quote: Why would you care what "the devil is" doing at all?
We are not to be ignorant of his devices. He's the adversary of God's people (body of Christ) who walks about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. Any of that sound familiar?
Please expound on the difference between being ignorant (aware) of evil or (D'evil) and displacing your attention on and love for God and your neighbor with obsession w/D'evil.
Then, please clarify how this (YOUR words from Wednesday afternoon) is awareness and not obsession:
It's just information given in God's word, which I am aware of, not necssarily obsessed about.
he had scathing things to say about Billy Graham, who made money off the publication of the "living bible".
And VPW didn't make money of whatever he himself flogged in the bookstore? Of "his" many publications? Off PFAL books themselves, as well as the PFAL class?
And didn't Craig continue that same means of raising money?
Raising money is not a sin, in and of itself. Billy Graham was a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, yet he made money by furthering communism, which is contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I saw Orel Roberts on the Donahue show back in the 80s. Poor guy was getting flamed by Donahue and some of the audience. They thought it was wrong for him to charge money for his hospital, or whatever it was. Orel said in a very deadpan tone, "It'd be pretty hard to pay the electric bills without money."
Many of you are never going to agree with me (even before I post it). One could argue that..well, then let's just agree to disagree. One could also argue that...the cream rises to the top, even in the form of words. The bible has risen to the top 2,000 years and counting. Let's keep airing these things out.
"As for the trinity, the devil is laughing (rotflmaopimp) at mainstream Christianity just like Hogan's Heroes laugh at Klink and Schultz."
[bI'm curious what Bible verse supposedly alleges that one.[/b]
Rev. 12:9
Here's what Rev. 12:9 says:
"And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."...(KJV)
How does that connect to Sgt. Schultz?
Ok, I see the "I know nothing" part., but other than that?
quote: Why would you care what "the devil is" doing at all?
We are not to be ignorant of his devices. He's the adversary of God's people (body of Christ) who walks about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. Any of that sound familiar?
What’s sounds familiar is the paranoia that wierwille’s fixation and wild speculations with demonology - he didn’t know what he was talking about…he could take any Bible verse and twist the living truth out of it and then use that as a launching pad for bull-$hit.
Raising money is not a sin, in and of itself. Billy Graham was a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, yet he made money by furthering communism, which is contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Johniam - oh, Billy Graham did? Others say differently:
Until his dying day, he believed that communism was a malevolent attempt to usurp the sovereignty of God on earth.
But he changed in how he thought Christians should behave towardsCommunists—the people, not the ideology—and in how he thought the gospel should be presented to regimes that officially rejected Christianity.
quote: Romans 13 can be understood within Paul’s historical context — Roman imperial cult. What he’s saying in that chapter was for the 1st century Romanekklesia(always ‘assembly,’ never ‘called out.’) not for 21st century Mericans.
Romans 13 can be understood as GOD BREATHED! Romans is addressed to the church of God, the body of Christ. There are 21st century Americans in the body of Christ.
VP taught on Romans 13 late 60s early 70s. He made the point that the "higher powers" are those in the church, not in the govt. The catholic church "honors" the pope that way and nobody complains. Why the double standard?
So...the devil spirits who were stalking VP didn't like his take on Romans 13, so in 1972 they inspired the "Living Bible", which translates Romans 13 exactly as I quoted it. In 1975 VP did a teaching called 'the way of life and death' in which he had scathing things to say about Billy Graham, who made money off the publication of the "living bible". He said Karl Marx might as well have translated that, or the devil incarnate.
I’ve lost count of the number of commentaries, study Bibles, systematic theologies and specific studies by legitimate scholars and theologians that I've read, drilling down into Romans 13. the consensus - even across different theological ‘pedigrees’ is that Romans 13 speaks to one of the institutions decreed by God for the benefit of the social creatures He created.
As an extension of the gift of free will and involving the responsibility of stewardship God has left a lot of things up to humankind as far as how to manage social life...just as in giving humankind freedom of will - God allowed people to form societies and set up governments. But no matter what form of government they set up - it involves people who have free will. Even the best political system and well-intentioned politicians can screw up things. that's reality.
This is also noteworthy:
Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience…Romans 13:5 NIV
In essence – Paul is saying accept the authority of your government and it’s something each person must decide according to what they believe is morally right.
