Oakspear

I think you may be talking more of doctrine here than attitude. If you want to just take alook at the doctrine, it's in Ephesians 2. Attitude... well that's individual and the Word says to release the Word with boldness but sometimes that comes across as arrogance.Is the reason why you might think is arrogance because you no longer necessarily believe these things? No, you are mistaken. I have no problem with those who hold to the doctrine based on the bible. I get along quite well with, for example, dmiller, Raf, WordWolf, Belle, etc. My opinion is not based on whether or not I believe the bible, but on the way it is presented. I have seen the most vicious attacks on this board be Christian-against-Christian, over differences in opinion on this or that doctrine. As a non-Christian, I haven't been directly attacked here that often. And by the way...you used the term arrogance in your quote of my statement, not me.

Pretty much, yeah...if I understand correctly, Allan believes, or at least says that some posters who disagree with him are only pretending to have been in TWI...if I'm mistaken , I welcome a correction

How the hell do these threads turn into "Mike" threads? :blink: I suppose it is possible for God to say..."You morons have it all wrong, I'm issuing a new 'Word of God' called PFAL because the old one is such a mess...tattered remants, y'know" But Wierwille's claim was that it was only the interpretation of the bible was wrong, that various translations were wrong, not that the bible itself, in it's original text, was wrong. He stated repeatedly that we, through the "keys" that he taught, get back to thoise originals. While Wierwille did not claim that his teachings superceded the bible, he implied and suggested, if not taught explicitly, that his interpretation and application were superior to all others, and were the true "orthodox" (my term, not his) teachings of the bible. Much of this is mere semantics. Wierwille wanted us to believe that whatever came out of his mouth, or at least the end of his pen, was THE TRUTH, whether he made a clear claim that his books were on par with Galatians or Titus or not. Where we are at an advantage over scholars poring over canonical and extra-canonical texts is that PFAL was written in English, and many of us actually heard the author speak and expound upon his books. We heard his own interpretation of his own works. We don't have to agonize over the correct interpreation of an unfamiliar word, or any of the things that you ahve to do with an old Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek text. So where Mike claims that Wierwille said such-and-such, we can go to PFAL and refute him. Which has been done. Wierwille's works often do not say what Mike says that they say, unless you have a gnostic-like secret knowledge that allows you to understand what it really means. And yet, Mike's detractors refer back to "the bible", a collection of writings put together by a committee of the victors in a centuries-long battle of words and political influence.

I was just saying the other day how sick i am of companies using the buzzword "solutions". That and "warm" < <

Who here do you think was never in TWI? :huh:

Yeah, but it's not pizza - -

Now I'm really mad!

In Nebraska, we use the "red bandana" method of weather prediction:We hang a red bandana on a stick in the backyard. If the bandana is wet, it's raining If it's blowing around, it's windy If it's white, it's snowing If it's GONE, HEAD FOR THE SHELTER, IT'S A TORNADO!!!!! :o

Congratulations. Do I understand correctly that you two just met? (I know you've obviously been in contact by phone, email, letter, what have you) Wow! Love at first sight, literally :wub:

I didn't read much, I could go downstairs and get the copy that they gave me and find the verses that they asked me to read if I thought it was worth the effort, and if I thought your question was something other than a pretext to attack templelady & the Mormons. I'll tell you this, though. Whatever they gave me to read, they obviously thought that the written words, aided by a prayerful attitude of seeking, would convince me that Mormonism was the "one true church"...or something like that. By that time in my life I was no longer interested in basing my life on a book of any kind.

Happy Birthday Sudo!!!

Yeshua = Jesus?Maybe he would have a different opinion...maybe not. That's kinda my point. And David, despite the wide chasm between our beliefs, we manage to get by without insulting each or consigning each other to hell. (Maybe because I don't believe in hell B) No, but we should base our relationships, including the one with our deity, on experience. After all, what is written, as it's been ably stated by another poster, boils down to someone else's experience.

