Oakspear

Excuse me, are you capitalizing "God" out of respect, or emphasis? Yup, got that. This is not news. I learned it in & out of TWI So pray. In what verse does it say that you have to tell us that you're praying for us? Agreed. Pray, pray without ceasing, but when you tell me that you're praying for me, usually it's prosylitizing (sp?). But let me make a distinction here: when a Christian, or any other person tells me that they're praying for my health, or anything like that, I usually just smile and say thanks. When they tell me that they're praying for my soul, i.e. that my beliefs or lifestyle are wrong, then I feel that I have every reason to be annoyed. I agree, respect is a two way street. Where have pagans and Wiccans insulted your god? To my knowledge there are only two of us who regularly post here. Could you give examples of the insults and disrespect? I've seen what your bible says, which may or may not be what your god thinks about it. Your god wants everybody to worship him and is jealous of any worship extended to other gods. Your bible wrongly equates worship of other gods with worship of the idols that they represent. I would guess that your god has the same attitude about witchcraft because it involves depending on power that doesn't derive from him, although I've seen sources (not at my fingertips right now) that claim that "witch" should be translated "poisoner", so I guess if I'm not a poisoner, I'm okay with your god. Appalled no, offended yes. That all makes sense if you believe your holy book, for those of us who don't, it's just insulting. I dispute that you can examine anything on this subject without partiality, you are biased toward the biblical point of view...not that there's anything wrong with that I jumped in here even though I am not the one being addressed and am not one who asked for an apology. I am not surprised when certain Christians compare me to swine and dogs and insist that I am going to a fictional hell. I am not surprised when these same Christians look down their noses at us. Not surprised, but insulted just the same. I view Christianity the same way I view any other faith (or lack of faith), a personal choice that makes the Christian neither superior nor inferior to me, a path that works for that person, and brings comfort to that person; personal choices that I don't have the right or the expertise to judge. Yet those same people presume to judge me, as well as follwers of others faiths, plus atheists, agnostics et al.

Gee Kimberly, why would you be "blasted" for what you said? Usually that kind of statement precedes something that the posterknows ius going to be offensive, but doesn't care. I don't see that in your post. I'd rather avoid beating up on Geisha since she isn't posting at the moment, and she and I get on fairly well despite our doctrinal disagreements. But I understand the mindset that some people have to be saved, changed, fixed, because I used to be one of those people when I was involved in TWI. And I would think that those of us who were so convinced of the rightness of TWI doctrine to the exclusion of anything else, after having decided that they were wrong about that strongly held, "it's the absolute truth" belief, would be a little more flexible about things of faith. But no, a lot of us get just as fanatical about our new faith as we were about our old one, and just as obnoxious.

Gotcha, I see it now. Darn bifocles. :blink:

WTH's explanations are a good illustration of how Wierwille would often take a position, use an analogy or illustration to explain it, then spend all his energy developing the analogy, rather than the scriptural basis for that analogy. The "dogs loose upon the game" analogy regarding private interpretation and the whole athletes of the spirit teaching are other examples. Explaining the mechanics of how the KOH was suspended, is but a part of the KOG, how KOH indicates the presence of a King, etc, is fascinating, but none of this information can be gleaned from the bible.

Is that first post copied from somewhere? If so, where?

The phrases Kingdom of God & Kingdom of Heaven do not appear in the Old Testament. The citing of how God supposedly suspended one or the other and ham sandwich analogies only illustrate the position that they are different, they do not explain it, nor do they refer to scripture to back up the KOG does not equal KOH position.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Maybe the "new" WayAP class is considered newer the than the new one. :blink:

Mike's method is to ignore anything negative about Wierwille, your method is to keep an open mind. Most people who believe in ann inerrant bible ascribe "apparent contradictions" to errors in understanding, mIke does the same for PFAL.

Well done Mark, anyone who can read should understand your point WTH did nothing but regurgitate Wierwillian illogic without going back to the bible to make his case.

I've asked this question before, but if anyone here really believes that something that is true somehow becomes not true due to sins of a person who speaks that which is true, please so indicate by saying "yo".

What do your posts have to do with the snowstorm? (the topic of this thread)WordWolf was addressing a line of thought that is present in this thread. It's germane for Oldiesman to bring it up (although I disagree with his conclusion) and appropriate for WordWolf to offer a rebuttal. No less so than your "presentation" of your illogical thesis as having anything to do with whether we believe the story of the snowstorm

Why did I know that you were going to say that? Do you have a special alarm that alerts you to these kinds of posts? She didn't say that the sins negated the truths. Please do not smoke in this thread: strawman present.