That makes me think of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in Daniel 3 , and the heroes mentioned in the hall of fame in Hebrews 11 NIV like “By faith Moses’ parents hid him for three months after he was born, because they saw he was no ordinary child, and they were not afraid of the king’s edict.”
~ ~ ~ ~
Romans 13 does not endorse any particular type of government - such as a monarchy, democracy, communist, republic, etc. Paul wrote this while under the iron-fisted rule of the Roman Empire. I’ll leave extrapolating how one should behave under a particular government to the adults in the room who still have their powers of reason.
How convenient - an incompetent, plagiarizing, malignant narcissist, sexual predator, drunkard, pathological liar, incorrigible thief, fake “Doctor” and megalomaniac like wierwille interprets Romans 13 as referring to gift ministries. Straight out of a harmful and controlling cult-leader’s playbook.
he had scathing things to say about Billy Graham, who made money off the publication of the "living bible".
And VPW didn't make money of whatever he himself flogged in the bookstore? Of "his" many publications? Off PFAL books themselves, as well as the PFAL class?
And didn't Craig continue that same means of raising money?
Raising money is not a sin, in and of itself. Billy Graham was a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, yet he made money by furthering communism, which is contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I saw Orel Roberts on the Donahue show back in the 80s. Poor guy was getting flamed by Donahue and some of the audience. They thought it was wrong for him to charge money for his hospital, or whatever it was. Orel said in a very deadpan tone, "It'd be pretty hard to pay the electric bills without money."
Many of you are never going to agree with me (even before I post it). One could argue that..well, then let's just agree to disagree. One could also argue that...the cream rises to the top, even in the form of words. The bible has risen to the top 2,000 years and counting. Let's keep airing these things out.
Charging for a legitimate hospital is permissible... charging for an ACCREDITED college is legit. Charging for a college that one claims is accredited BUT is not - is dishonest! Charging for a class and books made from plagiarized material is dishonest and illegal.
I agree to disagree
cream rises to the top?
delusional wierwille probably thought his bull-$hit didn’t stink.
quote: Why would you care what "the devil is" doing at all?
We are not to be ignorant of his devices. He's the adversary of God's people (body of Christ) who walks about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. Any of that sound familiar?
Please expound on the difference between being ignorant (aware) of evil or (D'evil) and displacing your attention on and love for God and your neighbor with obsession w/D'evil.
Then, please clarify how this (YOUR words from Wednesday afternoon) is awareness and not obsession:
It's just information given in God's word, which I am aware of, not necssarily obsessed about.
You seem to exhibit the same deviant thinking as wierwille the cult-leader: speculate and extrapolate from a verse about the devil , taking it to the point that it explains why people disagree with you - “they’re tricked by the devil.” You assume YOUR obsession is awareness. It is not!
wierwille would also emphasize love God and neighbor and then say as long as you do that you can do whatever you want. The problem? Without any criteria - like don’t lie or steal from God or neighbor- One can assume they love God and neighbor. You’re using yourself as a standard of reference.
I can say that what stands out about these individuals is that they were or are all pathologically narcissistic.
I am the way and the truth and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but by me.
Sounds pretty narcissistic to me. Either way, I am a follower of that guy.
Hmmmm…can’t tell the difference between harmful / abusive cult-leaders and the Son of God who sacrificed himself to saveothers?
That statement by the ex FBI guy is another boring natural man's take on spiritual matters. If narcissistic was a word at the time of Christ, or when KJV was produced, then Jesus would have been called that.
"And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."...(KJV)
How does that connect to Sgt. Schultz?
By the words 'which deceiveth the whole world'. Schultz is a fictional character and part of a propaganda prop used to deceive. Propaganda can be either funny, or scary, as long as the bait is taken.
I can say that what stands out about these individuals is that they were or are all pathologically narcissistic.
I am the way and the truth and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but by me.
Sounds pretty narcissistic to me. Either way, I am a follower of that guy.
Hmmmm…can’t tell the difference between harmful / abusive cult-leaders and the Son of God who sacrificed himself to saveothers?
That statement by the ex FBI guy is another boring natural man's take on spiritual matters. If narcissistic was a word at the time of Christ, or when KJV was produced, then Jesus would have been called that.
