AssemblyBoard

If you have seen this movie I would like to get your thoughts on it. If you haven't please forgo your post.

David---

I saw the move. I found it to be very interesting, although there were parts that I found
completely ridiculous. In one part they say the early indians could not see Columbus's boats
arriving because they had never seen boats before. The medicine man could see them due
to his high intuitiveness and described what he could see---after hearing the description they
could then make out the shapes of the boats on the horizon.

But this goes against everything--the thousands of discoveries which have been made of new
species of animals, insects, etc.--if one had to be told what he was seeing before he could see
it we would be in a great deal of trouble. So, I found the movie entertaining, but could not
agree with a lot of the theories presented.

--Joe

Likewise, I have heard this explanation as to why we can't (don't) see U.F.O's.  I did learn somethings about quantum physics I didn't know about. The brain functioning stuff I learned in the Solomon books. I related the "planning my day" to experiences I had with prayer. If I give out the suggestion then I can confirm it when it happens. I think the stuff about having controle over your life through your thoughts is possible up to a point. A person can feel a lot better about themselves and their situation by thinking positively. Yet I have  seen too many people die saying things like "I am healed! I do not have cancer!"  Overall the movie is a new age comercial. A waste of time.

Dave,

I have seen it.   It is basically a Hindu evangelistic tract dressed up in "scientific" jargon.

The first scene is a display of the words, "In the beginning was the void"   The void according to Hindus, is Brahman.  The one, infinite, all-aware, impersonal being.  Everything is Brahman.

The second scene is a display of the words, "Teemng with infinite possibilities."   This is Hinduism dressed up in pseudoscience. (Quantum physics is not pseudoscience, but the interpretation they give it is.)

Think about it.  To us, "void" means nothing.  These guys are fudging.  In our universe matter and energy are the same thing in different states.  All through the universe, at the sub-atomic level, particles are "popping" into and out of existence as mattergy changes its state.

They are subtly introducing the concept of a meta-universe that has the same characteristics as our universe, and contains multiple sub-universes, of which ours is only one.  That's what all the blather about "other realities" is about.

The problem is that this has nothing to do with physics at all.  There is absolutely no evidence that any other universes exist.  Therefore, this is a metaphysical concept.   In fact, even if there are other universes it has been known since the 1930's that we could never know it.  Observers within our universe cannot observe anything that might be outside of it.

They are taking something that has been observed, that individual quantum entities behave in unpredictable ways, and are extrapolating it onto all of reality.  Hence, the claim of infinite possibilities.

They also take the fact that observing quantum entities changes their potential behavior and extrapolate that into the nonsense that we "create our own realities".

The problem with these ideas is that although there are uncertainty principles at the quantum level of reality, when aggregated into atoms, molecules, and so on up the chain to the macro world which we experience, they follow the laws of statistical probability.

That is why the chair you are sitting in as you type, which contains 3-5 quadrillion quantum entities, isn't jumping around the room, or through the wall of your house.  Its behavior is highly probabalistic to the level of being virtually deterministic under the laws of physics.

The stuff about cells and hormones, etc., again contains much truth, but it is extrapolated into nonsense.  What they are really doing is trying to prop up their belief that all of human experience is maya, illusion.  You and I are nothing but "bubbles" in the great sea of being, and we are, as the movie says, "one".

This is pure Hindu monism.   Hence, the movie is a Hindu evangelistic tract.

Fact is, the universe had a beginning.   What Hindus call "God" once didn't exist.   So, Christians ask the question, "Where did it come from?"

It certainly didn't come from a "void teeming with infinite possibilities."   This is nothing more than Deepok(ets) Chopra and Dwayne Dyer on steroids.

Thomas Maddux

Just a quick question. Dave I hope you don't mind I did'nt see the Movie. Do any of you practice Yoga? I know alot of the gyms offer Yoga classes and alot of Christians go and don't seem to have a problem with the basic class, yet after their bored with that level they seem to advance people to the next level with more religion "third eye blind" type of thing. I think it gives Satan a foot-hold or a toe in the door. I've never taken Yoga and have no interest in taking these "exercise classes". So any of you Yogi followers or Hindu's in regard to P.E.?  Thanks Summer.

