quote:I think we've reached that point here. When the rains end I'll have less time, the posting frequency won't be so breakneck, and we'll all have more of it to think up better things than "dumbass."
If you folks picked a spokesman, and you're reading on the sidelines, you could wait for a "time out" where no one's posting for a few days, before posting your two cents.
What? You seem to think that we all agree to the end that one spokesperson could fit the bill and that possibly we communicate behind the scenes concerning your posts - not so.
I for one, have absolutely no interest in picking a "spokesperson" and will continue to addrees your posts independantly.
-----------------------
Seaspray,
quote:GSers in toto, seems at one time the greatest scientific and religious minds on the planet all agreed the earth was flat. What a coincidence!
Seapray, your analogy GSers with the religiously and superstitiously ignorant folks of the past is historically inaccurate and misses the mark by a long shot and is pretty ignorant of itself.
Mike is no Galileo. Galileo and others used good science. Mike, well I am not sure what he really uses but it is not good science.
By your analogy, anyone who comes up with a totally abusurd idea that is rejected by the status qo of religion and science must then be right.
Ok Seaspray, the moon is really just Swiss cheese. I must be right because no one believes it. What a coincidence! - Duh!
Goey
[This message was edited by Goey on May 01, 2003 at 11:11.]
You traded your "religiously and superstitiously ignorant folks of the past" for my "greatest scientific and religious minds on the planet". Did you lift this tactic from Mike's 'All Men are Liars' thread? Seems it would fit well in the bait and switch category. Is this malicious or do you just have a problem with reading comprehension?
You're right that Mike ain't no Galileo but, now that you mention it, it is an interesting comparison.
The swiss cheese thing was cute. I liked it. Got any more?
WordWolf,
Thanks for the compliment. I've been reading Miss Manners a lot lately.
Oh, by the way, how come every time I say something you always know 10x more than me. Knock it off. Please? Pretty please?
I do not apologize for lashing out at those who deliberately misconstrue me. If you have come to see the huge error you made in misrepresenting my position, the error that occurred right at the beginning of that long letter that ended so magically, you might try breaking the apology ice first. If not, I?ll have to assume you deliberately want to misconstrue me.
If you think GSers are exhibiting thorough research techniques, I disagree. There?s a ton of new data that no one has thought about in years. That?s what I?m here for, to bring this data to the forefront. All I get is resistance from those who are less informed here.
I am thankful to Paw, because although he does NOT share my beliefs, yet he still extends his welcome to me anyway. There are a few others here who are polite like him. I think they know I?m not talking about them when I make a global GS pronouncement. I know I don?t need to apologize to them.
I saw MUCH good come from early TWI and I still see it coming from PFAL. When you get the emotional blinders off, you may come to see what you?re missing now. I will then accept your apology.
*******************************
That said, I?d like to say something to the parents of young children and teenagers. I?ve noticed that as a general rule, those who were loose and sexually permissive during the 70?s preAIDS era, are often the MOST diligent to quantify and demand obedience to all sorts of stringent new attitudes about sex.
I think this is good and proper.
Parents who experienced the 70?s KNOW how ruthless young men can be towards their young daughter, and these parents are doing the right thing in protecting their precious gift from God. These boomer parents of young boys KNOW what sexual monsters they can become when not in the house. These parents must watch the environment for sexual predators in protecting their family, and my hat is off to you all.
On this GS discussion board lots of past events from the sexually loose 70?s come up. I can see you parents having lots of buttons pushed by my posts. Please believe me that there is NOWHERE in my intentions a desire to go back to THAT part of the good old days.
I have considered leaving this board several times as I see my motives in the sexual areas misconstrued. I feel greatly for the formerly fast lane parents who want their children to grow up as far from the fast lane, as far from the sex freeway itself, as possible. Far from being a possible threat to parents here, I would like to cheer them on in the raising of children. I have no experience in this work, but I see it?s got to be awesomely difficult. If my posting has made your job more difficult, I sincerely apologize. That has never been my intention.
I?ve seen their task, how difficult it must be to shield youngsters from all the sexual nightmares out there. Some parents here have not just read about how crazy sex can get, they?ve BEEN there in the TWI sexual fracas. I can see how it?s necessary for you to squelch any voice around your kids, who in any way, might be promoting the sex liberty problems of the not-so-good old days. Now I?m NOT promoting sexual liberty as a part of coming back to PFAL at all, NOT ONE BIT AT ALL. But I also understand how my posts LOOK LIKE THAT at times to diligent parents on the lookout for potential threats to their young treasures. I want to adjust the way we do things here so that parents need not be alarmed.
