Of course if cessasionist doctrine is true, then it would mean that all SIT today is not genuine, which is a possibility that I am sure you wouldn't even dare to examine or explore. God forbid that we examine the sacred cow - only defend it.
Goey I think you're being kinda wishy washy.
I think you'd have a stronger argument to just say SIT died with the apostles and what we do is counterfeit.
Or, show us the genuine. Then at least we'd have something to compare our counterfeit tongues to.
As the old VP saying goes, "with the coming of the greater, the lesser terminates."
Show us the real deal, if you have it... :)-->
This is neither "examining the sacred cow", this is "defending it."
You supported Goey's statement AFTER he posted it.
quote:
I think you're being wishy-washy.
No-seems he wants to consider things carefully before forming an opinion.
quote:
I think you'd have a stronger argument to just say SIT died with the apostles and what we do is counterfeit.
Seems he's too busy THINKING to slap down a blanket statement like that.
quote:
Or show us the genuine. Then at least we'd have something to compare our
counterfeit tongues to.
If the cessation position is correct-which he is considering-then it is
IMPOSSIBLE to produce the genuine ENTIRELY. So, he can only prove it doesn't
exist by bring it out?
{quote]Show us the real deal, if you have it....
He said he's unsure he has EVER seen the real deal. Didn't you read what he
wrote before replying?
Belle had a better approach:
quote:
Why not just consider what he's shared, and, if you can, share nicely
Speaking in tongues has been a large part of my life for 32 years.
So if someone thinks its counterfeit, fine, show me something that makes sense or show me the real deal.
I invite those who think tongues are counterfeit to prove it.
I've read and considered what Goey and others have written and they don't prove that what I do is counterfeit and don't show us the real McCoy, if mine is counterfeit.
Therefore, I'm not going to stop speaking in tongues because of some people's doubts and unbelief.
And "it's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness."
Speaking in tongues has been a large part of my life for 32 years.
You know that what you call "speaking in tongues" is what was once called
"speaking in tongues" because twi said they were the same.
Period.
You have never considered another position.
Don't pretend you have seriously examined the implications.
quote:
So if someone thinks its counterfeit, fine, show me something that makes sense or show me the real deal.
Whether or not I ever agree with Goey on something, he always "makes sense".
Goey has posted things that "make sense", including his last post.
Your inability to understand it makes it less sensible.
You can also look at some other sources on the subject.
Goey, would you be so kind as to post some links concerning the
apologetics of cessationism? This will give Oldies the OPTION of reading them.
(Not that I think he WILL, but I may be wrong. It is fair to give him the
CHOICE.)
quote:
I invite those who think tongues are counterfeit to prove it.
Hm.
So far, you've demonstrated an inability to read GOEY's post, and now an
inability to read MY post explaining his post.
You want him to prove a negative?
quote:
I've read and considered what Goey and others have written and they don't prove that what I do is counterfeit and don't show us the real McCoy, if mine is counterfeit.
You expected a book to prove all that?
Again, if it is NONEXISTENT and you are doing something ELSE, then nobody can
show you the original which is NONEXISTENT. Something NONEXISTENT does not
EXIST. If it does not EXIST, no one can show it to you.
This is NOT a difficult concept to understand.
If someone sold you the skeleton of Enoch for $1000, and someone said
"Adam died and his bones have been dust for thousands of years,"
and you replied
"If this isn't the real one, then show me the real skeleton of Enoch",
then they wouldnt be able to show you THAT, either.
This would NOT prove your point. Negatives are not proven.
quote:
Therefore, I'm not going to stop speaking in tongues because of some people's doubts and unbelief.
Nor will you seriously consider his position, either. But that's your business.
quote:
And "it's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness."
So, Goey is evil for saying you might have been taught wrongly?
Or did you just feel like tossing out a platitude at that moment.
"This is a Burger King town, and we know how burgers should be."
I've already proven it to myself and been doing it for 32 years, which is all the proof I need.
If at this stage you believe you were taught the counterfeit tongues in twi, I can't stop you and not trying to stop you or try to dissuade you.
But you already know what I've been taught and you once believed. Therefore, I assume that since you think it's a counterfeit, you have something better?
So why not help us unknowledgable and errant Christians walking in darkness to do better?
I believe it is incumbent upon those who say it's false to prove it, not the other way around.
