I heard a fun fact yesterday, I don't know if it's confirmable. I heard that the offshoot Christian Family Fellowship is actually bigger than TWI (at least in the USA).
Those responses are not mutually exclusive. A generation "in search of the truth" can be unusually gullible, especially when the group offering the truth is making an attractive case for its product.
Agreed, as evidenced by the many cults that sprang up in those days. The point was that great hunger for truth doesn't necessarily dull one's intelligence, sensibility, or ability to reason (any of which might make one more gullible.) Perhaps the real issue is whether or not one believes that God exists, and that He both can and will answer prayers. Do you think there were there more young people that believed that way back then? If so, is that what some are equating to being "unusually gullible"?
>> And one other thing: WELCOME TO THE GSC, TLC.
Thank you for the welcome (take nothing for granted...)
Agreed, as evidenced by the many cults that sprang up in those days. The point was that great hunger for truth doesn't necessarily dull one's intelligence, sensibility, or ability to reason (any of which might make one more gullible.) Perhaps the real issue is whether or not one believes that God exists, and that He both can and will answer prayers. Do you think there were there more young people that believed that way back then? If so, is that what some are equating to being "unusually gullible"?
. . .
I would think hunger would sharpen a person over time, so they won't stay gullible.
I don't know about "way back then", if you wouldn't mind elaborating some.
Agreed, as evidenced by the many cults that sprang up in those days. The point was that great hunger for truth doesn't necessarily dull one's intelligence, sensibility, or ability to reason (any of which might make one more gullible.) Perhaps the real issue is whether or not one believes that God exists, and that He both can and will answer prayers. Do you think there were there more young people that believed that way back then? If so, is that what some are equating to being "unusually gullible"?
>> And one other thing: WELCOME TO THE GSC, TLC.
Thank you for the welcome (take nothing for granted...)
No. There are more young people now than there were then. And since it's linked to developmental processes (i.e. growing into adulthood), it follows that there are more young people searching today for the same answers we sought when we were young.
But there's FAR more tangible knowledge of every subject available today, and it's more readily at people's fingertips with the WWW, so we would not necessarily be perceiving the trends the same as they occurred in earlier generations.
I would think hunger would sharpen a person over time, so they won't stay gullible.
Some do and some don't, just as some stayed in twi and most of us left it when we matured intellectually and emotionally.
Why isn't TWI as big as it was in the 70s? Why did any of the big cultic things fade? The hippie trail, Indian meditations/ashrams etc. Flower power. Nobody does that stuff now, not in the way it was done in the 70s. Too much else to choose from. Now, there is a huge choice of other cultic activities to join. When one gets boring or legalistic or even just restrictive, it's time to move on.
Not really related to TWI, but the incidence of cults continues to grow. And yes, you can join from your basement or your bedroom or wherever private place you inhabit. Seekers for truth or spiritual enlightenment can find any number of teachers on the web. Extreme examples nowadays are those young fools who try to follow Muslim enlightenments, and find themselves in terrorist websites that encourage them to join banned organisations, run off to dangerous countries, and blow themselves and others up. That's extreme cultic mindset.
There are cultic Christian groups on the web too. I don't doubt that VPW would have fancied being an internet/TV preacher given half a chance: he did set up a radio program, after all, using the technology of the day to promote his ... himself!
Would it make any more sense to you to say that it's knowing things of the spirit, or things which are spiritual?
Of course, that still probably makes little or no sense for anyone that lacks either the concern or the ability to discern where certain knowledge originates. If, for example, one thinks (or "knows") that there is no real knowledge that extends beyond what can be scientifically known or analyzed, then any and all "spiritual knowledge" is axiomatically relegated to foolishness, or mysticism, or whatever other fantasy branding happens to be in vogue.
Would it make any more sense to you to say that it's knowing things of the spirit, or things which are spiritual?
Of course, that still probably makes little or no sense for anyone that lacks either the concern or the ability to discern where certain knowledge originates. If, for example, one thinks (or "knows") that there is no real knowledge that extends beyond what can be scientifically known or analyzed, then any and all "spiritual knowledge" is axiomatically relegated to foolishness, or mysticism, or whatever other fantasy branding happens to be in vogue.
Capeesh?
Good stuff TLC.