   I took yoga for about a year and I was not moved to go onto a "higher level"  (I found it helpful in that it improved my flexability and help me forget all of my current stress.) I have no problem with another persons' religion, yet this movie was deceptive. 1. Its main purpose was to teach religion yet it wasn't advertised as such. Just like the Assembly MTT one year. We use to go around the parks up in Seatle and tell people, "Would you like to come and see a sketch board presentation?" People would get very angry after they realized they were duped into listening to a sermonette! 2. It jumped from physics to brain function to religion without clearly, logicly, reasonably explaining itself. I have heard hundreds of Christians do the same sort of thing. (I hope this doesn't offend you but if you are honest you will admit it goes on.) Just to be fair I will say I have listened to many sermons by Billy Graham (spelling?) and others who have  been vey clear to the point. I have no  problem with questions.

This is one of the reasons why Christians  are so despised by some folk. There is something unseemly about people calling themselve Christians who engage in conduct whose ultimate purpose is to manipultate and mislead others. George was good at it, and evidently so were many of his disciples.
This is not the way God does business, nor should we. A few weeks back we were talking about transparency and I used that word advisedly. Once I find that person will purposely and deliberately twist and misrepresent reality in a pursiuit of whatever their agenda, I find it impossible to ever trust such a person. Of course one should always try to be polite, just not stupid. There are some "Christians" you ought not to trust.
Verne

Dave,  My first thought was Oh I'm sure they won alot of converts tricking them with guile. Gee don't you want to be like them ? I think it's better to be honest in outreach. I know if some stranger came up to me in a park and invited me to a something I'd say No right off, let alone a "scetch-board presentation" don't know what that is. Guess that's why it says," he who wins souls is wise".  Summer.

There are quite a few string theoreticians and  also quite a few mainstram astro-physicists that would disagree with you Tom. These guys are as hard-nosed as they come so far as mathematical rigour in science is concerned. They used to also pooh-pooh the concepy of multi-diemnsional reality as nonsense. They are now changing their tune because of some of the findings of string theory. Some of the predictions of the theory are , as you point out, impossib le to prove with the current state of knowledge. Not all are though...
Verne

Vern, Summer I quite agree. In the assembly I really hated the practice of deception.

Honest question: "Who are you people?" 

Assembly answer: "We are just Christians."

Honest question: "No" "I mean, Who are you?"

Assembly (run around the bush) answer: "We are just Christians!" 

Really David were just Christians (just kidding!). Well don't worry it seems with time assm memories start fading out, course I don't know how long it takes for someone in for 15 years. It is nice to see Christians who don't have the assm hang-ups.   :-*   Summer.

This is what George taught us. He knew the things he was doing in secret from the very begining were not normal. For that reaason he went to a lot of trouble to have assembly people emphasize the fact that were just "plain" Christians. In the minds of most of us who did not know the kind of man George really was, that is exactly what we considered ourselves to be and we were oh so proud of it.
This is one of the ways George used the innocnece and trust of so many to camouflage his own perversion. Dave I don't know if you were in the inner circle or not but it is interesting to hear you state that the deception was obvious to you. This is the point I have been trying to make all along.
You could not be a normal human being, much less a person with any kind of relationship with God, who could not tell that something was wrong with the way we were doing things.
When I left, one of the things I told the Lord was that I am not sure what it is is not right, but something was. I still remember the great peace I felt over my decision to leave that awful place.
Verne

Just FYI:  I don't think the rational behind being "just Christians" was a plot to deceive.  The thinking goes back to the very beginning of Plymouth Brethren Assemblies.  According to H.A. Ironside's history (from memory and it has been over 20 years since I read it) when the early PB founders became Christians, they were surprised that they were required to join a particular denomination chuch.  Why did they have to decide?  Why couldn't they just meet simply as Christians?  Why couldn't we be "just Christians"?  This was the basic idea behind the beginning of the Brethren gatherings.

The "just Christians" idea was to take a stand against denominationalism which supposedly divides the church and to model the correct way Christians are to gather - unto Christ with nothing else.

