T-Bone

love it!!!!! in my opinion Michael is still the best Batman - and he has great performances in Spotlight, Bird Man and Dope Sick. of course, Beetlejuice, Night Shift, Mister Mom and Multiplicity showcase his funny side

That hoverboard is recent technology that must be a copy PFLAP Today Although I will say, he bears a striking resemblance to the guy in that framed picture hanging on the wall in the old PFAL video…minus the cloud and the hoverboard of course…but come to think of it wierwille - probably had lingering smoke clouds and a drink cart near the production set.

Well, if Mr. Ed says it, I beleeve it, that saddles it! I’m wanting to have a stable beleefe system

Hold up, hold up! Are you trying to tell me the Mr. Ed show is not real ?!?! I’ve got those empty PFAL syllabus blues

My buddy calls me up and asks “why weren’t you at my Halloween party last night?” I told him I was. “Really?” He says “maybe I didn’t recognize you in costume- who did you go as?” I said “the absent Christ.” Ba dum bum…I’m here all week folks

That is NOT a fact of Scripture but an assumption from a certain interpretation on your part. And other matters for debate are what is spirit? What does death mean in Genesis? What is the image and likeness of God in Genesis? If humankind lost the image and likeness of God in Genesis – then why do passages written after the fall suggest humankind still retains that image? However - I’m assuming the image is tarnished from the fall. I started a thread in doctrinal and all are invited to ponder and give input here > Human nature and the fall

2 great points that need repeating!

where's the nearest Dunkin' Donuts?

Great book, Rocky! I’ll have to reread that sometime. I vaguely remember something in the book about the difference between a pathfinder versus a helicopter – and I may have garbled up some of this – or processed it (“made it my own” )… or “morphed it” the way I like apply it… …so help me out if I’m incorrect on stuff from the book – feel free to jump in… Anyway…the pathfinder – or perhaps a tracker in problem-solving mode - is a painstaking approach on the ground – up-close to go over details with a fine-tooth comb; look at everything, break it down to essential parts, CSI-crime-scene style. The helicopter goes for the overview – takes chances – may have lucky guesses where to look – or may be familiar with the topography and knows the likely places to look, maybe more familiar with the culprit’s modus operandi. I remember reading this after I left TWI – and liked it more for inspiration in training technicians how to troubleshoot security systems. It takes some wisdom and experience to figure out which approach is the most appropriate on a service call – and sometimes one may switch modes if a clue leads you to do so. Reflecting on my some 36-year journey since I left TWI – I think I used both approaches – and still do – to unravel the doctrinal issues and the intellectual and emotional baggage: The pathfinder method - some of my troubleshooting is painstakingly slow –– checking out every trail - going over every detail of PFAL – like posters are doing on this thread. Getting into hermeneutics the way it’s supposed to be done. Exposing the logical fallacies, wierwille’s faulty redefining of biblical languages, etc. Helicopter method – some of my favorite hobbies are reading about systematic theology, philosophy of religion and psychology. I kinda get the lay of the land – so in overview mode, I see connections - and how one thing may correlate with another...For example, how Gnosticism and fascination for supposedly special knowledge is sewn into the fabricate of PFAL - and that's one of the hooks of a cult-leader - appealing to a person's quest for answers.

