Quote
TruthtestyQuote
Voltaic
Uh, you are getting way too excited about one single phrase I used, a phrase which incidently was a joking allusion to a popular movie and was kind of anti-Thieme. But OK.
You are no one to judge my excitement. I will tell you about my excitement. I would be excited to meet you in person. That was an insult of conscience. I am not familiar with the movie. Someone with a conscience would apologize.
I am truly sorry for calling you "excited". It is a horrible and awful word to call someone.
Quote
TruthtestyQuote
Voltaic
How is that a personal attack? I'm honestly curious. To me, a personal attack against you means I say something mean or evil about you; and is not when I say something mean or evil about someone else.
Oh really? And what if I have a 5 month old baby? How stupid are you?You don't find that offensive? Why should I have to explain simple common sense to you? Are you out of highschool?
Finding something offensive is different than a personal attack. And no, I don’t find obvious tongue-in-cheek statements to be offensive to me; I don’t get offended by much at all, actually.
Quote
Truthtesty
Do you happen to attend the Thieme affiliate, Amador Bible Church, outside Sacramento off of New York Ranch rd? Pastor Major Billy J. Puryear?
I found that website and I see that Pastor Puryear was under Thieme’s teaching, but otherwise I don’t see how they are a "Thieme affiliate". Is there some monthly dues they pay or distribute membership leaflets or something?
Quote
TruthtestyQuote
Voltaic
"Vilify" means to speak ill of someone, make vicious and defamatory statements about someone, or to spread negative information about someone. Are you saying that Hitler and Saddam and Koresh spoke negative, defamatory information against themselves? Are you saying that there is no speaking ill of Thieme in this thread?
Yes, I am, inadvertently. They brought thier own negativity to themselves, either by thier own actions or words.
So if someone acts like a jerk in real life, and I go tell someone else that that person is a jerk, I’m not speaking ill of them?
Quote
TruthtestyQuote
Voltaic
Look, you may agree or disagree with what I and others have posted, but the simple defintion of the word I chose makes my meaning above clear. If I say something negative about you, I am vilifying you. Whether it's true or false, good or bad intent, doesn't matter; that's what the word means.
Wrong. Check the meaning. If it's true it's not vilifying.
[
www.m-w.com]
I don’t see anything in that definition that mentions whether the statements have to be true or false to meet the definition.
Quote
Truthtesty
Hitler spreading Nazi propaganda vilified the Jews. (Note Voltaic makes no mention of how Thieme vehemently vilified thousands of christians by of "bleeding heart liberals" or by calling black people "melanoderms", there are many more instances of Thieme's vilification of people, all of it, is on tape or in Thieme's literature.)
I haven’t mentioned a lot of things since I’m not here to rag on anybody. Good job continually bringing Hitler into the discussion, but you forgot Saddam Hussein and Josef Stalin.
Quote
sistersoapQuote
Voltaic
This is actually what my very first post on this forum said: that each of us should examine our own consciences when making statement as are made here.
QUESTIONS:
1. Now that you have delivered your message to all of us here, not just to Testy, what else useful do you have to say to us?
I would like to say that I’ve cited dozens and dozens scriptures in all my posts so far, in my attempt to show that love is the central part of spiritual living. We all endure certain tests and problems in our lives, and if someone’s test is to grow up under an oppressive teacher, shouldn’t that person endure it for Christ’s sake (Matthew 10:37-39;11:28-30;16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23; 1 Corinthians 4:12-13; 2 Corinthians 5:4-5; Philippians 2:8; Colossians 1:24; 2 Timothy 2:3; James 5:10-11; 1 Peter 2:21; Revelation 2:3) instead of complaining (1 Corinthians 10:10; Philippians 2:14-15;4:6; James 5:9; Jude 1:16)? Are the teachings from our Lord Jesus Christ directly and clearly instructing us to love and do good to our enemies (Matthew 5:38-45; Luke 6:27-36) not enough? Please tell me what more you could possibly want!
