Excepton that bright, sunshiny day when he spoke audibly to ol' victor. He spoke so that victor could hear him with crystal clarity through vic's old man, natural, five senses ears. Via physical mechanisms by the laws of physical mechanics. Out loud. Audibly. "Just like I'm speaking toyounow."
You are not keeping track of the details of this discussion. We were talking about God having "difficulty" talking to spiritless humans. In 1942 VPW had spirit, but did not know how to use it well. God had something to work with.
You are not keeping track of the details of this discussion. We were talking about God having "difficulty" talking to spiritless humans. In 1942 VPW had spirit, but did not know how to use it well. God had something to work with.
Oooooohhhh. Okay.
And how do the get spirit? Confessing Jesus is Lord and believing God raised him from the dead?
That was my whole point:
SINCE our senses brain only understands physical mechanics and cannot understand spiritual mechanics, NOT ONE BIT AT ALL, all we can do is accept what the scriptures say about it.
It is pretty clear from the OT scriptures that with "spirit upon" more things could happen. How that works is spiritual and beyond us. That was my point: we can't know spiritual mechanics.
When it comes to the brain, even the physical mechanics are VERY difficult for science at this very moment, but the spiritual mechanics is WAY beyond human comprehension.
Face it Mike, you just do NOT make sense. You're wasting your time.
I think the simple answer to this is like in the class where we were taught "No man can REALLY say Jesus is Lord but by holy spirit."
The expanded version is:
God is Spirit, and can only REALLY communicate with that which He is-which is Spirit
God can communicate in less efficient ways, like with phenomena, but it is crude and limited. It's far from a face-to-face conversation.
After the Fall God communicated with Adam and Eve in the Garden – how did He do that?
Who says God can only REALLY communicate with that which He is-which is Spirit?
Why is phenomena crude, limited and a less efficient way for God to communicate?
If God is truly omniscient, omnipotent, and all that – don’t you think with the ultimate in sophistication and poise God Almighty would be able to a produce a phenomena – achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense? A simple "yes" or "no" from you would be a sufficient answer.
Maybe you’re talking about a different god than the one that created the Cosmos…some clarification would be nice.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
My inclination is to believe we don't generate truly new ideas, but that we get them from other people, and going back far enough, from spirits.
We can do things that look like new idea generation by fitting together the right pieces.
This is not so much from scripture, but more from my study of the brain.
Did you hear that in a séance?
That’s kinda weird, Mike.
…and I guess you don’t have a high opinion of humankind’s cognitive skills? Confirmation of your opinion would be nice.
You are not keeping track of the details of this discussion. We were talking about God having "difficulty" talking to spiritless humans.
In 1942 VPW had spirit, but did not know how to use it well. God had something to work with.
Technically YOU are the only one who has been talking about God having "difficulty" talking to supposedly spiritless humans.
How do you know wierwille had spirit in 1942?
How do you know if he ever had spirit at all?
Was he born again?
I’m not one to judge on otherworldly matters like that…but Jesus said we can look at fruit…but I know some wierwille fans – for some unknown reason – like to ignore his unabashed plagiarism, pathological lying, money-grubbing stealing, glory-seeking-chain-smoking-Drambuie- guzzling-sexual-molesting lifestyle -and give him a free pass…whatever… that’s on their conscience.
I wasn't raised in a fundamentalist-evangelical-Christian-jihadist-militant home. Though my mother definitely identifies as Christian, she would likely be labeled by many here as a liberal Christian. The opinions, assumptions and asserted claims of PFAL are ideological novelties to me.
"You can't go beyond what you've been taught."- vpw
So, where do new ideas come from?
The classic example of a new invention being merely the assembly of fragments floating around in the air comes with the invention of calculus about 400 years ago. Both Newton and Leibniz were exposed to these pieces and fragments of ideas, and both of them assembled them together into calculus, just using slightly different nomenclature to describe their ideas. They both invented a new thing, calculus, but they invented it by putting together pieces that were floating around and a lot of people had in their head.
Similar thing happened with Einstein and his special relativity theory on space and time being relative and not absolute. Lorentz and Fitzgerald had put together similar ideas a few years before Einstein, but Einstein put together the pieces in a better way, more elegantly.
The same thing happened in the 1920s with Heisenberg’s matrix theory on quantum mechanics and Schrodinger’s totally different wave theory both coming up with good answers, and then later being shown to be mathematically equivalent. They simply put together the same ideas but in a different way.