In reality, I think we just because another sect (even more divisive because we were exclusive) and I also am not convinced that denominations demonstrate a disunified body.

Dave's right, this practice of "Were just Christians" was around in the Plymouth Bretheren Assembly I attended. Knowing H.A. was a very progressive thinking P.B. I am sure his thoughts behind 'We are just Christians" had more to do with the "Non-sectarianism" ideals of One Body or Church. (what we proffessed but in truth practiced the opposite.) Yet while I was with Geftakys and someone asked me the question, "who are you people?"  I knew that the brothers wanted me to say, "We're just Christians!" and leave out a few details such as "We have to subject our entire lives to our leaders!" "We can't date without permision!"  "We have to attend the all night of prayer unless we're sick!" "Masterbation is O.K. as long as you don't think about sex!" "And Oh' by the way" "That book, "Churches that Abuse" is a lie!" "don't read it!" "So"  "Do you want to come out our meetings?"

I remember occasionally their would be someone at work who'd say," oh I'm a christian too." Well that just was'nt good enough  ::) unless you were in the assm you most likely had a meager, bare, salvation. How wrong that kind of thinking is. Alot of big Ego's in the place.

Folks,

Regarding the "Just a Christian" claim. 

During the 19th century there was a strong current of "restorationism" in the Protestant church. 

There have been such periods all through Church history.  In the 19th century the spread of literacy, the availability of affordable Bibles, and the rising tide of religious and intellectual freedom let to the trickle becoming a river, so to speak.

I grew up in a restorationist church.  I was "just a Christian" long before I ever heard of GG.  There were millions of "just Christians" before GG was born.   

I grew up in the Christian Church/Church of Christ churches that came out of the Campbellite movement that began about 1825.

Believe it or not, Mormonism is actually a splinter off of restorationism!  They believe that God revived the office of the apostle and gave Smith the true story of the early Church.  They see themselves as holding to the true apostolic teaching!

Of course, they are heretical...but restorationist none the less.

In fact, one of Smith's most loyal followers, I think it was Parley Pratt, was converted to Mormonism out of the Campbellite movement. 

So, whatever GG may or may not have done, the "just Christians" idea was not some scheme he dreamed up to get what he wanted.  He learned it from the PB's.

Thomas Maddux

So where does the no accounting of the Lords Treasury system come into play? Is that P.B. too? I would think the leader would want to be like Paul in that Paul kept his Tent making job and recieved some gifts. If GG wanted to be a real good example to the brethren he could of kept his Insurance salesmen job and maybe a gift of a ticket for travels no need for hotel money he stayed with brethren right. And if he insisted the "work" load would be impossible to keep his f.t. job, then at least an acoounting  would of been in order, an appointed treasurer to at least confirm amounts recieved and paid out say they took in 2m GG would of recieved say 1.7 m his sons say100k each 40k to 2 full-time "workers" and say 20k to the work here and abroad.! I know they paid for the building rents, but does anyone  know what else was purchased? ? If he really wanted a good Testimony he'd of kept emaculent records to show to anyone wanting to know where their tithes and offerings were being spent!  Summer.

Summer,

Hindu's believe that only one thing exists.  Brahman, the all encompassing, infinite, impersonal Being.  Individual souls are merely parts of Brahman that have somehow lost their consciousness of their unity with infinite being.

So, according to these folks, our human experience of personhood is a sort of "dream" that we need to wake up from.  It is "maya", illusion.

They believe that at the roots of our being we are Atman which is Brahman.   This is what Hinduistic New Age folks like Shirly Maclain mean when they say "I am god, you are god."

The goal of Yoga is to penetrate the layers of our illusory personaity and unite our consciousness with Brahman, so that we can realize our Atman-Brahman unity.

Of course, zillions of ignorant westerners just think it is a way to relax.  And, some forms of Yoga do use stretching exercises that are beneficial to bodily health.   But, since our bodies don't really exist, why bother?   ::)

Thomas Maddux

Once again Summer, GG relied on PB teachings and traditions.

If you will remember, whenever he talked about them he always said that they had "lost their vision".

Modern PB's keep the same records and accounting that other churches do.

