post, though, really did add extra dimension to it. :)
It's like the slain-in-the-spirit thing, isn't it? The people all around you are doing it, it's encouraged if not promoted by the clergy, and people do it.
Shifra, do you have any thoughts about what Wrds was saying earlier about "the genuine," that flows spontaneously from an inspired, right-now energizing of God?
Thank you all for your posts. I believe this discussion has value.
The director, I believe, is Rob Riener (sp?), who was in the Archie Bunker show as "meathead". That's his mother doing a cameo, "I'll have what she's having." I was just marveling at the various reaction shots, like the guy behind Meg, and Billy's reactions... totally in character. It's a masterpiece of comedy, and Meg's performance rivals Patty Duke as Helen Keller! They must have had SO much fun shooting that scene!
Not to derail my own thread.... just biding time until others weigh in on the real issues, but check out the reaction shots in this clip. They had to shoot this scene several times to get the reaction shots, and I read that Jack did this speech a number of times to get the shots. It was said that he stunned the rest of the room every time he did it.
Cman, I get the feeling I must have pushed one of your buttons somewhere along the line. That's a shame, because I've appreciated many of the thoughts you've posted on other threads, and I'd hate to think that I've done something that puts a wall between me and you. If I have, I hope I can somehow get further with you in the future.
My acknowledgement of the other posts was not detailed or effusive (actually, it might be considered effusive). Guessalot's reply was outstanding, Shifa's comments were delightfully devilishly funny and insightful, and abi's, as always, was warm and witty.
If you think I'm missing the deeper things of the spirit, just say on, brother. I'm pretty dumb at times, and I might not get it, but I would like you to feel comfortable expressing whatever it is you have to share.
The Meg Ryan clip was funny. Thanks for making me laugh. I had to quickly turn down the volume, since I'm sitting at my office computer, within ear-shot of other people!
But ... honestly ... my posts weren't meant to be funny or devilish. I have often thought of the manifestations as "intercourse", in a really wonderful sin-less way. I'm totally serious.
Not sure, but maybe this is what C-Man was commenting on. But it's OK. This thread has become more of a weaving, and your video clips sorta tie it all together.
Mr. Guess, you are too young to be so wise. You have been around for a long time. Proof of reincarnation. OK, now back to the topic at hand: "Shon-tay-may-looma-von-shan-tay-bonishka" = "Be bold and stand strong in the prevailing blah blah blah".
But ... honestly ... my posts weren't meant to be funny or devilish. I have often thought of the manifestations as "intercourse", in a really wonderful sin-less way. I'm totally serious.
Shifra, read your previous post and thought is was truly insightful. Your perspective makes me think of I Cor. 6:16, 17
Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her, For the two, He says, shall become one flesh.
But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.
Corinthians compares the way we "join" to the Lord "in the spirit" with sexual intercourse.
When I was in TWI, sometimes I (secretly) wondered if the language I was speaking - when speaking in tongues - was perhaps a language that I spoke in a past life.
Never consulted with leadership about this though. Wonder what they would have said.
Not just these but other posts and things as well.
It is a selfless act and moving of the Spirit. And it's in this thread.
As it is in many others, though it's sometimes missed.
Tongues are not tongues anymore if it's understood.
Cman, several times at work I thought back to what you and I posted this morning. As I drove home today, I decided I should give you a more proper apology. It's obvious to me now that I mis-read you, and I'm sorry I did. As I reread your posts just now, I see them quite differently. I think I may be a bit jumpy because I've spent some time up in About the Way, where maybe I don't belong! LOL. No excuse, though. It was not the way you wrote it, it was the way I read it.
Your suggestion to go through the fourteenth chapter of 1Corinthians... would you like to start it off? I know early on there is that verse you're alluding to, that "tongues are not tongues anymore if it's understood." It's a good idea, and could provide a framework for discussion.
Dan
Never consulted with leadership about this though. Wonder what they would have said.
I don't know, but you might be posting it on the "face melting" thread.
Shifra, read your previous post and thought is was truly insightful. Your perspective makes me think of I Cor. 6:16, 17
Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her, For the two, He says, shall become one flesh.
But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.
Corinthians compares the way we "join" to the Lord "in the spirit" with sexual intercourse.
OK, I've got to read that again tomorrow. But I do have a question for you tonight. Did you intentionally write "flew the coup" or did you misspell "coop"? Because if you were intentionally inserting "coup" it would read phonetically, "floo the coo." The reason I have to retire now is to browse through a book I read a long time ago. Your post inspired me.