The same mind that uses science can use non-science knowledge, and be perfectly correct. Not everything can be known scientifically, that doesn't make it unknowable to the same mind. (If I restate this enough it will start to make some sense.)
That doesn't make it foolishness, mystic, or a fantasy brand. Does that make it spiritual? Not necessarily.
If I am willing, but not able, to understand where spiritual understanding comes from, how will I know who to trust on such matters?
If I am willing, but not able, to understand where spiritual understanding comes from, how will I know who to trust on such matters?
Considering that "spiritual understanding" comes only from the Lord, need there be any doubt where it comes from (2Tim.2:7) or who to trust on such matters?
If I have doubt and don't trust it's because the Lord hasn't given me spiritual understanding.
Do I understand this correctly?
Given that I'm not sure how you parsed that from what I said, why ask me? Is there something specific that you had in mind, or are you just fooling around with words in general? In other words, are you trying to understand something that I said, something in your own mind, or something to twist around?
Understanding a matter does seem to cement one's believing of it. But understanding is not necessarily a prerequisite nor a mandatory ingredient to believing. And as I see it, there's a far closer relationship between trust and believing than there is between trust and understanding. (Why else do you suppose it is written to trust in the Lord with all thine heart and lean not unto thine own understanding?)
Given that I'm not sure how you parsed that from what I said, why ask me?
You were participating on the boards. I do think your input is relevant.
Is there something specific that you had in mind, or are you just fooling around with words in general? In other words, are you trying to understand something that I said, something in your own mind, or something to twist around?
All are true. Discussion is for learning.
Understanding a matter does seem to cement one's believing of it. But understanding is not necessarily a prerequisite nor a mandatory ingredient to believing. And as I see it, there's a far closer relationship between trust and believing than there is between trust and understanding.
It sounds similar to twisting perception to a new reality. So what IS "spiritual knowledge"?
(Why else do you suppose it is written to trust in the Lord with all thine heart and lean not unto thine own understanding?)
Would it make any more sense to you to say that it's knowing things of the spirit, or things which are spiritual?
Of course, that still probably makes little or no sense for anyone that lacks either the concern or the ability to discern where certain knowledge originates. If, for example, one thinks (or "knows") that there is no real knowledge that extends beyond what can be scientifically known or analyzed, then any and all "spiritual knowledge" is axiomatically relegated to foolishness, or mysticism, or whatever other fantasy branding happens to be in vogue.
Capeesh?
Just a little reminder:
There's a wide variety of beliefs represented here, across decades and threads.
Don't be surprised if discussing whether something is true gets Pilate's response
You were participating on the boards. I do think your input is relevant.
Then please note that if I don't understand your question or see how it relates to something I've said, then I'm probably not going to post a reply.
All are true. Discussion is for learning.
Well, I'm certainly not a mind reader, if it's something rolling around in your head.
It sounds similar to twisting perception to a new reality.
That's not how I wrote it, but if that's the way you care to see it, so be it. What one thinks is real may or may not be real. But if it's not real, does it make a hoot of a difference whether or not it's "new"? However, if it truly is "real", it'd be rather egotistical to think that it's "new," don't ya think?
Then please note that if I don't understand your question or see how it relates to something I've said, then I'm probably not going to post a reply.
Well, I'm certainly not a mind reader, if it's something rolling around in your head.
That's not how I wrote it, but if that's the way you care to see it, so be it. What one thinks is real may or may not be real. But if it's not real, does it make a hoot of a difference whether or not it's "new"? However, if it truly is "real", it'd be rather egotistical to think that it's "new," don't ya think?
I replied to that once already.
Lordy Pete. Is that your only view of God?
You and/or your god seem pretty intolerant of questions.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
17
30
43
38
Popular Days
Jan 26
37
Jan 24
26
Jan 22
17
Jan 20
16
Top Posters In This Topic
skyrider 17 posts
waysider 30 posts
Bolshevik 43 posts
TLC 38 posts
Popular Days
Jan 26 2016
37 posts
Jan 24 2016
26 posts
Jan 22 2016
17 posts
Jan 20 2016
16 posts
Popular Posts
Twinky
How ridiculous, Mrs A has a wealth of knowledge. And that's appropriate to share. It's part of the Body of Christ working together, every part contributing what it can. Mrs A, having raised all you
waysider
It all goes back to the non-existent *law of believing*. You were supposed to *believe* for things to get better. If they didn't, it was your own fault. Then, to add insult to injury, you were consid
Rocky
Alas and alak, we get to the roots of the thing. Btw, this might also be the roots/foundation of the concept of gaslighting as we've experienced it in twi. It is inherently human to be curious. To e
shortfuse
I heard a fun fact yesterday, I don't know if it's confirmable. I heard that the offshoot Christian Family Fellowship is actually bigger than TWI (at least in the USA).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I remember reading somewhere that the hippies in different areas were
good targets in their time because they were unusually gullible and
easy to draw into sects and cults and stuff.
