This should be a key marker to you how much you have swerved away from what we were taught.
Here is a good example of things taught in the class
that were forgotten or that were never fully absorbed.
The things to learn in the HOW of S.I.T. are:
(1) the eleven benefits for doing it, and
(2) that the Father seeks those to do it, and
(3) freedom from the fear of getting it wrong, and
(4) knowing which parts that are God's responsibility (giving the utterance), versus our responsibility (mechanics of speech).
Those are ALL teachable and learnable.
The class taught us those things, and Jesus taught his apostles the same things in the months before Pentecost.
Yeah...there is a key marker....I have REPUDIATED a very high percentage of wierwilles bullshonta...did you notice this is an anti-way international site? Or did you think you were on a class break doing blab school?
Thebrainis essentially a believing machine.
It believes any story you feed it.
This works for feeding it bad stuff,
and it works for feeding it good stuff.
Maybe for weak minded indivudals who follow discredited and deceased cult leaders....who have almost 0 critical thinking skills. You see, mike, I exercise my free will all the time and right now I am calling bullshonta on this statement.
…Is belief in free will necessary for moral behavior?
One idea proposed in philosophy is that systems of morality would collapse without a common belief that each person is responsible for his actions—and thus deserves reward or punishment for them. In this view, there is value in maintaining belief in free will, even if free will is in fact an illusion. Others argue that morality can exist in the absence of free-will belief, or that belief in free will actually promotes harmful outcomes such as intolerance and revenge-seeking. Some psychology research has been cited as suggesting that disbelief in free will increases dishonest behavior, but subsequent experiments have called this finding into question…
Free will is the capacity of agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.[1][2]
Free will is closely linked to the concepts of moral responsibility, praise, culpability, sin, and other judgements which apply only to actions that are freely chosen. It is also connected with the concepts of advice, persuasion, deliberation, and prohibition. Traditionally, only actions that are freely willed are seen as deserving credit or blame. Whether free will exists, what it is and the implications of whether it exists or not are some of the longest running debates of philosophy and religion. Some conceive of free will as the right to act outside of external influences or wishes.
Some conceive free will to be the capacity to make choices undetermined by past events. Determinism suggests that only one course of events is possible, which is inconsistent with a libertarian model of free will.[3]Ancient Greek philosophy identified this issue,[4] which remains a major focus of philosophical debate. The view that conceives free will as incompatible with determinism is called incompatibilism and encompasses both metaphysical libertarianism (the claim that determinism is false and thus free will is at least possible) and hard determinism (the claim that determinism is true and thus free will is not possible). Incompatibilism also encompasses hard incompatibilism, which holds not only determinism but also indeterminism to be incompatible with free will and thus free will to be impossible whatever the case may be regarding determinism.
Physics in the early 1800s seemed to deny free will, as it had been defined for centuries prior. But Neuroscience then was non-existent. Only Philosophy had ever talked about free will till then. Some philosophers gave up on free will and some tried to rescue it. This went on for 200 years, and then came along Neuroscience, where more hard scientists started thinking about the science of the brain. Still, Neuroscience has a long way to go in getting any real handle on how decisions are made in the brain, but at least it is getting lots of thought by hard core scientists.
Like the philosophers, some have abandoned free will, and some have stood up for it.
So far it looks like the old classical definition for free will be destroyed by Neuroscience as it develops.Unless a new angle on free will is developed, or a new WORKABLE definition is given, I feel scientists will more and more come out with announcements that they no longer hole any free will beliefs.
*/*/*/*/*/*
While there are many reasons to believe that a person’s will is not completely free of influence, there is not a scientific consensus against free will.
Some use the term “free will” in a looser sense to reflect that conscious decisions play a role in the outcomes of a person’s life—even if those are shaped by innate dispositions or randomness. (Critics of the concept of free will might simply call this kind of decision-making “will,” or volition.) Even when unconscious processes help determine a person’s conscious behavior, some argue, such processes can still be thought of as part of an individual’s will. …
Right.Most see that free will is not complete freedom, but don’t know what to do about it.A smaller number are actively pursuing ways to preserve some sort of free will, and another smaller (but growing) number feel that free will needs to be completely jettisoned from thought.