Aw, Dad, but he started it ;)

I don't recall it being word-for-word PFAL, but most of PFAL's main doctrinal points are covered, albeit much more coherently. In places Wierwille betrays a pitiful lack of understanding of what Bullinger is trying to say.

Hyperbole - for years I thought that it was pronounced like Hyper BOWL...like 'Yo, Bobby, let's go knock down some pins at da HyperBowl ovah on Jamaica Avenoo'

Raf was adressing WTH, not WD WD responded as if he had been addressed Raf was addressing WTH's assertion that some people could not believe that anything good came from Wierwille by contrasting it with the opposite, that some people could not believe that Wierwille did anything bad. In the course of the discussion, WD stated that he had not seen any evidence of the bad things, only opinions. In response to this, Raf stated that WD wants proof, which WD denies. It seems to me that Raf is making a valid point (which all are free to agree or disagree with) but that WD is claiming comes out of nowhere

WD responds to various posters:

WD quotes Raf & responds: WD responds to Jeff's question about the monnwalking bear: Raf responds to WD:

Here’s the history: make up your own minds: What the Hey makes a statement: Raf quotes WTH & responds: WD quotes Raf and responds, even though WTH was being responded to by Raf: Even though later WD says that he has not asked for hard evidence, he says in the previous exchange that he is waiting to see some, seems like splitting hairs to me The initial exchange was Raf responding to something WTH said, WD of course is free to respond, but he is not being addressed at this point, nor are his positions being misrepresented Jeff Stj quotes WD & responds: Groucho quotes WD & responds: WD quotes Jeff & resonds Then quotes Groucho & responds: Raf had not mentioned hard evidence, only a hypothetical situation where he expresses his opinion that even if such evidence appeared, some would still not believe it Raf responds to WD's staement that trhere is no "hard evidence":

For a full (8 hour) shift we allow one meal break of a 1/2 hour to one hour (usually agreed upon between the employee & the department manager), and two 15-minutes breaks. Smokers are not supposed to take additional breaks, but sometimes some will try it. I worked with a couple of smokers a few years back who did as you described, but tried to convince us that they were taking six 5-minute breaks instead of two 15's. Except the walk to the front, getting the cigs, walking back, hanging up the coat etc always turned into 10+ anyway. My personal peeve is the smokers who flick their used butts on the ground rather than using the ashtray.

Potato didn't use the word "permanently". Many people were kicked out. I was one of them.

I thought that was obvious. I got involved in TWI long before I ever posted here. I recall the vague outlines of the conversation, but I highly doubt that I ever believed that Wierwille was getting revelation, I have however believed for quite some time that the rule of faith and practice was what Wierwille said it was, despite his pretence or pose of being a biblical reseracher Well, we disagree on something else :o I think he hid it because he was dishonest, you think he hid it for other reasons. The "deep thinkers" who figured it out left in disgust, or compromised. From quotes that have been posted by you, DWBH and others and my own memories, it doesn't appear that Wierwille was saying that he was getting revelation that overrode what the actual texts were saying, but that there were what he called apparent contradictions that weren't resolved by existing available texts; framing it as a biblical research question. What I believe it was in reality was Wierwille being so enamoured of his theology that he couldn't bear to admit that he might be wrong. Naturally you'll have a different opinion.

It was my understanding that Wierwille was getting his understanding of the bible through...(drum roll)...reading the bible and that he was teaching me (and everybody else) to read the bible and understand it, using the tools that he taught us, so that I would no longer have to depend on the interpretation of others (you know, Right Rev. So-and-So and Professor So-and-So). If I had known the process, and that he was in effect short circuiting the research by claiming to "just know", I doubt that I would have been as interested in PFAL. To me it would have been just one more scam by someone claiming to speak for God.

Man, it's deja vu all over again! Yes, Wierwille did say, “Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped.” But he also said (someone with the books handy can supply the exact quotes) that he hauled over 3000 volumes to the city dump and used the bible as his only handbook and source for truth and that he was teaching "The Word" like it hadn't been known since the First Century. I'm sure that somebody can make these and other statements fit like a hand in a glove, but what it communicates to me was that the man was inconsistant about the image that he wanted to project. He was by turns self-aggrandizing or humble. Did he tell people that PFAL was somebody else's class that he tweaked and changed over the years? Did he tell us that he lifted teachings wholesale from other authors, sometimes virtually word-for-word in some sections? No, he put his name on the books as an author with no footnotes or other citation. He told us that he holed up in a hotel eating grapes and sprang forth with PFAL. The above quote describes a man that carefully weighed and sifted the evidence and came to his own conclusions, unlike what Wierwille did, which was to sign his name to other people's work.

It seemed like Wierwille liked the idea of biblical research, but not the hard work that went into it.