The concept of narcissism is clearly explained in the Bible - and Jesus Christ stands in stark contrast to self-centered ravenous wolves like wierwille:
The distinction between narcissistic cult-leaders like wierwille and Jesus Christ is clearly defined in the Bible.
Nice try to obfuscate the difference between good and evil, johniam - though your posts reveal a lot about your inability to discern truth from lies and good from evil. It might be you’re still trapped in a narrow minded attitude that evil narcissistic cult-leaders (wierwille & Craig) encouraged.
"And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."...(KJV)
How does that connect to Sgt. Schultz?
By the words 'which deceiveth the whole world'. Schultz is a fictional character and part of a propaganda prop used to deceive. Propaganda can be either funny, or scary, as long as the bait is taken.
You are very slow at connecting dots.
Anyone can create dots - even invalid dots - imaginary dots - to rationalize screwball ideas - wierwille did that all the time!
The fictional character Sgt. Schultz- who often toggled between “I see nothing” and “I know nothing” was excellent comedic relief and is an example of good-natured people who submit to oppressive propaganda - when cognitive skills are sabotaged by it , functions like observation, reason and awareness are seriously compromised.
Romans is addressed to the church of God, the body of Christ.
Right. The church in Rome. The body of Christ in Rome.
7 hours ago, johniam said:
There are 21st century Americans in the body of Christ.
Indeed, there are.
7 hours ago, johniam said:
VP taught on Romans 13 late 60s early 70s. He made the point that the "higher powers" are those in the church, not in the govt.
Victor "taught" a lot of things. He "taught" a lot of error. He was wrong about Romans 13. For centuries charlatans, hucksters and autocrats have manipulated this chapter for their own selfish desires. Charlatan hucksters like victor twist the chapter in a vain effort to legitimize their lust for control and power.
7 hours ago, johniam said:
The catholic church "honors" the pope that way and nobody complains.
Nobody? So what. Doesn't make the honor righteous.
7 hours ago, johniam said:
So...the devil spirits who were stalking VP didn't like his take on Romans 13, so in 1972 they inspired the "Living Bible", which translates Romans 13 exactly as I quoted it. In 1975 VP did a teaching called 'the way of life and death' in which he had scathing things to say about Billy Graham, who made money off the publication of the "living bible". He said Karl Marx might as well have translated that, or the devil incarnate.
Alas and alak... nothing posted on this thread, especially in the last week or so, has anything to do with Loy C Martindale having his own spin off ministry.
I'm confident I am not the only one to recognize this fact.
However, it DOES look (un)surprisingly similar in structure to threads wherein Mike drops a line with bait and successfully hooks to push buttons of greasespotters.
As our good friend T-Bone has mused, isn't it reasonable for (perhaps non-troll) GSC readers to address such by rebutting and exposing such fallacies as we see herein from JohnIam?
To which I mostly shake my head in wonder. Then I ask myself, does anyone (i.e. newcomers) actually read those rebuttals? Do we ever get feedback from those ostensible newcomers?
Alas and alak... nothing posted on this thread, especially in the last week or so, has anything to do with Loy C Martindale having his own spin off ministry.
I'm confident I am not the only one to recognize this fact.
However, it DOES look (un)surprisingly similar in structure to threads wherein Mike drops a line with bait and successfully hooks to push buttons of greasespotters.
As our good friend T-Bone has mused, isn't it reasonable for (perhaps non-troll) GSC readers to address such by rebutting and exposing such fallacies as we see herein from JohnIam?
To which I mostly shake my head in wonder. Then I ask myself, does anyone (i.e. newcomers) actually read those rebuttals? Do we ever get feedback from those ostensible newcomers?
You can't fix stupid, indeed. And I don't pretend that I can.
The concept of narcissism is clearly explained in the Bible - and Jesus Christ stands in stark contrast to self-centered ravenous wolves like wierwille:
The distinction between narcissistic cult-leaders like wierwille and Jesus Christ is clearly defined in the Bible.
Nice try to obfuscate the difference good and evil, johniam - though your posts reveal a lot about your inability to discern truth from lies and good from evil. It might be you’re still trapped in a narrow minded attitude that evil narcissistic cult-leaders (wierwille & Craig) encouraged.
I really appreciate the scriptures that you shared T-Bone, especially in Ezekiel. Thanks.
Alas and alak... nothing posted on this thread, especially in the last week or so, has anything to do with Loy C Martindale having his own spin off ministry.