*/*/*/*/*/*
…Is belief in free will necessary for moral behavior?
That is being hotly debated by scientists and philosophers and political activists.Many are outraged that justice systems are not keeping up with advances in science and are fundamentally unfair.Both sides have strong arguments.My bet is that God did give us humans, even natural man, the ability (or freedom) to both learn and make better decisions.In my theory, minFW is really just complicated learning.
*/*/*/*/*/*
One idea proposed in philosophy is that systems of morality would collapse without a common belief that each person is responsible for his actions—and thus deserves reward or punishment for them. In this view, there is value in maintaining belief in free will, even if free will is in fact an illusion. Others argue that morality can exist in the absence of free-will belief, or that belief in free will actually promotes harmful outcomes such as intolerance and revenge-seeking. Some psychology research has been cited as suggesting that disbelief in free will increases dishonest behavior, but subsequent experiments have called this finding into question…
Right.
*/*/*/*/*/*
Free will is the capacity of agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.[1][2] Add to the end of this “, and un-forced.”
Free will is closely linked to the concepts of moral responsibility, praise, culpability, sin, and other judgements which apply only to actions that are freely chosen. It is also connected with the concepts of advice, persuasion, deliberation, and prohibition. Traditionally, only actions that are freely willed are seen as deserving credit or blame. Whether free will exists, what it is and the implications of whether it exists or not are some of the longest running debates of philosophy and religion. Some conceive of free will as the right to act outside of external influences or wishes.
The whole issue of credit and blame comes up in free will debates, especially when political activists are participating.
Some conceive free will to be the capacity to make choices undetermined by past events. Determinism suggests that only one course of events is possible, which is inconsistent with a libertarian model of free will.[3] Ancient Greek philosophy identified this issue,[4] which remains a major focus of philosophical debate. The view that conceives free will as incompatible with determinism is called incompatibilism and encompasses both metaphysical libertarianism (the claim that determinism is false and thus free will is at least possible) and hard determinism (the claim that determinism is true and thus free will is not possible). Incompatibilism also encompasses hard incompatibilism, which holds not only determinism but also indeterminism to be incompatible with free will and thus free will to be impossible whatever the case may be regarding determinism.
The big tug of war here is between determinism and the OLD DEFINITION of free will.Determinism is winning in the minds of scientists.
Recently Sam Harris has become very popular on college campi.
He is fiercely against the concept of free will, and his book against free will is used in many Philosophy classes.
I address a bunch quotes on pages in this book in my Chapter 4.
Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett have been famously debating free will for years, with videos all over the net. Dennett is old and defending free will; Harris is young and looks like movie star Ben Stiller. It is a dramatic debate that many grad students in Neuroscience are being saturated in. The old Dennett free will is LOSING to the young Harris' NO FREE WILL stand.
The next round of professors will all deny free will, the way things are going.
SinceMike can’t remember, will someone please point me to where Jesus teaches how (H-O-W) to speak in tongues?
Oh, I remember.
I'm just wondering how many other posters here remember any of those places in the class where Jesus prepared his apostles for S.I.T.
Maybe the the posters here that studied the class better than you will rescue your memory.
Don't you have a copy of RHST?
There have been bootleg PDFs on line since 2002, as first reported here in GSC late in that year. Someone sent out, so the legend goes, a thousand CDs in the snail mail that had all the PFAL books in .PDF format. They are out there in the proPFAL community if you still have any such contacts.
I have all of the pdf copies you mentioned and then some....I WILL not go look up something you could plainly say. You will do ANYTHING to get someone to open wierwilles books...shameless as he was.
How can this possibly be even remotely true? You've been trying to feed our brains the same story for 20 years and we STILL don't believe it.
You fed your mind other things as well that competed with the PFAL story.
