…In my humble opinion, TWI continues to be an insidious subculture …a veritable dystopian itty bitty society within the general populace....
Hmmmm... food for thought. TWI as a dystopian society.
Yep. Having just watched and re-read The Handmaid's Tale [Margaret Atwood], set in a dystopian semi-future semi-now period, I can relate to that view. Scary in its insidiousness, the push from normal society and boundaries to a very weird society, with manufactured crises as excuses for pushing ever more.
Not that TWI is the only cult that does that; they all do, by their nature. At least most of us escaped alive.
Hmmmm... food for thought. TWI as a dystopian society.
Yep. Having just watched and re-read The Handmaid's Tale [Margaret Atwood], set in a dystopian semi-future semi-now period, I can relate to that view. Scary in its insidiousness, the push from normal society and boundaries to a very weird society, with manufactured crises as excuses for pushing ever more.
Not that TWI is the only cult that does that; they all do, by their nature. At least most of us escaped alive.
Twinky, your post got me thinking a little more on dystopian societies… and by the way The Handmaid's Tale
sounds so interesting – I keep telling myself I’ll have a lot more time to catch up on shows when I retire…who knows – maybe “confession of belief” can alter time…just kidding…
Anyway …I wanted to point out something I read on Wikipedia about the show and book - said by the executive producer – because I think it relates to my previous post ( as well as to what many Grease Spotters have said on many other threads reflecting back on their own TWI experience). In the section heading of Religion, Wikipedia notes: “Bruce Miller, the executive producer of The Handmaid's Tale television serial, declared with regard to Atwood's book, as well as his series, that Gilead is "a society that’s based kind of in a perverse misreading of Old Testament laws and codes". This really struck me.
As I mentioned in my previous post, one of The Way International's buzzwords - "The Word" actually refers to wierwille's skewed interpretation of The Bible. “The Word” sounds authoritative and technical and even appears in the Bible in places like Jeremiah 1:4 “the word of the Lord came to me…” and Ezekiel 18:1 “the word of the Lord came to me…” where it apparently means a revelation, as something to lend support or credentials to what the prophet is saying. Elsewhere you have “the unfolding of your words gives light” Psalm 119:130 NASB.
In the New Testament, we read “…the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” John 1: 14 NASB – referring to Jesus Christ…keeping credentials like that in mind, it should come as no surprise to realize Jesus Christ put himself on par with the authority of Scripture when he said things like:
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart". Matthew 5: 27, 28 NASB
Now getting back to TWI’s buzzword “The Word” - something that I still find fascinating is to deconstruct wierwille's twisted and perverse interpretation of the Bible that he simply referred to as “The Word.” Still to this day, there's some wierwille apologists who will stand by PFAL doctrine - but instead of saying wierwille interpreted the passage this way - they just say resolutely "that's what the word says."
From my personal experience – it all goes back to the lack of transparency in wierwille’s PFAL class. He was not open and honest about the source of his material, not transparent in representing his expertise (or rather the lack thereof) and definitely not transparent in relating his experiences of applying the things he taught - - simply an out and out fabrication of many stories or twisting of facts. His class is only the beginning of a journey down the slippery slope to the subjugation*of one’s belief system…It is almost a thing of treacherous-bizarro-beauty to recall how a “pilgrim’s” journey simply begins with something so sweet and innocent sounding like "a class on the Bible" and somehow ( over a span of time and a certain level of involvement , which varies person to person ) ends with a follower now devoted to the idea that wierwille had more of the rightly-divided word than anyone else…that God taught him “the word” like it hasn’t been known for centuries…
My 2-bit logic says with the grand assumption that God taught wierwille “the word” then there really is no need for transparency…It can be trusted…totally…then we’re back to something like the Jeremiah 1:4 days of old “the word of the Lord came to me, wierwille.” Might as well take it to the next level – let’s put what wierwille says on equal standing with Scripture – “the Bible says do not commit adultery – but I, wierwille say unto you anything done in the love of God is okay.” While I’m at it – a related tangent to transparency (or rather the lack thereof) are some of the ploys used by certain posters as almost diversionary tactics...whether by spouting pious platitudes, pontificating, appealing to ignorance (“show me from the Bible where I’m not right”), appealing to heavily biased articles of dubious sources, making assertions without documentation to back them up – all in an effort to obscure* a weirwille-laden mindset. One can also claim they're evolving in their beliefs to buy more audience time...evolving or changing could mean getting better - or getting worse as in mutating...I dunno...we'll see how this all plays out...as my old limb coordinator used to say when I was a WOW "it all comes out in the wash" - not sure what that means but it sure sounds cool.
The Way International is an itty bitty dystopian society based on wierwille’s misreadings and perverse interpretations of the Bible that were enthroned at PFAL and reigned for the long and drawn-out period of your time in servitude to the cult. (uhm…I’m assuming you left…if not, please see the postscript in my previous post…what thou doest do quickly )
== == == ==
*note on “subjugation”: there’s probably the makings for several papers of thesis quality that could expose wierwille’s methods of subjugating one’s belief system; all it would take is two or three folks developing some of the critical points made by sharp Grease Spotters on just one thread alone: is it okay to recommend wierwille's books to others? …it could also be titled “Is it okay to assume wierwille’s books are “The Word”? ...and folks there's hundreds....thousands....millions? of threads with great critical analysis of wierwille's deceptive means....think of it - - a seemingly endless supply of insight to cult tactics.
*note on “obscure”: you may be able to hide wierwille’s influence to some but the real danger is in hiding it from yourself … it’s like you’re playing hide the salami all by yourself – you end up fvcking with your own belief system…
It goes along the lines of that old saying - none are so blind as those who will not see. To paraphrase what Jesus Christ said in Matthew 6:23, if your eye of understanding is defective, you will be full of darkness…and if you actually think that is light – how great is that darkness!
"Stop The Shootings" has been an interesting topic. Although (as of yet) nothing has "actually been concluded" during the discussion, what has come of it are (at the least) "some practical ways" which may aid in lessening it's negative affect upon society in general. (Many thanks to T-Bone for his input along that line.) But alas, the bottom line is: Despite all, the shootings will NOT stop! (LMAO)
Although it has taken some interesting twists and turns along the way, it has investigated (to some degree, anyway) the "curious balance" between Scriptural truth and the practicality of medicine. (for instance, the science behind why certain "worldly methods" actually work toward "alleviating chemical imbalances" found among the mentally ill)
Nevertheless (and not surprising) remains the fact that (as usual) the discussion has turned toward (in so many words) "What's wrong with The Way?" And why not? After all, the "basic MO of GS" in the first place is to either aid those who've been hurt by TWI in times past, or to warn others that they too (without the assistance of "expert Greasespotters") will eventually succumb to the same! And so, it followed:
After T-Bone's "eloquent post" (as deemed by Twinky) analyzing TWI's buzzword "The Word", Rocky and T-Bone both agreed with Twinky that the expression The Word of God is the Will of God "gives them the creeps". And it was suggested that T-Bone begin a new topic with that expression in mind.
Ironically (and I mean no offense in saying this, but merely as a sort of cute joke) "the GS guns are always loaded"; and if you're not careful, you'll simply get "shot down"! So I say again: "The shootings will continue."
All joking aside, I want to elaborate a bit on that point. It's true that "shootings" do come from both sides of the equation. And the obvious conclusion is that (ultimately) one side is basically "the opposite" of the other, which leads to a point I want to make here:
After robbs' short discourse on the Chinese convention of "yin-yang", Bolshevik said to him: "I'm not sure I agree with your first few sentences. I think there's some interesting ideas in there though. Again you've reduced everything to a duality. Three seems to fit better, as a simplification. IMO: Even the yin and yang has an interface --- the third."
Bolshevik is correct. There IS a third, which some call "rang" or "chi", etc. And the basic conception of it (according to one expert, at least) is this:
"This third force is the force of equilibrium or balance. In it, we find the stillness that is beyond the duality we observe on the surface of creation. It is the place where the apparent conflict is reconciled and the unity in the opposites is observed."
This basically describes "an inner peace" (if you will) which may result, despite "the tension which exists" between the extremes of yin and yang --- that is, provided a proper balance is MAINTAINED, which is VERY important in life.
Picture a horizontal line with "light" to the left, "darkness" to the right and ZERO in the middle [light <------- | -------> darkness]. And keep in mind (from Eph 5:13b) that "whatever doth make manifest is light". Therefore, what one understands about "darkness" is in direct proportion to what he knows about "light".
Now, one must use CAUTION before venturing "too far to the right" (that is, beyond "where he is on the left"). I hope that's clear, but here's an example anyway: Semantically, the "direct opposite" of confusion is peace. (1Co 14:33 "For God is not the author of confusion, BUT of peace...")
