Oakspear

In my view the argument is not as black & white as God vs. Man. Who physically wrote the bible? Man. There's no more reason to suppose that the bible is THE Word o' God than any other of a number of "holy" books. To me it's not God on one side and men on the other, but men in an inumerable number of corners, got maybe in all of them, some of them, or maybe none of them.

When was this? I took that class twice, once in '82, and once in '91. It was in both times.

Was it the speaking in tongues, or "magnifying God" that convinced Peter & the others? I think we assume that it was the speaking in tongues, but if so, how did they know that they were magifying God? But even if it wasn't the SIT, I wouldn't put it in the category of a blatant error, just an honest (IMHO) interpretation of what was written. Part of why I bring this up is that from our 2009 vantage point we sometimes think that speaking in tongues, defined as "speaking a language that is unknown to the speaker" was new and unuique to the new church, when it had been fairly common among prophetic and ecstatic groups of that time. Now if you want to redefine speaking in tongues to restrict it to Christians as a manifestation or gift of the spirits, okay, but I don't think that the people of that time saw it that way. None of the other manifestations/gifts are unique to Christianity.

I remember it the way you do socks, a fellowship in every community, "making the Word available" to anyone in that community. By the time Martindale made his announcement, it was clear that we were going backwards in accomplishing the goal of Word Over the World, TWI never recovered numerically from the Graet Exodus of the late 80's. When Martindale announced that the Word was over the World, he told us that he got this information by revelation, not by comparing the original goal with the then-present day results. Afterwards, he and John Reynolds tried to show us how isolated fellowships run by U.S. military people proved that the Word was "available" to that entire region of the world, or how twigs run by expatriate Zaireans in France meant that the Word was over Europe. After this announcement the idea that lack of growth in an area was indicative of that area having rejected The Word became popular. Whole twigs in these cities (or states) were advised to move if they wanted to "move the Word". This happened in Omaha a few years before I was kicked out. By the time I did leave, there was just one anemic twig in the whole state of Nebraska, which was classified as an outlying area of the Kansas City branch.

Ask and ye shall...http://www.greasespotcafe.com/main2/editor...ant-living.html

Maybe this one isn't blatant, but here goes: Wierwille taught in The Word's Way (not sure if it made it into PFAL itself) chapter "The Lord's Brethren" that the brothers of Jesus specifically named in the gospels could not have been Joseph's sons from a previous marriage. His reasoning was that an older brother would have invalidated Jesus' claim to the throne of David. The only problem with that was that in another collateral chapter "The Geneology of Jesus" Wierwille teaches that the geneology in Matthew, the "royal" geneology is Mary's, while the geneology in Luke is Joseph's. Therefore, the existance of any of Joseph's older sons would be irrelevant to any claim to the throne of David. If one looks through Bullinger's appendixes and come to the one regarding the Lord's Brethren, one would see that Bullinger states the same thing that Wierwille did, dismissing the possibility that James, Joses, Simon and Judas were Jesus' older half-brothers by Joseph's first wife, since their existance would invalidate Jesus' claim to the Davidic throne. However, Bullinger wrote in his appendixes that he believed that the geneology in Matthew was Joseph's, and the one in Luke was Mary's, making his position consistant at least. To me it looks like Wierwille simply parrotted what Bullinger said about the brethren, without fully understanding Bullinger's reasoning behind it, and subsequently making no sense. Just one of several examples where Wierwille apparently didn't understand what Bullinger was saying, but liked his conclusions.

I wanted to be in radio and did it for 8 years in the 80's and 90's.

Well, that's what Wierwille said, but it isn't necessarily so. He is called 'God' at least once, by Thomas the Apostle.There are good arguments as to why Jesus is not God, but the lack of the phrase 'God the Son' is not one of them.