I'm confident I am not the only one to recognize this fact.
However, it DOES look (un)surprisingly similar in structure to threads wherein Mike drops a line with bait and successfully hooks to push buttons of greasespotters.
As our good friend T-Bone has mused, isn't it reasonable for (perhaps non-troll) GSC readers to address such by rebutting and exposing such fallacies as we see herein from JohnIam?
To which I mostly shake my head in wonder. Then I ask myself, does anyone (i.e. newcomers) actually read those rebuttals? Do we ever get feedback from those ostensible newcomers?
Maybe you forget that some lurkers have said they came to Grease Spot for a long time before posting. I realize Grease Spot isn’t as active as it used to be - but I assume some may never join or post anything…and I’m probably not the only seasoned Grease Spotter who enjoys reading a substantial and thoughtful post but don’t always quote them or give it a vote up - maybe that’s how some folks on twitter or Reddit find validation with re-tweets and upvotes - not that there’s anything wrong with that.
I don’t mean to attack you on this - I merely wonder why you think your comments along these lines are necessary. No offense but I get the idea you’re supposed to be the unofficial critic of all things posted. Yeah - it’s cool to remind people to get back on topic or call out troll-tactics - everyone should do that…
…so maybe you find yourself reflecting on whether or not certain posts are even read and further assume no replies or upvotes from newcomers or lurkers means a certain post is worthless.
Grease Spot has a unique niche and serves a great purpose. It is the antithesis of the oppressive and manipulative environment of The Way International. So the free rein of intellect and feelings at Grease Spot often gets messy compared to the stifling rigidity of TWI atmosphere.
Has it ever occurred to you that some of your ‘running commentaries’ on threads might be counterproductive? I mean that in the sense that it might seem to some newcomers like you’re playing the Twig coordinator wanting to control what everyone shares at Twig - making sure it’s ‘Rocky approved’ for consumption. That might make some nervous and not post anything for fear of reproof. We’re all adults here - and I’ll be the first to admit I can clown around and get off topic - but usually we all get back on track soon.
While I’m at it -let me get another thing off my chest. I love you like a brother, respect you like crazy, highly value your constructive criticism and allow you to be in the small group of Grease Spotters who influence my heart…. That being said…Uh oh Please don’t feel like you have to keep reminding me one way or another that my posts are too long or you didn’t have time to read it all.
While I have listened to - and will continue to listen to your feedback and every other Grease Spotter - I assure everyone my ‘literary’ goal for drafting a post is to state everything I think is necessary to accurately and honesty reflect my beliefs related to a specific thread. I’m not perfect - I usually feel I didn’t take enough time to refine and edit my thoughts down to something clear and concise - and that’s on me - because I ain’t gonna spend all freakin’ day composing a post until it’s perfect and let the rest of my day go to $hit.
As my older brother said as he made a detour to off-track-betting on the way to our parents’ 50th anniversary “hey I’ve got a life too!”
I don’t mean to attack you on this - I merely wonder why you think your comments along these lines are necessary. No offense but I get the idea you’re supposed to be the unofficial critic of all things posted. Yeah - it’s cool to remind people to get back on topic or call out troll-tactics - everyone should do that…
Why do you think your comments are necessary?
I post mine because I can and suppose you have similar motivation.
I'm not supposed to be anything. It just seems to work out that way.
I do appreciate how you don't mean to attack me. I just seems that way... but it doesn't bother me.
Has it ever occurred to you that some of your ‘running commentaries’ on threads might be counterproductive?
Not without someone like you providing feedback to say such a thing. Has it not ever occurred to you that your interactions with bait and hook trolls like Mike and JohnIam might be counterproductive?
To clarify, I sense, because of your feedback, you find my "running commentaries" at least irritating.
My comments are no more necessary than yours. The difference is my remarks submit items for analysis and reevaluating some questionable points of a certain post. Whereas it seems to me you act like a sports commentator / umpire when you get on this kick. “There goes a swing and a miss by T-Bone. He fell for the old trolling screwball. Too bad he’s not in the same league as these other seasoned Grease Spotters I’ve pointed out.”
1 hour ago, Rocky said:
I post mine because I can and suppose you have similar motivation.