So, it's rather silly to attempt understanding confusion by studying "confusion" itself (that is, by "looking only at the dark side") because one merely becomes "more and more confused" in the process. However! If one looks at "peace" (on the "left side") he'll understand what confusion truly is to the very extent he understands "peace" --- and NO FURTHER.
And one is never truly at the "zero point". In this case, the extent of PEACE one feels is merely a measure of the intensity of the light he has attained along that line.
Such also is the case with the extremes "love" and "hate". By themselves, they're invisible. However, one experiences love only to the extent he ADHERES to what he learned of it "from the light side", along with also AVOIDING the other "from the dark side" which (by inference, or deduction) is hate.
As "this balance" is maintained, one will love to "his fullest extent". (And with more light, he can love even greater.) However, if one seeks to understand hate (by studying hate itself) there can be no balance. Also (despite what one might know about love), practicing hate will keep love behind the scene, as it were --- for darkness itself cannot provide light:
Eph 5:13 "But all things that are reproved [discovered] are made manifest [exposed, revealed] by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest [can possibly expose, or reveal] is light."
In other words, one cannot discover what a genuine dollar bill is by merely studying counterfeit bills; one can only perceive the deception in these by using a real one as the guide.
Gen 1:4 "And God saw the light that it [alone] was good; and God divided the light from the darkness."
Well, that's all the "ammo" I wish to spend for the moment. Let the shootings continue!
Although it has taken some interesting twists and turns along the way, it has investigated (to some degree, anyway) the "curious balance" between Scriptural truth and the practicality of medicine. (for instance, the science behind why certain "worldly methods" actually work toward "alleviating chemical imbalances" found among the mentally ill)
Nevertheless (and not surprising) remains the fact that (as usual) the discussion has turned toward (in so many words) "What's wrong with The Way?" And why not? After all, the "basic MO of GS" in the first place is to either aid those who've been hurt by TWI in times past, or to warn others that they too (without the assistance of "expert Greasespotters") will eventually succumb to the same! ...(SNIP)
Hi Spectrum49
I understand what you’re saying and I usually appreciate a commentary on what’s happened thus far ; I think some other posters besides me have noticed there have actually been at least three vibrant themes coursing through this thread: a discussion on how to stop mass shootings, the practicality of a wierwillian frame of thought, and the legitimacy of wierwille’s theology.
Perhaps the reason the discussion has gone toward the latter two themes is because the person who had started the thread assumed they had a ready-made preaching platform and was not prepared to have an intelligent discussion with other folks – not sure on any of this…but stay tuned . . .the thread ain’t over yet !
Too bad it wasn’t just a discussion on how to stop the shootings – but it seems to me that the person who had started this thread may have had a hidden agenda – as evidenced by their lack of documentation, misinformation, and their inept references to things that wierwille taught…
how many times have folks tried to coax a straight answer out of the poster? Frankly, it’s always frustrating and disappointing when folks try to have an intelligent discussion but intermittently there’s someone randomly punching buttons on a jukebox that only plays wierwille-lite.
But enough…I’m not the one that should be explaining why this discussion has occasionally turned toward what’s wrong with the Way…I’m not the one who has been using TWI-ish ideas to try and support a point. I’m not the one to use a source established by Scientology to disparage medical professionals.
I’m not the one who posted some of the copyrighted material of The Way International on their own website -
how many times have folks tried to coax a straight answer out of the poster? Frankly, it’s always frustrating and disappointing when folks try to have an intelligent discussion but intermittently there’s someone randomly punching buttons on a jukebox that only plays wierwille-lite.
I hear ya, pal! You seem to be very adept at "looking between the cracks" to see what's really going on here. I commend you for your ability to summarize so much with so little! (You're one smart son-of-a-bitch in my book, and I mean that most kindly.)
I looked at the links you sent along --- most revealing! I admit myself that a lot of what I believe actually "agrees with what VP taught", but I'm a long way from being a "Wierwillite"! (if you catch my drift, sir...)
And if I use a few of his "buzzwords" (ie: Way-speak) at times, it's NOT what he taught that's of concern, but what I learned myself by applying some things he taught that DO WORK. (Although, I'm truly ashamed he plagiarized so much; and he shall answer to that himself someday, before God Almighty!)
And yes, sir --- a spade is a spade! (I see it as well, my astute fellow.) And as for that, I seem to be picking at the edges, while you already have your focus on the heart of the matter!
As for the rest of my post (which you didn't comment upon) I feel that for the most part, we're in (basic) agreement. Nevertheless, let me close with this:
For you to "see the darker side" of this equation so quickly (and without falling prey to the evils which such a mess may [secretly] be comprised of, AND to remain "pure in all things" concerning it) I must conclude that you're very far "on the light side" to comprehend the true gravity of what's really going on here.
For you, sir: Prov 29:11 A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards. After what, you ask? Let's see how "the poster" replies next... (Methinks it's really not about "the shootings in Vegas".)
I hear ya, pal! You seem to be very adept at "looking between the cracks" to see what's really going on here. I commend you for your ability to summarize so much with so little! (You're one smart son-of-a-bitch in my book, and I mean that most kindly.)
I looked at the links you sent along --- most revealing! I admit myself that a lot of what I believe actually "agrees with what VP taught", but I'm a long way from being a "Wierwillite"! (if you catch my drift, sir...)
And if I use a few of his "buzzwords" (ie: Way-speak) at times, it's NOT what he taught that's of concern, but what I learned myself by applying some things he taught that DO WORK. (Although, I'm truly ashamed he plagiarized so much; and he shall answer to that himself someday, before God Almighty!)
And yes, sir --- a spade is a spade! (I see it as well, my astute fellow.) And as for that, I seem to be picking at the edges, while you already have your focus on the heart of the matter!
As for the rest of my post (which you didn't comment upon) I feel that for the most part, we're in (basic) agreement. Nevertheless, let me close with this:
For you to "see the darker side" of this equation so quickly (and without falling prey to the evils which such a mess may [secretly] be comprised of, AND to remain "pure in all things" concerning it) I must conclude that you're very far "on the light side" to comprehend the true gravity of what's really going on here.
For you, sir: Prov 29:11 A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards. After what, you ask? Let's see how "the poster" replies next... (Methinks it's really not about "the shootings in Vegas".)
I appreciate your words of praise but I have to admit there’s a lot of folks here much smarter than me and who tend to be champions of brevity in making their point…you seem to be aspiring to all that and kudos to you fine sir !
You made an excellent point in your previous post of the silliness of studying confusion and I get that - - your other point of finding the equilibrium - the balance point is fascinating as well…that perhaps describes the long and drawn out process I’ve gone through since leaving TWI…not sure if that’s an accurate or honest way to describe my efforts – but anyway, it’s me in the middle - - on one side the works of wierwille and on the other side, various references: Bible versions, systematic theologies, biblical languages, commentaries with alternate viewpoints. I’m not a researcher, bible scholar or anything…just some schmo trying to make sense of this faith I have - - what to look into further, what to clarify, prioritize, disregard, etc. And to be honest - since I left TWI, all this Bible study stuff has taken a backseat to other things I’ve got going on in my life.
My belief system is in a state of flux – has been so for a long time…My perspective has probably changed quite a bit to differs from yours. Currently I have a side reading project of several books by Peter Enns. Someone on another thread referenced an article of his and after reading it I wanted to check out more of his stuff.
So it’s a little complicated why I do not use wierwille as a reference point for what I believe – perhaps the main things are his stuff being a convoluted patchwork of theology, fundamentalist in nature, and finally last and most important – I believe he was a false prophet…false teacher…cult leader. I don’t see a whole lot of places in the bible that reference a body of work by naming a particular false prophet. If anything we see Jesus pointing out the hypocrisy of some religious leaders in Matthew 23.
That’s all for now…I’m working on being brief…have a nice day.
I think you're quite safe "in the middle", as it were. As one who carefully weighs things on BOTH sides of the scale before rendering a verdict, you're quite the "juror of gold", which is quite admirable in God's sight.
And yes...balance is a great key. Scripturally, this equates to the "Jews and Gentiles", of which "the church" is comprised. (Basically, the Jews are too strict and the Gentiles are too lenient.) Those who are wise are careful not to go too far "to the left hand" (law, or cursing) or "to the right" (grace, or blessing). Just be content in "your own middle"!
Since leaving "them" (as with you) I haven't studied as much as I used to --- because I'm more concerned these days about DOING a little of what I know. Instead (as you) I take more time to take care of my wife and things of concern to make sure my promise of "giving her a great life" is secure.
I look well into our finances. Our house is paid for. BTW, "you know who" wasn't glad when we took out a mortgage for it --- screw them and their "borrower is servant to the lender" perversion of the Scriptures! Not to brag, but we paid off a 30-year mortgage in 5 years and 2 months. (Needless to say, we would NEVER have saved enough CASH to buy this wonderful home with if we did it "their way"...OK...enough!)