There are too many people who really dislike me and for good reasons for me to worry about taking things personally on an internet forum (by the way I was editing the last post while you were composing your last one) That's the shorthand term that I sometimes use if my beliefs need to be categorized. Sure. No matter how careful someone is in copying something down, mistakes happen, no matter what they "would have" done or wanted to do. The OT was also written in a language that did not write down its vowels, a huge problem in translation. The copyists' errors in the NT are inumerable. Many are just mispellings and other minor things, others affect doctrine. The many textual variances in NT manuscripts is why there is such a thing as critical texts, to attempt to reconcile the differences. I agree that there are more copies than any other old book, even if you ignore copies made since the invention of the printing press. This speaks more to its popularity than its objectiveness.And even if every copy was faithfully handed down without changes, making it identical to the original, and accurately translated into modern languages, what we still have is an accurate translation of an accurate copy of somebody's opinion about God. One has nothing to do with the other in my mind.

Obviously you and I need differing amounts and different kinds...but I think we'd already established that I thought we were talking about biblical objectivity? Any personal relationship that someone has with God can't be experienced by someone else, even if I have a personal experience with God, that doesn't objectively verify that you have one, it's subjective. Any actions, like miracles, healing, phenomena of any kind, answers to prayer can objectively be anything. People talk all the time about praying and getting the result that they asked for as if that proved God's existance. I know some people who attribute all kinds of things to aliens, others to fairies, still others to "The Universe". We all tend to attribute the unexplainable to what we have already decided is the answer. Oops...my bad I couldn't find any posts where dooj was talking specifically about her problems. But thanks Dooj, Abi & RG for setting me straight ;)

I think what he's leaving out is your spin on things that he actually witnessed. :P hey, why don't you join us on the beer thread in the Open Forum? (edited to correct spelling)

Who said they were personal problems. Geez...Abigail was making a general observation...regarding the doctrinal discussion.

I had to laugh at the ad that popped up at the mention of all the Persian rulers: one for single Iranians! Anyway, I don't believe that C.S. Lewis' "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" Trilemma is valid. Obviously he could have been mistaken, we could be mistaking him or his words could have been recorded inaccurately to mention just three that come to mind. Regarding your example from Daniel about the fullfilled prophesies, I think that your point is that an accurate prophesy indicates that the bible is true. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Assuming that the prophesy in Daniel is correct, all that tells us is that somebody predicted the future. But reading your explanation of it, there appears to be enough wiggle room to allow for a flexible interpretation. It reminds me of Nostradamus' prophesies, which seem to be remarkably accurate looking back on them...if you're willing to be broad in your interpretation. I'll tell you what though, I won't dismiss this particular example out of hand, I'll look at it independently. Another point that I want to address is: I don't think that the bible is, nor does it pretend to be, objective. It's purpose seems to be to reveal the god of the Hebrews, not to be an historically accurate document. No doubt there are events, places and people that line up quite nicely with what non-biblical historians have determined, you can say the same thing about James Michener's Centenniel. What can't be objectively verified is the existance and attributes of a god.

I agree. Where we disagree is that many viewpoints that claim objectivity are actually subjective. I would add (without knowing for sure whether you would agree or disagree) that a person's spiritual relationship is by necessity subjective and "accuracy" in this realm is irrelevant. Thank you Yeah? <_<

The agnostic says "I don't know", not "I don't care." I disagree that pluralism is illogical. It is only illogical in the context of a belief that one position among the many out there is right or true on all points. Now, I understand that this is the biblical literalist position, and in the context of that position there is a position that is right and true on all points, i.e. the bible. However, in the context of a discussion where the issue of biblical innerrancy is not a universally accepted premise, that position cannot be the arbiter of what is logical. I won't attempt to speak for any of the other disbelievers of Christianity around here, but my opinion is that seemingly mutually contradictory beliefs can both be "subjectively true" for the adherants of those beliefs. It is my position that none of the beliefs systems have a lock on the truth and all see "through a glass darkly; only part of the whole. That's not arrogant IMHO, that's humility.