I?m STILL considering leaving this board due to the antagonism my posts must be causing parents.
As I posted last night, no matter what I do about format changes, my posting frequency, or at least the daytime part of it, will be coming down greatly. If this is a relief to parents, great. If more relief is needed, I?m open to discussion on this.
[This message was edited by Mike on May 01, 2003 at 15:50.]
If I was a young girl who was molested by Mr. Weirwille or any MOG under their instructions that I would be doing God's work by blessing the MOG, does that mean I *lived in the fast lane*??
I'm not good at discussing hypothetical situations. There?s too may variables to keep track of. If you were such a person, my heart would go out to you, bigtime. You wouldn?t have to be my DNA sister for me to cry with you.
I have dealt with this kind of question before here. I?ll repeat here now, that if such a person approached me in a public forum like this, I?d say that I can help, but it?s got to be in private. I don?t believe that endless venting in public will be healing, so I would insist on private discussion first. Then I?d say something like I did say to a few months ago to Exy. It?s on the ?Dr's Last Teaching - LOST for 17 Years!? thread, and was posted January 06, 2003 12:28 January 06, 2003 13:28. There were some misunderstandings associated with that post, so you might want to read the follow-ups that helped clear some glitches away.
Hopeful, if you were in Uriah?s family, and you knew of David?s sin. How would you instruct your family to still respect the man God had chosen to be king? This is similar to the question you asked me. Have you ever thought these kinds of things through?
What if you were related to one of the believers that Saul had killed? How would you warm up to that apostle Paul a few years later?
These questions are not easy to answer. The adversary has made it so.
Please, Hopeful, give me an answer to how YOU?D handle the same kind of hypothetical you handed me.
You are much better at asking questions than answering them. Unlike you, I am not interested in a debate. I only expressed a concern for your wording- *living in the fast lane*-- the insinuation that a person who has fallen prey to a MOG's sexual advances had loose morals. I did not say anything about respecting or not respecting the MOG.
If you don't want to address the issue that's fine.
The greatest scientific minds figured out and knew that the earth was not flat but indeed round. It happened at different times and different places. It was the superstitiously ignorant scientific minds who claimed to be great that believed the earth was flat-not the great ones. In at least on era this was because of religious suppresion and denial of any true scholarship that suggested the earth was not the center of the universe.
Actually it was you that used the "tactic" when you used an analogy that misrepresented and twisted historical fact in support of Mike's silly theories. You used the "bait and switch" in your analogy from the get go. I just turned it back around and presented it honestly.
According to your analogy, GSer's who disagree with Mike are like those who disagreed with Galileo. But are they really? Actually you have it reversed.
It is Mike that is resting upon superstition and unsupportable theories. It is Mike that sees "hidden messages" in Wiereille's tapes amd writings. It is Mike who refuses to use good logic and a scholarly approach. It is Mike that denies or glosses over facts presented to him.
But Seaspray, I think you know all of this. It is my guess that you are just here to stir the pot, because you seemed to have never offered anything of any substance here.
BTW, my nic is Goey not Goo. I would appreciate it if you used it correctly.
Wow Mike ...How DO you ever manage to get anything accomplished with seasprays lips so firmly plastered to your behind? I`d think it that it would be an enormous amount of dead weight to have to drag around with you wherever you go.
[This message was edited by rascal on May 01, 2003 at 18:42.]
Mike - I asked, "How can a person distinguish between information that is coming from the holy spirit and information that is coming from demonic sources?"
You replied in part, "...Solving this detection problem would be a great boon, wouldn't it!... Jesus Christ received revelation from the devil in the wilderness... Because he had mastered God's written Word he recognized that these revelations were from the wrong source and rejected them."
After quoting Isaiah 9:16&17 and Jeremiah 23:9-16, I wrote, "The Word of God doesn't say that the people erred because they had not mastered revelation. It says the *leaders* caused them to err. And it doesn't except any. The Way didn't implode because the followers didn't master PFAL. The Way collapsed because its leaders (including Wierwille) taught their followers by example to practice hypocrisy, to do evil, and to speak folly.
"Our hearts were broken because the Way became full of adulterers whose pleasant places were dried up, whose course was evil, and whose force was not right. Because the leaders, from Wierwille on down, were hypocrites.
"God found wickedness in the Way, and He is bringing it down. God saw folly in the Way because the leaders, including Wierwille, committed adultery, and walked in lies. They strengthened the hands of evildoers, and they still haven't returned from their wickedness. God is going to make them eat crow, because from *them* hypocrisy has gone throughout the Way.