For context and continuity, I inserted a bold red 1 , 2 and 3 in each quote, so I can reference each one in my reply below; hopefully this will make sense; each number below will correspond to the numbered quote above: 1. You asserted God did not have His writers handle things the way of modern literature; you also used circular reasoning to state that truth is what the authors (making it plural since it’s God-inspired writers) define as truth. That’s like saying “the Bible is true because it says it’s true”…then you assert when a reader's interpretation contradicts what is true – then the reader is wrong…Not sure if I’ve restated correctly what you were saying – please clarify. This could be a big deal in the discussion if we don’t clear up the vagueness – you could be interpreting a verse literally and I might interpret it as allegorical, symbolic or someway other than literal. For instance – in PFAL wierwille teaching from Genesis says the world was created in 6 literal days – 6 periods of 24 hours each. That’s interpreting it literally. I interpret Gen 1, Gen 2 , and Gen 3 as an ode to the Creator and His creation. It wasn’t meant to be a scientific textbook. If one presses it as such, it will result in pseudoscience which consists of statements and beliefs that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the physical evidence and scientific method. see pseudoscience ...FYI - wierwille's pseudoscience is a ploy to get people to believe in the mathematical exactness and scientific precision of the Bible...and further you are actually putting your faith in wierwille's interpretation of the Bible - - that's a misplaced faith. He does not deserve your trust. Trust God...Trust Christ...trust the Holy Spirit...you might need to rebuild your self-confidence - that's one of the many things that wierwille's manipulative tactics just made mincemeat of. So I ask you - which interpretation is right? ~ ~ ~ ~ 2. My questions to you were challenges to expose your circular reasoning (in 1. ) – to put it a little differently - HOW do you KNOW when and where the Bible is meant to be taken literally, figuratively etc. ? and further HOW do you KNOW when a reader’s interpretation of a Bible passage is wrong? My example of wierwille’s /PFAL literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 versus my interpretation of it being poetic in # 1 might be a good place for us to start. ~ ~ ~ ~ 3. Your question in # 3 is rather disappointing. It's like you’re asking “how can I know if the interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is supposed to be literal or poetic unless someone teaches me? That’s where those cognitive skills should come into play. I’ve witnessed you bragging about your analytical powers, how you hang out with brain surgeons, understanding the theory of relativity to the point you used to teach it to fellow students in high school. You’re an adult – you should be able to figure this problem out without having to depend on some incompetent plagiarist’s pseudoscience. Come on, Mike you said you checked all this out before buying into it – you should be running rings around me – NOT reasoning in circles. After I left TWI I had to just about dismantle my entire belief system to unravel the nonsense of wierwille’s theology and to be able to look at the Bible with the fresh eyes of a Christian babe and learn to develop my atrophied cognitive skills and become sensitive to the Spirit of God. That receive, retain, release mumbo jumbo you can forget - that was a sneaky indoctrination gimmick wierwille pushed.