A question to all. An inspired poem... is it "tongues"? Is it prophecy?
Who am I?
Who am I? They often tell me
I stepped from my cell’s confinement
Calmly, cheerfully, firmly,
Like a squire from his country-house.
Who am I? They often tell me
I used to speak to my warders
Freely and friendly and clearly,
As though it were mine to command.
Who am I? They also tell me
I bore the days of misfortune
Equally, smilingly, proudly,
Like one accustomed to win.
Am I then really all that which other men tell of?
Or am I only what I myself know of myself?
Restless and longing and sick, like a bird in a cage,
Struggling for breath, as though hands were
compressing my throat,
Yearning for colors, for flowers, for the voices of birds,
Thirsting for words of kindness, for neighborliness,
Tossing in expectation of great events,
Powerlessly trembling for friends at an infinite distance,
Weary and empty at praying, at thinking, at making,
Faint, and ready to say farewell to it all?
Who am I? This or the other?
Am I one person today and tomorrow another?
Am I both at once? A hypocrite before others,
And before myself a contemptibly woebegone weakling?
Or is something within me still like a beaten army,
Fleeing in disorder from victory already achieved?
Who am I? They mock me, these lonely questions of mine.
Last night I read parts of Language in Action by S.I. Hiakawa, and On Language by William Safire. Neither really helped me very much!
I am of the opinion that language, though fluid, has as its aim communication (duh?) and therefore strive to write and speak simply. The writers to whom I gravitate are those who connect with me. They "speak my language." Poetry often uses language with abandon, and yet it speaks more loudly (good poetry, that is)... the poet takes on the daunting task of trying to say "what words can't express." Shakespeare was great. I haven't had the leisure to read him seriously in all my 54 years. Maybe someday.
Paul makes a point of speaking (in the church) words that are "easy to be understood." He is contrasting that with a manifestation of the spirit he calls "speaking in tongues." In the church, he would rather speak five words with "his understanding" than 10000 words "in a tongue." Words spoken with the understanding include prophecy and preaching. But he spoke in tongues more than they all. This does appear to me to be his meaning when he says "I will sing with the spirit" and "I will pray in the spirit." (Remember the N.T. Wright quote.)
The Pentecost event seems to be the antithesis of the confusing of the languages at Babylon.
The score is not five to nothing. I think it may be 2 to 3. Tongues being "proof" of "the new birth" seems to lose that ball game. (This comment is only for PFAL grads.)
Shifra's example of phony tongues and "interpretation" was prevalent in the Way. Or is it genuine tongues and phony interpretation only? The interpretations were trite because they were defined narrowly by Dr. W according to how he saw it in the Word. I don't fault him for trying to keep it within the bounds of what the Scriptures say, I'm quite in agreement with that practice. But I certainly agree that the practice of tongues w/ int was anemic (OK, I need a spell checker! and is it phoney or phony?) and without inspiration. Can't be what Paul was talking about.
The Corinthian church was prideful of the fact that they were "manifesting" the spirit in various ways. Paul's point in chapter 12 is that God was their unity. Who causes you to differ from another? And what do you have that you have not received (from God)? And if you've received it (from God), why would you boast as if you hadn't received it (as a gift, from God, but rather because of some personal superiority or achievement)? This is Paul's reasoning elsewhere. The Corinthians thought some gifts were better than others, and the display of those gifts made them better than others who had other gifts. Paul confronts this with the body analogy. All are needed. God has tempered the body together, and even the humble "parts" are necessary, and have honor. God put the members of the body as it has pleased him. He put the eyes on the front of our faces, and he put tongues and "word of wisdom" in the spiritual body as He saw fit. It is clear from the rhetorical questions at the end of chapter 12 that Dr. Wierwille's assertion that the spirit divides to every man "severally, as he (the man) wills" is incorrect. This flies in the face of Paul's line of reasoning.