But GG adopted the most extreme, mystical traditions of the early PB's and saw them as the "vision" he wanted to follow. 

He had some OT bible verses that he relied on.  He brushed the teaching of Paul aside on this basis.

Not a good idea, but certainly not original to GG.

Thomas Maddux

Although it says, "Thou shalt not muzzel the ox while he treads out the corn and he who preaches the gospel should make his living from the gospel" from I Cor 9. The lack of accountability is evidence this was/is a con-job pure and simple, he'd of never done any of this with accountability, let alone for Free!  Summer.

Summer,

George ascribed to the Pietistic/Deeper Life/Plymouth Brethren "typological" interpretation of the Bible.  So, the OT verses were frequently considered to give better guidance to modern Christians than the NT.

If you read 2 Kings 12:9-15, you will see GG's model for finances.

In verse 9 you have the "box", the "Lord's Treasury".

In verse 10 you have the counting that the LB's did each Sunday night.

In verse 11 you see that the money was "weighed out into the hands of those who did the work, who had the oversight of the house of the Lord; and they paid it out to the carpenters and the builders who worked on the house of the Lord."

In verse 15 it says, "Moreover, they did not require an accounting from the men in whose hand they gave the money to pay those who did the work, for they dealt faithfully."

He taught this openly.   I heard him preach on it a number of times.

He once told me some stories of some pretty petty things that he saw and experienced in his younger days at the hands of church boards.   Elders demanding minute accountability from poorly paid church employees, humiliating and pressuring them.

In the early days of the "work" and the assembly in Fullerton, there wasn't really a significant income from the "box".
Maybe $200-300 a month at most.

Betty pretty much supported him during the early years.  The big $$$ came later after other assemblies were established and after people graduated from college and started careers.

He was making good $$ at the time I met him in 1969.  But he was doing Christian work "for free".

When Tim and David were little boys, GG was involved in gospel outreach to Mormons.  Several times a year he would leave on Friday night, drive to Salt Lake City, preach on Saturday and Sunday, then drive home for work on Monday.

The first time I ever saw him he was working with International Student Ministries.  "For free".

George has fallen and has sinned greviously, and has continued in his sin for a long time.

But Jesus admonished us to "judge righteous judgement."   

Thomas Maddux

Tom, What may have worked for temple repairs with ancient Jews in B.C. isnt going to work in the 21st century. It says they were "Faithful" the Assm situation with GG was'nt the case he could'nt even be faithful to his wife way before it started as history has shown. Granted most of us on board have done plenty of Christian work for Free, and are continually soliicitated to do volunteer work for free, so GG did some free work I stand corrected on that one. Well I don't agree with any of these Assm practices and it really does'nt matter to me I left along time ago because I did'nt like it.  Summer.

Summer,

I agree with you. 

My point was that the way GG read the Bible, (which btw is the way many who post here STILL read their bibles), was subjective and based on a false mysticism.

Within GG's interpretive system....he was right!   

My other point was that although GG has fallen into wicked behavior, let's rebuke and condemn what he actually did or is still doing!

Thomas Maddux

  Last night Law and Order did their revised version of the recent tragedy that took place in the Children of God cult. When I read and hear about these kind of tragedy's I have no problem understanding how they can happen. While in Seattle a former member of "The Way" attanded the VBS. She told me that "The Way" disbanded just like the assembly because of sexual failure amongst the leaders. I allso have a friend who is a former Member ofthe LDS church. We have a tremendous connection in that we both can totally relate to one another.

Tom,
Could you go into a little more detail how many still read the Bible GG style. In hindsight I can see how many bonehead decisions have been / can be made applying the Bible this way.
For me personally the Book of Proverbs has been a great practical blessing to my life.