Or does that mean unquestionably retain with blind faith PFAL and all that VPW taught?
quote:
Speaking in tongues has been a large part of my life for 32 years.
The length that someone has done something ofers no evidence of it genuineness or authenticity. However, it may speak to somone's inability or willingness to question or examine their own beliefs. Personal bias many times precludes objectivity.
quote:
So if someone thinks its counterfeit, fine, show me something that makes sense or show me the real deal.
I invite those who think tongues are counterfeit to prove it.
What I said was that I doubted that what we did in TWI was genuine and that I 'lean' towards a cessationist view. That should clue you in that I am not sure. Being unsure, I have nothing to show nor to prove.
On the other hand, you seem cocksure that what we did in TWI was genuine. Therfore the burden of proof would be upon you.
quote:
I've read and considered what Goey and others have written and they don't prove that what I do is counterfeit and don't show us the real McCoy, if mine is counterfeit.
If you actually read what I wrote you would know that I do not pretend or intend to offer proof that yours is "counterfeit". "Counterfeit" implies that there is a genuine, which I am not sure of. Logically then, if there isn't a genuine posible today, then today's TWI style of tongues would be self-deception based upon wrong teaching - not counterfeit. Only if the genuine exists could there be a counterfeit.
Another thing to consider is that TWI's version of tongues where "you move your lips, your mouth, etc" is not the only version being practiced. There are others. If I recall, VPW/TWI declared the other versions counterfeit or eroneous. What if they are not? We do know one thing, they can't all be genuine. At least someone is wrong.
quote:
Therefore, I'm not going to stop speaking in tongues because of some people's doubts and unbelief.
No asked you to now did they?
However, it is understandable how you would seem threatend by the idea that what you have firmly and unquestionably beleived and practiced for 32 years may be in error.
quote:
Show me the real deal...
If it existed, which I am unsure of - and if I had it, and I don't think I do, I would be glad to show it to you.
Goey and WordWolf are doing the heavy lifting of injecting logic into this discussion...thanks gents!
It's not possible to prove that tongues as practiced today are genuine or false, unless you point to a difference in how they are practiced today and how they were practiced in the biblical accounts.
If someone is faking it, you can't prove it, although the faker surely knows.
It is possible, by way of suggestion, to make sounds that sound like speaking an unknown language, and even the person speaking would not know the difference.
It all comes down to faith. One wants to be convinced that the unintelligable babbling is "the wonderful works of God". No evidence to the contrary will be believed, no alternate possibilities will be entertained.
Cessationist theologians believe that tongues ceased based on their understanding of the bible, they just come to a different conclusion than those that believe tongues are still possible and needful in the church.
Speaking in tongues is not unique to Christians, making sounds that you don't understand is not unheard of and is not the "proof" that we were told it was
So if someone thinks its counterfeit, fine, show me something that makes sense or show me the real deal.
Huh? If tongues as practiced by TWI are not the same as that practiced by the First Century Christians as described in the bible, that does not necessarily mean that there is a "real deal" - biblical speaking in tongues may just have passed it's expiration date!
The first article was well done, and (I thought) addressed the subject quite open and evenhandedly. I liked the tone of this work, and the manner in which they left the question open.
I also have wondered if the cessationist position gradually developed as an expediency, naturally resulting from the growing Church's (or churches) struggle to establish itself, its canon and (most importantly) its authority. I must confess a certain amount of well-deserved cynicism at the idea that any spiritual "gifts"
-originally endowed to all Christians, if such indeed was the case - shifted to becoming conferred to only those in roles of authority (teachers, pastors, etc.).
I can sympathize with the early churches' move toward the cessationist direction. We might try putting ourselves in the sandals of those struggling to establish their Christian franchise, in an era abounding with wandering seers and apostles and tongue-babblers and gnostics and the like, all coming out with their own revelations and prophecies...
Of course "prophecies" and "gnosis" and "tongues" must be "done away".
If we followed every new prophet and gnostic that came out on a weekly basis, we would never get anything accomplished...
To turn the tide of this confusion, let us consolidate all the divine gifts - hence all authority - to the leaders.
Since then, the Church that won out have rarely been kind nor receptive to those exhibiting divine gifts outside of the scope of their hierarchy, authority and canon. History has shown us that.
Just look at twi, in their shift from the spiritual gifts of individuals to an over-emphasis on the authority of the so-called "gift ministries".
