Nathan_Jr

10 hours ago, skyrider said:

 

Once you see the strings on the marionettes, you can never return to that moment in the performance when you did not see them.

 

 

.

This!

When the veil is lifted, what you will see cannot be unseen. This seeing is clarity of perception. But another cannot see it for you. Another's claimed light is not the light that will illuminate. This clarity of perception cannot be taught. No amount of teaching can SEE the Truth for you. You can only see it for yourself. You either see it, or you don't.... until you do.... no one can see it for you.

When one sees the Truth, one realizes it is nothing to be possessed. Beware the one claiming to HAVE the Truth, for he surely does not.

13 minutes ago, chockfull said:

Like The Word Dominates the World.

I mean we are really tired of all the passive verbs people.  It’s time to put your Maggie Mugg on and get out there and dominate.

Dominate, Obey, Commit, Command, Indoctrinate, Program, Persuade, Conform, Submit to the hireling....Defecate in the mouth of God and call it moving the word...

8 hours ago, waysider said:

W.O.W Ambassadors was an unpaid sales force, designed with the express purpose of selling a bible study class that would, in turn, create a long term donor-based income stream for the organization. It was a scam, not a noble cause. But, after a year of dedicated commitment, participants did receive a token bauble to display at group functions. So, there's that.

As usual, this makes me laugh out loud, but it also make me sad and angry because I know it's true.

Members of AA receive chips as they achieve milestones in their sobriety: 30 days, 90 days, 6 months... Often, by the one year mark, the addict has achieved deep humility and gratitude, sublime clarity of thought, and a certain level of divine awareness and perception. Every sober addict will humbly tell you (only if probed) that it's because of God. But they have nothing to sell, nothing to prevail with, nothing to teach/preach, yet their abundant life is obvious and will share if asked.

My Corps-trained fellowship leader went WOW in RI in the late 70's or early 80's. He said they couldn't sell one class all year because everyone in that city was an assh@le. Not that there could possibly be something wrong with how (H-O-W) he himself was selling!  No humility. No examination of the self. No examination of the tactics or strategy. No examination of the product.

I once worked in sales for a Fortune 100 company for over ten years. I would never have been successful if I used the cop out, "The buyers are all assh@les, so I won't hit my goal this month." I would have been fired.

2 hours ago, Stayed Too Long said:

The July/August 2022 Way Magazine’s cover declares “We are moving the Word Over the World.” On the inside there is an article entitled,  “Word Over The World Report.” Apparently the Prevailing Word is no longer established around the world.
 

https://store.theway.org/store/jul-aug-2022-way-magazine/

Can you link the article? It seems a $5 fee is required to read it. (Apparently, God's word is not freely given.) I refuse to give another dime to this corporation.

Is WOW based on Mark 6:15?

4 hours ago, skyrider said:

. "The Word is the Ministry and the Ministry is the Word."

Was this an actual quote? It makes sense, even if T7TMOG never said it.

HOWEVER, I thought the Word was the Will and the Will was the Word? BUT, it's the Ministry that's the Word? The Ministry, the Ministry, and nothing but the Ministry.

This is what it's all about. The ministry, the corporation, the 501c3. 

3 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage    Philippians 2:6 NIV

wierwille does handle Philippians 2:6 in the same chapter – but he gets into it over the word equality – “equal” in the KJV and compares verses like   John 14:28   and    I Corinthians 11:3  where Jesus says “the Father is greater than I” and Paul says “the head of Christ is God” – and  John 5:18   about the Jews all in a huff because Jesus said God was his Father making himself equal with God  compelled he had the responsibility to explain everything  - whether he could or not.   

 

how about I’ll let you and other Grease Spotters use the Bible Hub hyperlinks I’ve given to look at parallel Bibles, commentaries, Greek text, etc., for some extra credit.

Perfect. Thanks.