My personal quest is to come into conformity with God's purposes for His children. Conformity might not be the best word, since it's "the world" that conforms us, but God via the spirit transforms us. It's liberating rather than confining.
edit: the poem I quoted in the last post was by Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Martin Luther vs. VPW? I think they both had liberating effects in their ministries, Luther's, of course, being vastly more far-reaching. But Luther's effect was also tremendously confining. DrW's doubly so. They both saw themselves as reformers, and history will have its way with them both. I'm surprised you don't like Paul, but like Luther!!!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
19
17
33
19
Popular Days
Aug 28
22
Aug 26
19
Feb 15
17
Sep 1
12
Top Posters In This Topic
waysider 19 posts
cman 17 posts
anotherDan 33 posts
TRIUNE_GOD 19 posts
Popular Days
Aug 28 2007
22 posts
Aug 26 2007
19 posts
Feb 15 2010
17 posts
Sep 1 2007
12 posts
Popular Posts
Sunesis
No problem RobertErasmus. I do very much enjoy your sharings. But I do like the doctrinal section here and don't want anyone to be intimidated to say what they think. Of course there are going to b
Sunesis
Well, Mr. RobertErasmus, from my study, I do not believe tongues today is what it was then. You can call my opinion "poppycock" all you want, but you have just lowered yourself to me. If you can't s
sirguessalot
i can suggest starting with a mutual consent based-process for any adult discussion ...including doctrinal.. rather ordinary...and any good marriage or friendship is based on it illustrated by ask
Posted Images
Shifra
With the sensual parallel in mind, now look at how TWI perverted the manifestations of Spirit:
They intimidated people about "doing it" right.
They put it on display at every meeting and function.
They encouraged children to participate.
They boasted of their own prowess and conquests.
They forced us to fake it, or be rejected.
It was a form of abuse that is not discussed often, even here at Greasespot. Maybe that's because TWI's other abuses were more obvious. But in the same way that a rape victim suffers the fear and shame and hatred of the rapist, TWI's form of so-called manifestations actually repelled us from God, in fear and shame and hatred.
Seems like the analogies are endless.
I hope this answers you question, Abi. Just my funky way of looking at things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Yeah, you did just fine Shifra. Even with you post previous to this one, I understood more or less where you were coming from. Your last post, though, really did add extra dimension to it. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
It's like the slain-in-the-spirit thing, isn't it? The people all around you are doing it, it's encouraged if not promoted by the clergy, and people do it.
Shifra, do you have any thoughts about what Wrds was saying earlier about "the genuine," that flows spontaneously from an inspired, right-now energizing of God?
Thank you all for your posts. I believe this discussion has value.
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
ROFLMAO, Dan. Well I know Sushi will enjoy this thread!!! He LOVES that scene from that movie. HA!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
The director, I believe, is Rob Riener (sp?), who was in the Archie Bunker show as "meathead". That's his mother doing a cameo, "I'll have what she's having." I was just marveling at the various reaction shots, like the guy behind Meg, and Billy's reactions... totally in character. It's a masterpiece of comedy, and Meg's performance rivals Patty Duke as Helen Keller! They must have had SO much fun shooting that scene!
Not to derail my own thread.... just biding time until others weigh in on the real issues, but check out the reaction shots in this clip. They had to shoot this scene several times to get the reaction shots, and I read that Jack did this speech a number of times to get the shots. It was said that he stunned the rest of the room every time he did it.
The second clip runs a little further out
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
"Not to derail my own thread.... just biding time until others weigh in on the real issues"
A Dan, you must have missed a few then.
A life giving sound is sensual as Shifra points out.
Sirguessalot's post is outstanding.
Perhaps 1 Cor 14 could be read along with it.
Not many have a handle on tongues.
Read the few that do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Cman, au contrare. I acknowledged those posts. Scroll up.
Those kinds of posts are why I'm here. I enjoy them and learn from them.
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Yes I know you did, might be all you get for now, don't know though.
Rereading some things help, reflecting on them.
Not just these but other posts and things as well.
It is a selfless act and moving of the Spirit. And it's in this thread.
As it is in many others, though it's sometimes missed.
Tongues are not tongues anymore if it's understood.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Cman, I get the feeling I must have pushed one of your buttons somewhere along the line. That's a shame, because I've appreciated many of the thoughts you've posted on other threads, and I'd hate to think that I've done something that puts a wall between me and you. If I have, I hope I can somehow get further with you in the future.
My acknowledgement of the other posts was not detailed or effusive (actually, it might be considered effusive). Guessalot's reply was outstanding, Shifa's comments were delightfully devilishly funny and insightful, and abi's, as always, was warm and witty.
If you think I'm missing the deeper things of the spirit, just say on, brother. I'm pretty dumb at times, and I might not get it, but I would like you to feel comfortable expressing whatever it is you have to share.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
You may be mistaking what I say as condescending or something.
