I think a better case can be made that the Bible must be interpreted by the reader. That does not mean it’s entirely left up to the reader to figure everything out for himself or herself. Since the Bible was written a long time ago in several languages, across generations, cultures, political settings, etc. of necessity a student of the Bible – unless they were born with the knowledge and experiences of everything in the Bible – the student of the Bible will have to refer to legitimate sources who have expertise in the Biblical languages, cultures, sociological settings, worldviews, theological themes, etc.
A case in point is in Acts – with Philip meeting up with the Ethiopian:
26 Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Go south to the road—the desert road—that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” 27 So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of the Kandake (which means “queen of the Ethiopians”). This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, 28 and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the Book of Isaiah the prophet. 29 The Spirit told Philip, “Go to that chariot and stay near it.”
30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So, he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
32 This is the passage of Scripture the eunuch was reading:
“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he did not open his mouth. In his humiliation he was deprived of justice. Who can speak of his descendants? For his life was taken from the earth.”
34 The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
Hey now, I was sLeeping in tongues for The Teacher....ok...that was bullshonta...I just love using my new word....
Normally I’d say someone who makes a crack like that is full of Shonta…but since you snuck it in with sLeeping in tongues - also known as automatic-praying – all reproof and correction will be held in abstinenceabsentiaAbercrombie & FitchauthoritarianismAleutian IslandsAlaska…yeah that’s the ticket…lottery drawing for who gets browbeaten will be held in the Bay of Abeyance in Alaska…what? Why not Virginia? Idaho I’ll Alaska…imagine a GPS system that locates itself…scratch that – I think that’s what it does…but HOW?
Which still doesn’t make one author 40 conduits. They are humans who get inspired not controlled with automatic writing.
If you notice, Mike (really TWI does this the best) attributes wierwille's corrupted character to God's perfectly just character, when God is nothing like wierwille. Mike says one author (God) and 40 (or so) "writers" - even though writer and author are basically synanymous, I digress. Mike makes these men sound like conduits, as others have noted. So - on one hand you have wierwille, who gave nobody credit but used their works outright lying that they were his own. So - wierwille DOES NOT credit co-workers and definately does not credit authors that he in fact STOLE from stating the material came to him via revelation....which is why poor mike thinks plaf is God-breathed.
On the other hand you have God almighty who credits his co-workers and authors to the end he let's their names remain all throughout the book(s) they authored and he inspired. Now mike will probably choke on his tongute here..but scripture notes we are fellowworkers with God. That God will reward us for EVERY single thing we ever do for him because he is a just God who credits people for their works, and pays accordingly. So - One God who was the source of in-spirit action and 40 or so authors who wrote not only what they were inspired to write, but at times spoke by permission - in the case of Paul in:
1 Corinthians 7:6
But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
We have seen from John 4:24 that God is Spirit. God being Spirit can only speak to what He is. God cannot speak to the natural human mind. This is why The Word could not come by the will of man because the will of man is in the natural realm.
Mike - make this make sense. God can not only speak to man's natural mind he can actually make an @$$ talk to a man in the case of Balaam. This crap is what you idolize? God can only speak to what he is. Hell, I don't even have that limitation because I speak to all kinds of things that aren't what I am. In fact ---- brb --- gonna go speak and preach to the trees.
Normally I’d say someone who makes a crack like that is full of Shonta…but since you snuck it in with sLeeping in tongues - also known as automatic-praying – all reproof and correction will be held in abstinenceabsentiaAbercrombie & FitchauthoritarianismAleutian IslandsAlaska…yeah that’s the ticket…lottery drawing for who gets browbeaten will be held in the Bay of Abeyance in Alaska…what? Why not Virginia? Idaho I’ll Alaska…imagine a GPS system that locates itself…scratch that – I think that’s what it does…but HOW?
Man... I bet you and I could put on one helluva pflap class. I can stay in one of the back rooms automatic-praying the whole time and you would be so ENERGIZED to get up and talk in between sessions and such...and I would feel so refreshed at the end of the sessions. But be very very careful not to veer from the instruction syllabus they give to class corrdinators. We all have to speak the same thing dontcha know...
Here’s another example of Jesus interpreting the Scriptures:
14 Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. 15 He was teaching in their synagogues, and everyone praised him.
