I agree Mike. Galatians 5 doesn't say they who do such things shall not "enter" the kingdom. Says they shall not "inherit" the kingdom. Another verse says "no inheritance" which suggests no rewards, bonuses.
Perhaps we should start a thread sometime on that word "inherit" in Galatians 5 so folks who may want to view another choice besides the Rascalian Theological view of a Galatians 5 eternal death sentence may participate and do so.
May I suggest you do so in the "doctrinal forum" where it seems to more appropriately fit?
"Yeah, a lot of that obfuscation stuff DOES happen here, especially in this thread. Has anyone else noticed that?
There’s a style of TV show production that’s like this. I remember one early show that exploited this technique to the max and all the time. It was “The Love Boat.” Each episode was actually about 4 or 5 separate episodes contained within. The show’s story would switch back and forth between all the sub-plots. Since “The Love Boat” (which I hated for this VERY same reason: the segmented plots) I’ve seen many other TV shows do similar things.
This thread’s jumping from obfuscation to obfuscation reminds me of “The Love Boat.”
"Yeah, a lot of that obfuscation stuff DOES happen here, especially in this thread. Has anyone else noticed that?
There’s a style of TV show production that’s like this. I remember one early show that exploited this technique to the max and all the time. It was “The Love Boat.” Each episode was actually about 4 or 5 separate episodes contained within. The show’s story would switch back and forth between all the sub-plots. Since “The Love Boat” (which I hated for this VERY same reason: the segmented plots) I’ve seen many other TV shows do similar things.
This thread’s jumping from obfuscation to obfuscation reminds me of “The Love Boat.”
The Bard seems to have made quite an impact by using interwoven sub-plots.
Of course, not everyone is a big fan of his work, either.
Well, Mike you've got an incomplete checklist in your post # 611. Remember I revised it in my post # 423 [shown below] – it's now up to SEVEN of YOUR claims that I asked you to prove:
...
1. Explain how the current translation(s) of I Corinthians 3:17 contradicts the previous verses [verses 5-16]
2. Explain how the current translation(s) of I Corinthians 3:17 contradicts itself
3. Identify the one improperly translated word in I Corinthians 3:17 and
4. Demonstrate the correct method of translating the passage
5. Explain how the correct translation you suggest - changes the tone of the verse from condemning to warm and soothing
6. Explain how I Corinthians 3:17 correctly translated by you, furthers a deeper understanding of Galatians 5
7. Explain the connection to forgiveness in I Corinthians 3: 5-17.
....
Matter of fact, Don't Worry referred to these SEVEN issues in his post # 520, even categorizing them:
...i'd like to point out that you still have not answered T-Bone's requests for 5 "explanations", 1 "identification", and 1 "demonstration", as listed in his post #423 on this thread........nor my questions to you on post #425, nor a number of specific questions asked by brideofjc............you may have answered some of ham's questions, and maybe doojable's.............but i'm not really sure.....
I’m tempted to pull an old TWI stunt and answer a question with a question – “Mike, are you kidding?” …But seriously Mike, in all your verbosity you have not addressed any of the seven items. I’m sorry – but it seems like you’re trying to pull a fast one. Are you familiar with the term “smoke and mirrors”? Here’s Wikipedia’sdefinition:
Smoke and mirrors is a metaphor for a deceptive, fraudulent, or insubstantial explanation or description. The source of the name is based on magician’s illusions, where magicians make objects appear or disappear by extending or retracting mirrors amid a confusing burst of smoke. The expression may have a connotation of virtuosity or cleverness in carrying out such a deception.
Note to moderators: I’m sorry for the digression on this thread – and I’ve got a feeling it’s going to get awfully tedious if we continue in this manner. It may be best to move this to the doctrinal forum.
Thanks Wolf for not letting my point get lost amongst the obfuscation.
Sure, Paul did awful things in the name of God....BEFORE the life changing impact of the new birth.
Wierwille did awful things his entire life.....he never changed...he acted as a man of the flesh....he spent most of his life finding out ways to make the scriptures say what he WANTED them to say....so that he could do as he damned well pleased.
These are not the actions of a man of the spirit...but a man of the flesh that simply claims to be spiritual.
That is why we were told to examine the fruit in someones life...you just can`t tell by what they say, or their works.
No the key words are fruit, and what their presence, or lack of signifies.