"God tells us not to listen to them, or to 'master' their writings. Those things make us worthless because Wierwille and his imitators spoke visions out of their own hearts, and not out of the mouth of the Lord.
"If a spirit being is encouraging you, Mike, to abandon the Word of God that Jesus quoted from, and to adhere to the words of an adulterous hypocrite, that being is a demon masquerading as holy spirit."
Rather than pursuing serious dialogue, Mike, which would possibly have forced you to confront truths uncomfortable for your position, *you* decided to take offence instead.
I understood your "ten steps" to be figurative, representing the concept of "far away from"...my point was that he was not separated at all, but the source
but only at the bema, and only if Jesus Christ thinks it's a worth while subject to discuss.
Your statement seems to imply that folks should be given a free ride until the b?ma. Or at least that one person should be given a free ride on transgressions until the b?ma. Apparently we are all incapable of comparing acts committed to the standard in the bibe. (Yup, that Jeffrey dahmer ate people, but I'll withhold judgement until the b?ma. )
Until then, you MUST see my point that something changed a year or two after Dr died, where large numbers of people suddenly were up in arms. It was very disruptive of good things and hurtful to learning babes and grads.
The change that I see is the large numbers, not that anyone was up in arms in TWI. This is the first time that people who were or had been influencial leaders spoke up publically instead of just leaving. IMHO they knew that they could not stand up to Wierwille while he was alive, but thought that Martindale was assailable. This had nothing to with God protecting Wierwille IMO, but that Martindale presented a more vulnerable target
These large crowds never were before all abuzz before, when Dr was alive. Thousands of them were happy learning God's Word.
You remember, of course, that they were mostly abuzz with words that were purported to be Wierwille's. It is inconceivable that Geer could have pulled this off under his own authority or by his own reputation.
Whatever incidents of confrontation you reported, I wasn't there, and they happened 20 years ago.
You weren't at Auschwitz, or My Lai, or Bataan, or NYC on 9/11 either...do you argue that they happened?
I don't have the ability to sort thorough everyones's old memories, only my own, and even THAT'S shaky. I wont attempt it with others recollections. It's just TOO complicated, and unresolvable.
Sure, let's dismiss evrybody's memories as fallible and unreliable...except Wierwille's
As for Dr's control over the Way Tree, aren't you confusing Craig's control for Dr's? Dr was out of the guidance role in '82. When did you take the class?
No am not confused. Wierwille imposed the "Way Tree" structure on what was a group of loosely affiliated fellowships and independent corporations in the early 70's. he had complete control of the finished product, which Martindale inherited, almost lost in the 80's and reasserted with an iron fist in the 90's, exceeding Wierwille's level of control.
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
now, now Oak, that doesn't agree with mike's previously stated, set-in-stone positions...remember, He is WAY ahead of ALL the rest of us when it comes to..well, just about ANYTHING
No Mike, I m not going to answer your questions and I'm not interested in being witnessed to by you.
I had 21 years of bible/pfal minutae and have learned more than I cared to about Mr. Weirwilles' spin on the bible. I prefer to go to other sources now- sources that help me understand the meaning of the bible and not the "accuracy" or the "new light" as defined by the way.
Please don't try to change my mind- I am an adult and have the right to choose to be close-minded about a subject.
Please accept my apology. Actually, both Goo and Goey are appropriately descriptive of the twisted logic you happily present for public consumption here at gscafe.
"Actually it was you that used the "tactic" when you used an analogy that misrepresented and twisted historical fact in support of Mike's silly theories. You used the "bait and switch" in your analogy from the get go. I just turned it back around and presented it honestly.
According to your analogy, GSer's who disagree with Mike are like those who disagreed with Galileo. But are they really? Actually you have it reversed."
Are you saying the earth really is flat?
Did you, or did you not switch your "religiously and superstitiously ignorant folks of the past" for my "greatest scientific and religious minds on the planet". A simple yes or no will suffice.
Is this not stirring the pot?
You certainly are welcome to any opinion you choose, but why throw a temper tantrum whenever something is said you disagree with or don't like.
By the way, when was the last time you " offered anything of any substance here".
Goey has posted far more than you have read, I'll warrant... but since you only show up to be Robin to Batmikeman, you probably have little idea of anything else here.....do ya, ss???