If one desired real "spiritual gifts" and "authority" - one would remain unfulfilled unless and until one joined the "Way Corp."
Even Wierwille, for all his zeal with tongues, saw "tongues" as nothing more than a "child's toy" - for "personal edification" only (outside of the preferred and approved "interpretations" as practiced ad infinitum, so our "interpretations" would be so banal and toothless as to be harmless and even forgettable.
(i.e., "I am the lord your god. Trust me I will always be with you...zzzzzzz.")
I like to think that if any cases of genuine tongues were voiced, that their interpretations would have been anything from what was normally expected,
i.e., I, your Lord and God Christ, desire that you leave this corrupt organization at once!
I'm only theorizing here, but I am curious to hear if anyone here had encountered such cases, of someone giving an "interpretation" or a "prophesy" with some real fire behind it!
We're not into labels around here and we're not that easy to pigeon hole. You'll need to find a kindergarten board to play on for that.
quote:
My real intent has been to 'unmask' people for what they really 'hold to' not what they are portraying.
So you really are just here to stir up trouble, label people and cause a ruckus. We know the people you continually attack and none of us needs to or has to answer any of your questions. Nobody here owes you anything.
If you want to know what someone thinks or to know something more about someone you'll need to get off your foot and go read their posts - check out the archives, bucko, they were here long before you came into this place like a bull in a china shop.
You want people to respond to you? Maybe you should try actually reading what they wrote. "People don't care what you know till they know you care." Remember that? You sure don't act like it. I, personally, think you're a child of h3ll cause you sure aren't like any Christians I know - even the bad ones. H3ll, the TWIts are more pleasant to be around than you are.
I've only been out a year. My thoughts, beliefs, what have you, change on a daily basis. I'm re-thinking, re-working, re-considering what TWI taught and thoroughly enjoying reading material that would have been considered contraband in TWI. Christian, pagan, spiritualism.....all kinds of things.
How're ya gonna peg me, Alan? Which label are you going to put on me so you can hate me for it? Geeze, man, you are so out there..... I feel sorry for the people who have to live around your negativity and oppressive attitude all the time.
Not one person on here has tried to discredit you and no-one has an agenda against you. You're sorely mistaken if you think you're that important to anyone here. ;)--> You might want to tell your psychiatrist about your paranoid delusions. He should be able to help you.
You know, when there's a jerk Wiccan/Pagan around, I get embarassed that everyone will think all Wiccan /Pagans are that way. Really, I feel empathy for all the genuine Christians on this board.
There's a small minority of posters here who define post-TWI "truth" as the exact amount of TWI-doctrine that they themselves have retained.
The TWI doctrine that they have kept is "obviously" the truth
Anyone who holds on to TWI teachings that they have not retained is foolish and waybrained.
Anyone who rejects TWI dogma that they have held on to is "rejecting the Word".
TWI, when they were first in was godly, and they learned lots of profitable things. They got out at the exact time things were going bad.
Anyone who stayed in a minute past that time was foolish.
Every ex wayfer here has had to make sense of their TWI experience in their own way.
Some have made few adjustments other than hanging out with a different "twig", and sending their money to a different post office box.
Others have re-examined what was taught in light of mainstream Christianity.
Still others have gone "outside the Pale" completely to become Jews, Buddhists, Pagans, agnostics or atheists.
Each has gone down the post-TWI path that seemed best for them. To decide for another which of those paths is valid is arrogant.
Part of the post-TWI "decompression" is questioning what we believed before. So much of what we were taught was presented as "thus saith the Lord". Most of us need a little more that that these days.
Questioning the beliefs and doctrines is not an attack on the individual who believes it. Nothing wrong with "defending the faith" either, but I've noticed that its often done in a defensive manner.
You want to speak in tongues? Fine. You believe that they are everything that Wierwille taught? Also fine. But these are DISCUSSION forums. So they'll be some DISCUSSION about various aspects of TWI doctrine.
Some of you are 'Wiccans' (witches) and pagans by your own admission.
I've noticed, Allan, that you often clarify your use of Wiccan (thanks for correcting your previous misusage, by the way) with the word "witch" in parentheses.
Are you doing this to cast a negative light on Wiccans, or do you think that Wiccans = Witches?