34. Encourages an us-versus-them mindset - great for fortifying groupthink and isolation. “I have no friends when it comes to the Word.” A. wierwille’s animosity toward Christians outside of TWI was camouflaged by his self-righteous stand on “rightly-dividing the Word”. wierwille’s claptrap on handling the Greek word for “rightly dividing” – I will try to handle in another post – but for now I’ll just say he laid it out as more of an intellectual pursuit rather than paying attention to any ethical demands. In the green book The New Dynamic Church, in chapter 13 Why Division, on page 171 wierwille explains The leaders of the spiritual movements in the Church have always been ridiculed and maligned. The confusing element in the entire situation is that it is the religious people, those who are deeply sincere, who cause the division. End of excerpt ~ ~ ~ ~ Notice how wierwille paints with broad brush strokes…he makes vague generalizations that could encompass just about anyone, and he also uses stereotyping – an oversimplified and often biased idea of the typical characteristics of a certain group of people. A person can plug in any one they want to for “leaders of the spiritual movements in the Church” as well as pick any religious people they’d like to blame for causing the division. On page 172 wierwille concludes this chapter with the following remarks: May God deliver us as the Church from being contentious and difficult, from maligning our brethren, from bickering and quarrelsomeness, from dividing the Body of Christ by our lack of enlightenment . There is too much division outside the Church; our solidarity is imperative to give us strength to move forward in spite of the opposition. May the Father in heaven, for the sake of the only-begotten Son, bless us with such an abundance that we may cease to be part of the problem and become part of the answer. May we as members of Christ’s Body become so filled with love that we may be teachable and have our hearts opened to His Holy Word. And may we receive of Him and carry the blessing to all we meet, that they may see us and know we are His. End of excerpt ~ ~ ~ ~ What did wierwille mean by our lack of enlightenment? He is obviously addressing Christians here. Is he talking about a lack of a special type of knowledge? Gnosticism? After being involved with The Way International for 12 years I now see the hypocrisy of wierwille’s words. I’ve been in open meetings when wierwille would get on one of his anti-Trinitarian rants – and he’d say such hateful stuff along the lines of in order to really believe in the Trinity you’ve got to be possessed by a devil spirit…a lot of the leaders in big denominations, including the Roman Catholic Church are born again of the seed of the serpent. Now is not the time or place to get into analyzing the Trinitarian doctrine – but let’s leave it at this – the Trinity is not as big a deal in Trinitarian groups as it is in wierwille’s polarizing rants. Always within “the household of faith” – wierwille used manipulative threats to keep us from breaking ranks – I still vividly remember his teaching from John 13 to us the way corps – it’s when Judas left Jesus and the disciples to carry out his betrayal and in verse 30 it reads in NIV As soon as Judas had taken the bread, he went out. And it was night. wierwille dialed the amp up to 11 with the symbolism of Judas leaving the fold and it was night – then presented us with a dire scenario – if we as way corps leave God’s ministry of the rightly-divided Word the only alternative is oblivion. He'd ask Where else are you going to go? implying there's nothing else out there like his great ministry of the rightly-divided word. Penworks started a thread - Evidence: Letters VPW wrote to the Way Corps I think anyone who has a strong sense of disillusionment from the failure of wierwille / TWI to fulfill the declared goals and the perception of inconsistencies between the actions of certain TWI-leaders and the ideals they supposedly represent should check out that thread. I could go on about the Mark and Avoid process too but enough on this stuff for now.

