You wrote: "Stephen certainly never took pfal, but as he was being stoned to death in Acts, I daresay he saw something you or I will never see, in our earthly days."
Certainly? How do you know he didn't take PFAL? Oh sure, the orange book and the film class weren't back in his time. But had you ever heard how Dr stated that he could teach the class 17 different ways?
Jesus taught his apostles and disciples (as is covered in the class) exactly how to manifest when Pentecost was to come not many days hence. He taught them the same principles, truths, and necessary facts for them to receive power from God. Why? ...for abundant living ...so that they could enjoy the abundance of the 9 manifestations in living. Jesus taught them PFAL in the form it existed them. Jesus learned what to teach them by revelation from the same God that taught Dr what to teach.
When Dr taught the early classes in the 1950's there was no orange book or film class, yet he taught them PFAL none-the-less. The orange book and the film are part of the 5-senses aspect of the class you and I took, but that's just the factual side. The truths and principles we were taught in our form of the PFAL class are the exact same as the 1950's grads were taught, as the first century believers were taught. It's just some of those necessary facts that may have differed. We had anecdotes about bent handlebar bicycles, while the first century students might have had anecdotes about crooked horse saddles, or something like that.
Jesus taught PFAL to his apostles, who taught it to Stephen, one of a small number of ace students who went all the way that was available to go with it at that time. I dare to TOTALLY disagree with your daresay that "he saw something you or I will never see..." We are supposed to see that and even greater, when we get our "spiritual eyes" functioning.
***
(snip)
It is available NOW to see what Stephen saw. However, it is also unfortunate fact that we failed to master PFAL, and our days now are limited to only seeing the earthly, the 5-senses.
***
(snip)
Those of you who arrived late and are new to Mike might want to
review this.
It's pretty representative of his POV, his position, his beliefs.
I clearly indicated where I edited for brevity, so you can skip what's
not quite so on-topic.
I also clearly indicated where the unedited post is, so you can review it
and check if I've unfairly represented him.
(Unless Mike later edits the original quote-which will be exposed if he
does-edits done other than at the time of the post are noted at the
I'm much more interested in learning from Dr's successes, which occured in the team effort the produced the writings. That area is still rich in learning potential because we all drifted from the written portion of his ministry, or never really got any significant exposure to them to begin with.
Mike was unclear when he posted this, so in the interest of clear communication, I shall clarify something.
If an average poster refers to "the team effort that produced the writings", they might mean "vpw, plus the editing staff, plus the proofreaders, plus those who did the original research that went into the books, BG Leonard, EW Bullinger, JE Stiles, EW Kenyon."
A few others, if they said "the team effort that produced the writings", would mean "vpw, his photocopy machine, his exacto knife, and the books by EW Bullinger, EW Kenyon, JE Stiles and BG Leonard, which were reassembled to compose the books."
When Mike says "the team effort that produced the writings", he may incidentally reference the proofreaders and typsetters, but that's almost incidental. What he primarily refers to in "the team effort" is vpw and GOD ALMIGHTY, who, according to Mike, oversaw the entire process. "Plagiarize THIS sentence from THIS writer, then THAT sentence from THAT writer."
Mike prefers I not use the word "plagiarize" for the process of using another writer's material and passing it off as your own, but I'll go with its usage as consistent, since that's consistent with all collegiate dictionary and encyclopedia, and the courts of the United States of America. However, except for that one word's appearance, that's what Mike meant, but he may simply have forgotten to clarify that point.
Before you go, are you clear that what Wierwille did is considered plagiarism? I mean, plagiarism is a strong word, and if you really think what Wierwille did was plagiarism, you should be clear about it. So, was it plagiarism or was it plagiarism?
quote: Before you go, are you clear that what Wierwille did is considered plagiarism? I mean, plagiarism is a strong word, and if you really think what Wierwille did was plagiarism, you should be clear about it. So, was it plagiarism or was it plagiarism?
And -- may I add -- that if Raf (as a professional journalist), were to plagiarize any source for a story -- he would be looking at a loss of his job, and most likely at jail time as well.
