In Reply to: Re: the set card is brainwashing posted by Acheick on September 09, 2006 at 10:58:12:
The problem with your post is, that it sounds/reads good at first glance, when it's actually not so precise...memorising for reference sake can also be out of context & then you just repeat, what Mr. Don said, but is that the only cure?, although I agree to it to great extend & this method/rule is probably taught in most theological faculties (whereby they often weigh one testimony, one source against the other, byzantine against alexandrine versions of scripture)...
it may depend on the fact/timing, when someone does the memorising...has someone already fully read the Bible, better several times, done & heard some good exegesis of good teachers with a good walk of faith/life...most of all, is the person a believer in Jesus Christ as Lord & Saviour & has testified the faith first with baptism & other testimonies...
Ok, I'd trust that person quoting me, what is dear to him/her....in TF it went a bit tipsy/turvy the memorisation "timing"...however, did you consider the verse, that His Word never comes back void &
as far as your quote goes...it would imply, that Berg was a guy, who thought to manipulate people & thought about the techniques...this is debatable.
Some people do very wicked things & preplan them, others do even more wicked things & are not premeditating their evil actions...so tell me, to which group does Berg belong or is it at times, when the group was in full swing, a combination
of both....back to the example:Did Berg plan on using verse-memorisation as a tool to manipulate people?
I personally think, that's a bit far fetched & belongs in the range of fantasy & personal preference.I listen to any of that psychololgist/sociologist "crap", when witnesses testify, that Berg had books in the fifties/sixties..or earlier...how to manipulate people....for me it's just more Biblical to say, that he got uplifted in pride & the rest we know.
So I don't know, what you like about that quote?
And the part of speaking in tongues...well, you'll have some readers here...not necessarily me...who'd probably find that offensive...do you know what I mean?Just ask any charismatics in your neighborhood ...and also please explain to me how you'd distinguish "good tongues" from "bad tongues"?...the brethren movements consider them all now as "techniques" from the pit...where are you standing?Just a question, out of curiosity.
By the way, this all so wonderful technique of quoting/reading in the context is at times a bit "blunt", as you'd have to take the whole Bible & may be some historic facts as greater context, to understand a passage & some might be anyway closed to us...by the way if you've read by chance something about Origenes - although he's a bit anathema now in the catholic church - he had various levels of meanings of a Biblical text for the reader in mind, the historical, the moral & the theological/allegorical aspect...which can all also be quite interwoven...I'd say...
That's why I take quite a bit exception to what Mr. Don said...it's sometimes the direct context which really seems to do it...but not always...& what Rev.3:20 has to do it, I don't know...may be Mr.Don explains what door the Lord could have meant...it's critique without any good alternative & substance.I hardly discard one option without knowing for pretty sure, that another version is much better ...so please enlighten me....by the way, the book of revelation had quite a hard time to be accepted already in the first few centuries A.D.
Just to say, the book has a longstanding history of being (mis)"understood"...by the way was Peter in Rome or really in Babylon?(Or even in both places or none of them?)Know what I mean?Please, let us not give the impression, that after TF we have now unlocked all the mysteries of the Bible...If the Catholic church thinks nowadays evolution could have biologically taken place (the way I read & remember some news) it's just one of the many indications/exsamples, where the churches nowadays differ, not to speak of Mary, the saints....salvation, predestination, substituition-theory...return of Jesus...passover,"last supper" - "this is my body"
,sex, divorce & remarriage, apostleship today...payed clergy etc. etc.
So if you memorise anything from Genesis 1, do you have it clear in your mind, whether it's allegorical or literal?Right now it seems, that the catholic church is favouring the allegorical meaning more & more, though I was surprised about it...I bet you know how much the various churches differ about so many subjects...does it mean, before I memorise something, I'd have to ask some theological giant for the right meaning, lest it could be dangerous for my mind?
What's your point please???I could fill pages upon pages with different views from different christian communities...just because Mr.Don's denomination has a certain understanding of Revelations doesn't make it universal...true, that the context has to be regarded, but can the context always assure you of the right meaning?Give me a good reason for it, that Revelations 3:20 cannot be understood in the way we used to see it & how still many see it(out of TF)...give me a good, sound scriptural reasoning, that Jesus doesn't come into your heart by faith...I already gave an alternative verse one time before Eph. 3:17, but Mr. Don didn't reply then...(so I am a bit tired of the same record, the same melody, the same unreflected, undifferentiated style of argument)...either you or Mr. Don comes up with a very good detailed study of the heart of the believer...rebirth etc...
or forget it.