So_crates

Yah, you did such a good job you wound up rabbiting in the end.. Oh, you hid behind the old I won't answer your question until you answer mine gambit. Now what would happen if we all used the same gambit on you? You'd have nobody to talk to because you cherry pick the questions you'll answer. So anybody should recognize the old I won't answer your question until you answer mine ploy. So, getting back on track, you're saying we can't depend on God to meet our needs because if he can be delayed by one thing, he can be delayed again, need or greed.

I'll still be posting. Answer, don't. It makes little difference to me. Think of all the time you'll save And all thr typing I'll save.

Why? Looking for tips on how to handle your life? So now you read minds. More projection. Did I say my life was crappy? So who do you blame for our crappy life? My life started getting better when I realized Saint Vic was a con man seeing snake oil in the form of a class. (I can't be held responsible for balls you lob right over the plate) Now, rather than focusing on me let's focus on your understand of God, i.e., that you can't depend on him (something you revealed in the fullness of your conversation) Don't mix with me, Mike, you don't have the tools.

What's my solution have to do with your outrageous claim? It's not what I think of God, it's what you think of God.

So what? If he can be delayed for one thing the possibility exist that he can be delayed for everything.

Nobody forces you to answer. Just think of all the time you'd have then

So, in your theology, we can't even depend on God to meet our needs. He might get delayed.

It helps if you didn't have a congenital liar pulling a bait and switch.

Isn't it strange how you have time for posting essays, yet you don't have time for other things, such as the above?

Then rather than blaming the Corps for the ministry's downfall, put responsibility where it belongs: Saint Vic is responsible for the downfall of his own ministry.

Bull, as I said God made the rules of believing therefore they must be fair. If they're not fair, as you claim, then why bother?

God makes the rules of believing and the abundant life, not the devil. God is fair, therefore the rules of believing are fair. You're just making up a training period to cover for not being able to answer Waysider's question which apparently brings into question the validity of the law of believing.

What difference does it make? It's a compilation of everything you've stated in this thread added to Saint Vic's original assertations. I was told wait until you see the life God has planned for you. That was my expectation. Needless to say I never saw that great life. Yah, give me some more empty excuses. Why would I want to waste my time having my ear cocked listening to every SNS tape when the bull in the foundation class didn't float? Did the apostles need to listen to SNS tapes? Do atheist and other unbelievers? So you're saying Saint Vic pulled a bait and switch. He made it clear in session one he was speaking of material abundance. But now you st further information would reveal that was a lie? You mean Saint Vic's interpretation of Jesus' perspective, don't you?

Life may be unfair, but God isn't. Are you making this stuff up as you go. It sure feels like it.

So let's review: In order to receive the abundant life from God, we have to know: What's available How to receive it What to do with it when we got it Have our needs and wants balanced And two things that were not mentioned in the class about getting an abundant life: Have a bibical verses in mind, or have revelation from God And now realize there's an application and training period. (Neither one of the two being required of unbelievers.) Wouldn't we have already fulfilled our training period by having lived in fear? Since fear is negative believing we should all be experts on how to operate the law.

If you were any more transparent, you'd disappear. You're obviously planning on starting your own off-shoot. This makes me very happy your not a trauma counselor. The first thing that happens in trauma counseling is to exercise the victim's anger. This is done in a variety of ways, in one way I know of in particular, the counselor had the victim call the person causing the trauma vile names. And, as long we're discussing victimization and message, how do you think it helps a victim to hear how good the person causing the trauma is. Visualize a kid who's had a parent murdered. What do you think constantly hearing about what upstanding citizen would do to the child? Would it help or hurt? As I've told you before, you keep talking about the supposed "good" in general terms. If you go through the archives, you'll see all the evil done in detail. So rather than talk generally about the "good" how about giving specifics. As you said, the victims are not that stupid. They'll see right through the language they can find in any commercial slogan:"Bosco is good." "Wonder Bread, the good choice." That is my opinion.

The corps ruined the ministry? Has Mike forgotten whose baby the corps was?

Something entirely different that doesn't seem important now. However, you stated that people didn't want to be prophets. Wouldn't it make sense, that like Mary, God would go to the people he knows would accept the challenge?

Again you try to bull your way out of it. Read Amos 7:14. Also, how do you know nobody wants the job? You ask everyone God asked to be a prophet?

I thought God chose who was a prophet, liked and wanting have nothing to do with it.

Even though prophets is one of the gift ministries? You know the people that told leaders who were off the word to get back on.

Not by anything, that's for sure. Better and best are comparisons, but compared to what?

As there's nothing to compare it to, how pray tell, would we know it's better?

That's one of the questions I always asked myself: with all that was going on with Saint Vic where were the prophets?

Yes you did. Did you not say that atheist can get healing without scriptures? Did you say that Christians need scriptures? Did you not tell me my error was I didn't have a scripture to follow? Do atheist require following scriptures for their believing to work? I rest my case. Because ts one of those concequences of what you said. No, because your first response to me was what scripture were you following as if getting anything from God requires a scripture reference. Are you trying to create misunderstanding?