Maybe you suppose wrong. Or maybe we both have good intentions and have different ways of accomplishing them
1 hour ago, Rocky said:
I'm not supposed to be anything. It just seems to work out that way.
I do appreciate how you don't mean to attack me. I just seems that way... but it doesn't bother me.
Well that’s good – I’m never upset over your comments either…
1 hour ago, Rocky said:
Not without someone like you providing feedback to say such a thing. Has it not ever occurred to you that your interactions with bait and hook trolls like Mike and JohnIam might be counterproductive?
Sure. I think of that possibility all the time. But here again you’re assuming you know what desired effect I have in mind.
Some folks here like to quote Proverbs 26 – don’t answer a fool in his folly – and interpret that to mean don’t respond to trolls…don’t feed the trolls…something along those lines…yeah I get the idea…but read it in context with the following verse and you’ll see it’s not a prohibition to answer a fool, but to respond properly – a few alternate translations might make this clearer:
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him.
Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes…Proverbs 26:4, 5 NIV
Don’t answer the foolish arguments of fools, or you will become as foolish as they are.
Be sure to answer the foolish arguments of fools, or they will become wise in their own estimation… Proverbs 26: 4, 5 NLT
Do not answer a fool according to his foolishness, or you will also be like him.
The NASB is probably the clearest in my opinion – how I understand it – as it applies to interacting with fools, hobgoblins, trolls, and general troublemakers – and I think it goes along the lines of some of Grease Spot rules anyway – like don’t respond in name-calling – furthermore we should not get caught up in their logical fallacies and Scripture twisting. Instead, what the fool deserves to hear is a rational response and an honest explanation of Scripture to counter their screwy arguments. My takeaway from verse 5 is that we SHOULD respond appropriately.
That goes counter to what you have expressed before - lecturing me – assuming I’m wanting to change someone’s mind. Proverbs 26:5 doesn’t even hint toward that goal. Matter of fact, the verse implies no one will know if the appropriate answer will change someone’s mind. It leaves us with a mystery we may never find out to our satisfaction – all it says is so that he will not be wise in his own eyes…they’ll probably never admit to that…Not my problem...I don't live to see people change their minds and agree with me.
1 hour ago, Rocky said:
To clarify, I sense, because of your feedback, you find my "running commentaries" at least irritating.
I hope not overwhelmingly so.
On the contrary – I love commentaries…on the Bible.
Commentaries can be helpful – but I pushback when I get the feeling they’re speculating too much or appear condescending.
Certain of your commentaries on threads tend to give me flashbacks of being in-residence and having the corps coordinator or assistant corps coordinator critique me in front of everybody and implyyour posts should be more like WordWolf’s because he gets Mike...now that's a little embarrassing to me - I dunno maybe other folks enjoy that.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
33
23
33
32
Popular Days
Mar 4
30
Mar 1
24
Mar 3
14
Feb 19
13
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 33 posts
johniam 23 posts
T-Bone 33 posts
Nathan_Jr 32 posts
Popular Days
Mar 4 2023
30 posts
Mar 1 2023
24 posts
Mar 3 2023
14 posts
Feb 19 2022
13 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
Oh yeah – you nailed it Bolshevik! An alarming aspect of TWI-follower’s/big PFAL-fans’ fascination with demonology is the amount of control it affords cult-leaders. They elevate consequen
Twinky
Good lord, is that Craig? His vaunted golden hair has slipped down to his chin, and gone grey? Still got the scowl, though.
BecomingMe
Hi, friends! Sorry I'm late to the party. I step in and out of cult world, because it's just too heavy sometimes. I'm Craig's oldest kid and wanted to jump on this thread to help out if I can...
Posted Images
johniam
quote:
"As for the trinity, the devil is laughing (rotflmaopimp) at mainstream Christianity just like Hogan's Heroes laugh at Klink and Schultz."
[bI'm curious what Bible verse supposedly alleges that one.[/b]
Rev. 12:9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote:
Please expound on the difference between being ignorant (aware) of evil or (D'evil) and displacing your attention on and love for God and your neighbor with obsession w/D'evil.
Then, please clarify how this (YOUR words from Wednesday afternoon) is awareness and not obsession:
It's just information given in God's word, which I am aware of, not necssarily obsessed about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote:
And VPW didn't make money of whatever he himself flogged in the bookstore? Of "his" many publications? Off PFAL books themselves, as well as the PFAL class?
