It is a nice verse - though the word "perfectness" does little for me at the moment.
By itself it seems a cold, hollow abstract.
Makes me think of Matthew's "Be perfect as your Father in heaven is also perfect".
Which is why I prefer Luke's parallel "Be compassionate (unto others) as your Father in
heaven is also compassionate."
Now there's something with which I - and perhaps other imperfect flesh and blood human beings in general -
can relate. Or do they?
Despite their apparent parallels, Matthew and Luke seem to be living two different worlds, of two different mindsets -even classes.
I used to like Matthew's version of the "Sermon on the Mount". But now I completely despise it for the cynical piece of snobbish trash that it is - a total distortion of what I consider to be the earlier version contained in Luke.
When "Luke" wrote "Blessed are the poor" he meant actual human beings suffering actual hunger pangs.
But Matthew apparently didn't want any of these same undesirables in their neighborhood.
So he changed it... to pious hypocrites seeking a late-night spiritual snack.
And above all these things put on charity which is the bond of perfectnesss.
I thought this might be a nice verse to put in here.
CK
Yeah, "nice" verse
I'm disappointed that you've chosen (or unable) to discuss any of this intelligently, but chosen instead to throw out one liners and regurgitated Wierwillisms.
Common sense obviously tells the mind that this is not possible.
A great lack of understanding of the word perfect is apparent in many circles.
To see that being perfect does not mean no mistakes.
But as Luke puts it-compassion.
As well as John-love.
So as it starts it also continues to unfold.
From love to love
compassion to compassion
tenderness to tenderness
producing a heart that cannot be broken.
In all fairness there's likely more problem with my personal understanding
of the sense of the English word "perfect" -
perhaps not a "perfect" word for these passages -
does it depart from a varying meaning
originally intended by the writer(s)?
If memory serves me fairly(without juggling dictionaries or concordances), the various Greek/Syriac words rendered 'perfect' in Pauline literature may be also construed in the sense of 'complete', 'completion', 'maturity', 'fulness' 'fruitfulness'...even 'initiate' or 'initiated'.
But those who would proclaim themselves "perfect" - their works, their views -would generally be looked upon as fat-headed snobs in our society (lol). Because I share similar sentiments with Goey on "the human condition". If I'm not "perfect" - and I know I'm not - I tend to assume - project? - the same of others.
I'm disappointed that you've chosen (or unable) to discuss any of this intelligently, but chosen instead to throw out one liners and regurgitated Wierwillisms.
I have discussed what I believe I don't see the problem are you not getting it???
I have discussed what I believe I don't see the problem are you not getting it???
CK
Not really CK. You haven discussed much at all. Discussion implies a two-way dialog. A give and take.
All you have really done is dumped your belief and regirgitated a few verses of scripture. That is not discussion. This is a doctrinal discussion so you may want to offer a thoughtful analysis of what you are putting forth. That takes more than an "I believe X to be true", and then dumping a verse of scripture.
For example, you may want explain WHY you believe that "thinking evil" applies to VPW, Geer and LCM. You may want to provide examples of what it is to think evil. You may want to offer scripture support and analysis to support your position.
Johnnie Jump-Up theology doesn't gennerally work here.
I have discussed what I believe I don't see the problem are you not getting it???
CK
CK:
Goey has stated very succinctly what I would have if I had gotten here first Thanks Goey.
You have pretty clearly stated what you believe, that I get.
What you have failed to do is discuss your beliefs.
Part of "discussion" is explaining and defending your beliefs. No one is attacking your beliefs, but several of us are questioning their basis.
You were never in The Way, but your parents apparently brought you up using core Way doctrine. Nothing wrong with that, but regardless of the "truth" or "error" of what Wierwille taught, many, if not most of us, no longer accept what he taught as an infallible source. So, if you are going to engage in discussions here, you must be prepared to cite sources beyond Wierwille.
An argument or disagreement cannot be resolved by quoting Wierwille, PFAL, or a TWI version of biblical doctrine.
CK - plainly put - since your dad was in the Family Corps - he knows how to research - and had to write a research paper. He should know how to both put forth a thesis and how to write up the pros and cons to support it.
Ask him how to do this. Ask him how to do a word study - so that you can get a working knowledge of the word or words in a verse.
As long as you don't know this information - you really aren't prepared to go into a study of a verse on this forum.
Perhaps he meant that "love" (being the "bond of completion") isn't possible without "put[ting] on the new man" -rendered "new' upon a knowledge of the image (appearance?) of Him that created it [this new man?] (Col.3:10). To lend weight to the argument for the definition "the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation", and so forth. It might work in this particular context, actually...
