waysider

How was I rude or snobbish? Anyway, what makes you so sure Bullinger's works are accurate? (His approach to dispensations, for example) As to grieving for those who have passed, we do that on a different thread.

Girl: "You can't lie on the internet." Guy: "How do you know?" Girl: "I read it on the internet." In other words, you can't use the Bible as proof of itself.

Yes.

It needs some salt pork.

Documentation? We don't need no stinking documentation. It's deductive reasoning. The guy says he was born without a brain. Who would ever make such a claim unless...they were born without a brain. Hence, he must have been born without a brain. See how easy that was?

HERE is the link. If you watch closely, you'll catch a glimpse of BatBoy, in the background, preparing a kale smoothie for David Pecker.

I wonder if he's related to Edward Scissorhands.

A (negates what follows) Theism (belief in the existence of God ) Thus, it's a belief that God does not exist. The Jesus aspect is a red herring of sorts. Theism is a rather large umbrella of spiritual, religious beliefs. Under that umbrella there exist many variations, including Christianity, Deism, Judaism, Islam, Greek Mythology, etc. They all share a common thread. They all believe in the existence of one or more Gods. The common thread they don't share is Jesus. As an example: Founding fathers Jefferson , Franklin, and likely others, believed in the existence of God but not in the existence of a supernatural Jesus or supernatural powers and events. They were Deists, a subset of Theism. They believed in the possible existence of God but not in the supernatural aspects involved with Christianity.

Long answer made really, really short: Genuine languages have identifiable structural components. A linguist does not have to identify a particular language in order to know if it fulfills the structural requirements. S.I.T. has never been shown to meet that threshold.

Forty years of flat-earth lectures.

I would put K.C. Pillai in the same category.

I remember once, he said they miscalculated the time span between the resurrection and the ascension. Other than that, not so much.

For, yea, God loveth a cheerful moocher.

That's both good and bad. Some have found the closure and healing they needed and moved on. That's the good part.The flip side is that we , as individuals, are all aging. Quite a few who used to post here have since passed away. It's part of life. It's been almost 50 years since I took the PFAL class. That boggles my mind.

They used to say that if something they taught was found to be in error they would change their teaching. Remember the time they did exactly that? Yeah, me neither

VPW based some of his assertions on information that has since been proven to be erroneous, thanks to improved DNA testing methods.

Maybe it's an ancient tongue . You know, back before language required syntax and grammar. (Do I need to say this is sarcasm?)

The answer is "Yes".

You can't be rude all by yourself. It's not a solo activity.

Hey, kids, let's put on a show.

They'd smoke you out instantly with their heightened sense of spiritual perception.

I talk to the wind. My words are all carried away.

Well, actually, I didn't ask where and when. I only asked if you had been in The Way. Thank you for the response, though. Now, back to the question: Why do you think The Way discouraged personal testimonies? It was never adequately explained to me and I remain curious.

Hello, Jim Jack Were you in The Way? When I was in The Way, many years ago, we were taught that it's "off the word" to give personal testimony. While I no longer subscribe to the teachings of The Way, I'm still curious about the reasoning for that. Can you offer any insight?