Larry N Moore

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: Dot Matrix.

· View this post

· Un-ignore Dot Matrix

You never quit with this question nonsense, do you?

Well, dude you made an unsupported assertion. If you don't want to elaborate on it then that's fine with me.

I believe you may be confusing VPW's sarcastic, derogatory barbs with the process of paraphrasing.

How so?

Again with the "women keep silent" thing.

What's up with that?

Can we get back to excellor sessions?

That was the topic being currently discussed.

Maybe you can at least show how the "silent" thing is relevant to the validity of excellor sessions.

Better yet, maybe we can hear from some more folks who heard VPW SIT, since that was the subject that started this thread.

If what he taught us about being zealous to excel in spiritual matters is something he practiced himself, there ought to be page after page of eyewitness accounts.

ps---Jesus Wept.( Now that really IS relevant!)

waysider -- the issue is: Are excelling sessions wrong according to the scriptures? I don't see how my take on it is really off topic. If excelling sessions are wrong then so too is it wrong for women to speak on any occasion. Context. The Bible doesn't say it's wrong to have excelling sessions. Were they handled wrongly? Perhaps.

And yes, this thread did start out by talking about whether VPW SIT but, I wasn't the one who brought up excelling sessions. I'm the one who decided at that point to join the discussion. So please -- let's stop this foolishness of trying to direct the traffic. I'm just going with the flow.

How many of "you" are there?

Me, myself and I. You do the math. :)

Sorry Hammer, I'm in a silly mood this evening. Let me give your OP some more thought and see if I can say anything -- although Freud wasn't my favorite. I lean more to behavioral psychology.

Too bad Paw doesn't have a "new age" section.. or a "Just Plain Ludicrous"

OK.. you threw down the gauntlet.. let's see what happens. Probably be pretty easy to beat it to death with a bible or something..

I'll start, not too deep.. I tried with the reincarnation stuff.. but not too many takers..

:)

Try the "Open" forum or "Just Plain Silly" one. I'm sure no one would object.

I have a few theories..

how many of "you" are there really..

most people can integrate the component parts without too much of a problem..

most of us are made of literally millions of component parts.. all of them alive..

may be the wrong board for this kind of thing..

:)

who knows...

Gee Hammer, that's an interesting subject. Perhaps more suited to a different thread and forum. Go for it. You know me -- I can't keep my mouth shut and I'll probably have something to say on it.

Ya know.. it would be a good thing if one had more than one personality..

Ever seen the movie "Sybil"? She had it all. :)

oh come on

No, ex -- it's been done before. I have nothing to hide or be afraid of.

"Always answer a question with a question."

Seems like I've heard this technique before.

"Twist a person's words into some convoluted form in an effort to completely change the subject and divert it from its intended meaning and into something completely different."

Seems like I've heard that one before as well.

Now if I could only remember where it was I learned about those techniques-------------------

Waysider -- if I had the foggiest notion of what you're talking about I might be able to "twist" your words. Care to enlighten me? Don't be shy.

Oh? Then you must never have been an Intermediate Class where the tongues were timed with a stop watch, and then the interpretation was also timed. And God help the person that was more than a few seconds off on either side.

Legalism my foot...

I can see a balance... but to go on and on and on about how you had to obey Scripture and then say, "Well God understands and accepts..."

WTF? :blink:

It was a double standard at best - and it was used to beat believers over the head and tell them how unspiritual they were.

You saw and instance where someone was allowed to not participate...GREAT! That was the exception and not the rule.

How do I know? I know what we were taught in the Corps and told to do on the field...

Dooj, I can't rebut your experiences. It would be stupid of me to even try. I'm just sharing my experiences. You aren't required to believe them. But the question is: If excelling sessions were prohibited by the scriptures then doesn't it also say women were to keep quiet? Iow -- There is a time and place for everything. When the assembly is gathered together to worship God -- (which includes -- singing, manifestations etc., etc., etc.) everything was to be done decently and in order. That's what I see being taught in 1 Corinthians 14. If not, then you have to take verse 34 and conclude that women are NEVER allowed to speak whenever they're in the presence of other believers.

hmm. was he technically wrong? I don't know if I can answer that..

Say no more. If you don't know if he was technically wrong anything else would be wasted bandwidth.

One thing I like about this place.. people feign anonomymity.. but really, the masks are off..

:)

That's one thing no one can accuse me of. What you see is what you get. And if anyone wanted to waste time (and money) checking me out -- My given name is there for them. :) But what really amuses me are those people who register more than once under a pseudonym. It's the oldest trick in the book (on discussion boards). ;)

Well said

:) We're certainly on a roll, aren't we. Anyone else? ;)

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: sirguessalot.

· View this post

· Un-ignore sirguessalot

Dot Matrix Joined: 16-June 02

Sirguessalot Joined: 14-June 02

Hmm . . .

Pardon me.

I did not realize the subtopic at hand had changed from scriptural support of excellor sessions to women keeping silence in the church

I know you didn't. You want to sue me? :)

Actually waysider I suppose a better verse I could have mentioned would be verse 34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law."

Now think about it. By your logic wouldn't the above mean that whenever believers get together women are supposed to keep their mouths shut? No. It's speaking of women in the assembly speaking up when their husbands (the prophets) are speaking. If you're in a casual setting -- say having dinner -- are women suppose to keep their mouths shut even then?

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: Dot Matrix.

· View this post

· Un-ignore Dot Matrix

I Cor. 14:27.

And the scripture that supports your POV?

1 Cor. 14:28 I don't consider an excelling session a meeting of the Church. If you were teaching the Word would you want a whole bunch of people speaking in tongues while you were teaching? Or a whole bunch of people prophesying; speaking in tongues; ministering healing etc., etc., etc.

Context. It's speaking about a fellowship of believers coming together to worship.

There is a place in Piffle where he uses essentially the same technique.

It may be the "new birth" session but I'm not sure.

He says something like, "If a man wants to be STUPID it's his prerogative.", implying that if you are in disagreement with what he is saying at that point, you must be "STUPID!"

I am pretty sure it is also in the PFAL book as well.

Perhaps one of the posters who is more familiar with the intricacies of piffle can offer more detailed information.

Actually waysider it's in the manifestation section. He quotes verse 38 of 1 Corinthians 14 and then says: Paul says, in effect, "I have certainly, and by commandment of the Lord, clearly set forth the character and use of the manifestations from the Holy spirit within the Church, the fellowship of believers, and in one's own personal life. Now, if any man still wants to be ignorant after all of this, in spite of the fact that God has said we are not to be ignorant of spiritual things, let the man be ignorant." So what he was doing is paraphrasing what Paul said in that verse. Would you say he was wrong (in the paraphrasing)?

Thank You Abi,

I was hoping for a mediator POV!

You're so right. If anyone would have a chance to "persuade" someone to take an honest look at things Abi's approach is the most appealing -- imo. She's already managed to get me to see things a bit differently.

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: Dot Matrix.

· View this post

· Un-ignore Dot Matrix

The only ear gnawing I do is on my hubs. :)

I heard Mike Tyson is producing a video on how to gnaw ears in twelve easy steps. Maybe you might be able to learn something from it. ;)

And what does the Word say if some choose to be ignorant?

It says "let them be ignorant".

Doesn't say to condemn and whine about them continually.

Oldies I wouldn't say tonto is guilty of that. As far as I know this is the only thread that tonto has used to rant about newbies and even then she's not doing it continually.

Now if someone (not tonto) was gnawing on pawtucket's ear about the newbies (in a transparent attempt to get them banned) I would say that person has a problem but, no I don't see where tonto has done anything other than voice her opinion out of frustration.