I'm learning the things that I missed 20 and 30 years ago. My needs then were different. My wants then were different. My background and foundation back then were different. Therefore, just from this analysis, there will be new learning. not just for me but for ANYONE who comes back to the pure PFAL writings, minus the TWI bs.
THEN, in addition to the above described new learning, there's also the HIDDEN things Dr and God put in ther designed to be found and utilized in this post-ministry situation.
LOTS of GOOD learning is promised to those who come back to PFAL.
I'll bet (a small amount) that those manuals or courses had at least ONE horror picture flashed in your face of a nuclear accident victim. Maybe more. Stories and other anecdotal info, even live visits from victims, that DRIVE HOME the need to build that calculation foundation.
I worked in an atom smasher and I heard ALL the stories. It was never a page or passage in the saftey manuals that would get my adrenalin rushing to make EXTRA SURE everything was safe. It was the stories.
I think your attitude toward the Bible is antithetical to Wierwille's attitude toward it. But you have convinced yourself otherwise and declared your mind closed on the subject. Fine. But don't come back here and have the gall to accuse us of being closed minded. I would consider it hypocrisy and I will call you on it.
The procedure you've described can be summed up in one word. Denial. It's your privilege to exercise it freely.
You think the errors we see here will evaporate as soon as we change our perspective. Well, you've made it clear that they have not evaporated for you. Rather, you admit you're dodging them. How can you dodge what has evaporated? The errors will still be there whenever you have the Biblical integrity to face them.
And yes, I do question your Biblical integrity.
Steve,
I agree. I believe you have pointed out and fully documented an actual error. The Bible lists four things. Wierwille lists three, and changes the Word to fit his list. That is the exact opposite of what he told us must be done.
quote: Politics, is "not answering direct questions", with a smile on your
face.
Religion, is "not answering direct questions", with seriousness on
your face.
Science, is "not answering direct questions", with inquisitiveness on
your face.
Art, is "not answering direct questions", with confusion on your face.
All questions fall into one or more of the above buckets from which
exudes all replies, which then fall into other buckets.
-exudes-
1: to cause to ooze or spread out in all directions
2: to display conspicuously or abundantly
As long as everyone speaks/writes/talks correctly, with appropriate
facial gestures, remains charming, society moves on without
hindrance. This is the squeaky wheel being greased - nothing could
move faster than that, under the circumstances.
It's the pretense, that works.
It's the squeaky wheel that gets greased with intelligence, thought.
Truth is failure, and stops everything.
Where do you find Truth?
Most people cannot answer direct questions because they really don't have the truth. They talk around it. That is why you talk around every issue and error that is presented.
"I think that all the errors you all see there will evaporate as you change your perspective. This takes time, though."
So that's how you 'work thru the ACs of PFAL'. Change your perspective. Not look at the apparent contradictions and prove whether or not they are actual errors. But change your perspective. And then the ACs go away, don't they? This is like a little child covering his eyes and saying "You can't see me!" And you view that as honest research in determining the truth in PFAL, ehh?
"I firmly believe the right and proper procedure of a Bible student is to DODGE all Bible difficulties, things that look a lot like errors, and concentrate on plain reading and comparing and remembering." & "If such a Bible student is confronted by an unbeliever with what they describe as a Bible error, the right and proper procedure is to DODGE. Witness if possible, distract, challenge right back, but NEVER consider the error as an error."
Now this takes TWI's practices (like answering a question w a question, and not answering any challenging questions) to a whole new level of dishonesty. Hell guy, you even got the Corps level song-and-dance in that area beat. Talk about one's blind loyalty! If you were in a ship that was clearly sinking, and PFAL said that it wasn't, you would deny to the hilt that your ship is sinking, simply by the very statement of PFAL that your ship is not sinking. You would be drowning, and act as tho' nothing wrong is happening.
"Never consider an error as an error"
Hokey Smokes!! Is that the level of dedication that you are showing VPW and PFAL? And you want to invite the rest of us to 'be meek enough' to join you?
