Bolshevik

"The Bible" can clearly be replaced in your staeltement with anything if nothing is theopneustos.

Say nothing is God inspired and it removes the confusion 

6 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

 

Perhaps.

 

To your point, it could apply to gerunds.

Inspiring.

Wait, 

So instead of God inspired we focus on inspired.  Another thread.

That idea was not theopneustos or whatever that does or doesn't mean.

3 minutes ago, Rocky said:

Or that YOU believe nothing is inspired by God? Or, rather that any given person could choose to look at the situation in that particular way?

The human brain is different than the animal brain in some ways, but that would be a different topic.

Wouldn't it be simpler to say that nothing is inspired by God?

In Stayed Too Long's post he mention "authority from the Bible".

Obviously, before the Bible existed, there was no such claim.  After the Bible existed, not all make that claim.  Might we trace a history of those who claim "authority of the scirptures"?  What's really driving this idea?  STL claims VPW and all Christianity are making the same claim.  And therefore all religion makes the same claim.  (It's easy therefore to further say all human beings are just like Victor Paul Wierwille - STL doesn't explicitly say this, that's just the trajectory, untempered)   

The second paragraph uses "god-breathed truth" - Again, using PFAL vernacular as if it came from outside TWI.  Did it?

Stayed Too Long's Third paragraph equates TWI with "thousands of others".  My question is if he is simply discussing fundamentalism, or something broader?

On 9/17/2022 at 11:05 PM, T-Bone said:

. . .

The Kantian critique of the proofs of God contributed further to a devaluation of Trinitarian doctrine. In German idealism, Hegel, in the framework of his attempt to raise Christian dogma into the sphere of the conceptual, took the Trinitarian doctrine as the basis for his system of philosophy and, above all, for his interpretation of history as the absolute spirit’s becoming self-conscious. In subsequent theological work, at least in the accusations of some of its critics, the school of dialectical theology in Europe and the United States tended to reduce the doctrine of the Trinity and supplant it with a monochristism—the teaching that the figure of the Son in the life of faith will overshadow the figure of the Father and thus cause it to disappear and that the figure of the Creator and Sustainer of the world will recede behind the figure of the Redeemer…

 

 . . .

From:      Britannica: The Christological controversies

End of excerpts

Hegel influenced Marx.  Marx influenced Bolsheviks.

Kant . . . influenced a lot . . . also Luther was German.  *grabs red thread and thumb tacs*

VPW rejected a trinity of God, but made a trinity of people.  Which I understand is an ancient gnostic idea.  

Quite the switcharoo.

On 2/20/2023 at 1:12 AM, Rocky said:

This DOES seem to be sealioning. Unrelated to the actual discussion.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/sealioning-internet-trolling#:~:text=Sealioning refers to the disingenuous,questions of the other commenter.

Sealioning refers to the disingenuous action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter.

In this open forum format you are free to take Raf's obscure phrase, translate, and defend, if you wish. 

Raf's phrase appears divisive, as is to push party's into camps of "pro-bible" or "bible is gibberish" camps.  A bit black and white.

PFAL is clearly not related to the bible other than as a red herring.  We know this.

On 2/20/2023 at 1:13 AM, Rocky said:

This really seems out of place in this thread.

Then I take your response as an implied understanding between yourself and other posters but not all posters.

As I said later, it sounds like nonsense.

6 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

If you're using butter made from grass fed cows, right?

I buy the ghee, the ghee was made from grass fed cows.  Why nobody actually feeds cows chocolate is a topic I have not googled.

On 2/19/2023 at 7:45 PM, WordWolf said:

You can't have it both ways, guys.  Bol dismissed the entire fields of Psychology and Sociology, claiming he understood them and dismissed them but was ok to do that based on extensive background in the hard sciences (Physics, Chemistry, etc.)   

Then you come around and say he doesn't communicate better because he doesn't know better.  There's a continuity break between YOUR Bolsh and the Bolsh in his posts who lectures in a university and whose students seem to always understand him.

No, I did not.  Posting a thought does not imply absolute knowledge.  

You are well aware of what I'm trying to understand.  You're obviously bitter about something.

Perhaps this website needs to rediscover its roots.