You are not keeping track of the details of this discussion. We were talking about God having "difficulty" talking to spiritless humans. In 1942 VPW had spirit, but did not know how to use it well. God had something to work with.
God"s the one having the difficulty. Got it.
The human is not having difficulty hearing God. Rather, it's God's deficiency in communicating. Got it. Thanks.
You are not keeping track of the details of this discussion. We were talking about God having "difficulty" talking to spiritless humans. In 1942 VPW had spirit, but did not know how to use it well. God had something to work with.
Mike your "messaging" is antithetical to changing anyone's mind in the direction you say you want to.
First thing to do, for successful messaging, is to get people to like you.
Clearly, that is not something you seem to know or if you do know, you don't care about.
You are wasting your time here, Mike. You've done so, off and on, for roughly 20 years. Is this really what you want your life to have meant when it's all over?
You are not keeping track of the details of this discussion. We were talking about God having "difficulty" talking to spiritless humans. In 1942 VPW had spirit, but did not know how to use it well. God had something to work with.
When beginning the discussion with a given of an ALMIGHTY God, the idea of that ALMIGHTY God having "difficulty" with ANYTHING is a ludicrous one. "Less efficient", to one with infinite resources, is equally ludicrous.
You are not keeping track of the details of this discussion. We were talking about God having "difficulty" talking to spiritless humans. In 1942 VPW had spirit, but did not know how to use it well. God had something to work with.
Check out Jeremiah 32:27 sometime:
Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh, is there anything too hard for me?
God created the universe and the laws there within. If he want to talk to someone without spirit, guess what he can make a universal law to do? Or was his foreknowledge on the fritz that day?
I think the simple answer to this is like in the class where we were taught "No man can REALLY say Jesus is Lord but by holy spirit."
The expanded version is:
God is Spirit, and can only REALLY communicate with that which He is-which is Spirit
God can communicate in less efficient ways, like with phenomena, but it is crude and limited. It's far from a face-to-face conversation.
Think of God being limited in how well He can communicate with natural men, the same way we are limited in how well we can communicate with our pets.... compared with our communication with people.
You added the word "really" to the word of wierwille. When you add to the word of wierwille, you no longer have the word of wierwille.
There's a certain irony of taking face-to-face, or mouth-to-mouth, as God put it, in this context.
You said communicating in the "5 senses", like an audible conversation, is CRUDE and LIMITED, and that it is "far from a face-to-face conversation." Don't you get it? God confirmed that "face to face conversations" are personal, but since they're by the senses, you're categorizing them- inadvertently- as "CRUDE and LIMITED." Don't you listen to yourself? That's an internal contradiction- and it came from trying to make obvious errors into secret truths.
We never really made a thread on the subject, because it was so easily proven wrong.
First of all, it wasn't even consistent.
"God is Spirit- and God can only give that which He is, which is Spirit." -vpw, pfal.
"God gave manna. God is not manna." -Raf, GSC.
"God is Spirit- and God can only communicate with that which He is, which is Spirit."-vpw, pfal.
Several people pointed out the obvious problems with that, as it doesn't even work on paper- especially when what vpw called "The Great Principle" comes into play.
"God is Spirit, and God communicates with his spirit in you- which is now your spirit, and your spirit teaches your mind. Then it becomes manifested in the senses realm as you act."
So, now God's Spirit IS UNABLE to communicate with my mind directly, because God is Spirit, and Spirit cannot communicate with mind directly since mind is not spirit. So, God's Spirit communicates directly to my spirit.
The next step is that my spirit teaches my mind. To do that, it MUST FIRST COMMUNICATE with my mind. So, my spirit can do what God Almighty's Spirit is UNABLE TO DO.
Seriously, if you spend time trying to save "the Great Principle" with your usual method of "that's the version for public consumption, but even the Corps and the inner cadre never REALLY heard the secret, occult meaning behind that- of which the version in pfal is an oversimplified, understated version",
you're not going to get any converts to it, and you're just going to sink deeper into the rabbit hole.
But, if you really want to discuss it, sure, start a new thread in Doctrinal. (That's when you make a new thread yourself specifically to discuss something, that's not when you take a different, existing thread with a different subject and start posting your new subject on it.)
Actually, that's exactly what we're getting. Called it.
You are trying to make spiritual mechanics work like physical mechanics.
The fact that spirit is needed on our side is simply scriptural, and is like a Postulate that must be accepted, and then you look for understanding elsewhere.
By inserting the word "REALLY" into the process, I think it makes WORKABLE sense.
