Raf

You could have just said the sum of the digits of any number minus that number is always divisible by nine, you know. :) Why is that, anyway?

Mike! You made a funny! This is like Gollum calling Sam obsessed! I'm proud of you, lad!

I do not believe in believing. I believe in God. He honors believing. That, I believe.

I have no intention of "ripping PFAL apart," and never have. My intention was explicit: to show that it does not live up to its own definition of "God-breathed." You've turned off your ciritical thinking on this one, and, not surprisingly, you're proud of that fact. That's fine with me. But the truth that there are errors in PFAL is there, it's documented, and your refusal to really come to grips with that truth had turned you into Smikeol. For me to resolve "apparent" errors in PFAL, I would have to agree that they are merely "apparent." Some of them probably are. But not all, and as long as ANY are actual errors, your thesis is disproven. What's it been, two, three years since we all worked through that thread? And .. you... have... yet...to...resolve...a...single...error. Some "master."

... "Now I've abandoned all reason, and the world is just ROSY!" Mike, the discrepancy here is that when I say "see it for what it is," what I mean is "see it for what it is." When YOU say "see it for what it is," you mean "see it for the idol I have turned it into." See the difference? Of course not. Too much sand in your eye. Or something.

Possible and documented. Repeatedly. I'd ask you to pull your head out of the sand, Mike, but I'm not sure that's where it is.

Good guess. Wrong guess, but good guess.

I agree with everything you said, Lorna, except the "excuse" part. We don't need an excuse not to tithe anymore than we need an excuse not to sacrifice goats. If it blesses you to give 9.95%, then do it. If it blesses you to give 20%, then do it. If 10% floats your boat, go for it! God certainly encourages generous giving. How you define generous is between you and Him. The OT 10% had a very specific purpose. That purpose no longer exists, but the heart of giving lives on. :) (Checking again: I didn't exactly quote Lorna correctly, so let me get it right. I'm sure there are people looking for an excuse not to give, and they'll use the truth that tithing is not addressed to the church today. Those folks wouldn't give if tithing WERE addressed to the church. But accurate doctrine is accurate doctrine, whether one is looking for the truth or excuses when they find it).

I made my peace with the fact that most churches are Trinitarian a long time ago. When I do have an opportunity to share my beliefs on the subject, usually with friends, I take the approach that because they think he's God, while I think he's Lord, they can teach me things about his Lordship that I might not otherwise get. And if they're willing to hear me out, because I think he's man and not God, I can usually teach them something about his obedience that they would not otherwise consider.

Sorry. I hate answering on Saturdays. I'm the only one on duty Saturday, and I don't get to my computer until late on Sunday. Let's try this one, stolen from another site...

Sudossuda, I just read your reply to me. Very well-reasoned. Thank you. And I'm deeply, deeply sorry for what you went through. You're very sweet. We'll talk more, I'm sure, but yes: Wierwille's doctrine on sex was a travesty.

Make sure you include as many privacy settings as you can, or you'll be bombarded with spam.

I don't know, I just found them. Walked in and listened to the pastor. Stuck around for a while. However, yes, they all (without exception or distinction) taught the Trinity and the dead are alive now. I'm glad you're enoying the CG-affiliated fellowships, though.

(I was waiting for you, excy). Wierwille taught various things from multiple sources, but one thing he did was to twist the Word and his position as a minister in Christ's body to satisfy his lusts. Some people looked at him as a father, and he, in turn, looked at them as conquests. To say he abused his position is an understatement. Very easy to focus on the positive when he didn't have you escorted into his motorcoach where he could greet you with an open robe and a glass of liquor (or heaven forbid, worse). I cannot help the fact that he taught a great many things, and that I learned from him. It's past and it's done. But respect the man? No, I do not. Nobody's perfect. I'll grant that. But you don't have to be perfect to be someone who doesn't prey on the people God has entrusted to you. You don't have to be perfect to be honest. You don't have to be perfect to be compassionate. People are so loathe to judge Wierwille. Well, you're judging him. You get to unilaterally decide that the good he did far outwieghed the bad. I hate to break it to you, but that is an insult to the people he abused, and the systematic way he abused them. He taught me some Bible, but he sure as shootin ain't my father in the Word. As for what I learned from him: I think we're all capable of sifting through it, keeping what fits and tossing out the rest. But that requires an honest look at what he taught.