16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, 19to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”
Here’s an even more dramatic account of the resurrected Christ explaining the Scriptures to just two believers walking on the road to Emmaus:
13 Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. 14 They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15 As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16 but they were kept from recognizing him.
17 He asked them, “What are you discussing together as you walk along?”
They stood still, their faces downcast. 18 One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?”
19 “What things?” he asked.
“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. 20 The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21 but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22 In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23 but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24 Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Jesus.”
25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
28 As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus continued on as if he were going farther. 29 But they urged him strongly, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over.” So, he went in to stay with them.
30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32 They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”
Bullshonta has a certain elegance, a richness, and it rolls off the tongue lol.
I’ll give it a 2 malakacita rating lol
Man, your drive a hard bargain, only a 2 malakacita rating? I was thinking like a 4.639
On a side not I used to live in a Greek neighborhood (Astoria) and can curse fluently in Greek and a few other languages. Which brings us to Malakas, which is the root for Malakacita...probably mamacita as well. Malakas pretty much = wanker and is pretty vulgar in it's street slang application...anywho....now that you guys know that I am sure you were better off before reading my bullshonta....theres that word again....
Dang TBone is that an example of the Word taking the place of the absent Christ and interpreting itself? Oh no wait the Christ was there not absent. Is that a crack in the space-time continuum when the absent Christ, the Word, and the present Christ all meet up together?
Man, your drive a hard bargain, only a 2 malakacita rating? I was thinking like a 4.639
On a side not I used to live in a Greek neighborhood (Astoria) and can curse fluently in Greek and a few other languages. Which brings us to Malakas, which is the root for Malakacita...probably mamacita as well. Malakas pretty much = wanker and is pretty vulgar in it's street slang application...anywho....now that you guys know that I am sure you were better off before reading my bullshonta....theres that word again....
That reminds me – when I was a freshman in high school – I’d bring the French dialog book home and practice out loud. My older brother once said to me “you speak French like a Spanish cow.”
Now that I’m older and wiser – I realize he had made an insult wrapped up inside of a rebuff…I mean realistically a Spanish cow would have to study abroad…oh wait…hmmmmmm…cinq minutes de plus, s’il vous plait…yeah - you know what? maybe it could work if the broad was a mademoiselle.
We may have mis-comunicated on one thing. It's the word "story."
What I was objecting to is her handling (in that one post of hers) of the one tiny issue of "the Bible interpreting itself" or not.
*/*/*/*
There was no objecting to the "story" in her book in my post.
I haven't even read 5% of it yet, not even to the point where she took the class, and am in no big hurry to finish.
For unrelated reasons, I've been recently looking at the John Scheonheit 1986 paper on adultery. It occurred to me there could be overlap between the two, so I already had "Undertow" and started reading it slowly.
I have been thinking of writing a TWI history, where the totally white-washing style of official TWI publications can be avoided. Also to be avoided are the styles prevalent here, which I.M.H.O. are too extreme in the opposite direction. The Scheonheit paper played a prominent role in the ministry meltdown of 1986, so it must be included in an honest history of TWI.
20 hours ago, Mike said:
I pasted in below my entire response you referred to. It looks like I was in a tough mood then. Maybe from the heat of battle. I said roughly the same thing an hour or so ago.
On 3/27/2018 at 9:16 AM, T-Bone said:
Hey Mike,
i was wondering if you had a chance yet to read Penworks’ Undertow book
Mike responded with:
I have it and am slowly reading it.
My first objection, though, is how she objected to the idea that "the Bible interprets itself." I find that objection very dim witted, even when pumped up with detail like with the posters that attacked it 15 years ago here. It slowed down my reading, but I still intend to finish it. That interpretation issue lowered my expectations and the book's priority in my schedule.
In a nutshell: Imagine how quirky it is for God to issue His Word to communicate to us, but then He FAILS to put cues, keys, and signposts in there to guide sincere seekers. That sounds like a bad way to get a message out. It's like Him saying "I want you to know something but I will not help you understand it."
The phrase "The Bible interprets itself" is an extreme abbreviation of a complex idea. She did not do that justice IMO. The criticism this idea got here 15 years ago I thought was similarly lacking. My impression was that she was leading uninformed readers into thinking God is supposed to be mysterious, an old Catholic idea. Maybe her book will get better later.