I have been pondering this idea for over 35 years, and I think you gave it less than 35 seconds, before your knee-jerk, "it looks too much like vpw for me to stomach," clouds your understanding. Give it some time, please.
WHY would VPW say such a thing in the class that "God cannot...."? That is an attention getter. It CANNOT be true to fact and must be a figure of speech that VPW was using there.
In my cat&dog analogy, we can see a similar situation.
Our pets are missing something that they ALMOST have, especially dogs. They have likes and dislikes and they try to communicate with us, but only get through rough, short ideas. Similarly with us getting complex information down to their level.
It is not a lack on our part that prevents us from communicating RICHLY with animals.
It is not a lack on God's part that prevents Him from communicating RICHLY with spiritless humans.
So, please give the idea a little time to simmer.
Assuming inerrancy on the behalf of wierwille leads one to post drivel like this. if wierwille comes up with something easily proven as wrong, then wierwille didn't actually MAKE A MISTAKE, no, he secretly USED A FIGURE OF SPEECH.
The classic example of a new invention being merely the assembly of fragments floating around in the air comes with the invention of calculus about 400 years ago.
nope - not buying it - this sounds like someone pulled a LoShonta out of where the sun doesn't shine and labeled it "the classic example".
Victor's only goal in regurgitating "you can't go beyond what you've been taught" is indoctrination by manipulation. The subtle implication is what you've been taught is wrong, but it's not your fault, because "you can't go beyond what you've been taught."
But never fear, vic is here! He's gonna teach ya the word as it hasn't been known since the 1st century (and the 19th) rightly divided. First, you've got to "unlearn what you've learned." Next, renew your mind (turn off your mind), and git ready to absorb by BELEEVING what the teacher teaches. THAT'S the only way to go beyond the error you've been taught.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
120
259
157
205
Popular Days
Nov 2
154
Oct 30
111
Nov 3
106
Nov 4
104
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 120 posts
T-Bone 259 posts
OldSkool 157 posts
Nathan_Jr 205 posts
Popular Days
Nov 2 2022
154 posts
Oct 30 2022
111 posts
Nov 3 2022
106 posts
Nov 4 2022
104 posts
Popular Posts
penworks
VPW's statement that the Bible interprets itself is nonsense. The act of interpretation of any text is done by the reader of the text. People interpret what they read. They are the ones who give it me
waysider
And in doing so, he was violating his own "To Whom it is Written" rule.
Charity
What I see in what you wrote Chockfull is that we were meant to have a relationship with the class - you know the one that replaced our relationship with Christ. It was our lord in that it had power,
Posted Images
Nathan_Jr
ROTFLMAO!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You are not keeping track of the details of this discussion. We were talking about God having "difficulty" talking to spiritless humans. In 1942 VPW had spirit, but did not know how to use it well. God had something to work with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Oooooohhhh. Okay.
And how do the get spirit? Confessing Jesus is Lord and believing God raised him from the dead?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Face it Mike, you just do NOT make sense. You're wasting your time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You're off into un-serious questioning, and not discussing things.
You'd do well as a heckler at the Comedy Store. Considering a career change?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
How is that (what you said) going to lead anyone to see "the light?"
Besides not making sense, you demonstrate gross lack of discipline in "your messaging." You're wasting your time here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Holy $#%! this means you heard a vintage 1942 Bullshonta!!! Whoa! That's highly valuable!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Other than me getting up away from my computer and turning the hall light to get back to the bedroom it's pretty moot....id say...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Serious question for anyone:
How do you "git" holy spirit according to vic? I honestly can't remember. (I did remember the lowercase!)
Isn't it the confession of J.C. as Lord and the resurrection, etc? I don't need a dissertation. Just a simple equation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Yes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
After the Fall God communicated with Adam and Eve in the Garden – how did He do that?
Who says God can only REALLY communicate with that which He is-which is Spirit?
Why is phenomena crude, limited and a less efficient way for God to communicate?
If God is truly omniscient, omnipotent, and all that – don’t you think with the ultimate in sophistication and poise God Almighty would be able to a produce a phenomena – achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense? A simple "yes" or "no" from you would be a sufficient answer.
Maybe you’re talking about a different god than the one that created the Cosmos…some clarification would be nice.
Did you hear that in a séance?
That’s kinda weird, Mike.
…and I guess you don’t have a high opinion of humankind’s cognitive skills? Confirmation of your opinion would be nice.
Psychology Today article on creativity
are creativity and originality the same thing?
What methods did you employ in your study of the brain?
Mike, you might like these articles:
How does our brain form creative and original ideas?
where does creativity come from?