And didn't Craig continue that same means of raising money?
Raising money is not a sin, in and of itself. Billy Graham was a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, yet he made money by furthering communism, which is contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I saw Orel Roberts on the Donahue show back in the 80s. Poor guy was getting flamed by Donahue and some of the audience. They thought it was wrong for him to charge money for his hospital, or whatever it was. Orel said in a very deadpan tone, "It'd be pretty hard to pay the electric bills without money."
Many of you are never going to agree with me (even before I post it). One could argue that..well, then let's just agree to disagree. One could also argue that...the cream rises to the top, even in the form of words. The bible has risen to the top 2,000 years and counting. Let's keep airing these things out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Here's what Rev. 12:9 says:
"And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."...(KJV)
How does that connect to Sgt. Schultz?
Ok, I see the "I know nothing" part., but other than that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
What’s sounds familiar is the paranoia that wierwille’s fixation and wild speculations with demonology - he didn’t know what he was talking about…he could take any Bible verse and twist the living truth out of it and then use that as a launching pad for bull-$hit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Johniam - oh, Billy Graham did? Others say differently:
Until his dying day, he believed that communism was a malevolent attempt to usurp the sovereignty of God on earth.
But he changed in how he thought Christians should behave towards Communists—the people, not the ideology—and in how he thought the gospel should be presented to regimes that officially rejected Christianity.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2018/billy-graham/how-billy-graham-killed-communism-kindness-iron-curtain.html
And so say other articles. Do check your facts.
Oh, and it would be useful if you found out how to use the Quote function, or at least set out your posts in a better manner.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I’ve lost count of the number of commentaries, study Bibles, systematic theologies and specific studies by legitimate scholars and theologians that I've read, drilling down into Romans 13. the consensus - even across different theological ‘pedigrees’ is that Romans 13 speaks to one of the institutions decreed by God for the benefit of the social creatures He created.
As an extension of the gift of free will and involving the responsibility of stewardship God has left a lot of things up to humankind as far as how to manage social life...just as in giving humankind freedom of will - God allowed people to form societies and set up governments. But no matter what form of government they set up - it involves people who have free will. Even the best political system and well-intentioned politicians can screw up things. that's reality.
This is also noteworthy:
Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience…Romans 13:5 NIV
In essence – Paul is saying accept the authority of your government and it’s something each person must decide according to what they believe is morally right.
That makes me think of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in Daniel 3 , and the heroes mentioned in the hall of fame in Hebrews 11 NIV like “By faith Moses’ parents hid him for three months after he was born, because they saw he was no ordinary child, and they were not afraid of the king’s edict.”
~ ~ ~ ~
Romans 13 does not endorse any particular type of government - such as a monarchy, democracy, communist, republic, etc. Paul wrote this while under the iron-fisted rule of the Roman Empire. I’ll leave extrapolating how one should behave under a particular government to the adults in the room who still have their powers of reason.
How convenient - an incompetent, plagiarizing, malignant narcissist, sexual predator, drunkard, pathological liar, incorrigible thief, fake “Doctor” and megalomaniac like wierwille interprets Romans 13 as referring to gift ministries. Straight out of a harmful and controlling cult-leader’s playbook.
Edited by T-Boneclarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Charging for a legitimate hospital is permissible... charging for an ACCREDITED college is legit. Charging for a college that one claims is accredited BUT is not - is dishonest! Charging for a class and books made from plagiarized material is dishonest and illegal.
I agree to disagree
cream rises to the top?
Edited by T-Bonedelusional wierwille probably thought his bull-$hit didn’t stink.
accuracy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
You seem to exhibit the same deviant thinking as wierwille the cult-leader: speculate and extrapolate from a verse about the devil , taking it to the point that it explains why people disagree with you - “they’re tricked by the devil.” You assume YOUR obsession is awareness. It is not!
wierwille would also emphasize love God and neighbor and then say as long as you do that you can do whatever you want. The problem? Without any criteria - like don’t lie or steal from God or neighbor- One can assume they love God and neighbor. You’re using yourself as a standard of reference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
The fun never ends.
quote:
Hmmmm…can’t tell the difference between harmful / abusive cult-leaders and the Son of God who sacrificed himself to save others?
