Oakspear

Okay Zix, sure, I believe you. Being dishonest doesn't mean lying. Right, got it. Please forgive my ignorance of the subtle nuances of your words. I deeply regret causing you to put up with my many mischaracterizations and straw men. I most certainly will deal with it. I also ask your forgiveness for being evasive, especially when the evasiveness is also drivel. May I also beg pardon for expressing an opinion that did not answer your question in simple black and white terms? I realize now how bad gray areas are.

Ditto what Goey said. :D--> Regarding the extra-canonical books "fitting", I don't know about Christians in general, but in TWI we made something "fit" because we assumed that it was all god-breathed. We would perform whatever mental gymnastics were required to fit that hand into the glove. If a book like Enoch or the Maccabees doesn't fit, could it be because we have written it off and assume that the "errors" aren't apparent contradictions, but real ones?

Don't throw out the curtain rods when you spit out the fish-water!

One of our GS brethren is fond of quoting non-Canonical books, i.e. apocryphal writings. Sometimes he even copies the whole thing here! For those who believe that the bible is god-breathed, how do you decide which books should be included in the canon of scripture, and which shouldn't? Most people just accept that the books that are printed in our bibles are the right ones. I know that there are some books that are quoted by Jesus in the gospels and by others in Acts, which would imply authority, but what about other books? Martin Luther was ready to throw out several books of the New Testament. Jude quotes the Book of Enoch. How is it reconciled?

Thank you, stated much more elegantly than I could.

Wow! What a guess! What unpleasant thing could you do or say that would influence me one way or the other? Quite an inflated view of your power over me, isn't it? While I do recognize that you are somewhat skillful with the written word, and have a command of logic that makes arguing with you challenging, when it comes down to it, there isn't anything about you that I fear. Puh-leeze --> Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, thank you for playing! Fear? Is that what should be motivating me? Of course they're in my head Sigmund Zixar. Where else would they be? -->

Are you trying to say that your position isn't that there only two choices?

Just for clarity, I am quoting Zixar, who is quoting me in several places. If there are regular and bold type in quotes, the regular is mine and the bold is Zixar's Here's my "imaginary" script: (bold type in Zixar's quote added by me) The implication of that statement is that others (myself, Lindy, et al) were not honest, i.e., lying. Are you telling me that's not what you're saying?

Of course you do :D--> It really depends on the method, how honest they were with themselves. If they had already honestly done that, then I say "no problem", what I advocate has, for all practical purposes, been done by these hypothetical folks. I know of several people who claim to have done this with Martindale's class, which contains so many errors and contradictions that it's hard to keep up, yet say that they see "no errors". --> To me a skeptic's approach is best. Approach it with a healthy doubt and see if it stands up, rather than look at something assuming that it is correct without checking the evidense; or you end up like Mike, preaching that PFAL is the reissued Word of God for our day and time. You know Oldies, your tone and manner of writing are very reasonable, or at least superficially so, but you couldn't resist trotting out the strawman one more time, could you? That is not my position, never has been. Any statements that I may have made that could have led you to see it that way have been explained, clarified and defined: Wierwille presented himself as "The Teacher" Most wayfers accepted what Wierwille said as being vaild and true without much in the way of investigation What little investigation and independent research there was was discouraged and fobbed off with "hold it in abeyance". Wierwille's documented lying (among other things) calls into question his believabilityThis in turn should spur people to question what was taught to them and verify Since the man who put together the whole framework is suspect, the safest thing to do for someone who wants to know the truth is to start from scratch. This starting from scratch does not necessarily mean rejecting what was taught, but rebuilding. If anything that Wierwille taught was true, it will be arrived at by independent study

Not only was Lifestyle of a Believer eventually generally available, it was distributed at one of the last ROA's as the "textbook" for the teachings at the Rock and for the year following.

Zixar: Personal attacks on you are never a waste of time. :D--> Ya know, I think this is another of those discussions where differing assumptions and definitions are getting in the way of dialog. Your position is that you have two choices: one is accepting Christ. The other is rejecting him. You lump indecision, uncertainty, and hybrid views of what accepting Christ is as rejection. I can understand why you believe as you do. It seems like the "whoever is not with us is against us" stance. I understand it, but I don't agree with it. My position is that indecision, uncertainty, etc are not the same as rejection. It does not appear that you understand why I believe as I do, nor does it appear that you care to. Personal attacks? Who called whom a liar? Whose remarks were described as "lawyering", and "pontificating"? Don't get on your high horse about personal attacks unless your innocent of them yourself. And regarding the car wreck. I don't think about it that often. For the most part I put it behind me. When you first started bringing up "deathbed" conversions, frankly, it slipped my mind. When I did remember the incident, I decided to post it. What would I do in the future. I don't know. I have not accepted Christ, nor have I rejected him. If death knocks on my door tomorrow, I can't tell you today what I would do. That's the gray area for me Zixar, whether you believe it or accept it or understand it or not.