Quote
sistersoap
2. Since you are so solicitous of our moral condition, what about all the other forums that need your help to be reminded of their spiritual danger? Or is this forum the only one you have graced with your advice? If it is the only forum you are attending to, WHY? BE HONEST.
No, I have been on other forums as well. In any case, my "advice" has been backed by Scriptures, not my feelings or anecdotes.
Quote
sistersoap
VILIFY does NOT MEAN WHAT YOU SAY IT MEANS. Use your dictionary before you attempt to instruct others. You cannot invent definitions Webster's NEW WORLD DICTIONARY says ABOUT VILIFY:
I was only paraphrasing the definition. I am so sorry I ever used the word to begin with. You are right that "to debase, to degrade, to defame, to attempt to degrade by slander" are totally different from "saying something negative about someone". In fact, they are total opposites. I repent!
Quote
sistersoap
Oh I know, you are too righteous to actually be specific! You can't be soiled by mentioning specifics lest you be contaminated by someone else's immoderate language! WelL YOU CAN ALWAYS REBOUND. Can't you?
I am not "too righteous". There is nothing good about me, and I am sick from my head to my feet. Only the Righteousness of Christ inside me is good (Isaiah 64:6; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:10;7:7-25; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Philippians 3:8-9). And yes, I can always confess my sins to God, presenting them through the expiating blood of Christ (Leviticus 5:5-6; Psalm 32:5;38:18; Proverbs 28:13; Isaiah 59:11-13; Jeremiah 3:12-13;14:20; 1 Corinthians 11:28-31; James 5:15-16; I John 1:9).
Quote
sistersoap
You ARE DEFENDING THIEME ON THIS THREAD AMONGST PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN INJURED BY HIS FALSE TEACHINGS. What do you expect us to say? You keep saying the same things over and over.
Please quote one time where I have defended Thieme. I want a direct quote.
Quote
TruthtestyQuote
[[b:3acb401904]Notice Voltaic makes [u:3acb401904]no mention of the evil of Thieme's teachings[/u:3acb401904] [/b:3acb401904]that cause: the bumping into walls, falling down stairs, having nervous breakdowns, and suffering identity dysfunctions.)
Quote
Voltaic
[b:3acb401904]Now you are plainly lying about what I have or haven't said[/b:3acb401904]. I refer you to post #44879 in this thread where I did briefly discuss this and where you went off into left-field about wanting me to go to jail because I believe Christians should follow the law when the Anti-Christ is in charge or something outlandish. Maybe you don't agree with my answer or things could be misinterpreted, etc. That's fine and we can discuss it. But what I have or haven't said is very plainly documented here in this thread.
[b:3acb401904]If I am lying, then where did you specifically state Thieme's teachings are evil?[/b:3acb401904]
It is true that I never said Thieme’s teachings are evil. However, in your quote above, you said I made "no mention" of how Thieme’s teachings caused people to bump into walls, etc. But I did make mention of this in my post #44879, and you even replied to it when you said you wanted to send me to jail or something, etc. So saying that I did not mention it at all when I did, is wrong.
Quote
Truthtesty
Also, you have broken your own "[b:3acb401904]holier than thou art[/b:3acb401904]" rules, by specifically and falsely accusing me of lying, in public, and without me contacting you "privately".
I am not holier than thou, and I have no rules to that end. But, earlier you made a big deal that I was not mentioning specifics, and now you call me out for mentioning a specific. Which standard should I go by?
Quote
Truthtesty
If you really believe - "I wonder if disputes and accusations and engaging in these kinds of discussion violates the command to avoid the appearance of evil."-, then it sure isn't stopping you from "disputing and discussing" here, now is it?
No it isn’t, but it is something I think about and try to be conscientious about. I will answer to the Lord for all my posts here and I can only tell him that I thought I was doing right. He alone is qualified to judge if it is (1 Samuel 26:23; 1 Corinthians 3:11-15;4:5; 2 Timothy 4:8; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 3:20; Revelation 20:12). That’s the big difference between my position and the position of others on this forum: I don’t believe I’m qualified to judge another man’s servant; but only myself (Romans 14:4).