If you can recommend a spot to skip ahead to I would appreciate seeing what you feel is an section important to me.
Are you aware of how YOU CONTRADICT YOUR OWN TESTIMONY.
Just 4 hours ago, you said “I haven't even read 5% of it yet, not even to the point where she took the class, and am in no big hurry to finish.”
But in reposting what you said in March of 2018 you said,
“I have it and am slowly reading it.My first objection, though, is how she objected to the idea that "the Bible interprets itself."I find that objection very dim witted, even when pumped up with detail like with the posters that attacked it 15 years ago here…
...The phrase "The Bible interprets itself" is an extreme abbreviation of a complex idea.She did not do that justice IMO.The criticism this idea got here 15 years ago I thought was similarly lacking. My impression was that she was leading uninformed readers into thinking God is supposed to be mysterious, an old Catholic idea.Maybe her book will get better later.”
~ ~ ~ ~
So how can it be in 2018 you had read enough in Undertow, that you could concludeshe didn’t accurately represent the idea that the Bible interprets itself and that she was misleading uninformed readers – when you just admitted you’re not even to the point in Undertow when she took the class?
Seems to me you’re making stuff up because you haven’t even read it at all…I’ve actually read Undertow several times – and you’re just guessing at the how and the when of watershed moments as her story unfolds.
It looks to me like you're trying to insinuate yourself into a thread topic you don't agree with - just so you can spew out your pro-PFAL propaganda...I told you earlier it's okay to disagree, but it would be nice if you articulated WHY you disagree - instead of making up nonsense like this.
I find it hard to believe you really do have an analytical mind – that you’re an independent thinker - like you claim you were back when you checked out some of wierwille’s teachings before you bought into his stuff.
That would have meant you read through his stuff and/or took PFAL beforehand – before coming to the conclusion he was right on everything.
What it looks like to me is that your cognitive skills are so unreliable that you do not want to risk looking at information which could threaten your belief system which is built upon wierwille’s PFAL-house-of-cards.
That reminds me – when I was a freshman in high school – I’d bring the French dialog book home and practice out loud. My older brother once said to me “you speak French like a Spanish cow.”
Now that I’m older and wiser – I realize he had made an insult wrapped up inside of a rebuff…I mean realistically a Spanish cow would have to study abroad…oh wait…hmmmmmm…cinq minutes de plus, s’il vous plait…yeah - you know what? maybe it could work if the broad was a mademoiselle.
my older sister was good at insulting me without me realizing I was being ripped on...older siblings suck....lol shonta
How can one work it if it can't be interpreted? It can't be interpreted because it interprets itself. THEREFORE, the word works itself. No one can work the scriptures. The scriptures work themselves.
How can one work it if it can't be interpreted? It can't be interpreted because it interprets itself. THEREFORE, the word works itself. No one can work the scriptures. The scriptures work themselves.
I like the alternating structure: looks like an over yonder approach though. I prefer top through the left side of the bottom, but actually the bottom of the top. Check it out this way...I call it the Bedrock approach:
Y. I thinkyou’re on to something lo shonta.
A. The scriptures work themselves.
B. The DVD plays itself
A. The class watches itself
D. The international country franchises itself.
A. And the tithe sends itself in.
B.
A. The tithe spends it self inappropriately on private innurements
D. The private innurements enrich themselves to the point the directors benefit
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
T-Bone
I think a better case can be made that the Bible must be interpreted by the reader. That does not mean it’s entirely left up to the reader to figure everything out for himself or herself. Since the Bible was written a long time ago in several languages, across generations, cultures, political settings, etc. of necessity a student of the Bible – unless they were born with the knowledge and experiences of everything in the Bible – the student of the Bible will have to refer to legitimate sources who have expertise in the Biblical languages, cultures, sociological settings, worldviews, theological themes, etc.
A case in point is in Acts – with Philip meeting up with the Ethiopian:
26 Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Go south to the road—the desert road—that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” 27 So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of the Kandake (which means “queen of the Ethiopians”). This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, 28 and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the Book of Isaiah the prophet. 29 The Spirit told Philip, “Go to that chariot and stay near it.”
