R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: March 26, 2007 01:15AM
To brainout:
You just did.
Truthtesty
You just did.
Truthtesty
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
brainout
()
Date: March 26, 2007 05:43AM
Hopefully this posting will correctly be in the larger font, rather than in the title.
Truthtesty, please stop replying to my posts which are [b:ea2d0fd48d]not[/b:ea2d0fd48d] directed toward you. As I cannot use pm until I have posted 10 times in order to [b:ea2d0fd48d]stop[/b:ea2d0fd48d] you from answering questions [b:ea2d0fd48d]not[/b:ea2d0fd48d] posed to you, I cannot but use the public forum. [i:ea2d0fd48d]You would not appreciate it if you wrote someone else but I jumped in and replied, instead.[/i:ea2d0fd48d] It's rude to behave like that.
I still need to hear from GeneZ, and will not respond to your reply, since I didn't ask you about the derivation of Paul's "abortion" nickname, I asked him.
Truthtesty, please stop replying to my posts which are [b:ea2d0fd48d]not[/b:ea2d0fd48d] directed toward you. As I cannot use pm until I have posted 10 times in order to [b:ea2d0fd48d]stop[/b:ea2d0fd48d] you from answering questions [b:ea2d0fd48d]not[/b:ea2d0fd48d] posed to you, I cannot but use the public forum. [i:ea2d0fd48d]You would not appreciate it if you wrote someone else but I jumped in and replied, instead.[/i:ea2d0fd48d] It's rude to behave like that.
I still need to hear from GeneZ, and will not respond to your reply, since I didn't ask you about the derivation of Paul's "abortion" nickname, I asked him.
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: March 26, 2007 08:56AM
To brainout:
Your last 2 posts began with Truthtesty which means you were addressing me. This is a free forum where people are allowed to comment on whatever is said on this forum. This is not a highly restricted controlled enviroment, although there are rules. If people were not allowed to comment on whatever was posted, then that would mean you'd be controlling communication by your rules, not the forum's rules. If you'd like to e-mail me personally to talk about this my e-mail address is Truthtesty@hotmail.com
Truthtesty
Your last 2 posts began with Truthtesty which means you were addressing me. This is a free forum where people are allowed to comment on whatever is said on this forum. This is not a highly restricted controlled enviroment, although there are rules. If people were not allowed to comment on whatever was posted, then that would mean you'd be controlling communication by your rules, not the forum's rules. If you'd like to e-mail me personally to talk about this my e-mail address is Truthtesty@hotmail.com
Truthtesty
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: March 26, 2007 09:47AM
To brainout:
Besides you don't know the 1st thing about what I appreciate or don't appreciate. I have no problems handling any and all people who question what I have to say - that includes Thieme and his son. Prime example, both Genez and Galiban played tag team on me, and I handled them both. If you consider your information so private, then what are you doing announcing what you have to say to the world? This is not Berachah and your not going to control the communication here.
Another thing, no one has even heard from Genez and Galiban for a while.
Truthtesty
Besides you don't know the 1st thing about what I appreciate or don't appreciate. I have no problems handling any and all people who question what I have to say - that includes Thieme and his son. Prime example, both Genez and Galiban played tag team on me, and I handled them both. If you consider your information so private, then what are you doing announcing what you have to say to the world? This is not Berachah and your not going to control the communication here.
Another thing, no one has even heard from Genez and Galiban for a while.
Truthtesty
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
brainout
()
Date: March 26, 2007 03:43PM
Five more posts and I get 'pm' rights. I read the Forum Rules and realize there are no exceptions. Honoring rules is always beneficial. So here goes:
Anyone who quit smoking, quit a spouse, quit a church will naturally tend to be a little prickly when encountering someone else who does not quit that same thing/person/entity. This is even more true, when there is a close relationship between the one who quit, and the one who remained.
I have seen some justification for some of the complaints in this forum about Berachah people, but in each case it was a problem of the people being too idolizing of the pastor. I've seen that (as have all of us) in other churches, too.
On the other hand, those who quit often become quite obsessed about getting others to quit, and will go to some lengths to push themselves on those who do not quit. They hound the one who stays so much, that the one who stays must choose between staying, and the one who quit. The one who quit, provides an ultimatum.
