So_crates
-
Posts
2,271 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
23
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Everything posted by So_crates
-
So then, once again, why bother with the bible? Why not get born again and do as we damn please? Then, according to you, we'll join the ranks of those listed above and God may give us some of His big jobs, right?
-
Sherry Lewis must be rolling over in her grave.
-
And, by the same token, you must realize there are some things WE will not budge on. As for me: Do I believe God would have entrusted what you claim was the most important revelation since the bible itself with a man who defined sin and refused to repent? Not God as I understand him in the bible. Do I believe PLAF is God breathe? Seems to me something God breathe would work. After 40 years of failure, I can honestly say it doesn't work. In a prior post on this thread, you said we didn't try your postulates. Au contraire, most of the people taking part in this thread are class grads, so we have tried the bulk of your postulates and found them lacking. So your going to force them back because you know what's better for them than they do, right? Oh, and if you're experiencing distortions, your responsible for your communication. It's not my responsibility to guess what you mean. If you're not getting the results you want find a better way to transmit the message.
- 702 replies
-
- 2
-
-
-
- novelty
- hermeneutics
- (and 8 more)
-
And I'm supposed to care about this why? This is the problem when you don't provide context. What are your postulates involving the subject of the thread?
-
Yes, I saw the posts, I even read the posts. It seems to me, rather than getting to the point, you're taking us around the block to look at trees. What did Saint Vic do in his class? He laid out his postulates, then he went about the process of proving them. What are you doing? Starting somewhere so far from the point it might as well be on another planet. Every good writer themselves three questions: 1. What is my message? 2. Who is my audience? 3. Why should they care? Why should we care about this yabba-dabba-do schtick when we don't see how it connect to the thread topic?
-
I have a question: why didn't you answer Nate's question. As far as your anomaly question goes, as anyone who's taken the class knows, it's because they want to sell bibles in the west. Yawn! There's nothing more boring than somebody telling you what you already know. If we get lost we'll ask. So, cut to the chase already.
-
Regardless of the reason, any type of condescension is wrong. That's not trying to share something, but attempting to be a boss. Refresh my memory, who washed whose feet in the bible? Don't you believe Saint Vic when he said a leader is a greater servant. Of course the the question comes, who did Saint Vic serve? Whose feet did he wash? Also, you can't explain why your condescending, but you have time to write three posts one of them being considerably long.
-
The above black, red, and blue graphic display are nothing but a blur on both my cell phone and my tablet
-
Talk is cheap. As for the WOWs, salesmen for PLAF, which generates more money, plus more streams of income through abundance sharing. Tiny? They're practically microscopic. As for the change in attitude, just another way to reel in more streams of income as the BOD probably realized they were running out of money and needed a way to generate more, as the previous attitudes were of putting. This also explains the call back to the corps This is what I was talking about: you want to teach, but you don't want to learn. You closed mind in action. You must have missed it in the previous post, many of us didn't feel joy in the class. So you're wasting your time trying to rekindle something that wasn't there. Again, you try to set yourself as the standard. There's a difference here. He's God, you're a mortal, fallible human being just like the rest of us. Remember, ol' Henry could explain the Ford, but the Ford couldn't explain Ol' Henry. Also, you're talking to people who have just as much spirit as you do. (God is no respecter of persons, right?) So thinking your better (why else would you be condescending) only offends others and puts them off. Try approaching people at there level for a change.
-
In other words, nothing has really changed they're still discussing it. I didn't mean what you'd like to see or what could change, I meant what changes have you specifically worked on. So far your telling me there are no real changes, just a lot of future faking, i.e, maybe perhaps we'll change at some future date, if we feel like it. That's not closing your mind, that's suspension of disbelief. And even that's a very gossamer quality, very easy to break. All it takes is little things like too many shots fired out of a revolver or a continually error. A closed mind however is very hard to open. Even when confronted with reason it will insist on staying closed. Really, you're not pushing nostalgia. Then what's all this remember the joy you felt when you first took the class business? Yah, Saint Vic really followed that didn't he? That's why he had all those secular toys: a motorcycle collection, a classic car. All teaching that God is most valuable. Well, as I told you many times in the past, your not the standard. I'm sure it's the same old same old elsewhere. Fun? That's an odd word for praying. I first stated SITting at a Rock, I was up all night SITting. Occasionally, although I don't know if it does any good.