Really now SeaSpittle, if you can't figure out my point, maybe you should go back to remedial kindergarten.
quote:Did you, or did you not switch your "religiously and superstitiously ignorant folks of the past" for my "greatest scientific and religious minds on the planet". A simple yes or no will suffice.
I already explained it. Go back and read again.
quote:Is this not stirring the pot?
Depends upon your prospective SeasSpore. If pointing out the flaws in your twisted analogy is "stirring the pot" - then you decide.
quote:You certainly are welcome to any opinion you choose, but why throw a temper tantrum whenever something is said you disagree with or don't like.
Temper trantrum? How presumptive and/or ignorant. Why try to make things up, SeaSpam. You have no real clue do you? Go back into your cave.
The one incontrovertible problem of human experience is that people die. The Word of God puts forward resurrection of the whole person from the dead as the solution to this problem. The adversary has always put forward the false solution, "Ye shall not surely die."
In nearly all cultures, demonic sources have taught that the real person is not the body, but an invisible something that goes to an invisible place when the visible "body" dies. As for European thought life, and its descendents, the concept of an "immortal soul" was introduced by the Pythagoreans. Plato expanded and formalized Pythagorean teachings about the duality of visible and invisible "realms".
I recently found a book by F.E. Peters titled "Greek Philosophical Terms", wherein I learned some of the following items.
Platonic philosophy, though it was in existence during the time in which the New Testament was written, did not come to dominate the culture until about the third Christian century. According to Platonism, there are two "kosmoi", the "kosmos aisthetos" or "senses universe", and the "kosmos noetos" or "intelligible universe".
The senses universe presents us with "opinion" only, while the intelligible universe presents us with "true knowledge". It's interesting to note that, while the Greek philosophers used the word "episteme" to denote "true knowledge", they used the word "doxa" to indicate "opinion". The word "doxa" appears frequently in the Word of God, where it is usually translated into the English as "glory".
So here are a few exercises:
Go to a concordance and find the uses of the word "kosmos". Does the Word of God indicate that there is a "senses kosmos" and a "spiritual kosmos"?
The Greek word for "sense" as in "senses world" is "aistheterion". Look it up. Does the Word of God indicate that the senses are always unreliable?
According to Plato, the senses world presents us with "doxa" only, not truth. How does this square with God's use of "doxa" in His Word?
According to Plato, the intelligible world presents us with "episteme" or true knowledge, which can be arrived at only through human reasoning. How does this compare with the treatment God gives "knowledge" in His Word?
Did the things Plato taught line up with what God revealed in His Word?
Did the things Wierwille taught line up with what God revealed in His Word?
This is a very interesting post (your whole post).
Just a question, though. When you posted:
quote:Originally posted by Steve Lortz:
In nearly all cultures, demonic sources have taught that the real person is not the body, but an invisible something that goes to an invisible place when the visible "body" dies.
I wondered how this is different from what the bible teaches. Maybe you explained that in the rest of your post...but I didn't get it if you did.
CoolWaters - To the best of my present understanding a living human being consists of a body (dust) animated by spirit (breath). This living combination of body and breath is called a "living soul" in Genesis 2:7.
When the spirit (breath) departs from a person, that living soul is transformed into a dead soul (Lev. 21:11; Num. 6:6, 19:13; Hag. 2:13), or what we would call a corpse.
Where other systems associate a person's identity with his "spirit" component, the Word of God associates a person's identity with his "dust" component. "...for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return", Genesis 3:19. That's why the Word of God declares in so many places that there is no consciousness in death.
The hope that the Word of God puts forward for escaping death is the resurrection detailed in Ezekiel 37:1-14. In that passage of scripture, Israel's bodies come together at the command of the Son of man, but they do not live again until the Son of man commands the spirit of God to come into them.
Dead people, according to the Word of God, do not have an invisible existence in an invisible "realm". They are unconscious in the grave awaiting the resurrection.
Thank you, Steve. That helps. However it is confusing to me when one gets to the epistles and it is declared that one is "dead" until one has "spirit".
There was something that was beginning to come onto the horizon in twi when I left the main organization...and I haven't heard about it since. It was something about "the spirit of man".
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
82
119
656
81
Popular Days
Jun 15
86
Jul 3
73
Jul 12
50
Mar 31
49
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 82 posts
mj412 119 posts
Mike 656 posts
Steve Lortz 81 posts
Popular Days
Jun 15 2003
86 posts
Jul 3 2003
73 posts
Jul 12 2003
50 posts
Mar 31 2003
49 posts
Popular Posts
Yanagisawa
Did you say "get the ball rolling" or get the kaballa rolling...for it sounds like that's your current freak - some sort of hidden, mystical kaballa-esque gnostic esotericism. I'm fascinated with you
Goey
MIke,
What? You seem to think that we all agree to the end that one spokesperson could fit the bill and that possibly we communicate behind the scenes concerning your posts - not so.
