Intro of an ex "Church Kid"

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by kappagamma

I had the thought recently, based on my own experience, that if there has been as significant an amount of damage as I believe has been done to “church kids” in regard to the reasonable development of the human soul (mind, emotion, will) and if you believe that the soul and spirit are so closely connected then I would think it would make sense that, until such time real healing of the humanity of the individual has taken place, a genuine access of the spiritual realm could be difficult. Not impossible sure, but could be difficult. I think of it as scar tissue that can restrict movement and activity. I don’t know for others but I think for me there is a crying out of “look at me as a person” “see me as who I am” “care about my humanity” and if the craving is for that and you are only fed something else then eventually the proverbial stomach recoils at what is offered.

I will say though that jumping into this forum has perhaps sparked a small amount of seeking that I have not had in many, many years. I almost bought a Bible the other day but am torn between versions at the moment

I completely relate. That care and love for the individual is absent in the LC. That kind of love and recognition we all long for. You come to be in a place where you are devalued. But you have to know that Father God values you so highly.....so highly His Son was our sacrifice.....the god of the LC is a complete misrepresentation being fed to all its' members....a different christ of a different gospel. Don't let it keep you from coming to the real Jesus, whose love is proven in the fact of His laying down His own life.

On a side note, I really like the KJVER. That's the king James version easy reader....you might also check out pastor Gene Kim and see his videos on why they stick to KJV exclusively. Pretty shocking how modern versions are stripping 'the Lord' out of the word. And other proof texts of Jesus divinity. Also the verses about the three witnesses on earth and the three witnesses in heaven....these verses present a picture of our 3in1 God, and most modern translations leave out a whole verse.....it's taking away, from what God ordered not be tampered with. May the true Christ draw you, restore you, love you and care for your humanity! Be blessed!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

On a side note, I really like the KJVER. That's the king James version easy reader....you might also check out pastor Gene Kim and see his videos on why they stick to KJV exclusively. Pretty shocking how modern versions are stripping 'the Lord' out of the word. And other proof texts of Jesus divinity. Also the verses about the three witnesses on earth and the three witnesses in heaven....these verses present a picture of our 3in1 God, and most modern translations leave out a whole verse.....it's taking away, from what God ordered not be tampered with.

ByHisMercy, you really should examine both sides of this debate before you accept KJV exclusivity. I have confronted this debate for decades, and it pains me how much bad information about the Textus Receptus is used to create modern day superstitions.

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

ByHisMercy, you really should examine both sides of this debate before you accept KJV exclusivity. I have confronted this debate for decades, and it pains me how much bad information about the Textus Receptus is used to create modern day superstitions.

You are right to say I have only looked at one side of the debate. I took each version I had on my shelves and compared probably 15 or 20 verses against the KJV. I was really shocked at the differences, and what they did to alter the word.

The other side for me, was a testimony I saw and heard from a catholic-raised lady. She had an encounter with Jesus that converted her. Part of that story was her relating how one of her excuses to the Lord for her unbelief was the alteration of the word, the differences in translations, and her distrust of His word in these modern records. He told her it was His responsibility to uphold His truth. His word will not return to Him void! So I believe into His promise, and His ability to feed the milk and meat of the word where He intends it to go.

But after comparing the NKJV, NASB, ESV, (don't even get me started on the NIV, the Message bible) verse by verse to the KJV, I was convinced enough to get rid of all my other versions. I would be surprised to see my opinion change, however, that being said, I am open to learning more and looking at both sides, especially considering your remarks. I am sorry this grieves you, brother. What do you think about opening a separate thread on this subject, here? Or is there one already?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

You are right to say I have only looked at one side of the debate. I took each version I had on my shelves and compared probably 15 or 20 verses against the KJV. I was really shocked at the differences, and what they did to alter the word.

The other side for me, was a testimony I saw and heard from a catholic-raised lady. She had an encounter with Jesus that converted her. Part of that story was her relating how one of her excuses to the Lord for her unbelief was the alteration of the word, the differences in translations, and her distrust of His word in these modern records. He told her it was His responsibility to uphold His truth. His word will not return to Him void! So I believe into His promise, and His ability to feed the milk and meat of the word where He intends it to go.

