waysider

There's that esoteric twist. I never said you should read it without an understanding of the nuances or that you should ignore the symbolism of the parables. If the Bible is all that it's touted to be, it should be able to withstand the same sort of scrutiny as a secular work. It should be readable by Christian and Non-Christian alike. A Hindu or Buddhist should be able to read Proverbs and come away with no less enlightenment than a Christian. To think otherwise, borders on elitism.

Sounds like a rationalization to me. If this were a secular work we are discussing, it would be clearly obvious that those two passages contradict each other. The only way to resolve that is to give it an esoteric twist and dismiss the obvious logic. I think that's what we used to call "private interpretation". Ironic, no? Use private interpretation to disparage private interpretation.

All scripture is "God-breathed" (Theopneustos). Paul said so. What do we really know about Paul, aside from what he, himself, declared about himself?

Apollonius of Tyana, a 1st century CE philosopher, is recorded as having said about Aesop: ... like those who dine well off the plainest dishes, he made use of humble incidents to teach great truths, and after serving up a story he adds to it the advice to do a thing or not to do it. Then, too, he was really more attached to truth than the poets are; for the latter do violence to their own stories in order to make them probable; but he by announcing a story which everyone knows not to be true, told the truth by the very fact that he did not claim to be relating real events. (Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana, Book V:14) There is wisdom in the story of the tortoise and the hare. And, yet, any reasonable person surely realizes that such an actual race never occurred.

Never forget this one, little, simple thing....it's all about the money. When you start to look more like an albatross and less like a cash cow, their interest will fade.

The man has damaged countless lives through the years....... and you wonder why people are having a hard time mustering sympathy? :wacko:

You're always welcome at The Way....Until we kick you out

Why must pointing out a contradiction necessarily be equated with "justification for downgrading the Bible as a guide for guidance, wisdom, etc."? Consider this: Aesop's Fables have contradictions but, that doesn't negate the wisdom they convey.

Seems I've got to have a change of scene, 'cause every night I have the strangest dream.

The presence of dissolved oxygen in water can be beneficial in aiding with the removal of undesirable substances such as iron. Beyond that, there are no health benefits derived from oxygenating water. In other words, it's just another example of "bad science". If you truly have water that contains harmful substances that are often found in private well systems, such as arsenic, barium, chromium, microcysts, etc., a highly preferred, scientifically proven method of purifying such water would be reverse osmosis. There is tons and tons of empirical data relating to reverse osmosis. You might want to field your questions at THIS link.

The Pusher

Nate, I don't think it's quite as complicated as you may think. This is understandable, though, because you are probably unaware of some of the nuances an "outsider" would not recognize. You see, Wierwille's big "schtick" was that the Bible (not life) can't have any contradictions. He then proceeded to instruct us in a system of rationalization that can be used to explain away any/all apparent contradictions. One of the key components of this system involves assigning all scriptures to a specific administration and then saying something like, "Oh, it's not addressed to us today because that was the Christ Administration and we are living in the Grace Administration.". One such example, involving Jesus and the rich man, has already been cited. I hope that makes sense.

Not long after the "ministry" began to grow at exponential rates, Wierwille unveiled his Christian Family and Sex class. It was another deliberately crafted tool of indoctrination, designed to desensitize the conscience of its participants.. (IMO)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMhNTFzmRw0

It can't be done within the confines of a system that requires everything to fit together without contradiction.

WHO'S SORRY NOW? Words, Bert Kalmar and Harry Ruby. Music, Ted Snyder. New York: Waterson, Berlin & Snyder Co., © 1923. VERSE: You smiled when we parted. It hurt me somehow. I thought there was nothing worthwhile. The tables are turning and you're crying now, While I am just learning to smile. CHORUS: Who's sorry now? Who's sorry now? Whose heart is aching for breaking each vow? Who's sad and blue? Who's crying too, Just like I cried over you? Right to the end, Just like a friend, I tried to warn you somehow. You had your way. Now you must pay. I'm glad that you're sorry now. SPOKEN: You will never know the pain you brought to me When I realized that it was not to be. For each hour of gladness that I spent with you, There were days of sadness when you proved untrue. Every single word you told me, I believed. You knew love was blind and that's why you deceived. How you took advantage of my faith and trust All my tender hopes you trampled in the dust. Now that it's all over, I'm so glad that we're through. I'm the one who's happy. You're the one who's blue. You will count the hours spent in vain regret While your heart is breaking, trying to forget. Now you know it doesn't pay to play with fate. You have learned your lesson just a bit too late. SUNG: I'm glad that you're sorry now.

...and refreshments....don't forget the refreshments....

The main thing you need to find out is whether or not there will be refreshments.

What a fellow's hip What a joydy vine.... 'cmon..Sing with me!

Our center of reference was always PFAL, et al.. Yes, we SAID it was the Bible but, it was really what PFAL told us the Bible said. Take, for example, the scripture being dealt with currently in the "The poor you have always with you." thread. Any apparent contradiction must be resolved using criteria set forth in the PFAL class or its companion classes/materials if it's going to coincide with the general tenets of TWI.. (Not written to us, different administration, mystery not yet revealed, spirit "in" us not yet available, yada, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah.)

Wouldn't it be nice if, suddenly, it became acceptable to simply say "I don't know."?