So when it comes to whether or not a quitter is ostracised -- valid testing question for a cult -- it must also be asked if the one who stays is likewise mistreated, badgered, etc. for staying. In short, behaviors on one side or the other, aren't of themselves, determinative of "cult".
Anyone who quit smoking, quit a spouse, quit a church will naturally tend to be a little prickly when encountering someone else who does not quit that same thing/person/entity. This is even more true, when there is a close relationship between the one who quit, and the one who remained.
I have seen some justification for some of the complaints in this forum about Berachah people, but in each case it was a problem of the people being too idolizing of the pastor. I've seen that (as have all of us) in other churches, too.
On the other hand, those who quit often become quite obsessed about getting others to quit, and will go to some lengths to push themselves on those who do not quit. They hound the one who stays so much, that the one who stays must choose between staying, and the one who quit. The one who quit, provides an ultimatum.
So when it comes to whether or not a quitter is ostracised -- valid testing question for a cult -- it must also be asked if the one who stays is likewise mistreated, badgered, etc. for staying. In short, behaviors on one side or the other, aren't of themselves, determinative of "cult".
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
brainout
()
Date: March 26, 2007 03:50PM
It's natural for a human being to be enthusiastic over a topic or person he/she ardently supports. It's even natural to become, for awhile, obsessed -- as it were -- but then the obsession gives way to the normal demands of life.
People who get in cults -- or think that OTHERS are in cults -- tend to have some emotional disturbance which such obsession seems to fulfill.
In the latter category -- those who accuse or imagine OTHERS to be in cults -- the individual is obsessed with [i:99863dbf66]someone else's [/i:99863dbf66] enthusiasm, and often negatively. The sure sign is that the one who accuses or imagines, himself/herself is obsessive about 'saving' the object of the accusation or imagination. When this obsession is not met, the accuser easily slips into vitriol and even violence.
So any claims about a cult need to be carefully analyzed with respect to the accuser's motive, too.
People who get in cults -- or think that OTHERS are in cults -- tend to have some emotional disturbance which such obsession seems to fulfill.
In the latter category -- those who accuse or imagine OTHERS to be in cults -- the individual is obsessed with [i:99863dbf66]someone else's [/i:99863dbf66] enthusiasm, and often negatively. The sure sign is that the one who accuses or imagines, himself/herself is obsessive about 'saving' the object of the accusation or imagination. When this obsession is not met, the accuser easily slips into vitriol and even violence.
So any claims about a cult need to be carefully analyzed with respect to the accuser's motive, too.
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
brainout
()
Date: March 26, 2007 03:58PM
In large measure, Christianity became the mainstay religion in the Roman Empire because it was persecuted as a cult. Obviously the meaning of Christ Himself and His Work for us was the primary reason, but the persecution of those who believed in Him spread the message even farther than it might have gone, and finally it became a political problem.
So if there is a cult, persecuting it might only serve to spread it. If there is a false teacher, lambasting him might only serve to spread his teaching. Of course, if there is a good teacher, persecuting him will be common, and of course will spread his teaching all the more. We've seen this happen in China over the last generation.
Maybe that's Matt7:1-2 in operation, for both false teachers and true.
So if there is a cult, persecuting it might only serve to spread it. If there is a false teacher, lambasting him might only serve to spread his teaching. Of course, if there is a good teacher, persecuting him will be common, and of course will spread his teaching all the more. We've seen this happen in China over the last generation.
Maybe that's Matt7:1-2 in operation, for both false teachers and true.
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
brainout
()
Date: March 26, 2007 04:07PM
We all know about Romans 1, the dire statement that those who don't believe in God are left to their own delusions; that those delusions become rather horrible over time; that the person spirals down into a miserable life as a result. 1Jn2 spent time on how Christians who became negative, were troubling those still positive, as well.
One of those results would naturally be a cultic disposition, even in an environment which itself is not cultic. And prosyletization, would be pushy.
So again, what seems to be a cult or cultic disposition is not determinative of whether the person thus obessed, is actually IN a cult.
However, anything which can be done to reduce Bible negativity would be helpful: only the person so involved can make that decision.
One of those results would naturally be a cultic disposition, even in an environment which itself is not cultic. And prosyletization, would be pushy.