But after comparing the NKJV, NASB, ESV, (don't even get me started on the NIV, the Message bible) verse by verse to the KJV, I was convinced enough to get rid of all my other versions. I would be surprised to see my opinion change, however, that being said, I am open to learning more and looking at both sides, especially considering your remarks. I am sorry this grieves you, brother. What do you think about opening a separate thread on this subject, here? Or is there one already?

ByHisMercy, the KJV in not the biblical standard by which you should compare other versions. Let me discuss a little of its history. On the one hand, King James assembled the best scholars of his day, the era of classical Shakesperean English. On the other hand, King James himself determined that his version would forever be the official "Authorized" English version. It was a work dedicated to the king in order to exalt the king of England for all time. Since the kings of England were the head of the church of England, they could outlaw other translations, which they did until the late 19th century. Let me quote some of the original introduction to the KJV:

To the most high and mightie Prince, James by the grace of God King of Great Britaine, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c. The translators of The Bible, wish Grace, Mercie, and Peace, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
reat and manifold were the blessings (most dread Soveraigne) which Almighty GOD, the Father of all Mercies, bestowed upon us the people of ENGLAND, when first he sent your Majesties Royall person to rule and raigne over us. For whereas it was the expectation of many, who wished not well unto our ZION, that upon the setting of that bright Occidentall Starre Queene ELIZABETH of most happy memory, some thicke and palpable cloudes of darkenesse would so have overshadowed this land, that men should have bene in doubt which way they were to walke, and that it should hardly be knowen, who was to direct the unsetled State: the appearance of your MAJESTIE, as of the Sunne in his strength, instantly dispelled those supposed and surmised mists, and gave unto all that were well affected, exceeding cause of comfort; especially when we beheld the government established in your HIGHNESSE, and your hopefull Seed, by an undoubted Title, and this also accompanied with Peace and tranquillitie, at home and abroad.

I have always found the ego and exaltation of King James to be a little sickening personally.

Thus, all translations of God's word should not be compared to the KJV, but to the best Greek Manuscript which scholarly Textural Critiques have provided, in lieu of the original autographs by the writers of the N.T. Concerning the N.T., God wrote in Greek. So every Bible Version we have in English is at best a translation from the Greek. Jesus Himself authorized translations of His word since He actually quote from the Greek Septuagint, and not from the Hebrew Scriptures.

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

ByHisMercy
I have always found the ego and exaltation of King James to be a little sickening personally.

Me too, Ohio. I always rip that dedication page out. The holy word belongs to God first, then was gifted to every person by Him. It is for us all, and His testimony to us.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

You are right to say I have only looked at one side of the debate. I took each version I had on my shelves and compared probably 15 or 20 verses against the KJV. I was really shocked at the differences, and what they did to alter the word.

The other side for me, was a testimony I saw and heard from a catholic-raised lady. She had an encounter with Jesus that converted her. Part of that story was her relating how one of her excuses to the Lord for her unbelief was the alteration of the word, the differences in translations, and her distrust of His word in these modern records. He told her it was His responsibility to uphold His truth. His word will not return to Him void! So I believe into His promise, and His ability to feed the milk and meat of the word where He intends it to go.

But after comparing the NKJV, NASB, ESV, (don't even get me started on the NIV, the Message bible) verse by verse to the KJV, I was convinced enough to get rid of all my other versions. I would be surprised to see my opinion change, however, that being said, I am open to learning more and looking at both sides, especially considering your remarks. I am sorry this grieves you, brother. What do you think about opening a separate thread on this subject, here? Or is there one already?

According to Paul :

KJV : "The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life
ESV : "For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."
NET : "for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

Strong's :
- kill:
ἀποκτείνω
apokteinō
ap-ok-ti'-no
From G575 and κτείνω kteinō (to slay); to kill outright; figuratively to destroy: - put to death, kill, slay.

- spirit :
πνεῦμα
pneuma
pnyoo'-mah
From G4154; a current of air, that is, breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively a spirit, that is, (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, daemon, or (divine) God, Christ’s spirit, the Holy spirit: - ghost, life, spirit (-ual, -ually), mind. Compare G5590.

- life :
ζωοποιέω
zōopoieō
dzo-op-oy-eh'-o
From the same as G2226 and G4160; to (re-) vitalize (literally or figuratively): - make alive, give life, quicken.