My last contact with LDS missionaries coming to my door was about 2 years ago. I was waiting for a load of laundry and invited them in. After a lively discussion, they gave me a copy of the Book o0f Mormon and suggested I read some passages. They checked back in a few days to see what I thought, and were very respectful of my decision to not believe what they did. A week or so later, my car battery was dead. I spotted the two LDS guys walking by and asked if they had a car. When they responded affirmatively, I asked if they could jump start my car, which they cheerfully agreed to do. They did not bring up their previous attempts to win me to their religion, nor my refusal. Nice guys

Eureka! :lol:Put that way, how can anyone have the balls to attack another's beliefs? Your experience is more valid than Joe Heretic's? :blink:

Wow...I must have been neglecting my primary job of spewing hate while sitting in front of a computer monitor Actually I was getting in some 'quality time" with my new stepdaughter, washing my car, grocery shopping, buying some new software, clothes shopping with my new wife, cooking lunch and dinner, and walking hand-in-hand with previously mentioned bride in the cool of the evening to keep up with concentrating on my usual tearing down of the the revelations of the late Vic Wierwille. :ph34r: My main beef is with the clowns who claim to have that inside track, and use their supposed knowledge to put down others, call them stupid or evil, and condemn them to some form of hell or condemnation. I have no doubt that there are those who experience God or Goddess, receive "revelation" from said divinity, and subsequently have their lives enriched thereby. What I do doubt is that this experience can be applied to anyone else, let alone the whole world.

Thank you. In case anyone else thinks that my point is to attack Christians, think again. I respect people of faith. I have no respect for idiots who claim to have an inside track on the mysteries of the universe and the mind of God

Noooo...it doesn't "prove" that we didn't pay attention...just that we didn't believe him. Plagiarism becomes a "hot topic" only when some folks, like yourself, deny that there was any plagiarism, or minimize it's importance. Another good reason not to 'come back" to PFAL Since this is a website devoted to giving the "other side", i.e. the side "other" than the one Wierwille and his successors presented, it is entirely appropriate to attempt to tear down what we feel is harmful. Since you know very little about what any of us do in our time away from GSC, you have nothing to base your statement on. There is no "try", only "do" saith Yoda ;)

It's timely...and if you don't think there's anything new, then don't contribute to the conversation...oh wait...you didn't :wacko:My point is not to argue the authenticity of the bible with you or any other bible believers...but to point out the weakness of the position of those on this board who are quick to attack others' beliefs.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Usually, judging whether something is "right" is done through the filter of what is already believed.

Happy birthday cavity-boy!

Jerry: Nice points. Why wouldn't revelation/inspiration be subject to the filtering of the human mind with all it's attitudes and prejudices? How could it not? Side point: why would John have that "wonderful PhD language" as poosed to Amos' herdsman language, when John was a fisherman? Who says fishermen are smarter than herdsmen

Happy b'day neighbor

How can some of the folks who revile those who hold different doctrinal positions be so sure that they've got it right? Among churches and other groups who base their beliefs on the bible, it is readily apparent that there is much dsagreement. Are all those who disagree with you blithering idiots, or pawns of Satan? And as for the "canon of scripture" - how can you be sure that all that got in there is inspired of God? Or that all that was inspired of God got in? This isn't meant to be a doctrinal discussion so much as about attitude. I am aware that there are good and valid reasons for supposing that the current biblical lineup is just what God wanted, and equally valid reasons for thinking that it was the result of a committee of the faction that had the most power to push their agenda through. No, it's about those who hold their own interpretation of the divine will to be superior to anyone else's, and who arrogantly and obnoxiously let us all know about it[/size]

Uugghh...that was me, unclenching :huh:As for me, I am perfectly capable of participating in a discussion about the bible without bringing up that I don't believe it...doh! That being said, I agree that this is a contradiction. Wierwille is insisting that the passage says things that it clearly doesn't say.