What makes vpw any different? What he did was worthy of the rightful repercussions for such, even though he escaped them.
I have to respond here. Mr Weirwille didnt 'plagiarize' anything. He sited his sources, and gave his sources credit. What he did do was play 3 card molly with The Bible...He taught the keys to unlocking the book, and then taught you not to use them...only go as far as those catch phrases took you, which wasnt far, and not to even consider anything that wasnt sanctioned by his church,(Like water baptism, which the first century church observed) even if the truth and wisdom of God slapped you in the face you woulndt believe it, all the while telling you that you were part of a biblical reasearch and fellowship ministry. But he didnt plagiarize anyone.
Rachel
When I say you, I mean everyone, you being all inclusive,including me.
Dave Anderson mentioned something a few years ago his recollection to the effect that the success of PFAL took Wierwille by surprise -and even scared him.
Add to this, my remembrance of watching at an "Advanced Class" an early Way biblical research promo film (vintage 50s -early 60s?)- which featured the same two or three cars driving around the block several times.
Which has me wondering - if this preacher in the midst of the cornfields of Bum-frick Ohio had been lax with citing his "borrowings" from others - because perhaps originally, he hadn't actually expected his material to extend beyond the vicinity of his locality, or of the states in his neighborhood?
It seemed, after all, a much larger world back then. The odds of anyone not noticing his "borrowings" throughout his works was considerably greater back then; after all,
at one time Vp would have been content had only 50 people took his class, or so I've heard.
Now I'm also wondering - was the practice of borrowing material from other writers without giving reference to the original sources a practice common among evangelicals?
quote:I have to respond here. Mr Weirwille didnt 'plagiarize' anything. He sited his sources, and gave his sources credit.
In order not to derail (and I apologize because I already have), I'll just say that Belle, with all due respect, you are seriously mistaken. Be happy to discuss privately if you wish.
Don't bite....You obviously know about more sources than vp owned up to publically, than I.
If he got more info from the 5 or 6 I can call to mind after all these years, that's enough for me, I believe you. And no, I'll pass, but thanks for the offer.
Well -- for what it is worth --- vpw cited sources, but at the same time made out like he was the great one, who "ferreted" these truths out, from the many myriads of the doctrinal "quagmire" that inundated the average "Joe Believer" -- who couldn't figure out a thing, without the "MOG" to tell them what to beleive.
Oh sure -- I'll grant you that he taught this stuff, but I will also say that he did his best to make sure that we knew that he was the one teaching it to us, and there-for taking all the "glory" for the discovery of these many doctrines "hidden" until revealed to him, personally.
IMO -- he only mentioned sources to validate himself, nothing more. He did a good job of "validating" himself, on the cover of the Way Magazine, for many years, and he did the same theologically, by "citing sources", if only to prove his particular point might actually have some sort of credence to it because (while someone else discovered it) -- he was THE TEACHER. -->
Maybe we should clarify things somewhat. If I were to used material that our authors had written for my own personal use, I never had to credit the source. If I were to compile some information and share it with family and friends, I would not have to cite sources.
As soon as I attempt to make to market or to a profit from my compilations of material, then my must have cited my sources. Then, that is plagiarism. Simply using someone else's material is not wrong, selling it without citing sources is not wrong.
As long as a book is in the public domain, it is never wrong to use material written in that book. I am free to use a sentence from one book or a phrase from another book, if I don't try to sell the material.
Also, there is such a thing as common knowledge. A book mentions that hydrogen plus oxygen produces water. That is common knowledge, thus there is no reason to cite the source. If a person reads that Lincoln was the President during the time of the Civil War, that is common knowledge and need not be cited. If there is some uniqueness and/or originality to the writings, the sources must always be cited.
That is legal plagiarism. In academic standards, using someone else's term paper which with a few rephrasing of words and claiming it to be one's own would be considered cheating, academically. Even if the person never profited from their paper, copying it and making small revisions would be academic plagiarism and could result in academic penalties.