Therefore, our "autumn years" look quite bright ahead. If I can say one thing to you it would be this: Ro 14:22 "Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth."
So if you allow a bit of LIVING at times (instead of constantly studying the Bible) so what? God knows your heart. And isn't that the point --- to live happily and in peace? And while you're doing "those other things" you spoke of, just keep it in balance and try not to judge yourself too harshly, friend.
Yes though, keep searching where your heart takes you. For all you know, what "you decide" to look into just might be God himself allowing you to suppose those are "your great ideas" --- when in all reality, it just may be that HE (just as written) "is working in you to do of his good pleasure"!
If you can "read between the lines", consider the possibility of 1Co 12:11 meaning that (as you're already willing, by your own choices and personality) God is behind that already--- according to his plan for you personally...leading you RIGHT WHERE YOU WANT TO GO ANYWAY!
Just remember to give him the credit for "those good ideas of yours", because they're probably his to begin with anyway! Peace, brother...
So it’s a little complicated why I do not use wierwille as a reference point for what I believe – perhaps the main things are his stuff being a convoluted patchwork of theology, fundamentalist in nature, and finally last and most important – I believe he was a false prophet…false teacher…cult leader. I don’t see a whole lot of places in the bible that reference a body of work by naming a particular false prophet. If anything we see Jesus pointing out the hypocrisy of some religious leaders in Matthew 23.
It blesses me that you picked up on my "aspiring to become more concise". Bless you, sir...I do try; but it's not easy! (While awaiting further replies "closer to the topic at hand", I'll entertain your slight diversion --- and a bit more, if you don't mind.)
You caused me to consider Matt 23, which I hadn't read in a while. Considering all, much there seems to align with how VP conducted TWI; so your "overall analysis" seems quite logical. To be brief though, verse 9a stuck out to me in particular: "And call no man your father upon the earth..." He encouraged many to call him their Father in the Word, and also had his followers (affectionately) refer to his brother as Uncle. It seems most curious to me how they could EVER have "missed that one"!
To me, it's not really that complicated why I don't reference (give credit to) Wierwille for things I teach. I had thought to address that nuance in a PM with you alone; but because my explanation involves mentioning my book, I'll do it here instead. WARNING!
[You see: On Oct 6th I uploaded my book to your "wall", and noticed that (since then) there have been 70 downloads of it on this site. So I'll elaborate here, that all the others may understand my position as well as you...and (hopefully) will not be "too overcritical" of my work.]
Simply: The book was originally an appeal to those within TWI to "correct a couple of things" concerning Biblical Administrations. (Oops --- here we go! And if this causes a problem with those who oppose that concept, either disregard it all together or look and (at least) see for yourself how logically I put it together. I may be wrong in the end; but it seems right to me, as far as I've taken it.)
I tried IN VAIN for many years to impart these findings to them (and perhaps some "new light" as well). And when it finally became obvious to me they weren't the least bit interested in "my research", I eventually left TWI.
However, because I saw merit in it and desired others (outside of The Way) to consider the work, I was left with a seemingly daunting task: to (somehow) make my work palatable to those who were never a part of that ministry.
SO: The very first thing I did in editing the manuscript was to remove all references to VP and The Way, so as not to steer anyone toward that egocentric and uncaring institution. Even in the bibliography, I removed all references to any of VP's publications. Instead (where I made what I considered valid points) I credited others as my source. Case in point:
When I spoke of things related to what was taught in PFAL, I credited EW Bullinger'sHow to Enjoy the Bible because (basically, when one takes a good look at it) one can plainly see that VP plagiarized it almost entirely, because it truly appears as a template for VP's "supposedly own" foundational class!
In essence (and without having to completely destroy my manuscript...after working on it for over 2 decades!) I "found ways to bypass TWI" while still retaining the overall message. The most daunting thing of all to me at first was: How in the hell can I bring an audience on board who had never studied the Bible at all, being complete novices to certain things the originally projected readers would readily understand, having been exposed to much of what I considered as valid Biblical research principles!" (As I said earlier, the entire project was originally an appeal to my (now former) friends. And therefore, "the point of view while pleading my case" was primarily with THEM in mind.)
Wondering how I could possibly accomplish this, I almost gave up. But (by continuing, despite all) I discovered it wasn't as difficult as I had first supposed. I ended up adding 7 Appendices to the manuscript which would "lay out some basics" whereby most anyone could appreciate the book without having to invest years of study to get up to speed. Concerning these, here's an excerpt from my book:
"These few appendices have been included to enlighten mainly those who have not previously been exposed to certain basic biblical topics which are integral to the understanding of Genesis One: God’s Table of Contents to the Bible. Even those who consider themselves as biblical scholars already may still find these helpful at times.
By reading these, novices and scholars alike will have an equal opportunity to get the most out of this book, and can appreciate a most amazing and wonderful pattern integrated within the Holy Scriptures, designed by God."
In addition, all other "basic Biblical research principles" are integrated within the work itself, by example --- without having to teach explicitly about "in the verse, context and used before", etc. etc. (And besides, most of that which TWI would have ignorant people suppose VP put together himself are nothing more than what anyone can know already from either good grammar skills, plain logic or just Googling for themselves. So in my book, [pun intended] he deserves no credit for any of that either!)
What remains however, is that a vast amount of "Way-speak" exists throughout the work. I'm very sorry it has to be this way, because (truly) it's impossible to separate truth from error without at least addressing some things which they actually got right. After all, who can argue with that which makes absolute sense, no matter how one explains it? And who knows "the true source" of everything VP taught? (And BTW: To my surprise, I recently understand from GS posts that even Maggie Muggins was drawn from another source. Such pitiful plagiarism!)
Regardless, I would only hope that they who read my book will glean something good from it, despite how I worded things at times. I'm rather confident that "if one can put up with the Way-speak" (which honestly, I don't always recognize myself) he'll eventually see what I tried in vain to impart to them. And if not, then please try not to take offense or suppose that (somehow or other) I'm still under their devilish spell.
I convey my thanks to all for listening. (And I do apologize for this lengthy post, as I'm still working on being more concise.)
Care to explain? (There's been a few attempts here to discuss administrations, but it seems they end before they ever start...
Having perused only a few of your recent posts elsewhere, I deem you serious (and honest) in your request for "more info". Although my book is presently available at GS, it always seems a bit doubtful to me that people here will actually take time to read it. (Besides, we all have "other fish to fry", huh?) Nevertheless, I'll try to "boil it down" enough to satisfy your curiosity for the present:
Somehow, I see "a rather curious correlation" between the 7 days in Gen 1 and the 7 administrations--- if there truly is such a thing! If it weren't for the hundreds (if not thousands!) of "semantic connections" (in the way things are actually worded) in Gen 1, I wouldn't be the least bit tempted to suppose "my pattern" may be valid.
Basically, I believe to have found enough evidence to support the notion that Bullinger (and of course, VP) were incorrect in teaching that the 7th administration begins with "the paradise of New Jerusalem" (EW: "The Eternal State", and VP: "Final Paradise, or Glory Administration").
Rather, I find that "the 7th time" begins with JC's return as King of Kings (through "the millennium") and ends with God's white throne of judgment. In short, I see the 7 admins as culminating right after "the end of this earth" (as foretold by OT Prophets) which would necessitate "God's final judgments" as being spiritually perfect (7) --- especially in consideration of all which will happen concerning everyone from Adam to the very last soul here (excepting the born-again of course, who will already have been "judged at the bema").
And after that, it then seems most logical that "the next admin" would be #8 (as "a brand new beginning") which speaks loudly concerning "the new heaven and earth" to come. (Or if one prefers, that it may also be considered as #1 again, paralleling "the paradise of Eden", where the story of man's presence upon earthbegins.)
As for the only other "major glitch", I see the Patriarchal Administration as totally invalid. For what I seem to have found, "the 2nd time" (basically) entails the account of Noah and the flood, with the third period (The Law) beginning at Abram (later, Abraham). But alas, I've probably caused more questions even by what little I've said here already. So, this seems quite enough for now.
But let me close with this: It seems amazing how much easier The Scriptures appear to fit together once these "two glitches" are reconciled. And (believe it or not) it even seems to open up the book of Revelation as never before.
Rather, I find that "the 7th time" begins with JC's return as King of Kings (through "the millennium") and ends with God's white throne of judgment.
Seems I probably agree with that (and the eighth.)
46 minutes ago, spectrum49 said:
As for the only other "major glitch", I see the Patriarchal Administration as totally invalid. For what I seem to have found, "the 2nd time" (basically) entails the account of Noah and the flood, with the third period (The Law) beginning at Abram (later, Abraham).