Technically YOU are the only one who has been talking about God having "difficulty" talking to supposedly spiritless humans.
How do you know wierwille had spirit in 1942?
How do you know if he ever had spirit at all?
Was he born again?
I’m not one to judge on otherworldly matters like that…but Jesus said we can look at fruit…but I know some wierwille fans – for some unknown reason – like to ignore his unabashed plagiarism, pathological lying, money-grubbing stealing, glory-seeking-chain-smoking-Drambuie- guzzling-sexual-molesting lifestyle - and give him a free pass…whatever… that’s on their conscience.
Edited by T-Bonelook at us we're editing
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Thank you, Rocky.
I wasn't raised in a fundamentalist-evangelical-Christian-jihadist-militant home. Though my mother definitely identifies as Christian, she would likely be labeled by many here as a liberal Christian. The opinions, assumptions and asserted claims of PFAL are ideological novelties to me.
So much bullshonta sometimes, my head spins.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The classic example of a new invention being merely the assembly of fragments floating around in the air comes with the invention of calculus about 400 years ago. Both Newton and Leibniz were exposed to these pieces and fragments of ideas, and both of them assembled them together into calculus, just using slightly different nomenclature to describe their ideas. They both invented a new thing, calculus, but they invented it by putting together pieces that were floating around and a lot of people had in their head.
Similar thing happened with Einstein and his special relativity theory on space and time being relative and not absolute. Lorentz and Fitzgerald had put together similar ideas a few years before Einstein, but Einstein put together the pieces in a better way, more elegantly.
The same thing happened in the 1920s with Heisenberg’s matrix theory on quantum mechanics and Schrodinger’s totally different wave theory both coming up with good answers, and then later being shown to be mathematically equivalent. They simply put together the same ideas but in a different way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
"No man can REALLY say Jesus is Lord but by holy spirit." But no man can git holy spirit until he says Jesus is Lord.
Gosh, this seems like some kind of paradoxical circle! Kind of a chicken and egg thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
God"s the one having the difficulty. Got it.
The human is not having difficulty hearing God. Rather, it's God's deficiency in communicating. Got it. Thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Mike your "messaging" is antithetical to changing anyone's mind in the direction you say you want to.
First thing to do, for successful messaging, is to get people to like you.
Clearly, that is not something you seem to know or if you do know, you don't care about.
You are wasting your time here, Mike. You've done so, off and on, for roughly 20 years. Is this really what you want your life to have meant when it's all over?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
When beginning the discussion with a given of an ALMIGHTY God, the idea of that ALMIGHTY God having "difficulty" with ANYTHING is a ludicrous one. "Less efficient", to one with infinite resources, is equally ludicrous.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Check out Jeremiah 32:27 sometime:
Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh, is there anything too hard for me?
God created the universe and the laws there within. If he want to talk to someone without spirit, guess what he can make a universal law to do? Or was his foreknowledge on the fritz that day?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
You added the word "really" to the word of wierwille. When you add to the word of wierwille, you no longer have the word of wierwille.
There's a certain irony of taking face-to-face, or mouth-to-mouth, as God put it, in this context.
You said communicating in the "5 senses", like an audible conversation, is CRUDE and LIMITED, and that it is "far from a face-to-face conversation." Don't you get it? God confirmed that "face to face conversations" are personal, but since they're by the senses, you're categorizing them- inadvertently- as "CRUDE and LIMITED." Don't you listen to yourself? That's an internal contradiction- and it came from trying to make obvious errors into secret truths.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Actually, that's exactly what we're getting. Called it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Assuming inerrancy on the behalf of wierwille leads one to post drivel like this. if wierwille comes up with something easily proven as wrong, then wierwille didn't actually MAKE A MISTAKE, no, he secretly USED A FIGURE OF SPEECH.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
nope - not buying it - this sounds like someone pulled a LoShonta out of where the sun doesn't shine and labeled it "the classic example".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Victor's only goal in regurgitating "you can't go beyond what you've been taught" is indoctrination by manipulation. The subtle implication is what you've been taught is wrong, but it's not your fault, because "you can't go beyond what you've been taught."
But never fear, vic is here! He's gonna teach ya the word as it hasn't been known since the 1st century (and the 19th) rightly divided. First, you've got to "unlearn what you've learned." Next, renew your mind (turn off your mind), and git ready to absorb by BELEEVING what the teacher teaches. THAT'S the only way to go beyond the error you've been taught.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
That Lo Shonta was competing for space with the pennies. He had to make some room.
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.