Oakspear

The sex aside, this was typical Wierwille "biblical research": take a verse, decide that it doesn't mean what it plainly says, and supply the words that God would have used if God meant what everybody thought it meant

same ol', same ol' Big build up, no delivery :huh:

I guess it depends on how much our hypothetical "innies" are willing to think.

Who was paying for all these subscriptions that got thrown in the trash?

Hmmm, haven't heard that handle in a while B)

I still check the forums every day, and I still enjoy crossing rhetorical swords with some of the folks here, but I guess I just don't have the passion for Grease Spot Cafe that I once did. No, this isn't one of those "goodbye" threads. I'm not going anywhere for a while, and if I do, I won't start a thread about it. :blink: When I first started posting, Waydale and Grease Spot were my lifelines, a place where I could express my true thoughts about TWI, the lawsuit(s), and what was taught in WayAP. Later, when I first separated from my first wife, certain GSers supported me in my hour of darkness. I remember going in to work on Christmas, when the store was closed, because I had nothing to do and no one to do it with. I didn't have a computer at home, so I logged into the chat room and found a few of my chat buddies in there. In 2002 I spent almost two weeks travelling around the midwest and northeast, visiting not only family, but various GSers. I went to several Weenie Roasts, and met over thirty GS posters in person during my travels. Grease Spot cafe has been an important part of my life. It still is. But, it has moved down a few notches :mellow: Maybe it's the new marriage, including a new step-daughter along with the new bride. Maybe it's partly the disappointment at the lack of GSers at our wedding, despite the early chorus of "I'll be there", followed by "I'm sorry, I can't make it", followed by a well-attended Weenie Roast. Maybe it's just that I've been putting a lot of time into it for a long time and it's time for a change of pace. Maybe I miss the old emoticons :( Anyway...I'm heartened to see a fine crop of newbies here lately, and hope this bods ill for our favorite cult < <

Doh! :o

A lot of the "keys to biblical research" that Wierwille, and indeed even Bullinger, taught, were just another type of bible code. Very often you couldn't just read the narrative, or the epistle in order; no, you had to skip around and make it "fit". Interpretation was based on things like "number in scripture", which was speculative at best and the supposed structure of a section. Why would a god, who 'would have all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth' make those same men jump through hoops within hoops to get that same truth?

The point is to demonstrate the unreliability of VP's statements to anyone who might be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. How many out there still believe things simply because Wierwille said it? For example: Even if one claims to have "worked the Word" on one's own, if the definitions of Greek & Hebrew words are Wierwille's, then the conclusions are going to be skewed It's not that anyone really cares about light bulbs, but the holes in his story casts doubt on his truthfullness, and therefore his trustworthiness

But did we have to dig through all the crap to get to the goodies?

There is no such thning as "a Wicca" - there is at least one "Wiccan" posting here On the contrary, I believe that the wide variety of beliefs could conceivably convince some "innies" that the TWI viewpoint is not the only one possible.

or perhaps it's a bigot trying to project his view of what's godly on everyone else

Well, I wasn't looking for help...but it does answer my question :blink:

I do not believe in a hell, literal or figurative, nor do I believe that there is a Satan

Mark, we'll have to agree to disagree, then. The evidence isn't so clear cut that argument and disagreement is cut off. True...as far as it goes. Some "heresies" sprung up in opposition to established, "orthodox" doctrines. For others, I'm not so sure that it is even possible to untangle which of the orthodox teachings were "original", and which simply beat down all competitors. Sounds like an interesting alternate history novel

It doesn't take much digging to discover that what became the Roman Catholic Church was only the most successful of various competing factions among Christians. Of course gnostics and other groups might not be considered "Christian", because they, as the losers, didn't get to define what "Christian" meant. Even after the Gnostics, Marcionites, Ebionites and others were figuratively buried, there were numerous groups, such as the Nestorians, and various churches known later as Monophysites which flourished in areas outside the easy control of the church in Roman provinces.

Something that I don't get: Did this person say it was okay to reveal what you told him that you would reveal?

Mike: I was aware of Geek's opinion on the matter, i don't dispute his facts, just his conclusion

that last post was me :P I forgot to log in

Not "Dr's"...Wierwille's...I refuse to give him that title of respect and achievement, because he has, IMHO, earned neither...a "non-PFAL statement" = something he said that is not in PFAL I thought you were clarifying what Wierwille said in PFAL regarding believing with things he said in other places.

I can't believe that I'm up at 3am posting on GS :wacko: Mike: I'm going to have to go on memory alone here, but isn't it written PFAL that you rely upon? Doesn't Wierwille in PFAL specify there that believing works for saint and sinner alike, without "clarifying" that it's "believing the Word of God"? Don't you normally reject non-PFAL statements of Wierwille when they differ from PFAL?

In the early days before the "canon" of scripture was settled, Paul was looked upon as a heretic by some, but not by those who eventually came out on top. Of course, once the dust cleared, the victors were able to retroactively declare their view has having been orthodox and dominant from the beginning. There were many other writings that were considered by some as diveinely inspired, some we still have, and some are lost. Even some of Paul's letters may not really have been written by Paul

Just to highlight a few things that WordWolf has already ably noted: The Tulsa "snowstorm" wasn't about a vision, or revelation, or anything like that. Somebody told him on the phone that Tulsa was snowed in. This wasn't God showing him snow on the gas pumps which could have been a vision just to him. So what happened? He called the airport (or airline) to book a flight out, and was told by angels (he suggested this once, you know) that the airport was snowed in, as well as the trains and busses. He looked out the window and was shown a vision of a blizzard, and if he casually menyioned the snow to anyone who wasn't seeing the vision, God rushed in an angel to cover... Yeah, it IS absurd, isn't it?

Hi, my name is Tom, and I'm a PFAL rejector