Goey

That's easy T-Bone I don't think Craig is totally oblivious to GS. I imagine he still has some friends that look at GS and see these posts. If Fraud gave up his identity Craig would probably know about it pretty soon after. What then could happen the next time these 2 met? I can only speculate.

Back in 2002 -03, I built a pulse induction motor (Bedini motor) from ideas off of one of the "free energy" Web Sites. I got the thing to spin at 2000 rpms using only 6 ma of current- faster than the experts who invented the thing while using less energy. However there was no "free energy" produced by the motor EMF spikes as was claimed by the free energy hopefuls - which was as I expected. Anyway, my daughter (then 5) watched me build this thing - winding coils, setting powerful magnets. balancing it ....checking wave forms on my oscilloscope - and making it run. She had been fantasizing about traveling back in time. And asked me how and if it could be done. She wanted to travel back in time, pick up Harry Potter and Ron Weasly and then go visit with "Rick" from the Mummy movie. I told her I wan't completely sure how to make one but that you would probably need some pretty big magnets. I also told her the it had never been done before. She told me, "You are the inventor Dad, you can figure it out." I have to get going. I think President Lincoln is about to make a speech.

Oaki Posted: Good point Oak. Many things called miracles can easlily be explained in other ways. Especially the light-weight ones that can be explained with science or just as normal or rare occurences. For example, if someone falls 3 stories and hits the concrete.Then walks away with only a few scratches. Is it necessarily a miracle by Divine intervention? I would say that if 100 people were thrown off a 3 story building that a few of them would not get seriously injured. Some would break their neck and die, others something else. But a few would "probably" not get hurt too bad. Odds, chance, whatever. I can view it as a Divine intervention or as simply the odds. Depends upon my mindset and my criteria for what constitutes a miracle. On the other hand there are things that have happend to folks that cannot be explained scientifically, or by chance. But IMO these things are quite rare. For me, it does not take miracles to believe in God. I have seen very very few.

Yes, certainly so as far as the individual is concerned. But we are talking about "logic" which kind of muddies the water a bit. For me, it was not purely logical proof in the form of a valid logical argument, that lead me to believe in the existence of God. Logic may have played a role, but in the end it is just a "gut feeling" for lack of a better way to express it. When I look up at the stars or at a tree, or at nature in general, I get this overwheleming "feeling" that an intelligent creator brought this all into being. My "heart" tells me that God is there. When I consider life itself, I get that same overwhelming feeling. Or when one of my chicken eggs hatched and a baby chick pops out. Same thing. Atheists have a hayday with this kind of stuff since gut feeling offers no logical proof to others of the existence of God. Logic can only take us so far ... then it is "faith".

CM, can you please rephase this? I am not sure I understand the question.

Yikes! -- The can of worms is opened again ! Seriously though, the athesits & agnostics sometimes use pretty good logic in their reasoning. One of the better sites on the Internet for learning logic and logical fallacies is an atheist site. http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html You can go there and seem some very good logic used in their argument for atheism. On then other hand some of the articles are riddled with logical fallacies. It has been my observation that in general, atheists tend to use better logic than theists/Christians in atempting to prove their postions. Not always though. As for me, I believe in God and consider myself a Christian. However I have conculded that the existence of God can not be proven with pure logic. Therefore, for me, I see it useless to enter into such debates.

I understood the post to say that he was shirtless and in shorts in the host's home (where she met him) and got the "first imperssion" - not in the meeting. ----------------------------------------------------------- As far as personal prophecy goes, I don't see a good biblical basis for it. At least not as it is defined and practiced within in most groups that do it. Proponents of personal prophecy sometimes cite Acts 21:10,11 as a basis: Act 21:10 And as we tarried [there] many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus. Act 21:11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver [him] into the hands of the Gentiles. This doesn't seem to me like the "personal prophecy" that is practiced in many groups that have adpoted this modern "latter-rain" practice. It was the foretelling by a prophet of an event that ultimatey came to pass. There are no generalities - it is very clear what would happen. This same prophet on a previous occasion foretold of a famine. Contrary to VPW's teaching, Agabus was not telling Paul not to go, he was warning Paul of what would definitely happen when he went - not if he went. Had Paul not gone to Jeruslalem, and the event didn't come to pass, the prophecy would have false. This prophecy was to prepare Paul. Although this prophecy was "personal" for Paul, I would point out that Paul did not seek it out, and Agabus did not ask Paul his permisson to give it. Acts 11:28 And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar. Acts 11:29 Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea: Again, a specific event is foretold by the prophet and it did indeed come to pass The church there at Antioch then sent food and supplies to Jerusalem in preparation for the drought. In any case, I just don't see where these verses in Acts support, endorse or promote the modern practice of personal prophecy. My guess is that what is done in CES or any other group that practices personal prophecy is probably not prophecy at all. What ever it is, I don't think it qualifies as "thus sayeth the Holy Spirit"in the same way as in these verses in Acts. I wonder how CES was introduced to personal prophecy? Did they at some time get alligned or associated with someone from the apostolic/prophectic movement" ?