You are flat out wrong about the apostle Paul --- and so are all the "self-righteous" legalistic preacher's out there you've been listening to who have been feeding you all that "self-righteous" balony regarding the apostle Paul. The apostle Paul also did awful things AFTER he got born again. Read Romans 7:16-25 if you don't believe me. He didn't write that before he got born again. He plainly talks about the "sin dwelling in him" there in Romans 7:20. Also in Galatians 4:13 and 14 the apostle Paul talks about his "infirmity of the flesh" and then in v.14 he speaks of my temptation which was in my flesh... The bottom line is the apostle Paul did bad things before he got born again, and he also did bad things afterwards. Now the Word of God doesn't go into specific detail what sin or infirmity Paul had was, but let's not sugar-coat the apostle Paul to make his sermon 'holier-than-thou' - much like the 'self-righteous, hypocrite preacher's you've been listening to. Now that's Paul's own testimony of himself from God's Word - so why would anyone in their right mind listen to those 'self-righteous, hypocrite' preachers who just use God's Word to condemn others based on some "pseudo apostle Paul" and that "pseudo Jesus" they continue preaching and shoving down people's throats?
It is the ungodly who want this 'moral Jesus' who is completely stripped of grace. I've run into those types many times myself and I have never come across a more proud and arrogant group of people you would NEVER, EVER want to met!!! I really can't blame the unsaved for calling those 'Christians' hypocrites either - especially if these are the only (ahem) "Christians" they unfortunately happen to encounter. Remarkable --- the Word of God says we are not in the flesh if we are born again!!! (Romans 8:9)
What I find truly laughable is how you keep on talking about someone you don't like as: 'being in the flesh' - all the while being in the flesh yourself - well, to use your terminology. Apparently it's the only terminology you understand, yet the Word of God says: "But he that hateth [dislikes] his brother is in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes. (1 John 2:11). I think that is an accurate assesment from the Word of God. If that darkness hath blinded ones eyes, what does it make them? According to the Word of God it makes one a "blind man" ---- and you're telling me these are the ones leading people out of the ditch they got themselves into? The Christ I know from scripture said something entirely differant about the "blind leading the blind".
Laugh yourself silly WTH. The proofs in the pudding....you either manifest fruit of the spirit or fruit of the flesh...
You it seems are bent on excusing fruit of the flesh as unimportant...shrug...that is completely contrary to the scriptures...so be it. I happen to think that galatians 5 is significant.
As far as me?? I never claimed to be a man of God with the word since it hadn`t know since the first century... I tend to expect a little more from someone who makes that claim....And secondly, quite frankly, I don`t believe (if we are to acknowledge the evidence in his life) that wierwille WAS my brother....Jesus said by our fruits would we recognize one another, when asked. And thirdly... I chose to treat him with as much dislike as Jesus did the pharacees and money changers that he chased out of temple and called horrible names.
If that is wrong, at least I was following scriptural instruction...How much scripture did you have to ignore in order to maintain your position?
and SUPPOSED to mean he meant "I don't care what people think of me, period."
.... blah, blah, blah, etc. .....
All that verbage of a reply from WW and he can't even read what is written - or his reading comprehension level is very low. I never claimed VPW didn't EVER care about what people thought of him. I claimed he didn't give a d*** what they thought of him when what they thought of him didn't line up with the Word of God. (Note the emphasis there.)
Laugh yourself silly WTH. The proofs in the pudding....you either manifest fruit of the spirit or fruit of the flesh...
You it seems are bent on excusing fruit of the flesh as unimportant...shrug...that is completely contrary to the scriptures...so be it. I happen to think that galatians 5 is significant.
As far as me?? I never claimed to be a man of God with the word since it hadn`t know since the first century... I tend to expect a little more from someone who makes that claim....And secondly, quite frankly, I don`t believe (if we are to acknowledge the evidence in his life) that wierwille WAS my brother....Jesus said by our fruits would we recognize one another, when asked. And thirdly... I chose to treat him with as much dislike as Jesus did the pharacees and money changers that he chased out of temple and called horrible names.
If that is wrong, at least I was following scriptural instruction...How much scripture did you have to ignore in order to maintain your position?
You should spend more time reading Romans than Galatians, because no one can live up to your interpretation of the scriptures --- for all have sinned and fallen far short. And just how do you know whether or not VPW repented of his sins or not? Just who are you to judge him? You should get that foundational stuff in Romans down first before you head into Galatians and strip it from the grace that it is also presenting.
Darned tootin, all have sinned and fallen short, but what the heck does that have to do with fruit of the flesh?? Those are specific attributes that reveal to the outside observer what is on the inside of a person.
I can understand why you would want to dismiss the implications wth, you don`t want to face the truth of what they reveal.
