WhiteDove

QUOTE(WhiteDove @ Mar 24 2006, 08:33 AM) I learned truth in the Catholic Church despite it's moral state and the morals of those teaching me. I can use that truth independent of the way those who instructed me did. So why'd ya leave and turn to twi? Because I found a better environment for learning truth Which by the way is also why I left

Thomas I don't run PFAL classes. The material is dated, look when it was filmed. I don't even use some of the ones produced post way for that reason also. I would not want to have to work through each session and explain the changes. That said as we continue to learn and grow anything we produce in the way of classes will eventually date. For someone starting out in their learning I would not recommend utilizing such a class. However it would not make it useless as a reference to someone who could or would have the background to sift through it and learn something from it. And it does not negate the fact that a lot of useful work from other sources is contained there in one place. Use it or not I don't really care, I do reject the opinion that someone's morals somehow morphs the truth contained in a class into untruth. I get about 35 CD teachings a month from various sources sometimes they have useful and accurate information sometimes they suck that’s they way it is. You have to dig through the stuff to get the good. The same is true of any Christian bestseller book. Still I don't need to know and in most cases don't about the lifestyle of the writer.

Jesus never said the Scribes never spoke the truth he addressed their choice of what they did with it. Not one in the same. We'll leave the math out maybe it is confusing you here. I learned truth in the Catholic Church despite it's moral state and the morals of those teaching me. I can use that truth independent of the way those who instructed me did. Another words I can benefit from truth learned leave the rest.

And for many they did not!!! So do numbers define truth I think not! either way the majority falls ,they don't. So VPS life dictates if Bullingers or Welch or Lamsa or Stiles or Pillai or B G Leonard words are truth or not?

Truth is Truth Morals are Morals Cool two seperate issues. Sometimes they intertwine but they do not change each other. Do you really think that if if Charles Manson said 1+1=2 it would be wrong because he said so?

QUOTE(WhiteDove @ Mar 24 2006, 08:17 AM) How much credence I suppose would be based on how much truth is contained in it if one were honest and not basing their evaluation on their emotional feelings.[/color] So, again, White Dove, why weigh truth abainst error? Why lace truth with error? Why not teach the truth & leave the error out? Isnt' that part of waking up and strengthening the things that remain as Dylan exhorted? I don't think I said to do that Thomas! We are to weigh things as to what the scripture says. That said we can learn from sources despite the fact that all men are imperfect you can find error in any book or class. Doesn't mean we need to throw it out based on a emotional response. Use the truth leave the rest pretty simple concept. Show me a church that does not lace truth with error including yours Thomas. I think you misread Dylan he said strengthen the things that remain not throw everything out and start over. BIG Difference! Then again one would have to have completed the first part of the equation When you going to wake up?

Because it is what we should strive for in our life. BUT it does not define truth as Oak recognized, it is a seperate issue. This is not hard to grasp - I'll say it again. Truth is truth it does not change based upon the morals of those speaking. It is not effected by their actions. 1+1 =2 will remain true if it is said by a teacher, a rapist, a priest, or a thief. Their morals have no bearing on the fact that it is true. Now if you will listen to them ,it may have bearing depending on your choice. But it does not change the truth in their statement.

Belle I got your point! I just don't agree with you.

Temple Lady you misquoted me ,seems you left out part of the context. my response was in regard to this your statement not the foundational class material Which since you brought it up is what Romans says. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. - Romans3:22-26 I guess we are ! It would be a shame if Mormon's would not accept the price paid. Your right a Bible class is just that a structure or means to deliver the truth contained in it. It is not truth in and of itself because it is structure in which truth is disseminated. Much like a book is not truth in and of itself but it may contain truth. While the class does have a section on righteousness it it not what it is about in it's entirety. How much credence I suppose would be based on how much truth is contained in it if one were honest and not basing their evaluation on their emotional feelings.

This much we agree on Oak Here is where we differ I just don't think that has anything to do with it. Biblical truth stands on it's own regardless of moral character ,obviously it makes it easier to accept with good moral character. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until otherwise proven. Truth is truth be it a priest or a thief who say's it.