No thanks! I feel safe to say that we all bailed from the TWItanic, and have no desire to go back.
I don’t plan on accusing anyone of having a closed mind. HONEST!
Not a fully closed mind, nor the more likely partially closed mind.
I openly admit that on some issues I have closed my mind.
I openly admit that in some issues I have opened my mind.
The debate is centered on, or SHOULD be centered on WHICH issues are open and WHICH are closed.
I don’t plan on accusing a person of closing their mind on any issue. I plan to address “the which should be open which should be closed” story, and in so I may accuse THE ARGUMENT of my debate partner as being in the wrong.
I just don’t think of a closed mind as SIN.
I do remember the yucky TWI verbal tradition developing to a point once where if you said in front a Corps corpse the phrase “opened my mind” any one of a wide range of retaliatory behaviors would be enacted by said corpseman, often as if they were reading their lines out of a syllabus outline sheet.
There was a time and place when an open mind was SIN! But that was part of that yucky TWI verbal tradition that grew and grew. Dr fought it. It’s in the record. I got refs. Can e-mail soon, post later. Time short now.
Both open and closed mind modes are essential in life.
The Bereans had an open mind, at the right time and place.
Jesus is often displaying a tightly closed, deliberately closed mind, and he was right in doing so!
It’s all in which and when and where our minds need to accurately decide: open or close?
No accusations from me, Rafael. Promise
Bye, I gotta go for a few hours.
Maybe I'll just read a few more posts first...
Nahhhh I can't allow myself to get sucked in .... to long....
Hey, seriously, I don't see a single instance in God's Word where Jesus responded to a question by dodging it.
Correction: there is one. When he was asked by what authority he said and did the things he said and did, he responded by asking them to explain the authority behind John the Baptist.
In other places, however, Jesus clearly and openly answered the question concerning where he got his authority. The "dodge" was a challenge, not an excuse to avoid answering the question.
Garth, you wrote: "So that's how you 'work thru the ACs of PFAL"
Well, that's how I do it NOW, and for the past 5 years.
For the twenty seven years before that, from 1971 to 1998 (one from eight is seven, seven from nine... Oops! Just doing the math..) for the 27 years before 1998 I checked out PFAL ACs much more carefully than I do now.
I'm just past the suspicion stage, and I'm in the acceptance stage.
You guys are trying to get me to re-enter the suspicion stage and you just can’t seem to hear me when I say “Been there done that.”
There were times during those earlier years when I conducted my more rigorous examination of PFAL ACs but in the constricted manner I described in earlier posts. But before I learned that that method was best I tried many other methods, some closely resembling the format/style/flavor of this debate on this thread. I would go to trinitarian churches and go at it just like here, and lots of times they would trick me, and the hurt would take sometimes months to heal. I learned slowly the Righteous Dodge in those settings. I also did it with Jehovah’s Witnesses, and a few other local church settings.
When I now do examine a PFAL AC I do it in a HIGHLY controlled environment. Like surgery.
When I now do examine a PFAL AC I deliberately choose to err on the side of believing the class. At this point in my investigation, there’s a MUCH greater chance of me erring big if I lean the other way. If I lean erroneously into PFAL the consequences are slight, from my perspective and memories. If I erroneously lean away from PFAL then I miss the big enchilada!
You guys lean in the way I tried lots for years and am now done with. I can’t blame you for wanting (you older grads I can) to err in the side of your perceived safety zone. If you have to err, you asses the greater risk as getting sucked back into a huge mess. I see going back to PFAL as real good so I buy a different insurance policy.
I didn’t get stung as bad as you TWI-2 refugees. And I realize some of TWI-1 latecomers or those unlucky to have been introduced to PFAL by a screw-up were hit had too. But those grads mature enough to be in leadership positions by ’82 or ’85 I think you’re forgetting your calling and the proofs God wrought in your lives via PFAL. Try to remember the good old days when it was fresh. That’s what coming back to the books does. It’s fresh learning in thi books, assuming you come to learn, that’s coach-able, meek. Just the books not the bs.
quote:You guys are trying to get me to re-enter the suspicion stage and you just can’t seem to hear me when I say “Been there done that.”