No buttons have been pushed at all.
Still figuring this stuff out myself also.
Typed words are hard to convey my heart, as it is for others.
Some can do it well while I suck at it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
That's great. Thanks for that! I'm often misunderstood, I think, and no doubt it's often because I do such a poor job of writing.
I don't write to good, but I edit well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shifra
Dan,
The Meg Ryan clip was funny. Thanks for making me laugh. I had to quickly turn down the volume, since I'm sitting at my office computer, within ear-shot of other people!
But ... honestly ... my posts weren't meant to be funny or devilish. I have often thought of the manifestations as "intercourse", in a really wonderful sin-less way. I'm totally serious.
Not sure, but maybe this is what C-Man was commenting on. But it's OK. This thread has become more of a weaving, and your video clips sorta tie it all together.
Mr. Guess, you are too young to be so wise. You have been around for a long time. Proof of reincarnation. OK, now back to the topic at hand: "Shon-tay-may-looma-von-shan-tay-bonishka" = "Be bold and stand strong in the prevailing blah blah blah".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Not sure how my clips tie it all together, but OK! (cameraman pans the gallery for reaction shots)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wrdsandwrks
Shifra, read your previous post and thought is was truly insightful. Your perspective makes me think of I Cor. 6:16, 17
Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her, For the two, He says, shall become one flesh.
But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.
Corinthians compares the way we "join" to the Lord "in the spirit" with sexual intercourse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shifra
Cool.
When I was in TWI, sometimes I (secretly) wondered if the language I was speaking - when speaking in tongues - was perhaps a language that I spoke in a past life.
Never consulted with leadership about this though. Wonder what they would have said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Cman, several times at work I thought back to what you and I posted this morning. As I drove home today, I decided I should give you a more proper apology. It's obvious to me now that I mis-read you, and I'm sorry I did. As I reread your posts just now, I see them quite differently. I think I may be a bit jumpy because I've spent some time up in About the Way, where maybe I don't belong! LOL. No excuse, though. It was not the way you wrote it, it was the way I read it.
Your suggestion to go through the fourteenth chapter of 1Corinthians... would you like to start it off? I know early on there is that verse you're alluding to, that "tongues are not tongues anymore if it's understood." It's a good idea, and could provide a framework for discussion.
Dan
I don't know, but you might be posting it on the "face melting" thread.
Wrds, that illuminated me. I see it now.
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
hm
interesting example
i can relate
permit a tad rant...
so here you are...speaking of how you speak, anotherdan
which, in a sense... is to use language to speak of the nature of language
seems to provide a certain positive generative redundancy...
not just moving from the floor to a chair
but getting on the roof of things
"a whole nuther level" as they say
and all this speaking of tongues and sex and the spirit of God and such
reminds me of how it is to discover
this slippery flame
of an erotic viper
that lives and breaths
in the mouths and minds of our hearts
this alluring one
how it just climbs and climbs and climbs til the end
as thought as feeling as language as memory as dream
this is all territory for higher levels of eroticism
the bible is soaking wet with sexuality and sensuality and mystique in its meaning
some of the richness of the entire span of ancient jewish and middle eastern wisdom
is saturated in such contexts and lyrical allowings
our modern christianity is WAY OFF in this regard
science is WAY OFF in helping in that regard
in terms of linguistic and literary taboos and other tongue tied habits
and not even just from what we refuse to look at
but perhaps more from the mountains of possible meaning we tend to disallow and avoid
its like...2007
and we are trapped in communication babylon without the keys to the kingdom
we grab onto language like shipwreck victims grabbing for liferafts in the flotsam and jetsam
yep...we need new languages
and we are already doing it...right here, right now
cuz we need to
gsc reminds me of an island weve found to rest after we flew the coup on a lil CULTure
we are qualified simply for having shown up
simply for having arrived
to help rethink language and find meaning again
some of those old meanings have got many words scratched into us like a wound
hard to find deeper meaning with some words
and there a thousands thousand streams and waves of esoteric jargons in the world today
not a single one of them without meaning to those who are using them
not a single one of them unrelated to the vast tree of human and animal languages
so...there seems to be a need for a compass
something that is NOT limited to some language-set
so we can trust so we can re-enter the waters
and navigate the sea of real meaning that exists as it is
as it is
something to loosens our tongues to even freer degree
and access shared meaning like friends share bread and bread recipes
how might we play at ways of finding such a thing?
how may we already be doing such things?
neat stuff, imo
something worth adding to all our earlier freedoms
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
OK, I've got to read that again tomorrow. But I do have a question for you tonight. Did you intentionally write "flew the coup" or did you misspell "coop"? Because if you were intentionally inserting "coup" it would read phonetically, "floo the coo." The reason I have to retire now is to browse through a book I read a long time ago. Your post inspired me.