I for one, have absolutely no interest in picking a "spokesperson" and will continue to addrees your posts independantly.
-----------------------
Seaspray,
Seapray, your analogy GSers with the religiously and superstitiously ignorant folks of the past is historically inaccurate and misses the mark by a long shot and is pretty ignorant of itself.
Mike is no Galileo. Galileo and others used good science. Mike, well I am not sure what he really uses but it is not good science.
By your analogy, anyone who comes up with a totally abusurd idea that is rejected by the status qo of religion and science must then be right.
Ok Seaspray, the moon is really just Swiss cheese. I must be right because no one believes it. What a coincidence! - Duh!
Goey
[This message was edited by Goey on May 01, 2003 at 11:11.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
seaspray,
I'm glad you're tone has improved. I'm hoping we can
disagree with fewer insults this time around.
HOWEVER,
you said "the greatest scientific and religious minds on
the planet all agreed the earth was flat". This makes for
a nifty song, and a fable exalting eurocentric colonialism,
but in NO way reflects the historical accounts.
Columbus' sailors and captains all knew the world was
round. The REAL question on those ships was whether or not
there would be time to reach the East Indies before they
ran out of room. (Incidentally, if they did NOT bump into
an entire other hemisphere, they WOULD have run out of
food, returning to Europe or starving.)
This was OLD NEWS. In the days of the GREEK EMPIRE
(BC times), they knew the world was round. A few evidences
of this included the round shadow the earth casts on the
moon, how the horizon curves, etc. Sailors have plenty
of evidence of this, so this was common knowledge.
In fact, it was Eratosthenes who calculated out the
circumference of the earth using calculus. His figure was
correct, plus or minus a tiny fraction/margin of error.
In fact, we've discussed this in the GSC before. (That was
when someone pointed out that it was Eratosthenes who did
the math, not Anaxander.)
In case you are wondering, I learned this in college,
I saw this on PBS, and I reread this in a book I bought
fairly recently. This is NOT secret knowledge.
The tendency to speak authoritatively on subjects in which
one is not an authority was epidemic in twi, and is more
common at the GSC than among most Christians. (From what
I've seen.)
--------------------------------------------------------
I DID want to address Mike's repeated insult of the rest
of the GSC again.
Coolwaters beat me to it, of course.
Mike,
this may come as a surprise to you, again.
THE REST OF US CAN THINK.
WE HAVE BEEN THINKING.
WE ALL CAME TO CONCLUSIONS OTHER THAN YOU.
That's not because we were "lazy". Lots of people here
are equally determined as you, lots have equal or greater
experience to you, lots are smarter than you.
NONE OF THEM CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSIONS AS YOU.
We don't need to "RE-THINK" anymore.
The only things "significant" about your opposition are
the huge blocks of time you give it, and the fact that
Pawtucket hasn't canned your @$$ long ago.
(BTW, I DID vote NOT to force you out. I would rather
have had you moderate your tone and learn manners than you
be dumped.)
You owe Paw an inestimable thanks.
Your insistence that you are the one voice crying in the
wilderness is insulting and amazingly narrow-minded.
"Ever want to obey God on this?"
Well, if your definition of obeying God is your idolatrous
worshipping of a man-especially THAT man-then I can pass.
I'll stick with the Bible's definition of obeying God.
I'll obey the things clearly written, and the things He
tells me directly,
NOT the things one man claims another man was told by
God.
You know, if your manner was a LOT less arrogant and
insulting, you'd get a LOT less flak for your idiotic
posts. (Idiotic being from "idios", meaning "one's own",
as taught in pfal.)
Actually, Coolwaters said it all better than me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
seaspray
Hey Goo,
You traded your "religiously and superstitiously ignorant folks of the past" for my "greatest scientific and religious minds on the planet". Did you lift this tactic from Mike's 'All Men are Liars' thread? Seems it would fit well in the bait and switch category. Is this malicious or do you just have a problem with reading comprehension?
You're right that Mike ain't no Galileo but, now that you mention it, it is an interesting comparison.
The swiss cheese thing was cute. I liked it. Got any more?
WordWolf,
Thanks for the compliment. I've been reading Miss Manners a lot lately.