But not that. If Eden (as you've referred to it) is counted as the first, after the fall would be the second, after the flood (c. Noah) the third, the law (i.e., Moses) was the fourth, the gospel of grace (i.e., Paul - not Pentecost) the fifth, after the gathering the sixth, the return of Christ the seventh, and the new heavens and earth the eighth.
At least, that's currently how I see it ...and as you might have already surmised, that wasn't whipped up on some last minute effort.
But not that. If Eden (as you've referred to it) is counted as the first, after the fall would be the second, after the flood (c. Noah) the third, the law (i.e., Moses) was the fourth, the gospel of grace (i.e., Paul - not Pentecost) the fifth, after the gathering the sixth, the return of Christ the seventh, and the new heavens and earth the eighth.
At least, that's currently how I see it ...and as you might have already surmised, that wasn't whipped up on some last minute effort. [YUP! There's a lot more to it --- on both sides.]
Thanks for your patience, TLC. Let me say you're "basically on board" with me. However, (and without having to go into "the nuts and bolts") let me clarify things a bit more by giving "an overall look" so there's less misunderstanding between us. (Also, there are what I call "periods of transition" between some of the times, while "the whole story" is being developed.)
(1) "Paradise" (Eden): Begins with Adam; ends when he and Eve are banished.
(2) (What I call) "The Time of Ignorance" (per Paul @ Mars' Hill - Act 17:30).
Technically, this begins just after "the banishment from Eden", but officially (after a period of transition) when God first spoke to Noah concerning the flood. And it ends when God "stopped the rain."
(3) "The Law". Technically, it begins "just after the rain stopped", but officially when God "had said [spoken] to Abram", per Gen 12:1. (And just as before, there's a "period of transition" between these two events.)
NOTE: It's important to see that "The Law" is comprised of two parts, A & B. A represents "God's overall perfect law" (existing with Abram and beyond) and B represents "the written law" (beginning with Moses' ten commandments, etc).
Without going too far, do keep in mind "the two choices" we have in Romans, which compares "the two kinds of faith"; one aligns with Abraham (preferred) and the other with the written law (not preferred). I hope this is clear to you.
(4) "Christ Administration" (or "Gospel Period"). It technically begins with the opening of the Gospels, but officially (as "the earthly ministry of JC") after a period of transition --- until "he was qualified" to do so (at age 30, according to the law), having also been baptized by John, whereafter "the spirit came upon him, as a dove...").
(5) "Grace" (aka: "Mystery", "Church Age"). It's pretty much as before, beginning at Pentecost and ending at "the gathering together". [Also, I'm a bit curious as to your reference to Paul, but not Pentecost, which is not only rather new to me, but somewhat interesting as well.]
(6) (What I call) "The Day of Wrath". Similar to what Bullinger called 5th (Judgment). Begins at the gathering together and ends when Christ returns as King of Kings.
(7) (What I call) "The Day of Judgment". Similar to what Bullinger called 6th (Millennial, or Theocratic). Begins when Christ (as King of Kings) "kicks some spiritual butt" . Ends at God's throne, where he (as KING POTENTATE) settles everything which happened since Adam.
END OF "THIS EARTH" (1-7)
(8) - if you want to keep counting upward OR (1) - if you preferviewing a simple beginning, as with Eden. "Paradise" (again, but as New Jerusalem). Begins just after "the throne" as "a new earth". Ends --- who knows! (Does it course 1-7 again, as before? Hmmm...)
Sorry for the length. (I merely wanted to be as clear as it seemed feasible.) And (if you so desire) I'll provide more specifics even as you request, as I have proved nothing.
To be fair, as of yet I haven't read (or even browsed through) your book (which you so kindly provided a link to yesterday.) At some point in the near future I will, and undoubtedly have a better sense of your perspective on it. In the interim, I'll simply make a few general (and a few more specific) comments on the "outline" (presuming it's fair to call it that) that you've given.
Generally speaking, it seems to me that your separation of the law into "parts A & B" as well as the greatly extended (or distended) "period of transition" between dispensations significantly complicate the matter (much more than might make any kind of sense to me.) Furthermore, there's no mention (perhaps there is in your book, I haven't looked yet) of what sort of differences (or changes) there might be in the relationship between God and man for various times.
More specifically,
7 hours ago, spectrum49 said:
2) (What I call) "The Time of Ignorance" (per Paul @ Mars' Hill - Act 17:30).
I see the "times of ignorance" spoken of in Acts 17:30 as referring to the entire period of time right up to and including the time in Acts 17:23, where they built an altar "TO THE UNKNOWN GOD."
I also see a very notable change in God's prescription for man after the flood, after Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord, and new (or revised, however you want to think of it) guidelines and instructions (and a covenant) were given to Noah and his sons and all flesh upon the earth. (see Gen. 8:21-9:17.)
9 hours ago, spectrum49 said:
(4) "Christ Administration" (or "Gospel Period").
Jesus Christ (and his followers) all lived by and under the law of Moses. Furthermore, I see no notable differences between how anyone can or would be saved during that time, and the times going all the way back to Moses and the giving of the law. (see Luke 10:25-26.) Consequently, I see no real indications, reason or purpose for a separate or distinct "Christ Administration."
So, I guess this thread failed. Maybe blame motor vehicles?
I wouldn't actually say the thread failed; rather, it seems to have run it's course for now. But we'll realize more about that if (and when) robbs chimes in again. (It's his post, ya know!) In the meantime, it has "led elsewhere". (And if that's my fault...oh well! At first, I didn't really intend it to diverge this far.)
But what the heck? This seems as good a place as any for TLC and I (at least) to discuss our views on Biblical administrations. Starting another Topic elsewhere might be better, but I trust robbs doesn't mind...or perhaps he'd say something.
(Besides, I'm not completely sure that "the shootings in Las Vegas" was truly his main concern; perhaps the thread merely began there as a sort of platform from which to lead to something else. But hell...that's just my gut feeling, so it carries little weight.)
And if you were being humorous about "blaming the cars", I get it! Per your link: "Witnesses told local media that a vehicle drove down a popular bike path and struck pedestrians and cyclists." Since there's no mention of a driver, it's quite obvious that (semantically, anyway) the car did it!
As for the rest of my post (which you didn't comment upon) I feel that for the most part, we're in (basic) agreement....
(SNIP)
On 10/29/2017 at 7:15 AM, spectrum49 said:
(SNIP)...
Yes though, keep searching where your heart takes you. For all you know, what "you decide" to look into just might be God himself allowing you to suppose those are "your great ideas" --- when in all reality, it just may be that HE (just as written) "is working in you to do of his good pleasure"!
If you can "read between the lines", consider the possibility of 1Co 12:11 meaning that (as you're already willing, by your own choices and personality) God is behind that already --- according to his plan for you personally...leading you RIGHT WHERE YOU WANT TO GO ANYWAY!
Just remember to give him the credit for "those good ideas of yours", because they're probably his to begin with anyway! ...(SNIP)
Hey just thought I’d back track and address a few incidental comments in your posts –
“As for the rest of my post (which you didn't comment upon) I feel that for the most part, we're in (basic) agreement…” Though I politely tried to address that by saying my belief system is in a state of flux and my perspective has probably changed quite a bit and differs from yours – I don’t think I expressed just how divergent we are on many things – but don’t think now is the time to get into all the details – or that it’s even necessary to later.
I’m afraid the sentiment in your above statement tends to overgeneralize and thus obscure many salient points of a discussion. by the way, having an opinion or perspective different from mine is great - but that’s not the issue....
the issue is trying to smooth things over for a group hug - to tip toe around controversy may often obscure the details - whether the details are in contrast to one another, complement one another - - or perhaps opposing details reveal there's more to it than what's been discussed so far. I appreciate opposing viewpoints - helps to bring many angles to light that I hadn’t thought of before. If you dull the tips of point / counterpoint you blunt the tools of sharp thinking.
I don’t think you’re trying to be deceitful or manipulative …and maybe it’s just me but I feel like someone is NOT listening to what I’m saying when they say something like “for the most part we’re in agreement” ...
I say “whoa whoa whoa back up a minute – for the most part? What part is that? Please be specific!”
== == == ==
Also, I beg to differ on your comments: “For all you know, what "you decide" to look into just might be God himself allowing you to suppose those are "your great ideas" --- when in all reality, it just may be that HE (just as written) "is working in you to do of his good pleasure"!
If you can "read between the lines", consider the possibility of 1Co 12:11 meaning that (as you're already willing, by your own choices and personality) God is behind that already --- according to his plan for you personally...leading you RIGHT WHERE YOU WANT TO GO ANYWAY!
Just remember to give him the credit for "those good ideas of yours", because they're probably his to begin with anyway!”