Perhaps your post gets rid of 2 turds in 1 flush. 1. I think wierwille ignored the intent of the Bible’s authors - God meant for His word is to be obeyed and 2. wierwille's hypocritical lifestyle - leading by example - which taught others to do the same - (this is turd number 2 because of wierwille's bogus claim that he taught "the word " like it hadn’t been known since the 1st century...FYI The second #2 is not the same as # 2 squared in math... - this #2 squared does NOT equal 4. It equals 2 $hit bricks)

That’s funny – you just dialed-down God into being ineffective and dumb as dirt by squeezing your concept of Him into your silly theory of interpreting the Bible. that's one of those reasons why PFAL sucks - wierwille brazenly "teaches" on what God can and cannot do. Are you limiting God? wierwille wrote a chapter to answer that question...I wonder if wierwille even realized his tendency to portray God as impotent and dumb was a true confession that he limited God.

How do you know what the author’s interpretation is or what the author meant? And how do you know where the reader's interpretation differs and is wrong?

She's great...one of the great things about marriage is the coming together and blending of musical tastes. My wife turned me onto her...we've been to several of her concerts.

Mike said: What I showed was that in modern books we have two kinds. One where the author encourages wild interpretations, and one where the author encourages tight following of the author's intent. T-Bone’s response: How does the author encourage wild interpretations – or to follow the author’s intent? Is this done by a podcast of the author? Are there directions at the beginning of the book? I find your categorizing too restrictive. There’s books, stories, movies, songs, poems, etc. that can be interpreted in a variety of ways…folks can appreciate a work at so many different levels. I think that’s what makes for something that has a wider appeal. In my opinion the Bible is like that – look at all the spin-offs in religions and denominations…I know that really bugged wierwille with his “my interpretation – the rightly-divided Word – is the only correct way to interpret the Bible” – but I’ll get to that in another post soon – I was up late last night reading the chapter Why Division in the green book - The New Dynamic Church… ~ ~ ~ ~ Mike said: Yes, comparing modern books to ancient can be dicey, but it is only this tight versus loose following of the author's intent that I am focused on. T-Bone’s response: again to reiterate what I just said – YOU have set up a false dilemma based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. It seems to me you are focused on seeing no further than your own screwy theory. Check out the evidence of literature that can have multiple meanings/interpretations/applications/intentions in both ancient and modern books and you’ll find your theory is incompatible with the evidence. ~ ~ ~ ~ Mike said: If there were multiple interpretations of the Bible possible, then Jesus Christ could have never known for sure what his mission was, and that it literally meant he had to sacrifice his life. T-Bone’s response: well, that’s just it! There are – and has always been multiple interpretations of the Bible…so what does that do to this other theory of yours? Was Jesus a good guesser of what His mission should be? ~ ~ ~ ~ Mike said: If I am going to look to the Bible for guidance, it is the kind of guidance Jesus got from the scriptures that I want. All of life is at stake, and a dumb reader's interpretation of the scriptures just doesn't fit with the precision that was needed for Jesus to declare war on death. He needed very tight, precise, detailed, TECHNICAL advice on how to do it. T-Bone’s response: Not sure what you’re expecting to get out of the Scriptures. Jesus had a specific mission – even at an early age He said He must be about His Father’s business. I can’t explain how He knew that – and I certainly can’t even begin to fathom the enormity of His mission and how it relates to me…you…to the universe past, present and future…But I know my mission and the guidance…directives are not only spelled out in the Bible but there’s also an on-demand feature. 34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Matthew 22: 34 - 40 Let me first address wierwille’s twisted situational ethics in PFAL “as long as you love God and neighbor you can do as you full well please” … The following Wikipedia quote is a fair description of wierwille’s personal moral code: Situational ethics or situation ethics takes into account only the particular context of an act when evaluating it ethically, rather than judging it only according to absolute moral standards. With the intent to have a fair basis for judgments or action, one looks to personal ideals of what is appropriate to guide them, rather than an unchanging universal code of conduct, such as Biblical law…from Wikipedia: situational ethics In a sense, the 2 great commandments are all the guidance you need. And more specifically moral guidance. One of the first books that freed me from the ridiculous self-imposed pressure of trying to find God’s will for my life was Decision Making and the Will of God: A Biblical Alternative to the Traditional View by Garry Friesen & J. Robin Maxson . I won’t get into it here – but maybe a few tidbits to get you interested I’ll say this about the book: In matters of practical life, it opens up more options – for example instead of praying for guidance to pick the job where God wants me to work, as long as it’s legal / legitimate – I’m free to pick a job that fits my preferences, skills, salary needs etc. Concerning moral guidance – we already have the Bible – and God expects us to abide by the 2 great commandments in any situation and in all applications of putting our theology into practice…now here comes the moral guidance on-demand feature check out the Lord’s Prayer: 9 “This, then, is how you should pray: “‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, 10 your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us today our daily bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from the evil one.’ 14 For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins. Matthew 6: 9 -14 In my opinion there’s an inexhaustible supply of food for thought, practical theology, and conversation-starters with God in Matthew – but I’ll just focus on the moral-guidance on-demand feature of verse 13. lead us not into temptation but deliver us from the evil one …There’s many ways God can guide us morally – I’ve had times where I was pricked in my conscience – I just knew I did something wrong or I wronged somebody…another way is intuition…a gut feeling…it’s one of those I-can’t-explain-it-but-this-situation-or-wherever-this-situation-might-go-doesn’t-feel-right things…I addressed this in an earlier post about intuition - here . Like I said, The Lord’s Prayer has some good conversation-starters. I’ve gotten into the habit in my daily prayers to start off with saying this prayer – but not in a mindless repetitious way – it’s more like running down a checklist in my heart – I get to one item – not forgiving others…or I’ve been worrying about finances…or having second thoughts about what someone wants me to do – and that gets me on a tangent of specific prayer and if need be, developing a plan of action.

