Oakspear

or perhaps it's a bigot trying to project his view of what's godly on everyone else

Well, I wasn't looking for help...but it does answer my question :blink:

I do not believe in a hell, literal or figurative, nor do I believe that there is a Satan

Mark, we'll have to agree to disagree, then. The evidence isn't so clear cut that argument and disagreement is cut off. True...as far as it goes. Some "heresies" sprung up in opposition to established, "orthodox" doctrines. For others, I'm not so sure that it is even possible to untangle which of the orthodox teachings were "original", and which simply beat down all competitors. Sounds like an interesting alternate history novel

It doesn't take much digging to discover that what became the Roman Catholic Church was only the most successful of various competing factions among Christians. Of course gnostics and other groups might not be considered "Christian", because they, as the losers, didn't get to define what "Christian" meant. Even after the Gnostics, Marcionites, Ebionites and others were figuratively buried, there were numerous groups, such as the Nestorians, and various churches known later as Monophysites which flourished in areas outside the easy control of the church in Roman provinces.

Something that I don't get: Did this person say it was okay to reveal what you told him that you would reveal?

Mike: I was aware of Geek's opinion on the matter, i don't dispute his facts, just his conclusion

that last post was me :P I forgot to log in

Not "Dr's"...Wierwille's...I refuse to give him that title of respect and achievement, because he has, IMHO, earned neither...a "non-PFAL statement" = something he said that is not in PFAL I thought you were clarifying what Wierwille said in PFAL regarding believing with things he said in other places.

I can't believe that I'm up at 3am posting on GS :wacko: Mike: I'm going to have to go on memory alone here, but isn't it written PFAL that you rely upon? Doesn't Wierwille in PFAL specify there that believing works for saint and sinner alike, without "clarifying" that it's "believing the Word of God"? Don't you normally reject non-PFAL statements of Wierwille when they differ from PFAL?

In the early days before the "canon" of scripture was settled, Paul was looked upon as a heretic by some, but not by those who eventually came out on top. Of course, once the dust cleared, the victors were able to retroactively declare their view has having been orthodox and dominant from the beginning. There were many other writings that were considered by some as diveinely inspired, some we still have, and some are lost. Even some of Paul's letters may not really have been written by Paul

Just to highlight a few things that WordWolf has already ably noted: The Tulsa "snowstorm" wasn't about a vision, or revelation, or anything like that. Somebody told him on the phone that Tulsa was snowed in. This wasn't God showing him snow on the gas pumps which could have been a vision just to him. So what happened? He called the airport (or airline) to book a flight out, and was told by angels (he suggested this once, you know) that the airport was snowed in, as well as the trains and busses. He looked out the window and was shown a vision of a blizzard, and if he casually menyioned the snow to anyone who wasn't seeing the vision, God rushed in an angel to cover... Yeah, it IS absurd, isn't it?

Hi, my name is Tom, and I'm a PFAL rejector

I think you may be talking more of doctrine here than attitude. If you want to just take alook at the doctrine, it's in Ephesians 2. Attitude... well that's individual and the Word says to release the Word with boldness but sometimes that comes across as arrogance.Is the reason why you might think is arrogance because you no longer necessarily believe these things? No, you are mistaken. I have no problem with those who hold to the doctrine based on the bible. I get along quite well with, for example, dmiller, Raf, WordWolf, Belle, etc. My opinion is not based on whether or not I believe the bible, but on the way it is presented. I have seen the most vicious attacks on this board be Christian-against-Christian, over differences in opinion on this or that doctrine. As a non-Christian, I haven't been directly attacked here that often. And by the way...you used the term arrogance in your quote of my statement, not me.

Pretty much, yeah...if I understand correctly, Allan believes, or at least says that some posters who disagree with him are only pretending to have been in TWI...if I'm mistaken , I welcome a correction

How the hell do these threads turn into "Mike" threads? :blink: I suppose it is possible for God to say..."You morons have it all wrong, I'm issuing a new 'Word of God' called PFAL because the old one is such a mess...tattered remants, y'know" But Wierwille's claim was that it was only the interpretation of the bible was wrong, that various translations were wrong, not that the bible itself, in it's original text, was wrong. He stated repeatedly that we, through the "keys" that he taught, get back to thoise originals. While Wierwille did not claim that his teachings superceded the bible, he implied and suggested, if not taught explicitly, that his interpretation and application were superior to all others, and were the true "orthodox" (my term, not his) teachings of the bible. Much of this is mere semantics. Wierwille wanted us to believe that whatever came out of his mouth, or at least the end of his pen, was THE TRUTH, whether he made a clear claim that his books were on par with Galatians or Titus or not. Where we are at an advantage over scholars poring over canonical and extra-canonical texts is that PFAL was written in English, and many of us actually heard the author speak and expound upon his books. We heard his own interpretation of his own works. We don't have to agonize over the correct interpreation of an unfamiliar word, or any of the things that you ahve to do with an old Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek text. So where Mike claims that Wierwille said such-and-such, we can go to PFAL and refute him. Which has been done. Wierwille's works often do not say what Mike says that they say, unless you have a gnostic-like secret knowledge that allows you to understand what it really means. And yet, Mike's detractors refer back to "the bible", a collection of writings put together by a committee of the victors in a centuries-long battle of words and political influence.

I was just saying the other day how sick i am of companies using the buzzword "solutions". That and "warm" < <

Who here do you think was never in TWI? :huh:

Yeah, but it's not pizza - -

Now I'm really mad!

In Nebraska, we use the "red bandana" method of weather prediction:We hang a red bandana on a stick in the backyard. If the bandana is wet, it's raining If it's blowing around, it's windy If it's white, it's snowing If it's GONE, HEAD FOR THE SHELTER, IT'S A TORNADO!!!!! :o

Congratulations. Do I understand correctly that you two just met? (I know you've obviously been in contact by phone, email, letter, what have you) Wow! Love at first sight, literally :wub:

I didn't read much, I could go downstairs and get the copy that they gave me and find the verses that they asked me to read if I thought it was worth the effort, and if I thought your question was something other than a pretext to attack templelady & the Mormons. I'll tell you this, though. Whatever they gave me to read, they obviously thought that the written words, aided by a prayerful attitude of seeking, would convince me that Mormonism was the "one true church"...or something like that. By that time in my life I was no longer interested in basing my life on a book of any kind.

Happy Birthday Sudo!!!

Yeshua = Jesus?Maybe he would have a different opinion...maybe not. That's kinda my point. And David, despite the wide chasm between our beliefs, we manage to get by without insulting each or consigning each other to hell. (Maybe because I don't believe in hell B) No, but we should base our relationships, including the one with our deity, on experience. After all, what is written, as it's been ably stated by another poster, boils down to someone else's experience.