oldiesman

He's also on YouTube. Here is one of his postings:

I believe the consent to abortion was rationalized by TWI teaching us that it was ok unless the baby was able to live outside of the mother's womb by itself; if it could, then it was considered killing a human being. (Still erroneous but at least they had SOME awareness that at some point in the pregnancy, tearing another human being limb from limb was sinfully wrong.) It took me several years away from TWI and about a year with the Catholic Church to truly repent from that belief. As to the remnant, and people leaving in droves and others being M&A, I thought at the time it had to be done that way because many were thinking evil and constantly bad-mouthing, being suspicious of the Trustees and thus had to be expelled. Not condoning it, but I believe any religious group would have done the same thing. Of course it would have been much better had the rape and adultery been admitted to and publicly addressed as completely sinful but that likely would have bankrupted them.

I don't remember if I suggested something like this incident in the past at GS in defense of VPW's snow story as possibly being true, but it's an experience where a small but strange snowstorm could actually happen without being part of a written record. I thought VPW's story was possible and still do; but being we are here at GS, I may also assume it was bs. No way of knowing really. As Craig might say "ask God to help you understand it." He said that once to me on a different topic.

Listened to the entire teaching at high speed. Brought a smile to my face... typical Craig, speaking and teaching with boldness the PFAL class and collaterals. In some ways I think he's a better teacher now than in TWI. (Paraphrasing: "if you're tithing out of fear keep your money.") Ha! Would have loved to hear someone from TWI way back when encouraging us to keep our money! Of course his teaching isn't without its critique. He still seems to think that Roman Catholics are some mindless zombies with no soul or respect to worship God the Father Almighty. One will hardly ever know what's in the hearts and minds of churchgoers by reading books or following hearsay alone; you've got to invest time and energy investigating and researching firsthand, then make an informed determination. He would do well to spend a year or two attending church and talking with Roman Catholics; then he'd be in a better position to make an informed comment.

Agree

Here's my take: most of not all of us were and are "unwilling" to accept some or all spiritual truths. Only when we become "willing" to accept some or all of them, does God gift us with the ability; and that ability is a gift of God in and of itself.

Ok Raf, putting it that way, it's a point well taken and you're right. Instead of namecalling, WE DO need to explain why the next leg makes sense. (I Peter 3:15) among others.

I'm missing your point then. Pls try to explain it in simpler terms because I want to try to understand your points without distorting them.

I think I understand a little better what you're saying when I replace a couple of words. I will replace the word "religion" with belief, and I will replace the word "reason" with unbelief. Belief creates a category of knowledge inaccessible to those who do not accept the belief in the first place. That's the vaccine. It's not against all unbelief. It's only against the application of unbelief that rejects the belief. Did I get your points correct or missing something?

Nice video and the quality is outstanding. Thx for sharing.

The way I look at that verse is not an attack but a simple statement of how spiritual activity works, ie. spiritual things are spiritually discerned, assimilated, acted upon whereas reason is naturally or sensually (5-senses) discerned. Obviously we are 5-senses man but Paul explains that spiritual things are an additional realm that man can live in and those who don't will view the spiritual as a crock of foolishness.

Agree. Thx for sharing.

I will offer this opinion to try to summarize what Raf means, maybe its correct: The Jews rejected Jesus because they believed he was a liar and a con artist. Former TWI members reject PFAL because they believe VPW was a liar and a con artist.

Agree

Watched again at high speed. Keeping this as simple as possible: It's pretty clear that the Founders believed in freedom of religion, and the fruits of that belief came in govt edict i.e. the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Even if they all didn't believe in Jesus the way some of us do today, they left us with an amazing govt document that makes it "available" for us to energetically and vibrantly believe in Jesus the way we want to without govt hassle or restriction, and likewise the reverse; left it open for Americans not to believe and even mock and ridicule everything about Jesus the way they want to without govt hassle. In sum, the US Constitution puts its limits on govt, but not religion.

Oh yes, I've seen this one and I believe it was posted on GS already. Quite a video. Thx.

Yes. Your mention of Jefferson motivated me to retrieve a book that I had in the house but haven't read in years, "In God We Trust -- the religious beliefs and ideas of the American Founding Fathers." In it contains quite a chapter on Jefferson... a little over 100 pages. Another Chapter is devoted solely to the Jefferson - Adams letters. Here's a nice quote among many about Jefferson: "To his good friend Benjamin Rush he wrote that his religious beliefs were the "result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and are very different from the Anti-Christian system attributed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, but I am a Christian in the only sense in which I believe Jesus wished anyone to be, sincerely attached to his doctrine in preference to all others; ascribing to him all human excellence, and believing that he never claimed any other."

Thx, but just ordered one from Amazon for 5 bucks.

Pls explain your take on it, thx. ( I WILL buy it )

Never picked one up but you encourage me to do so. Is this a pretty good summary of it? "The letters intimate great appreciation of the life and words of Jesus as the true cynosure of republican government. It is understood by some historians that Jefferson composed it for his own satisfaction, supporting the Christian faith as he saw it."

Here's an "apparent" contradiction to Mike's theory from PFAL: God is the Fountain of Living Waters. "God is a fountain. That's an unlimited supply; that's what makes it a fountain."

Proceeding under Mike's theory then (while also considering VPW here) God's willingness and ability are equal but limited to His budgetary limit.

But you ARE putting it on God. Isn't that basically what you suggested when starting this thread?! You spoke about the possibility of God's budget of miracles being scarce, then wrote: "Now another feature of this theory or hunch of mine is that the budget not only applies to the “amount” of an intervention from the spiritual to the physical, it ALSO implies a TIME BUDGET as well." Are you now walking it back and saying lack of results when we believe is our doing?

I agree in the sense that if Mike believes that "the law of believing" works like VPW taught it, then it contradicts the very thesis of this thread; i.e., there are other forces at work even when we really do believe to receive. If I got that wrong Mike pls. clear it up. Thx.

This may fall into one of those cases that isn't an exact representation. Here's a commentary on it: To the Wilderness—or a Wedding? - Apologetics Press It's like that verse in Genesis 1:1 "in the beginning" and then Gen 1:2 says "and the earth was void" Stuff happened in between that the scriptures omit which appears to be the same here. I agree with your prior statement that religion demands acceptance of the disproven. Christians even believe the preposterous on occasions.