I agree! hey let's do a sideways off-topic of off-topic - check out Bonnie Raitt's version of Burning Down the House

But it could cause someone to stumble - see. Matthew 18 - causing a little one to stumble - what does Christ think about your scenario?!?! ….And reconsider that idea - it hits me as thinking I can sit back and do whatever I want to whoever I want and just let Christ pick up the pieces afterwards

I’m sorry but that twisted logic offends me…maybe it’s just me…but it reminds me of the same type of thinking that wierwille probably had to justify being a sexual predator. Read I Corinthians 10 - especially in light of your statements “…A priest is having a sodomitic session with an altar boy. Half hour later, they're serving in the Mass. Does Christ not appear because of that sodomitical act? NO, He is there. Why? Because he loves YOU. You came to that mass because you want to worship Him, and so, he is going to be there for YOU. The takeaway is: Christ works when we have Faith in Him; and it isn't sin that ties his hands, it's the lack of Faith.” 27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. 29 I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? I Corinthians 10 My takeaway – wierwille never considered the damage to his own conscience or that of others

Love that! we caught David B's American Utopia on Prime video - I had to get that on my phone! such an interesting guy from some stuff I read about him

Cool. My wife suggested my tombstone should read: He meant well

No you’re not being rude at all! Matter of fact you’re absolutely right. But you know me - I never write anyone or any discussion off - there’s always hope. Besides - it ain’t over until it’s over. I do appreciate you chiming in - and I’ve tried to be on my best behavior since the last time we’ve talked about this. You might think this is a waste of time - and you might be right…I’m not looking to convince or convert anyone to my way of thinking…and I enjoy the freedom to think and choose a response as we all have on this site… believe it or not I actually have been enjoying this recent back and forth with Mike - because I think we’ve both been somewhat civil about our disagreements. I’ve told him at least twice on this thread it’s okay to disagree - just try to be honest and say why rather than spinning up more nonsense… Maybe the Socratic method is going slow - and maybe it’s been 2 steps forward and 1 step back - but that’s still some progress…I mean we kinda got over “the Bible interprets itself” false issue - at least a little bit - because now we’re discussing HOW a student of the Bible can or is supposed to interpret the Bible . That’s a big step in the right direction. Anyway I like some of the challenges Mike can bring to any thread cuz it gets me to re-examine why I look at the Bible a certain way and in that is another challenge to see if I can properly articulate my thought process. I started this thread and yes the intent was - and in my mind still is - to state why PFAL sucks…if anyone wants to come on this thread and disagree saying PFAL does NOT suck - I’m okay with that - just don’t give me nonsense for your reasons why you think that.so far, every poster has given specifics on why they think it sucks. If someone wants to start a thread of why PFAL does not suck - I say go for it. I’ve already expressed a few cool things I got out of it and wouldn’t be shy to say them on that thread - but I certainly wouldn’t agree with the idea that PFAL is the gold standard of Bible study or whatever category you want to place it in as being representative of perfection.