Before we were reckoned among those which the OT world creator promises "wrath". among the "children of disobedience" - a term for Israel, the creator's own children no less! (Col.3:6-7). The parallel is to be found in Ephesians chapter 2. The identity of the "Prince of the power of the air" in that same chapter may refer to "the World Aeon" which breathed "air" into the children of darkness (cf.Gen.1-3), that "breath" or "spirit" which animates them to this day.
"Your life is hid with the Krestus-God. Yet when the Krestus may be manifested, your life in the Krestus-God shall be manifested in Splendor" (Col.3:1, Apostolikon, conjectural reconstruct.).
Don't set your affection on the [creator's] earth - no longer submit to the religious bondage of the elemental angels of the world (Col.2:15-23). Shed off all those things engaged by the children of disobedience (3:5-9) put on the new man, which is of course, in the "image" of "the new God" declared by the Marcionites during the early decades of the 2nd century.
The "new man" was created through the cross of Christ (Eph.2:15), which event overthrew the "old commandments" of the Old Testament god, superceded by the new edicts of the new Krestus-God.
One no longer need subject themselves to the power of the creator's angels, those "principalities and powers" exposed through Krestus.
You are no longer "the old man" (property of the old god) - but now you are become a new race, purchased (or "ransomed") from the old deity by the new Krestus-God, with the promise of inhabiting the new world of the new God located in a heaven higher than that of the Jehovah god in his realm.
Well okay, perhaps Ck didn't intend all those weird ancient gnostic things.
ck: if you're going to insist on regurgitating veepee's thoughts at least get them correct... veepee says agape=the love of God in the renewed mind IN MANIFESTATION (as dooj has pointed out). Didn't veepee teach you not to add a word, change a word, drop a word?
other folks: please quit confusing ck with actual research and translations of greek... it's really hard for him to "deposit his message" when you counter it with actual, factual research.
ck, may I suggest that you take a logic or debate class? It will teach you how to organize your thoughts, present your case, the proof for what you believe to be true and how to intelligently answer questions about your case and the proof that you've presented. :)
You have yet to address any of the questions we've asked of you. You have yet to acknowledge anything that we've said. Just spouting verses and quoting vee pee does none of that and, furthermore, leaves the impression that you can't think for yourself. You're limited to parrotting what you've been taught word for word.
Quit saying "Polly want a cracker" and start putting some thought and some reasoning behind your words.
Why do you only answer the "slams?" You never really anwer the questions of substance.
All this doesn't look good for you. It appears that you are just interested in stirring things up and watching the feathers fly.
Now THAT would be "rejoicing in iniquity," IF that was what you were doing. And that wouldn't be loving with the "Love of God in the renewed mind in manifestion" - now would it?
Notice that I refrained from judging you. I only ask that you properly judge yourself.
But while we are on the subject...
Is it "thinking evil" to say that Adolf Hitler was a bad person? What of Saddam Hussein? Atilla the Hun? Herod? Pontius Pilate?
Or is it just calling a spade a spade?
Whatever you say here applies across the board! It has to by logic.
You have pretty clearly stated what you believe, that I get.
What you have failed to do is discuss your beliefs.
WhaT???
ck
What part don't you understand?
You have pretty clearly stated what you believe
This part is pretty self explanatory. Let me know if you need further explanation
that I get.
This part is saying that I "get" that you have stated your beliefs, this is mainly in response to your previous post asking if I wasn't "getting it"
What you have failed to do is discuss your beliefs.
Here I am saying that there is a difference bewteen stating your beliefs and discussing them. In the part of my post that you didn't quote, as well as in posts by several others, that distinction is explained.
Ck - be well aware that your failure to respond with temperance and gentility to non-hostile questions make you out to be a trouble-maker. (In fact, answering congenially even in the face of attacks would make major points for you - and it's scriptural as well.)
Again - no judgement - but it stands to reason that if you wanted to truly "think no evil" you wouldn't be positioning yourself as an angry young man who has a bone to pick with everyone around here.
It's more valuable to answer the hard questions. You seem to only be interested in seeing what trouble you can stir up so that you can watch the show. IF this is true - I said IF - then this is extremely immature and you shouldn't be surprised if you continue to be met with disdain and lack of respect. I fit isn't true - well then start acting like the intelligent man you claim to be and the God-fearing man you claim to be.
Remember that old saying, "You will catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." It's true and there's a scripture that says about the same in Proverbs " A soft answer turns away wrath." Perhaps this is one of those scriptures taht you need to incorporate in your lifestyle while you're choosing to "think no evil."
You can't just pick and choose which verses you want to obey and which just don't work for you.
