Oakspear

please point out specifically where I have done that.

Maybe if we were both single...

by Oakspear: What does GOD say about Witch craft and Idolatry?I've seen what your bible says, which may or may not be what your god thinks about it. Your god wants everybody to worship him and is jealous of any worship extended to other gods. Your bible wrongly equates worship of other gods with worship of the idols that they represent. I would guess that your god has the same attitude about witchcraft because it involves depending on power that doesn't derive from him, although I've seen sources (not at my fingertips right now) that claim that "witch" should be translated "poisoner", so I guess if I'm not a poisoner, I'm okay with your god. Let's see, I said I don't necessarily believe that your bible accurately represents what god thinks - that's not maligning your god, just questioning some of his followers Your god wants everyone to worship him, isn't that true? Isn't that what the whole bible is about? That he is jealous of worship extended to other gods - the bible says that that's what your god says - why get offended at me? I didn't write the book That worship of other gods does not equal worshipping the idols that they represent - sorry, but pagans never worshipped the actual idol, but the god that it represented It seems to me that god doesn't like witchcraft because it is a different power, or "god" - what's wrong with that? and I questioned the English translations' correctness in translated a certain Hebrew word as "witch" - I don't see any maligning in there :blink: Right, it's not my fault, God says it. Take some responsibility for what you say. i think that you have me confused with someone else. I'm not blaming your god for anything. You are getting dangerously close to making this personal. No need to call names. by Oakspear: I am not surprised when certain Christians compare me to swine and dogs and insist that I am going to a fictional hell. I am not surprised when these same Christians look down their noses at us. Not surprised, but insulted just the same. I view Christianity the same way I view any other faith (or lack of faith), a personal choice that makes the Christian neither superior nor inferior to me, a path that works for that person, and brings comfort to that person; personal choices that I don't have the right or the expertise to judge. Yet those same people presume to judge me, as well as followers of others faiths, plus atheists, agnostics et al. Did you even read what I wrote? That's about it. I would suggest that you actually read what I write rather than reading into it.

Lives in a pagan way? What's that? Not too many people could tell the difference between a Christian and a pagan just by the way they lived their lives, or a Christian and an atheist, or a Buddhist for that matter. That's true sometimes, but not always. You're generalizing. Huh? :huh: What is the "obvious" that I'm ignoring? What? I didn't malign or impugn Jesus! I don't believe that I am being persecuted by Christians and Christianity. Please point out where I said that. For exampleOne more post

Part of what you say is correct. I don't love the god who is described in the bible and you do. He does not anger me or offend me, because he has not personally one-on-one done anything to anger and offend me. Some of his followers have. I'm sorry, where have I used the words cruel, unjust, or unloving? I believe I used the word "jealous", because that is a word that the bible uses to describe him. Why would you have a problem with a word that, according to the bible, your god uses to describe himself? No, that is incorrect. It is harmless to me also if someone in my neighborhood thinks I'm ugly, yet if he was to tell me that, I'd probably be offended, true or not. Actually I find those attributes aplenty in the god who is described in the gospels, despite his son's use of "swine" . I find Christianity, when practiced according to Jesus' words, usually a very loving religion. I find much good in Christianity, and honor and look up to many Christians in my personal life. You could have fooled me. It looks like that's exactly what's being done! More to come

Cool! Then please "opt out" of telling me about it It bothers me, and I think that I have answered this before, because it demonstrates a belief on the part of the person praying that there is something inferior about my beliefs and lifestyle compared to the beliefs and lifestyle of the one praying. It doesn't hurt me, but it insults and offends me. Don't get me wrong, I understand why you do it, because you feel that the beliefs and/or lifestyle of the one that you pray for are somehow inferior to your own and therefore worthy of hell unless they are changed to your beliefs. Ah, but I'm not in your shoes and don't believe that your beliefs and/or lifestyle will get you hooked up to eternal damnation if you don't change to mine. I can intellectually understand where you are coming from, that doesn't mean I don't find it offensive.More to come...I don't want to make these posts too long. If you're logged in, can you refrain from answering until I get all the way through?

Excuse me, are you capitalizing "God" out of respect, or emphasis? Yup, got that. This is not news. I learned it in & out of TWI So pray. In what verse does it say that you have to tell us that you're praying for us? Agreed. Pray, pray without ceasing, but when you tell me that you're praying for me, usually it's prosylitizing (sp?). But let me make a distinction here: when a Christian, or any other person tells me that they're praying for my health, or anything like that, I usually just smile and say thanks. When they tell me that they're praying for my soul, i.e. that my beliefs or lifestyle are wrong, then I feel that I have every reason to be annoyed. I agree, respect is a two way street. Where have pagans and Wiccans insulted your god? To my knowledge there are only two of us who regularly post here. Could you give examples of the insults and disrespect? I've seen what your bible says, which may or may not be what your god thinks about it. Your god wants everybody to worship him and is jealous of any worship extended to other gods. Your bible wrongly equates worship of other gods with worship of the idols that they represent. I would guess that your god has the same attitude about witchcraft because it involves depending on power that doesn't derive from him, although I've seen sources (not at my fingertips right now) that claim that "witch" should be translated "poisoner", so I guess if I'm not a poisoner, I'm okay with your god. Appalled no, offended yes. That all makes sense if you believe your holy book, for those of us who don't, it's just insulting. I dispute that you can examine anything on this subject without partiality, you are biased toward the biblical point of view...not that there's anything wrong with that I jumped in here even though I am not the one being addressed and am not one who asked for an apology. I am not surprised when certain Christians compare me to swine and dogs and insist that I am going to a fictional hell. I am not surprised when these same Christians look down their noses at us. Not surprised, but insulted just the same. I view Christianity the same way I view any other faith (or lack of faith), a personal choice that makes the Christian neither superior nor inferior to me, a path that works for that person, and brings comfort to that person; personal choices that I don't have the right or the expertise to judge. Yet those same people presume to judge me, as well as follwers of others faiths, plus atheists, agnostics et al.