On 2/19/2023 at 1:09 PM, Stayed Too Long said:

I have recently been doing some frying with Ghee Butter. It has a nutty smell and taste that adds a distinctive flavor to the food. Unlike regular butter that soon fries away, clarified butter does not. The process of making Ghee removes the moisture and other impurities from the butter, which allows it to become an oil with a higher flash point than butter. 

In the warmer weather I use it on my flattop griddle instead of vegetable oil to fry burgers and steaks. 
To make Ghee bring butter to the point of boiling which will cause bubbles to appear. The bubbles will soon disappear and the butter now becomes clarified butter. Allow it to continue boiling and will soon turn brown. This is the point you now have Ghee. Then I pour it through a paper filter into a jar to use it in frying.

I also have joined the Ghee club.

I love it on cast iron.  Because as you said the higher flash point.  But it tastes like grass if used straight.  By grass I mean the green stuff the cows eat.  

Almost sounds like you're making roca or toffee, which sounds yummy.

Russians think completely different than we do.  Some of that has to do with geography.  Places like North America are relatively safe from invasion.  So security is a bigger concern over there. 

Other matters have to do with Orthodox Christianity, which I'm not entirely clear on.  The idea is we think the way we think, both religious and non-religious, because of the influence of the Western Church.

I had this cucumber fermenting, I think there's a message on it now.

4 minutes ago, Raf said:

Demoniations?

WTF is this guy babbling about?

You are making no g-dang sense.

You keep getting everything wrong, especially when talking about what i'm trying to say.

I take Mike too seripusly? Are you f-ing stoned?

See that calendar? Does it say 2003? No, dip. It's 2023. It's been decades since I took Mike remotely seriously. That's part of the point of this thread  which you would know if you had the reading comprehension skills of a lemur.

Not one person said anything remotely approaching this. Please  hire a lawyer and sue every school that gave you a passing grade in reading comprehension. You have a case. You will win. Use the proceeds to find a f'ing real school.

2003????  VPW died long before that!!  Everyone can go home!!! . . . if we're doing this . . ugh

Magna Carta was meant to show a non-religious document as an example.  People live alongside documents.

And myths, like Robin Hood, arise alongside them, too.  And they are important, not nonsense.

On 2/17/2023 at 8:38 PM, Raf said:

With all due respect, Nathan, how many times and in how many ways do I have to explain how we are using God-breathed in this conversation?

And roping in the Magna Carta and the Little Engine that Could: you think that's an attempt at exploring the nuances of the topic? 

It's not cryptic. It's attention-seeking bulls hit designed to shut down the conversation, not contribute to it. 

Everyone who has participated in this thread has been able to see exactly the point that was being made. You asked multiple questions that demonstrated a firm grasp of the issues being raised. 

Bolshevik wants you to think "theopneustos" is a word VPW made up and there's something nefarious about applying it to the Bible as countless denominations do. 

If you'd like mebto expand on the opening post, again, I will.

If you believe PFAL is not theopneustos, ask yourself why you've reached that conclusion. [Imperfections, errors and contradictions were ONE MANNER of exploring that issue, but if your definition of theopneustos does not connote or denote "perfection," then identifying imperfections does nothing.

Fine. What DOES theopneustos mean TO YOU? Why does PFAL not qualify?

I submit that whatever criteria you use to disqualify PFAL as theopneustos, the same criteria will end up disqualifying the Bible as theopneustos. 

Errors? Check. Contradictions? Check. Self-serving accounts of personal encounters with God? Check. [Read Jonah again one of these days. It's remarkable in its utter shamelessness. Makes VPW's snow on the gas pumps look like it was better documented than the Kennedy assassination]. 

I spent years tearing Mike's thesis on PFAL to shreds only to come to realize his idolatrous adoration of PFAL was no different from my "healthy respect" for the Bible. The only difference was time.

Did that answer your question?

 

 

Okay, you claim theopneustos is a term some demonations use.

Which implies there are demoniations that don't.

So there's a long history here, and you seem to be only allowing one view, as if to strawman.

You've also, as others here do, take Mike too seriously.

I was neither in the cult, nor outside the cult . . . does that make sense to you?  I'm very aware that PFAL is a defence of rape culture, and that I am a product of that thinking by others.

To put the Bible in the same discussion as PFAL, as if one produced or influenced the other, is nonsense.

"God-breathed" is a term from a book which has been pulled out and applied willy nilly here.