No, we're not trying to get you to re-enter the suspicion stage. We are trying to get you to explain how you got out of it. You've finally provided an answer. Abject denial. That's very nice. I'll take a pass.
Look, I won't say that PFAL lacks any value. That's not the point. If you lean on it and it helps you, more power to you, man. But it doesn't have to be the perfect Word of a perfect God in order to have that effect!
The FACT that there are ACTUAL ERRORS in PFAL, that those errors are both small and great, should convince you that it fails to meet its own definition of what it means to be God-breathed. So either its definition was wrong (in which case the PFAL book is in error) or it's not God-breathed (in which case PFAL is in error). The third option is that it really is error free. But if you're going to make that case, your answer has to be better than "Join me in my denial. We all float here."
“No, we're not trying to get you to re-enter the suspicion stage. We are trying to get you to explain how you got out of it. You've finally provided an answer. Abject denial.”
No. How I got out is by becoming super familiar with the material and it’s application. NOT super familiar with all the objections the devil can spit up and their solutions, but familiar with the text and it’s applications.
Familiarity is not transmittable in the form of a proof or dissertation. You gotta jump through all the hoops yourselves to see my explanation like I see it.
You’re asking me to explain it in a way that transports you back to PFAL by answering all the questions you’ve run into first. That ain’t gonna happen. For one thing, it’s an ENDLESS process!
You’ve got to either risk checking it out, or live with your perception of safety, but with no hope of ever raising the dead or doing all the other things Jesus did and greater. You’re trading the SPIRITUALLY abundant life for a safe distancing from Craig and TWI-2.
NO, my explanation of how I got out of the suspicion stage is NOT Denial Dodging.
Denial Dodging is ONLY dealing with ACs and for those already convinced they’re in the right place.
Denial Dodging only helps me from re-entering the suspicion stage.
Denial Dodging did NOT help get me out of it..... Lots of reading did.
quote:You’ve got to either risk checking it out, or live with your perception of safety, but with no hope of ever raising the dead or doing all the other things Jesus did and greater.
Put up or shut up.
quote:You’re trading the abundant life for a safe distancing from Craig and TWI-2.
Ah, but you forget, my friend, I do not associate PFAL with Craig Martindale or TWI 2. That's an arrogant presumption on your part. (Awful lot of Star Trek quotes I'm throwing around lately. Anyone picking up on them?)
quote:You’re asking me to explain it in a way that transports you back to PFAL by answering all the questions you’ve run into first. That ain’t gonna happen. For one thing, it’s an ENDLESS process!
For another thing, you ain't got no answers.
Mike, I consider your method to be denial. The more you describe your methodology, the more assured I am of my definition.
Let's call it a draw. I continue to contend that you have failed to adequately address a single error. You continue to contend that in order to receive the answers I seek, I need to be meek enough to jump through the hoops leading to your telescope.
Deal?
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 28, 2003 at 17:06.]
Then, after you've raised me, I will congratulate you on the resolutions. Of course, your viewpoint requires ALL errors to be resolved. So I would tell you that there's still at least 12 prepositions out of place, meaning yourrrr precioussssss PFAL is still not the Words of Gods's.
At the very least this is the wrong thread for you. You have not influenced anyone here. All you have done is prove that your position is absurd. And frankly the more you post the more people will see that your position is absurd. I guess that is good, but your ignorance is antagonizing some of the posters here. Some people actually want to have a bible discussion regarding which parts of PFAL are true and which parts are not true. Now is that to much to ask for?
[This message was edited by Mark Sanguinetti on January 28, 2003 at 17:35.]
I'm debating whether or not the thread has actually been derailed. For the past two days, it has certainly been about Mike. At least today he wrote specifically about his approach to resolving actual 2+2=5 errors in PFAL (deny that PFAL could ever be wrong, but don't call it denial, and dodge all questions). As unsatisfied as I am with that answer, it IS an answer.
