oldiesman

Raffy, the link is below, look near the bottom of the page is where our debate started, http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...aven&st=220

This is not what I said or asserted. You're great at your own strawmen, Wordwolf. What I'm saying is something like this: Therefore, the idea that someone would say "I'm confident that Wierwille taught truth, and that I truly understand it, but I'm trashing it and starting over because he was the lowest form of whale blubber in the ocean depths" is rather silly, ... Make up your mind, please? This is what Rafs statements lead me to believe, he can't make up his mind. On the one hand he writes "prove all things hold fast that which is good", on the other "throw it all out". Bottom Line: " If you hold it fast, you don't throw it out. " Folks have advocated this, because of his sins and abuses. I am certain of this. Throw it all out, it's tainted, it is poison, the fish is rotten, a little arsenic in the stew, etc... You know what I'm saying Wordwolf, you're an intelligent guy. BTW, please use larger, darker fonts. I can't see.

I'll try to explain this better. Some may think they're entitled to dispose of all they learned in twi just because of the sins of VP, and that God is ok with that. I don't think he would be. The scriptures say "prove all things, hold fast that which is good". If one tests the scriptures VP taught based upon their merit alone, and come to the conclusion they can't believe because the scruptures taught don't make sense to them or they just don't believe it, fine. No problema. By the way, VP wanted us to do precisely this, and asked us many times to do this. On the other hand, if one believes the scriptures VP taught, finds them good, and profitable; one is not entitled to throw it away as trash because of VP sins and abuses. I think that would be victim entitlement. One is a victim of Victor Paul Wierwille therefore you are entitled to keep on playing the victim card, keep on being a victim, and reject everything he taught.... I don't see that in the scripture, especially when one considers we are to "hold fast that which is good". Yes. If you throw it all away based on him being a lousy scumbag alone, do you think that is God's will? I don't. I assert that that is a form of victim entitlement. You were victimized by VP, therefore you have a right to reject the teachings based on that alone. You are letting your emotions rule, which can be dangerous... ... I'm no psychologist, but this makes sense to me.

I am forced to disagree as I don't believe in that kind of victim entitlement.

I concur.

No problem with that. But there were past suggestions to throw out everything VPW taught and start from scratch. here's a quote from Raf last year: Now this recent one: One says throw out everything VP says as untrustworthy, the other says what VP says contains some truth, so "hold it fast" (the truth part). If one separates what was taught from who taught it, one doesn't need or even shouldn't throw all of it out as untrustworthy. So, my question was, "in other words, eat the fish, and spit out the bones"?

What lesson?

In other words, eat the fish, and spit out the bones?

One other thing, I believe being "born again of incorruptible seed", as opposed to corruptible seed which would be human life. Incorruptible means incorruptible. Ya can't kill it.

I believe born again means born from above, the creation of the new man which is the same as being sealed with the holy spirit of promise. This is why, I believe there is nothing the old man can do to kill the new man. Its a new, eternal creation in Christ.

How can anyone think that Wierwille never believed the bible? It's like thinking someone can't believe the bible and also sin. Ridiculous. Happens every day, all the time. Let's talk about walking by the flesh. A biblical example comes to mind, Solomon, he had about 1,000 wives? Talk about walking in the flesh! Many of these wives were foreign, and you know the drill, God forbade Israel to marry into foreign to avoid idolatry. But Solomon didn't obey and instead built shrines to his wifes idols. And, he personally participated in the worship of these idols. Each of these idols were connected with reprehensible practices! For instance, both of the idols Chemosh and Molech required human sacrifice of children or infants in their worship. So if one can say Wierwille never really believed because of his sins, you also can say that Solomon didn't, for his sins. Go ahead and try, have fun, and pass the Kool Aid.

It's obvious God works this way even knowing about all the sinning of mankind. *********************** Do you really believe that Wierwille has done anything close to deserving eternal death? That's what we're talking about. I can't fathom someone actually believing this. Goodness, I'm glad my thoughts are different.

Well we've discussed this one before; regarding Koresh, I still believe the FBI killed those folks in the compound as payback for the BATF deaths. I don't hold Koresh responsible. See the film "Waco The Rules of Engagement" for my belief on this one. Regarding Jones, don't know, can't really say but I still believe that one doesn't lose salvation because of sins after salvation. I still believe what we were taught that once someone becomes a child of God, its permanent. I still believe that Wierwille was born again. I think it depends on the individual and how one feels about it.

Doesn't matter. God in his foreknowledge knew that Paul would murder. So, if murder is a disqualification for someone to receive revelation, it would have applied to Saul of Tarsus. I think this may be a continuation of the religious belief that "God doesn't dwell in an unclean vessel". But bear in mind, the bible says we all are unclean, we all sin. Golly if sinning kept God away from us, we'd all be in the soup.

Easter at White House

It's a rhetorical question in the bible, and unfortunately, it is possible, and does happen. And maybe even by some of us here at GS CAFE..? :o

This information should be provided for free to all ex-way. :o ;)

Actually that's not quite right. Wierwille did good things too, so he had good character. IF you say that he had an evil character because of his evil works, then I can say he had good character, because of his good works. We're even. So, the times he spoke forth the word and taught the word with believing, he was a man of good character.

When I see the word for word comparison in question form, then I agree with you. But I don't see that here.

It appears this is precisely what Wordwolf and you are surmising. He stole a question mark. Or a question format. The man can't even ask a question without being accused of stealing. I can't find any chapter heading in "Are the Dead Alive Now" that reads "An Intermediate State" So it must be the question mark you say is stolen. BTW, did you actually try to read and compare Bullingers paper to Wierwilles book? I can't find any chapter heading in Wierwille's book that says "The Rich man and Lazarus: An Intermediate State?". The closest I find is "Lazarus in Abraham's Bosom". Without the question mark. Maybe he stole the word "Lazarus" too?

This edition was purchased by me from the Way bookstore back in 1973. It's an oldies original! And what I'm suggesting is that the evil surmising of some against Wierwille is so blatant that he can't even use a question mark in a chapter heading without being thought of as a thief. I'm so so thankful that I don't think like some of you!

Wordwolf, you've got to be kidding. Just because he uses a question format for two of his chapter headings, you say it's a stolen format? That's ridiculous. It's stuff like this that leads me to question your conclusions. There's enough clear stuff without surmising stuff that's not there.

Raffy, that quip wasn't meant as a strawman. It actually was a response to one of your recent statements: You would possibly agree had VPW not copyright his books. And I found one, in 1971! I thought it interesting to find something like that. But it's not a strawman. Not even a corn stalk. BTW, your point is well taken.

Interesting little tid-bit here: My "Are the Dead Alive Now" is from 1971, it says: "Copyright 1971 by The Devin-Adair Company. All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced in any form without written permission of the publisher, The Devin-Adair Co..." So it appears VPW didn't even own these rights at that time, it was owned by Devin-Adair.

Here's an interesting question: Are you in favor of a Vermont-style carry weapon law across the country? Vermont Carry Law It may have greatly helped Igor Hutorsky.