Oh, by the way, how come every time I say something you always know 10x more than me. Knock it off. Please? Pretty please?
Party on
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi Seaspray,
Fancy meeting you here.
***************************************
Cool Waters,
I do not apologize for lashing out at those who deliberately misconstrue me. If you have come to see the huge error you made in misrepresenting my position, the error that occurred right at the beginning of that long letter that ended so magically, you might try breaking the apology ice first. If not, I?ll have to assume you deliberately want to misconstrue me.
If you think GSers are exhibiting thorough research techniques, I disagree. There?s a ton of new data that no one has thought about in years. That?s what I?m here for, to bring this data to the forefront. All I get is resistance from those who are less informed here.
I am thankful to Paw, because although he does NOT share my beliefs, yet he still extends his welcome to me anyway. There are a few others here who are polite like him. I think they know I?m not talking about them when I make a global GS pronouncement. I know I don?t need to apologize to them.
I saw MUCH good come from early TWI and I still see it coming from PFAL. When you get the emotional blinders off, you may come to see what you?re missing now. I will then accept your apology.
*******************************
That said, I?d like to say something to the parents of young children and teenagers. I?ve noticed that as a general rule, those who were loose and sexually permissive during the 70?s preAIDS era, are often the MOST diligent to quantify and demand obedience to all sorts of stringent new attitudes about sex.
I think this is good and proper.
Parents who experienced the 70?s KNOW how ruthless young men can be towards their young daughter, and these parents are doing the right thing in protecting their precious gift from God. These boomer parents of young boys KNOW what sexual monsters they can become when not in the house. These parents must watch the environment for sexual predators in protecting their family, and my hat is off to you all.
On this GS discussion board lots of past events from the sexually loose 70?s come up. I can see you parents having lots of buttons pushed by my posts. Please believe me that there is NOWHERE in my intentions a desire to go back to THAT part of the good old days.
I have considered leaving this board several times as I see my motives in the sexual areas misconstrued. I feel greatly for the formerly fast lane parents who want their children to grow up as far from the fast lane, as far from the sex freeway itself, as possible. Far from being a possible threat to parents here, I would like to cheer them on in the raising of children. I have no experience in this work, but I see it?s got to be awesomely difficult. If my posting has made your job more difficult, I sincerely apologize. That has never been my intention.
I?ve seen their task, how difficult it must be to shield youngsters from all the sexual nightmares out there. Some parents here have not just read about how crazy sex can get, they?ve BEEN there in the TWI sexual fracas. I can see how it?s necessary for you to squelch any voice around your kids, who in any way, might be promoting the sex liberty problems of the not-so-good old days. Now I?m NOT promoting sexual liberty as a part of coming back to PFAL at all, NOT ONE BIT AT ALL. But I also understand how my posts LOOK LIKE THAT at times to diligent parents on the lookout for potential threats to their young treasures. I want to adjust the way we do things here so that parents need not be alarmed.
I?m STILL considering leaving this board due to the antagonism my posts must be causing parents.
As I posted last night, no matter what I do about format changes, my posting frequency, or at least the daytime part of it, will be coming down greatly. If this is a relief to parents, great. If more relief is needed, I?m open to discussion on this.
[This message was edited by Mike on May 01, 2003 at 15:50.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hopefull
Mike,
If I was a young girl who was molested by Mr. Weirwille or any MOG under their instructions that I would be doing God's work by blessing the MOG, does that mean I *lived in the fast lane*??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hopeful,
I'm not good at discussing hypothetical situations. There?s too may variables to keep track of. If you were such a person, my heart would go out to you, bigtime. You wouldn?t have to be my DNA sister for me to cry with you.
I have dealt with this kind of question before here. I?ll repeat here now, that if such a person approached me in a public forum like this, I?d say that I can help, but it?s got to be in private. I don?t believe that endless venting in public will be healing, so I would insist on private discussion first. Then I?d say something like I did say to a few months ago to Exy. It?s on the ?Dr's Last Teaching - LOST for 17 Years!? thread, and was posted January 06, 2003 12:28 January 06, 2003 13:28. There were some misunderstandings associated with that post, so you might want to read the follow-ups that helped clear some glitches away.
Hopeful, if you were in Uriah?s family, and you knew of David?s sin. How would you instruct your family to still respect the man God had chosen to be king? This is similar to the question you asked me. Have you ever thought these kinds of things through?
What if you were related to one of the believers that Saul had killed? How would you warm up to that apostle Paul a few years later?
These questions are not easy to answer. The adversary has made it so.