Not all Wiccans prefer to use the term "witch" to describe themselves, and there are witches who have nothing to do with Wicca.
Very true, Oakspear. Many feel that Wiccan refers to a religion and witchcraft is a practice or craft that members of any religion can do. Even Christian.
I prefer Wiccan myself unless the common definition of a certain group considers one Wiccan only if they are a member of a coven. Then I say I'm a Wiccan influenced pagan. But that's a whole nother discussion!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
16
13
15
13
Popular Days
Aug 26
41
Aug 25
37
Aug 21
21
Jul 1
13
Top Posters In This Topic
Allan 16 posts
Belle 13 posts
Oakspear 15 posts
dmiller 13 posts
Popular Days
Aug 26 2005
41 posts
Aug 25 2005
37 posts
Aug 21 2005
21 posts
Jul 1 2004
13 posts
oldiesman
Belle, if you consider what I said to Goey a personal attack, you really are nuts.
I still love ya.
Have one on me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
This is neither "examining the sacred cow", this is "defending it."
You supported Goey's statement AFTER he posted it.
No-seems he wants to consider things carefully before forming an opinion.
Seems he's too busy THINKING to slap down a blanket statement like that.
If the cessation position is correct-which he is considering-then it is
IMPOSSIBLE to produce the genuine ENTIRELY. So, he can only prove it doesn't
exist by bring it out?
{quote]Show us the real deal, if you have it....
He said he's unsure he has EVER seen the real deal. Didn't you read what he
wrote before replying?
Belle had a better approach:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
"Prove all things, hold fast that which is good"
"Retain with conviction the faithful word"
Speaking in tongues has been a large part of my life for 32 years.
So if someone thinks its counterfeit, fine, show me something that makes sense or show me the real deal.
I invite those who think tongues are counterfeit to prove it.
I've read and considered what Goey and others have written and they don't prove that what I do is counterfeit and don't show us the real McCoy, if mine is counterfeit.
Therefore, I'm not going to stop speaking in tongues because of some people's doubts and unbelief.
And "it's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness."
Show me the real deal...
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef1248 @adelphia.net
i invite those who think speaking in tongues is real proove it oldies!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Well, I certainly cannot see how speaking in tongues aided twi leaders in being spiritual....
Many of those guys were down right evil...but they sure spoke in tongues like a house a fire!
Guess that I don`t see how it did em much good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
You know that what you call "speaking in tongues" is what was once called
"speaking in tongues" because twi said they were the same.
Period.
You have never considered another position.
Don't pretend you have seriously examined the implications.
Whether or not I ever agree with Goey on something, he always "makes sense".
Goey has posted things that "make sense", including his last post.
Your inability to understand it makes it less sensible.
You can also look at some other sources on the subject.
Goey, would you be so kind as to post some links concerning the
apologetics of cessationism? This will give Oldies the OPTION of reading them.
(Not that I think he WILL, but I may be wrong. It is fair to give him the
CHOICE.)
Hm.
So far, you've demonstrated an inability to read GOEY's post, and now an
inability to read MY post explaining his post.
You want him to prove a negative?
You expected a book to prove all that?Again, if it is NONEXISTENT and you are doing something ELSE, then nobody can
show you the original which is NONEXISTENT. Something NONEXISTENT does not
EXIST. If it does not EXIST, no one can show it to you.
This is NOT a difficult concept to understand.
If someone sold you the skeleton of Enoch for $1000, and someone said
"Adam died and his bones have been dust for thousands of years,"
and you replied
"If this isn't the real one, then show me the real skeleton of Enoch",
then they wouldnt be able to show you THAT, either.
This would NOT prove your point. Negatives are not proven.
Nor will you seriously consider his position, either. But that's your business.
So, Goey is evil for saying you might have been taught wrongly?
Or did you just feel like tossing out a platitude at that moment.
"This is a Burger King town, and we know how burgers should be."
My God, he was right-I feel better now!
The Hanging Gardens of Babylon no longer exist.
I can't show the real Hanging Gardens to you.
The Pharos of Alexandria no longer exists.
I can't show you the real Pharos.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Yes, oldies!
Prove irrefutably that you have the real deal!
That will settle matters!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I've already proven it to myself and been doing it for 32 years, which is all the proof I need.
If at this stage you believe you were taught the counterfeit tongues in twi, I can't stop you and not trying to stop you or try to dissuade you.