37 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

 

 

The Four Verses…not to be confused with the Four Horsemen…

...if there’s any confusion it’s probably from wierwille horsing around

 

Below are the four verses that wierwille listed…after rereading the entire chapter today just to review the explanations he gave for discounting the 4 verses as being a reference to the divinity of Jesus Christ – I will forego copying and pasting his gobbledygook      here and will instead list the 4 verses and refer to online commentaries – copying and pasting from reputable sources…Grease Spot Readers take note of the hyperlinks to Bible Hub below – a convenient resource for Bible Study – for instance click on this      hyperlink of II Timothy 2:15   and it will take you to the parallel verses for II Tim.2:15; the website is user friendly – by clicking on the 3 letter Translation or below it the category like commentary, Interlinear, sermon, etc. you can be pretty thorough in your study...with any of the Bible Hub hyperlinks i give below - you can go on all kinds of tangents for hours just by clicking on the various tabs / buttons - you can check out other translations, Greek text, definitions of biblical words, commentaries...so remember to have fun 

Anyway…the 4 “supposed problem” verses that wierwille lists in chapter 4 Who is the Word? in Jesus Christ is Not God are:

 

1.     And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.   I Timothy 3:16 KJV

wierwille points out it’s questionable if the Greek text has the word “God” …while that certainly may be so if you look at the   interlinear of I Timothy 3:16     - however even with the word being instead “who” a pronoun – the passage still seems to allude to the divinity of Christ – such as in other versions:

Beyond question, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.   I Timothy 3:16 NASB

           

A few study Bibles that I’ve checked say this is part of a Christian hymn that starts off emphasizing Christ’s incarnation. Ever thought about that word “incarnation”? I don’t ever remember that word being used in TWI. I wonder why. Definition of Incarnation - a person who embodies in the flesh a deity, spirit, or abstract quality…In I Tim. 3:16 Paul affirms the humanity and divinity of Christ. The mystery of godliness may refer to the Old Testament symbolic truths in sacrifices that foreshadowed the salvation and righteousness of Christ which produces holiness in believers. In a manner of speaking Christ was like God with skin on – what better way to relate to His people…I don’t have a beef with wierwille offering his opinion of God and Jesus Christ. I think the real treachery was wierwille’s self-assuming role as TWI’s high priest… In the Old Testament, the high priest served as a mediator between God and the people and was the only one who had close contact with the Holy of Holies…uhm…in case anyone missed it Jesus Christ took over the job of high priest   Hebrews 2:17    Hebrews 4:14

I won’t get into deep theological and philosophical musings over the concept of God – but given the individuality / uniqueness / nurture / nature aspects of people, I’d venture to say – for those who profess to believe in a higher power – that everyone will probably have a concept of God / some higher power that differs more or less from everyone else…even if we factor in the experience of those who believe they interact with  God / some higher power  (through prayer, meditation, inspiration, illumination, etc.) there would probably be even more diverse impressions of God / some higher power even with all “believers” doing their best to articulate the experience…just as siblings in a large family would each have their own thoughts and feelings for their parents…My intent in this digression is to point out the audacity of wierwille to dictate to followers the orthodox concept of God…and Jesus Christ.

            Regarding the other 3 “problem verses” I will let some reputable commentaries counter wierwille’s nonsense.

 

~ ~ ~ ~

 

2.     But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.   Hebrews 1:8

wierwille states Heb 1:8 is quoting Ps 45:6 and basically says it's referring to an earthly king

Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom   Psalm 45:6

Benson’s commentary on Ps. 45:6 says:

Psalm 45:6. Thy throne, O God, &c. — It is evident that the speech is still continued to the same person whom he calls king, Psalm 45:1; Psalm 45:11; and here God, to assure us that he doth not speak of Solomon, but of a far greater king, who is not only a man, but the mighty God, Isaiah 9:6. For though the name Elohim, or God, be sometimes given in Scripture to some creatures, yet, in those cases, it is always clogged with some diminishing expression, signifying that they are only made, or called gods, and that only for a certain time and purpose; (see Exodus 4:16; Exodus 7:1; Psalm 82:6; and it is nowhere put simply and absolutely for any person but him, who is God, blessed for ever, Romans 9:5. Is for ever and ever — Namely, properly, and in thine own person, in which, as he lives for ever, so he must necessarily reign for ever; whereas David, whose throne was said to be established for ever, 2 Samuel 7:16, was a mortal man, and therefore that promise was not intended of, nor could be fulfilled in, his person, without including his seed, and especially the Messiah. And, as he here gives to the Messiah the name of God, which was never given to David nor Solomon, so he ascribes an everlasting kingdom to him, in such a sense as was never given to them. So Daniel 2:44; Daniel 7:14. The sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre — The sceptres of earthly princes are often swayed with great injustice and manifold iniquities, which lay the foundation of their overthrow; but thou rulest with exact righteousness and equity, and therefore thy throne is established, Proverbs 16:12. From  Psalm 45:6 Benson commentary

 

~ ~ ~ ~

 

3.     Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”  John 20:28

Ellicott’s comments on this are:

