Raf

With all due respect to the solemnity of the subject matter... Am I the only one who chuckles uncontrollably at the thought of a BOD member typing the words "Greasespot Cafe" on their computer?

THE It sits there, mocking me with its mere existence. THE. It just, won't, die.

While I wouldn't be surprised if you were right, Fresh, I think at the very least that there's a healthy balance between the two. I can't tell you how happy I was to get the Harmony of the Gospels set, and to listen to the whole thing. I plan on listening to it many times, even though I question some of its reasonings (there's this one part where Martindale dismisses a verse, without evidence, solely because it disagrees with what he's teaching. Red flag! Red flag!). Interesting stuff. So not every buyer is WayGB, though I'm sure they're buying too.

Hey, it's not always "worship." There's some curiosity and nostalgia involved too. I bought the 1989 ROA set some time ago, just to have it (it did not come with a barf bag, but it should have). I'm really grateful to have it, too. No, I'm not kidding. I also never got to hear the Harmony of the Gospels set. I was very pleased to get that. But I'm hardly a VPW worshipper (ask around. Really, I'm not). So, by all means, sell 'em if you want. Make some big bucks if you can. But please don't guess the motives of the buyers. :)-->

Mike, Still hoping you're well. Rafael

what EVERRRRRRRRRR.

I don't know about excellent. Heartfelt. Fun. "excellent?" Nah...

Because it was more watchable than Moulin Rouge. Or Ishtar. Dude, take a Percoset. Yeah, it could have been better. Gone With the Wind could have been better. Hudson Hawk could have been better. Laugh a little.

Yikes! This was sort of a "book club" discussion on the blue book. A lot of people had strong opinions on it, and I actually changed my mind a few times because, get this, I was open to changing my mind. The summary of this thread, and the threads which followed at GSCafe, can be found here: 10 Good things about the blue book and here: 10 problems with the blue book.

I don't know, Jerry. Without disagreeing with all of what you said, I still believe there is such a thing as "homophobia" and that it's not merely a philosophical disagreement over the nature of homosexuality. I mean, way too often I hear people say, 'I don't care if htey're gay, as long as they don't try anything with me!' That's not just revulsion. That's FEAR. "Homosexuals don't reproduce, they recruit." That statement is one of FEAR. Guys are afraid they're going to get recruited. I was there. I understand it. I used to think the same way, and there was fear there. Sure, there was revulsion and "righteous" indignation. But there was fear. I eliminated the fear with one realization: In order for a gay guy to have a shot with me, I have to be interested. ! Now I have no fear-based discomfort around gay people. Revulsion? Sort of. I've been around gay couples who were obviously into each other, but no, they did not kiss. Have I been approached? Sort of. Guy was coming onto me and I was oblivious. I had no idea. It was a few hours later before I realized what was going on. Reminds me of a male stand up comedian's comments: "Oh no! I'm on a date! And I'm the woman!" Anyway, without disagreeing with you, Jerry, there is such a thing as homopohobia. It's not just a construct of the politically correct.

Tee hee. That was my way of saying I disagree but I don't want to argue about it. We cool Galen? Trumpet?

I see what you're saying, but forgive me if I don't concur. I simply don't see a "non-linear" time model in the Bible to explain those verses, and I vehemently disagree that Paul was shot forward in TIME to see the new heaven and earth. I think that was a vision of the future, and as a side note, I'm not convinced it was shown to Paul. Paul said it was someone else who saw that vision. Aside from Wierwille's word, I see no reason to dispute Paul's clear statement that he knew someone who had seen this, not that he himself had seen it. I'm not saying "I'm right and you're wrong." I'm saying "if you're right, I just don't see it in the Bible, and I see alternate explanations that make more sense to me." Let's form two churches over this disagreement. I'll call mine "First Church of the Linear Literalists," and you can call yours "First Church of the Non-Linear Visionaries."

Here's what I am saying, and I'll break it down into pieces so that you can challenge any portion you choose. 1. The Father is greater than the Son and therefore they are not equal. 2. The Father has (or had) knowledge of the timing of future events that He did not share with the Son. 3. Points 1 and 2 lead me to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is not God. 4. Hebrews 1, through employment of the figure of speech erotesis (the asking of rhetorical questions, the answers to which are implied in the asking of the question), states that Jesus Christ is not "an angel," (for, to which of the angels did He say, sit on my right hand...). 5. If Jesus Christ is not God and not an angel, then he did not exist prior to his birth, and scriptural implications to the contrary need to be explained in light of that understanding. Any explanation of those proof texts that does not address the identity of Jesus Christ as a man whose existence began at birth are, in my opinion, invalid. This is my position. Point 5 seems to be the one that you're challenging. Could Jesus have existed prior to his birth without being God or an angel? I think other explanations of the proof texts make more sense to me. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on September 23, 2003 at 16:31.]

Shaz, Thanks for so many kind words, and for a longer memory than my own. When you wrote "do you believe me now?" I didn't understand the question. Could you clarify if you get a chance? Raf

Dang. I know Mike's in for a hard time when GINGER is telling him off. Shoot, my work here is done.

God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. Or woman. If VPW "tested" women in the category of sex, it was not of God. No Bible teacher, no Bible class, no Bible college has the right or authority to tempt women in the category of sex. Ever. Period. It was ungodly, and self-serving.

Hebrews 1 makes it pretty clear that Jesus was not an angel. If he's not an angel and not God, how could he have existed before his birth?

I want to say thank you to those who have spoken up positively about the class. I never took it, so I've often wondered about its contents. Reading the accounts on this thread, I'd say I was better off without it. But at least I know it wasn't a TOTAL waste of time.

Someone's looking for this thread. It's here.

Sorry, I forgot about the typhoon thing. Silly me, I was just sitting there thinking, "this is a MOVIE. No one really died in a typhoon." Anyway, I found the movie enjoyable and quite forgettable, so I won't defend it too much. :)-->

Excy, of course, is wrong. Because in I Wierwille 23:21, it says there are no coincidences, therefore, she did not just stumble in here. She was meant to be here.

The other option is that it really DOES have mathematical exactness and scientific precision: the problem is we're all unfit researchers so driven by our contempt for Wierwille that we can't see it. So when Wierwille gives the EXACT SAME definition for "all without distinction" as he does for "all WITH distinction," we're not supposed to notice. When Wierwille writes that God had no pronounceable name, we're supposed to ignore the fact that many of the patriarchs before Moses used the name "Yahweh" when referring to God. The evidence is wrong. Wierwille is right. Get your priorities straight, people.

The above list was the springboard for discussion, and was tweaked. A more complete list is right here.

Here's what I got out of this thread and this project: 1. There are numerous indisputable actual honest to God you have to have your head up somewhere it doesn't anatomically belong not to see it errors in the PFAL books. There are even more in the class. 2. Some of those errors are, in the grand scheme of things, minor and irrelevant. 3. Some of those errors are fairly important, as they have far-reaching implications. 4. Some of the errors fall into the category of "baseless speculation." 5. There is no debate as to whether there ARE errors in PFAL. The only debate is whether PFAL's errors are DISPUTABLE. I may dispute with Steve on dispensationalism, having (still!) not made up my mind on the issue. I may dispute with Def on whether or not Jesus is God. Many of us understand the flaws in "the law of believing," but it's not included on this list as an "actual error" because we can all agree that its status as an error is disputable. But the TRUTH that there are errors in PFAL is indisputable. It is the word of man, and by its own definition and criteria, NOT the Word of God.