Quote
Truthtesty
Wonder all you want, fighting evil and bringing evil to justice is avoiding complicity with evil. For example, if you witness someone being beaten and robbed (or worse) and you do nothing about it,(you don't call 911, no testimony as a court witness, etc...) then you are complicit. You [b:3acb401904]appear[/b:3acb401904] as an accomplice of that evil. Fighting evil and bringing evil to justice of the light, is not evil, it's good.
Do you call 911 and report every car you see speeding on the road? Do you call 911 and report when someone litters? Do you file a lawsuit whenever someone gossips about someone else in the office? Do you make a big display whenever someone spews hatred against someone else?
You keep using examples of obvious physical harm like beatings and robbery when the answer is clear, but ignore the day-to-day evil of the world. I simply believe that Christianity in this Age of Grace or Age of the Church (whichever term you like) is about one’s personal relationship with God and others, not activism and working and doing for God. Good deeds are the result and demonstration of our faith, not the means to it .
Quote
Truthtestyto test, examine, prove, scrutinise (to see whether a thing is genuine or not), as metals to recognise as genuine after examination, to approve, deem worthy
[
bible1.crosswalk.com]
The testing the world at large would certainly be a part of "testing all things".
I agree with that, sorry if my post was unclear. This is what I tried to illustrate by mentioning a "proving grounds" where something is examined, tested, scrutinized, etc. as opposed to proving something in a court case where "proof" isn’t a test but a piece of evidence.
Quote
TruthtestyIf it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. This is a conditional statement.
Quote
Voltaic
My Lord and Saviour said: "With God, all things are possible." (Matthew 19:26, [b:3acb401904]Mark 10:27[/b:3acb401904]).
[b:3acb401904]Mark 10:27[/b:3acb401904]
And Jesus looking upon them saith, [b:3acb401904]With men it is impossible[/b:3acb401904], but not with God: for [b:3acb401904]with God all things are possible[/b:3acb401904].
I say again "[b:3acb401904]If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.[/b:3acb401904]" This is a conditional statement. Paul is practical and realizes that there is going to be violence anyhow. You can briefly maintain your "[b:3acb401904]holier than thou art[/b:3acb401904]" beliefs, but if you don't work against, or don't toil against, or don't overcome evil then you are complicit with evil - you become evil, you appear evil, and your belief system collapses. I am not saying that you will go to heaven for fighting evil (Jesus did that and Jesus is victorious over principalities and powers), but good work is a fruit of the spirit.
The power of God made available to us knows no limits (Matthew 9:12; Mark 2:17; Luke 5:31; Romans 8:26; 1 Corinthians 1:25;2:4-5; 2 Corinthians 10:4;12:10; Ephesians 1:18-21;3:16-21; Philippians 4:12-13; Colossians 1:10-12; Hebrews 11:32-34; 1 Peter 4:11) and I refuse to live with the attitude that there are things I cannot do in His power; if I have even a mustard seed of faith, nothing will be impossible for me; so promises my Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 17:20; Luke 17:6).
Incidentally, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23). These are the traits that define good works, not how much evil did you fight today or some such. Works without the Spirit are dead.
Quote
TruthtestyThe Gospels are for the whole world are they not? What type of Gospel, What type of Word, what type of TRUTH are you trying to sell, IF THE TRUTH OF WHAT IS EVIL, HAS TO BE HIDDEN AWAY IN SECRET? Can you provide a scripture that says hide the truth of what is evil? I have never seen a passage of scripture that supports this.
Quote
Voltaic
You are changing what I am saying. I have never said that the truth should be hidden, whether it is the truth of evil or truth of the Gospel or anything else. Not once. Go back and read my posts, there aren’t many.
I just asked you if you could produce a scripture that said to "hide the truth". The world at large includes christians too. I know there are alot of things to hide at Berachah. I also know that the truth is universal to the world, not just truth in church.