Gee Kimberly, why would you be "blasted" for what you said? Usually that kind of statement precedes something that the posterknows ius going to be offensive, but doesn't care. I don't see that in your post. I'd rather avoid beating up on Geisha since she isn't posting at the moment, and she and I get on fairly well despite our doctrinal disagreements. But I understand the mindset that some people have to be saved, changed, fixed, because I used to be one of those people when I was involved in TWI. And I would think that those of us who were so convinced of the rightness of TWI doctrine to the exclusion of anything else, after having decided that they were wrong about that strongly held, "it's the absolute truth" belief, would be a little more flexible about things of faith. But no, a lot of us get just as fanatical about our new faith as we were about our old one, and just as obnoxious.

Gotcha, I see it now. Darn bifocles. :blink:

WTH's explanations are a good illustration of how Wierwille would often take a position, use an analogy or illustration to explain it, then spend all his energy developing the analogy, rather than the scriptural basis for that analogy. The "dogs loose upon the game" analogy regarding private interpretation and the whole athletes of the spirit teaching are other examples. Explaining the mechanics of how the KOH was suspended, is but a part of the KOG, how KOH indicates the presence of a King, etc, is fascinating, but none of this information can be gleaned from the bible.

Is that first post copied from somewhere? If so, where?

The phrases Kingdom of God & Kingdom of Heaven do not appear in the Old Testament. The citing of how God supposedly suspended one or the other and ham sandwich analogies only illustrate the position that they are different, they do not explain it, nor do they refer to scripture to back up the KOG does not equal KOH position.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Maybe the "new" WayAP class is considered newer the than the new one. :blink:

Mike's method is to ignore anything negative about Wierwille, your method is to keep an open mind. Most people who believe in ann inerrant bible ascribe "apparent contradictions" to errors in understanding, mIke does the same for PFAL.

Well done Mark, anyone who can read should understand your point WTH did nothing but regurgitate Wierwillian illogic without going back to the bible to make his case.

I've asked this question before, but if anyone here really believes that something that is true somehow becomes not true due to sins of a person who speaks that which is true, please so indicate by saying "yo".

What do your posts have to do with the snowstorm? (the topic of this thread)WordWolf was addressing a line of thought that is present in this thread. It's germane for Oldiesman to bring it up (although I disagree with his conclusion) and appropriate for WordWolf to offer a rebuttal. No less so than your "presentation" of your illogical thesis as having anything to do with whether we believe the story of the snowstorm

Why did I know that you were going to say that? Do you have a special alarm that alerts you to these kinds of posts? She didn't say that the sins negated the truths. Please do not smoke in this thread: strawman present.

Aw, Dad, but he started it ;)

I don't recall it being word-for-word PFAL, but most of PFAL's main doctrinal points are covered, albeit much more coherently. In places Wierwille betrays a pitiful lack of understanding of what Bullinger is trying to say.

Hyperbole - for years I thought that it was pronounced like Hyper BOWL...like 'Yo, Bobby, let's go knock down some pins at da HyperBowl ovah on Jamaica Avenoo'

Raf was adressing WTH, not WD WD responded as if he had been addressed Raf was addressing WTH's assertion that some people could not believe that anything good came from Wierwille by contrasting it with the opposite, that some people could not believe that Wierwille did anything bad. In the course of the discussion, WD stated that he had not seen any evidence of the bad things, only opinions. In response to this, Raf stated that WD wants proof, which WD denies. It seems to me that Raf is making a valid point (which all are free to agree or disagree with) but that WD is claiming comes out of nowhere

WD responds to various posters:

WD quotes Raf & responds: WD responds to Jeff's question about the monnwalking bear: Raf responds to WD:

Here’s the history: make up your own minds: What the Hey makes a statement: Raf quotes WTH & responds: WD quotes Raf and responds, even though WTH was being responded to by Raf: Even though later WD says that he has not asked for hard evidence, he says in the previous exchange that he is waiting to see some, seems like splitting hairs to me The initial exchange was Raf responding to something WTH said, WD of course is free to respond, but he is not being addressed at this point, nor are his positions being misrepresented Jeff Stj quotes WD & responds: Groucho quotes WD & responds: WD quotes Jeff & resonds Then quotes Groucho & responds: Raf had not mentioned hard evidence, only a hypothetical situation where he expresses his opinion that even if such evidence appeared, some would still not believe it Raf responds to WD's staement that trhere is no "hard evidence":