I started raising chickens a few years ago. I started with chicks. Last year when my daughter was 6, and the chickens were comming to breeding age, we were outside feeding and watching the chickens. A rooster jumped onj a hen and they began doing what chickens do. My daughter asked me. "Daddy, what's that rooster doing to that he?" I told he that he was breeding her and thats what makes eggs turn into baby chicks. She said "ok daddy" as if she understood. About 5 minutes later she cam up to me and said. "Daddy, I think that rooster wants to breed me" I about lost it ...

Jes goes to show ya 'bout trustin Injuns .....

Deleted By Goey

T-Bone, I sure like your posts better without all the formatting - Much easier to read ! :)

Templelady Posted: Without doctrinal examples, its hard to say. But as far as that goes PFAL itself doesn't seem to openly condone things like abuse and adultry. His main deviations from "orthodoxy" were those on the trinity and concerning the dead being alive and a few others. I don't see where these attempted to justify his behavior. It was more his private teachings that seem to justify the ungodly behavior stuff like "you'll never be able to serve God people until you loosen up sexually". Possibly the one where the king owns all the women in the kingdom might apply here: -- VPW wrote in PFAL: There are many examples of correction in the Bible. Take David, for instance. David was off the ball. He found beautiful Bathsheba and then had her husband shot while in the front lines of battle so that he, David, could have Bathsheba as his wife. A few people knew about the sequence of events leading to David’s marriage, but nobody had a right to say any- thing because David was king and every woman in the kingdom was technically the property of the king or belonged to the king. (PFAL p.86) To make a good case that this teaching was an attempt to condone his beahvior, we then have to show where VPW taught that he was some kind of king and entitled to to same things he supposed David "technically" possesssed. Hard task. On the other hand, I would point out that VPW called David "off the ball" instead of that he committed adultery and murder. The scripture says that David was "doing evil" . As far as VPW goes was to say that David "had Uriah killed " -- Later VPW writes: The moment David said, “Let me know who it is,” Nathan said, “You are the man.” At that moment David recognized the truth of what Nathan was bringing from God and David said, “Well, I am sorry.” He turned to God and asked God to forgive him. Then it says in the Word of God that David was a man after God’s own heart. He was not after God’s heart when he was out fooling around with Bathsheba and having Uriah killed; no, but when he was back in line, David was a man after God’s own heart. When we rightly divide The Word and we walk in the power of it – then we are men and women after God’s own heart. (PFAL p.87) Here VPW says David was "fooling around" with Bathsheba. This might give some insight into what VPW thought of adultery. He seems to minimize Davids sin. In Nathan's parable to David, Bathehseba is the analogous to the lamb who the rich man "butchered". VPW calls it "fooling around." The scripture says David "took her". Then VPW makes it appear like David simply asked God to forgive him and then instantly he was a "man after God's own heart". Here we might see a glimpse of how VPW saw sin, and how to then get back right with God. Just ask God to forgive you then "rightly divide The word and walk in the power of it". This teaching fails miserably and completely misses the mark. Among other things it omits godly sorrow, contrition, and the consequences of sin. Compare VPW's teaching to the link below. http://www.case-studies.com/biblestudies/david1.htm I think VPW's foundation was weak. He approached this section of the Bible with preconcieved ideas about sin and restoration along with misapplying "rightly dividing the word" . And that led him to miss the point and make an eronous conclusion. But I doubt that he intentionally misinterpreted this scripture to justify his own sins. He probably thought he was right. It would seem so.