I don’t mean to be picayune on stuff – but for some reason this reminds me of an old wierwille Sunday Night Teaching tape called “Carnal vs Spiritual” – that went along the lines of carnal man is a dumba$$ and it’s only when you have God’s spirit that you are really smart and can be creative…
To me this truly insults the Creator as well as his creation (us ) – and if you think about it – wierwille's "logic" also relieves folks of responsibility and limits their options..."don't blame me - blame God - it was his idea.". or ...."the reason you failed was because you didn't listen to God's spirit in you"...yeah - how stupid and lame it is to think that -...
.. instead , why not review your thought process - kick your critical and creative thinking skills into high gear and work out the problem!
…If the Creator truly made us in his image and likeness – then don’t you think being creative might be something godlike? As a Christian I consider the level of intelligence behind the design of the cosmos and it’s truly mind-boggling!
So is it no surprise then to stand back in wonder when looking at all the amazing advances in the fields of technology, medicine, the sciences, etc. that showcase our godlike talents of critical and creative thinking.
Let’s give credit where credit is due and acknowledge our responsibility to use our God-given talents. I even think when we use our talents in benevolence toward our fellowman that is a glory to God – you are fulfilling the purpose for which you were designed.
Apparantly the driver, with a gun, yelled Allahu Akbar, God is great.
So maybe that proves Rrobs point about the quality of life in a society being determined by the thoughts that individuals hold in their minds.
Huh? I don't see how that proves any such thing.
Btw, I'm confident you will not be surprised when there's another mass shooting somewhere in the US sometime in November 2017. I certainly won't be surprised. Saddened, but not surprised.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
26
36
31
53
Popular Days
Oct 6
38
Oct 31
13
Oct 12
12
Oct 7
12
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 26 posts
T-Bone 36 posts
Bolshevik 31 posts
rrobs 53 posts
Popular Days
Oct 6 2017
38 posts
Oct 31 2017
13 posts
Oct 12 2017
12 posts
Oct 7 2017
12 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
Twinky, your post got me thinking a little more on dystopian societies… and by the way The Handmaid's Tale sounds so interesting – I keep telling myself I’ll have a lot more time to catch up o
Beguiled
I am a sociologist/professor/researcher and your argument is definitely "null and void." I know what the peer reviewed research and paradigms say about every major social problem. We can discuss them
Bolshevik
You can't think of other factors that affect quality of life? (and of a society? how is that measured?) You can't think of other sources of thought? You think reactions to words are comp
Posted Images
Twinky
Hmmmm... food for thought. TWI as a dystopian society.
Yep. Having just watched and re-read The Handmaid's Tale [Margaret Atwood], set in a dystopian semi-future semi-now period, I can relate to that view. Scary in its insidiousness, the push from normal society and boundaries to a very weird society, with manufactured crises as excuses for pushing ever more.
Not that TWI is the only cult that does that; they all do, by their nature. At least most of us escaped alive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Twinky, your post got me thinking a little more on dystopian societies… and by the way The Handmaid's Tale
sounds so interesting – I keep telling myself I’ll have a lot more time to catch up on shows when I retire…who knows – maybe “confession of belief” can alter time…just kidding…
Anyway …I wanted to point out something I read on Wikipedia about the show and book - said by the executive producer – because I think it relates to my previous post ( as well as to what many Grease Spotters have said on many other threads reflecting back on their own TWI experience). In the section heading of Religion, Wikipedia notes: “Bruce Miller, the executive producer of The Handmaid's Tale television serial, declared with regard to Atwood's book, as well as his series, that Gilead is "a society that’s based kind of in a perverse misreading of Old Testament laws and codes". This really struck me.
As I mentioned in my previous post, one of The Way International's buzzwords - "The Word" actually refers to wierwille's skewed interpretation of The Bible. “The Word” sounds authoritative and technical and even appears in the Bible in places like Jeremiah 1:4 “the word of the Lord came to me…” and Ezekiel 18:1 “the word of the Lord came to me…” where it apparently means a revelation, as something to lend support or credentials to what the prophet is saying. Elsewhere you have “the unfolding of your words gives light” Psalm 119:130 NASB.
In the New Testament, we read “…the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” John 1: 14 NASB – referring to Jesus Christ…keeping credentials like that in mind, it should come as no surprise to realize Jesus Christ put himself on par with the authority of Scripture when he said things like:
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart". Matthew 5: 27, 28 NASB
Now getting back to TWI’s buzzword “The Word” - something that I still find fascinating is to deconstruct wierwille's twisted and perverse interpretation of the Bible that he simply referred to as “The Word.” Still to this day, there's some wierwille apologists who will stand by PFAL doctrine - but instead of saying wierwille interpreted the passage this way - they just say resolutely "that's what the word says."
From my personal experience – it all goes back to the lack of transparency in wierwille’s PFAL class. He was not open and honest about the source of his material, not transparent in representing his expertise (or rather the lack thereof) and definitely not transparent in relating his experiences of applying the things he taught - - simply an out and out fabrication of many stories or twisting of facts. His class is only the beginning of a journey down the slippery slope to the subjugation *of one’s belief system…It is almost a thing of treacherous-bizarro-beauty to recall how a “pilgrim’s” journey simply begins with something so sweet and innocent sounding like "a class on the Bible" and somehow ( over a span of time and a certain level of involvement , which varies person to person ) ends with a follower now devoted to the idea that wierwille had more of the rightly-divided word than anyone else…that God taught him “the word” like it hasn’t been known for centuries…
My 2-bit logic says with the grand assumption that God taught wierwille “the word” then there really is no need for transparency…It can be trusted…totally…then we’re back to something like the Jeremiah 1:4 days of old “the word of the Lord came to me, wierwille.” Might as well take it to the next level – let’s put what wierwille says on equal standing with Scripture – “the Bible says do not commit adultery – but I, wierwille say unto you anything done in the love of God is okay.” While I’m at it – a related tangent to transparency (or rather the lack thereof) are some of the ploys used by certain posters as almost diversionary tactics...whether by spouting pious platitudes, pontificating, appealing to ignorance (“show me from the Bible where I’m not right”), appealing to heavily biased articles of dubious sources, making assertions without documentation to back them up – all in an effort to obscure* a weirwille-laden mindset. One can also claim they're evolving in their beliefs to buy more audience time...evolving or changing could mean getting better - or getting worse as in mutating...I dunno...we'll see how this all plays out...as my old limb coordinator used to say when I was a WOW "it all comes out in the wash" - not sure what that means but it sure sounds cool.
The Way International is an itty bitty dystopian society based on wierwille’s misreadings and perverse interpretations of the Bible that were enthroned at PFAL and reigned for the long and drawn-out period of your time in servitude to the cult. (uhm…I’m assuming you left…if not, please see the postscript in my previous post…what thou doest do quickly )
== == == ==
*note on “subjugation”: there’s probably the makings for several papers of thesis quality that could expose wierwille’s methods of subjugating one’s belief system; all it would take is two or three folks developing some of the critical points made by sharp Grease Spotters on just one thread alone: is it okay to recommend wierwille's books to others? …it could also be titled “Is it okay to assume wierwille’s books are “The Word”? ...and folks there's hundreds....thousands....millions? of threads with great critical analysis of wierwille's deceptive means....think of it - - a seemingly endless supply of insight to cult tactics.
*note on “obscure”: you may be able to hide wierwille’s influence to some but the real danger is in hiding it from yourself … it’s like you’re playing hide the salami all by yourself – you end up fvcking with your own belief system…
It goes along the lines of that old saying - none are so blind as those who will not see. To paraphrase what Jesus Christ said in Matthew 6:23, if your eye of understanding is defective, you will be full of darkness…and if you actually think that is light – how great is that darkness!
Edited by T-Boneneeded more time
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Very eloquent post, T-Bone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
T-Bone, do start a thread: "The Word of God is the Will of God??" You could kickstart it with an extract from your above post.
The very expression gives me the creeps these days.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I agree - that expression gives me the creeps too
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
"Stop The Shootings" has been an interesting topic. Although (as of yet) nothing has "actually been concluded" during the discussion, what has come of it are (at the least) "some practical ways" which may aid in lessening it's negative affect upon society in general. (Many thanks to T-Bone for his input along that line.) But alas, the bottom line is: Despite all, the shootings will NOT stop!
(LMAO)
Although it has taken some interesting twists and turns along the way, it has investigated (to some degree, anyway) the "curious balance" between Scriptural truth and the practicality of medicine. (for instance, the science behind why certain "worldly methods" actually work toward "alleviating chemical imbalances" found among the mentally ill)
Nevertheless (and not surprising) remains the fact that (as usual) the discussion has turned toward (in so many words) "What's wrong with The Way?" And why not? After all, the "basic MO of GS" in the first place is to either aid those who've been hurt by TWI in times past, or to warn others that they too (without the assistance of "expert Greasespotters") will eventually succumb to the same! And so, it followed:
After T-Bone's "eloquent post" (as deemed by Twinky) analyzing TWI's buzzword "The Word", Rocky and T-Bone both agreed with Twinky that the expression The Word of God is the Will of God "gives them the creeps". And it was suggested that T-Bone begin a new topic with that expression in mind.
