waysider

Lots of problems with that explanation. First, there is a glaringly apparent contradiction presented in Jesus' answer. Here, when addressing the subject of eternal life, we find him telling the man to follow the commandments. (works) When the man says he has followed the commandments, he tells him to sell his possessions and give aid to the poor. (more works)......How does this fit with salvation by grace, as presented in the epistles?...Simple, we just treat the Gospels as a predecessor of the Epistles....The "mystery" was not yet known...Except, the Gospels were actually written quite some time AFTER the Epistles. Well, then, let's just say say Jesus was speaking in response to revelation....So, why would this revelation require that Jesus present something contrary to what had already been presented in the (written) epistles?....Oh, I suppose you could say that, even though it was written in a "post-Jesus" time, it was depicting an event that was concurrent with Jesus' presence....However, it's contrary to John 3:16, as well....As presented in Wierwille's Advanced Class, revelation can never be in opposition to the written word........Even if we say it was revelation to a specific incident, as was Wierwille's explanation in the Advanced Class, this would have Jesus using/speaking a misrepresentation of scripture...Would God, being all-knowing, all-powerful, ever-present have to give revelation to Jesus to tell a lie/misrepresentation to get His point across? Maybe the honest thing to do with something like this is just say, "I don't know." instead of creating scenarios that would have Jesus getting special revelation to lie to someone. Is that off topic? I'm not sure. I think, though, it demonstrates how someone (VPW) could take a little bit of knowledge, misinterpret it, misrepresent it and spin an entirely theological concept (word of wisdom) around it.

Even "puny little educational degrees" carry more weight than a degree mill doctorate. (You do realize VPW wasn't really a "Dr.", don't you?)

Yeah, Wierwille detested anything that resembled true scholastic achievement. It's ironic, don't you agree?, that he, himself, subsequently allowed others to believe he actually held a doctorate. (You do know he wasn't REALLY a "Dr.", don't you?)

You certainly do have a great disdain for higher education, don't you, John. Why do you suppose that is? Is it, perhaps, because we were conditioned to adapt this attitude in the PFAL class? I can't remember which particular session it was in, off the top of my head. Maybe someone here can supply that information. At any rate, I would have hoped you would have come away from the book with a realization that The Way, and Wierwille in particular, were not what we thought they were. He went two weeks without "missing anything"? hahahahahahahah! Maybe what he went 2 weeks without missing was sexual gratification from the women he seduced. (Remember, John, as a professed Christian, that would make these women your sisters in Christ. How does that make you feel, knowing he treated your sisters with so little respect?)

As would I, as well.....ALL is much too far-reaching a word to use. My point was simply this: We often hear the argument being presented that this country was based on Christian principles. That is neither accurate nor does it neccessarily negate the value of said principles. But, some of these "principles" are not exclusive to Christianity. Thomas Paine had this to say regarding the issue. "There is a happiness in Deism, when rightly understood, that is not to be found in any other system of religion. All other systems have something in them that either shock our reason, or are repugnant to it, and man, if he thinks at all, must stifle his reason in order to force himself to believe them. "But in Deism our reason and our belief become happily united. The wonderful structure of the universe, and everything we behold in the system of the creation, prove to us, far better than books can do, the existence of a God, and at the same time proclaim His attributes."

If I leave here tomorrow, would you still remember me? (NOT one of my favorite songs! .... certainly a memorable one, though.)

This certainly begs the question...What was it Wierwille supposedly tried to give away? Curious minds would like to know.

"You're only dancing on this earth for a short while.".......Cat Stevens

Long Tall Sally

Would it help if I ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGJafrBw5UA&feature=feedrec_grec_index

Many people don't realize this but, the saying was originally phrased, "Everyone's money is welcome at The Way.".

"Whatever happened to my Transylvania twist?"

And best of all.....no roaming charges!

Now, see, that's what you get for poking your nose where it doesn't belong. Those pesky Gospels weren't written to "us",dontcha know. Just keep speaking in tongues and reciting Ephesians. Sooner or later, it will all come together for you. And remember, if you are ever in doubt, just ask yourself this question..."What would Paul do?"

Been watching Singing Ladies videos again, have we?

Like a Rolling Stone http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk3mAX5xdxo

The concept of the separation of church and state refers to the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state. The term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The original text reads: "... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion.[1] The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Prior to 1947, however, these provisions were not considered to apply at the state level; indeed in the 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to accomplish this, but it was accomplished by judicial decision in 1947.[2][3] Use of the phrase The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to Baptists from Danbury, Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper soon thereafter. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes: Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.[18] SOURCE ----------------------------------------------------------------------- In fact, it is generally accepted that the "founding fathers" were Deists, not Christians.

Au contraire, mon frère! My listening habits run the gamut. (You were right about the old fogy part, though. )

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44961202/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/#.Tp91xnKi2So

Uh-oh! Now you've stirred the hornet's nest. hehehehehe

No idea. Apparently, though, this is a Spanish speaking artist.