I have not seen anyone here suggest the idea that a person should "have to apologize to every person you've ever offended". Maybe I missed it. But then again maybe you are distorting the argument just a bit. I don't see anyone here promoting a law of apology. But I agree with you on one thing Johniam, a forced apology is worthless. When some has "demanded" an apology from me I have almost always refused to give it. "Demanding" an apology is generally an effort in futility. Saying that an apology is the right thing to do, or a good thing, or that it might help -- is a lot different than making it a requirement or a law. I bet that Paul probably "apologized" when he had opportunity, that's the kind of man I see described in the Bible.

CK posted: CK, you dont have a very high opinion of women do you? Well neither did VPW. Like father like son .....

Alan, My challenge was rhetorical. It was to make a point concerning the debate process. However, close scrutiny of the pastoral epistles, the language, the vocabluary, the soteriology, etc show distinct and big differences from Paul's other writings. Thus the dabate. And yes, the Gospels of Judas/ Thomas definitey do not flow with what was declared canonical by early orthodoxy. This is why they were excluded from the canon by those that took it upon themselves to declare what was holy and what was not.

Posted by Sogwap: An argument from silence. The fact that the Bible doesn't specifically say it doesn't meant he didn't do it. Imagine Paul, after his conversion, going into a town to preach/teach. A young woman comes up to Paul as says, "You had my brother killed, in Jeruslaem you murderous SOB". What does Paul do? I know, he says "I asked God for forgiveness and he gave it to me. I don't give a damn what you think and I don't really care if you forgive me or not. I was only doing what I thought was right. I am teaching the Word now aren't I ? - I don't see anywhere in the scriptures where I have to apologize to you. You want closure? Just forgive me and move on with your life. You've got sins too you know!" Hey, I was led down that path by Gamaliel anyway, it's not really my fault. BTW, why are you so bitter and angry? You just want revenge and you are thinking evil. It's grace now. Praise God.! See, I could kill some more Christians tomorrow morning and then ask God to forgive me and He would. Then I could go right back into the synogogue tomorrow evening and teach some hot Word, and guess what? Just becase I murdered someone in the morning, doesn't mean what I teach in the evening will be wrong. Hmm, maybe I should write a book .... Get over it will ya. Be ye imitators of me." Yeah, thats what Paul probably told them .......Right Oldies? Sogwap? CK ?

Or like a troll .... Here's you Merit Badge - You've earned it.

Instead of considering that VPW was wrong about cancer and possession, he's now willing to follow a possesed man. Hmm... But, isn't the spirit of sickness real good buddies with the spirit of error? I think they came from the same neighborhood.

If Paul didn't directly apologize to those he harmed or their families, then he apologized in the exemplary manner of his life after his conversion. That is, he repented - which means to change - to stop. He stopped harming people. Asking God's forgiveness, is one thing - repentance is another.