waysurvivor: In general, we have learned to be very, very skeptical here at GS. Folks have bull....ted us before. We had a whacko a few years back who faked his own death, and then posed as his own sister. Other hoaxes abound. So, if we don't buy into your very unbelieveable story, that's part of why. Two of the posters who responded after you posted where youngsters, and at Corps locations (one specifically said Gunnison) when you where. Okay, fellow GSers, she said that she was at Gunnison when she was seven with her divorced father. If her Dad was in the Corps, he would have been a graduated Corps, since Family Corps started out at Rome City. 5th Family Corps or earlier. Although he maybe was't in the Corps. Either way, it should be easy to remember a single/divorced guy with a daughter on staff. Any memories anyone?

JT: If you are not at the Weenie Roast, you can be non-resident faculty :D-->

Seems a little "lite" for my taste :D-->

Oh yeah, I did have a "deathbed" experience, except it was in a car. Last November an idiot who was looking at the map on his lap instead of the road (the road which contained a red light, by the way) blasted through an intersection and "t-boned" me. As I looked out the window at the car heading toward my very small car at a fairly high rate of speed directly at the driver's side door I was convinced that I would be dead within seconds. I did not convert/revert; I did not call out to God or Jesus. On the other hand I didn't curse God or reject him either. I remained in the same state of agnosticism that I was in when I left the house that morning. The one thought that I remember forming before the impact was "Oh well, it's been a nice life".

Word Wolf: Thanks for the effort, but I was hoping for some documentation, I thought you were getting ready to provide it when I read your last line! I'll do a little checking myself later, but I thought that the word for "angel" in the OT was the same as one of the words for "prince": mlk or something like that. I'd forgotten about the reference to Michael as an archangel in Jude. It looks like the rest is nothing but assumptions. dmiller: I really hope you're not serious :D-->

TWI 1 Term: Branch Leader/Coordinator - leads sevn or more twigs TWI 2 Term: Branch Coordinator - is sent to an area with one twig; splits it into two, calls it a branch because he is a leader of "tens"

We decided last year that the Southern Comfort Weenie Roast attendees are considered an accrediting body. I will be handing out doctorates again at the Roast this year as well.

Where does it say in the bible that Michael, Gabriel & Lucifer were the top ranking angels?

Let's leave aside for a moment the theory that God gave Wierwille PFAL by revelation, since it has been thoroughly debunked (unless God gave him revelation for errors as well). Wierwille was a guy who had decided that plagarism was okay. He was stealing and he was lying about it. Not once, not twice, but consistantly. This is the guy that you want to teach you the bible? You're not going to question the veracity of EVERYTHING that he taught? Are you insane? Wierwille was a guy who rationalized that the scripture gave him the right to have sex with any of the women in "his kingdom". Not only that but he was a serial adulterer who taught his ideas about sex to others. This is the guy who you want to accept as your teacher? You're not going to question his explanations of the application of the Word of God that he talked about? Are you on crack? As a previous poster mentioned, even the stuff that he plagarized from, he often diluted, or mixed with other sources as to change or confuse the meaning. Compare something from Bullinger to Wierwille's version of it and see how he often misunderstood the point. What a scholar! This is the guy who you're going to allow to set the framework for truth for you? Have you been eating lead paint? Figure it out for yourself...you don't need Wierwille

Good one!

The only reason that it's "open for debate" is that there are some here who Don't think that the lack of accreditation is significant Have rationalized that a "doctorate" from Pikes Peak Seminary & Grill is equivalent to a doctorate from someplace like...oh, Princeton Theological Seminary Don't care, since he "taught us The Word" other half-baked reasons

I'll probably roll in within an hour of you. It's looking like I'll have some food as well to feed the barbarian hordes. :D-->

Laleo: I think you are giving Zixar too much credit. The death bed analogy is only part of his presentation, he began with his invitation for the non-Christians to renounce Christ. Any who refused were called liars (by implication) and had their beliefs and opinions branded "lawyering" (if LarryP was here, would he consider that an insult?) and "pontificating (if the pope were here, would he consider that an insult?)The death-bed scenario was a refinement, or perhaps a detour. If Zixar is claiming that faith is visceral, rather than rational, he is going against his history of posts here on GS. Zix is the poster-boy for rational Christianity. It depends on the person. I am looking for a little of both. I have to have the experience, yet it has to make sense. Don't bother asking me just what I mean by that, I'll let you know when I figure it out for myself :D-->

d: yeah, well one of 'em ain't canonical