Sure it can, and here's how. Let's say someone wrote a small 20 page book on figures of speech and copied 10 pages word for word from Bullinger (plagairism). But the same author in the same small book takes some more information from Bullinger but changes (perverts) it slightlyto give it a different meaning than what Bullinger gave it. We certainly have a plagiaized work. Ten pages are true to Bullinger's original and 10 pages borrowed from Bullinger, yet changed (perverted). The fact that something is plagairized does not necessarily mean that 100 percent of the original meaning remains intact. You are correct in your example Goey but we were talking about the PFAL class not writing a new book. The work that was imported into the foundational class is consistent with Bullingers work. It was simply lifted from Bullingers books and placed in VP's class no change(perversion). In that context yes I believe that the original meaning remained intact. I suppose if you choose to believe in Bullingers work or not would be a personal choice, nobody's perfect but his work is recognized in the academic circles..

NOT what I said Belle I said one day you can't accuse him of plagiarizing someones work and then the next say it is VP's perverted truth .

Actually not Belle! You can't explain even one eror in your point so you ask for more things to argue about? One is enough to prove it can't be both now isn't it ? Any error fails the test of truth.

Nice try Rascal but the work on FOS are consitant between both speakers. So no (perverted it with his own spin) It has to be one or the other.

Oak you can have as many as you want the point was , just be consistent in your logic it can't morph back n forth. Most would agree that the class was made up of mostly collected works of others. If VPW plagiarized Bullingers work on figures of speech then it would remain true regardless of which one said it. It does not change because VP says it. truth is truth it is not dependant on morality of the speaker,race,creed or color, denominational affiliation, or anything else it stands on it's own regardless of who speaks it. It can't be both plagiarized truth from Bullinger and VP's perverted truth morphing back n forth depending on the gripe

Yeah that never happens here with the opposing point of view. It really has nothing to do with being righteous. It is simply a matter of using truth found in a Bible class to better ones life. It still amazes me that it is plagiarized truth taught by other men on one thread, and all about VP's deception on another. I guess it morphs back n forth to fit the gripe of the day....... Gee thats what I have been forgetting to do ! And you know this about us how? :blink:

We had a nice outside wedding in a garden with a lady playing harp. T*mmy Cr@bb did the service (enough said) so it was not religious. Like Rascal we had a last minute change also J*hnny T*wns*nd was supposed to do it but was called to HDQTS. We had the reception at our house in the yard where we lived with EX10 and some future Greasespoters were there among the crowd. The branch got drunk, dancing and food. The best man made another booze run at some point, someone drank the the bottle of champagne we had tucked away in the fridge. The house was trashed, that's about it . Did I forget anything EX?

Toms right Dot Document Document Document Not that you would want to decend to his level but these were kinda funny....... Why don't you try practicing random acts of intelligence and senseless acts of self-control? Aw, did I step on your poor little itty bitty _________? A hard-on doesn't count as personal growth.

Hey Dot I have no Machismo advice for you ,but it's nice to see your little doggie around again. I'll keep you in my thoughts and prayers for an answer to your employment problem. Be well dear friend, doggie kisses your way from Lucca.

Maybe because they confiscated that 250,000 worth of pot that was slowing things down. LOL Can we have a new feature that tells us when people are coming that we don't want to talk to so we can run away?........ :blink:

I sent her to time out for making a mess. Don't encourage her Linda.

Maybe so Cool but your ability to see things for what they were/are is a quality I always admired in you. Even if I don't always agree. Now that other little thing you do letting us know how you feel.........Ahhh nevermind

Cool you sell yourself short,knowing you I'm betting you did. :)

Well Cool I can't put everyone in that box, but some I'm sure fit quite nicely. But as I said HOW it turned out is another side of the story. I still think most people went in expecting to be trained to serve in the Way in some capacity not at Dairy Queen serving ice cream...

Thank You, Thank You ,Thank You COOL Even at 16 it was pretty obvious to you and most, that you were headed for a lifetime of service in the Way,if you went into the Corps. My point exactly, it was not to hard to see. HOW it turned out is yet another subject......