You are flat out wrong about the apostle Paul --- and so are all the "self-righteous" legalistic preacher's out there you've been listening to who have been feeding you all that "self-righteous" balony regarding the apostle Paul. The apostle Paul also did awful things AFTER he got born again. Read Romans 7:16-25 if you don't believe me. He didn't write that before he got born again. He plainly talks about the "sin dwelling in him" there in Romans 7:20. Also in Galatians 4:13 and 14 the apostle Paul talks about his "infirmity of the flesh" and then in v.14 he speaks of my temptation which was in my flesh... The bottom line is the apostle Paul did bad things before he got born again, and he also did bad things afterwards. Now the Word of God doesn't go into specific detail what sin or infirmity Paul had was, but let's not sugar-coat the apostle Paul to make his sermon 'holier-than-thou' - much like the 'self-righteous, hypocrite preacher's you've been listening to. Now that's Paul's own testimony of himself from God's Word - so why would anyone in their right mind listen to those 'self-righteous, hypocrite' preachers who just use God's Word to condemn others based on some "pseudo apostle Paul" and that "pseudo Jesus" they continue preaching and shoving down people's throats?
Here's what Paul said in Romans 7:16-25, so neither I nor WTH have to be trusted on it.
16If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
Is this Paul saying he was fornication, engaging in lascivious acts, idolizing something other than God,
being a drunkard, revelling, etc?
Obviously NOT-because then Galatians 5 would have excluded him.
To those whose conscience is asleep, this will come as news. To many of you, this will be a "no duh"
type of incident.
When I was younger, I pondered an action I had taken, and was wracked with guilt over it.
A total stranger asked me why I was upset, and I told them as much. Having only known me for a few
minutes, they said it probably wasn't something most people would freak out about.
They were 100% correct. If someone ELSE had done it, I would have forgiven them easily.
It was MYSELF I was the harshest critic on.
Someone once started a thread where they wanted to discuss things WE had done wrong.
So, they volunteered a "wrong action" of their own- they had taught the Bible, and "run long"
on time. Now, most people would not make that an issue. If you're a harsh critic on yourself
and have very high expectations, this will bother you.
I've recently been adding to my skill-sets. An instructor reminded me recently to remember
to HAVE FUN. I was focusing so hard on trying to get perfect that I was losing sight of the
entertainment value of learning fun things. But, I'm my own harshest critic, generally.
Some of you would say the same of yourselves. ("It's no surprise to me, I am my own worst enemy...")
Now, Paul was raking himself over the coals about not being PRISTINE, about not being completely
ABOVE IT ALL. Was it serious? If it was, it would have been in the other categories.
To an outsider, it was probably incidental at most. To Paul HIMSELF, it was a big deal.
=======
Now then, did Paul do "bad things" after getting born again? If one's going by the harshest
scales, yes. If one is allowing for humans to occasionally be short-tempered at a bad moment
(as opposed to much of the time), or less-than-perfect (but still civil) conduct to pass muster,
then NO, Paul wasn't PERFECT, but what he did wasn't THAT BAD.
Someone cuts someone else off on the freeway.
Someone rams his car into another on the freeway, then shoots the driver.
Did both do something "bad"? Yes, technically. Would you send both to jail?
For the benefit of those who don't get it, NO, you send the FELON to jail, and you caution
the other driver, "Sin no more." (Or equivalent.)
And these imaginary "self-righteous hypocrite preachers" WTH invented don't even
have to enter the discussion.
It is the ungodly who want this 'moral Jesus' who is completely stripped of grace. I've run into those types many times myself and I have never come across a more proud and arrogant group of people you would NEVER, EVER want to met!!! I really can't blame the unsaved for calling those 'Christians' hypocrites either - especially if these are the only (ahem) "Christians" they unfortunately happen to encounter. Remarkable --- the Word of God says we are not in the flesh if we are born again!!! (Romans 8:9)
We aren't talking about removing grace. We are talking about people using the freedom
God gave them RESPONSIBLY, CHOOSING to do right, and-when they choose to do wrong,
facing consequences, whether that be losing respect, or going to jail for committing a felony.
I certainly don't trust (NOW that I've seen that they exist) Christians who blow off responsibility
and consequences. If they have no conscience, I don't even want to be in the same ROOM
with them.
If I were to encounter Christians who match WTH's claim of those sort of Christians,
I wouldn't want to be in the same room with THEM, EITHER.
What I find truly laughable is how you keep on talking about someone you don't like as: 'being in the flesh' - all the while being in the flesh yourself - well, to use your terminology.
Actually, we're discussing those who do THE WORKS OF THE FLESH.
Galatians 5:19-21.
19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
My terminology's just fine.
I'm talking about people who are making it their POLICY to do stuff God said is
bad to do.
If someone's saying they're "in the flesh" because they are referring to those who
do "works of the flesh", well, unless we're refining doctrinal points, I consider
criticizing it SPLITTING HAIRS, since we both know EXACTLY what is being meant:
the people who make it their PRACTICE, their POLICY, to do really bad things.