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by awareness

According to Paul :

KJV : "The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life
ESV : "For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."
NET : "for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

Strong's :
- kill:
ἀποκτείνω
apokteinō
ap-ok-ti'-no
From G575 and κτείνω kteinō (to slay); to kill outright; figuratively to destroy: - put to death, kill, slay.

- spirit :
πνεῦμα
pneuma
pnyoo'-mah
From G4154; a current of air, that is, breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively a spirit, that is, (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, daemon, or (divine) God, Christ’s spirit, the Holy spirit: - ghost, life, spirit (-ual, -ually), mind. Compare G5590.

- life :
ζωοποιέω
zōopoieō
dzo-op-oy-eh'-o
From the same as G2226 and G4160; to (re-) vitalize (literally or figuratively): - make alive, give life, quicken.

I have experienced the Lord as breath, breeze....physically. Once upon a time, He came to me when I needed a friend, needed a Father. When I was a little child, down on my knees, asking for Him. There is no God other than God the Father of Jesus!!

[aron]

If I was an unbeliever reading some of these posts I'd probably say, "I'm so glad I'm not a Christian!" Who wants to end up arguing over textual variants! Not that these posters are, but much of Christian discussion is about fluff. Vague, unprovable concepts, small data sets, ignorance and bias. I can still hear Witness Lee saying, "This means that" and, "This shows us that" and, "We must see that"... Assumption piled onto assumption.

"So subjective is my Christ in me..." yes so subjective. And who else would want your subjectivity as their de facto objective reality? No thanks!

Not speaking for kappagamma, but this was her thread, once.

Originally Posted by kappagamma

I was required to attend every Sunday, as well summer school of truths, conferences, and even semi-annuals when I was older. I lived in a sisters house a few years in college and attended FTT-Anaheim for two years. I would say that I was marginally in the CL until the FTT. It was there that most of the issues that I had came to the forefront and I, from that point, couldn't ignore it anymore and made my eventual (but quiet) exit. To me it was just another religion and, having been taught my whole life religion was bad... well, there you have it. Really intrigued to know if there are others here who have been through the FTT and found it to remove a veil rather than adding one?

I think this is a valid objection and should be taken on face value. If the Lord's Recovery (LR) teaches that ALL religion is bad, and an ex "Church Kid" realizes that there's nothing in the LR for them, then why not ditch religion altogether?

1. Nobody can prove God exists.
2. Nobody can prove that God raised Jesus from the dead.
3. Nobody can prove that the blood of Jesus does cleanse you from sin.
4. Nobody can prove that there is consciousness after death, which needs forgiveness to avoid suffering, torment etc.

I mean, if the whole thing ends up arguing over declensions and the meaning of the word "nature", then why not just chuck it all? I think that's a pretty good argument.

In my case, I am a Christian because I chose to believe in God (a universe with God somehow seemed 'warmer' than a universe without God [sorry]), and I thought the narrative figure of 'Jesus' still remains the most compelling story of human history. If it wasn't true, I wish it were. So I believe.

The "church" I am less sanguine about. But Jesus as the route to God seems attractive to me. Sorta like your first teen-age crush - you can't really explain it but it just feels right. But why impose that on others!?! Either they get it or they don't. If they don't get it, let them be at peace! I mean, really! The "gospel" should not be about us imposing our neediness on others. Most of the LR-type "gospel" I see is just that. People "need" recruits because their masters at HQ are thumping the drum - revenues are down, growth is flat - go out there and sell, sell, sell! So they go out and impose themselves on weak-willed souls.

The gospel should be a display of power - the same power that raised Jesus from the dead. It should be so obvious. If there's any curtain-pulling moment where the Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz is shown to be just a con man, well so be it (I think of WL's phone call to Sal Benoit - "It's MY business what I do with YOUR money!"). This includes Paul, Jesus, Peter, David, Moses. Everyone is on the dock. If Christianity is a sham, let's have it out on the table.

The gospel should also be a display of peace. Not speeches and rhetoric, but peace. Speech can be used, but speech can never displace peace. The gospel should be about love, patience, kindness etc. You know all the words. Get a Thesaurus. They are all there. Lastly it should be about joy. If I am unhappy because you're not a Christian, what kind of unbalanced, co-dependent 'happiness' am I seeking? Again, the majority of the Christian "gospel" I've been exposed to thus far lies in this vein: If you don't do what I want, then God won't be happy.