Now, Mike, I'll agree with Mark on this: it's time to either apply your method to the errors we've identified, or stop interrupting the conversation.
Mike: Wow. That has got to be the single most comprehensive display of public stupidity it has ever been my amusement to witness.
I'm from the South, and I've heard ignorant racists (white AND black) spout the most ridiculous justifications for their particular strains of brain-damaged hatethink, and they still made more sense than you do. Even the drunk ones.
Even the most die-hard Wierwille groupies here, (and there have been more than a few) even they have never sunk to this level of blind idolatry.
A psychiatrist could make an entire career out of your delusions. Even the certifiably mentally ill posters at least had an excuse for their abrupt break with all vestiges of reality.
Is it Rush Week in Hell? Looks like Mr. Fletcher, and his Legion buddies, and pretty much the entire fallen third of the original angels are all trying to jam into you like frat boys into a phone booth. Good Lord, man! That is not a record you want to be setting!
Seek God, Jesus Christ, professional help, and an exorcist, in that order. You are one seriously ****** up individual.
Angels can't sing. (I'm moving this from the other thread) The Way taught that angels can't sing. They said that song "hark the herald angels sing" was wrong cause of that. Somebody else must remember this! I heard this one throughout the years.
...It's hard to be humble when you own a Rottweiler...
If you have a copy of Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed, I'd start looking there for the quote. We know that in the Book of Job, God Himself declares that angels sing. But is there anywhere Wierwille states, in writing, that they do not?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
208
62
95
53
Popular Days
Jan 3
56
Jan 28
53
Jan 17
52
Jan 27
46
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 208 posts
Jbarrax 62 posts
Zixar 95 posts
Mike 53 posts
Popular Days
Jan 3 2003
56 posts
Jan 28 2003
53 posts
Jan 17 2003
52 posts
Jan 27 2003
46 posts
Popular Posts
Raf
Clear as the difference between all with a distinction and all without distinction. See, to those unaware of the circumstances that brought about this thread, I look like I'm nitpicking to prove Wier
Raf
I'm not talking about errors that are subject to interpretation. Whether you believe the dead are alive now, for example, really depends on your worldview and your interpretation of scripture. Whether
Larry P2
And let's not forget the one about "All the women in the Kingdom belong to the King." Which proves that he was a lecherous piece of sh!t communicating his desire for a steady stream of young, gullibl
Mike
Zixar,
I'm learning the things that I missed 20 and 30 years ago. My needs then were different. My wants then were different. My background and foundation back then were different. Therefore, just from this analysis, there will be new learning. not just for me but for ANYONE who comes back to the pure PFAL writings, minus the TWI bs.
THEN, in addition to the above described new learning, there's also the HIDDEN things Dr and God put in ther designed to be found and utilized in this post-ministry situation.
LOTS of GOOD learning is promised to those who come back to PFAL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Steve Lortz,
I'll bet (a small amount) that those manuals or courses had at least ONE horror picture flashed in your face of a nuclear accident victim. Maybe more. Stories and other anecdotal info, even live visits from victims, that DRIVE HOME the need to build that calculation foundation.
I worked in an atom smasher and I heard ALL the stories. It was never a page or passage in the saftey manuals that would get my adrenalin rushing to make EXTRA SURE everything was safe. It was the stories.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mike,
I respect your right to dodge these questions.
I think your attitude toward the Bible is antithetical to Wierwille's attitude toward it. But you have convinced yourself otherwise and declared your mind closed on the subject. Fine. But don't come back here and have the gall to accuse us of being closed minded. I would consider it hypocrisy and I will call you on it.
The procedure you've described can be summed up in one word. Denial. It's your privilege to exercise it freely.
You think the errors we see here will evaporate as soon as we change our perspective. Well, you've made it clear that they have not evaporated for you. Rather, you admit you're dodging them. How can you dodge what has evaporated? The errors will still be there whenever you have the Biblical integrity to face them.
And yes, I do question your Biblical integrity.