Ironically (and I mean no offense in saying this, but merely as a sort of cute joke) "the GS guns are always loaded"; and if you're not careful, you'll simply get "shot down"! So I say again: "The shootings will continue."
All joking aside, I want to elaborate a bit on that point. It's true that "shootings" do come from both sides of the equation. And the obvious conclusion is that (ultimately) one side is basically "the opposite" of the other, which leads to a point I want to make here:
After robbs' short discourse on the Chinese convention of "yin-yang", Bolshevik said to him: "I'm not sure I agree with your first few sentences. I think there's some interesting ideas in there though. Again you've reduced everything to a duality. Three seems to fit better, as a simplification. IMO: Even the yin and yang has an interface --- the third."
Bolshevik is correct. There IS a third, which some call "rang" or "chi", etc. And the basic conception of it (according to one expert, at least) is this:
"This third force is the force of equilibrium or balance. In it, we find the stillness that is beyond the duality we observe on the surface of creation. It is the place where the apparent conflict is reconciled and the unity in the opposites is observed."
This basically describes "an inner peace" (if you will) which may result, despite "the tension which exists" between the extremes of yin and yang --- that is, provided a proper balance is MAINTAINED, which is VERY important in life.
Picture a horizontal line with "light" to the left, "darkness" to the right and ZERO in the middle [light <------- | -------> darkness]. And keep in mind (from Eph 5:13b) that "whatever doth make manifest is light". Therefore, what one understands about "darkness" is in direct proportion to what he knows about "light".
Now, one must use CAUTION before venturing "too far to the right" (that is, beyond "where he is on the left"). I hope that's clear, but here's an example anyway: Semantically, the "direct opposite" of confusion is peace. (1Co 14:33 "For God is not the author of confusion, BUT of peace...")
So, it's rather silly to attempt understanding confusion by studying "confusion" itself (that is, by "looking only at the dark side") because one merely becomes "more and more confused" in the process. However! If one looks at "peace" (on the "left side") he'll understand what confusion truly is to the very extent he understands "peace" --- and NO FURTHER.
And one is never truly at the "zero point". In this case, the extent of PEACE one feels is merely a measure of the intensity of the light he has attained along that line.
Such also is the case with the extremes "love" and "hate". By themselves, they're invisible. However, one experiences love only to the extent he ADHERES to what he learned of it "from the light side", along with also AVOIDING the other "from the dark side" which (by inference, or deduction) is hate.
As "this balance" is maintained, one will love to "his fullest extent". (And with more light, he can love even greater.) However, if one seeks to understand hate (by studying hate itself) there can be no balance. Also (despite what one might know about love), practicing hate will keep love behind the scene, as it were --- for darkness itself cannot provide light:
Eph 5:13 "But all things that are reproved [discovered] are made manifest [exposed, revealed] by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest [can possibly expose, or reveal] is light."
In other words, one cannot discover what a genuine dollar bill is by merely studying counterfeit bills; one can only perceive the deception in these by using a real one as the guide.
Gen 1:4 "And God saw the light that it [alone] was good; and God divided the light from the darkness."
Well, that's all the "ammo" I wish to spend for the moment. Let the shootings continue!
Edited by spectrum49punctuation
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Hi Spectrum49
I understand what you’re saying and I usually appreciate a commentary on what’s happened thus far ; I think some other posters besides me have noticed there have actually been at least three vibrant themes coursing through this thread: a discussion on how to stop mass shootings, the practicality of a wierwillian frame of thought, and the legitimacy of wierwille’s theology.
Perhaps the reason the discussion has gone toward the latter two themes is because the person who had started the thread assumed they had a ready-made preaching platform and was not prepared to have an intelligent discussion with other folks – not sure on any of this…but stay tuned . . .the thread ain’t over yet !
Too bad it wasn’t just a discussion on how to stop the shootings – but it seems to me that the person who had started this thread may have had a hidden agenda – as evidenced by their lack of documentation, misinformation, and their inept references to things that wierwille taught…
how many times have folks tried to coax a straight answer out of the poster? Frankly, it’s always frustrating and disappointing when folks try to have an intelligent discussion but intermittently there’s someone randomly punching buttons on a jukebox that only plays wierwille-lite.
But enough…I’m not the one that should be explaining why this discussion has occasionally turned toward what’s wrong with the Way…I’m not the one who has been using TWI-ish ideas to try and support a point. I’m not the one to use a source established by Scientology to disparage medical professionals.
I’m not the one who posted some of the copyrighted material of The Way International on their own website -
the glorious Orange book...PFAL
but - - watch out for those TWI lawyers !
You can believe what you want...I believe in calling a spade a spade.
Edited by T-Boneneeded more time
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
I hear ya, pal! You seem to be very adept at "looking between the cracks" to see what's really going on here. I commend you for your ability to summarize so much with so little! (You're one smart son-of-a-bitch in my book, and I mean that most kindly.)
I looked at the links you sent along --- most revealing! I admit myself that a lot of what I believe actually "agrees with what VP taught", but I'm a long way from being a "Wierwillite"! (if you catch my drift, sir...)
And if I use a few of his "buzzwords" (ie: Way-speak) at times, it's NOT what he taught that's of concern, but what I learned myself by applying some things he taught that DO WORK. (Although, I'm truly ashamed he plagiarized so much; and he shall answer to that himself someday, before God Almighty!)
And yes, sir --- a spade is a spade! (I see it as well, my astute fellow.) And as for that, I seem to be picking at the edges, while you already have your focus on the heart of the matter!
As for the rest of my post (which you didn't comment upon) I feel that for the most part, we're in (basic) agreement. Nevertheless, let me close with this:
For you to "see the darker side" of this equation so quickly (and without falling prey to the evils which such a mess may [secretly] be comprised of, AND to remain "pure in all things" concerning it) I must conclude that you're very far "on the light side" to comprehend the true gravity of what's really going on here.
For you, sir: Prov 29:11 A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards. After what, you ask? Let's see how "the poster" replies next...
(Methinks it's really not about "the shootings in Vegas".)
Edited by spectrum49Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I appreciate your words of praise but I have to admit there’s a lot of folks here much smarter than me and who tend to be champions of brevity in making their point…you seem to be aspiring to all that and kudos to you fine sir !
You made an excellent point in your previous post of the silliness of studying confusion and I get that - - your other point of finding the equilibrium - the balance point is fascinating as well…that perhaps describes the long and drawn out process I’ve gone through since leaving TWI…not sure if that’s an accurate or honest way to describe my efforts – but anyway, it’s me in the middle - - on one side the works of wierwille and on the other side, various references: Bible versions, systematic theologies, biblical languages, commentaries with alternate viewpoints. I’m not a researcher, bible scholar or anything…just some schmo trying to make sense of this faith I have - - what to look into further, what to clarify, prioritize, disregard, etc. And to be honest - since I left TWI, all this Bible study stuff has taken a backseat to other things I’ve got going on in my life.
My belief system is in a state of flux – has been so for a long time…My perspective has probably changed quite a bit to differs from yours. Currently I have a side reading project of several books by Peter Enns. Someone on another thread referenced an article of his and after reading it I wanted to check out more of his stuff.
So it’s a little complicated why I do not use wierwille as a reference point for what I believe – perhaps the main things are his stuff being a convoluted patchwork of theology, fundamentalist in nature, and finally last and most important – I believe he was a false prophet…false teacher…cult leader. I don’t see a whole lot of places in the bible that reference a body of work by naming a particular false prophet. If anything we see Jesus pointing out the hypocrisy of some religious leaders in Matthew 23.
That’s all for now…I’m working on being brief…have a nice day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
T-Bone: What honesty!
I think you're quite safe "in the middle", as it were. As one who carefully weighs things on BOTH sides of the scale before rendering a verdict, you're quite the "juror of gold", which is quite admirable in God's sight.
And yes...balance is a great key. Scripturally, this equates to the "Jews and Gentiles", of which "the church" is comprised. (Basically, the Jews are too strict and the Gentiles are too lenient.) Those who are wise are careful not to go too far "to the left hand" (law, or cursing) or "to the right" (grace, or blessing). Just be content in "your own middle"!
Since leaving "them" (as with you) I haven't studied as much as I used to --- because I'm more concerned these days about DOING a little of what I know. Instead (as you) I take more time to take care of my wife and things of concern to make sure my promise of "giving her a great life" is secure.