My Lord and my God.—These words are preceded by “said unto him,” and are followed by “because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed;” and the words “my Lord” can only be referred to Christ. (Comp. John 20:13.) The sentence cannot therefore, without violence to the context, be taken as an exclamation addressed to God, and is to be understood in the natural meaning of a confession by the Apostle that his Lord was also God.    from    John 20:28 Ellicott’s commentary

~ ~ ~ ~

 

4.     For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.    Isaiah 9:6

 

it's noteworthy Ellicott’s commentary says the Hebrew word for God is only used in reference to deity:

His name shall be called Wonderful.—It is noticeable that that which follows is given not as many names, but one. Consisting as it does of eight words, of which the last six obviously fall into three couplets, it is probable that the first two should also be taken together, and that we have four elements of the compound name: (1) Wonderful-Counsellor, (2) God-the-Mighty-One, (3) Father of Eternity, (4) Prince of Peace. Each element of the Name has its special significance. (1) The first embodies the thought of the wisdom of the future Messiah. Men should not simply praise it as they praise their fellows, but should adore and wonder at it as they wonder at the wisdom of God (Judges 13:18, where the Hebrew for the “secret” of the Authorised version is the same as that for “wonderful;” Exodus 15:11; Psalm 77:11; Psalm 78:11; Isaiah 28:29; Isaiah 29:14). The name contains the germ afterwards developed in the picture of the wisdom of the true king in Isaiah 11:2-4. The LXX. renders the Hebrew as “the angel of great counsel,” and in the Vatican text the description ends there. (2) It is significant that the word for “God” is not Elohim, which may be used in a lower sense for those who are representatives of God, as in Exodus 7:1; Exodus 22:28, 1Samuel 28:13, but El, which is never used by Isaiah, or any other Old Testament writer, in any lower sense than that of absolute Deity, and which, we may note, had been specially brought before the prophet’s thoughts in the name Immanuel. The name appears again as applied directly to Jehovah in Isaiah 10:21; Deuteronomy 10:17; Jeremiah 32:18; Nehemiah 9:32; Psalm 24:8; and the adjective in Isaiah 42:13. (3) In “Father of Eternity,” (LXX. Alex. and Vulg., “Father of the age to come “) we have a name which seems at first to clash with the formalised developments of Christian theology, which teach us, lest we should “confound the persons,” not to deal with the names of the Father and the Son as interchangeable. Those developments, however, were obviously not within Isaiah’s ken, and he uses the name of “Father” because none other expressed so well the true idea of loving and protecting government (Job 29:16, Isaiah 22:21). And if the kingdom was to be “for ever and ever,” then in some very real sense he would be, in that attribute of Fatherly government, a sharer in the eternity of Jehovah. Another rendering of the name, adopted by some critics, “Father (i.e., Giver) of booty,” has little to recommend it, and is entirely out of harmony with the majesty of the context. (4) “Prince of Peace.” The prophet clings, as all prophets before him had done, to the thought that peace, and not war, belonged to the ideal Kingdom of the Messiah. That hope had been embodied by David in the name of Absalom (“ father of peace “) and Solomon. It had been uttered in the prayer of Psalm 72:3, and by Isaiah’s contemporary, Micah (Micah 5:5). Earth-powers, like Assyria and Egypt, might rest in war and conquest as an end, but the true king, though warfare might be needed to subdue his foes (Psalm 45:5), was to be a “Prince of Peace” (Zechariah 9:9-10). It must be noted as remarkable, looking to the grandeur of the prophecy, and its apparently direct testimony to the true nature of the Christ, that it is nowhere cited in the New Testament as fulfilled in Him; and this, though Isaiah 9:1 is, as we have seen, quoted by St. Matthew and Isaiah 9:7, finds at least an allusive reference in Luke 1:32-33.   from     Isaiah 9:6 Ellicott’s commentary

 

~ ~ ~ ~

I think wierwille pitting 50 verses that say Son of God to 4 verses that refer to Jesus Christ as God is like comparing apples to oranges      after you mix them in a blender.   As I explained in a previous post  What does “Jesus Christ the Son of God” mean?  - see here  - In the Bible a son is a male begotten by a father. In a broader sense sonship denotes a range of familial, hereditary, social, and theological relationships. Biblical references to sons need to be understood in the context of the extreme value that ancient cultures placed on sons…There are approximately 150 NT references to Christ as “the Son”, “Son of God” or “Son of Man.” As a trinitarian term, sonship images relationship between Christ and the Father. Building on the image of human sonship noted above, it is also a designation of honor and exaltation, heightened by the epithet “only begotten.”

