Nathan_Jr

Right. I can get behind this verse. "Ask amiss" = ask with impure motives. But there is nothing about needs. It's not about the weight of the want, but the purity of motive behind the want. Good verse. Good teaching. Accurate. But doesn't fit the balance or the parallel of the FERD story. Plus, victor said your motives won't matter unless you beleeeve they will. He probably just crossed out this verse in his wide margin Bible.

Joseph was an entrepreneur? Is it written? Or is it a hunch?

Parallel or balanced. Whatever. Pick one. It doesn't matter. The story and the "teaching" are trash. HOWEVER, if anyone still needs further explanation, I can offer it in one of my three glossolalias. But you will have to do your own interpretation. I'm not gonna baby anyone anymore! (For enlightened teachings on being content with what you have and extinguishing desire, read the Stoics.)

Needing essential shelter is out of balance with wanting red drapes. Red drapes are WAY lighter than essential shelter.

Like so many of victor's pithy stories, the need/want fable doesn't deliver the lesson desired or perceived. MOREOVER, it makes little sense to clear minds upon honest, unbiased examination. Victor's general unpreparedness, histrionics and propensity for word salad are to blame. Combine all this with his arrogant expectation of a dull-minded, captive, committed and exhausted audience and you get... well, you know... I have already provided an accurate and honest examination of the transcript from Mike. It really should be settled, but in case it's not, here's a brief summary: Parallel fits, as I've explained. Victor mimed balance on set, but balance doesn't work in the fable as told. A need for shelter far, FAR outweighs a whimsical, materialistic want for red drapes. That scale is devilishly unbalanced. HOWEVER, drapes and shelter... seeeee?? Parallel. Lined up. It just fits. Geometry! And probability. Statistics. You're more likely to get the drapes you want while in the process of fulfilling the need for shelter because the need and want go together like snowballs and Pete. Likewise, if you need transportation, you should line up your want for a car with that need. Bingo! Isn't that wonderful? That there is how you work a word!

Your hunch is not parallel with the textual evidence. He was a day laborer like his “earthly” father.

After all this detail from you, I'm not convinced you understand what victor was saying in his little fiction about the red drapes. Those scriptures you cite are not about balancing nor paralleling needs and wants. They just aren't, even if you beleeeve they are. Balanced is not an accurate, precise, nor effectual synonym for parallel, especially in this context. We all know what parallel means -- side by side, at the same time, analogous, equivalent, aligned... In the Fire Engine Red Drapes (FERD) story, that broad needed an apartment and wanted red drapes for the apartment that she needed. Her want was at the same time and corresponding to her need. Drapes go hand in hand, side by side with modern dwellings with windows She didn't need an apartment and want a younger, handsome lover. Lovers and apartments don't match, they aren't aligned, because anyone can get their kicks in a car or in an alley or in a minister's office. That need and want aren't parallel. But drapes and apartments with windows line up side by side. They correspond naturally. They line up. They fit. Like a hand in a... The lesson is make sure your arbitrary, carnal wants are aligned (parallel) with your needs -- there's a better chance of getting what you want that way. In FERDS no one asked for anything in accordance with God's Will.

Where in 1 John 5:14 is the idea of balancing needs and wants? That's Vic's proof text. victor asked if this verse was wonderful, then. Then, THEN went into the parallel/balance of material needs and wants.

I am neither tired nor defeated, and I've handled every one of your challenges. But there are dozens, hundreds of questions, challenges of mine you've left unanswered. Just in these recent pages alone, Waysider has asked and challenged you repeatedly on one point. No answer. I have never called you a liar. Delusional, yes. In denial, yes. Liar, no. I never accused you of being a "professional" dancer, comedian or coder. At least, not that I recall. If I did, I didn't mean it. I'm not jealous at all. And I don't know any tricks. I know nothing of your experience. Nor do I care.

Since the very beginning.

Sounds like those believers needed to stop WANTING to give anything carnal or material to others. I mean, they had material NEEDS to take care of. First things first, believers! Sounds like the unbelievers had their shonta together. There are many ways to give. Victor was shallow and carnal in his understanding of this. Probably because the giving was all about HIS receiving.

Honesty, like sincerity, is no guarantee of truth.

Often thought impossible to do on an internet message board, but, hey, if Research Geek and alphacat got their needs and wants parallel, all they would have to do is ask.

Nope. But victor was.