I have to say that my many conversations with you on this subject have been quite helpful.
While you and I probably disagree as to the nature and relevance of Biblical typology ( I get the impression that you think all typology is mysticism), I have developed a healthy respect for your point of how this can be abused. In fact I find myself caring less about what folk say about spiritual matters. Vain talkers abound. I am mosre interested in the kind of lives we live. There is something particularly offensive about people pretending to handle deep spiritual things while living in a state of defilement and departure from God. I must say that I tend to agree with you in the main on this for I think it best to err on the side of caution when it comes to stuff like this.
Verne
p.s anybody got an explananton for the "blood of the covenant" or the "blood of circumcision"?
I was really looking forward to hearig those clearly explained.   :)

Fair enough Tom. I'm certainly not perfect and have alot of Grace and Mercy from the Lord. Nothings too difficult for the Lord the final judgements are in his hand. Summer.

Verne,


My explanation would be that I wouldn't want to sniff the shoes of the person who used those terms.

 ::)

Thomas Maddux

The best example would be to read Sondra's "expository" posts.

Thomas Maddux

summer et al,

The nature of being deceived is that one is convinced in one's mind that one is doing the right thing, or at least has not done the wrong thing.  George possibly justified "what he did" with verses like, "To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled. Titus 1:15".  It is mind-boggling that he succeeded in convincing his victims and that his victims even reamined silent after the fact.

Recently I went out for coffee and fellowship with someone from my church.  I do not usually talk about my assembly experience as most people cannot relate to it, unless it has something to do with the discussion.  This person asked and I briefly mentioned that the leader had been immoral over the years.  She immediately was able to pinpoint it as a "deliberate attempt to deceive" what took me months to figure out.  We did not disuss it much further as I am not looking to create a support group environment.

We became "... dull of hearing." Heb 5:11
She was mature and able to discern.
Heb 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.

Marcia

Indeed! Nor would I advise any unnecessary exposure, so to speak. :)
Verne

While that is often true, it does not necessarily always hold true. Part of the condition of deception is knwoingly doing the wrong thing, but with the secret expectation that one will get away with it. This was clearly Georges's condition. (come to think of it he did get away with it for quite some time did he not?)

 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Verne

Right Verne we don't want to presume upon the grace and mercy of God. In my origional post I meant to say I've had alot of mercy and grace. (There's alot of crimminals who would'nt of done the crime if they'd known they'd get caught.) Look at Jonah with Ninevah he knew the Lord was good, gracious merciful so he fled to Tarshish, but God caught him in the great fish and helped him change his mind. God was merciful to Ninevah and Jonah was very angry to the point of death, yet God was still good to him.  Summer.

Finally..... a very refreshing post.

Thank you Tom, for stating it clearly. It's been a while since we heard that.

Moonflower

Verne,

You said:

While what you say is true, one must remember that the "findings" of string theory are purely theoretical.  The math, they say, is "elegant".

However, there are lots of string theory doubting Thomases in the world of physics and cosmology.

I discussed this with Hugh Ross.  He told me:
1. He thinks some of the early findings of string theory are true, such as the 10 dimensional universe.
2. He thinks that metaphysical speculation has entered in.
3. There is no way to test the theory.  Once the universe developed to a level that could sustain intelligent life, no observations of other possible universes is feasable.

My Cosmology professor, Dr. John Bloom, is in agreement.

BTW, I graduated with my M.A. in Christian Apologetics on May 27.  :D

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Congratulations my Friend!
Keep the faith!!  :)  :)  :)
Verne

Tom, Congradulations!  I am hopeing to start my masters in history this Fall. Are you going to teach???

George deliberately deceived us.  We were the deceived ones.

Last night we were studying 1 Tim 5 in my cell group study.
NASB
1Tim 5:19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.
1Tim 5:20 Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also may be fearful of sinning.
NIV
1Tim 5:19 Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses.
1Tim 5:20 Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.

When George was to be exposed and excommunicated he convinced those in SF/Sac that the brethren were not handling the matter Scripturally.  The interesting thing is that just prior to his exposure he stepped down from being an elder so that he would not qualify for public rebuke.  The other interesting thing is that years ago when he was made an elder and he went from assembly to assembly "appointing elders in every city" Tit 1:5, he actually put himself in a position where a 'single' sister's accusation against him would not be entertained, on a Scriptural basis of course.  Our leaders enabled George and were not able to be effective shepherds because they had become so brainwashed themselves.


 :P

Marcia

Probably a bit overstated as he was probably by himself or alone with Betty when this momentous event took place.