It seems that CK just wanted to dump his beliefs here, stating that he "thinks no evil" while implying that most of us at GS do.
In CK's world, It is "thinking evil" (unloving) to tell the truth about VPW, Wiereille, Geer, et al. It is more loving to ignore it, or close your eyes to the facts, than it is to expose it in an effort to allow folks to make some sense of their TWI experience.
In a broader sense, CK's doctrine, if applied throughout the whole Christian church, would allow and promote abuse of all kinds to run rampant and unchecked.
Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment in the gate: it may be that the LORD God of hosts will be gracious unto the remnant of Joseph.
Amos says hate the evil, love the good and establish judgment.
Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied [him]? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil [is] good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, Where [is] the God
of judgment?
The prophet was reproving the priests for closing thier eyes to evil and even calling it good, they had abandoned judgment. ...... Just like these priests, CK ignores and closes his eyes to evil. Says they VPW, LCM, Geer, et al ..were "doing the best that they could."
Yea, truth faileth; and he [that] departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the LORD saw [it], and it displeased him that [there was] no judgment.
Isaiah was chiding them because they didn't want to hear the truth. No one was calling for judgment against evil. They has closed their eyes. Sin was rampant ( see the context) and nothing was being done to redress greiviences, ei, "judgment is turned away".
This is what CK would have us do , turn away .... the scripture says this displeases God.
In a nutshell, CK's doctrine is itself evil, non scriptural, and it displeases God.
Below is a link to a Commentary on Isaiah 59 by Mathhew Henry.
Why do you only answer the "slams?" You never really anwer the questions of substance.
All this doesn't look good for you. It appears that you are just interested in stirring things up and watching the feathers fly.
Now THAT would be "rejoicing in iniquity," IF that was what you were doing. And that wouldn't be loving with the "Love of God in the renewed mind in manifestion" - now would it?
Notice that I refrained from judging you. I only ask that you properly judge yourself.
But while we are on the subject...
Is it "thinking evil" to say that Adolf Hitler was a bad person? What of Saddam Hussein? Atilla the Hun? Herod? Pontius Pilate?
Or is it just calling a spade a spade?
Whatever you say here applies across the board! It has to by logic.
I didn't know that saying "What" was a slam I did not understand the question.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
16
11
18
30
Popular Days
Apr 8
17
Apr 9
10
Mar 24
8
Mar 22
7
Top Posters In This Topic
Goey 16 posts
Oakspear 11 posts
doojable 18 posts
ckmkeon 30 posts
Popular Days
Apr 8 2006
17 posts
Apr 9 2006
10 posts
Mar 24 2006
8 posts
Mar 22 2006
7 posts
Goey
CK, have you bailed out, of should we wait for a reply from you ?
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
?????????????hey who you calling ignorant??????????????????/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ckmkeon
Here I thought I would put this in this thread
Col 3:14
And above all these things put on charity which is the bond of perfectnesss.
I thought this might be a nice verse to put in here.
CK
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
bonding what?
loving what?
and it is a nice verse
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
CM,
It is a nice verse - though the word "perfectness" does little for me at the moment.
By itself it seems a cold, hollow abstract.
Makes me think of Matthew's "Be perfect as your Father in heaven is also perfect".
Which is why I prefer Luke's parallel "Be compassionate (unto others) as your Father in
heaven is also compassionate."
Now there's something with which I - and perhaps other imperfect flesh and blood human beings in general -
can relate. Or do they?
Despite their apparent parallels, Matthew and Luke seem to be living two different worlds, of two different mindsets -even classes.
I used to like Matthew's version of the "Sermon on the Mount". But now I completely despise it for the cynical piece of snobbish trash that it is - a total distortion of what I consider to be the earlier version contained in Luke.
When "Luke" wrote "Blessed are the poor" he meant actual human beings suffering actual hunger pangs.
But Matthew apparently didn't want any of these same undesirables in their neighborhood.
So he changed it... to pious hypocrites seeking a late-night spiritual snack.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Hi Danny,
Yeah that word perfect doesn't really say much.
Common sense obviously tells the mind that this is not possible.
A great lack of understanding of the word perfect is apparent in many circles.
To see that being perfect does not mean no mistakes.
But as Luke puts it-compassion.
As well as John-love.
So as it starts it also continues to unfold.
From love to love
compassion to compassion
tenderness to tenderness
producing a heart that cannot be broken.
Edited by CMLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I'm disappointed that you've chosen (or unable) to discuss any of this intelligently, but chosen instead to throw out one liners and regurgitated Wierwillisms.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Perfectness bugs me too. It seems a dichotomy to speak of pefection in regards to the human condition .