John, If you can't find these things under one roof, you never looked. I've found PLENTY of churches that teach all these things, including the one I currently attend. However, there are other aspects of VPW's doctrine that better fit your "under one roof" explanation: JC is not God, the dead are dead, dispensationalism/administrations, and latch those onto the items you mentioned. I think I've said more than once that PFAL stands and falls on its merits, not on the character of VPW and not on the truth that it contains material that is often either unoriginal (no surprise there: he never claimed it was) or plagiarized (something some people are remarkably unwilling to accept, evidence be damned).

Oeno, If you look on the main page of the forum, there's a forum called "Computer Questions." It's three forumses above the doctrinal section. That said, no, I do not have an answer.

It means "older leader grad," Mike's term for those to whom his message is most pertinent and directly addressed.

Here's the thing with plagiarism: it's not a matter of learning from others and teaching what we've learned. It's a matter of taking what someone else wrote and passing it off as if you wrote it. There's a difference. I learned a lot from Wierwille, but I don't lift his paragraphs, change a word or two, and slap "By Raf" on the cover. To you, the good in Wierwille's life and ministry far outweighs the negatives. Me? I'm not even keeping score. The good was the good, the bad was beneath contempt. Focusing on the good in Wierwille's life requires separating Wierwille from the good: there is none good but one.

Can you sum up some highlights?

And I accept that you weren't talking about the critics, skeptics, unfit researchers and crybabies when you used the word "phobia."

Phobia's not the word, chief.

Yeah, but when VPW said it, it was special. The earth shook when he said it. Did you see the earth shake when the other ministers said that? Ooh, a new casual intended insult! Now people who look at PFAL objectively have a PHOBIA. It's be funny if it weren't so funny.

I just gotta. Nap Pole Andy Gnome Might. Nappoleandygnomemight. Napolean Dynamite.

=== Let me try a different approach: There are four premises: PFAL is God-breathed. PFAL is not God-breathed. PFAL is valuable. PFAL is not valuable. The first two premises are mutually exclusive, and the subject of this overall discussion. The first premise and the third premise are compatible, but one need not adopt the first premise to accept the third. The second and third premises are compatible. Most Wierwillites, even the staunchest, fall into this category. The second and fourth premises are compatible. The conflict between the third and fourth premises comprise a significant reason Greasespot, and Waydale before it, exists. You and I can have a great discussion about premises three and four, but if I attach premise one to my position, then we're both wasting our time.

That's why I distinguish between actual errors and interpretational errors, a deeper and more substantive discussion. I believe there are errors of interpretation in PFAL, and have discussed several. But if someone is unwilling to face the fact that there are even actual errors, the topic of interpretational errors is moot. Wierwille can write "the moon is made of green cheese," and anyone who disputes that notion is an unfit researcher who has not looked carefully enough at the text in a bid at mastery. "Skeptics," we're called. "Critics." "Naysayers." "Crybabies." I look at the conflict between the Blue Book and Jesus Christ Our Passover concerning the definition of "hanged himself," and I see Wierwille changing his mind over time when he gathers more information. One of those explanations is wrong. But I never lost sleep over it because PFAL never claimed to be inerrant. I think it's a big fat "so what," the only value to the discrepancy being that it disproves the thesis that PFAL IS inerrant. So Wierwille overstated (ie, was wrong about) the significance of heteros and allos in the "four crucified" discussion. So what? We all know the important cross was the one in the middle. So my discussion here (and in related threads) was never about the overall value of PFAL. Some give it high value, some give it low value. My discussion has been about the notion of PFAL as "inerrant," a notion that is demonstrably false when one accepts PFAL's very own definition of what it means to be God-breathed, and one must accept that definition in order to hold onto the notion. After all, how could PFAL be God-breathed while at the same time be wrong about what God-breathed means? I guess I'm saying that your analysis of where I stand on PFAL is partly right, but not relevant to the discussion. I'm simply pointing out that such a position can exist, so those who DO value Wierwille's books do not need to idolatrously exalt them, or him, in order to crack them open and smile while reading them.