That statement by the ex FBI guy is another boring natural man's take on spiritual matters. If narcissistic was a word at the time of Christ, or when KJV was produced, then Jesus would have been called that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote:
"And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."...(KJV)
How does that connect to Sgt. Schultz?
By the words 'which deceiveth the whole world'. Schultz is a fictional character and part of a propaganda prop used to deceive. Propaganda can be either funny, or scary, as long as the bait is taken.
You are very slow at connecting dots.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Sigh... heavy sigh.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
The concept of narcissism is clearly explained in the Bible - and Jesus Christ stands in stark contrast to self-centered ravenous wolves like wierwille:
Ezekiel 34: 1–24 NIV
Matthew 9: 35-38 NIV
Luke 15: 1-7 NIV
John 10: 1-21 NIV
II Peter 2 NIV
Matthew 23 ESV
Matthew 7: 15-20 ESV
The distinction between narcissistic cult-leaders like wierwille and Jesus Christ is clearly defined in the Bible.
Nice try to obfuscate the difference between good and evil, johniam - though your posts reveal a lot about your inability to discern truth from lies and good from evil. It might be you’re still trapped in a narrow minded attitude that evil narcissistic cult-leaders (wierwille & Craig) encouraged.
Edited by T-BoneClarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Anyone can create dots - even invalid dots - imaginary dots - to rationalize screwball ideas - wierwille did that all the time!
The fictional character Sgt. Schultz - who often toggled between “I see nothing” and “I know nothing” was excellent comedic relief and is an example of good-natured people who submit to oppressive propaganda - when cognitive skills are sabotaged by it , functions like observation, reason and awareness are seriously compromised.
0:04
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
No politics. Hasn't that already been made clear?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Of course. Sure. So?
Right. The church in Rome. The body of Christ in Rome.
Indeed, there are.
Victor "taught" a lot of things. He "taught" a lot of error. He was wrong about Romans 13. For centuries charlatans, hucksters and autocrats have manipulated this chapter for their own selfish desires. Charlatan hucksters like victor twist the chapter in a vain effort to legitimize their lust for control and power.
Nobody? So what. Doesn't make the honor righteous.
Well...
I'll let this speak for itself.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Alas and alak... nothing posted on this thread, especially in the last week or so, has anything to do with Loy C Martindale having his own spin off ministry.
I'm confident I am not the only one to recognize this fact.
However, it DOES look (un)surprisingly similar in structure to threads wherein Mike drops a line with bait and successfully hooks to push buttons of greasespotters.
As our good friend T-Bone has mused, isn't it reasonable for (perhaps non-troll) GSC readers to address such by rebutting and exposing such fallacies as we see herein from JohnIam?
To which I mostly shake my head in wonder. Then I ask myself, does anyone (i.e. newcomers) actually read those rebuttals? Do we ever get feedback from those ostensible newcomers?
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
You can't fix stupid, indeed. And I don't pretend that I can.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
I really appreciate the scriptures that you shared T-Bone, especially in Ezekiel. Thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Maybe you forget that some lurkers have said they came to Grease Spot for a long time before posting. I realize Grease Spot isn’t as active as it used to be - but I assume some may never join or post anything…and I’m probably not the only seasoned Grease Spotter who enjoys reading a substantial and thoughtful post but don’t always quote them or give it a vote up - maybe that’s how some folks on twitter or Reddit find validation with re-tweets and upvotes - not that there’s anything wrong with that.
I don’t mean to attack you on this - I merely wonder why you think your comments along these lines are necessary. No offense but I get the idea you’re supposed to be the unofficial critic of all things posted. Yeah - it’s cool to remind people to get back on topic or call out troll-tactics - everyone should do that…
…so maybe you find yourself reflecting on whether or not certain posts are even read and further assume no replies or upvotes from newcomers or lurkers means a certain post is worthless.
Grease Spot has a unique niche and serves a great purpose. It is the antithesis of the oppressive and manipulative environment of The Way International. So the free rein of intellect and feelings at Grease Spot often gets messy compared to the stifling rigidity of TWI atmosphere.
Has it ever occurred to you that some of your ‘running commentaries’ on threads might be counterproductive? I mean that in the sense that it might seem to some newcomers like you’re playing the Twig coordinator wanting to control what everyone shares at Twig - making sure it’s ‘Rocky approved’ for consumption. That might make some nervous and not post anything for fear of reproof. We’re all adults here - and I’ll be the first to admit I can clown around and get off topic - but usually we all get back on track soon.