Apparently it's the only terminology you understand, yet the Word of God says: "But he that hateth [dislikes] his brother is in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes. (1 John 2:11). I think that is an accurate assesment from the Word of God. If that darkness hath blinded ones eyes, what does it make them? According to the Word of God it makes one a "blind man" ---- and you're telling me these are the ones leading people out of the ditch they got themselves into? The Christ I know from scripture said something entirely differant about the "blind leading the blind".
Funny how you swapped "HATE"-which is a strong emotion- for "DISLIKE"- which is the absence of an
emotion that's not so strong. I dislike being caught in traffic. I do not spend emotion on the subject.
I dislike being caught in the rain. I do not spend emotion on the subject.
I dislike like Karl Rove. I do not spend emotion on him.
In dislike posters who lack the wit to understand the difference between HATING and DISLIKING.
I don't get emotional about them.
Now, darkness or confusion is a more pressing problem, say, if someone wants to say acts of evil
are good, or someone who chronically did evil was a good guy. It's also bad to take someone who,
say, only pointed out evil, and claim that by doing so, THEY are doing evil.
Proverbs 17
13Whoso rewardeth evil for good, evil shall not depart from his house.
15He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.
Isaiah 5:20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
All that verbage of a reply from WW and he can't even read what is written - or his reading comprehension level is very low. I never claimed VPW didn't EVER care about what people thought of him. I claimed he didn't give a d*** what they thought of him when what they thought of him didn't line up with the Word of God. (Note the emphasis there.)
Here is what WTH SAID:
Now it would seem to me if VPW had really said what he meant and really meant what he said (to use a common PFAL colloquialism) then I certainly fail to see just how your opinion of him now (or anybody else's opinion of him now for that matter) holds anything or amounts to anything but a bunch of "hot-air".
What's the conclusion?: If people's opinion of him didn't mean a d*** thing to him back when he was alive, --- WHAT MAKES YOU THINK YOUR OPINION OF HIM WOULD MEAN ANYTHING TO HIM NOW THAT HE IS DEAD???
I said this in reply:
The question is based on a false premise-
that vpw did NOT care what people thought of him,
based on one statement made in one book,
and SUPPOSED to mean he meant "I don't care what people think of me, period."
WTH said originally, "If people's opinion of him didn't mean a d*** thing to him back when he was alive"
In plain English, that means WTH said that vpw didn't care what people thought of him.
Now WTH claimed that he never said that-that coming away with this is failing to read what's
written, or having a low reading comprehension.
Sadly, WTH is unable to reconcile WHAT HE MEANT TO SAY with
WHAT HE SAID AND I REPLIED TO.
And his frustration with being unable to do so results in his tantrum and insulting me.
It's sad, really, but what can you do? I can't educate the man.
Laugh yourself silly WTH. The proofs in the pudding....you either manifest fruit of the spirit or fruit of the flesh...
You it seems are bent on excusing fruit of the flesh as unimportant...shrug...that is completely contrary to the scriptures...so be it. I happen to think that galatians 5 is significant.
As far as me?? I never claimed to be a man of God with the word since it hadn`t know since the first century... I tend to expect a little more from someone who makes that claim....And secondly, quite frankly, I don`t believe (if we are to acknowledge the evidence in his life) that wierwille WAS my brother....Jesus said by our fruits would we recognize one another, when asked. And thirdly... I chose to treat him with as much dislike as Jesus did the pharacees and money changers that he chased out of temple and called horrible names.
If that is wrong, at least I was following scriptural instruction...How much scripture did you have to ignore in order to maintain your position?
You should spend more time reading Romans than Galatians, because no one can live up to your interpretation of the scriptures --- for all have sinned and fallen far short. And just how do you know whether or not VPW repented of his sins or not? Just who are you to judge him? You should get that foundational stuff in Romans down first before you head into Galatians and strip it from the grace that it is also presenting.
Actually, most Christians I know manage just fine refraining from:
Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like."
And those that have ANY problems with ANY of those at least have the honesty to admit
God doesn't approve, and they're going against His will whenever they approach it.
So, HER interpretation of Scriptures mandates a minimum of conduct-
don't make a policy of anything on that list.
Anyone COULD live up to that, and EXCEED it.
When someone REPENTS of something, it means they acknowledge what they did
was wrong, and they seek to make amends for it, to redress the greivances they incurred.
IF vpw repented, THEN he acknowledged what he did and sought to make amends.