In my opinion wierwille tended to water down…and worse obfuscate the unique, exalted, and divine characteristics of “the Son of God” which obviously refers to a literal physical relationship between Jesus Christ and God. How he downgraded it was by equating it with the adoption of sons  Romans 8:15   Galatians 4:5   . An adopted son does not have a literal physical relationship with his father…and to add to the confusion wierwille’s fundamentalism interpreted being born again of incorruptible seed as something that was literally true   -    I have presented counterarguments to wierwille’s literalism earlier on this thread   - here  -  and here  - so I don’t see he need to rehash that again.

My man in Amsterdam!  Thanks, T-Bone.

Philippians 2:6? Maybe this verse is handled in a different chapter, but it seems relevant here, even important. It's from one of the undisputed letters of the Pauline corpus speaking to the divine nature of Christ.

Victor placed Paul way above Christ, so it seems he would address what Paul wrote about this issue.

Thanks, again, T!

8 minutes ago, Mark Sanguinetti said:

That is logical and makes sense. Mostly to bring attention to his book. Again VPW should have had a more peaceful title. If you have a copy of that book, you could do the research to find the verses. 

Right. If I had a copy of the book, I'd definitely do the research myself. I don't own any of his books. 

16 minutes ago, Mark Sanguinetti said:

That is a question for a person that has a copy of the book, "Jesus Christ is Not God". I no longer have a copy of this book and sold it years ago. Instead I have a better book on this subject: "One God & One Lord". VPW's book is OK, but VPW made an error with the title that he choose. A better and more peaceful title would have been, "Jesus Christ the Son of God".

Ok. Thanks. Someone knows. I'll wait. 
 

The title of victor's book was calculated to garner attention, foster controversy and cause division. In that sense, it was without error. Though vic claimed accuracy, attention and reverence were all he cared about (along with the three P's).

We will have to agree to disagree about vic's book: it was less than ok. 

Thank you very much, Mark.

28 minutes ago, Mark Sanguinetti said:

Regarding your question "where Jesus is called God". That is a religious question only. There are NO verses where Jesus is clearly called God.

Actually, my question was what are the four verses vic refers to where Jesus is called God. I'm really asking about victor, what he wrote, what he meant. There may be more or less than four; there may be none, as you say -- not my question.

What were the verses victor had in mind when he made the assertion? That's the question.

I hope that's clear. Sorry for the confusion.

Thanks, again.

20 minutes ago, Mark Sanguinetti said:

I cover this with more detail in one of the chapters of my biblical teaching book with the help of the very informative biblical study software program that I use to help me with my biblical study research. The following is the first part of chapter 7 titled "Reconciliation Through Jesus Christ".

 

Thanks, Mark. Do you know the four verses vic refers to where Jesus is called God?

Which Bible software do you use? Is it Logos? And which interlinear do you use?

On 8/18/2022 at 11:40 PM, T-Bone said:

 

On page 30 of chapter 2 Who is Jesus Christ?   in the book   Jesus Christ Is Not God ,  wierwille states:

…we note Jesus Christ is directly referred to as the “Son of God” in more than 50 verses in the New Testament; he is called “God” in four. (Never is he called “God the Son.”) By sheer weight of this evidence alone, 50 to 4, the truth should be evident

What are those four verses?

What did God mean when he wrote those verses? Was God lying? Joking? Was he just tired from all the writing and made some simple mistakes? Does God mean what he writes and write what he means?

(Thank God for math and statistical probability lest the whole thing fall apart from Genesis to The Apocalypse of John of Patmos.)

34 minutes ago, Rocky said:

Not at all. CRT is explicit. 

However, she does deal extensively with racial and other biases.

The theory of implicit bias as opposed to actually holding chosen prejudices is that implicit bias is the result of culture.

Psychologists have developed test instruments to help people recognize whether/if they hold particular implicit biases.

If your SIL has studied the issue, she may have either meant that you were born into a culture in which it's difficult to not internalize implicit racial bias. Then again, she may not have studied it. In essence, if she actually said/believes/d you're racist because of how you were born, that's a short cut and not in line with current scientific understanding of how we internalize implicit bias.

My mother, rest her soul, over the last couple of decades of her life associated with Blacks and I believe overcame some or all of that bias, but still held implicit bias against Hispanics. From my youth and her much younger adulthood (in upstate NY, and her upbringing in Northern Arkansas), would make racist jokes about blacks.