Please, Hopeful, give me an answer to how YOU?D handle the same kind of hypothetical you handed me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hopefull
Mike,
You are much better at asking questions than answering them. Unlike you, I am not interested in a debate. I only expressed a concern for your wording- *living in the fast lane*-- the insinuation that a person who has fallen prey to a MOG's sexual advances had loose morals. I did not say anything about respecting or not respecting the MOG.
If you don't want to address the issue that's fine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hopeful,
Here?s a simpler answer to your question. I would NOT assume it?s the girl?s fault. I would NOT assume she was in the sexual fast lane.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hopeful,
Don't you think it would be a good thing to ponder the questions I asked you?
I asked them for a reason. These are things we should have pondered when we first read the Bible.
Don't you think you'd have a better grasp on this difficult subject if those two questions I asked you were thoroughly understood?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Seaspray,
Where did you go to school?
The greatest scientific minds figured out and knew that the earth was not flat but indeed round. It happened at different times and different places. It was the superstitiously ignorant scientific minds who claimed to be great that believed the earth was flat-not the great ones. In at least on era this was because of religious suppresion and denial of any true scholarship that suggested the earth was not the center of the universe.
Actually it was you that used the "tactic" when you used an analogy that misrepresented and twisted historical fact in support of Mike's silly theories. You used the "bait and switch" in your analogy from the get go. I just turned it back around and presented it honestly.
According to your analogy, GSer's who disagree with Mike are like those who disagreed with Galileo. But are they really? Actually you have it reversed.
It is Mike that is resting upon superstition and unsupportable theories. It is Mike that sees "hidden messages" in Wiereille's tapes amd writings. It is Mike who refuses to use good logic and a scholarly approach. It is Mike that denies or glosses over facts presented to him.
But Seaspray, I think you know all of this. It is my guess that you are just here to stir the pot, because you seemed to have never offered anything of any substance here.
BTW, my nic is Goey not Goo. I would appreciate it if you used it correctly.
Goey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Wow Mike ...How DO you ever manage to get anything accomplished with seasprays lips so firmly plastered to your behind? I`d think it that it would be an enormous amount of dead weight to have to drag around with you wherever you go.
[This message was edited by rascal on May 01, 2003 at 18:42.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Mike - I asked, "How can a person distinguish between information that is coming from the holy spirit and information that is coming from demonic sources?"
You replied in part, "...Solving this detection problem would be a great boon, wouldn't it!... Jesus Christ received revelation from the devil in the wilderness... Because he had mastered God's written Word he recognized that these revelations were from the wrong source and rejected them."
After quoting Isaiah 9:16&17 and Jeremiah 23:9-16, I wrote, "The Word of God doesn't say that the people erred because they had not mastered revelation. It says the *leaders* caused them to err. And it doesn't except any. The Way didn't implode because the followers didn't master PFAL. The Way collapsed because its leaders (including Wierwille) taught their followers by example to practice hypocrisy, to do evil, and to speak folly.
"Our hearts were broken because the Way became full of adulterers whose pleasant places were dried up, whose course was evil, and whose force was not right. Because the leaders, from Wierwille on down, were hypocrites.
"God found wickedness in the Way, and He is bringing it down. God saw folly in the Way because the leaders, including Wierwille, committed adultery, and walked in lies. They strengthened the hands of evildoers, and they still haven't returned from their wickedness. God is going to make them eat crow, because from *them* hypocrisy has gone throughout the Way.
"God tells us not to listen to them, or to 'master' their writings. Those things make us worthless because Wierwille and his imitators spoke visions out of their own hearts, and not out of the mouth of the Lord.
"If a spirit being is encouraging you, Mike, to abandon the Word of God that Jesus quoted from, and to adhere to the words of an adulterous hypocrite, that being is a demon masquerading as holy spirit."
Rather than pursuing serious dialogue, Mike, which would possibly have forced you to confront truths uncomfortable for your position, *you* decided to take offence instead.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Henri Poincare
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
now, now Oak, that doesn't agree with mike's previously stated, set-in-stone positions...remember, He is WAY ahead of ALL the rest of us when it comes to..well, just about ANYTHING
...did I regurgitate accurately, Mike????
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hopefull
Thanks for answering my question.
No Mike, I m not going to answer your questions and I'm not interested in being witnessed to by you.
I had 21 years of bible/pfal minutae and have learned more than I cared to about Mr. Weirwilles' spin on the bible. I prefer to go to other sources now- sources that help me understand the meaning of the bible and not the "accuracy" or the "new light" as defined by the way.