Oh, really!?! Get stuffed.

Jesus I'm still interested in. The rest, ...

[kappagamma]

Originally Posted by aron

Not speaking for kappagamma, but this was her thread, once.

I think this is a valid objection and should be taken on face value. If the Lord's Recovery (LR) teaches that ALL religion is bad, and an ex "Church Kid" realizes that there's nothing in the LR for them, then why not ditch religion altogether?

In my case, I am a Christian because I chose to believe in God (a universe with God somehow seemed 'warmer' than a universe without God [sorry]), and I thought the narrative figure of 'Jesus' still remains the most compelling story of human history. If it wasn't true, I wish it were. So I believe.

So. To be honest... there are a lot of posters in here that sound just like LC people. Same flavors. Just from a different store. It's ok. The dynamic experiences of a generation or two of people who CHOSE the LC were real to them and are valid and meaningful. Those (often) are not the experiences of "church kids" who choose to leave. Imagine being raised in that system without any of those dynamic experiences? How would you feel about Christianity? Being told your whole life this is reality and not seeing anything remotely real?

Also I will say that there's a lot of what sounds like victim blaming. If "church kids" leave I'd say that's the fault of the parents/CL society for not providing whatever it was that drew the first gen group to Jesus in the first place. If you aren't providing what drew you to your children you're feeding them something else. That's not the kids fault.
I regretted writing the bit about choosing a bible version because I figured it would result in a thread deviation. It's ironic because as a "church kid" I have a lot of bible knowledge, know a lot about different versions, and being quite a bit younger, know that I can find them all online. I am not putting down anyones responses though. The input is truly appreciated. Really, I'm not knocking it. I just meant that I was maybe willing to have one out on my bedside table and, since they cost a fair amount to have a nice one, I'm being picky about which new one I actually purchase. And, also being a "church kid" wouldn't you know I already own a few They just have lots of memories tied to them that I don't necessarily want sleeping next to me.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by aron

"So subjective is my Christ in me..." yes so subjective. And who else would want your subjectivity as their de facto objective reality? No thanks!

Not speaking for kappagamma, but this was her thread, once.

I think this is a valid objection and should be taken on face value. If the Lord's Recovery (LR) teaches that ALL religion is bad, and an ex "Church Kid" realizes that there's nothing in the LR for them, then why not ditch religion altogether?

1. Nobody can prove God exists.
2. Nobody can prove that God raised Jesus from the dead.
3. Nobody can prove that the blood of Jesus does cleanse you from sin.
4. Nobody can prove that there is consciousness after death, which needs forgiveness to avoid suffering, torment etc.

I mean, if the whole thing ends up arguing over declensions and the meaning of the word "nature", then why not just chuck it all? I think that's a pretty good argument.

In my case, I am a Christian because I chose to believe in God (a universe with God somehow seemed 'warmer' than a universe without God [sorry]), and I thought the narrative figure of 'Jesus' still remains the most compelling story of human history. If it wasn't true, I wish it were. So I believe.

It's true that God cannot be proven to exist objectively. He's spirit and invisible, but His qualities can be seen in creation. The LC's however solely rely on subjectivity. This is dangerous in that it allows any feeling, spiritual experience, or epiphany to be defined as being from God as the individual sees fit when in reality that isn't always the case.

God's truth is neither objective nor subjective, it's self-evident and absolute. God is only provable on an individual level but His revelation to us is always the same. Outwardly, you may not have a Saul to Damascus experience but inwardly the same savior and Son is revealed and imprinted on our hearts. The LC's, being cut off from the Lord because of spiritual pride, learned and used mysticism by their own will to pierce the spiritual veil. By this, another Jesus came through; a mysterious, gnostic, and subjective Christ and not the approachable, humble, meek, and lowly Jesus that preached to the poor, fed the hungry, and healed the lepers. If you desire to be a spiritual giant and have a ministry with unique "revelation" that no one else possesses, this is what will come about. You'll be given an exclusive and esoteric Christ, which is no Christ at all.