-
So what have you found went wrong and what are you personally devoted to fixing? Doesn't that closed mind you praised a few pages back get in the way? For the BOD the ministry was a money machine, all your pretty much telling me is that they're running out of cash and are scrambling to mind a way to keep the cash cow providing milk, hence the push, from even you, for nostalgia. Unfortunately, you don't realize for many of us attending the class was an ordeal. Many of us got off work and had just enough time to eat before we were due at class. So the end of the class for many of us wasn't joy, it was relief that the ordeal was over.
-
Nate asked if the original was written in Aramaic, you responded you didn't know. So you can see how my error was made. However, if you were attempting to be clear, you would have mentioned the Llamsa translation. No, I'm thinking of the whole 2 Timothy discussion. I have reservations about using a Aramaic word based on the fact you like it. Other than that... All the more reason to question the validity of that word. You were expecting me to swallow the whole thing without any critical thinking? Dream on. This isn't PLAF and you're not Saint Vic. Isn't that why the class was three or four hours long? To lull our critical thinking into a slumber. And that's the crux of the problem: the difference between "sharing" and "teaching." Sharing you do with people on an equal level. Teaching means you want to be boss. Ah, thee promises of a con man. Give it one more chance it'll be different. The promises of an abusive spouse, give me another chance, I promise it'll be different. Mike, from what people say here you haven't changed in 20 years. Now, if you haven't changed, why should I believe things will be different? I know what'll happen: little Saint Vic's like you will try to lord over people. You'll promise wonders and we'll get blunders. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, I'm using as a dust mop. No, I had unrealistic expectations of what the ministry promised what the class would do for me. Something like what you're trying to do now. Because I believed what people like you told me about the class. If it doesn't work hang in there, they promised, it'll get better. Yha, sure. I got the number of the truck that hit me that time. Sorry doesn't work that way for me. Out of the 40 years I think I was in the ministry attending fellowship maybe 6 years. I figure you're trying to get your own splinter groupm started and this is where you come tom find holes in your reasoning you you can try to plug them
-
Did you or did you not answer Nate's question by stating you didn't know if it was written in Aramaic? Did I not comment on how is it possible to reference an Aramaic word if you don't know whether or not the passage was written in Aramaic? Did you then not suddenly produce a reference where the passage was written in Aramaic? How does the above game relate to being up front and open about the uncertainty of what you reporting. Aren't you the lucky one? Now you have a ready made excuse for any feedback you receive. Go off the deep end. They don't like my postulates. Give us the wrong information. They don't like my postulates. State something that sounds totally off the wall. They don't like my postulates. I know your postulates. They boil down to God chose a cheating alcoholic rake to give a revision of the bible to. Despite all the evil Saint Vic did God allowed him to live in grace and gave him a pass. So what's this tell all of us trying to follow God's principles? Like I told you before why should we even bother with the bible and PLAF if your postulates are true? Why not get born again and follow Saint Vic's example and live grace? I didn't get life betting truth from PLAF either. As I told before, I wasted 40 years of my life following those principles. So spare me the hype. Never thought it did. But if you're this far in left field just out of the gate... I figure that's what your purpose was for being here. You come up with these theories and beta test them here.
-
So you're playing word games again. You were asked, straight up, if the passage was written in Aramaic. You said you didn't know. Then suddenly, when the word is brought into question, an Aramaic version appears. Then you wonder why you're credibility is brought into question. Didn't you just say the devil whispers in scholars ears and make them think they have good ideas? What makes you think the devil wasn't whispering in Saint Vic's and Cummings ears? Eye opening good data to consider? Isn't that how we got cold fusion? In your mind fits perfectly, whether or not it belongs in the verse yet remains to be seen. And I like that there's no renewed mind or Christ in me or agope. To paraphrase someone you know, liking something is no guarantee for truth.
-
You lost me. Where the Aramaic word come from if you don't know it was written in Aramaic? What does the Greek word translate to? How do we get from "cloak" to "book house"? Why did you fill the slot with an Aramaic word? Why not Hebrew? How do you know that was the right word to fit the slot?
-
You're already out in left feild. You don't know whether or not the passage was written in Aramaic, yet you want to use Aramaic to translate what it says. I wonder what "cloak" means in Klingon?