Let me try to tackle that one and mininally abdress both sides of the issue. Danny is absolutely correct about about the style issues. It is much more obvious in the greek. But not only style, but vocabulary and grammar as well. There are over a hundred words in the pastorals that Paul did not use in his other writings or that appear no where else in the NT. Interesting - eh? Spiritual growth could possibly affect language to some extent, but I highly doubt that it would affect grammar and style to the extent it does in the pastorals. One way to address these language issues is to assume a different author. The style and language seem to imply it. So it is not unreasonable to question Pauline authorship of the pastoral based upon style,language, grammar. Another way to address these issues is to consider the possibility of an amanuensis (secretary) writing for Paul. Here is a quote from Daniel Wallace - a fundamentalist theologian who holds (barely) to Pauline auhorship. "... there is the distinct possibility that Paul used an amanuensis to whom he gave great freedom in the writing of these letters.21 Longenecker (among several others) has shown that the nonliterary papyri display several different kinds of amanuenses at work—sometimes they wrote by dictation, other times, with greater freedom. His application to the Pauline epistles is illuminating: Just how closely the apostle supervised his various amanuenses in each particular instance is, of course, impossible to say. The nonliterary Greek papyri suggest that the responsibilities of an ancient secretary could be quite varied, ranging all the way from taking dictation verbatim to "fleshing out" with appropriate language a general outline of thought. Paul's own practice probably varied with the special circumstances of the case and with the particular companion whom he employed at the time. More time might be left to the discretion of Silas and Timothy (cf. 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1) or to Timothy alone (cf. 2 Cor. 1:1; Col. 1:1; Philem. 1; Phil. 1:1) than to Sosthenes (cf. 1 Cor. 1:1) or Tertius (cf. Rom. 16:22)—and perhaps much more to Luke, who alone was with Paul during his final imprisonment (cf. 2 Tim. 4:11).22 (Source, http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1337 ) But of course language and style are not the only problems with the pastorals as far as Pauline authorship goes. They problems (real or aparent) can be divided in to groups, I'll use Wallace's groups to save time. The Historical Problems. Theological Problems. Soteriology (Salvation) Ecclesiology (Church Function) The Linguistic Problems. The pastorals have "problems" in all these areas to overcome or explain in order to hold to Pauline authorship. Objectively, it is difficult - but not too big a stretch. I encourage looking at both sides objectively before comming to a hard conclusion. I am undecided on this issue but maybe lean towards Pauline authorship. (this month) But I accept that non- Pauline authorship is a definite possibility and not an unreasonable conclusion. I think on this issue that the best someone can do is conclude what is "most likely" . After revieviewing the evidence on both sides I have a big problem with dogmatic assertations either way. The link I gave above is a good one that allows you to see both sides of the issuse, even though it is from Dallas Theological Seminary which is quite fundamental. I would provide a link from an opposing camp, but I coudn't quickly find one that fairly showed both sides and that was not seemingly emotional or frothy about the debate..... Danny may know of one though. Hope this helps.

If you do a google search for L Craig Martindale then go down a few pages you will find the Ballys thing. There are a couple more that refer to Toledo elswhere. Freud, Excuse us if some of us seem skeptical of your story. There may be a few sycophantic Martindale fans still around who might try to post something like you have in order to get folks to feel sorry for Craig. It also could be a (sick) joke from someone wanting to stir the pot. We are not easily deceived. Martindale did some very dispicable things and has yet to offer those whose lives he tainted or destroyed any kind of apology. Neither has he shown any thing like contrition for his dispicable actions. Seem like the man you described may just be on a pity pot. Sorry becasue he lost his kingdom and perks. If you are for real, then you know by now that this man was not completely honest with you. Personally, I wonder why you posted this stuff here. What is to be gained? Sympathy for Craig? Not likely. Listen to this and see if this sounds like the Craig you met .... http://www.greasespotcafe.com/waydale/realmedia/prayers.rm If he is truly hurting and wants to get a load off, then he should stop being a coward and be a man and come here and face many of the folks that he harmed. He knows what he did and he knows what he needs to do if he ever hopes to have any kind of peace in hie life. Hiding and running won't do it.

Belle, et al, CK is only here to hurt and sow discord. He is a troll. That is why he ends now with "Thank God for VPW". To rub salt into the wounds. I recall a proverb about pearls and swine that may apply here Also, Paul mentions a seared conscious in 1 Timothy 1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron. We seen both the lies and the hipocrisy. It's gotta make you wonder what his parents taught him and what they are like ... I wonder if they are as ignorant of the truth as he is. Then again maybe it's not really ignorance but an intentional effort to sow discord and create strife here at GS. I highly suspect the latter. No one can be that stupid - can they?

:) Ok you lurkers. The "fight" is over now. You can go get your jollies on another thread.

I absolutely did not "call YOU a weasel". "Weaseling out" is an expression like "crawfishing". It means you think they are backing out of something said or done . It does not mean you think they are either a crawfish or a weasel. It is a figure of speech. Talking about monochromatic ............. Sheesh .....Uncle And no. I did not just call you my uncle. It is an expression. A figure of speech that means "I give up".

I edited it to reflect what I intended to say. And within just a few minutes after as second proof read. Even then I did not say what you think I did. My response was carefully worded in reply to Todds similar comment. May I suggest you go back and read it again in the full context of where I said it. Read what I actually wrote. What I said was "Some things are simply nonsensical. Some things arent". If you do construe this to mean that I am saying that Todd theories are nonsense, then you must also construe it to mean that they are not. It then becomes ambiguous does it not? I was talking generally about "some things". No more no less.