Steve,
I agree. I believe you have pointed out and fully documented an actual error. The Bible lists four things. Wierwille lists three, and changes the Word to fit his list. That is the exact opposite of what he told us must be done.
Nice job.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
troubledwine
Ok Mike, fair enough explanation.
I think that you fit into this little analogy
Most people cannot answer direct questions because they really don't have the truth. They talk around it. That is why you talk around every issue and error that is presented.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Fascinating, just fascinating!
"I think that all the errors you all see there will evaporate as you change your perspective. This takes time, though."
So that's how you 'work thru the ACs of PFAL'. Change your perspective. Not look at the apparent contradictions and prove whether or not they are actual errors. But change your perspective. And then the ACs go away, don't they? This is like a little child covering his eyes and saying "You can't see me!" And you view that as honest research in determining the truth in PFAL, ehh?
"I firmly believe the right and proper procedure of a Bible student is to DODGE all Bible difficulties, things that look a lot like errors, and concentrate on plain reading and comparing and remembering." & "If such a Bible student is confronted by an unbeliever with what they describe as a Bible error, the right and proper procedure is to DODGE. Witness if possible, distract, challenge right back, but NEVER consider the error as an error."
Now this takes TWI's practices (like answering a question w a question, and not answering any challenging questions) to a whole new level of dishonesty. Hell guy, you even got the Corps level song-and-dance in that area beat. Talk about one's blind loyalty! If you were in a ship that was clearly sinking, and PFAL said that it wasn't, you would deny to the hilt that your ship is sinking, simply by the very statement of PFAL that your ship is not sinking. You would be drowning, and act as tho' nothing wrong is happening.
"Never consider an error as an error"
Hokey Smokes!! Is that the level of dedication that you are showing VPW and PFAL? And you want to invite the rest of us to 'be meek enough' to join you?
No thanks! I feel safe to say that we all bailed from the TWItanic, and have no desire to go back.
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Rafael,
I don’t plan on accusing anyone of having a closed mind. HONEST!
Not a fully closed mind, nor the more likely partially closed mind.
I openly admit that on some issues I have closed my mind.
I openly admit that in some issues I have opened my mind.
The debate is centered on, or SHOULD be centered on WHICH issues are open and WHICH are closed.
I don’t plan on accusing a person of closing their mind on any issue. I plan to address “the which should be open which should be closed” story, and in so I may accuse THE ARGUMENT of my debate partner as being in the wrong.
I just don’t think of a closed mind as SIN.
I do remember the yucky TWI verbal tradition developing to a point once where if you said in front a Corps corpse the phrase “opened my mind” any one of a wide range of retaliatory behaviors would be enacted by said corpseman, often as if they were reading their lines out of a syllabus outline sheet.
There was a time and place when an open mind was SIN! But that was part of that yucky TWI verbal tradition that grew and grew. Dr fought it. It’s in the record. I got refs. Can e-mail soon, post later. Time short now.
Both open and closed mind modes are essential in life.
The Bereans had an open mind, at the right time and place.
Jesus is often displaying a tightly closed, deliberately closed mind, and he was right in doing so!
It’s all in which and when and where our minds need to accurately decide: open or close?
No accusations from me, Rafael. Promise
Bye, I gotta go for a few hours.
Maybe I'll just read a few more posts first...
Nahhhh I can't allow myself to get sucked in .... to long....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mike,
...
Actually, this is addressed to everyone.
Did Mike actually say anything in that post?
Hey, seriously, I don't see a single instance in God's Word where Jesus responded to a question by dodging it.
Correction: there is one. When he was asked by what authority he said and did the things he said and did, he responded by asking them to explain the authority behind John the Baptist.
In other places, however, Jesus clearly and openly answered the question concerning where he got his authority. The "dodge" was a challenge, not an excuse to avoid answering the question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Garth, you wrote: "So that's how you 'work thru the ACs of PFAL"
Well, that's how I do it NOW, and for the past 5 years.
