Oakspear

No Allan, that was Jimmy Stewart in "It's A Wonderful Life" I don't see what you see in Belle's post: more like "Be realistic: life isn't a bowl of cherries - what is this God dude up to anyway?" One would have to be blind to think that bad things don't happen, and they don't stop happening when you "believe God".

I've moved so far from their doctrine that even if they were "nice", there'd be nothing there for me

Okay, so something's true because "The Word" says it's so, therefore if you try it, it should "work". The problem there is that there are plenty of other religions and philosophies that "work" also. Not a problem if you don't claim that the bible is exclusive truth, somewhat of a problem if you do. The reason I'm even bringing this up is that I see this time and time again in doctrinal discussions. Everybody has their own opinion (and welcome to it, IMHO) - but so often the final argument is something like "it works for me". What I see here is that it comes down to experience. You believe certain things, apply them and you get the expected results; I believe something different, apply it and also get the expected results. Seeing it "work" confirms what you already believe...but only in your own mind...it doesn't invalidate what someone else believes and has confirmed by a different set of results that "work". For a bunch of people who supposedly learned to separate truth from error and were taught not to let experience trump "The Word of God" we sure put a lot of stock in experience. For people who supposedly learned to "work the Word" we sure rely a lot on what one man said. Maybe you and all the PFAL fans here do a lot of research and "working of the Word" and just choose not to rehash it here, I'm just going by what I see. It would be refreshing to see PFAL fans rationally argue for what they believe is correct in PFAL rather than letting themselves get run off or shut down by opposing opinions.

The word in Greek was translated literally correctly as "if", but it's somewhat like this example: You and I are having a beer together, I remember that I have to be in work early the next morning and announce that I have to go. You say, "If you are leaving, then I'll head home too" - there is no question about whether I'm leaving or not, I just said that I am - there may have been a choice a few moments before, but that's past, "if" is used in the sense of "since". There's a term for this, but I don't remember what it is. Hope I'm not being too pedantic here. <_< (I used to have a branch coordinator who would get all worked up if I used "if" in this manner. I'd say something like, "I'll do it if that's what you want" and he'd bellow that there was no "if" about it - that was the way he wanted it - what an idiot :wacko: )

So, would you say that whether or not something "works", as you say, is the test of whether it's true, or whether it's from God?

I'd have to dig out my Bullinger, but I think that the literal sense of "if" is "since"Kind of shorthand for: If Jesus died & rose Then those that sleep will be brought with him Since you believe that Jesus died & rose Then you believe that those that sleep will be brought with him I admit that I may be misrememberin' - but I'm pretty sure that the word "if" is not allowing for a type of brethren who don't believe that Jesus died and rose again, nor is it suggesting that the sleepers being "brought with God" is dependent on us believing it.

I see what you're saying, but the proximity of these two verses: But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. and For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. Seem to indicate that physical death (plainly stated in reference to Jesus) is the same as the figurative sleep. And compare and contrast "alive" with "sleep" in this verse: that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. and this one: For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: maybe it can mean both.

No, it's not a university, but it can be a place for learning. One of the things that it is a forum for is sorting out what was harmful and what was helpful from our Way days. An important part of both the harm and the help was what was taught. I don't expect PFAL fans like yourself to type out why they believe "95% of 7 collaterals, JCOPS, JCOpassover, the orange book, not to mention the little paper back word studies", but when a specific point is being discussed, it only makes sense to give reasons why a certain position is taken. Else what basis is there for disagreeing?

In my observation the Wierwille PFAL supporters not treated the same way by everyone. There is a wide variety of beliefs regarding PFAL and of Wierwille himself at GS. To some extent the treatment is based on preconceived notions, to some extent to how the poster presents his or her opinions. It also appears to me that the higher the percenatge of PFAL that is retained, the less likely it seems to be that the psoter will be willing or able to discuss why they believe something, other than "I learned it in PFAL". When in the midst of a discussion of TWI doctrine, a position of "I learned THE TRUTH in PFAL and that's that" without any reasons why tends to cause the opposing side want to explain, to convince, to document. I'm not saying here that no PFAL doctrine is defensible, or can't be explained, but that most, if not all, PFAL fans decline to do so. Maybe that makes for some "hounding".

Geez Allan, I'm disappointed, you seem to have witnessed or experienced every other kind of biblical miracle due to your days in TWI and the application of PFAL after you left.

Just for the record gents, I have no problem accepting that you or anyone else can "know" or experience something that is beyond mundane understanding: "inner" enlightenment, so to speak. I do have a problem when that "inner" understanding is presented as the last word, since there is absolutely no way that it can be analyzed, critiqued (sp?), or possibly even rationally discussed. I re-read it this morning. You presented an interesting proposition. It then appears that you apply your alternative interpretation to a number of verses and sections without really giving a reason why this alternative interpretation is valid. Any time someone claims "special knowledge" that only some can know or understand, it appears to be the assumption of an elitist position. In my opinion, that's condescending. Actually no, but thanks for playing. Well, I've got to go to work and otherwise live life. Enjoy yourselves, and try not to beat up on Allan too bad.

