Raf

Actually, there's a different problem with this, aside from the one Oakspear mentioned. In 100% of these cases (the ones you read about), the calamity has already taken place. It doesn't prove anything. It's the old "blame Job" approach. Find a guy when he's just lost all his kids, watch him say "I always feared something terrible would happen to my kids" (which, by the way, EVERY PARENT WHO EVER LIVED fears), and then JUMP ON HIM for having fear in his life, effectively BLAMING him for what happened! It's horse hit. I feared that I would not get promoted last summer. I believed, actively, that I would not get promoted last summer. I confessed my belief to others that I would not get promoted last summer. Do You Know What I Did Last Summer?

I missed that last paragraph, Mark. Thanks for re-posting. Mike, you're the only unfit researcher here, unwilling to accept the simplicity of what's written, looking for hidden meanings and dodging, distracting and denying whenever your thesis is disproved. Even WIERWILLE did not accept what you say about PFAL! What's really sad about your constant stream of lies is that you're lying only to yourself.

I didn't say I believed that. I only said it was a possibility (and given his lies on other subjects, such as the documented lie of the snowstorm in Tulsa, it is not at all outside his character). The 3,000 books story is not worth debating. If true, it proves nothing. If false, it disproves nothing. So I'm not going to waste my time with it.

Incorporating facts into the Wierwille mythology is like incorporating chocolate into a photo processing machine. How's this: Wierwille lied about throwing 3,000 books away. PFAL has been put to the test and found wanting.

There he goes changing the subject again. Mike, for the umpteenth time, if you want to start a thread on whether the BIBLE is God-breathed, have at it. This thread is about PFAL. Stop trying to change the subject. Just out of curiosity, why does your exaltation of PFAL require you to attack the integrity of God's Word (The Bible is the Word of God: according to PFAL)? P.S. PFAL does not claim itself to be God-breathed. You are reading that into the text based on the flawed articulation of an imperfect work. PFAL directly sets itself in contrast with God-breathed, and no amount of lying or obfuscation on your part can change the plain reading of the text.

Here are the tricks I know: 1: Every whole number greater than zero (is that redundant?) is divisible by 1. 2: Look at the last digit. If it's even, the number is divisible by 2. 3: Add the digits. If the sum is divisible by 3, the number is divisible by 3. 4: Look at the last TWO digits. If that number is divisible by 4, the entire number is divisible by 4. 5: Look at the last digit. If it's 5 or 0, the number is divisible by 5. 6: Apply the rules for both 2 and 3. 7: There's no rule for 7. Get busy dividing. 8: Look at the last THREE digits. If that number is divisible by 8, the entire number is divisible by 8 (I never found that one very helpful. :)) 9: Add all the digits. If the sum is divisible by 9, the number is divisible by 9. 10: If it ends in 0, it's divisible by 9. 20: If it ends in 0 and the number before it is even, it's divisible by 20. Now this is a question: 30: If the last number is 0 and the rule for 3 applies, then it's divisible by 30. True? False? I just made that up, but it seems rational.

George is correct.

Your ability to accuse me of making the very mistakes YOU are making is astonishing. Actually, I did not skip that part. You see, I went straight to that part with a simple equation (VPW just LOVED simple equations). Here's the equation: IF PFAL is God-breathed AND PFAL gives an explanation of the characteristics of God-breathed works THEN PFAL will exhibit those qualities. The way I see it, the first IF is in question. For you, the first IF is already answered. That's why your method fails every time it's tried. Your version is "SINCE PFAL is God-breathed and..." The problem is, you can't say "SINCE" because you haven't proved your case. You're making an assumption, and a poorly reasoned one at that. So, IF PFAL is God-breathed, surely it will stand up to its own test. So, put PFAL to the test. PFAL has been put to the test and been found wanting.

This is terrific, Paw.

You could have just said the sum of the digits of any number minus that number is always divisible by nine, you know. :) Why is that, anyway?

Mike! You made a funny! This is like Gollum calling Sam obsessed! I'm proud of you, lad!

I do not believe in believing. I believe in God. He honors believing. That, I believe.

I have no intention of "ripping PFAL apart," and never have. My intention was explicit: to show that it does not live up to its own definition of "God-breathed." You've turned off your ciritical thinking on this one, and, not surprisingly, you're proud of that fact. That's fine with me. But the truth that there are errors in PFAL is there, it's documented, and your refusal to really come to grips with that truth had turned you into Smikeol. For me to resolve "apparent" errors in PFAL, I would have to agree that they are merely "apparent." Some of them probably are. But not all, and as long as ANY are actual errors, your thesis is disproven. What's it been, two, three years since we all worked through that thread? And .. you... have... yet...to...resolve...a...single...error. Some "master."