For the twenty seven years before that, from 1971 to 1998 (one from eight is seven, seven from nine... Oops! Just doing the math..) for the 27 years before 1998 I checked out PFAL ACs much more carefully than I do now.
I'm just past the suspicion stage, and I'm in the acceptance stage.
You guys are trying to get me to re-enter the suspicion stage and you just can’t seem to hear me when I say “Been there done that.”
There were times during those earlier years when I conducted my more rigorous examination of PFAL ACs but in the constricted manner I described in earlier posts. But before I learned that that method was best I tried many other methods, some closely resembling the format/style/flavor of this debate on this thread. I would go to trinitarian churches and go at it just like here, and lots of times they would trick me, and the hurt would take sometimes months to heal. I learned slowly the Righteous Dodge in those settings. I also did it with Jehovah’s Witnesses, and a few other local church settings.
When I now do examine a PFAL AC I do it in a HIGHLY controlled environment. Like surgery.
When I now do examine a PFAL AC I deliberately choose to err on the side of believing the class. At this point in my investigation, there’s a MUCH greater chance of me erring big if I lean the other way. If I lean erroneously into PFAL the consequences are slight, from my perspective and memories. If I erroneously lean away from PFAL then I miss the big enchilada!
You guys lean in the way I tried lots for years and am now done with. I can’t blame you for wanting (you older grads I can) to err in the side of your perceived safety zone. If you have to err, you asses the greater risk as getting sucked back into a huge mess. I see going back to PFAL as real good so I buy a different insurance policy.
I didn’t get stung as bad as you TWI-2 refugees. And I realize some of TWI-1 latecomers or those unlucky to have been introduced to PFAL by a screw-up were hit had too. But those grads mature enough to be in leadership positions by ’82 or ’85 I think you’re forgetting your calling and the proofs God wrought in your lives via PFAL. Try to remember the good old days when it was fresh. That’s what coming back to the books does. It’s fresh learning in thi books, assuming you come to learn, that’s coach-able, meek. Just the books not the bs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Rafael,
I firmly believe that Jesus would drive a Dodge Rambler, because he and all his apostles (except Judas) had a Brooklyn accent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No, we're not trying to get you to re-enter the suspicion stage. We are trying to get you to explain how you got out of it. You've finally provided an answer. Abject denial. That's very nice. I'll take a pass.
Look, I won't say that PFAL lacks any value. That's not the point. If you lean on it and it helps you, more power to you, man. But it doesn't have to be the perfect Word of a perfect God in order to have that effect!
The FACT that there are ACTUAL ERRORS in PFAL, that those errors are both small and great, should convince you that it fails to meet its own definition of what it means to be God-breathed. So either its definition was wrong (in which case the PFAL book is in error) or it's not God-breathed (in which case PFAL is in error). The third option is that it really is error free. But if you're going to make that case, your answer has to be better than "Join me in my denial. We all float here."
That's the bottom line.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
FINALLY!
Mike and I are in agreement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Ahhhh! Savor the agreement while it lasts!
Rafael wrote:
“No, we're not trying to get you to re-enter the suspicion stage. We are trying to get you to explain how you got out of it. You've finally provided an answer. Abject denial.”
No. How I got out is by becoming super familiar with the material and it’s application. NOT super familiar with all the objections the devil can spit up and their solutions, but familiar with the text and it’s applications.
Familiarity is not transmittable in the form of a proof or dissertation. You gotta jump through all the hoops yourselves to see my explanation like I see it.
You’re asking me to explain it in a way that transports you back to PFAL by answering all the questions you’ve run into first. That ain’t gonna happen. For one thing, it’s an ENDLESS process!
You’ve got to either risk checking it out, or live with your perception of safety, but with no hope of ever raising the dead or doing all the other things Jesus did and greater. You’re trading the SPIRITUALLY abundant life for a safe distancing from Craig and TWI-2.
NO, my explanation of how I got out of the suspicion stage is NOT Denial Dodging.
Denial Dodging is ONLY dealing with ACs and for those already convinced they’re in the right place.