We've asked throughout the years. Not ONE person has come forth claiming they
were wronged by vpw in any of the ways on that list, and he even APOLOGIZED,
let alone attempted to make amends. There was no "we will need to clean the morals
of the ministry, starting right here" attempt from vpw. All he would have needed to do
is say it any time he was at the microphone. People would have IMMEDIATELY taken
it as a dire warning needing IMMEDIATE action. There was no finding any of his
personal victims and asking forgiveness, or offering of amends.
There was no sign of ANYTHING that accompanies actually REPENTING of something.
What makes you suspect he MIGHT have repented them?
The closest he got was, in his final few days, claiming he was trying to figure out where he
missed it-where his believing was off. That's nowhere near even admitting he did ANY
of the things any NEUTRAL observer would object to.
Who are we to judge him?
We are Christians who believe the Bible- and therefore, we exercise our senses to
discern good and evil.
If a man performs evil-and makes a POLICY of it- the man is evil, and we can discern that.
If a man claims to be "in Christ", and also claims to be a proud member in good standing
of NAMBLA, the organization of child molesters, then that man is evil, and we can discern THAT.
Or would you say that it is NOT fair to claim that a man who claims to be a practicing Christian,
and a practicing child molester is evil?
Please be honest-if you HONESTLY believe we are in no position to call such a man "evil",
then say so.
How much internal consistency do your beliefs have?
==========
A) The only reason anyone says Romans is "foundational" compared to Galatians is that vpw
said it. You have failed to establish his credibility on this. Therefore, your claim Romans is
more "foundational" is unsupported.
B) I believe that we SHOULD spend some time in Romans.
Romans 6:
1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
11Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
12Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
15What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
16Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
19I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
20For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
21What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
Romans 8:
12Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
According to Romans, we have the grace of God.
AND CONDUCT COUNTS. WE ARE TO AVOID SIN.
AND WHEN WE DON'T, IT IS WRONG.
Darned tootin, all have sinned and fallen short, but what the heck does that have to do with fruit of the flesh?? Those are specific attributes that reveal to the outside observer what is on the inside of a person.
I can understand why you would want to dismiss the implications wth, you don`t want to face the truth of what they reveal.
WORKS of the flesh, please.
If WTH does everything he can to hide that God wants us to do right actions,
can you forgive him for that?
I can.
It doesn't make that any less WRONG, but I can forgive him for it.
...What makes you suspect he MIGHT have repented them?...
My answer to that question would be my own personal observation and fellowship with him. Along with his 40+ years teaching ministry, 15 of which I observed; I also have observed fruit of the spirit; love, joy, peace, gentleness, meekness, goodness, faith, etc. in my dealings with him. I've spent some very short time with him in 1973 and 1975; spent a whole month with him and Mrs. Wierwille in June of 1984 on a motorcycle trip. If he was the man *of the flesh* that some posters relentlessly portray of him, then I saw a different man when I spent time with him. I know him in a different way that contradicts the way he has been portrayed here. So yes, he certainly may have seen the error of those ways and asked God for forgiveness and moved on.
But even IF he didn't, I believe it still would not negate his standing as a child of God because of his belief in Jesus Christ, and I believe it wouldn't negate the truths he taught. The sins of a teacher do not negate the truths in the teaching. The teachings should be viewed separately and stand as truth or error on their own.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
128
169
106
102
Popular Days
Feb 19
54
Feb 26
50
Feb 22
47
Apr 2
40
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 128 posts
Mike 169 posts
Ham 106 posts
waysider 102 posts
Popular Days
Feb 19 2008
54 posts
Feb 26 2008
50 posts
Feb 22 2008
47 posts
Apr 2 2008
40 posts
Posted Images
waysider
May I suggest you do so in the "doctrinal forum" where it seems to more appropriately fit?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yeah, we want to keep the channel on "The Love Boat" here.
Or, was that show "Fantasy Island" that did the calico script?
Or was it both?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
What's a "calico script"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Context: Post #598 where I posted:
"Yeah, a lot of that obfuscation stuff DOES happen here, especially in this thread. Has anyone else noticed that?
There’s a style of TV show production that’s like this. I remember one early show that exploited this technique to the max and all the time. It was “The Love Boat.” Each episode was actually about 4 or 5 separate episodes contained within. The show’s story would switch back and forth between all the sub-plots. Since “The Love Boat” (which I hated for this VERY same reason: the segmented plots) I’ve seen many other TV shows do similar things.
This thread’s jumping from obfuscation to obfuscation reminds me of “The Love Boat.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
frank123lol
Lots and lots of movies do that very thing.Novels as well
Whilst pure polly pure bread ishanging of a cliff,Underdog is flying over the city.............
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The Bard seems to have made quite an impact by using interwoven sub-plots.
Of course, not everyone is a big fan of his work, either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I can take it sometimes, but "The Love Boat" and/or "Fantasy Island" seemed to rely TOTALLY on that gimmick.