Please don't try to change my mind- I am an adult and have the right to choose to be close-minded about a subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
seaspray
Goey,
Please accept my apology. Actually, both Goo and Goey are appropriately descriptive of the twisted logic you happily present for public consumption here at gscafe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
the same question might aply to you, ss...
Goey has posted far more than you have read, I'll warrant... but since you only show up to be Robin to Batmikeman, you probably have little idea of anything else here.....do ya, ss???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
SeaSpew,
Really now SeaSpittle, if you can't figure out my point, maybe you should go back to remedial kindergarten.
I already explained it. Go back and read again.
Depends upon your prospective SeasSpore. If pointing out the flaws in your twisted analogy is "stirring the pot" - then you decide.
Temper trantrum? How presumptive and/or ignorant. Why try to make things up, SeaSpam. You have no real clue do you? Go back into your cave.
Goey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
seaspray
Goey,
Wow! Ouch! You really know how to hurt a guy. I'm going back into my cave, see if I can find a real clue somewhere.
Please pardon me oh Great Goey, magnificent knower of things. Your humble nothingness apologizes for begging to differ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
What's all this brew ha ha?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Back to Wierwille's ubiquitously hidden error.
The one incontrovertible problem of human experience is that people die. The Word of God puts forward resurrection of the whole person from the dead as the solution to this problem. The adversary has always put forward the false solution, "Ye shall not surely die."
In nearly all cultures, demonic sources have taught that the real person is not the body, but an invisible something that goes to an invisible place when the visible "body" dies. As for European thought life, and its descendents, the concept of an "immortal soul" was introduced by the Pythagoreans. Plato expanded and formalized Pythagorean teachings about the duality of visible and invisible "realms".
I recently found a book by F.E. Peters titled "Greek Philosophical Terms", wherein I learned some of the following items.
Platonic philosophy, though it was in existence during the time in which the New Testament was written, did not come to dominate the culture until about the third Christian century. According to Platonism, there are two "kosmoi", the "kosmos aisthetos" or "senses universe", and the "kosmos noetos" or "intelligible universe".
The senses universe presents us with "opinion" only, while the intelligible universe presents us with "true knowledge". It's interesting to note that, while the Greek philosophers used the word "episteme" to denote "true knowledge", they used the word "doxa" to indicate "opinion". The word "doxa" appears frequently in the Word of God, where it is usually translated into the English as "glory".
So here are a few exercises:
Go to a concordance and find the uses of the word "kosmos". Does the Word of God indicate that there is a "senses kosmos" and a "spiritual kosmos"?
The Greek word for "sense" as in "senses world" is "aistheterion". Look it up. Does the Word of God indicate that the senses are always unreliable?
According to Plato, the senses world presents us with "doxa" only, not truth. How does this square with God's use of "doxa" in His Word?
According to Plato, the intelligible world presents us with "episteme" or true knowledge, which can be arrived at only through human reasoning. How does this compare with the treatment God gives "knowledge" in His Word?
Did the things Plato taught line up with what God revealed in His Word?
Did the things Wierwille taught line up with what God revealed in His Word?
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
This is a very interesting post (your whole post).
Just a question, though. When you posted:
I wondered how this is different from what the bible teaches. Maybe you explained that in the rest of your post...but I didn't get it if you did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
CoolWaters - To the best of my present understanding a living human being consists of a body (dust) animated by spirit (breath). This living combination of body and breath is called a "living soul" in Genesis 2:7.
When the spirit (breath) departs from a person, that living soul is transformed into a dead soul (Lev. 21:11; Num. 6:6, 19:13; Hag. 2:13), or what we would call a corpse.
Where other systems associate a person's identity with his "spirit" component, the Word of God associates a person's identity with his "dust" component. "...for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return", Genesis 3:19. That's why the Word of God declares in so many places that there is no consciousness in death.
The hope that the Word of God puts forward for escaping death is the resurrection detailed in Ezekiel 37:1-14. In that passage of scripture, Israel's bodies come together at the command of the Son of man, but they do not live again until the Son of man commands the spirit of God to come into them.
Dead people, according to the Word of God, do not have an invisible existence in an invisible "realm". They are unconscious in the grave awaiting the resurrection.
I hope this helps answer your question.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
Thank you, Steve. That helps. However it is confusing to me when one gets to the epistles and it is declared that one is "dead" until one has "spirit".
There was something that was beginning to come onto the horizon in twi when I left the main organization...and I haven't heard about it since. It was something about "the spirit of man".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.