Maybe we should clarify things somewhat. If I were to used material that our authors had written for my own personal use, I never had to credit the source. If I were to compile some information and share it with family and friends, I would not have to cite sources.
Correct. You can also lie to your family and it's not perjury. It's still wrong, but it's not perjury. Using material by another author without crediting the other author is dishonest. "Hey, honey, I wrote you this poem: Shall I compare thee to a summer's day..." It's just plain old flat out lying. I'm not saying your personal letters have to come with footnotes. But dishonesty is dishonesty no matter what.
quote:As soon as I attempt to make to market or to a profit from my compilations of material, then my must have cited my sources. Then, that is plagiarism.
Incorrect. It is plagiarism if you publish (aka, publicize) your work, regardless of whether you make a profit off it. You can plagiarize in a letter to the editor. They don't pay you for it, but they publish it, and that makes you a plagiarist. If you plagiarized for a pamphlet and gave it away on the street corner, that's still plagiarism. The level of profit is immaterial.
quote:Simply using someone else's material is not wrong, selling it without citing sources is not wrong.
2. Yes it is. 1. Depends on what you mean by "simply using." I don't credit the inventors of the alphabet everytime I begin an article. But the moment I'm expressing someone else's ideas in their words, it's incumbent upon me to cite the source.
quote:As long as a book is in the public domain, it is never wrong to use material written in that book.
You're missing the point. Any one of us can publish a King James Bible, as it's no longer copyrighted. However, if I were to distribute a Bible called "The King James Bible, by Rafael Olmeda" that contains nothing but the King James Bible text, I have committed plagiarism, even though the "original author(s)" are long dead.
quote:I am free to use a sentence from one book or a phrase from another book, if I don't try to sell the material.
Depends in large measure on the uniqueness of the combination of words you're using. I am not foolish enough to believe that every word combination I've ever used is original, but if I ever try to pass off "I think, therefore I am" as my own saying, then I'd be correctly labeled a plagiarist.
quote:Also, there is such a thing as common knowledge. A book mentions that hydrogen plus oxygen produces water. That is common knowledge, thus there is no reason to cite the source. If a person reads that Lincoln was the President during the time of the Civil War, that is common knowledge and need not be cited. If there is some uniqueness and/or originality to the writings, the sources must always be cited.
Correct.
quote:That is legal plagiarism.
Incorrect. The analysis was riddled with error.
quote:In academic standards, using someone else's term paper which with a few rephrasing of words and claiming it to be one's own would be considered cheating, academically.
Correct. This is more to the point of what Wierwille did than most other explanations.
quote:Even if the person never profited from their paper, copying it and making small revisions would be academic plagiarism and could result in academic penalties.
"The Counsel of the Lord" in the Blue Book borrows heavily, without citation, from Bullinger.
The first chapter of Receiving the Holy Spirit Today begins with rampant plagiarism from JE Stiles. The Q&A in the same book was modeled after Stiles' Q&A (perfectly fair) and included at least one question and answer block which was heavily lifted from Stiles (not fair). For those wondering, it's question 8.
Order My Steps in Thy Word lifts liberally from EW Kenyon (interestingly, in the very same chapter, Wierwille credits Kenyon with a rather lengthy story. THAT was not plagiarism, but the passages that preceded it were clearly plagiarized).
There are other examples, but the point's made, no?
quote: I was taught by TWI that heaven is beyond the earth and that earth is paradise. The born again has access between these two realms. And those that have paradise are the Judeans and do not have access the heavens.
advanced class sheet
The original idea that prompted Darby to develop dispensationalism, as we know it, was the concept that God is creating two different races to inhabit eternity in two different places: the Jews, a physical people on a physical earth; and Christians, a spiritual people in a spiritual heaven.
Wierwille's doctrine reflected Darby's teaching, though in a much more vague and muted way.
In Stoic cosmology, the dominant cosmology at the time the New Testament was written, there were considered to be four elements; earth, water, air and fire. The earth is the realm of... you guessed it, earth. Earth is surrounded by Oceanus, the realm of water. The realm of the air extends between the surface of the earth and the orbit of the moon. The space from the orbit of the moon to the celestial sphere of the fixed stars is the realm of fire. Beyond the fixed stars is the Void.