"Another promise in the Epistle of I John. Way in the back of your Bible. I John, the Epistle of I John, first-second--third John. I John 5:14: And this is the confidence [this is the confidence] that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, [if we ask any thing according to his will] he heareth us: Isn't that wonderful? If we have our need and our want parallel we ask anything according to His will; how can it be His Will if we don't know His Word? His Word is His Will that gets our need and our want parallel. If we know His Word we can parallel it off. And once we get our need and want parallel, whatsoever we ask, we get." -- victor paul wierwille I will try to handle this word salad line by line: That is wonderful. Where in 1 John 5:4 does it say anything about parallel needs and wants? If we don't know His Word it can't be His Will? God's Will is dependent on what we know? So, it is God's Word that is his Will that does the paralleling of our needs and wants? If WE know His Word WE can parallel it off? I thought His Word is His Will does the paralleling? Conlusion: Uh-oh parallel to Huh?

What else can be said?

A clear, concise, top-line summary. Well articulated and presented. I like this channel. I'm familiar with all the data, though I am currently of the opinion GTh is earlier than stated here. No one knows for sure. I find the most academic arguments for any dating fascinating.

Right. Either Jesus said this or the author of John put those words in Jesus's mouth to advance his own agenda/theology/narrative. The lesson I take is clearly not the one the author of John intended, the lesson religious leaders feel justified to teach. Like I said, the author is positioning himself against Thomas, so he tells this story and puts those words in Jesus's mouth to bolster his position. The words belief/believing/believe do not occur in the Gospel of Thomas. An observation I find interesting. Yeah, John is obviously different from the synoptics. And only John has Jesus giving very long speeches. It seems unlikely to me, especially given the dating of John, that very long dialogues and soliloquies would have been recorded accurately, or recorded at all. If any sayings of Jesus were preserved by oral tradition, and then written down, the shorter sayings would be the most likely to endure, it seems to me. None of this is to say that I don't find value in John's Gospel. And that value is not dependent on its historicity. Do I find all of what is written in the Gospels to be credible? No. For me the value of Mythos transcends historical credibility.

Here is a great example of HOW to think vs WHAT to beleeeve. This is what it means to doubt. There is no risk in doubting, questioning. Beleeef is a liability. (It might even cost you $787.5M for spreading beleeef.) I had the same impressions and questions when I read this story. And the same kinds of questions for the withered hand healing in India and for the rabbi teaching the bastard Jew bar mitzvah and so many others. One hundred years ago Bertrand Russell, when asked about the greatest existential threat to mankind, he answered, "Credulousness." (I'll find the clip and post it.) -- Because we are in the doctrinal sub, I'll bring up doubting Thomas, again. I think the author of John had a problem with Thomas for reasons we can never know for sure. I don't take the same traditional lesson that most religious leaders propagate. Thomas found out something. He found TF out!! Of all the apostles he was the only one who who was rewarded for questioning, doubting, endeavoring to find out. His reward? A profound disillusionment, understanding and awareness that left him speechless -- because, what could he possibly say? He didn't have to believe, he knew, he found out.

This. And this. Thanks.

The material abundance/prosperity doctrine was a subtle, devious bait and switch. I remember many cunning, underhanded comments about "what's available" whenever anyone half-seriously mentioned something that they wanted. You know, like when watching a football game on TV and a commercial for a car or truck or something comes on. Someone might say, "Oooohh, I really want one of those for my next vehicle." A meaningless statement. An innocuous conversation starter. A nothing expression. But the FC, the local FITW, just had interject softly, yet dead MF'n seriously, "Well, it's available." Which, of course, is the bait designed to entice the fish to ask, "It is?" Then the hook would be set when the FC answered, "You just got to know how (H-O-W) to get it...." I never chased these shiny lures because I learned my lesson with Amway. My aunt and uncle used to force the phrase "the business" into every conversation, no matter how mundane. Dropping this vague phrase was so intentional, so cunning, so wicked. The uninitiated would take the bait and ask "what business are you in?" (Mmmph... huge mistake... here we go!) If anyone believes vpw or Amway and commits their life, it almost always leads to financial ruin for the acolyte, but untold material riches for the people at the top of the pyramid.

That, too. It's also nervous, reactive tick born of a desperate hope to distract and deflect the thorough refutations submitted by everyone. It's a smokescreen. It's a tactic designed to avoid answering questions or admitting to the logical and spiritual proofs provided by everyone else on the thread.

Mmmmph

Right. And I challenged the the idea that man does not help his fellow man unless an idea of God is involved. You seemed to imply that helpfulness must come from outside a godless framework (Darwinian Construct). I have received loving kindness and generosity from atheists, agnostics, Jews, Christians of various sects, non-theists, Taoists, Buddhists... I can't speak to their motives. Maybe they were operating out of fear of reprisal or hope for reward. I only know that they were all equally helpful, whether with God or without. And I have extended loving kindness and generosity to the same folks. This I have done without thought or hope for reward or fear of reprisal from any god or any human.

We don't have to use those words. Not trying to start a fight. Not even trying to debate. Truly, just trying to understand what you mean. You're trying to describe a world without God. That's helpful. I get it.