... "Now I've abandoned all reason, and the world is just ROSY!" Mike, the discrepancy here is that when I say "see it for what it is," what I mean is "see it for what it is." When YOU say "see it for what it is," you mean "see it for the idol I have turned it into." See the difference? Of course not. Too much sand in your eye. Or something.

Possible and documented. Repeatedly. I'd ask you to pull your head out of the sand, Mike, but I'm not sure that's where it is.

Good guess. Wrong guess, but good guess.

I agree with everything you said, Lorna, except the "excuse" part. We don't need an excuse not to tithe anymore than we need an excuse not to sacrifice goats. If it blesses you to give 9.95%, then do it. If it blesses you to give 20%, then do it. If 10% floats your boat, go for it! God certainly encourages generous giving. How you define generous is between you and Him. The OT 10% had a very specific purpose. That purpose no longer exists, but the heart of giving lives on. :) (Checking again: I didn't exactly quote Lorna correctly, so let me get it right. I'm sure there are people looking for an excuse not to give, and they'll use the truth that tithing is not addressed to the church today. Those folks wouldn't give if tithing WERE addressed to the church. But accurate doctrine is accurate doctrine, whether one is looking for the truth or excuses when they find it).

I made my peace with the fact that most churches are Trinitarian a long time ago. When I do have an opportunity to share my beliefs on the subject, usually with friends, I take the approach that because they think he's God, while I think he's Lord, they can teach me things about his Lordship that I might not otherwise get. And if they're willing to hear me out, because I think he's man and not God, I can usually teach them something about his obedience that they would not otherwise consider.

Sorry. I hate answering on Saturdays. I'm the only one on duty Saturday, and I don't get to my computer until late on Sunday. Let's try this one, stolen from another site...

Sudossuda, I just read your reply to me. Very well-reasoned. Thank you. And I'm deeply, deeply sorry for what you went through. You're very sweet. We'll talk more, I'm sure, but yes: Wierwille's doctrine on sex was a travesty.

Make sure you include as many privacy settings as you can, or you'll be bombarded with spam.

I don't know, I just found them. Walked in and listened to the pastor. Stuck around for a while. However, yes, they all (without exception or distinction) taught the Trinity and the dead are alive now. I'm glad you're enoying the CG-affiliated fellowships, though.

(I was waiting for you, excy). Wierwille taught various things from multiple sources, but one thing he did was to twist the Word and his position as a minister in Christ's body to satisfy his lusts. Some people looked at him as a father, and he, in turn, looked at them as conquests. To say he abused his position is an understatement. Very easy to focus on the positive when he didn't have you escorted into his motorcoach where he could greet you with an open robe and a glass of liquor (or heaven forbid, worse). I cannot help the fact that he taught a great many things, and that I learned from him. It's past and it's done. But respect the man? No, I do not. Nobody's perfect. I'll grant that. But you don't have to be perfect to be someone who doesn't prey on the people God has entrusted to you. You don't have to be perfect to be honest. You don't have to be perfect to be compassionate. People are so loathe to judge Wierwille. Well, you're judging him. You get to unilaterally decide that the good he did far outwieghed the bad. I hate to break it to you, but that is an insult to the people he abused, and the systematic way he abused them. He taught me some Bible, but he sure as shootin ain't my father in the Word. As for what I learned from him: I think we're all capable of sifting through it, keeping what fits and tossing out the rest. But that requires an honest look at what he taught.

John, If you can't find these things under one roof, you never looked. I've found PLENTY of churches that teach all these things, including the one I currently attend. However, there are other aspects of VPW's doctrine that better fit your "under one roof" explanation: JC is not God, the dead are dead, dispensationalism/administrations, and latch those onto the items you mentioned. I think I've said more than once that PFAL stands and falls on its merits, not on the character of VPW and not on the truth that it contains material that is often either unoriginal (no surprise there: he never claimed it was) or plagiarized (something some people are remarkably unwilling to accept, evidence be damned).

Oeno, If you look on the main page of the forum, there's a forum called "Computer Questions." It's three forumses above the doctrinal section. That said, no, I do not have an answer.