A question to all. An inspired poem... is it "tongues"? Is it prophecy?
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
no...it was a slip...typing quite rapidly
i do like floo the coo better, tho
i'll read your quote now
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Last night I read parts of Language in Action by S.I. Hiakawa, and On Language by William Safire. Neither really helped me very much!
I am of the opinion that language, though fluid, has as its aim communication (duh?) and therefore strive to write and speak simply. The writers to whom I gravitate are those who connect with me. They "speak my language." Poetry often uses language with abandon, and yet it speaks more loudly (good poetry, that is)... the poet takes on the daunting task of trying to say "what words can't express." Shakespeare was great. I haven't had the leisure to read him seriously in all my 54 years. Maybe someday.
Paul makes a point of speaking (in the church) words that are "easy to be understood." He is contrasting that with a manifestation of the spirit he calls "speaking in tongues." In the church, he would rather speak five words with "his understanding" than 10000 words "in a tongue." Words spoken with the understanding include prophecy and preaching. But he spoke in tongues more than they all. This does appear to me to be his meaning when he says "I will sing with the spirit" and "I will pray in the spirit." (Remember the N.T. Wright quote.)
The Pentecost event seems to be the antithesis of the confusing of the languages at Babylon.
The score is not five to nothing. I think it may be 2 to 3. Tongues being "proof" of "the new birth" seems to lose that ball game. (This comment is only for PFAL grads.)
Shifra's example of phony tongues and "interpretation" was prevalent in the Way. Or is it genuine tongues and phony interpretation only? The interpretations were trite because they were defined narrowly by Dr. W according to how he saw it in the Word. I don't fault him for trying to keep it within the bounds of what the Scriptures say, I'm quite in agreement with that practice. But I certainly agree that the practice of tongues w/ int was anemic (OK, I need a spell checker! and is it phoney or phony?) and without inspiration. Can't be what Paul was talking about.
The Corinthian church was prideful of the fact that they were "manifesting" the spirit in various ways. Paul's point in chapter 12 is that God was their unity. Who causes you to differ from another? And what do you have that you have not received (from God)? And if you've received it (from God), why would you boast as if you hadn't received it (as a gift, from God, but rather because of some personal superiority or achievement)? This is Paul's reasoning elsewhere. The Corinthians thought some gifts were better than others, and the display of those gifts made them better than others who had other gifts. Paul confronts this with the body analogy. All are needed. God has tempered the body together, and even the humble "parts" are necessary, and have honor. God put the members of the body as it has pleased him. He put the eyes on the front of our faces, and he put tongues and "word of wisdom" in the spiritual body as He saw fit. It is clear from the rhetorical questions at the end of chapter 12 that Dr. Wierwille's assertion that the spirit divides to every man "severally, as he (the man) wills" is incorrect. This flies in the face of Paul's line of reasoning.
My personal quest is to come into conformity with God's purposes for His children. Conformity might not be the best word, since it's "the world" that conforms us, but God via the spirit transforms us. It's liberating rather than confining.
edit: the poem I quoted in the last post was by Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Shifra
Oooohhhhh! That's nice! I like it!: "The world conforms us, and God transforms us"! Beautiful!
"Liberating" and "Confining" - Well, let's see ...
Loving God is liberating / Religion is confining
Jesus Christ is liberating / Paul was confining
Martin Luther was liberating / Dr. Wierwille was confining
And speaking of all of that, why do we say there are only nine manifestations?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Good point, Shif... IMO, there are not only nine.
Martin Luther vs. VPW? I think they both had liberating effects in their ministries, Luther's, of course, being vastly more far-reaching. But Luther's effect was also tremendously confining. DrW's doubly so. They both saw themselves as reformers, and history will have its way with them both. I'm surprised you don't like Paul, but like Luther!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
There are some very moving and healing words in this thread!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
guessalot, you are gifted. I'm not done with your last major post... I have to go to work again (darn!).
As cman says, rereading is useful. Looking forward to it. Thanks for sharing.
Edited by anotherDanLink 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.