The anciencts considered deities to be intelligences of fire, just as we are intelligences of earth and the daimon are intelligences of air. Therefore they considered the Heavens, that area between the orbit of the moon and the fixed stars, to be the abode of the gods. The statement "anything above the surface of the earth is heaven" would not have been regarded as accurate by the original writers and readers of the New Testament.
Third:
The dichotomy "Mike" refers to between the 5-senses and the spiritual realms is a spurious distinction introduced into Christian thought by neo-platonists, primarily in the third and fourth centuries AD.
"Mike" may believe he has actually seen this dichotomy as part of acquiring "mastery" of PFAL. If he has, it has been an hallucination induced by his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit.
Fourth:
How is the judgment going to be executed?
John the Baptist said that Jesus was going to baptize with spirit and with fire (Matthew 3:11).
In the parable of the tares and the wheat (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-42) Jesus indicates that there will be a trash fire between this age and the age to come.
quote: 10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood hay stubble;
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is.
14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
I Corinthians 3:10-15
I think the fire Paul described in I Corinthians is the trash fire Matthew teaches will occur as part of the end of this age and the coming of the next. I also believe it is the baptism of fire John referred to.
I think we're all going to go through it, not necessarily in alphabetical order. I don't think it's going to be much fun in the process. That will depend on how much store we set by our errors. I think we're ALL going to be surprised by what does and does not make it through.
quote:I think the fire Paul described in I Corinthians is the trash fire Matthew teaches will occur as part of the end of this age and the coming of the next. I also believe it is the baptism of fire John referred to.
I think we're all going to go through it, not necessarily in alphabetical order. I don't think it's going to be much fun in the process. That will depend on how much store we set by our errors. I think we're ALL going to be surprised by what does and does not make it through.
Love,
Steve
Oh yeah Steve, a SURPRISE for sure!!! Yes in~~~deeedy~~~ unless you intend on acting like ~~~ ahh uhmm "I knew this would happen told ya so i got ice cream... whoops ~~~ DIG your thinking~~~
i'm mabe goin to heaven, but what do you think truck stop eight track stoned to da bone one them there , shLt did i leave that behind going to heaven tracts and buy a doze roses from a moonie
Woha dude we talking about surprises ~~~ ahhh kewl~~~ never knew about that type of thing~~~ just fkn hgn round and "POOF" eh?
Fun, ya thinks its gonna be no fun? Why is that? Child Birth Curse???
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
13
6
15
Popular Days
Nov 28
9
Nov 29
6
Dec 15
5
Dec 2
5
Top Posters In This Topic
def59 7 posts
TheSongRemainsTheSame 13 posts
Mike 6 posts
dmiller 15 posts
Popular Days
Nov 28 2004
9 posts
Nov 29 2004
6 posts
Dec 15 2004
5 posts
Dec 2 2004
5 posts
WordWolf
Mike, November 28, 2004, 10:28pm (page 1).
Those of you who arrived late and are new to Mike might want to
review this.
It's pretty representative of his POV, his position, his beliefs.
I clearly indicated where I edited for brevity, so you can skip what's
not quite so on-topic.
I also clearly indicated where the unedited post is, so you can review it
and check if I've unfairly represented him.
(Unless Mike later edits the original quote-which will be exposed if he
does-edits done other than at the time of the post are noted at the
end of a post.)
Carry on, everyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Mike, November 30, 2004, 12:24pm. Top of Page 2.
Mike was unclear when he posted this, so in the interest of clear communication, I shall clarify something.
If an average poster refers to "the team effort that produced the writings", they might mean "vpw, plus the editing staff, plus the proofreaders, plus those who did the original research that went into the books, BG Leonard, EW Bullinger, JE Stiles, EW Kenyon."
A few others, if they said "the team effort that produced the writings", would mean "vpw, his photocopy machine, his exacto knife, and the books by EW Bullinger, EW Kenyon, JE Stiles and BG Leonard, which were reassembled to compose the books."