Interpretation = the action of explaining the meaning of something. This would be possible if the author is alive and is explaining what he or she meant in writing the passage. With an ancient book like the Bible – the writers have passed away (hold all your clamoring about God is not dead until you hear me out, please – and see my * footnote )…That leaves us with a different objective and there’s at least a few ways to reach that (again I'll touch on that with the below * footnote). A realistic goal is trying to discover what the author MEANT. When we’re looking for meaning – we should look at what the message MEANT to the original recipients. Usually that’s not too difficult because we can look at what the reaction was to the message, if there were any directives to follow, etc. Also, it’s possible a prophecy could have an immediate fulfilment and also foreshadow a greater event - see Bible Hub: commentaries on Isaiah 7:14 and Wikipedia: Isaiah 7:14 and compare the passage of the prophet Isaiah addressing King Ahaz of Judah and telling him he will be given a sign the siege will be broken – and then compare Matthew 1:23,24. ~ ~ ~ ~ The problem with comparing apples to oranges – like your analogy of comparing the Bible or parts of the Bible to a technical textbook or recipe book - the problem is that you are comparing things that are so very different – they are incomparable! I mean - how are apples and oranges alike? Okay – they’re both fruit…come from seeds…good to eat…grow on trees… But the Bible compared to a technical manual, math book, recipe book – well…the Bible and math books mention numbers…the Bible and technical manuals mention specifications – like the dimensions for the tabernacle and the temple…the Bible and recipe books mention food prep, diets...but hopefully these rather nebulous comparisons are not what you're trying to make - or are you? Could you be more specific in your concern: “Some sections are like literature, and some sections look more like technical writings, where getting the cake recipe rightly divided, or not, will make a difference in what that cake tastes like.” Are you trying to replicate the unleavened bread? ~ ~ ~ ~ Also, could you elaborate on what problems you foresee when you said this: “broad brush of categorizing the entire Bible as like man-made literature, and inviting all sorts of private interpretations.” Sounds like you’re going back to the false issue we just discussed about “the Bible interprets itself”. That’s odd – you started off this post with “Moving on, from the Bible interpreting itself…” Seems like you’re going in circles rather than moving on. ~ ~ ~ ~ And lastly, could you clarify this statement of yours: “PLUS, those sections of the Bible that are more in the category of spanning the wide range of human feelings, must be handled and interpreted to fit with the more technical-text like sections of scripture.” Could you give an example of a passage that would be in the category of human feelings and how it should be handled and interpreted to fit with the more technical-text like (whatever that is) sections of scripture. ~ ~ ~ ~ *footnote: I believe our intuition should be integral with our more analytical study of the Scriptures...But it’s important to realize that it’s not perfect and it can be misinterpreted or even compromised by a seared conscience – certain passages like Proverbs 16:25 and Judges 21:25 will attest to that – we find that one’s feelings can be wrong, and not all inner leanings should be heeded. Because of our sin nature, we are often prone to error and poor judgment. If relying only upon our own powers of discernment, we can be led astray. I believe people are created in God’s image and as such we reflect some unique characteristics of our Creator – like a moral compass, the ability to judge what is right from wrong and act accordingly. At times we may acquire knowledge without obvious deliberation. Perhaps that is what Ephesians 1:17 is talking about - “that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you…” People are not robots. We have freedom of will and some passages seem to suggest the more we align ourselves with the sentiment and moral demands of the Bible – the more reliable our instincts become – Psalm 37:23 and the Bible does seem to suggest that when we seek wisdom as our highest priority, our intuition can very well be a safeguard against tragic mistakes Proverbs 2:3-5 , Ecclesiastes 7:12 , Psalm 37:23 Psalm 111:10 , and James 1:5 . I do not disparage the work of genuine, honest, altruistic Christian leaders, teachers and scholars. I appreciate their work for the way they have broadened my horizons and provided clarity and depth to my faith. But we should also remember the words of Jesus Christ in John 7:17 “Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.”... I believe there’s something to this verse that might have to do with how our intuition and God may work together – in that metaphysical truth is self-authenticating through the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit – perhaps that is also implied in passages like John 16:13 and I John 2:27 .

Your statements imply an intermediary step – the reader’s mind. Some helpful information IS in the Bible - one can use some of the keys suggested by Bullinger in How to Enjoy the Bible – like paying attention to immediate context, remote context…but some of his ideas were bogus like to whom is it addressed, dispensationalism. But still – what is implied is that it’s up to the reader to use his mental faculties to note the context, remote context…but for a deeper understanding of the biblical languages, cultures, theological themes, ancient worldviews, political settings, etc. one will have to consult legitimate sources outside the Bible…and of course the reader should still exercise cognitive skills when analyzing any information – to see if the source uses good standards of scholarship, logic, etc. your saying "The Bible interprets itself ...means the source of information that is helpful to us doing the interpretation comes from within the Bible itself." does not make sense. you're redefining a screwy theory to make it compatible with the evidence.

All aboard…The LoShonta Express is leaving reality in about 5 minutes of this day and time and hour… …where do the train tracks go? Train tracks? We don’t need train tracks where we are going… Banzai !!!!!!!! but if you don't like trains, you can always take the bus