While I’m at it -let me get another thing off my chest. I love you like a brother, respect you like crazy, highly value your constructive criticism and allow you to be in the small group of Grease Spotters who influence my heart…. That being said…Uh oh
Please don’t feel like you have to keep reminding me one way or another that my posts are too long or you didn’t have time to read it all.
While I have listened to - and will continue to listen to your feedback and every other Grease Spotter - I assure everyone my ‘literary’ goal for drafting a post is to state everything I think is necessary to accurately and honesty reflect my beliefs related to a specific thread. I’m not perfect - I usually feel I didn’t take enough time to refine and edit my thoughts down to something clear and concise - and that’s on me - because I ain’t gonna spend all freakin’ day composing a post until it’s perfect and let the rest of my day go to $hit.
As my older brother said as he made a detour to off-track-betting on the way to our parents’ 50th anniversary “hey I’ve got a life too!”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Why do you think your comments are necessary?
I post mine because I can and suppose you have similar motivation.
I'm not supposed to be anything. It just seems to work out that way.
I do appreciate how you don't mean to attack me. I just seems that way... but it doesn't bother me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Not without someone like you providing feedback to say such a thing. Has it not ever occurred to you that your interactions with bait and hook trolls like Mike and JohnIam might be counterproductive?
To clarify, I sense, because of your feedback, you find my "running commentaries" at least irritating.
I hope not overwhelmingly so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
My comments are no more necessary than yours. The difference is my remarks submit items for analysis and reevaluating some questionable points of a certain post. Whereas it seems to me you act like a sports commentator / umpire when you get on this kick. “There goes a swing and a miss by T-Bone. He fell for the old trolling screwball. Too bad he’s not in the same league as these other seasoned Grease Spotters I’ve pointed out.”
Maybe you suppose wrong. Or maybe we both have good intentions and have different ways of accomplishing them
Well that’s good – I’m never upset over your comments either…
Sure. I think of that possibility all the time. But here again you’re assuming you know what desired effect I have in mind.
Some folks here like to quote Proverbs 26 – don’t answer a fool in his folly – and interpret that to mean don’t respond to trolls…don’t feed the trolls…something along those lines…yeah I get the idea…but read it in context with the following verse and you’ll see it’s not a prohibition to answer a fool, but to respond properly – a few alternate translations might make this clearer:
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him.
Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes… Proverbs 26:4, 5 NIV
Don’t answer the foolish arguments of fools, or you will become as foolish as they are.
Be sure to answer the foolish arguments of fools, or they will become wise in their own estimation… Proverbs 26: 4, 5 NLT
Do not answer a fool according to his foolishness, or you will also be like him.
Answer a fool as his foolishness deserves, so that he will not be wise in his own eyes… Proverbs 26: 4, 5 NASB
The NASB is probably the clearest in my opinion – how I understand it – as it applies to interacting with fools, hobgoblins, trolls, and general troublemakers – and I think it goes along the lines of some of Grease Spot rules anyway – like don’t respond in name-calling – furthermore we should not get caught up in their logical fallacies and Scripture twisting. Instead, what the fool deserves to hear is a rational response and an honest explanation of Scripture to counter their screwy arguments. My takeaway from verse 5 is that we SHOULD respond appropriately.
That goes counter to what you have expressed before - lecturing me – assuming I’m wanting to change someone’s mind. Proverbs 26:5 doesn’t even hint toward that goal. Matter of fact, the verse implies no one will know if the appropriate answer will change someone’s mind. It leaves us with a mystery we may never find out to our satisfaction – all it says is so that he will not be wise in his own eyes…they’ll probably never admit to that…Not my problem...I don't live to see people change their minds and agree with me.
On the contrary – I love commentaries…on the Bible.
Commentaries can be helpful – but I pushback when I get the feeling they’re speculating too much or appear condescending.
Certain of your commentaries on threads tend to give me flashbacks of being in-residence and having the corps coordinator or assistant corps coordinator critique me in front of everybody and imply your posts should be more like WordWolf’s because he gets Mike...now that's a little embarrassing to me - I dunno maybe other folks enjoy that.
Edited by T-Boneclarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Are you sure?
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.