At one time I mostly drank Budweiser. Back in college I even had the motto on the labels memorized (This is the famous Budweeiser beer. We know of no other brand produced by any other brewer...). Since I remarried I've been drinking less, so I use my beer money to buy better (or at least more expensive) beer. I've been a big fan of Leinenkugel's for a while (I have Jake Leinenkugel's autograph) as well as a local microbrewery where my son works that produces a vanilla stout called 'Dark Side'. Since the holidays I've been drinking Sam Adams. They had a holiday variety pack that included a wheat lager, a porter, cream stout, a dark ale and a cranberry flavored brew that was a lot better than it sounds. They've got another one out now with 6 different varieties. Well tonight I stopped into Duggan's Pub, my old hangout, (GT, if you're out there, that's where you & I had a few adult beverages) and ordered a Budweiser, mainly because the crowd was 5 deep at the bar and I couldn't see what they had available. I couldn't believe how bad that bottle of Bud tasted! I'm stuck...I'm addicted to the expensive stuff.

Heathen Hoard! I love it! We'll be along presently to pillage & plunder

And some of my best friends are... They're a credit to their people...

Is it "toeing" or "towing" the line?

Sure, I understand, I just don't agree I get where you're coming from. Your answers and opinion, since you are a bible believer (apparently a believer in an inerrant bible), will necessarily flex to fit what you understand to be the biblical position, which you further believe to be your god's position. Coming from a different corner, I don't believe the bible is inerrant, or necessarily divinely inspired, so I kind of take things at face value, rather than trying to make things "fit", or interpreting actions in such a way that apparently immoral actions are reinterpreted as moral simply because God did them. We each base our conclusions on different premises. Thanks for taking the time to document your position though. Much appreciated.

Assuming for the sake of argument that a good God has an everlasting hell, saying that he doesn't send people there, but that people choose to go there by not choosing God seems to me hair-splitting and taking the responsibility for having the place off of the good God. The difference between the way I look at it and how I think that others look at it can be illustrated by a pair of analogies: The God doesn't send position: A park ranger meets a camper. He instructs him about how to behave in the park, including not swatting the local bears on the nose, and tells him the consequenses of bear swatting. The ranger continues his rounds, the camper swats the bear, the bear mauls and eats the camper. My position: A park ranger meets a camper. He instructs him about how to behave in the park, including not swatting the local bears on the nose, and tells him the consequenses of bear swatting. The camper tells the ranger that he doesn't believe him and the ranger feeds him to the bear, who the ranger has trained to eat on command any campers who the ranger commands him to eat.

When I got involved in TWI there was a constant pressure to "go WOW". Mind you, nobody was literally forced to go, but peer pressure is real. There was several days of "WOW training" during the ROA, but 28 years later I can remember little about what the training entailed. We were led by a 20 year old interim Corps guy who was woefully unprepared to lead himself, let alone anyone else. The last few months we were short-timers, looking for it all to end.

To summarize my position as it pertains to this thread: I really did get that geisha was joking with me, she also gets it when I mess with her. I started this thread to get a better feel for what Christians were thinking when they pray for the non-Christian's soul. I was not surprised at the answers, but feel a bit better educated about the mind set. I don't have any problem with Christianity, or most Christians, but am mildly annoyed and slightly offended when I my beliefs are considered inferior; annoyed and offended, but not surprised: I understand where they are coming from because I've been there. I also understand that some of what I say can be considered offensive to Christians. I try not to be, but sometimes it can't be avoided. When threads contain vigorous debate, they can be a lot of fun, and mentally stimulating. To me they're less enjoyable when they are full of people talking past each other and misunderstanding or even misrepresenting others' positions. Thanks for playing!

I volunteer at 'Boo at the Zoo', a fundraiser for the Chidren's Zoo every year. At the time my boss, who knew I was a pagan, asked me a couple of times if I worshipped Satan, especially after he saw my pentacle that I was wearing at a social event. He laughed his @$$ off when I showed up in that getup. That red makeup was tough to get off, as was the black hair dye!

Well Jeff, maybe you and I can eat burgers and drink a few brews together sometime, dedicated to nothing other than a good time!