When Mike says "the team effort that produced the writings", he may incidentally reference the proofreaders and typsetters, but that's almost incidental. What he primarily refers to in "the team effort" is vpw and GOD ALMIGHTY, who, according to Mike, oversaw the entire process. "Plagiarize THIS sentence from THIS writer, then THAT sentence from THAT writer."
Mike prefers I not use the word "plagiarize" for the process of using another writer's material and passing it off as your own, but I'll go with its usage as consistent, since that's consistent with all collegiate dictionary and encyclopedia, and the courts of the United States of America. However, except for that one word's appearance, that's what Mike meant, but he may simply have forgotten to clarify that point.
Carry on, everyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Before you go, are you clear that what Wierwille did is considered plagiarism? I mean, plagiarism is a strong word, and if you really think what Wierwille did was plagiarism, you should be clear about it. So, was it plagiarism or was it plagiarism?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
And -- may I add -- that if Raf (as a professional journalist), were to plagiarize any source for a story -- he would be looking at a loss of his job, and most likely at jail time as well.
What makes vpw any different? What he did was worthy of the rightful repercussions for such, even though he escaped them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rachel
Hi All,
I have to respond here. Mr Weirwille didnt 'plagiarize' anything. He sited his sources, and gave his sources credit. What he did do was play 3 card molly with The Bible...He taught the keys to unlocking the book, and then taught you not to use them...only go as far as those catch phrases took you, which wasnt far, and not to even consider anything that wasnt sanctioned by his church,(Like water baptism, which the first century church observed) even if the truth and wisdom of God slapped you in the face you woulndt believe it, all the while telling you that you were part of a biblical reasearch and fellowship ministry. But he didnt plagiarize anyone.
Rachel
When I say you, I mean everyone, you being all inclusive,including me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Just some speculations on my part.
Dave Anderson mentioned something a few years ago his recollection to the effect that the success of PFAL took Wierwille by surprise -and even scared him.
Add to this, my remembrance of watching at an "Advanced Class" an early Way biblical research promo film (vintage 50s -early 60s?)- which featured the same two or three cars driving around the block several times.
Which has me wondering - if this preacher in the midst of the cornfields of Bum-frick Ohio had been lax with citing his "borrowings" from others - because perhaps originally, he hadn't actually expected his material to extend beyond the vicinity of his locality, or of the states in his neighborhood?
It seemed, after all, a much larger world back then. The odds of anyone not noticing his "borrowings" throughout his works was considerably greater back then; after all,
at one time Vp would have been content had only 50 people took his class, or so I've heard.
Now I'm also wondering - was the practice of borrowing material from other writers without giving reference to the original sources a practice common among evangelicals?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
In order not to derail (and I apologize because I already have), I'll just say that Belle, with all due respect, you are seriously mistaken. Be happy to discuss privately if you wish.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rachel
Hi Beast,
Don't bite....You obviously know about more sources than vp owned up to publically, than I.
If he got more info from the 5 or 6 I can call to mind after all these years, that's enough for me, I believe you. And no, I'll pass, but thanks for the offer.
Belle(AKA Rachel)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rachel
PS,
It will take more than that to get me off the track. That was a pebble, not a boulder.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Well -- for what it is worth --- vpw cited sources, but at the same time made out like he was the great one, who "ferreted" these truths out, from the many myriads of the doctrinal "quagmire" that inundated the average "Joe Believer" -- who couldn't figure out a thing, without the "MOG" to tell them what to beleive.
Oh sure -- I'll grant you that he taught this stuff, but I will also say that he did his best to make sure that we knew that he was the one teaching it to us, and there-for taking all the "glory" for the discovery of these many doctrines "hidden" until revealed to him, personally.
IMO -- he only mentioned sources to validate himself, nothing more. He did a good job of "validating" himself, on the cover of the Way Magazine, for many years, and he did the same theologically, by "citing sources", if only to prove his particular point might actually have some sort of credence to it because (while someone else discovered it) -- he was THE TEACHER.
