All Activity

The Roman Catholic Church, according to what I've learned from them in my return to them. And if they don't know, they'll tell you they don't know or it's a mystery. But they do take their magisterium seriously. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium Agree that I don't think we need them to tell us what "Thou Shalt Not Steal" means in a general sense. However, when there's an issue that's questionable in your mind, it's highly recommended you consult a priest at least, to be covered. Presumption could be a grave sin. Something could be a grave sin that you'd think is harmless. I pray about this because there are areas of the doctrine that still are mysterious to me.

The Jerk "Wendy? I'm hooooome!" George

The Candy Man Can by Sammy Davis Jr? George

My dad had lupus. It wasn't the variety that attacked his internal organs, but it kept him out of the sun. George

This was not a satellite. And "outer space" is only about 15 miles from the surface (end of the atmosphere). George

The one claiming spiritual authority is the one who does not have it.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the "you can't understand the Bible unless we tell you what it means" position (common to both the Roman Catholic Church and twi- while twi derides the RCC for doing it, they do it too) dovetails nicely with "you need us, remember to give us money." Both groups consider themselves the final word on all things relating to God Almighty, and the rank and file better remember that. If you oppose the group, you oppose GOD ALMIGHTY and can face consequences from Him.

"I was born a poor Black child."

D'oh! Ok, scratch that one. Here's another. "Oh, who can take tomorrow?, (Who can take tomorrow?), Dip it in a dream, (Dip it in a dream), Separate the sorrow and collect up all the cream?"

Yes. Dr House always had to diagnose some mysterious malady. Since lupus has nebulous symptoms, it was always a possibility. And one time, it WAS lupus. There's some lupus foundation that thanked the show for raising awareness of lupus in the public eye.

Is it a satellite George? They're not in the Earth's atmosphere I think? Explorer 6 It took the first photos from a satellite of the Earth.

Hmmmm-Which church? Is that what it says in the context? Do I need the church to tell me what "Thou shalt not steal." means? I'm inclined to agree with what WordWolf said about referencing the origin. When you read it in context, that's the implication that unfolds.

My first thought is how the Catholics interpret. First thought, there ARE contradictions. Many mysteries... and sometimes even illogical and unreasonable. Second, the scriptures are not and never were there for your own personal decision what it means... rather it must be interpreted by the Church. Tradition, the community of the saints, the Pope. etc.

I met the Georges in 99 The Jess's seperatly Bernita was in Mi for several years, I drove her around the area.

For what it's worth, I just checked the Companion Bible and Bullinger got this verse right. Maybe the mistake was in How to Enjoy the Bible? Or perhaps it was just someone else entirely. I wouldn't necessarily dwell on why Wierwille got this wrong. The point is that he did. And it's not a big deal by itself. It's just a matter of recognizing that sometimes TWI gets something wrong AND IT'S OK. The Bible doesn't fall to pieces because of it.

House (?) George

By George, I think he's got it! George

Ok, let's try this: What was the first man-made object to reach outer space (i.e., outside the Earth's atmosphere)? George

WordHusky posted this tune about a month ago in the Songs Remembered from Just One Line thread. It's alright with me if you want to keep it.

If "All Scripture explains itself, either in the verse, or in the context, or as a term has been used before", which Bullinger said in "How to Enjoy the Bible", and has been taught at twi since vpw started quoting Bullinger in the 1950s, then II Peter 1:20 has to be understood in the context of the surrounding verses, which is to say, in light of II Peter 1:21. When one allows this process, then the explanation that vpw gave- which he photocopied from Bullinger without understanding it- is seen as INCORRECT. This is not a notable problem in and of itself. Bullinger made a mistake, and vpw made 2 mistakes- to not examine Bullinger's conclusion, and to just pass it alone unexamined. Men are human, and make mistakes. They will make errors. They will teach errors. Where this becomes a notable problem is where one is taught that the entire PFAL experience- the PFAL classes as a whole, and the foundation of "wierwille's" teaching as a whole- is not simply what wierwille taught, but that it was the product of what GOD ALMIGHTY HIMSELF taught wierwille, and wierwille just passed along to everyone else at the behest of GOD ALMIGHTY. Now, which is more sensible- that the error was the result of wierwille making a mistake when understanding Bullinger because wierwille did all this on his own volition and it all rested on his skill and those of the Christians whom he photocopied, even though he claimed he was taught by God Almighty, and thus, he should never be questioned on doctrine because to question wierwille on doctrine is to question GOD ALMIGHTY HIMSELF on doctrine, a mistake made by Eve in the Garden of Eden, or that the error was the result of GOD ALMIGHTY HIMSELF making a mistake and passing that mistake on to wierwille, who was correctly passing along what GOD ALMIGHTY taught wierwille, which is what wierwille claimed happened? There's no third option. Using Bullinger's own techniques- and thus pfal and twi's own techniques because they were passed along entirely- to read II Peter 1, the only sensible conclusion is that II Peter 1:20 refers to the origin of Scripture, NOT whether one "lets the hounds loose on the game." Bullinger's own techniques show Bullinger to be in error in this instance.

"It could be Lupus." "It's NEVER Lupus!"

"Alone between the sheets Only brings exasperation. It's time to walk the streets Smell the desperation."

No text ever interpreted itself, as no text ever wrote itself. Ever. Even legal texts, in spite of their painstakingly precise composition, require interpretation by the courts. And ancient texts, especially! Ancient religious literature and scripture will be interpreted by the reader, the translator, the theologian, the historian, the profiteer… but never by the texts themselves. Texts have writers and audiences (and editors). To explain a text with this understanding, and in light of its literary and historical context, in light of presuppositions, is exactly… the act of interpretation! A text itself can’t do this for itself by itself. Now, one may assert the CLAIM that a text interprets itself. One may also claim to jump over barns.

"My Fair Lady."