So again, what seems to be a cult or cultic disposition is not determinative of whether the person thus obessed, is actually IN a cult.
However, anything which can be done to reduce Bible negativity would be helpful: only the person so involved can make that decision.
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
brainout
()
Date: March 26, 2007 04:17PM
Any false doctrine of any kind will fail a sense test. For example, it makes no sense that God would send His Son to the Cross to only pay for SOME sins, but not others: God would then be cheating Himself.
We all engage in sense-testing, so the same should be done for the doctrines of a putative 'cult', church, pastor, etc., as 1Jn4:1-6 explains. That's one test I see lacking, among all the stuff on the internet about cults (except here at RRI).
We don't test our beliefs about God sufficiently, and we don't test our holy books and doctrines for sense, either.
When we try to pry someone away from what we consider wrong, we don't actually test the beliefs for sense, we instead ridicule, find gossipy things to say (i.e., the misfortunes or alleged sins by the leader), etc. You see it in politics all the time: instead of debating the issues and coming up with real solutions, we look for 'dirt'.
I[b:8dc1a970b5] submit no one can be successfully 'saved' from something wrong, except by [u:8dc1a970b5]reasoned proofs [/u:8dc1a970b5] that the tenets are DOCTRINALLY wrong [/b:8dc1a970b5] (i.e., tenet "x" violates common sense, a known-valid truth -- which for us, is Bible). Vitriol and "dirt" aren't helpful, and only make the recipient of it, look like a saint.
We all engage in sense-testing, so the same should be done for the doctrines of a putative 'cult', church, pastor, etc., as 1Jn4:1-6 explains. That's one test I see lacking, among all the stuff on the internet about cults (except here at RRI).
We don't test our beliefs about God sufficiently, and we don't test our holy books and doctrines for sense, either.
When we try to pry someone away from what we consider wrong, we don't actually test the beliefs for sense, we instead ridicule, find gossipy things to say (i.e., the misfortunes or alleged sins by the leader), etc. You see it in politics all the time: instead of debating the issues and coming up with real solutions, we look for 'dirt'.
I[b:8dc1a970b5] submit no one can be successfully 'saved' from something wrong, except by [u:8dc1a970b5]reasoned proofs [/u:8dc1a970b5] that the tenets are DOCTRINALLY wrong [/b:8dc1a970b5] (i.e., tenet "x" violates common sense, a known-valid truth -- which for us, is Bible). Vitriol and "dirt" aren't helpful, and only make the recipient of it, look like a saint.
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: March 27, 2007 12:13PM
To brainout:
I am going to comment on what you have stated, now you may or may not reply. I really don't care. But you make a foolish unrealistic assumption, if you choose to participate on this forum to speak directly at the Thieme cult issue that we are talking about here and then you turn around an expect me not comment on what you stated. Now you say you here just to get pm rights. You've left yourself an "out". Instead of just making 5 simple posts, you again speak [b:3be8b55488]directly at the Thieme cult issue[/b:3be8b55488]. You can try to "hit and run" in as many ways as you can think of, but be assured of this - I will comment. I don't have enought time tonight to comment on everything, but I will in time.
I can sum it up real quick for you. People who have survived Thieme's cult are glad to be alive and have found a legitamate new faith for thier relationship with Jesus, and the best part is it doesn't include Thieme. They are happy (not positive - positive is not used in the bible) and are successfully dealing with the residual effects of Thieme's damaged teachings, which he taught dogmatically as "absolute truth"
If you want a fact then prove the simple charge I proffered before - show me the verse or verses that state 1 pastor has sole authority over his own congregation. It doesn't exist. This is central to Thieme's false teaching on the doctrine of right pastor and it is also central to every cult's ideology.
EVIDENCE (not dirt) [www.refocus.org]
EVIDENCE (not dirt) As Dr. Wall stated
Truthtesty
I am going to comment on what you have stated, now you may or may not reply. I really don't care. But you make a foolish unrealistic assumption, if you choose to participate on this forum to speak directly at the Thieme cult issue that we are talking about here and then you turn around an expect me not comment on what you stated. Now you say you here just to get pm rights. You've left yourself an "out". Instead of just making 5 simple posts, you again speak [b:3be8b55488]directly at the Thieme cult issue[/b:3be8b55488]. You can try to "hit and run" in as many ways as you can think of, but be assured of this - I will comment. I don't have enought time tonight to comment on everything, but I will in time.