- 702 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- novelty
- hermeneutics
- (and 8 more)
-
**Points above Mike's head** Look Mike there goes the point.
-
Looking at Saint Vic's life and how he used the postulates of the bible as toilet paper, I'd bet Saint Vic was an expert about how the devil whispers in your ear and makes it sound like a good idea. After all, Saint Vic listened to him all the time.
-
Once again, your communication is YOUR responsibility. It's not my responsibility to guess what you mean. If you're misunderstood, as you claim, it's your responsibility to find a better way to communicate what your trying to state and to correct the record. You claim I misunderstood. Let's look at your premises: In First and Second Timothy God lays out the standards of what a MOG should be like. Saint Vic crapped all over those standards. Yet God entrusted him with the most important revelation since the church epistles, according to you. According to you, it was God's grace in action and he got a free pass. Now, I come along and say, if God, being no respecter of persons, is willing to give that much grace to a drunken, cheating rake, why even bother with the bible, and by extension PLAF, just follow Saint Vic's example, get born again and do as you please, living off that sweet, sweet grace. Have I got it? Where exactly did I misunderstand? I always love reading word salad. How about this, rather than playing word games and trying to trick people into things, why don't you lay out your premises? I figure either you don't know them because you have no ability to introspect or you realize they're bull.
-
Actually you offered a word salad excuse about how both were wrong so I was wrong. Nevermind the things you discuss when you come here: PLAF and Saint Vic. Both are the Way incarnate. Again, take a logic course. As Saint Vic was brimming over with love (/sarc off), which God are we talking about? But leadership sets example, right? And if God is no respecter of persons then why should we even bother with the bible. Like Saint Vic we should all live in sin and let that sweet, sweet grace abound. As far as that section of Romans, you violate it by the claim Saint Vic recieved so much grace that God entrusted a man I wouldn't trust to feed my dogs with important Christian doctrine. You think if I lived in sin, letting grace abound God would give me some heavy revie?
-
And how does this fit into your claims people are trying to trip you up and pounce on you?
-
If you torture this language anymore, it's going to be crippled for life. You are PLAF all the time which makes you Way and Weirwille all the time. Then you post a bible verse about Christ's joy going to the crucification. What were we talking about? Weirwille and PLAF. Seeing as PLAF has no ability to feel joy, you must have been comparing Weirwille to Jesus Christ. It also fits logically: The Word takes the place of the absent Christ Who teaches the Word? Weirwille. Therefore, Weirwille takes the place of the absent Christ. If you still have trouble understanding Mike, take a logic course. Also, in all that thinking you did overnight, did you figure out why I shouldn't follow Saint Vics example and let grace abound?
-
Translation: I'm going to ram this down your throats whether you want me to or not. I'm going to use big fant in a feeble attempt to overcome any feedback. This is important (by my standards) damnit and I don't care how you feel. Translation: It gives me life to ignore the sins of Saint Vic and there's no way you can tell me otherwise. So there! Translation: You guys missed the boat. Out of all of you who post here, only I know the truth and I'm going to force it on you. Translation: Let's ignore how evil Saint Vic is and focus on how this evil man somehow created something good. Translation: Truth is just one big head game and we're supposed to reflect that once we think we find it.
-
And this is any different then it usually is...how? Kind of like how we're not interested in how YOU think PLAF is God breathe. Yet that doesn't stop you does it? You day I'm wrong as somebody who knows deeply I was spot on would say. Did I? Is PLAF Saint Vic? And who's promoting PLAF, besides you? The Way, maybe? So where was I wrong for saying with you it's Way and Weirwille all the time? (I phrased it that way because I liked the illiterate on.) As you can see I did take some time and they were spot on. How did you miss how accurate my assessment was Good idea, why don't you follow your own advise? So what your saying is you don't have an answer to why I shouldn't follow in Saint Vic's footsteps and let grace abound. Take your own advise and sleep on it. As I've been over this before is one of your all purpose excuses for not responding to a logica
-
So now you're trying to compare Saint Vic with Jesus Christ? Remember Christ was without sin. Otherwise you seem to have this backwards. I'm looking at it from God's POV as per what He wrote in His Word. You seem to be trying to rationalize Saint Vic's behavior, seeing it from a man's POV then trying to make excuses for his (lower case h) poor judgement.
