Oakspear

This is one that I never understood. It doesn't appear to make sense. Why would Jesus use something that was not biblically true to illustrate a point? His using it seems to validate the POV that the dead aren't really dead. And why would there be an "old Jewish tradition" about dead people spouting complete sentences and apparently being alive after death when the OT supposedly has a "when you're dead you're dead" position?Do you have a source for your assertion that the parable is an "old Jewish tradition"?

Things that I've seen people get "slammed" for here: Believing in God Not believing in God Being a follower of PFAL Being a rejector of PFAL Not believing in God but refusing to publically "renounce Jesus" Believing in God but having some agnostic views Using Snopes.com as a source Being a Way Corps grad Being involved in TWI in the 90's Leaving TWI before POP Staying in PFAL after POP Saying good things about VPW Saying bad things about VPW Believing the snowstorm stories Disbelieving the snowstorm stories ad nauseum...

Then they'd also be the forefathers of those minority Christian "A-rabs"...

People who save seats for other people who arrive late for events - a variation on this was the old "bible saves a seat" at the ROA and other TWI events - I remember getting almost knocked over by a guy with an armload of bibles who "saved" the whole freakin' first row at ROA - if you want your seat saved, at least get to the event before it starts! Titles to threads that give no clue to what the thread's about The words "I'm like" when used to describe a mindset, or an internal dialog; for example: "I'm like, 'why did I take this job?'"

:huh: Really? How so?

...not that there's anything wrong with that...

Hmmm...I'm one who tries on occassion to be a "peacemaker", although certainly not a smarmy one.

Apology accepted. We're all looking for answers and trying to make some kind of sense in this world; the methods may vary: mine may not work for you, yours may not work for me. As long as there's no pineapple on pizza...

You recollect correctly. And to further clarify, I'm not suggesting that the PFAL fans be lined up against a wall and be required to defend their doctrine, just that in a discussion of doctrine, it would make sense for them to give reasons, rather than just telling everyone else that they're wrong. Okay...they should be run off and shot! disclaimer (attempt at humor based on previous misreading of the word "throughly"...I mean, the word "shut")

...all part of the pagan-new age-Jewish mysticism-atheist conspiracy service :ph34r:

I think everybody sounds okay.

Do cogs actually fall into place?

CM, check your PM's please

Perhaps the way I stated my position was unclear: I am not in support of posters who attack and harrass other posters who like some or all of PFAL. While I am not a fan of "the class", I get that some folks like it and have derived benefits from it. Nor do I think that anyone who is a PFAL fan is in any way obligated to defend their position, any more than anyone else. What I have observed is that while those who disagree with PFAL more often than not cite the bible to back up their disagreement, while PFAL supporters more often than not, do not. Not that they can't, just that they don't. What we frequently get is a "discussion" like this: anti-PFAL: VP taught ABC, but hey, look at this bible verse, it contradicts it pro-PFAL: truth needs no defense anti-PFAL: ABC is based on a false premise, a mistranslation of verse X, so ABC is not accurate pro-PFAL: look, I applied ABC and it works for me anti-PFAL: but what about applying those "keys"? pro-PFAL: you just hate Wierwille, don't you? and on it goes... I know I'm painting with a broad brush, and this characterisation doesn't apply to all PFAL fans, but it's a generalization that I have seen here time and time again. From what I remember from PFAL, we were taught to think for ourselves and learn to understand the bible for ourselves, not parrot what a man said. Thank you Mark & Belle. Correct. I'm not an atheist, and I do discuss and defend my positions. Often. This isn't a thread where I'm going to do that. And I'm not asking PFAL fans to do it here on this thread either. Just making an observation.