So now, exposing "truths" at Berachah is as important as revealing the truth of the Gospel that saves the world?
Quote
Truthtesty
My point again, why would it hurt to debate it in front of the whole world? What do you as a christian have to hide from the whole world? Paul just says it is shameful that unegenerates have to judge christian matters, because thier aren't wise enough christians to do it.
The command is to not to take Christian disputes before unregenerates at all (1 Corinthians 6:2-5). I don’t need to know "why", because I have Scripture commanding me to not do it, and I’m not bold enough to go before the Holy Spirit, who inspired Scripture, and question why He gave the commands He did.
Quote
TruthtestyQuote
Voltaic
But there are Scriptures that say disputes between Christians (which is why in one of my first posts I asked if everyone agrees that Thieme is at least a brother in Christ) shouldn't take their disputes before the unregenerate world. For example, 1 Corinthians 6:1-6 says Christians shouldn't take each other to court and be judged by unbelievers even on worldy matters. In addition, Titus 3:8-9 teaches that we should be devoted to doing good to everyone instead of promoting controversies of doctrine. To me this includes public displays in front of the unregenerate world such as, oh, an internet forum.
Your interpretation is not to be trusted. 1 Corinthians 6:5 says
"[b:3acb401904]I speak to your shame[/b:3acb401904]. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? [b:3acb401904]no, not one that shall be able [/b:3acb401904]to judge between his brethren?"
This is saying in question form "Is there not a wise enough christian(s) able to judge matters among you, that therefore the unregenerate have to judge matters?". Modern day examples of unregenerates having to judge: Andrea yates, BTK, David Koresh, etc...
True it was to the Corinthians’ shame that there were none wise enough to judge these matters, but that doesn’t mean they were supposed to take them to the unregenerate instead. Verse 4 even tells them to just appoint someone of small stature in the church, as it is better than going before the unbelievers.
Quote
TruthtestyTitus 3:9 is speaking about contentions and strifes about Jewish Law, not christian doctrine.
[
bible1.crosswalk.com]
Also reference Chafer Volume 7, p 168.
But the problem is that Jewish Law was being brought in to replace, supplement, or change Christian doctrine.
Quote
TruthtestyQuote
Voltaic
If he or his son were here, that would at least be Biblical. All the scriptures I see say that if a brother ignores rebuke or exhortation, you just leave it alone and go separate ways (Titus 3:10); none of them talk about taking it to the people or speaking it to the world or what have you.
Wrong.
I would imagine that Thieme or his son have probably read this site. Thieme and his son are allowed to join this forum. Thieme has been spoken to about these matters. In any case this site is mostly for the healing of the victims, who need to hear [u:3acb401904][b:3acb401904]the truth[/b:3acb401904][/u:3acb401904]!
I sympathize with their need to hear healing truth; I simply don’t agree that they need to hear negative truths and I believe that many of the posts here are made with evil motivations, such as revenge, spite, hatred, etc., which is why I made my first post and have continued to stress love over all else. Apparently this is contentious.
Quote
TruthtestyQuote
Voltaic
Even Paul says he rejoices when people preach Christ for false motivations as long as Christ is preached (Philippians 1:17-18 )
Philippians 1:17
But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. 1:18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.
[
bible1.crosswalk.com]
It doesn't say for false motivations, it says "in pretence".
This depends on the translation you use. I normally use what someone here called the "vile" New International Version.
Quote
mile2
You wrote that you had recently read the biography, "Robert B. Thieme, Jr.:His Ancestry: His Life" and were disturbed by the typos, etc.
Not disturbed, annoyed. I dislike bad copy-editing in any published work. It bothers the English major in me and reeks of unprofessional work.
Quote
mile2
The editorial flaws in the book, though they may be irritating to you, certainly do not discredit the validity of the statements made, or lessen their impact on the reader's understanding of Thieme's life story.