Denial Dodging only helps me from re-entering the suspicion stage.
Denial Dodging did NOT help get me out of it..... Lots of reading did.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Put up or shut up.
Ah, but you forget, my friend, I do not associate PFAL with Craig Martindale or TWI 2. That's an arrogant presumption on your part. (Awful lot of Star Trek quotes I'm throwing around lately. Anyone picking up on them?)
For another thing, you ain't got no answers.
Mike, I consider your method to be denial. The more you describe your methodology, the more assured I am of my definition.
Let's call it a draw. I continue to contend that you have failed to adequately address a single error. You continue to contend that in order to receive the answers I seek, I need to be meek enough to jump through the hoops leading to your telescope.
Deal?
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 28, 2003 at 17:06.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Ok. A draw. I gotta go anyway.
But what are you going to do if I someday comeback with one, two, or three ACs tied up in pink ribbons and all solved?
Just wondering what if?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
First I'll drop dead of shock.
Then, after you've raised me, I will congratulate you on the resolutions. Of course, your viewpoint requires ALL errors to be resolved. So I would tell you that there's still at least 12 prepositions out of place, meaning yourrrr precioussssss PFAL is still not the Words of Gods's.
Good art by Garth.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Mike:
At the very least this is the wrong thread for you. You have not influenced anyone here. All you have done is prove that your position is absurd. And frankly the more you post the more people will see that your position is absurd. I guess that is good, but your ignorance is antagonizing some of the posters here. Some people actually want to have a bible discussion regarding which parts of PFAL are true and which parts are not true. Now is that to much to ask for?
[This message was edited by Mark Sanguinetti on January 28, 2003 at 17:35.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm debating whether or not the thread has actually been derailed. For the past two days, it has certainly been about Mike. At least today he wrote specifically about his approach to resolving actual 2+2=5 errors in PFAL (deny that PFAL could ever be wrong, but don't call it denial, and dodge all questions). As unsatisfied as I am with that answer, it IS an answer.
Now, Mike, I'll agree with Mark on this: it's time to either apply your method to the errors we've identified, or stop interrupting the conversation.
In other words.... anyone? anyone?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
What is, "Put up or shut up?"
"I'll take Abject Denial for $400, Alex."
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
The picture of Smeagol/Gollum reading "PFAL" is just too precioussss!!!!!!
I laughed out loud in the library!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Mike: Wow. That has got to be the single most comprehensive display of public stupidity it has ever been my amusement to witness.
I'm from the South, and I've heard ignorant racists (white AND black) spout the most ridiculous justifications for their particular strains of brain-damaged hatethink, and they still made more sense than you do. Even the drunk ones.
Even the most die-hard Wierwille groupies here, (and there have been more than a few) even they have never sunk to this level of blind idolatry.
A psychiatrist could make an entire career out of your delusions. Even the certifiably mentally ill posters at least had an excuse for their abrupt break with all vestiges of reality.
Is it Rush Week in Hell? Looks like Mr. Fletcher, and his Legion buddies, and pretty much the entire fallen third of the original angels are all trying to jam into you like frat boys into a phone booth. Good Lord, man! That is not a record you want to be setting!
Seek God, Jesus Christ, professional help, and an exorcist, in that order. You are one seriously ****** up individual.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
Angels can't sing. (I'm moving this from the other thread) The Way taught that angels can't sing. They said that song "hark the herald angels sing" was wrong cause of that. Somebody else must remember this! I heard this one throughout the years.
...It's hard to be humble when you own a Rottweiler...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OCD #1
Mike, i think you're drunk....go to bed
;)--> 
:P-->
resume discussion
RG, my angels sing!
----------------------------------------
I think everyone should treat one another in a Christian manner.
I will NOT however, be responsible for the consequences. - George Carlin
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
RottieGrrrl...
If you have a copy of Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed, I'd start looking there for the quote. We know that in the Book of Job, God Himself declares that angels sing. But is there anywhere Wierwille states, in writing, that they do not?
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.