CK,
Quoting scripture has it's place, but a verse of scripture tossed in, out of it's context, may be hard to understand.
So, what do you think this verse means? What does Paul mean by perfectness? -- And how does this verse relate to your opening post?
This is a doctrinal discussion isn't it? -- Start discussing then ....
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
In all fairness there's likely more problem with my personal understanding
of the sense of the English word "perfect" -
perhaps not a "perfect" word for these passages -
does it depart from a varying meaning
originally intended by the writer(s)?
If memory serves me fairly(without juggling dictionaries or concordances), the various Greek/Syriac words rendered 'perfect' in Pauline literature may be also construed in the sense of 'complete', 'completion', 'maturity', 'fulness' 'fruitfulness'...even 'initiate' or 'initiated'.
But those who would proclaim themselves "perfect" - their works, their views -would generally be looked upon as fat-headed snobs in our society (lol). Because I share similar sentiments with Goey on "the human condition". If I'm not "perfect" - and I know I'm not - I tend to assume - project? - the same of others.
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
ckmkeon
I have discussed what I believe I don't see the problem are you not getting it???
CK
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Not really CK. You haven discussed much at all. Discussion implies a two-way dialog. A give and take.
All you have really done is dumped your belief and regirgitated a few verses of scripture. That is not discussion. This is a doctrinal discussion so you may want to offer a thoughtful analysis of what you are putting forth. That takes more than an "I believe X to be true", and then dumping a verse of scripture.
For example, you may want explain WHY you believe that "thinking evil" applies to VPW, Geer and LCM. You may want to provide examples of what it is to think evil. You may want to offer scripture support and analysis to support your position.
Johnnie Jump-Up theology doesn't gennerally work here.
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Goey has stated very succinctly what I would have if I had gotten here first
Thanks Goey.
You have pretty clearly stated what you believe, that I get.
What you have failed to do is discuss your beliefs.
Part of "discussion" is explaining and defending your beliefs. No one is attacking your beliefs, but several of us are questioning their basis.
You were never in The Way, but your parents apparently brought you up using core Way doctrine. Nothing wrong with that, but regardless of the "truth" or "error" of what Wierwille taught, many, if not most of us, no longer accept what he taught as an infallible source. So, if you are going to engage in discussions here, you must be prepared to cite sources beyond Wierwille.
An argument or disagreement cannot be resolved by quoting Wierwille, PFAL, or a TWI version of biblical doctrine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
CK - plainly put - since your dad was in the Family Corps - he knows how to research - and had to write a research paper. He should know how to both put forth a thesis and how to write up the pros and cons to support it.
Ask him how to do this. Ask him how to do a word study - so that you can get a working knowledge of the word or words in a verse.
As long as you don't know this information - you really aren't prepared to go into a study of a verse on this forum.
Happy studying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Perhaps he meant that "love" (being the "bond of completion") isn't possible without "put[ting] on the new man" -rendered "new' upon a knowledge of the image (appearance?) of Him that created it [this new man?] (Col.3:10). To lend weight to the argument for the definition "the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation", and so forth. It might work in this particular context, actually...
Before we were reckoned among those which the OT world creator promises "wrath". among the "children of disobedience" - a term for Israel, the creator's own children no less! (Col.3:6-7). The parallel is to be found in Ephesians chapter 2. The identity of the "Prince of the power of the air" in that same chapter may refer to "the World Aeon" which breathed "air" into the children of darkness (cf.Gen.1-3), that "breath" or "spirit" which animates them to this day.
"Your life is hid with the Krestus-God. Yet when the Krestus may be manifested, your life in the Krestus-God shall be manifested in Splendor" (Col.3:1, Apostolikon, conjectural reconstruct.).
Don't set your affection on the [creator's] earth - no longer submit to the religious bondage of the elemental angels of the world (Col.2:15-23). Shed off all those things engaged by the children of disobedience (3:5-9) put on the new man, which is of course, in the "image" of "the new God" declared by the Marcionites during the early decades of the 2nd century.
The "new man" was created through the cross of Christ (Eph.2:15), which event overthrew the "old commandments" of the Old Testament god, superceded by the new edicts of the new Krestus-God.
One no longer need subject themselves to the power of the creator's angels, those "principalities and powers" exposed through Krestus.
You are no longer "the old man" (property of the old god) - but now you are become a new race, purchased (or "ransomed") from the old deity by the new Krestus-God, with the promise of inhabiting the new world of the new God located in a heaven higher than that of the Jehovah god in his realm.
Well okay, perhaps Ck didn't intend all those weird ancient gnostic things.