PLUS, the story was distorted by several factors in our past. That's why I say coming back to PFAL, written form, and absorbing it unsupervised by TWI trappings will yield the right results. I did that. I came back in 1998.
I went through a lot of the same drama of things not working that you all went through. Though not in the Corps I was a twig leader twice, WoW once, and HQ staff for 2 years. I know what the trappings were.
I have all of the pdf copies you mentioned and then some....I WILL not go look up something you could plainly say. You will do ANYTHING to get someone to open wierwilles books...shameless as he was.
It cannot be plainly said because it is not plainly written that way. Did you forget that it is sort of scattered around in the gospels and acts?
We all forgot lots of PFAL and drifted from it. I did that too. I did that in some dramatic ways in the late 80s and early 90s. I was amazed at how far I drifted from a few key PFAL items, and was totally unaware of it. The way God brought my drifting to my attention was nothing short of miraculous, and totally marvelous. (long story)
I gave 2 hints above for places where Jesus taught on this, mixed in a list of 4 items.
(1) the eleven benefits for doing it, and
(2) that the Father seeks those to do it, and
(3) freedom from the fear of getting it wrong, and
(4) knowing which parts that are God's responsibility (giving the utterance), versus our responsibility (mechanics of speech).
This should be a key marker to you how much you have swerved away from what we were taught.
Here is a good example of things taught in the class
that were forgotten or that were never fully absorbed.
The things to learn in the HOW of S.I.T. are:
(1) the eleven benefits for doing it, and
(2) that the Father seeks those to do it, and
(3) freedom from the fear of getting it wrong, and
(4) knowing which parts that are God's responsibility (giving the utterance), versus our responsibility (mechanics of speech).
Those are ALL teachable and learnable.
The class taught us those things, and Jesus taught his apostles the same things in the months before Pentecost.
M: This should be a key marker to you how much you have swerved away from what we were taught.
T: “swerved” (past tense) change or cause to change direction abruptly – yes – when I got honest with myself to admit I faked it – I immediately quit doing it – I realized the one who taught me was wrong! wierwille - who knew ZILCH about The Holy Spirit – and invented a sideshowof holy spirit ( oh rather he regurgitated Bullinger’s erroneous teaching on the Giver and the gifts )– wierwille “taught” about this stuff anyway…One of his many traits you seem to have picked up.
~ ~ ~ ~
M: Here is a good example of things taught in the class that were forgotten or that were never fully absorbed.
T: “were never fully absorbed” – but YOU did! That’s part of YOUR problem. You should have analyzed rather than absorbed. I’m surprised you admit to that by recommending absorbing info. Analyzingis how real scientists think and work. You seem to have a tremendous absorption rate – which makes the task of brainwashing much easier for the cult-leader…Sadly your posts always indicate your cognitive skills are abysmal.
~ ~ ~ ~
M: The things to learn in the HOW of S.I.T. are:
(1)the eleven benefits for doing it, and
T: all claims of benefits are bogus! Matter of fact, one could make a strong case of the deleterious effects of mouthing gibberish detracts from mindful prayer (prayer using one's understanding ), establishes a behavioral “rut” that accomplishes nothing, gives one a false sense of confidence and fosters an attitude of prideful spiritual superiority.
~ ~ ~ ~
M: (2) that the Father seeks those to do it, and
T: To paraphrase Jesus’s words about hypocritesin Matthew 15:8 - These hypocrites think they honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. while wierwille was sexually molesting women he could have done that fake-speaking-in-tongues-LoShonta-baloney to supposedly assure himself he was still going to heaven.
~ ~ ~ ~
M: (3) freedom from the fear of getting it wrong, and
T: If a student followed wierwille’s instructions to the letter – then they can be rest assured they will be able to fake speaking in tongues…the acid test for proving someone is genuinely speaking in tongues as mentioned in the book of Acts, would be to record them and have language experts analyze it. The flimsy excuse I hear is often “well, I speak in an unknown tongue…or …it’s the tongue of angels…that’s a bunch of bull-Shonta – if they are an intelligent sentient being – whether mortal or heavenly – language is the principal method of communication. angel’s language would still have a standardized system of rules and symbols – which given enough time some linguistic expert could decode.