I look well into our finances. Our house is paid for. BTW, "you know who" wasn't glad when we took out a mortgage for it --- screw them and their "borrower is servant to the lender" perversion of the Scriptures! Not to brag, but we paid off a 30-year mortgage in 5 years and 2 months. (Needless to say, we would NEVER have saved enough CASH to buy this wonderful home with if we did it "their way"...OK...enough!)
Therefore, our "autumn years" look quite bright ahead. If I can say one thing to you it would be this: Ro 14:22 "Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth."
So if you allow a bit of LIVING at times (instead of constantly studying the Bible) so what? God knows your heart. And isn't that the point --- to live happily and in peace? And while you're doing "those other things" you spoke of, just keep it in balance and try not to judge yourself too harshly, friend.
Yes though, keep searching where your heart takes you. For all you know, what "you decide" to look into just might be God himself allowing you to suppose those are "your great ideas" --- when in all reality, it just may be that HE (just as written) "is working in you to do of his good pleasure"!
If you can "read between the lines", consider the possibility of 1Co 12:11 meaning that (as you're already willing, by your own choices and personality) God is behind that already --- according to his plan for you personally...leading you RIGHT WHERE YOU WANT TO GO ANYWAY!
Just remember to give him the credit for "those good ideas of yours", because they're probably his to begin with anyway! Peace, brother...
Edited by spectrum49Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Spectrum49
the same backatcha bro
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
It blesses me that you picked up on my "aspiring to become more concise". Bless you, sir...I do try; but it's not easy! (While awaiting further replies "closer to the topic at hand", I'll entertain your slight diversion --- and a bit more, if you don't mind.)
You caused me to consider Matt 23, which I hadn't read in a while. Considering all, much there seems to align with how VP conducted TWI; so your "overall analysis" seems quite logical. To be brief though, verse 9a stuck out to me in particular: "And call no man your father upon the earth..." He encouraged many to call him their Father in the Word, and also had his followers (affectionately) refer to his brother as Uncle. It seems most curious to me how they could EVER have "missed that one"!
To me, it's not really that complicated why I don't reference (give credit to) Wierwille for things I teach. I had thought to address that nuance in a PM with you alone; but because my explanation involves mentioning my book, I'll do it here instead. WARNING!
[You see: On Oct 6th I uploaded my book to your "wall", and noticed that (since then) there have been 70 downloads of it on this site. So I'll elaborate here, that all the others may understand my position as well as you...and (hopefully) will not be "too overcritical" of my work.]
Simply: The book was originally an appeal to those within TWI to "correct a couple of things" concerning Biblical Administrations. (Oops --- here we go! And if this causes a problem with those who oppose that concept, either disregard it all together or look and (at least) see for yourself how logically I put it together. I may be wrong in the end; but it seems right to me, as far as I've taken it.)
I tried IN VAIN for many years to impart these findings to them (and perhaps some "new light" as well). And when it finally became obvious to me they weren't the least bit interested in "my research", I eventually left TWI.
However, because I saw merit in it and desired others (outside of The Way) to consider the work, I was left with a seemingly daunting task: to (somehow) make my work palatable to those who were never a part of that ministry.
SO: The very first thing I did in editing the manuscript was to remove all references to VP and The Way, so as not to steer anyone toward that egocentric and uncaring institution. Even in the bibliography, I removed all references to any of VP's publications. Instead (where I made what I considered valid points) I credited others as my source. Case in point:
When I spoke of things related to what was taught in PFAL, I credited EW Bullinger's How to Enjoy the Bible because (basically, when one takes a good look at it) one can plainly see that VP plagiarized it almost entirely, because it truly appears as a template for VP's "supposedly own" foundational class!
In essence (and without having to completely destroy my manuscript...after working on it for over 2 decades!) I "found ways to bypass TWI" while still retaining the overall message. The most daunting thing of all to me at first was: How in the hell can I bring an audience on board who had never studied the Bible at all, being complete novices to certain things the originally projected readers would readily understand, having been exposed to much of what I considered as valid Biblical research principles!" (As I said earlier, the entire project was originally an appeal to my (now former) friends. And therefore, "the point of view while pleading my case" was primarily with THEM in mind.)
Wondering how I could possibly accomplish this, I almost gave up. But (by continuing, despite all) I discovered it wasn't as difficult as I had first supposed. I ended up adding 7 Appendices to the manuscript which would "lay out some basics" whereby most anyone could appreciate the book without having to invest years of study to get up to speed. Concerning these, here's an excerpt from my book:
"These few appendices have been included to enlighten mainly those who have not previously been exposed to certain basic biblical topics which are integral to the understanding of Genesis One: God’s Table of Contents to the Bible. Even those who consider themselves as biblical scholars already may still find these helpful at times.
By reading these, novices and scholars alike will have an equal opportunity to get the most out of this book, and can appreciate a most amazing and wonderful pattern integrated within the Holy Scriptures, designed by God."
In addition, all other "basic Biblical research principles" are integrated within the work itself, by example --- without having to teach explicitly about "in the verse, context and used before", etc. etc. (And besides, most of that which TWI would have ignorant people suppose VP put together himself are nothing more than what anyone can know already from either good grammar skills, plain logic or just Googling for themselves. So in my book, [pun intended] he deserves no credit for any of that either!)
What remains however, is that a vast amount of "Way-speak" exists throughout the work. I'm very sorry it has to be this way, because (truly) it's impossible to separate truth from error without at least addressing some things which they actually got right. After all, who can argue with that which makes absolute sense, no matter how one explains it? And who knows "the true source" of everything VP taught? (And BTW: To my surprise, I recently understand from GS posts that even Maggie Muggins was drawn from another source. Such pitiful plagiarism!)
Regardless, I would only hope that they who read my book will glean something good from it, despite how I worded things at times. I'm rather confident that "if one can put up with the Way-speak" (which honestly, I don't always recognize myself) he'll eventually see what I tried in vain to impart to them. And if not, then please try not to take offense or suppose that (somehow or other) I'm still under their devilish spell.
I convey my thanks to all for listening. (And I do apologize for this lengthy post, as I'm still working on being more concise.)
Edited by spectrum49punctuation
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Care to explain? (There's been a few attempts here to discuss administrations, but it seems they end before they ever start...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
Having perused only a few of your recent posts elsewhere, I deem you serious (and honest) in your request for "more info". Although my book is presently available at GS, it always seems a bit doubtful to me that people here will actually take time to read it. (Besides, we all have "other fish to fry", huh?) Nevertheless, I'll try to "boil it down" enough to satisfy your curiosity for the present:
Somehow, I see "a rather curious correlation" between the 7 days in Gen 1 and the 7 administrations --- if there truly is such a thing! If it weren't for the hundreds (if not thousands!) of "semantic connections" (in the way things are actually worded) in Gen 1, I wouldn't be the least bit tempted to suppose "my pattern" may be valid.
Basically, I believe to have found enough evidence to support the notion that Bullinger (and of course, VP) were incorrect in teaching that the 7th administration begins with "the paradise of New Jerusalem" (EW: "The Eternal State", and VP: "Final Paradise, or Glory Administration").
Rather, I find that "the 7th time" begins with JC's return as King of Kings (through "the millennium") and ends with God's white throne of judgment. In short, I see the 7 admins as culminating right after "the end of this earth" (as foretold by OT Prophets) which would necessitate "God's final judgments" as being spiritually perfect (7) --- especially in consideration of all which will happen concerning everyone from Adam to the very last soul here (excepting the born-again of course, who will already have been "judged at the bema").
And after that, it then seems most logical that "the next admin" would be #8 (as "a brand new beginning") which speaks loudly concerning "the new heaven and earth" to come. (Or if one prefers, that it may also be considered as #1 again, paralleling "the paradise of Eden", where the story of man's presence upon earth begins.)
As for the only other "major glitch", I see the Patriarchal Administration as totally invalid. For what I seem to have found, "the 2nd time" (basically) entails the account of Noah and the flood, with the third period (The Law) beginning at Abram (later, Abraham). But alas, I've probably caused more questions even by what little I've said here already. So, this seems quite enough for now.
But let me close with this: It seems amazing how much easier The Scriptures appear to fit together once these "two glitches" are reconciled. And (believe it or not) it even seems to open up the book of Revelation as never before.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Seems I probably agree with that (and the eighth.)
But not that. If Eden (as you've referred to it) is counted as the first, after the fall would be the second, after the flood (c. Noah) the third, the law (i.e., Moses) was the fourth, the gospel of grace (i.e., Paul - not Pentecost) the fifth, after the gathering the sixth, the return of Christ the seventh, and the new heavens and earth the eighth.
At least, that's currently how I see it ...and as you might have already surmised, that wasn't whipped up on some last minute effort.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
Thanks for your patience, TLC. Let me say you're "basically on board" with me. However, (and without having to go into "the nuts and bolts") let me clarify things a bit more by giving "an overall look" so there's less misunderstanding between us. (Also, there are what I call "periods of transition" between some of the times, while "the whole story" is being developed.)