But you already know what I've been taught and you once believed. Therefore, I assume that since you think it's a counterfeit, you have something better?
So why not help us unknowledgable and errant Christians walking in darkness to do better?
I believe it is incumbent upon those who say it's false to prove it, not the other way around.
You seem to have the light, ok, shine the light.
Since you have a better way, I'm all ears.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
correct in public, which opened it up for discussion.
Actually, by posting thatyou are right, you ARE trying to dissuade me-or Goey, in this case.
I take it as a given that somewhere along the line, you learned SOMETHING SOMEWHERE
SOMEHOW that goes beyond what was in the books. The books are insufficient to answer
Goey's point. That does not mean Goey necessarily is correct-it means that if he is
wrong, the proof must be ELSEWHERE.
You assumed presumptiously. Please find the post where I said this was MYposition. I'm pointing out that he has a legitimate position, and your supposed
refutation did nothing of the kind. So, either present one or don't pretend you did.
By not allowing you to sloppily parrot answers, and examine things, I'm doingmy job to encourage you to THINK. For all I know, you may go off, pray, read God's Word,
and come back with an insight so brilliant it is irrefutable.
I think you are capable of much better than your current performance, and I want to
see it. If I was completely callous, I could just leave you there and throw
insults. (See the 'twi teenager' post for examples of that.)
Your belief is incorrect. One does not prove a NEGATIVE.
I shall offer another example.
LOOK! EVERYONE!!!!
GREEN MONKEYS ARE FLYING OUT OF LCM'S KEISTER RIGHT NOW!!!!!
YES, LOOK!
THEY ARE!
You don't believe me?
PROVE THEY AREN'T.
You can't prove their non-existence?
Then you proved my point-they're flying out his @$$ right now!
Was that simple enough an example, or were you able to follow it?
You're still assuming-assuming HIS position is MY position.
You can do a LOT better than this, Oldies. Turn on the old brain-cells,
review the posts, think them thru, let them percolate, sleep on them, come back in a
day, reread them, THEN answer them. THOSE answers should be a LOT more quality than
your current posts. I believe you can do it.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Oldiesman,
You posted:
Or does that mean unquestionably retain with blind faith PFAL and all that VPW taught? The length that someone has done something ofers no evidence of it genuineness or authenticity. However, it may speak to somone's inability or willingness to question or examine their own beliefs. Personal bias many times precludes objectivity. What I said was that I doubted that what we did in TWI was genuine and that I 'lean' towards a cessationist view. That should clue you in that I am not sure. Being unsure, I have nothing to show nor to prove.On the other hand, you seem cocksure that what we did in TWI was genuine. Therfore the burden of proof would be upon you.
If you actually read what I wrote you would know that I do not pretend or intend to offer proof that yours is "counterfeit". "Counterfeit" implies that there is a genuine, which I am not sure of. Logically then, if there isn't a genuine posible today, then today's TWI style of tongues would be self-deception based upon wrong teaching - not counterfeit. Only if the genuine exists could there be a counterfeit.Another thing to consider is that TWI's version of tongues where "you move your lips, your mouth, etc" is not the only version being practiced. There are others. If I recall, VPW/TWI declared the other versions counterfeit or eroneous. What if they are not? We do know one thing, they can't all be genuine. At least someone is wrong.
No asked you to now did they?However, it is understandable how you would seem threatend by the idea that what you have firmly and unquestionably beleived and practiced for 32 years may be in error.
If it existed, which I am unsure of - and if I had it, and I don't think I do, I would be glad to show it to you.http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=394
http://www.spirithome.com/cessatio.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Goey and WordWolf are doing the heavy lifting of injecting logic into this discussion...thanks gents!
It's not possible to prove that tongues as practiced today are genuine or false, unless you point to a difference in how they are practiced today and how they were practiced in the biblical accounts.
If someone is faking it, you can't prove it, although the faker surely knows.
It is possible, by way of suggestion, to make sounds that sound like speaking an unknown language, and even the person speaking would not know the difference.
It all comes down to faith. One wants to be convinced that the unintelligable babbling is "the wonderful works of God". No evidence to the contrary will be believed, no alternate possibilities will be entertained.
Cessationist theologians believe that tongues ceased based on their understanding of the bible, they just come to a different conclusion than those that believe tongues are still possible and needful in the church.
