waysider

Mike has made it clear he does not accept this premise. According to his methodology, the ideas belong to God and, thus, are available for all to use without citation. Unless Mike is willing to dispense with this misguided notion, all other discussion is in vain.

Separating the books from the man: Okay, why not? The books are filled with inaccuracies and falsehoods, regardless of who wrote them. How am I doing?

Congratulations, Mike. You have managed, once again, to redefine another word that had no ambiguity to start with. "I see the entire David incident as told in PFAL as instructive on how the human things back in Biblical cultures was much the same human things today." And I see it as VPW preemptively rationalizing his own misdeeds in case he ever gets called out on them. It's all in the perspective, I suppose.

The problems begin to arise when we, ourselves, become the sole arbiters of what is accurate and what is not.

Yes, that's my recollection, also.

A few years ago, I started exploring THIS book. I have no idea if it's worth investigating because I didn't get too far with it. Lots of things were going on in my life that sidetracked me. And now, it seems a bit too overwhelming a task for a subject I no longer care about as passionately as I once did. But, there it is if anyone is interested.

That's just how it is here. I don't know why. Some days are a flurry of activity and others are a snooze-fest. It's always been that way, to one degree or another. On a personal level, I still work a fulltime job. I don't have personal internet access there, either. And, no, I don't have a cell phone. I used to carry one, years ago, when I was on 24 hr. call. When you're required to carry one at all times, the novelty wears thin quickly. So, that's the story of why my posting is sometimes limited.

I'm not familiar with "Wealth and Poverty". I do know, though, that my high school acting teacher used to hammer that concept into our heads on a regular basis. "If you take criticism personally", he would say, "You won't go very far in the theater."

You simply say "Thank you." At the same time it's a healthy practice to internally reflect on what prompted their praise.

Sometimes, in ourselves, it's difficult to recognize the difference between a healthy dose of confidence and an overinflated ego. That's why we do well to learn how to view outside criticism with an object eye. This is a lesson professional actors and other performers are supposed to learn early on in their careers. You have to give fair consideration to outside critique and consider whether or not it has legitimate value. We've all seen examples of celebrities who somehow missed that lesson. There is no shortage of divas.

The irony of using this particular scripture out of context is that, in the blink of an eye, it shifted the focus from Christ to one's own self. That doesn't simply obscure the message, it contradicts it. You (not Christ) become the central figure, by operating the law of believing and faithfully following the formula for success. To say that Wierwille wasn't operating a bait & switch scheme would be a naive denial of reality.

One can get a better feel for what the Bible refers to as the abundant life by reading John 10:10 in its full context. Hint: it's not what Wierwille said it is. Wierwille clearly sucked this verse out of context in order to give the impression the abundant life is a material entity. " I looked all around me and saw the the unbelievers were living a more abundant life than the believers". So, if it's spiritual, what was it that the unbelievers had? (rhetorical question)

Works for me.

Thank you, Mike.

Whether you realize it or not, this is a veiled personal attack. I couldn't really care less about what you "want to see explicitly" regarding my personal faith life, nor am I interested in your personal faith life. The focus of this thread is about a concept...whether or not PFAL is God Breathed. With that in mind... in your opinion: Is PFAL God Breathed? __Yes __No

Two major claims have been brought forth on this thread. 1.) PFAL is God Breathed. 2.) Wierwille, himself, declared it to be God Breathed. Neither claim has been substantiated to any reasonable degree of satisfaction.

This point of your premise has already been disproved. What else ya got?

The theory as a whole can not be tested. Therefore, one must test the individual components. This is something we have done, many times over, on several of the individual points. Those points have been proved to be invalid. Therefore, I must conclude that the thesis, as a whole, has been disproved.

In my opinion, here's the basic problem with the whole idea that PFAL is God Breathed: It relies entirely on circular reasoning. By that, I mean the premise is based on self verification. Person 1.) "PFAL is God Breathed." Person 2.) "How do we know?" Person 1.) "It says so right in the PFAL text." Person 2.) "How do we know this claim in the PFAL text is accurate?" Person 1.) "Because the PFAL text is God Breathed." It's like the TV commercial that was popular a while back. Person 1.) "You can't lie on the internet." Person 2.)" How do you know?" Person 1.) "I heard it on the internet." There would need to be outside evidence to give any sort of credence to the premise. It's just that simple.

He'll never give up. He has to ...STAND! ...'cuz VPW said so. (session #5? Help me out here, Mike.)

Yeah, you could do that. Or, ya know, you could simply define the variables again .

Define the variables for me once more. It's been a long time since I sat in a Physics lecture.

FTFY (Fixed That For You)

Needs and Wants must be parallel Child A = Needs Child B = Wants See Saw Plank = Coinciding Plane The Ground = Not part of the problem. The fulcrum does not need to rest on an absolute horizontal plane. When Child A's weight is balanced with Child B's weight, they occupy a coinciding plane. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Has anyone thought to consult the Oxford Dictionary? I wonder what usage #8 of "parallel" is." Please enlighten us. I'm curious to know why usage #8 is more relevant than usages #1-#7

Even if we allow you the see saw example, they are NEVER parallel. They are either coincidental or intersecting. edit: This is grade school level math here. I thought the guy had a doctorate.