waysider

I'll never know whether it helped convince anyone I "witnessed to" to sign The Green Card. I do think, though, that it helped ME to convince MYSELF that I was following someone with legitimate credentials.

Thanks, erkjohn, but I seriously doubt it had anything to do with me. In the corporate world of The Way, I never rose above the position of "mail-boy". A later teaching I heard explained that God could put spirit "on" you if the need existed, just like He did in the OT. ----That still doesn't fully explain the contradiction.

According to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, it's one of the most basic of all human needs.

Well said, Roy. At the AC in 1973, during one of our afternoon twig meetings, I questioned the contradictory nature of this very topic. You know what I was told? "If you would speak in tongues more on a daily basis, stay in fellowship and operate the other two utterance manifestations with greater frequency, God could talk to you and answer that question." :blink:

Also Notice the contradiction in "the great principle"? If you are severely "out of fellowship", God can then talk to your mind by virtue of dreams. Seems like you would have a better chance of hearing from God if you were out of fellowship. At least that way, He could bypass your spirit and talk directly to your mind. EXCEPT, "God, being spirit, can only speak to that which He is---spirit."

"God, being spirit, can only speak to that which He is----spirit." "God's spirit speaks to your spirit which speaks to your mind." -----VPW (The Great Principle) Or, as VPW stated elsewhere: God cannot speak to you directly (via your spirit, not your mind) unless: 1. You are "born-again" 2. Speak in tongues MUCH on a daily basis. EXCEPTION: God may speak to you in a dream or vision if you are so far out of fellowship that you can't receive revelation.

Nonsense! The Grateful Dead were still in Jr. High in the first century.

Inerrancy-----I stated that in the initial post.

"But, the bottom line is. . . . if Paul lied. . . . . we got nothing." Suppose the epistles had been lost or destroyed or not even written. Would you have nothing? What about the psalms and proverbs, the ten commandments, the parables of Jesus, The Beatitudes? Could you "love your neighbor as yourself" without the epistles? Could a person still believe in the resurrection without the epistles?

Not much room to "read between the lines" there. :P

The problem with tying to keep it "Biblical" is that evidence of speaking in tongues (at least, the glossolalia variety) predates Christ by 1,000 years.

And, as I said before, I'm cool with that. It's perfectly OK to say "I believe, just because." But, when you start resorting to twisted logic to justify your belief, you enter a whole different kind of realm.

Moot point Not everyone has access to "The Gospel". Conversely, if God is omnipresent, everyone has access to something that is a product of God's "handiwork".

Did I say "Paul is wrong."? I don't think I did. People keep throwing this strawman argument into the discussion, in one form or another, despite what I have posted. Go back and re-read this thread. Though I did say, "What if Paul was a con-man?", I never said that he WAS a con-man, a liar, someone with ulterior motives, etc. You said this: "No one is saying it was not Paul who said these things. . . . it WAS Paul . . . who I believe was INSPIRED by God." AND, I have pointed out to you that you are most likely basing this conclusion on something Paul, himself, stated. ("Holy men of God spoke----etc.") That's circular reasoning.

I'm not sure how much difference it really makes in regards to search engines. I stumbled onto this web site while looking for a PFAL book.

Very sad, indeed. Just like living on a steady diet of Twinkies can have an adverse effect on one's physical health, feeding on a steady diet of misdirected political diatribes, spewed forth by political extremists, can have an adverse effect on one's mental health. If you knew how many people feed on such a diet, while the caterers are raking in multi-million dollar salaries, it would scare the beejeebers out of you. Still, I think the wife has been given an unfair shake in all this by the media pointing to a seemingly irrelevent cult connection on her part.

All through though this thread we have people saying, "God said this." or, " God said that.". Did He? Or did Paul say "this" or "that"? Then, it all comes back around to, "Well, the scriptures are God-breathed." How do we know? "God said so." No, He didn't. Paul did. "Well, holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Did God say that?----or was it Paul who made that statement? Does that make Paul a con-man? Does it make him a liar? No. But it doesn't make those statements the "absolute truth" either.

Think of all the millions of illiterate people who have walked (or are currently walking) this planet. Are they S.O.L. because they can't read? Maybe they "hear" His voice in the roar of a waterfall or "see" His presence in the helplessness of a newborn.

Who said Paul lied? Lying is a conscious act of deception. If I say the moon is made of green cheese because I actually believe it, I'm not lying. Wrong, yes. Lying, no.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Look closely at the photo. It forms a triangle in the center. (Base up, apex down)

I dunno. I'm willing to chalk it up to strange coincidence. If Mr. Google leads her here to this discussion, I hope she will know she has my heartfelt sympathy.

I've looked at several articles on it now. None of them have given any indication whatsoever how the wife's personal history plays any role in the event. I suppose they could have played up the piano teacher aspect instead, but, it probably wouldn't grab as much attention as mention of a cult.

Mention of a cult connection adds an element of sensationalism. Sensationalism sells newspapers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8pyapqyB4o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gqj_cZz6VXE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ5cbq5HU8E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-IJzjsbQkc http://www.youtube.com/user/MrsRiaht#p/u/6/0Dl1KOqHZP4