:wub:

Why did I post here? Because I thought the idea was intriguing, but wasn't seing any reason, compelling or otherwise, to go with any interpretation for "sleep" other than physical death. I find the approach that one needs some kind of special "inner" understanding to get something condescending. If you have a position that differs from the so-called accepted or mainstream thinking, present the basis, expound on the logic, geez, say something convincing. On the other hand, if you don't agree with my opinion regarding how discussions should be carried out, feel free to ignore me, I don't get to set the guidelines of how everyone else has to behave, however, I do get to express my opinion. And I will probably still express it sarcastically from time to time.

well, we are both from south Queens

If any of my family (immediate or remote) look at any of these posts I just want them to know that I for one remain very thankful for their "ministry". They may have had some personal short-comings, but spiritually they set me and mine on the 'right track'. In fact, as I have posted before, some of my childrens lives were spared as a direct result of what I learnt through their "ministry". For that I will remain ever thankful. I'm sure they were tempted at times to be a 'bit closer' to mainstream thinking in order to 'get me to listen', which is a very common thing for parents to do, but they 'stuck to their guns', so to speak. Any of my family should feel more pride than shame. As for Wierwille's family, I never had anything to do with them one way or another, and they have their own lives, so discerning or measuring shame or pride doesn't seem to be relevant. Wierwille himself set something in motion that did, in my life, more harm than good.

Doonsebury is on our side, Raf! And pizza is serious!

Must restrain gratutitous pun....Must restrain gratutitous pun....Must restrain gratutitous pun....Must restrain gratutitous pun....

Even a cursory read of church or European history will attest to the continual presence of Jews from biblical times through the middle ages and on to present times. By the time the Romans destroyed the temple and and the Judean nation in AD 69 or 70 there were already Jews scattered throughout the empire, in some places in large, established communities.

The specific post, or in general? Actually, no, it's not. I'll grant you, it's an interesting idea, but I haven't seen any reason to asign a deeper figurative meaning to "sleep" than a euphemism for physical death. Sorry Charlie, you don't get to decide who's thinking and whose not. failure to see your nebulous point is not failure to think My point, CM, is a response to this post: This is a discussion forum, and in that discussion you were asked by WordWolf "do you have some compelling evidence arguing for the figurative/spiritualized interpretation of these verses?...Other than CM's say-so, what "argument" do you offer for a change of position?" - and you have offered nothing other than some mumbo-jumbo about those who "are ready" seeing it. You want to put it out "for consideration"? Cool. But what's YOUR point? Ah, friggin' demonstartions, my favorite.

Wow! What a rebuttal!

Ooookay...throw out an idea that sounds interesting, but no one demonstrates any basis for the idea, but it is suggested that "those who are ready" will see it.

In so many areas, what Wierwille, Martindale et al said and what they promoted where not always the same thing. Umm...yeah, they didn't cut the verse out of the bible, but did their actions and words promote that verse? As WordWolf said, what I saw promoted was a mechanistic, or formulaic approach to God...do steps A, B, and C and God will jump through your hoops for you.

Bramble, the sickness thing brings up some memories: I raised 6 children. Sometimes they got ill, and sometimes they got ill and passed it on to another child or a parent. We were criticized by our WC BC for not "believing", since it semed like one of us were always missing fellowship due to a sick child. I thought that the fact that we had 8 people in our family just made it appear that we were sick more often than others, and said so. I was reamed for resisting leadership. For the next several months I kept a calendar. I noted whenever each of my family were sick, and when the BC or his wife were ill. Sure enough, the next time my BC "confronted" us about sickness, I produced my calendar, which showed that on average, each of my family members were sick less than either the BC or his wife :blink: That "evidence" was brushed aside with the observation that... ...I don't remember what the observation was!

...and another thing... The pressure referred to in the title to this thread was the doctrine that believing, if you were really believing, always worked. The whole "saint & sinner alike" thing. It's got nothing to with with whether miracles happened, or God talked to people or intervened in situations. I doubt that even the staunchest proponents of "the law of believing" can say that it worked every time in every situation. We were taught that it worked every time, for everyone, but were then taught explanations for when it didn't work. And it was usually our fault!

There's a "Believing" thread going on that your view might benefit from. Whether I or anyone else believe you is irrelevant, really. Actually you're one of the few on this board who talk about miracles that, if true, are a bit more miraculous than the usual "I found a parking space! Right out front!" variety.