~ ~ ~ ~
M: (4) knowing which parts that are God's responsibility (giving the utterance), versus our responsibility (mechanics of speech).
T: God is not responsible for gibberish and fake tongues; take the wierwille-colored glasses off then readI Corinthians 14noting the distinction of tongues in the singular and plural in I Cor. 14 it is obvious Paul was instructing the church on the difference between genuine speaking in tongues and what some pagan groups have been observed to practice. I also touched on this in a few notable posts: here , here , and here
T: yes – I already said the class taught us how to fake speaking in tongues
~ ~ ~ ~
M: and Jesus taught his apostles the same things in the months before Pentecost.
T: ah – there it is – the grand erroneous assumption! Did wierwille find an old Betamax video tape of Jesus teaching his apostles exactly what wierwille teaches? I trow not….wow wee wow I just spoke in King James…It’s a sign!You are such a contradictory goofball – you said> here- that one can't make claims without backing it up with the authority of God's Word – YOUjustdid that my neurotic-pseudoscientific friend
your silly “book carrier” misinterpretation on the NT canon thread is based on your childish impression of literary structure and it's probably best for you not to keep drawing attention to your trolling antics
Although it's possible for anyone to change over 20 years (some of the GSC'ers have changed radically), Mike is so used to being refuted and ignoring the refutations that posting corrections, even obvious ones, won't be of use to him as to other people because Mike doesn't come here to ever try to learn anything. Mike's here purely to advertise.
Nowhere on GSC will you find where I've revealed my position on Free Will, Determinism, or Compatibility.
This is what I was thinking (from the "PFAL sucks" thread) of and why you'd like Sam Harris:
On 11/2/2022 at 11:12 AM, Nathan_Jr said:
You did?
Where do you stand now? Free will or determinism?
I'll tell you I am undecided, but I tend to lean towards determinism. Though, I find the issue fascinating, I haven't thought enough about it to discuss. It's all very complex.
How do you LEARN to SIT? Isn't it something that God gives? Did the Apostles LEARN to SIT on the day of Pentecost? That should be a key lane marker that you have swerved into...welll...bullshonta.
How much of a coincidence is it that LEARNING to SIT is something dogs are taught in obedience school?
"Tongues of angels" is mentioned exactly ONCE in the entire Bible. That should raise a few eyebrows, because whenever vpw posits a doctrine around a SINGLE VERSE, it always turns out he'd flubbed the verse and that wasn't what it meant after all. "Tongues of angels" is mentioned in a list of incredibly wild, over-the-top claims of practices. It's no more a reality one can experience than can having ALL Knowledge. What all that means is important, and why there were several threads just discussing all that.
Naturally, Mike never learned anything from any of those discussions.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
330
267
271
186
Popular Days
Nov 12
118
Nov 13
107
Nov 20
105
Nov 9
104
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 330 posts
T-Bone 267 posts
OldSkool 271 posts
Nathan_Jr 186 posts
Popular Days
Nov 12 2022
118 posts
Nov 13 2022
107 posts
Nov 20 2022
105 posts
Nov 9 2022
104 posts
Popular Posts
OldSkool
I do want to address this Mike. You constantly come at me like I have forgotten, or have been talked out of the truth of wierwille, or that I just don't understand where you are coming from. Personall
waysider
This right here. If you're unable to define and regulate your control factors and variables, your research is worthless. The best you could hope for would be an observational analysis of your collecte
Charity
I agree with So_Crates when he said "Here's a wild idea: why don't YOU become meek and I'll tell you about all the fruit in my life since I stopped making PLAF the center of my life." There have
Posted Images
Nathan_Jr
I rest my case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Yeah...there is a key marker....I have REPUDIATED a very high percentage of wierwilles bullshonta...did you notice this is an anti-way international site? Or did you think you were on a class break doing blab school?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Maybe for weak minded indivudals who follow discredited and deceased cult leaders....who have almost 0 critical thinking skills. You see, mike, I exercise my free will all the time and right now I am calling bullshonta on this statement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Does science disprove free will?