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biblefan Dave
Maybe we should clarify things somewhat. If I were to used material that our authors had written for my own personal use, I never had to credit the source. If I were to compile some information and share it with family and friends, I would not have to cite sources.
As soon as I attempt to make to market or to a profit from my compilations of material, then my must have cited my sources. Then, that is plagiarism. Simply using someone else's material is not wrong, selling it without citing sources is not wrong.
As long as a book is in the public domain, it is never wrong to use material written in that book. I am free to use a sentence from one book or a phrase from another book, if I don't try to sell the material.
Also, there is such a thing as common knowledge. A book mentions that hydrogen plus oxygen produces water. That is common knowledge, thus there is no reason to cite the source. If a person reads that Lincoln was the President during the time of the Civil War, that is common knowledge and need not be cited. If there is some uniqueness and/or originality to the writings, the sources must always be cited.
That is legal plagiarism. In academic standards, using someone else's term paper which with a few rephrasing of words and claiming it to be one's own would be considered cheating, academically. Even if the person never profited from their paper, copying it and making small revisions would be academic plagiarism and could result in academic penalties.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Plagiarism goes deeper than that. If you are trying to pawn off another's work as your own that's plagiarism regardless of what the work's purpose is.
And there's no shame in quoting others works you just need to cite it that's all.
If vpw had done it consistently none of us would be here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Correct. You can also lie to your family and it's not perjury. It's still wrong, but it's not perjury. Using material by another author without crediting the other author is dishonest. "Hey, honey, I wrote you this poem: Shall I compare thee to a summer's day..." It's just plain old flat out lying. I'm not saying your personal letters have to come with footnotes. But dishonesty is dishonesty no matter what.
Incorrect. It is plagiarism if you publish (aka, publicize) your work, regardless of whether you make a profit off it. You can plagiarize in a letter to the editor. They don't pay you for it, but they publish it, and that makes you a plagiarist. If you plagiarized for a pamphlet and gave it away on the street corner, that's still plagiarism. The level of profit is immaterial.
2. Yes it is. 1. Depends on what you mean by "simply using." I don't credit the inventors of the alphabet everytime I begin an article. But the moment I'm expressing someone else's ideas in their words, it's incumbent upon me to cite the source.
You're missing the point. Any one of us can publish a King James Bible, as it's no longer copyrighted. However, if I were to distribute a Bible called "The King James Bible, by Rafael Olmeda" that contains nothing but the King James Bible text, I have committed plagiarism, even though the "original author(s)" are long dead.
Depends in large measure on the uniqueness of the combination of words you're using. I am not foolish enough to believe that every word combination I've ever used is original, but if I ever try to pass off "I think, therefore I am" as my own saying, then I'd be correctly labeled a plagiarist.
Correct.
Incorrect. The analysis was riddled with error.
Correct. This is more to the point of what Wierwille did than most other explanations.
Correct.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
dmiller, there were many places where docvic(praise be his name) lifted entire passages, pages from the works of others and never cited them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Steve is correct. Some obvious examples:
"The Counsel of the Lord" in the Blue Book borrows heavily, without citation, from Bullinger.
The first chapter of Receiving the Holy Spirit Today begins with rampant plagiarism from JE Stiles. The Q&A in the same book was modeled after Stiles' Q&A (perfectly fair) and included at least one question and answer block which was heavily lifted from Stiles (not fair). For those wondering, it's question 8.
Order My Steps in Thy Word lifts liberally from EW Kenyon (interestingly, in the very same chapter, Wierwille credits Kenyon with a rather lengthy story. THAT was not plagiarism, but the passages that preceded it were clearly plagiarized).
There are other examples, but the point's made, no?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I know that, I was trying to be kind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Was Question 8 the famous
"faith-blasters" thing that was effectively a photocopy with
one or two words moved around?
Does someone have those links handy with the side-by-side
comparisons,
for the benefit of those of us just tuning in at home?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Logoslupos - yep, that was it!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Because you asked nicely.