Speaking in tongues is not unique to Christians, making sounds that you don't understand is not unheard of and is not the "proof" that we were told it was
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
But the Ford never explained Henry.
I will read the links Goey supplied.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
The first article was well done, and (I thought) addressed the subject quite open and evenhandedly. I liked the tone of this work, and the manner in which they left the question open.
I also have wondered if the cessationist position gradually developed as an expediency, naturally resulting from the growing Church's (or churches) struggle to establish itself, its canon and (most importantly) its authority. I must confess a certain amount of well-deserved cynicism at the idea that any spiritual "gifts"
-originally endowed to all Christians, if such indeed was the case - shifted to becoming conferred to only those in roles of authority (teachers, pastors, etc.).
I can sympathize with the early churches' move toward the cessationist direction. We might try putting ourselves in the sandals of those struggling to establish their Christian franchise, in an era abounding with wandering seers and apostles and tongue-babblers and gnostics and the like, all coming out with their own revelations and prophecies...
Of course "prophecies" and "gnosis" and "tongues" must be "done away".
If we followed every new prophet and gnostic that came out on a weekly basis, we would never get anything accomplished...
To turn the tide of this confusion, let us consolidate all the divine gifts - hence all authority - to the leaders.
Since then, the Church that won out have rarely been kind nor receptive to those exhibiting divine gifts outside of the scope of their hierarchy, authority and canon. History has shown us that.
Just look at twi, in their shift from the spiritual gifts of individuals to an over-emphasis on the authority of the so-called "gift ministries".
If one desired real "spiritual gifts" and "authority" - one would remain unfulfilled unless and until one joined the "Way Corp."
Even Wierwille, for all his zeal with tongues, saw "tongues" as nothing more than a "child's toy" - for "personal edification" only (outside of the preferred and approved "interpretations" as practiced ad infinitum, so our "interpretations" would be so banal and toothless as to be harmless and even forgettable.
(i.e., "I am the lord your god. Trust me I will always be with you...zzzzzzz.")
I like to think that if any cases of genuine tongues were voiced, that their interpretations would have been anything from what was normally expected,
i.e., I, your Lord and God Christ, desire that you leave this corrupt organization at once!
I'm only theorizing here, but I am curious to hear if anyone here had encountered such cases, of someone giving an "interpretation" or a "prophesy" with some real fire behind it!
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
I would like to invite the "goeys' and 'Rascals' to be more 'forthcoming' with what they believe personally 'faith-wise'
My real intent has been to 'unmask' people for what they really 'hold to' not what they are portraying.
As I said 'Rascal' made out she was a Christian.
Goey was/is either Jehovah Witness, Mormon.
Some of you are 'Wiccans' (witches) and pagans by your own admission.
Now..that is your walk, but if you try to discredit my beliefs because of your agenda..then don't get upset if'n some of us want to 'defend the Faith'
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
We're not into labels around here and we're not that easy to pigeon hole. You'll need to find a kindergarten board to play on for that.
So you really are just here to stir up trouble, label people and cause a ruckus. We know the people you continually attack and none of us needs to or has to answer any of your questions. Nobody here owes you anything.
If you want to know what someone thinks or to know something more about someone you'll need to get off your foot and go read their posts - check out the archives, bucko, they were here long before you came into this place like a bull in a china shop.
You want people to respond to you? Maybe you should try actually reading what they wrote. "People don't care what you know till they know you care." Remember that? You sure don't act like it. I, personally, think you're a child of h3ll cause you sure aren't like any Christians I know - even the bad ones. H3ll, the TWIts are more pleasant to be around than you are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Nobody has to take you up on your invitation. Don't hold your breath.
Few people are "portraying" themselves as anything.
Actually, rascal made her position pretty clear in her posts of the past 1- 1 1/2
weeks. I had no difficulty telling, since rascal's posts are first understood
right in the post they are written. Following nothing more than THAT rule, I was able
to READ her posts without reading INTO her posts, and thus found her position.
I might recommend you do the same if you want to know. It is NOT difficult.
There's a rule of thumb out there, made famous by a group called "Musical Youth" in the
song "Pass the Duchie 'pon de Left-Han' Side."
That rule of thumb states that you don't boggart-if you got ahold of some good sh*,
you share it with the rest of the homies.