I spent about three sentences talking about how it’s a good overview of his ancestry and background, so I agree with you and never said that any of it is discredited or anything else. Don’t make the mistake of others here and think that because I disagree with the [i:3acb401904]way[/i:3acb401904] all of this is being presented, I automatically disagree with [i:3acb401904]what[/i:3acb401904] is being said.
Quote
mile2
But in no way does Independent Study compare to the rigors of a typical class of 30 competing peers, studying under a demanding, preset curriculum.
You should contact the U of A about that. I have no way to agree or disagree with your conclusions because I wasn’t there and don’t know how rigorous it may have been. I imagine the standards have changed in the last 65+ years.
Quote
mile2
Are you familiar with Thieme's story of how his military superiors during WWII approached him with a secret mission in which he would parachute into Greece behind enemy lines? They supposedly chose him because of his ability to speak Greek. He was ready and willing to go until it was noticed that he had a slight accent from classical Greek that differed from the modern spoken Greek language. So in the end the plan couldn't be executed.
Could it really be that in Independent Study Thieme learned to speak classical Greek?! (If you have not taken Greek, be sure to ask someone who has.) And is a slight accent the defining difference between modern spoken Greek and ancient Greek?! That story is absurd on its face and evidence that Thieme was lying to exalt himself.
Nope, never heard that one. It doesn’t change anything I have said though, as I am neither defending nor attacking Thieme. I would be interested in the source of that statement though, perhaps a tape citation or something (there are a lot of things he is supposed to have said that don’t seem to be well documented).
Quote
mile2
You say "It is a little bit weird that the author went around to all these private residences and took pictures of their current facades." If you have heard the claims Thieme has made concerning his family and upbringing, you should be able to understand what these pictures reveal. As a point of correction you mention the picture on p.64 as the door of Thieme's college rental from the lower staircase. Actually this picture is the entrance to the triplex his father moved the family to sometime prior to the spring of 1937. It's not exactly the scene of opulance that Thieme refers to in his teachings.
I understand why Hunt took the pics, I just thought it was creepy how they were presented. It would have been nice to have some overall city or neighborhood pics of those areas from the 30s and 40s to present a context for us. What was a wealthy mansion back then is a regular 3-bedroom house with garage nowadays. And it was creepy him shooting a doorway from a lower staircase, like he had to run in and do it before anyone noticed or something (he had already shot the house's facade on the previous page).
Quote
mile2
To recognize and appreciate an in-depth bio requires more than a superficial reading.
The book is not "in-depth" by any means; it’s just over 100 pages long and over half of that is family history before Thieme and Betty. As I have said [u:3acb401904]repeatedly[/u:3acb401904], it was a good but basic piece of research.
Quote
TruthtestyQuote
Voltaic
I refer you to post #44879 in this thread where I did briefly discuss this and where you went off into left-field about wanting me to go to jail because I believe Christians should follow the law when the Anti-Christ is in charge or something outlandish.
What is outlandish is your concept of submission to earthly authority.
I’ve only got Scripture to guide my life on this matter, and it doesn’t matter what translation you use (Romans 13:1-7; Hebrews 13:17; 1 Peter 2:17). Even David didn’t kill the king whom God had already condemned (1 Samuel 24:4-7). Exceptions can be made in one’s own spiritual life as led by the Spirit, but that’s a personal matter.
Quote
Truthtesty
Thieme often tried to smear people as if they were not making sense by labeling thier thinking as "in left field". Learn to think for yourself, and quit copying Thieme's terminology.
Searching for the phrase "out in left field" on Google yielded over 250,000 hits. Of the first twenty hits, only number 9 and 14 were actually about baseball, where the term first came from. But some of the hits were sites where this very common phrase is studied, such as:
[
www.phrases.org.uk]
[
www.bobcongdon.net]
I’m surprised you’ve never heard the term before and make it into some Thieme thing. I’m curious, will you be chiding sistersoap and thiemite and others in this thread for their references to Thieme terms? Or just me for a term that wasn’t really his anyway?