I may have mentioned this on GSC before, but my first real exposure to diversity was USAF basic training and beyond. I did encounter an integrated 8th grade situation but my interactions weren't as friends or close associates. Basic training was in the summer of 1974. Later, I worked with diverse populations in Arizona state government. I had Black men and white women supervisors. None of that bothered me.

But I've caught my self having some implicit bias toward Blacks. Because I can be mindful about it, new habits can get built in my gray matter. 

I understand how implicit bias is influenced by culture. I get it. I don't think my SIL studied CRT, she was likely regurgitating something she heard, but missed the nuance and complexity in her rush to sound smart, as a dilettante would.

Though she said I was born racist, CRT may say, I was born into a racist culture and I can't avoid developing implicit racist bias? Ok. Wow. That's a very fine distinction without much difference! But I'm not denying implicit bias. I'm denying being born biased or born sinful. These are not natural states, they are conditioned states.

Implicit bias is part of our conditioning, programming, indoctrination. We aren't even aware of it. It's socio-cultural conditioning. It's subtle. Like cult indoctrination. Us vs. them evolves or us vs. the empties....bias against everyone while preaching agape.....the cult(ure)....it's reflexive.

Does Nordell get into Critical Race Theory? Isn't implicit bias foundational to the theory?

My beloved sister-in-law, who self identifies as "progressive liberal," explained that our implicit racial bias is something we are born with. (Or born into?) She tried to tell me I was born racist because I was born a white, middle class, American male. This immediately triggered a trauma response rooted in the cult telling me I was born in sin and I don't deserve grace so I should be thankful to T7TMOG for teaching me.

I reject as not only false, but evil, the claim that anyone is BORN with implicit bias or born in sin. Guilty before you can utter your first word? No way! Get thee hence! This notion of being born in sin (or with implicit bias) is about control. It's a gaslighting guilt trip ploy. It's wicked. But it's necessary leverage for both the religious and political cult.

1 minute ago, Rocky said:

Let me clarify, please. Those are two separate thoughts. "This" as I wrote it was about when I first learned about the idea of examining my life, it was from Peck's writing.

Yep. Sorry. I see that now. Of course.

28 minutes ago, Rocky said:

Something something about the unexamined life. 

This goes back, for me, to M Scott Peck's books from the 1980s and 90s. The Road Less Traveled was about a person becoming aware of what his/her attitudes and beliefs are. There has been much research by social psychologists since then. Thankfully.

As you know, it goes back millennia to Ancient Greece.

1 hour ago, Rocky said:

Have you ever wondered about Wierwille being so locked in on things like The Thirteenth Tribe? Even though it had nothing overtly to do with biblical research and teaching? Or the Myth of the Six Million? Or about Loy's obsession with and hatred of LGBTQ+ people?

Of course TWI's implicit bias toward gays didn't start with Loy. And it took me YEARS of mindfulness to suppress and hopefully eradicate that implicit bias in my own mind.

Thanks, Rocky. I was expecting something like this from you.

I have wondered. It seems to me victor and Loy exhibited explicit bias against, well, everything true. The youth trained up and taught up as to how (H-O-W) unknowingly developed implicit bias aligned with Vic's malignant explicit bias.

My father-in-law, who revered vic because his brother was Corps, openly acknowledged his bias. Not in a free and truthful way, but with diligent effort to only read material that confirmed four crucified, a flat earth, T7MOG, and the myth of the myth of six million. He only watched one "news" channel. He could see his bias, but he BELEEEVED his bias was accurate, correct. He smugly championed his bias. And he felt justified because of what he BELEEEVED about the 1942 promise and T7TMOG. A nice man, but blind. 

To be aware. To be divinely, sublimely aware. Impossible while clinging to bias.

Can we simply pay attention to our bias? Can we observe ourselves freely? Can we know ourselves? Truly. Can we truly, completely know ourselves? 

Find out. 

22 hours ago, T-Bone said:

On page 30 of chapter 2 Who is Jesus Christ?   in the book   Jesus Christ Is Not God ,  wierwille states:

…we note Jesus Christ is directly referred to as the “Son of God” in more than 50 verses in the New Testament; he is called “God” in four. (Never is he called “God the Son.”) By sheer weight of this evidence alone, 50 to 4, the truth should be evident.

So, is it mathematical exactness or is it mathematical probability? victor, it seems, will change his methodology to fit his doctrinal whimsy. He will shamelessly contradict himself to make it fit his opinion. This is the real liability.