I deduce you scored some killer sh* because you posted that Goey is either a
Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon.
WHAT????????
If that's some attempt to use "reverse psychology" to get him to label himself, I'd be
SHOCKED if he took you up on it...unless he took a few hits of whatever you've got there.
People are rejecting your proposal.
Was it Kierkergaard
or Dick Van Patten
who said "If you label me, you destroy me?"
Right, they are.
Where is there evidence of some mysterious "Agenda"?
Have you not noticed that the overwhelming majority of wiccans and Christians on this
board "agree to disagree" quite civilly and don't have problems?
A number of wiccans around the country have faced a considerable amount of UNChristian
behaviour by supposed 'Christians' who have insulted them, jeered them, ostracized them
or BEATEN THEM UP. I've communicated with a number. They communicate with me because
surprise surprise! I don't meet them at the door with a baseball bat!
I've ameliorated the opinions of a considerable number of them by showing that not ALL
Christians are arrogant lcm-heads. What do YOU bring to the table?
Haven't you noticed that kicking the door open, bounding in, and announcing you're
going to run all the polecats out of town is NOT the way to actually get results?
Unless the result you wanted was "draw flak from all sides".
The adults here respond badly to people coming in and proselytizing. You arrived and
in effect tried to proselytize. They reacted badly, as always. Even if you offered
100% truth, you announced you were arrogant and dismissive of everyone else's point of
view. I wouldn't want to go to any church you were teaching at even if it WAS the truth.
I "defend the Faith" every day-and it's NOT by yelling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
and another thing.....
I've only been out a year. My thoughts, beliefs, what have you, change on a daily basis. I'm re-thinking, re-working, re-considering what TWI taught and thoroughly enjoying reading material that would have been considered contraband in TWI. Christian, pagan, spiritualism.....all kinds of things.
How're ya gonna peg me, Alan? Which label are you going to put on me so you can hate me for it? Geeze, man, you are so out there..... I feel sorry for the people who have to live around your negativity and oppressive attitude all the time.
Not one person on here has tried to discredit you and no-one has an agenda against you. You're sorely mistaken if you think you're that important to anyone here.
;)--> You might want to tell your psychiatrist about your paranoid delusions. He should be able to help you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
You know, when there's a jerk Wiccan/Pagan around, I get embarassed that everyone will think all Wiccan /Pagans are that way. Really, I feel empathy for all the genuine Christians on this board.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
There's a small minority of posters here who define post-TWI "truth" as the exact amount of TWI-doctrine that they themselves have retained.
The TWI doctrine that they have kept is "obviously" the truth
Anyone who holds on to TWI teachings that they have not retained is foolish and waybrained.
Anyone who rejects TWI dogma that they have held on to is "rejecting the Word".
TWI, when they were first in was godly, and they learned lots of profitable things. They got out at the exact time things were going bad.
Anyone who stayed in a minute past that time was foolish.
Every ex wayfer here has had to make sense of their TWI experience in their own way.
Some have made few adjustments other than hanging out with a different "twig", and sending their money to a different post office box.
Others have re-examined what was taught in light of mainstream Christianity.
Still others have gone "outside the Pale" completely to become Jews, Buddhists, Pagans, agnostics or atheists.
Each has gone down the post-TWI path that seemed best for them. To decide for another which of those paths is valid is arrogant.
Part of the post-TWI "decompression" is questioning what we believed before. So much of what we were taught was presented as "thus saith the Lord". Most of us need a little more that that these days.
Questioning the beliefs and doctrines is not an attack on the individual who believes it. Nothing wrong with "defending the faith" either, but I've noticed that its often done in a defensive manner.
You want to speak in tongues? Fine. You believe that they are everything that Wierwille taught? Also fine. But these are DISCUSSION forums. So they'll be some DISCUSSION about various aspects of TWI doctrine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Are you doing this to cast a negative light on Wiccans, or do you think that Wiccans = Witches?
Not all Wiccans prefer to use the term "witch" to describe themselves, and there are witches who have nothing to do with Wicca.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Very true, Oakspear. Many feel that Wiccan refers to a religion and witchcraft is a practice or craft that members of any religion can do. Even Christian.
I prefer Wiccan myself unless the common definition of a certain group considers one Wiccan only if they are a member of a coven. Then I say I'm a Wiccan influenced pagan. But that's a whole nother discussion!
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.