So what sub-episode are we in here, now, on this thread?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
The topic is "Forgiveness" IIRC.
Some bloke came in and said he'd give some insight into a verse - but-t-t-t-t that never happened....
So, I guess we go back to the main topic.
I forgive you for forgetting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
How did I do with my checklist?
So far...?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Here it is:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I'd say you've ignored this request made by T-Bone, Bloke.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Well, Mike you've got an incomplete checklist in your post # 611. Remember I revised it in my post # 423 [shown below] – it's now up to SEVEN of YOUR claims that I asked you to prove:
Matter of fact, Don't Worry referred to these SEVEN issues in his post # 520, even categorizing them:
I’m tempted to pull an old TWI stunt and answer a question with a question – “Mike, are you kidding?” …But seriously Mike, in all your verbosity you have not addressed any of the seven items. I’m sorry – but it seems like you’re trying to pull a fast one. Are you familiar with the term “smoke and mirrors”? Here’s Wikipedia’s definition:
Smoke and mirrors is a metaphor for a deceptive, fraudulent, or insubstantial explanation or description. The source of the name is based on magician’s illusions, where magicians make objects appear or disappear by extending or retracting mirrors amid a confusing burst of smoke. The expression may have a connotation of virtuosity or cleverness in carrying out such a deception.
Note to moderators: I’m sorry for the digression on this thread – and I’ve got a feeling it’s going to get awfully tedious if we continue in this manner. It may be best to move this to the doctrinal forum.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
how in the world do you people know what post # people said things at ? you're amazing !!!!!!
when there's too much quoting of scrips or orange or blue or green material, get down to the dungeon !!!!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bowtwi
I'm thinking the Soap Opera - reminds me of that show - As the Stomach Turns.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
"as the stomach turns" sounds like a soap opera of sorts.. I can only imagine the music as we cut to a commercial break of.. "As the Stomach Turns"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
You are flat out wrong about the apostle Paul --- and so are all the "self-righteous" legalistic preacher's out there you've been listening to who have been feeding you all that "self-righteous" balony regarding the apostle Paul. The apostle Paul also did awful things AFTER he got born again. Read Romans 7:16-25 if you don't believe me. He didn't write that before he got born again. He plainly talks about the "sin dwelling in him" there in Romans 7:20. Also in Galatians 4:13 and 14 the apostle Paul talks about his "infirmity of the flesh" and then in v.14 he speaks of my temptation which was in my flesh... The bottom line is the apostle Paul did bad things before he got born again, and he also did bad things afterwards. Now the Word of God doesn't go into specific detail what sin or infirmity Paul had was, but let's not sugar-coat the apostle Paul to make his sermon 'holier-than-thou' - much like the 'self-righteous, hypocrite preacher's you've been listening to. Now that's Paul's own testimony of himself from God's Word - so why would anyone in their right mind listen to those 'self-righteous, hypocrite' preachers who just use God's Word to condemn others based on some "pseudo apostle Paul" and that "pseudo Jesus" they continue preaching and shoving down people's throats?
It is the ungodly who want this 'moral Jesus' who is completely stripped of grace. I've run into those types many times myself and I have never come across a more proud and arrogant group of people you would NEVER, EVER want to met!!! I really can't blame the unsaved for calling those 'Christians' hypocrites either - especially if these are the only (ahem) "Christians" they unfortunately happen to encounter. Remarkable --- the Word of God says we are not in the flesh if we are born again!!! (Romans 8:9)
What I find truly laughable is how you keep on talking about someone you don't like as: 'being in the flesh' - all the while being in the flesh yourself - well, to use your terminology. Apparently it's the only terminology you understand, yet the Word of God says: "But he that hateth [dislikes] his brother is in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes. (1 John 2:11). I think that is an accurate assesment from the Word of God. If that darkness hath blinded ones eyes, what does it make them? According to the Word of God it makes one a "blind man" ---- and you're telling me these are the ones leading people out of the ditch they got themselves into? The Christ I know from scripture said something entirely differant about the "blind leading the blind".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Laugh yourself silly WTH. The proofs in the pudding....you either manifest fruit of the spirit or fruit of the flesh...
You it seems are bent on excusing fruit of the flesh as unimportant...shrug...that is completely contrary to the scriptures...so be it. I happen to think that galatians 5 is significant.
As far as me?? I never claimed to be a man of God with the word since it hadn`t know since the first century... I tend to expect a little more from someone who makes that claim....And secondly, quite frankly, I don`t believe (if we are to acknowledge the evidence in his life) that wierwille WAS my brother....Jesus said by our fruits would we recognize one another, when asked. And thirdly... I chose to treat him with as much dislike as Jesus did the pharacees and money changers that he chased out of temple and called horrible names.