Whether or not that's true, young folks are generally more gullible
and easier to draw into sects and cults and stuff.
(Unless someone can bullseye a "midlife crisis".)
twi has absolutely nothing to draw youngsters, and increasingly is
a group of older, greying adherents. Any youths they have generally
grew up there. Eventually, the whole group will just die out.
CFF, for all its flaws, put together something to draw gullible youths,
so if they have actual growth, it's not that surprising.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
>> I remember reading somewhere that the hippies in different areas were
>> good targets in their time because they were unusually gullible and
>> easy to draw into sects and cults and stuff.
No, we were merely a generation in search of the truth, anywhere it could be found.
Today's generation has the Internet, and no need to look anywhere else for answers...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Those responses are not mutually exclusive. A generation "in search of the truth" can be unusually gullible, especially when the group offering the truth is making an attractive case for its product.
And one other thing: WELCOME TO THE GSC, TLC.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Yes....for all its flaws, CFF at least doesn't badger its followers when they skip sunday fellowship
or even the big events. Heck, some CFF followers have been known to attend local church as from
time to time.
And....from what I heard, John Shr0yer's daughter, Tonya, was given the "big chair" a couple years
after John's death [something that she'd pleaded for] even though Wayne held the interim spot.
On one hand, younger blood in charge might have its benefits to attract newbies....but then,
personally, I don't deem such an act as "spiritual bequeathing of the mantle to one's child"
adding to CFF stature. More like, a business and keeping it in the family....imo.
But hey.....if they're happy and blessed, good for them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
>> Those responses are not mutually exclusive.
Agreed, as evidenced by the many cults that sprang up in those days. The point was that great hunger for truth doesn't necessarily dull one's intelligence, sensibility, or ability to reason (any of which might make one more gullible.) Perhaps the real issue is whether or not one believes that God exists, and that He both can and will answer prayers. Do you think there were there more young people that believed that way back then? If so, is that what some are equating to being "unusually gullible"?
>> And one other thing: WELCOME TO THE GSC, TLC.
Thank you for the welcome (take nothing for granted...)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Hi TLC. Thank you for your input.
A modern cult or analogous group could make use of the internet. (one doesn't even have to leave the basement and talk to humans to join a cult now)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I would think hunger would sharpen a person over time, so they won't stay gullible.
I don't know about "way back then", if you wouldn't mind elaborating some.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
No. There are more young people now than there were then. And since it's linked to developmental processes (i.e. growing into adulthood), it follows that there are more young people searching today for the same answers we sought when we were young.
But there's FAR more tangible knowledge of every subject available today, and it's more readily at people's fingertips with the WWW, so we would not necessarily be perceiving the trends the same as they occurred in earlier generations.
Some do and some don't, just as some stayed in twi and most of us left it when we matured intellectually and emotionally.
The same holds for any religious cult, I suspect.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
>> Bolshevik
>> A modern cult or analogous group could make use of the internet.
Probably my fault, but it seems you entirely missed the satire of it.
For many (perhaps most) nowadays, the Internet has replaced any need for God.
>> I don't know about "way back then", if you wouldn't mind elaborating some.
Don't know what you're looking for. That sort of generalized question puzzles me.
>> Rocky
>> No. There are more young people now than there were then.
You sure 'bout that? We were the baby boomers.
>> And since it's linked to developmental processes (i.e. growing into adulthood),
That's only part of it. It was a different world forty-fifty years ago.
>> it follows that there are more young people searching today for the same answers we sought when we were young.
The same answers? Really? Seems I find that rather hard to believe. (And I don't think I'm that out of touch with reality...)