(1) "Paradise" (Eden): Begins with Adam; ends when he and Eve are banished.
(2) (What I call) "The Time of Ignorance" (per Paul @ Mars' Hill - Act 17:30).
Technically, this begins just after "the banishment from Eden", but officially (after a period of transition) when God first spoke to Noah concerning the flood. And it ends when God "stopped the rain."
(3) "The Law". Technically, it begins "just after the rain stopped", but officially when God "had said [spoken] to Abram", per Gen 12:1. (And just as before, there's a "period of transition" between these two events.)
NOTE: It's important to see that "The Law" is comprised of two parts, A & B. A represents "God's overall perfect law" (existing with Abram and beyond) and B represents "the written law" (beginning with Moses' ten commandments, etc).
Without going too far, do keep in mind "the two choices" we have in Romans, which compares "the two kinds of faith"; one aligns with Abraham (preferred) and the other with the written law (not preferred). I hope this is clear to you.
(4) "Christ Administration" (or "Gospel Period"). It technically begins with the opening of the Gospels, but officially (as "the earthly ministry of JC") after a period of transition --- until "he was qualified" to do so (at age 30, according to the law), having also been baptized by John, whereafter "the spirit came upon him, as a dove...").
(5) "Grace" (aka: "Mystery", "Church Age"). It's pretty much as before, beginning at Pentecost and ending at "the gathering together". [Also, I'm a bit curious as to your reference to Paul, but not Pentecost, which is not only rather new to me, but somewhat interesting as well.]
(6) (What I call) "The Day of Wrath". Similar to what Bullinger called 5th (Judgment). Begins at the gathering together and ends when Christ returns as King of Kings.
(7) (What I call) "The Day of Judgment". Similar to what Bullinger called 6th (Millennial, or Theocratic). Begins when Christ (as King of Kings) "kicks some spiritual butt"
. Ends at God's throne, where he (as KING POTENTATE) settles everything which happened since Adam.
END OF "THIS EARTH" (1-7)
(8) - if you want to keep counting upward OR (1) - if you prefer viewing a simple beginning, as with Eden. "Paradise" (again, but as New Jerusalem). Begins just after "the throne" as "a new earth". Ends --- who knows! (Does it course 1-7 again, as before? Hmmm...)
Sorry for the length. (I merely wanted to be as clear as it seemed feasible.) And (if you so desire) I'll provide more specifics even as you request, as I have proved nothing.
Edited by spectrum49punctuation
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
To be fair, as of yet I haven't read (or even browsed through) your book (which you so kindly provided a link to yesterday.) At some point in the near future I will, and undoubtedly have a better sense of your perspective on it. In the interim, I'll simply make a few general (and a few more specific) comments on the "outline" (presuming it's fair to call it that) that you've given.
Generally speaking, it seems to me that your separation of the law into "parts A & B" as well as the greatly extended (or distended) "period of transition" between dispensations significantly complicate the matter (much more than might make any kind of sense to me.) Furthermore, there's no mention (perhaps there is in your book, I haven't looked yet) of what sort of differences (or changes) there might be in the relationship between God and man for various times.
More specifically,
I see the "times of ignorance" spoken of in Acts 17:30 as referring to the entire period of time right up to and including the time in Acts 17:23, where they built an altar "TO THE UNKNOWN GOD."
I also see a very notable change in God's prescription for man after the flood, after Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord, and new (or revised, however you want to think of it) guidelines and instructions (and a covenant) were given to Noah and his sons and all flesh upon the earth. (see Gen. 8:21-9:17.)
Jesus Christ (and his followers) all lived by and under the law of Moses. Furthermore, I see no notable differences between how anyone can or would be saved during that time, and the times going all the way back to Moses and the giving of the law. (see Luke 10:25-26.) Consequently, I see no real indications, reason or purpose for a separate or distinct "Christ Administration."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
So, I guess this thread failed. Maybe blame motor vehicles?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/nypd-responding-to-shots-fired-near-world-trade-center-site/2017/10/31/28243ce2-be74-11e7-9294-705f80164f6e_story.html?utm_term=.7d6781d2b9c7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
I wouldn't actually say the thread failed; rather, it seems to have run it's course for now. But we'll realize more about that if (and when) robbs chimes in again. (It's his post, ya know!) In the meantime, it has "led elsewhere". (And if that's my fault...oh well! At first, I didn't really intend it to diverge this far.)
But what the heck? This seems as good a place as any for TLC and I (at least) to discuss our views on Biblical administrations. Starting another Topic elsewhere might be better, but I trust robbs doesn't mind...or perhaps he'd say something.
(Besides, I'm not completely sure that "the shootings in Las Vegas" was truly his main concern; perhaps the thread merely began there as a sort of platform from which to lead to something else. But hell...that's just my gut feeling, so it carries little weight.)
And if you were being humorous about "blaming the cars", I get it! Per your link: "Witnesses told local media that a vehicle drove down a popular bike path and struck pedestrians and cyclists." Since there's no mention of a driver, it's quite obvious that (semantically, anyway) the car did it!
Edited by spectrum49punctuation
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/dead-gunman-home-depot-truck-runs-bikers-article-1.3602094
Apparantly the driver, with a gun, yelled Allahu Akbar, God is great.
So maybe that proves Rrobs point about the quality of life in a society being determined by the thoughts that individuals hold in their minds.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Hey just thought I’d back track and address a few incidental comments in your posts –
“As for the rest of my post (which you didn't comment upon) I feel that for the most part, we're in (basic) agreement…” Though I politely tried to address that by saying my belief system is in a state of flux and my perspective has probably changed quite a bit and differs from yours – I don’t think I expressed just how divergent we are on many things – but don’t think now is the time to get into all the details – or that it’s even necessary to later.
I’m afraid the sentiment in your above statement tends to overgeneralize and thus obscure many salient points of a discussion. by the way, having an opinion or perspective different from mine is great - but that’s not the issue....
the issue is trying to smooth things over for a group hug - to tip toe around controversy may often obscure the details - whether the details are in contrast to one another, complement one another - - or perhaps opposing details reveal there's more to it than what's been discussed so far. I appreciate opposing viewpoints - helps to bring many angles to light that I hadn’t thought of before. If you dull the tips of point / counterpoint you blunt the tools of sharp thinking.
I don’t think you’re trying to be deceitful or manipulative …and maybe it’s just me but I feel like someone is NOT listening to what I’m saying when they say something like “for the most part we’re in agreement” ...
I say “whoa whoa whoa back up a minute – for the most part? What part is that? Please be specific!”
== == == ==
Also, I beg to differ on your comments: “For all you know, what "you decide" to look into just might be God himself allowing you to suppose those are "your great ideas" --- when in all reality, it just may be that HE (just as written) "is working in you to do of his good pleasure"!
If you can "read between the lines", consider the possibility of 1Co 12:11 meaning that (as you're already willing, by your own choices and personality) God is behind that already --- according to his plan for you personally...leading you RIGHT WHERE YOU WANT TO GO ANYWAY!
Just remember to give him the credit for "those good ideas of yours", because they're probably his to begin with anyway!”
I don’t mean to be picayune on stuff – but for some reason this reminds me of an old wierwille Sunday Night Teaching tape called “Carnal vs Spiritual” – that went along the lines of carnal man is a dumba$$ and it’s only when you have God’s spirit that you are really smart and can be creative…
To me this truly insults the Creator as well as his creation (us
) – and if you think about it – wierwille's "logic" also relieves folks of responsibility and limits their options..."don't blame me - blame God - it was his idea.". or ...."the reason you failed was because you didn't listen to God's spirit in you"...yeah - how stupid and lame it is to think that -...
.. instead , why not review your thought process - kick your critical and creative thinking skills into high gear and work out the problem!
…If the Creator truly made us in his image and likeness – then don’t you think being creative might be something godlike? As a Christian I consider the level of intelligence behind the design of the cosmos and it’s truly mind-boggling!
So is it no surprise then to stand back in wonder when looking at all the amazing advances in the fields of technology, medicine, the sciences, etc. that showcase our godlike talents of critical and creative thinking.
Let’s give credit where credit is due and acknowledge our responsibility to use our God-given talents. I even think when we use our talents in benevolence toward our fellowman that is a glory to God – you are fulfilling the purpose for which you were designed.
Edited by T-Boneneeded more time
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Huh? I don't see how that proves any such thing.
Btw, I'm confident you will not be surprised when there's another mass shooting somewhere in the US sometime in November 2017. I certainly won't be surprised. Saddened, but not surprised.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Maybe if the society he’s talking about is the Borg and there’s a glitch in the hive-mind
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.