If that is wrong, at least I was following scriptural instruction...How much scripture did you have to ignore in order to maintain your position?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
All that verbage of a reply from WW and he can't even read what is written - or his reading comprehension level is very low. I never claimed VPW didn't EVER care about what people thought of him. I claimed he didn't give a d*** what they thought of him when what they thought of him didn't line up with the Word of God. (Note the emphasis there.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
You should spend more time reading Romans than Galatians, because no one can live up to your interpretation of the scriptures --- for all have sinned and fallen far short. And just how do you know whether or not VPW repented of his sins or not? Just who are you to judge him? You should get that foundational stuff in Romans down first before you head into Galatians and strip it from the grace that it is also presenting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Darned tootin, all have sinned and fallen short, but what the heck does that have to do with fruit of the flesh?? Those are specific attributes that reveal to the outside observer what is on the inside of a person.
I can understand why you would want to dismiss the implications wth, you don`t want to face the truth of what they reveal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Here's what Paul said in Romans 7:16-25, so neither I nor WTH have to be trusted on it.
16If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
Is this Paul saying he was fornication, engaging in lascivious acts, idolizing something other than God,
being a drunkard, revelling, etc?
Obviously NOT-because then Galatians 5 would have excluded him.
To those whose conscience is asleep, this will come as news. To many of you, this will be a "no duh"
type of incident.
When I was younger, I pondered an action I had taken, and was wracked with guilt over it.
A total stranger asked me why I was upset, and I told them as much. Having only known me for a few
minutes, they said it probably wasn't something most people would freak out about.
They were 100% correct. If someone ELSE had done it, I would have forgiven them easily.
It was MYSELF I was the harshest critic on.
Someone once started a thread where they wanted to discuss things WE had done wrong.
So, they volunteered a "wrong action" of their own- they had taught the Bible, and "run long"
on time. Now, most people would not make that an issue. If you're a harsh critic on yourself
and have very high expectations, this will bother you.
I've recently been adding to my skill-sets. An instructor reminded me recently to remember
to HAVE FUN. I was focusing so hard on trying to get perfect that I was losing sight of the
entertainment value of learning fun things. But, I'm my own harshest critic, generally.
Some of you would say the same of yourselves. ("It's no surprise to me, I am my own worst enemy...")
Now, Paul was raking himself over the coals about not being PRISTINE, about not being completely
ABOVE IT ALL. Was it serious? If it was, it would have been in the other categories.
To an outsider, it was probably incidental at most. To Paul HIMSELF, it was a big deal.
=======
Now then, did Paul do "bad things" after getting born again? If one's going by the harshest
scales, yes. If one is allowing for humans to occasionally be short-tempered at a bad moment
(as opposed to much of the time), or less-than-perfect (but still civil) conduct to pass muster,
then NO, Paul wasn't PERFECT, but what he did wasn't THAT BAD.
Someone cuts someone else off on the freeway.
Someone rams his car into another on the freeway, then shoots the driver.
Did both do something "bad"? Yes, technically. Would you send both to jail?
For the benefit of those who don't get it, NO, you send the FELON to jail, and you caution
the other driver, "Sin no more." (Or equivalent.)
And these imaginary "self-righteous hypocrite preachers" WTH invented don't even
have to enter the discussion.
We aren't talking about removing grace. We are talking about people using the freedom
God gave them RESPONSIBLY, CHOOSING to do right, and-when they choose to do wrong,
facing consequences, whether that be losing respect, or going to jail for committing a felony.
I certainly don't trust (NOW that I've seen that they exist) Christians who blow off responsibility
and consequences. If they have no conscience, I don't even want to be in the same ROOM
with them.
If I were to encounter Christians who match WTH's claim of those sort of Christians,
I wouldn't want to be in the same room with THEM, EITHER.
Actually, we're discussing those who do THE WORKS OF THE FLESH.Galatians 5:19-21.
19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
My terminology's just fine.
I'm talking about people who are making it their POLICY to do stuff God said is
bad to do.
If someone's saying they're "in the flesh" because they are referring to those who
do "works of the flesh", well, unless we're refining doctrinal points, I consider
criticizing it SPLITTING HAIRS, since we both know EXACTLY what is being meant:
the people who make it their PRACTICE, their POLICY, to do really bad things.
Funny how you swapped "HATE"-which is a strong emotion- for "DISLIKE"- which is the absence of an
emotion that's not so strong. I dislike being caught in traffic. I do not spend emotion on the subject.
I dislike being caught in the rain. I do not spend emotion on the subject.
I dislike like Karl Rove. I do not spend emotion on him.