So we've pulled a phrase from one book, applying it to another book, then rejecting the second book base on the phrase, and claiming that this process should now work on the first book?

Sorry that's just nonsense.

Do I believe the Bible is God-Breathed? 

Do I believe the Little Engine could?

18 minutes ago, waysider said:

Exactly. If someone claims to not be a follower of The Way, but still clings to PFAL, they're still a follower of The Way.

 

"If it walks like a duck........"

Ok.  I can't see anyone picking up PFAL without coercion in the first place.  No contact is often the best practice when dealing with Wayfers.

Many Western values are often cited to have their source in Christianity . . . you don't have to be a Christian . . . but the social values in culture may still be retained . . . this rejection seems to be of a different flavor than with PFAL.

51 minutes ago, Raf said:

"God breathed" does not mean perfect unless you want it to. Of course, if it means perfect, it is as easy to show the Bible is not God breathed as it is to show PFAL is not God breathed.

But I submit that if you reject PFAL as god-breathed on any basis, that basis, when applied to the Bible, will disqualify it as well.

I'm trying to understand your question;

If you reject PFAL as god-breathed on any basis

vs

If you reject PFAL on any basis

Is there a difference?  god-breathed remains undefined?

To me, rejection of PFAL is caused by a rejection of the people, the followers of The Way, since they go hand in hand.  

14 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

I can accept that something divinely-inspired doesn't necessarily need to be perfect.

How does one know if something is divinely-inspired? Is one of the criteria that it must only come from the ancient Near East written by Jews? 

I generally believe that anything or anyone proclaiming to be of God or by God or from God or inspired by God is certainly NOT. Those proclamations are for story tellers and story readers/hearers -- a device employed to advance narrative.

 

Maybe it all comes down to the question: What is God?  But this, it seems to me, is an absurd question that can never be answered on an internet discussion board.

 

What I understand now is there were many books circulating among the early Church.  Being widely circulated was one criteria to become canon.  

This is where TWI and "truth vs tradition" nonsense comes in to confuse matters.

There was a body of people with traditions and practices who could look at a book and say, "yes, this follows what we are already doing" . . . or not.

The Bible doesn't stand alone, tradition is necessary and part of its making.  I think a cohesive group is more likely to know if something is sacred to them than the thing itself would know.

4 minutes ago, OldSkool said:

He breathed the breath of life in man's nostrils and yet we became corrupted. I feel it's an unrealistic expectation to think the Bible is perfect because its inspired of God through imperfect beings, us. 

2 Timothy 2:16,17

But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. 17And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; 18Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some

Wierwille has cobbled books together based on profane and vain babblings such as the law of believing, etc. That  people's trust in God/scripture is overthrown should be no surprise. 

There is no basis for rejecting PFAL as God-breathed that does not apply equally to scriptures that have been considered God-breathed since there was a canon.

Is the God-Breathed here implying perfection in both instances?

If you reject PFAL as perfect . . . which you should

You can reject The Bible as perfect . . . which you should

(but I don't think God-Breathed in the Bible is intended to be interpreted as perfectionist - that's came from somewhere else)

The Bible being free from flaws and from God.

That's nonsense.

Of course it has flaws.  Inspired by God doesn't mean from God?

God-Breathed does not mean God spoke to people and they wrote stuff down?  That's the association in PFAL?

3 minutes ago, waysider said:

I wasn't involved at that time. Can you elaborate?

When his daughter went to school LCM went beserk.  I think I heard a baseball bat was involved.  

This led to items like Bowling Green, and I was in a constant fight to justify getting an education.

To be brief.

Just now, waysider said:

What does it mean to be God-Breathed, beyond the standard  explanation of being God inspired or given by revelation? If something originated with God, it would seem to me that it should be free of flaws. That obviously doesn't describe the Bible we have come to know or the PFAL class. Is the ambiguity intentional? It's hard to know.

I don't understand inspiration and revelation as meaning hearing voices and such.  I'm not picturing a sentient being sending a message or anything.  

I don't understand why something would not be free of flaws?  That's not how things evolve.

See Waysider there are some points missing here if I am to interpret.  Maybe I didn't hold VPW quite to them same regard.  

(comments about intelligence I understand as a reference to Loy Craig Martindale and his oldest daughter . . . that was a big topic in the late 90s)