:)
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
ck: if you're going to insist on regurgitating veepee's thoughts at least get them correct... veepee says agape=the love of God in the renewed mind IN MANIFESTATION (as dooj has pointed out). Didn't veepee teach you not to add a word, change a word, drop a word?
other folks: please quit confusing ck with actual research and translations of greek... it's really hard for him to "deposit his message" when you counter it with actual, factual research.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
ck, may I suggest that you take a logic or debate class? It will teach you how to organize your thoughts, present your case, the proof for what you believe to be true and how to intelligently answer questions about your case and the proof that you've presented. :)
You have yet to address any of the questions we've asked of you. You have yet to acknowledge anything that we've said. Just spouting verses and quoting vee pee does none of that and, furthermore, leaves the impression that you can't think for yourself. You're limited to parrotting what you've been taught word for word.
Quit saying "Polly want a cracker" and start putting some thought and some reasoning behind your words.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ckmkeon
WhaT???
ck
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Ck,
Why do you only answer the "slams?" You never really anwer the questions of substance.
All this doesn't look good for you. It appears that you are just interested in stirring things up and watching the feathers fly.
Now THAT would be "rejoicing in iniquity," IF that was what you were doing. And that wouldn't be loving with the "Love of God in the renewed mind in manifestion" - now would it?
Notice that I refrained from judging you. I only ask that you properly judge yourself.
But while we are on the subject...
Is it "thinking evil" to say that Adolf Hitler was a bad person? What of Saddam Hussein? Atilla the Hun? Herod? Pontius Pilate?
Or is it just calling a spade a spade?
Whatever you say here applies across the board! It has to by logic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Ck - be well aware that your failure to respond with temperance and gentility to non-hostile questions make you out to be a trouble-maker. (In fact, answering congenially even in the face of attacks would make major points for you - and it's scriptural as well.)
Again - no judgement - but it stands to reason that if you wanted to truly "think no evil" you wouldn't be positioning yourself as an angry young man who has a bone to pick with everyone around here.
It's more valuable to answer the hard questions. You seem to only be interested in seeing what trouble you can stir up so that you can watch the show. IF this is true - I said IF - then this is extremely immature and you shouldn't be surprised if you continue to be met with disdain and lack of respect. I fit isn't true - well then start acting like the intelligent man you claim to be and the God-fearing man you claim to be.
Remember that old saying, "You will catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." It's true and there's a scripture that says about the same in Proverbs " A soft answer turns away wrath." Perhaps this is one of those scriptures taht you need to incorporate in your lifestyle while you're choosing to "think no evil."
You can't just pick and choose which verses you want to obey and which just don't work for you.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Well, I, for one, have given up on ck. It's obviously an effort in futility to expect him to respond maturely and intelligently.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Well, Belle .....
It seems that CK just wanted to dump his beliefs here, stating that he "thinks no evil" while implying that most of us at GS do.
In CK's world, It is "thinking evil" (unloving) to tell the truth about VPW, Wiereille, Geer, et al. It is more loving to ignore it, or close your eyes to the facts, than it is to expose it in an effort to allow folks to make some sense of their TWI experience.
In a broader sense, CK's doctrine, if applied throughout the whole Christian church, would allow and promote abuse of all kinds to run rampant and unchecked.
Here are a few verses that may apply here.....
Amo 5:15
Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment in the gate: it may be that the LORD God of hosts will be gracious unto the remnant of Joseph.
Amos says hate the evil, love the good and establish judgment.
CK says close your eyes to the evil.
Mal 2:17
Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied [him]? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil [is] good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, Where [is] the God
of judgment?
The prophet was reproving the priests for closing thier eyes to evil and even calling it good, they had abandoned judgment. ...... Just like these priests, CK ignores and closes his eyes to evil. Says they VPW, LCM, Geer, et al ..were "doing the best that they could."
Isa 59:4
None calleth for justice, nor [any] pleadeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity.
Isa 59:14
And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.
Isa 59:15
Yea, truth faileth; and he [that] departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the LORD saw [it], and it displeased him that [there was] no judgment.
Isaiah was chiding them because they didn't want to hear the truth. No one was calling for judgment against evil. They has closed their eyes. Sin was rampant ( see the context) and nothing was being done to redress greiviences, ei, "judgment is turned away".
This is what CK would have us do , turn away .... the scripture says this displeases God.
In a nutshell, CK's doctrine is itself evil, non scriptural, and it displeases God.
Below is a link to a Commentary on Isaiah 59 by Mathhew Henry.
Isaiah 59 - Matthew Henry Commentary
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ckmkeon
I didn't know that saying "What" was a slam I did not understand the question.
CK
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.