In dislike posters who lack the wit to understand the difference between HATING and DISLIKING.
I don't get emotional about them.
Now, darkness or confusion is a more pressing problem, say, if someone wants to say acts of evil
are good, or someone who chronically did evil was a good guy. It's also bad to take someone who,
say, only pointed out evil, and claim that by doing so, THEY are doing evil.
Proverbs 17
13Whoso rewardeth evil for good, evil shall not depart from his house.
15He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.
Isaiah 5:20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Here is what WTH SAID:
I said this in reply:
WTH said originally, "If people's opinion of him didn't mean a d*** thing to him back when he was alive"
In plain English, that means WTH said that vpw didn't care what people thought of him.
Now WTH claimed that he never said that-that coming away with this is failing to read what's
written, or having a low reading comprehension.
Sadly, WTH is unable to reconcile WHAT HE MEANT TO SAY with
WHAT HE SAID AND I REPLIED TO.
And his frustration with being unable to do so results in his tantrum and insulting me.
It's sad, really, but what can you do? I can't educate the man.
He could easily have responded
"What I MEANT was..." and then been correct.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Actually, most Christians I know manage just fine refraining from:
"adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like."
And those that have ANY problems with ANY of those at least have the honesty to admit
God doesn't approve, and they're going against His will whenever they approach it.
So, HER interpretation of Scriptures mandates a minimum of conduct-
don't make a policy of anything on that list.
Anyone COULD live up to that, and EXCEED it.
When someone REPENTS of something, it means they acknowledge what they did
was wrong, and they seek to make amends for it, to redress the greivances they incurred.
IF vpw repented, THEN he acknowledged what he did and sought to make amends.
We've asked throughout the years. Not ONE person has come forth claiming they
were wronged by vpw in any of the ways on that list, and he even APOLOGIZED,
let alone attempted to make amends. There was no "we will need to clean the morals
of the ministry, starting right here" attempt from vpw. All he would have needed to do
is say it any time he was at the microphone. People would have IMMEDIATELY taken
it as a dire warning needing IMMEDIATE action. There was no finding any of his
personal victims and asking forgiveness, or offering of amends.
There was no sign of ANYTHING that accompanies actually REPENTING of something.
What makes you suspect he MIGHT have repented them?
The closest he got was, in his final few days, claiming he was trying to figure out where he
missed it-where his believing was off. That's nowhere near even admitting he did ANY
of the things any NEUTRAL observer would object to.
Who are we to judge him?
We are Christians who believe the Bible- and therefore, we exercise our senses to
discern good and evil.
If a man performs evil-and makes a POLICY of it- the man is evil, and we can discern that.
If a man claims to be "in Christ", and also claims to be a proud member in good standing
of NAMBLA, the organization of child molesters, then that man is evil, and we can discern THAT.
Or would you say that it is NOT fair to claim that a man who claims to be a practicing Christian,
and a practicing child molester is evil?
Please be honest-if you HONESTLY believe we are in no position to call such a man "evil",
then say so.
How much internal consistency do your beliefs have?
==========
A) The only reason anyone says Romans is "foundational" compared to Galatians is that vpw
said it. You have failed to establish his credibility on this. Therefore, your claim Romans is
more "foundational" is unsupported.
B) I believe that we SHOULD spend some time in Romans.
Romans 6:
1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
11Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
12Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
15What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
16Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
19I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
20For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
21What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
Romans 8:
12Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
According to Romans, we have the grace of God.
AND CONDUCT COUNTS. WE ARE TO AVOID SIN.
AND WHEN WE DON'T, IT IS WRONG.
WORKS of the flesh, please.
If WTH does everything he can to hide that God wants us to do right actions,
can you forgive him for that?
I can.
It doesn't make that any less WRONG, but I can forgive him for it.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
My answer to that question would be my own personal observation and fellowship with him. Along with his 40+ years teaching ministry, 15 of which I observed; I also have observed fruit of the spirit; love, joy, peace, gentleness, meekness, goodness, faith, etc. in my dealings with him. I've spent some very short time with him in 1973 and 1975; spent a whole month with him and Mrs. Wierwille in June of 1984 on a motorcycle trip. If he was the man *of the flesh* that some posters relentlessly portray of him, then I saw a different man when I spent time with him. I know him in a different way that contradicts the way he has been portrayed here. So yes, he certainly may have seen the error of those ways and asked God for forgiveness and moved on.
But even IF he didn't, I believe it still would not negate his standing as a child of God because of his belief in Jesus Christ, and I believe it wouldn't negate the truths he taught. The sins of a teacher do not negate the truths in the teaching. The teachings should be viewed separately and stand as truth or error on their own.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.