I can sum it up real quick for you. People who have survived Thieme's cult are glad to be alive and have found a legitamate new faith for thier relationship with Jesus, and the best part is it doesn't include Thieme. They are happy (not positive - positive is not used in the bible) and are successfully dealing with the residual effects of Thieme's damaged teachings, which he taught dogmatically as "absolute truth"
If you want a fact then prove the simple charge I proffered before - show me the verse or verses that state 1 pastor has sole authority over his own congregation. It doesn't exist. This is central to Thieme's false teaching on the doctrine of right pastor and it is also central to every cult's ideology.
EVIDENCE (not dirt) [www.refocus.org]
EVIDENCE (not dirt) As Dr. Wall stated
Quote
Critique
Thieme's position, as we have noted, is basically a form of Baptist polity:
the autonomy of the local church and congregational government with one pastor leading the congregation. Although the major problems in Thieme's ecclesiology stem from an abuse of the biblical role of the elder (which will be discussed in the next section), it should be observed that there are exegetical weaknesses in Baptist polity. Such weaknesses open the way more readily for the errors and abuses of Thieme's doctrine of right pastor. Congregational government (Baptist polity) was a reaction against the hierarchal system of the Roman Church and the state churches of the Reform movement but it retained the Roman mentality toward having a priest in a local church. The Scriptures, however, imply a form of church government similar to that of the synagogue -- a church's being ruled over by, not one, but by a group of elders. The biblical evidence for this view is extensive. First, the very passage that Thieme uses to support his position (Heb. 13:7, 17) refers to the leaders of the Hebrew Christians in the plural. This is consistent in both verses 7 and 17, as well as verse 24. Notice also that there is some question as to whether or not one can identify the people in verse 7 with those in verse 17. Verse 7 uses past tenses in the Greek and the term mnemoneuete means "to remember" or "to keep something in mind" that has occurred in the past. Probably the author has in mind the early leaders of the church who established the church by the teaching of the Word of God. The emphasis of verse 17 concerning the present leaders is that their primary ministry is one of ruling. All elders are to be "apt to teach," and all elders are to rule the flock, but the Hebrew Christians are reminded of the specialteaching ministry of the founders of their church. Whether or not this interpretation is accepted, it must be admitted that Hebrews 13 refers to the leaders of the church in the plural.5 This is consistent with the rest of Scripture.6 According to Acts 20:28, compared with Acts 20:17, the elders(presbuteroi) are the same as the overseers or bishops (episkopoi), and this group of men is exhorted by Paul to shepherd or pastor (poimainein) the flock of God. This position of pastoring overseer-elder is referred to in the plural both in verse 17 and in verse 28. When Paul addresses these men at Philippi, he refers to them in the plural (Phil. 1: 1). Only when referred to generically is this position ever referred to in the singular (I Tim. 3:1, 2). 7Also it should be noted that the term pastor and the term teacher are usedto refer to spiritual gifts in the body, not to a ruling office. In Ephesians 4:11, these two terms are linked very closely and probably refer to a combination gift held by certain people in the body of Christ. However, in the context of Ephesians 4 the subject is not church government, but spiritual gifts in the body of Christ (note verses 4, 8 and 16). It is conceivable that a church could have a number of gifted pastor-teachers, as well as gifted pastors and gifted teachers, and that these would minister both as authoritative elders (dependent upon their spiritual maturity) and as non-authoritative members of the body in person-toperson relations. [b:3be8b55488]One thing is clear, the Scriptures do not single out one person with a particular gift and set him over a local body as an absolute ruler.[/b:3be8b55488]One other observation concerning autocratic pastor rule is in order.Government, whether it is church or state, is made up of people, and people are sinners by nature. The structures which God establishes recognize this truth. A system of checks and balances is necessary to control the sin nature even in a Christian, since no Christian always operates on the basis of a spiritual mentality all the time. A plurality of elders with opportunity for congregational participation in major decisions lends itself more readily to the control of the sin nature.
Truthtesty
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.