Physics in the early 1800s seemed to deny free will, as it had been defined for centuries prior. But Neuroscience then was non-existent. Only Philosophy had ever talked about free will till then. Some philosophers gave up on free will and some tried to rescue it. This went on for 200 years, and then came along Neuroscience, where more hard scientists started thinking about the science of the brain. Still, Neuroscience has a long way to go in getting any real handle on how decisions are made in the brain, but at least it is getting lots of thought by hard core scientists.
Like the philosophers, some have abandoned free will, and some have stood up for it.
So far it looks like the old classical definition for free will be destroyed by Neuroscience as it develops. Unless a new angle on free will is developed, or a new WORKABLE definition is given, I feel scientists will more and more come out with announcements that they no longer hole any free will beliefs.
*/*/*/*/*/*
While there are many reasons to believe that a person’s will is not completely free of influence, there is not a scientific consensus against free will.
Some use the term “free will” in a looser sense to reflect that conscious decisions play a role in the outcomes of a person’s life—even if those are shaped by innate dispositions or randomness. (Critics of the concept of free will might simply call this kind of decision-making “will,” or volition.) Even when unconscious processes help determine a person’s conscious behavior, some argue, such processes can still be thought of as part of an individual’s will. …
Right. Most see that free will is not complete freedom, but don’t know what to do about it. A smaller number are actively pursuing ways to preserve some sort of free will, and another smaller (but growing) number feel that free will needs to be completely jettisoned from thought.
*/*/*/*/*/*
…Is belief in free will necessary for moral behavior?
That is being hotly debated by scientists and philosophers and political activists. Many are outraged that justice systems are not keeping up with advances in science and are fundamentally unfair. Both sides have strong arguments. My bet is that God did give us humans, even natural man, the ability (or freedom) to both learn and make better decisions. In my theory, minFW is really just complicated learning.
*/*/*/*/*/*
One idea proposed in philosophy is that systems of morality would collapse without a common belief that each person is responsible for his actions—and thus deserves reward or punishment for them. In this view, there is value in maintaining belief in free will, even if free will is in fact an illusion. Others argue that morality can exist in the absence of free-will belief, or that belief in free will actually promotes harmful outcomes such as intolerance and revenge-seeking. Some psychology research has been cited as suggesting that disbelief in free will increases dishonest behavior, but subsequent experiments have called this finding into question…
Right.
*/*/*/*/*/*
Free will is the capacity of agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.[1][2] Add to the end of this “, and un-forced.”Free will is closely linked to the concepts of moral responsibility, praise, culpability, sin, and other judgements which apply only to actions that are freely chosen. It is also connected with the concepts of advice, persuasion, deliberation, and prohibition. Traditionally, only actions that are freely willed are seen as deserving credit or blame. Whether free will exists, what it is and the implications of whether it exists or not are some of the longest running debates of philosophy and religion. Some conceive of free will as the right to act outside of external influences or wishes.
The whole issue of credit and blame comes up in free will debates, especially when political activists are participating.
Some conceive free will to be the capacity to make choices undetermined by past events. Determinism suggests that only one course of events is possible, which is inconsistent with a libertarian model of free will.[3] Ancient Greek philosophy identified this issue,[4] which remains a major focus of philosophical debate. The view that conceives free will as incompatible with determinism is called incompatibilism and encompasses both metaphysical libertarianism (the claim that determinism is false and thus free will is at least possible) and hard determinism (the claim that determinism is true and thus free will is not possible). Incompatibilism also encompasses hard incompatibilism, which holds not only determinism but also indeterminism to be incompatible with free will and thus free will to be impossible whatever the case may be regarding determinism.