>> But there's FAR more tangible knowledge of every subject available today, and it's more readily at people's fingertips with the WWW,
Precisely. Unfortunately, tangible knowledge just doesn't equate to spiritual knowledge,
>> so we would not necessarily be perceiving the trends the same as they occurred in earlier generations.
No bull, Sherlock. (do any of you ever laugh at anything 'round here...?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
No, I wouldn't catch the satire. Interesting idea about the internet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It's hard to catch satire online. It helps if we have experience reading each
others' style, but smilies suggest when one is being facetious, ironic,
or anything else.
Oh, and "hello."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I bet you'd have a hard time getting a job as a joke writer. :)
Just because you think it, or are grinning when you write it, doesn't mean the words you write convey the comedy.
Btw, what IS "spiritual knowledge?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Why isn't TWI as big as it was in the 70s? Why did any of the big cultic things fade? The hippie trail, Indian meditations/ashrams etc. Flower power. Nobody does that stuff now, not in the way it was done in the 70s. Too much else to choose from. Now, there is a huge choice of other cultic activities to join. When one gets boring or legalistic or even just restrictive, it's time to move on.
Not really related to TWI, but the incidence of cults continues to grow. And yes, you can join from your basement or your bedroom or wherever private place you inhabit. Seekers for truth or spiritual enlightenment can find any number of teachers on the web. Extreme examples nowadays are those young fools who try to follow Muslim enlightenments, and find themselves in terrorist websites that encourage them to join banned organisations, run off to dangerous countries, and blow themselves and others up. That's extreme cultic mindset.
There are cultic Christian groups on the web too. I don't doubt that VPW would have fancied being an internet/TV preacher given half a chance: he did set up a radio program, after all, using the technology of the day to promote his ... himself!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Would it make any more sense to you to say that it's knowing things of the spirit, or things which are spiritual?
Of course, that still probably makes little or no sense for anyone that lacks either the concern or the ability to discern where certain knowledge originates. If, for example, one thinks (or "knows") that there is no real knowledge that extends beyond what can be scientifically known or analyzed, then any and all "spiritual knowledge" is axiomatically relegated to foolishness, or mysticism, or whatever other fantasy branding happens to be in vogue.
Capeesh?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Good stuff TLC.
The same mind that uses science can use non-science knowledge, and be perfectly correct. Not everything can be known scientifically, that doesn't make it unknowable to the same mind. (If I restate this enough it will start to make some sense.)
That doesn't make it foolishness, mystic, or a fantasy brand. Does that make it spiritual? Not necessarily.
If I am willing, but not able, to understand where spiritual understanding comes from, how will I know who to trust on such matters?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Considering that "spiritual understanding" comes only from the Lord, need there be any doubt where it comes from (2Tim.2:7) or who to trust on such matters?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
If I have doubt and don't trust it's because the Lord hasn't given me spiritual understanding.
Do I understand this correctly?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Given that I'm not sure how you parsed that from what I said, why ask me? Is there something specific that you had in mind, or are you just fooling around with words in general? In other words, are you trying to understand something that I said, something in your own mind, or something to twist around?
Understanding a matter does seem to cement one's believing of it. But understanding is not necessarily a prerequisite nor a mandatory ingredient to believing. And as I see it, there's a far closer relationship between trust and believing than there is between trust and understanding. (Why else do you suppose it is written to trust in the Lord with all thine heart and lean not unto thine own understanding?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You were participating on the boards. I do think your input is relevant.
All are true. Discussion is for learning.
It sounds similar to twisting perception to a new reality. So what IS "spiritual knowledge"?
To foster dependence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Just a little reminder:
There's a wide variety of beliefs represented here, across decades and threads.
Don't be surprised if discussing whether something is true gets Pilate's response
of "what is truth?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Or you could write :
The Teacher
P.O. Box 328
New Knoxville, Ohio 45871
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Then please note that if I don't understand your question or see how it relates to something I've said, then I'm probably not going to post a reply.
Well, I'm certainly not a mind reader, if it's something rolling around in your head.
That's not how I wrote it, but if that's the way you care to see it, so be it. What one thinks is real may or may not be real. But if it's not real, does it make a hoot of a difference whether or not it's "new"? However, if it truly is "real", it'd be rather egotistical to think that it's "new," don't ya think?
I replied to that once already.
Lordy Pete. Is that your only view of God?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shortfuse
You and/or your god seem pretty intolerant of 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.