In most cases, any one of these would be insufficient to prove plagiarism. Taken as a whole, however, the evidence is devastating.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Who is to Blame?
An eye-opening look at placing blame...
If a man cuts his finger off while slicing salami at work,
he blames the restaurant.
If you smoke three packs a day for 40 years and die of lung cancer, your family blames the tobacco company.
If your neighbor crashes into a tree while driving home drunk, he
blames the bartender.
If your grandchildren are brats without manners,
you blame television.
If your friend is shot by a deranged madman, you blame the gun
manufacturer.
And if a crazed person breaks into the cockpit and tries to kill
the pilot at 35,000 feet, and the passengers kill him instead,
the mother of the crazed deceased blames the airline.
I must have lived too long to understand the world as it is
anymore.
So, if I die while my old, wrinkled foot is parked in front of this
=computer,
I want you to blame Bill Gates...okay?!
a friend o mine sent me the above~~~
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
yeah dmiller, thanks. I prefer Ben & Jerrys selection.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Makes sense to me
:D--> --- they offer frozen milk, not cooked meat. 
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
A few observations on the material of this thread:
First:
The Pearly Gates will be part of the New Jerusalem, not "Heaven". As such, they will be on earth. There will be twelve of them.
Second:
TheSongRemainsTheSame accurately quoted TWI doctrine,
The original idea that prompted Darby to develop dispensationalism, as we know it, was the concept that God is creating two different races to inhabit eternity in two different places: the Jews, a physical people on a physical earth; and Christians, a spiritual people in a spiritual heaven.
Wierwille's doctrine reflected Darby's teaching, though in a much more vague and muted way.
In Stoic cosmology, the dominant cosmology at the time the New Testament was written, there were considered to be four elements; earth, water, air and fire. The earth is the realm of... you guessed it, earth. Earth is surrounded by Oceanus, the realm of water. The realm of the air extends between the surface of the earth and the orbit of the moon. The space from the orbit of the moon to the celestial sphere of the fixed stars is the realm of fire. Beyond the fixed stars is the Void.
The anciencts considered deities to be intelligences of fire, just as we are intelligences of earth and the daimon are intelligences of air. Therefore they considered the Heavens, that area between the orbit of the moon and the fixed stars, to be the abode of the gods. The statement "anything above the surface of the earth is heaven" would not have been regarded as accurate by the original writers and readers of the New Testament.
Third:
The dichotomy "Mike" refers to between the 5-senses and the spiritual realms is a spurious distinction introduced into Christian thought by neo-platonists, primarily in the third and fourth centuries AD.
"Mike" may believe he has actually seen this dichotomy as part of acquiring "mastery" of PFAL. If he has, it has been an hallucination induced by his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit.
Fourth:
How is the judgment going to be executed?
John the Baptist said that Jesus was going to baptize with spirit and with fire (Matthew 3:11).
In the parable of the tares and the wheat (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-42) Jesus indicates that there will be a trash fire between this age and the age to come.
I think the fire Paul described in I Corinthians is the trash fire Matthew teaches will occur as part of the end of this age and the coming of the next. I also believe it is the baptism of fire John referred to.
I think we're all going to go through it, not necessarily in alphabetical order. I don't think it's going to be much fun in the process. That will depend on how much store we set by our errors. I think we're ALL going to be surprised by what does and does not make it through.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Oh yeah Steve, a SURPRISE for sure!!! Yes in~~~deeedy~~~ unless you intend on acting like ~~~ ahh uhmm "I knew this would happen told ya so i got ice cream... whoops ~~~ DIG your thinking~~~
i'm mabe goin to heaven, but what do you think truck stop eight track stoned to da bone one them there , shLt did i leave that behind going to heaven tracts and buy a doze roses from a moonie
Woha dude we talking about surprises ~~~ ahhh kewl~~~ never knew about that type of thing~~~ just fkn hgn round and "POOF" eh?
Fun, ya thinks its gonna be no fun? Why is that? Child Birth Curse???
LOVETHESONGREMAINSTHESAME
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.