The big tug of war here is between determinism and the OLD DEFINITION of free will. Determinism is winning in the minds of scientists.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Since Mike can’t remember, will someone please point me to where Jesus teaches how (H-O-W) to speak in tongues?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Peek in RHST. It's all there and in the class.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I don’t have RHST.
I’ll repeat:
Since Mike can’t remember, will someone please point me to where Jesus teaches how (H-O-W) to speak in tongues?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Recently Sam Harris has become very popular on college campi.
He is fiercely against the concept of free will, and his book against free will is used in many Philosophy classes.
I address a bunch quotes on pages in this book in my Chapter 4.
Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett have been famously debating free will for years, with videos all over the net. Dennett is old and defending free will; Harris is young and looks like movie star Ben Stiller. It is a dramatic debate that many grad students in Neuroscience are being saturated in. The old Dennett free will is LOSING to the young Harris' NO FREE WILL stand.
The next round of professors will all deny free will, the way things are going.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Will_(book)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Since Mike can’t remember, will someone please point me to where Jesus teaches how (H-O-W) to speak in tongues?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oh, I remember.
I'm just wondering how many other posters here remember any of those places in the class where Jesus prepared his apostles for S.I.T.
Maybe the the posters here that studied the class better than you will rescue your memory.
Don't you have a copy of RHST?
There have been bootleg PDFs on line since 2002, as first reported here in GSC late in that year. Someone sent out, so the legend goes, a thousand CDs in the snail mail that had all the PFAL books in .PDF format. They are out there in the proPFAL community if you still have any such contacts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hey, did you say liked determinism over free will at the very early beginning of this discussion? ... probably on another thread?
If so, you'd like Sam Harris, his book and his videos.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
How can this possibly be even remotely true? You've been trying to feed our brains the same story for 20 years and we STILL don't believe it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I have all of the pdf copies you mentioned and then some....I WILL not go look up something you could plainly say. You will do ANYTHING to get someone to open wierwilles books...shameless as he was.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You fed your mind other things as well that competed with the PFAL story.
PLUS, the story was distorted by several factors in our past. That's why I say coming back to PFAL, written form, and absorbing it unsupervised by TWI trappings will yield the right results. I did that. I came back in 1998.
I went through a lot of the same drama of things not working that you all went through. Though not in the Corps I was a twig leader twice, WoW once, and HQ staff for 2 years. I know what the trappings were.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
It cannot be plainly said because it is not plainly written that way. Did you forget that it is sort of scattered around in the gospels and acts?
We all forgot lots of PFAL and drifted from it. I did that too. I did that in some dramatic ways in the late 80s and early 90s. I was amazed at how far I drifted from a few key PFAL items, and was totally unaware of it. The way God brought my drifting to my attention was nothing short of miraculous, and totally marvelous. (long story)
I gave 2 hints above for places where Jesus taught on this, mixed in a list of 4 items.
(1) the eleven benefits for doing it, and
(2) that the Father seeks those to do it, and
(3) freedom from the fear of getting it wrong, and
(4) knowing which parts that are God's responsibility (giving the utterance), versus our responsibility (mechanics of speech).
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Nowhere on GSC will you find where I've revealed my position on Free Will, Determinism, or Compatibility.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
sorry. My mistake.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
M: This should be a key marker to you how much you have swerved away from what we were taught.
T: “swerved” (past tense) change or cause to change direction abruptly – yes – when I got honest with myself to admit I faked it – I immediately quit doing it – I realized the one who taught me was wrong! wierwille - who knew ZILCH about The Holy Spirit – and invented a sideshow of holy spirit ( oh rather he regurgitated Bullinger’s erroneous teaching on the Giver and the gifts )– wierwille “taught” about this stuff anyway…One of his many traits you seem to have picked up.
~ ~ ~ ~
M: Here is a good example of things taught in the class that were forgotten or that were never fully absorbed.