30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So, he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
32 This is the passage of Scripture the eunuch was reading:
“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he did not open his mouth. In his humiliation he was deprived of justice. Who can speak of his descendants? For his life was taken from the earth.”
34 The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
Acts 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Bullshonta is just a beautiful way as originally intended by the Aramaic to say bull-mf’n-$hit.
It’s also just a wonderfully beautiful way to describe every utterance out of the filthy little mouth of victor paul wierwille.
Edited by Nathan_JrKinqualla bo shinay!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Normally I’d say someone who makes a crack like that is full of Shonta…but since you snuck it in with sLeeping in tongues - also known as automatic-praying – all reproof and correction will be held in
abstinenceabsentiaAbercrombie & FitchauthoritarianismAleutian IslandsAlaska…yeah that’s the ticket…lottery drawing for who gets browbeaten will be held in the Bay of Abeyance in Alaska…what? Why not Virginia? Idaho I’ll Alaska…imagine a GPS system that locates itself…scratch that – I think that’s what it does…but HOW?
Edited by T-Bonethe Bay of Abeyance is in Alaska
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
If you notice, Mike (really TWI does this the best) attributes wierwille's corrupted character to God's perfectly just character, when God is nothing like wierwille. Mike says one author (God) and 40 (or so) "writers" - even though writer and author are basically synanymous, I digress. Mike makes these men sound like conduits, as others have noted. So - on one hand you have wierwille, who gave nobody credit but used their works outright lying that they were his own. So - wierwille DOES NOT credit co-workers and definately does not credit authors that he in fact STOLE from stating the material came to him via revelation....which is why poor mike thinks plaf is God-breathed.
On the other hand you have God almighty who credits his co-workers and authors to the end he let's their names remain all throughout the book(s) they authored and he inspired. Now mike will probably choke on his tongute here..but scripture notes we are fellowworkers with God. That God will reward us for EVERY single thing we ever do for him because he is a just God who credits people for their works, and pays accordingly. So - One God who was the source of in-spirit action and 40 or so authors who wrote not only what they were inspired to write, but at times spoke by permission - in the case of Paul in:
1 Corinthians 7:6
But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
From PFAL Book page 78:
Mike - make this make sense. God can not only speak to man's natural mind he can actually make an @$$ talk to a man in the case of Balaam. This crap is what you idolize? God can only speak to what he is. Hell, I don't even have that limitation because I speak to all kinds of things that aren't what I am. In fact ---- brb --- gonna go speak and preach to the trees.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
If I could only see it in the original
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Man... I bet you and I could put on one helluva pflap class. I can stay in one of the back rooms automatic-praying the whole time and you would be so ENERGIZED to get up and talk in between sessions and such...and I would feel so refreshed at the end of the sessions. But be very very careful not to veer from the instruction syllabus they give to class corrdinators. We all have to speak the same thing dontcha know...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Bullshonta has a certain elegance, a richness, and it rolls off the tongue lol.
I’ll give it a 2 malakacita rating lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Here’s another example of Jesus interpreting the Scriptures:
14 Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. 15 He was teaching in their synagogues, and everyone praised him.
16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”
Luke 4
~ ~ ~ ~
Here’s an even more dramatic account of the resurrected Christ explaining the Scriptures to just two believers walking on the road to Emmaus:
13 Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. 14 They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15 As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16 but they were kept from recognizing him.
17 He asked them, “What are you discussing together as you walk along?”
They stood still, their faces downcast. 18 One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?”
19 “What things?” he asked.
“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. 20 The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21 but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22 In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23 but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24 Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Jesus.”
25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
28 As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus continued on as if he were going farther. 29 But they urged him strongly, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over.” So, he went in to stay with them.
30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32 They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”
Luke 24
Edited by T-Bonetypo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
On a side not I used to live in a Greek neighborhood (Astoria) and can curse fluently in Greek and a few other languages. Which brings us to Malakas, which is the root for Malakacita...probably mamacita as well. Malakas pretty much = wanker and is pretty vulgar in it's street slang application...anywho....now that you guys know that I am sure you were better off before reading my bullshonta....theres that word again....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Dang TBone is that an example of the Word taking the place of the absent Christ and interpreting itself? Oh no wait the Christ was there not absent. Is that a crack in the space-time continuum when the absent Christ, the Word, and the present Christ all meet up together?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
That reminds me – when I was a freshman in high school – I’d bring the French dialog book home and practice out loud. My older brother once said to me “you speak French like a Spanish cow.”