25 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

While I do credit PFAL for piquing my interest in stuff like systematic theology, philosophy of religion and hermeneutics, it was like taking swimming lessons from some lifeguard wannabe who can’t even tread water but thought the image would make him a chick magnet…wierwille’s PFAL was “the Word” that took the place of the centrality of Christ.

This. 
 

15 hours ago, T-Bone said:

What does “Jesus Christ the Son of God” mean?

 

On page 30 of chapter 2 Who is Jesus Christ?   in the book   Jesus Christ Is Not God ,  wierwille states:

…we note Jesus Christ is directly referred to as the “Son of God” in more than 50 verses in the New Testament; he is called “God” in four. (Never is he called “God the Son.”) By sheer weight of this evidence alone, 50 to 4, the truth should be evident.

So the word of God is reduced to statistical probabilities? This logic is born of in depth spiritual awareness and perception? This is how one "rightly divides the word of truth" -- statistical probability!? This is how one separates truth from error?

Or, are these four verses not in the original? 

Growing up in a Christian household, I was never taught that Jesus was God. It seemed obvious that he was not, based on what Jesus himself said about himself, and It just wasn't an issue. There was NEVER talk about what others believed as "wrong." We didn't proselytize or evangelize. And no one desperately tried to prove a negative. Only humble affirmation of Truth. Again, it just was not an issue anyone desired to create, make or form.

I remember gasping in awe at how immature (spiritually/intellectually/linguistically) the writing of JCING was. I read about half of it before deciding not to waste any more time on such drivel. And I never even believed Jesus to be God! I was embarrassed for victor and for those thinking he was an enlightened glove-fitter.

Thanks, T-Bone. I always appreciate your thoroughness and willingness to endeavor an answer. 
 

32 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

I’m not saying diehard-PFAL-fans won’t get lost – just that diehard-PFAL-fans won’t know they’re lost

This is among the most profoundly prescient sentences I've ever read anywhere about anything. Holy F*cking Sh!t. Damn, T-Bone... just... damn....

15 hours ago, T-Bone said:

Yeah – wierwille’s bull$hit does get confusing – and here you’ve pointed out his typical pseudoscience gibberish – life is in the blood - or is it soul life is breath life? What’s worse than a fundamentalist using the Bible like a technical manual? A con artist who uses the Bible to steal people’s money, time, energy, etc. 

 

T-Bone, will you please point me to the "soul-life" verse in the Bible? I've searched the term in various forms through two different concordance tools with no results. I'm probably just spelling it incorrectly or something simple like that. 

4 hours ago, hiway29 said:

Just for the record...the 7Up ad is not real. There are photoshop artists that can recreate, change, produce things that look authentic...like an old 7 UP ad. More now than ever, don't believe everything you see.  

It’s so important to be able to perceive this. This  awareness leads to knowledge and understanding on a cosmic scale.

Just for the record...What the preacher teaches is not real. There are preacher-teachers that can recreate, change, produce things that look authentic...like a wolf clothed as a sheep. More now than ever, don't believe everything you see, read or hear.

5 hours ago, T-Bone said:

Jesus would have a human body derived from Adam and yet not have soul-life from Adam’s sinful blood…

Soul-life is from blood? Didn't vic "teach" in PFAL that soul-life came from God breathing it into Adam? So, soul-life begins when a baby takes its first breath, not before. This logic provided the cop out vic needed to force those girls to abort his babies. Right?

The babies weren't breathing in the womb, hence, no soul-life = abortion of victor's rape babies were A-OK because a fetus doesn't have a soul-life.

Maybe I'm misremembering. All the bull$hit gets confusing. I'm probably trying to fit the left-handed glove on the right hand.

32 minutes ago, Twinky said:

That quote is sooooo two-faced.  It makes me want to tear my hair out.  Contentious and difficult, bickering, dividing....  Aargh!

And - what???  WTF?? 

May the Father in heaven, for the sake of the only-begotten Son, bless us with such an abundance that we may cease to be part of the problem and become a part of the answer

Huh??  They got the "bless with such an abundance" all right - they forgot the "become part of the answer."  (What exactly was the question, again?  "Let's not be divisive" or some such?)  In fact, they are not part of the problem - they are the problem.

Right, Twinky!  Huh?!?! is exactly right.

So, it's a blessing of abundance that allows us to be the answer to division? Which division? The one inside or outside the church? And what kind of abundance?

Just piles and piles of odorous excrement.