I remember having a conversation with Evangelical about whether belief alone is enough for an individual's salvation. His argument was that even demons believe in Jesus so it's not enough. The mistake he made, however, was equating the belief of demons that causes fear and trembling to the type of belief that is available to us which is the belief that's an entrusting. This is the type of belief that leads to salvation. Not only do you have to believe that the bible is true you have to trust what is written in it. It's a deep conviction within the heart.

The LC's have cultivated such an atmosphere of mistrust, especially with the current climate that LSM vs GLA creates, it's a miracle that anyone can leave with the ability to trust intact. I believe this is the case for many that have left the LC's and I have no doubt this experience taints and hinders their faith in God. Yet God takes the brunt of our misplaced faith.

There are men and ministries out there that are in right standing with God and can lead you to the Jesus of scripture. I do want to say to kappagamma and those that left the LC, that even if you have totally lost trust in men and ministries altogether you can approach God directly through the mediator himself, Jesus Christ. Don't give up on him!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

If I was an unbeliever reading some of these posts I'd probably say, "I'm so glad I'm not a Christian!" Who wants to end up arguing over textual variants! Not that these posters are, but much of Christian discussion is about fluff. Vague, unprovable concepts, small data sets, ignorance and bias. I can still hear Witness Lee saying, "This means that" and, "This shows us that" and, "We must see that"... Assumption piled onto assumption.

"So subjective is my Christ in me..." yes so subjective. And who else would want your subjectivity as their de facto objective reality? No thanks!

Not speaking for kappagamma, but this was her thread, once.

I think this is a valid objection and should be taken on face value. If the Lord's Recovery (LR) teaches that ALL religion is bad, and an ex "Church Kid" realizes that there's nothing in the LR for them, then why not ditch religion altogether?

1. Nobody can prove God exists.
2. Nobody can prove that God raised Jesus from the dead.
3. Nobody can prove that the blood of Jesus does cleanse you from sin.
4. Nobody can prove that there is consciousness after death, which needs forgiveness to avoid suffering, torment etc.

I mean, if the whole thing ends up arguing over declensions and the meaning of the word "nature", then why not just chuck it all? I think that's a pretty good argument.

In my case, I am a Christian because I chose to believe in God (a universe with God somehow seemed 'warmer' than a universe without God [sorry]), and I thought the narrative figure of 'Jesus' still remains the most compelling story of human history. If it wasn't true, I wish it were. So I believe.

The "church" I am less sanguine about. But Jesus as the route to God seems attractive to me. Sorta like your first teen-age crush - you can't really explain it but it just feels right. But why impose that on others!?! Either they get it or they don't. If they don't get it, let them be at peace! I mean, really! The "gospel" should not be about us imposing our neediness on others. Most of the LR-type "gospel" I see is just that. People "need" recruits because their masters at HQ are thumping the drum - revenues are down, growth is flat - go out there and sell, sell, sell! So they go out and impose themselves on weak-willed souls.

The gospel should be a display of power - the same power that raised Jesus from the dead. It should be so obvious. If there's any curtain-pulling moment where the Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz is shown to be just a con man, well so be it (I think of WL's phone call to Sal Benoit - "It's MY business what I do with YOUR money!"). This includes Paul, Jesus, Peter, David, Moses. Everyone is on the dock. If Christianity is a sham, let's have it out on the table.

The gospel should also be a display of peace. Not speeches and rhetoric, but peace. Speech can be used, but speech can never displace peace. The gospel should be about love, patience, kindness etc. You know all the words. Get a Thesaurus. They are all there. Lastly it should be about joy. If I am unhappy because you're not a Christian, what kind of unbalanced, co-dependent 'happiness' am I seeking? Again, the majority of the Christian "gospel" I've been exposed to thus far lies in this vein: If you don't do what I want, then God won't be happy.

Oh, really!?! Get stuffed.

Jesus I'm still interested in. The rest, ...

I love your gospel Aron. I have to share that after the LC I went thru all that you expressed about not wanting to be a Christian ; all the lack of evidence.

At one point, even, I was going around calling God deaf dumb and mute, because I was doing all the talking, while nothing from Him.

But at one point God came to me. Then I realized that it's not up to me. Which is good. Cuz if it depends on me I'm not going to make it.