Now that I’m older and wiser – I realize he had made an insult wrapped up inside of a rebuff…I mean realistically a Spanish cow would have to study abroad…oh wait…hmmmmmm…cinq minutes de plus, s’il vous plait…yeah - you know what? maybe it could work if the broad was a mademoiselle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Are you aware of how YOU CONTRADICT YOUR OWN TESTIMONY .
Just 4 hours ago, you said “I haven't even read 5% of it yet, not even to the point where she took the class, and am in no big hurry to finish.”
But in reposting what you said in March of 2018 you said,
“I have it and am slowly reading it.My first objection, though, is how she objected to the idea that "the Bible interprets itself." I find that objection very dim witted, even when pumped up with detail like with the posters that attacked it 15 years ago here…
...The phrase "The Bible interprets itself" is an extreme abbreviation of a complex idea. She did not do that justice IMO. The criticism this idea got here 15 years ago I thought was similarly lacking. My impression was that she was leading uninformed readers into thinking God is supposed to be mysterious, an old Catholic idea. Maybe her book will get better later.”
~ ~ ~ ~
So how can it be in 2018 you had read enough in Undertow, that you could conclude she didn’t accurately represent the idea that the Bible interprets itself and that she was misleading uninformed readers – when you just admitted you’re not even to the point in Undertow when she took the class?
Seems to me you’re making stuff up because you haven’t even read it at all…I’ve actually read Undertow several times – and you’re just guessing at the how and the when of watershed moments as her story unfolds.
It looks to me like you're trying to insinuate yourself into a thread topic you don't agree with - just so you can spew out your pro-PFAL propaganda...I told you earlier it's okay to disagree, but it would be nice if you articulated WHY you disagree - instead of making up nonsense like this.
I find it hard to believe you really do have an analytical mind – that you’re an independent thinker - like you claim you were back when you checked out some of wierwille’s teachings before you bought into his stuff.
That would have meant you read through his stuff and/or took PFAL beforehand – before coming to the conclusion he was right on everything.
What it looks like to me is that your cognitive skills are so unreliable that you do not want to risk looking at information which could threaten your belief system which is built upon wierwille’s PFAL-house-of-cards.
Edited by T-Bonetypos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
79. Working the word.
How can one work it if it can't be interpreted? It can't be interpreted because it interprets itself. THEREFORE, the word works itself. No one can work the scriptures. The scriptures work themselves.
Lo shonta?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Write a book. See if people will buy it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Btw, the comment to which you responded is not about whether or not you respect anyone's opinion.
It's about understanding how language works.
For you to say you disagree with someone's own story is very much to call the person a liar.
You've been posting here for eons. Yet, you apparently don't understand basic language construction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Mmmmmph
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
And he wants us to take his "research" seriously.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Every little breeze seems to whisper Louise but the wind cries Mary.
Meanwhile, all the little birds on Jaybird Street love to hear the robin go "Yea, my children."
Now, be honest. Does that or does that not edify and exhort?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Gotta say, I'm edified and exhorted. That was tremendous. Wonderful even.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I think you’re on to something lo shonta.
The scriptures work themselves.
The DVD plays itself
The class watches itself
The international country franchises itself.
And the tithe sends itself in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
A. I think you’re on to something lo shonta.
B. The scriptures work themselves.
A. The DVD plays itself
B. The class watches itself
A. The international country franchises itself.
B. And the tithe sends itself in.
A.
Edited by Nathan_JrThe Bible canonizes itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I like the alternating structure: looks like an over yonder approach though. I prefer top through the left side of the bottom, but actually the bottom of the top. Check it out this way...I call it the Bedrock approach:
Y. I think you’re on to something lo shonta.
A. The scriptures work themselves.
B. The DVD plays itself
A. The class watches itself
D. The international country franchises itself.
A. And the tithe sends itself in.
B.
A. The tithe spends it self inappropriately on private innurements
D. The private innurements enrich themselves to the point the directors benefit
O.
Bullshonta MalakasMany
Edited by OldSkoolLink 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.