No it doesn't, you inferred what was not implied. Not surprising when you read "shut" as "shot"

We are witnesses, not defense attorneys. Truth needs no defense. ditto what previous posters said on the subject...I always thought (even when I was drinking the Kool-Aid) that "the truth needs no defense" was pretty lame. How do we know it's the truth if we don't explain it, investigate it it, "prove it" to ourselves. PFAL is no longer the standard for truth for most of us here; even most who hold to a goodly chunk of it do so because they have been convinced by their own study that it's so, not because they were told it was so. And if the context and flow of what I am saying, you'd realize that I'm against PFAL fans being summarily ostracized, but would like to see rational discussion by those folks of their beliefs. Up to your usual mornoic standard of rebuttal I see. And i posted shut down, not shot down.

Heard tonight: Why do we continue to hound those who clearly not going to change their minds? Because it's fun

To each his or her own, I guess, but why bother getting involved in a discussion at all if your whole position can be summed up as "oh yeah, it does too"? One thing that I have retained from my TWI/PFAL days is a desire to have a good reason why I believe what I do. Wierwille claimed to be teaching us keys to be able to read and understand the bible, not just accept what the priest or minsiter or rabbi tells us. I don't want to ever fall back into relying on other folks for my interpretations and beliefs. If I can't break down and explain why I hold a certain position, maybe I don't really believe it. Allan, I'm pleasantly surprised to hear you say that. I may have misjudged you.

predestination, CM?

No Allan, that was Jimmy Stewart in "It's A Wonderful Life" I don't see what you see in Belle's post: more like "Be realistic: life isn't a bowl of cherries - what is this God dude up to anyway?" One would have to be blind to think that bad things don't happen, and they don't stop happening when you "believe God".

I've moved so far from their doctrine that even if they were "nice", there'd be nothing there for me

Okay, so something's true because "The Word" says it's so, therefore if you try it, it should "work". The problem there is that there are plenty of other religions and philosophies that "work" also. Not a problem if you don't claim that the bible is exclusive truth, somewhat of a problem if you do. The reason I'm even bringing this up is that I see this time and time again in doctrinal discussions. Everybody has their own opinion (and welcome to it, IMHO) - but so often the final argument is something like "it works for me". What I see here is that it comes down to experience. You believe certain things, apply them and you get the expected results; I believe something different, apply it and also get the expected results. Seeing it "work" confirms what you already believe...but only in your own mind...it doesn't invalidate what someone else believes and has confirmed by a different set of results that "work". For a bunch of people who supposedly learned to separate truth from error and were taught not to let experience trump "The Word of God" we sure put a lot of stock in experience. For people who supposedly learned to "work the Word" we sure rely a lot on what one man said. Maybe you and all the PFAL fans here do a lot of research and "working of the Word" and just choose not to rehash it here, I'm just going by what I see. It would be refreshing to see PFAL fans rationally argue for what they believe is correct in PFAL rather than letting themselves get run off or shut down by opposing opinions.

The word in Greek was translated literally correctly as "if", but it's somewhat like this example: You and I are having a beer together, I remember that I have to be in work early the next morning and announce that I have to go. You say, "If you are leaving, then I'll head home too" - there is no question about whether I'm leaving or not, I just said that I am - there may have been a choice a few moments before, but that's past, "if" is used in the sense of "since". There's a term for this, but I don't remember what it is. Hope I'm not being too pedantic here. <_< (I used to have a branch coordinator who would get all worked up if I used "if" in this manner. I'd say something like, "I'll do it if that's what you want" and he'd bellow that there was no "if" about it - that was the way he wanted it - what an idiot :wacko: )

So, would you say that whether or not something "works", as you say, is the test of whether it's true, or whether it's from God?

I'd have to dig out my Bullinger, but I think that the literal sense of "if" is "since"Kind of shorthand for: If Jesus died & rose Then those that sleep will be brought with him Since you believe that Jesus died & rose Then you believe that those that sleep will be brought with him I admit that I may be misrememberin' - but I'm pretty sure that the word "if" is not allowing for a type of brethren who don't believe that Jesus died and rose again, nor is it suggesting that the sleepers being "brought with God" is dependent on us believing it.