T: “were never fully absorbed” – but YOU did! That’s part of YOUR problem. You should have analyzed rather than absorbed. I’m surprised you admit to that by recommending absorbing info. Analyzing is how real scientists think and work. You seem to have a tremendous absorption rate – which makes the task of brainwashing much easier for the cult-leader…Sadly your posts always indicate your cognitive skills are abysmal.
~ ~ ~ ~
M: The things to learn in the HOW of S.I.T. are:
(1) the eleven benefits for doing it, and
T: all claims of benefits are bogus! Matter of fact, one could make a strong case of the deleterious effects of mouthing gibberish detracts from mindful prayer (prayer using one's understanding
), establishes a behavioral “rut” that accomplishes nothing, gives one a false sense of confidence and fosters an attitude of prideful spiritual superiority.
~ ~ ~ ~
M: (2) that the Father seeks those to do it, and
T: To paraphrase Jesus’s words about hypocrites in Matthew 15:8 - These hypocrites think they honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. while wierwille was sexually molesting women he could have done that fake-speaking-in-tongues-LoShonta-baloney to supposedly assure himself he was still going to heaven.
~ ~ ~ ~
M: (3) freedom from the fear of getting it wrong, and
T: If a student followed wierwille’s instructions to the letter – then they can be rest assured they will be able to fake speaking in tongues…the acid test for proving someone is genuinely speaking in tongues as mentioned in the book of Acts, would be to record them and have language experts analyze it. The flimsy excuse I hear is often “well, I speak in an unknown tongue…or …it’s the tongue of angels…that’s a bunch of bull-Shonta – if they are an intelligent sentient being – whether mortal or heavenly – language is the principal method of communication. angel’s language would still have a standardized system of rules and symbols – which given enough time some linguistic expert could decode.
~ ~ ~ ~
M: (4) knowing which parts that are God's responsibility (giving the utterance), versus our responsibility (mechanics of speech).
T: God is not responsible for gibberish and fake tongues; take the wierwille-colored glasses off then read I Corinthians 14 noting the distinction of tongues in the singular and plural in I Cor. 14 it is obvious Paul was instructing the church on the difference between genuine speaking in tongues and what some pagan groups have been observed to practice. I also touched on this in a few notable posts: here , here , and here
M: Those are ALL teachable and learnable.
T: yes – as in learned behaviorism
~ ~ ~ ~
M: The class taught us those things,
T: yes – I already said the class taught us how to fake speaking in tongues
~ ~ ~ ~
M: and Jesus taught his apostles the same things in the months before Pentecost.
T: ah – there it is – the grand erroneous assumption! Did wierwille find an old Betamax video tape of Jesus teaching his apostles exactly what wierwille teaches? I trow not….wow wee wow I just spoke in King James…It’s a sign! You are such a contradictory goofball – you said > here - that one can't make claims without backing it up with the authority of God's Word – YOU just did that my neurotic-pseudoscientific friend
Edited by T-Bonepseudo-editor
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Although it's possible for anyone to change over 20 years (some of the GSC'ers have changed radically), Mike is so used to being refuted and ignoring the refutations that posting corrections, even obvious ones, won't be of use to him as to other people because Mike doesn't come here to ever try to learn anything. Mike's here purely to advertise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Millions still brainwashing …….
Well maybe thousands if you add them up all around the world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
This is what I was thinking (from the "PFAL sucks" thread) of and why you'd like Sam Harris:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
How much of a coincidence is it that LEARNING to SIT is something dogs are taught in obedience school?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Nope. Nor do I have a copy of Mein Kampf or Dollhouse: A Novel.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"Tongues of angels" is mentioned exactly ONCE in the entire Bible. That should raise a few eyebrows, because whenever vpw posits a doctrine around a SINGLE VERSE, it always turns out he'd flubbed the verse and that wasn't what it meant after all. "Tongues of angels" is mentioned in a list of incredibly wild, over-the-top claims of practices. It's no more a reality one can experience than can having ALL Knowledge. What all that means is important, and why there were several threads just discussing all that.
Naturally, Mike never learned anything from any of those discussions.
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.